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.

 

Anonymous takes down government, recording industry websites in retaliation for bust

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Supply and demand, if enough people are willing to pay the price then it will sell for that price. Personally, 9.99 for a full cd is not unreasonable, 10 dollars to go to a movie is not unreasonable. If you think it is, don't go, don't buy it, don't patronize that business. There is NO way to rationalize the theft of content, it is not essential that you have that cd,, or go to that movie, or use that program, you are not being deprived of any of your rights.




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by UkRandom
 


exactly
the usual trick is problem reaction solution
anonymouse just handed them the problem



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


You just answered your own question, people are choosing to take it illigally because they are not willing to pay the price they set. So the demand is not there is it at the prices they offer. You are lucky you can get in the movies for $10 and get a cd for $9.99, in the UK given the exchange rate you can add a further 60% to that price.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
great anonymouse just handed the government the perfect excuse to clamp down
maybe we should call them falseflagamouse


They were going to do it anyway. At least it's with a bang and not a whimper.

What's your solution? Do nothing?

Peace



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LongbottomLeaf
 


What? yeah money changed hands through the various transactions that are required to create a movie. But in order for a movie to be successful, people have to pay to see it. And there is more to the price of a movie ticket than just the movie studios saying "this is how much it costs". The movie theaters themselves have costs associated with showing that movie, and that is factored into the cost of your ticket. There is more to the price of a cd than the cost of printing the cd. There is R+D involved, distribution and logistics, marketing, artwork, studio time, not to mention actually paying the artists for their work. There are jobs associated with each of these stages of taking an empty space and filling it with content and getting it to you. You don't like the price, then pick an element of the process and go tell that guy who engineered the studio that your favorite artist used to create that cd, and tell him to do it cheaper so you can save a few bucks.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Gigatronix
 

but I am willing to pay to see it, only I am only willing to pay a reasonable price to see it and not be profiteered from as the movies is essentially a monopoly. There is no competition in the movie industry, it is just a case if it is a crap film or one worth watching, of which you don't find out until after you have paid. All movie makers release stuff to the cinemas at the same price.


Sure's there competition. You simply need to wait until its released onto something like VOD or a rental whereby it is affordable. You have options. They may not be what you want, but the world doesn't work like that. If you want the movie then pony up otherwise buy the book version.

brill
edit on 19-1-2012 by brill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


You just answered your own question, people are choosing to take it illigally because they are not willing to pay the price they set. So the demand is not there is it at the prices they offer. You are lucky you can get in the movies for $10 and get a cd for $9.99, in the UK given the exchange rate you can add a further 60% to that price.
You just proved my point, they steal because they don;t wanna pay. Thats what it comes down to. You don't wanna pay, so you steal it. The record iindustry and the movie industry have no intention of raising the price of anything so high that people can't or won't pay for it, that defeats their whole purpose. But factor in inflation, a rough economy, rising gas prices, rising material costs and duh, the price has to go up some. There has to be enough of a return on your investment to make it worth making the investment in the first place. They spend money creating things, gambling that what they created will be successful enough to allow them to pay everyone involved and have enough left over to start the next project. Moral of the story: Stealing is stealing. Support the content creators that create things you like by paying them for their work, so they will keep making things you like.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


You just answered your own question, people are choosing to take it illigally because they are not willing to pay the price they set. So the demand is not there is it at the prices they offer. You are lucky you can get in the movies for $10 and get a cd for $9.99, in the UK given the exchange rate you can add a further 60% to that price.
A 60% price increase would equal about 16 USD. I used to pay that much for actual cds back in the 90s. So in reality owning music has gotten cheaper.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


I have the money. I'd just rather donate it to specific actors / directors than the awful people that own them.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I think the comment earlier, that if i dont download it i wont buy it and so noone is losing money is pretty accurate.

I watched Apollo 18 on a flight to America the other week, I would have been well annoyed if I had payed to watch it in a cinema. Now I will never download Apollo 18 because its crap, but the only way I would have found that out normally is by shelling out for 2 people to goto the cinema, some babysitter for my kids, and popcorn and coke, thats probably about $120 Australian.

Its stealing so it should be illegal but lets put it into perspective. The FBI site (which is not down) has a list of missing people, wonder how many of them have ended up in cruel internet films before being buried in the woods, go and find some real criminals.

And when the country is in a financial mess, stop wasting resources on pissy little piracy and hunt some of the huge corporate criminals who are really raping the world, the uploaders/downloaders are the poor end of the market, once again you are protecting the corporates allowing them to make even more money out of us, you are using our taxes to help them make more money and not help us to earn more money so we an afford more and close the gap.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 



Have you completly lost your ability to read. The whole point I have been making is that people are willing to pay, just not at the riddiculous prices the production companies want them to. The prices they set have margins far greater than that of say buying a new TV or getting a service like the internet. Have you ever wondered why that is, it is because there is no competition in the production industry, each production is unique and they all collude to sell their products at set prices.

No competition = monopoly



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by cetaphobic
 


I get what you're saying, and it would be wonderful to be able to send my money directly to the creators of things I like. But since I can't feasibly do that, I will pay for the content. Not to mention, it's not fair for the makeup artists, script writers, lighting folks, CGI guys to not get a dime because you don't want to pay the people responsible for putting all those moving parts together, and funding the whole operation in the first place. Without the studios, and all the little people doing their part, your actors would be invisible and you directors sitting around with nothing to do.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Ridiculous prices are relative. Obviously they can;t be that exorbitant if people are going out and buying the content to such a degree that the industry continues to pump out fresh new content. You think Warner Brothers is going to just throw money into the fire because they are charging so much that nobody is going to see their movies, thereby making their products failures? No, they keep making new content because people are paying the price for it. Now if you wanna argue that people are sheeple for paying such ridiculous prices,well, good luck with that. People pay the prices because they think it's worth it. Seems to me that movie theaters are getting pretty fancy these days, the money gotta be coming from somewhere, and I don;t think anyone is going to invest in 3d theater equipement if they're going to have to charge so much money that nobody will patronize their theater.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 

Give it up Godshilla no one cares about rich people.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


Because I can, by the time anything worth downloading is on piratebay its made its money.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
The government are tackling Piracy in completely the wrong way. What they should be doing is looking at why people illigally download material and what the industry could do to stop it happening. Obviously the answer is easy but it will mean not as much profit which is why the government will never do this. To stop people copying content, make it available at a fair price that everybody can afford and get with the times and release it to internet at the same time as the Cinemas. If people want to watch it in a cinema they are free to do so but stopping people watching it at home on release only makes them download.

If a film was say $1.99 for a streamed watch then I am sure that most piraters would opt to pay as it wouldn't be worth the hassel for that price.

The industry needs to evolve with the modern age and stop thinking it can live in the past and prosecute anybody that does not choose to live in the past with them.


The thing with the industry is that it used to be a provider; it provided artists with gigs, distribution, and promotion. With the emergence of the internet, these services have become available to artists without the record industry, and so the record industry has become a parasite upon its host (the artist). What should happen, if we are to follow the spirit of capitalism, is the recording industry should adapt to the digital age or die, as has been the case with every other industry when a new competitor threatens its seat on the throne. You don't have to pay to see art, you don't have to pay to read books, you don't have to pay to access the news, why should you have to pay to hear music?

As to the notion that piracy hurts musicians: musicians receive 11% of all digital sales profits; divide this among a band of 3-5 people and you're left with around 4-2% profit per person. That is 4-2 CENTS PER DOWNLOAD. Sure, this racks up, but we must account for the money which the recording company claims the musician "owes" them for studio and promotion costs. More often than not, musicians don't make any money until they have managed to sell 500,000 individual downloads. Even then, the money we make is sub-par at best. The people benefiting off of the work of musicians are the middle men and the recording companies, who rake in 89% of total profit per sale. Of this, iTunes receives 33% and the recording company receives the remaining amount. It is ridiculous for anyone to claim that piracy hurts the artist. Piracy hurts the parasite, who should cease existing anyway.

The best ways to support a musician/band are to a) buy their merchandise, b) go to their shows/concerts, c) donate money directly to them. Download the music for free, then go spend $12-15 on a shirt if you like it, or go to one of their shows if they are scheduled to play near you.

I mean, let's face it, the trash that gets pumped out of recording industries today isn't worth a penny anyways. The music has no soul to it, it is commercial garbage for the materialistic mindless and the unthinking masses. Why should anyone pay for it? There is nothing unique or worthwhile about a cookie-cutter song, rife with auto-tune and shallow lyrics. Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus. Don't pay for that garbage.

Find some music blogs like Toxicbreed's Funhouse, or a music forum, and listen to and find artists who put their passion before the fashion.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should let the RIAA and the MPAA fail; businesses need to be reminded that capitalism takes no sides; survival of the fittest. If a business cannot adapt to the changing times, why should it be given a stronghold over its industry? This kind of behavior holds us back and prevents us from progressing as a species. Like newspapers, landline telephones, telegrams, etc have all been made arbitrary and irrelevant by new technology, so shall the RIAA and MPAA if it cannot adapt. Grow or die, but don't drag us down with you.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 



So come on what is your artist or band name



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LongbottomLeaf
 


OK dude you obviously are unable to formulate an argument that doesn't comepletely hinge on your selfish desire to get something for nothing. The people who contribute to the creation of music and movies are far from rich. The guy that designs the artwork for album covers and dvd covers doesn;t deserve a slice of the action huh? Or the truck driver that delivers the dvds from the printing press to the distributor? Or the guy that does the CGI? Or the sound tech that set ups the recording studio for musicians? Sure they get paid when they do the work and not when the product is sold, but who pays them in the interim? Why the record labels and movie studios of course! And how would they have any money to pay them if their last project was pirated and they received less revenue than the project deserved?

What do you think happens when a movie or cd flops, you think those people who helped make it give some of their paycheck back? No, the parent company just eats the loss, or hopes one of their better performing products makes up the difference. There are quite a few people whos livelihood depends on the success of the things they work on, and when you take their work without paying for it, you're sending them a nice big ol F U, I don;t care that you went to college and put in long hours to make this for my enjoyment, I can't be bothered to pay the reasonable price of 9.99 for a cd that could feasibly entertain me for many years.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


You just don't get it. I do not care I just don't They aren't doing it for me they are doing what they like to do and get paid well to do. Me I'm good at using the internet to my advantage. I don't care if George Lucas or Metallica lose a little bit of money .There are very few bands whose music I pay for. There are very few directors whose movies I'd pay to see. Anyone else has millions of adoring morons who are more than willing to spend 20 bucks on something they will watch once then stick on a shelf. The ones who lose money is the man on top, everyone else gets a paycheck.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join