It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feds shut down nine websites in movie piracy crackdown

page: 16
31
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
people in control hate changed. the copyright cartel screamed bloody murder when VHS was first introduced.

only this time, it's a much larger paradigm shift than just intellectual property laws becoming completely outdated. access to information on the internet is changing human nature for the better.

kudos to those who are seeing the bigger picture behind all this. the people screaming 'theft' are just stuck in the past. whether this supposed moral authority exists within such a corrupt system in the first place has made for quite a long thread so far, quite comical.




posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces


What I'm getting from you is this: If the creator names a price on their product, and you do not agree with it, then it is ethical to steal it.

How do you feel about people stealing your work, based solely on the fact that they believe you are charging too much? If you paint a wonderful painting, and someone copies it and distributes it to everyone are you okay with not making a profit from those copies considering painting is how you support your family?

If you have your house for sale for 150k, but I think that is too much, would you think it was fair game for me to steal it from you?


We call this economics
Price is set by demand, and marginal cost of production, not by the creator.
You of course can set the price wherever you want, but if you want to actually make a sale, you better look at what people are willing to give you.
Even in a monopoly demand affects price. (If you want to maximize profit)
here, a picture:
www.scottgrizzard.com...
Horizontal axis is demand, vertical is price.

Sidebar: did you know that the author of Forest Gump is still waiting for his 3% he was supposed to get from the films profits? Turns out the film never made a profit. Yes, I have a Problem with being told that I am Imoral by these people.


Edit to add:
If I sold you a car, but told you "You must not drive to chicago in this" would you buy it?

[edit on 4-7-2010 by debunky]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
... ok, looking at that diagram it isnt quite as self explanatory as I remembered (Its been 15 years since I took microeconomics)

Ok, explanation:
MR is marginal revenue, the revenue you get from selling on additional unit.
MC is marginal cost, the cost you have for producing one additional unit.
What you want is the point on the Supply-Demand curve, that defines the triangle with the biggest area above the MR curve. That triangle is your profit.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
They really think this is going to stop them lol? One gets taken down 2 pop up.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Not really. Come to my home and try and take my stuff without my permission. It will be interesting to see which of us reaches for the law first.


This has nothing to do with me downloading a copy of something that you have offered to the públic. I don't have to go into an artists home to buy a copy of his album so why would I have to do that to get a bootleg?

The thing you fail to understand is that the country where I live gives me the chance to obtain copies of your stuff without it being illegal. Call it whatever you want I am within the laws of where I live and when all is said and done those are the rules that I must live by.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewJay
They really think this is going to stop them lol? One gets taken down 2 pop up.


Why is that funny?

Why do you think you are entitled?



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
When you buy a movie DVD (or other) - - - aren't you really only buying the license? And don't you have to legally abide by that license?

Doesn't that license state something about distribution?



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by AndrewJay
They really think this is going to stop them lol? One gets taken down 2 pop up.


Why is that funny?

Why do you think you are entitled?


I know this was not aimed at me but I would just like to say that the law where I live entitles me, as well as the law where others live entitles them.

I know you said you wanted to keep it state side but that is because the laws there entitle the creator or the rightsholder to a monopoly.

What entitles you to this? The laws. It will always be about legalities.

The thing that bothers me a bit is the fact that the creator/artist isn't even the person going all out for the monopoly usually it is the corporation that they sold their rights to.

I think it would even be beneficial to the artist to be able to sell the duplication and distribution rights without being able to sell the actual ownership to their work.

This means that they could sign with different companies who will put their work out and have to compete with each other and in this age of internet maybe even compete with the artist themselves via an online store set up by the artist.

Of course big corpo will have none of this.



[edit on 4-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I download all kinds of TV shows and movies.

If I wasn't able to download TV shows and movies do you know how much more money the entertainment industry would be getting from me? Zero. A big fat zero. I still wouldn't be buying or renting Season 5 of entourage on DVD, Blu ray or anything else. I would still go to the theater at the same frequency that I currently do.

My point? They aren't losing nearly as much revenue from this stuff as they claim. Because instead of having to buy my fave TV show so I can watch it on demand, I just wouldn't watch it on demand and catch it next time it's on TV.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 



i wont be buying anymore movies nor flims on dvd.


If everyone did this then maybe the movie business could be brought back into a more realistic realm.

I have never understood why people in that industry think they deserve to be paid so much in excess when they don't actually work as much as anyone else. It's a job and nothing more.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by debunky
 


My discussion is in reference to the United States only.

I've been on the internet in discussions since ICQ. I know the Internet took off faster and is more complex then most anyone expected. Including Bill Gates.

I know the government is in "catch up" mode when it comes to legal matters on the Internet.

The self entitlement that a person thinks they have the right to another person's work without paying for it - - - bothers me the most. Even more then legalities.







copyright law has to be international. British printers found that out in the 18th century, when their monopoly was simply ignored by scottish and irish printers. Thats why we had the bern convention at the end of the 19th century.
What happens in other countries is relevant in this context.



Yes -- I tried to have something copyrighted once. Its extremely complicated to do it right - - so that it actually covers everything & every where (International). Its also expensive to enforce.

But I can't talk about what I don't know. And that would be laws in other countries.l



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by AndrewJay
They really think this is going to stop them lol? One gets taken down 2 pop up.


Why is that funny?

Why do you think you are entitled?


I know this was not aimed at me but I would just like to say that the law where I live entitles me, as well as the law where others live entitles them.

I know you said you wanted to keep it state side but that is because the laws there entitle the creator or the rightsholder to a monopoly.


I don't believe I used the word "wanted". Its not about what I want.

I can't discuss what I don't know. I don't know the laws in other countries.

The question is why do you think you should be entitled. I don't find taking a Profit Product for Free funny or ethically right.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheaWolf
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 



i wont be buying anymore movies nor flims on dvd.


If everyone did this then maybe the movie business could be brought back into a more realistic realm.

I have never understood why people in that industry think they deserve to be paid so much in excess when they don't actually work as much as anyone else. It's a job and nothing more.


Just curious.

Have you ever actually worked in the industry?



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
The question is why do you think you should be entitled. I don't find taking a Profit Product for Free funny or ethically right.


I get it. Not want but can't talk about laws in other countries.

My answer remains the same the law where I live entitles me. Just like the law where you live entitles you to hold a monopoly.

Don't know if you read the rest of my previous post but I'm not really against the creator of the work just think it's sad that they are forced (by necessity?) to sell their work under the condition (most of the time) that the buyer (Big Corporations) gets sole distribution rights which is loose-loose for the artist's and the fans.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by supyo
I download all kinds of TV shows and movies.

If I wasn't able to download TV shows and movies do you know how much more money the entertainment industry would be getting from me? Zero. A big fat zero. I still wouldn't be buying or renting Season 5 of entourage on DVD, Blu ray or anything else. I would still go to the theater at the same frequency that I currently do.

My point? They aren't losing nearly as much revenue from this stuff as they claim. Because instead of having to buy my fave TV show so I can watch it on demand, I just wouldn't watch it on demand and catch it next time it's on TV.



One has nothing to do with the other.

If I had an apple tree in my yard - I'd eat free apples. So?



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Really? Copyright? Not trademark or patent?
There is a fee on TMs and patents, i am aware of that, and yes, you pay for every country.
But copyright, thats new to me. Possible that its different in common law jurisdictions. But over here, in civil code land, once it's "fixed" and "published" its protected acoording to each WIPO member countries law.

Ahhh... got it! Was it before 1989? USA didnt sign the Bern convention until then. That would explain it too.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Don't know if you read the rest of my previous post but I'm not really against the creator of the work just think it's sad that they are forced (by necessity?) to sell their work under the condition (most of the time) that the buyer (Big Corporations) gets sole distribution rights which is loose-loose for the artist's and the fans.


OK - agree on that.

Because - the flip side is - many artists now have more control of their work because of technology.

Anyone can have a recording studio at home now.
Portable and affordable movie cameras allow to make your own movies.
Artists can sell their work direct from websites.

The negative part - is less jobs. As said my kid works in production. Even a simple commercial means work for maybe a hundred people.

If there is a location shoot - - local hotel's - restaurants - etc benefit.

Having a couple high paid stars in a movie - - is nothing compared to the thousands of other people it employs. How many think about the local dry cleaners or who sweeps the floors?

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Annee]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
Really? Copyright? Not trademark or patent?
There is a fee on TMs and patents, i am aware of that, and yes, you pay for every country.
But copyright, thats new to me. Possible that its different in common law jurisdictions. But over here, in civil code land, once it's "fixed" and "published" its protected acoording to each WIPO member countries law.

Ahhh... got it! Was it before 1989? USA didnt sign the Bern convention until then. That would explain it too.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm - - - so many years ago. I worked for a publisher.

Maybe it was a trademark.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Really? Is it worth the 40 dollars profit they receive for every single sale?


I guess you know? What were the production costs involved? Please break them down for me. Where the hell do you buy CDs? I have never seen a single CD for 40 dollars and would not pay that much for any collection of 8-12 songs. Anyone that would attempt to charge me such for just a few songs would not get my patronage. See, I would not LISTEN to anyone like that, for free or otherwise. You go steel though, obviously that is the moral high ground here.


And how much of that goes to the people who produced the material on the CD?


Now you are looking out for the artist are you? Do you send the artist money when you steel copies or do you really not care how much goes to whom?



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by daskakik

Don't know if you read the rest of my previous post but I'm not really against the creator of the work just think it's sad that they are forced (by necessity?) to sell their work under the condition (most of the time) that the buyer (Big Corporations) gets sole distribution rights which is loose-loose for the artist's and the fans.


OK - agree on that.

Because - the flip side is - many artists now have more control of their work because of technology.

Anyone can have a recording studio at home now.
Portable and affordable movie cameras allow to make your own movies.
Artists can sell their work direct from websites.

The negative part - is less jobs. As said my kid works in production. Even a simple commercial means work for maybe a hundred people.

If there is a location shoot - - local hotel's - restaurants - etc benefit.

Having a couple high paid stars in a movie - - is nothing compared to the thousands of other people it employs. How many think about the local dry cleaners or who sweeps the floors?

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Annee]


Thats the point Annee. For the past 30 years production and distribution costs went down, and the consumer saw nothing of it.
... except for an expansion of the producers privileges.

Not sure about the job thing though: Providing recordings is more and more becoming something everybody can do, with little effort.
But people seem to be pretty OK with paying for performances. And performances have a considerable requirement for labor.
Since the artist has to be present, there would be a higher demand for artists, and supply should get less concentrated, and all in all larger, due to the hight transport costs (Flight, Hotel)
Of course, that isnt an option for all forms of art. (Books and Software are pretty much excluded)
But there are ways there too: There is a game out there, called Dwarf Fortress. It's closed source freeware, and the author accepts donations. He has chosen, for some reason, to make the sum public: it averages at 2000 $ a month. He also finished Highschool this year.
There is also still sponsoring, merchandising and advertising.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by debunky]




top topics



 
31
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join