porchrat
Honorary Master
your knowledge of English far surpasses my own. I bow to your superior book-learnin'
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
Online piracy
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
your knowledge of English far surpasses my own. I bow to your superior book-learnin'
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
So you want to withdraw the rape comparison now?
Juice
Expert Member
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
Nope. It's just an analogy!
An analogy?
"a comparison of two or more like objects that suggests if they are alike in certain respects, they will probably be alike in other ways as well."
So you are saying that you don't think that rape and downloading are similar, only that they are similar????
BinaryJack
Spam
You guys are not going to win.
I will withdraw it, but only when you read it.
I think everyone else got what I was saying, and isn't trying to derail a valid argument by changing the topic.
CorduroyJackson
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,130
- Reaction score
- 1,166
Nerfherder
Honorary Master
Like I have said before. Piracy is not the correct word to describe it.
Its more like smuggling, its the big business overlords that want you to think that it is best described as piracy.
No one is killed or raped in the process.
Its more like smuggling, its the big business overlords that want you to think that it is best described as piracy.
No one is killed or raped in the process.
porchrat
Honorary Master
You also are not required to wear eye-liner and say "savvy" while performing extravagant hand gestures either.
So you're saying that DVD rentals, DVD (CD, BD) sales, TV broadcasts, merchandise, advertising, cinema, live shows, publicity concerts and shows (eg Oscar broadcast rights), payTV, purchased downloads (iTunes) etc will all die? If they all die well then their system will collapse. They will have to adapt or die. No more Britney Spears? So what.
Wrong analogy. Imagine a Hollywood Movie script for a film dealing with the intricacies of the human condition after say the Iraqi conflict. The effect of the war on a couple in Iraq. No explosions, except for some off screen action, no violence except for some simulated effects thereof, just deep introspection, inter human conflict, frustration, mistrust, denial, hate etc. Now imagine this film features George Clooney - charges $50mil and Nicole Kidman $50 mil plus production costs $50mil. $150 mil. Now imagine that out of 300 mil Americans only 10 mil want to see this film and that the rest couldn't give a monkey's behind because it's not in 3D, does not Jessica Alba in it (Kidman is hot but getting old and in this film she stays dressed) and there is no real action to compensate for an action flick. Take home pay for $10 movie ticket is $100 mil. The movie makes a $50 mil loss. Now imagine that such a movie gets made -- heck NO, it won't get made. Why? Because it costs too much. It's cheaper to pay Clooney that money and have him blow up some busses, planes and make $300 mil profits.
Here is your explanation. Hollywood does not make movies which make losses. That's why most stuff out of Hollywood is garbage. It is garbage for kids to watch and pay - cheap entertainment. In the same vein, if only 10 mil ($100 mil revenue) people will buy a movie - make it for $5 mil or don't make it at all.
If they decide to stop making movies - well tough. They won't be losing money ne? They however won't ever do that, because people will still buy and most people still buy - and when they price it right - cheap - even more will buy. Plus you can't beat the cinema experience with a warez'ed MKV file and you can't beat a live concert with a 128kbps mp3. Adapt. Sell your stuff for less or go out of business, but don't restrict our freedoms.
Wait, wait! I think I can actually wring a half-decent analogy out of this one!!
No. They maybe did nothing wrong in their own minds - although they did know what they did was wrong because they were human too and they saw the suffering - but killing and raping women and children, destroying villages, taking slaves and taking goods is bad for the victim because they either die, get raped, lose everything or are taken captive. When little Joe who gets R100 per week in pocket money downloads a R399 game he is not stealing it. The distributor still has that game. They can still sell it. Little Joe only had R100 he could not afford the game. Instead he buys a movie ticket with that money and ice-cream. So Hollywood wins - game industry gets nil but loses nil. The game industry has hardly had their wife raped and child murdered in this scenario.
I don't think its whining. I think it's the attacks on internet freedoms and tax on media which people dislike. Your analogies suck.
You lose again.
2TB of DVDs at 700MB per movie = 2857 DVDs!!! At R200 per DVD that's R570,000 the industry has lost. Now since you obviously would have spent that amount of money on MOVIEZ if you had no way to DL - you must have saved that money. RIght?
Juice
Expert Member
Sorry, I lost you a bit there. You're usually a lot more articulate and concise, but I'm afraid I just couldn't tell. Were you actually supporting my point, or in a roundabout way refuting it in a way that made it seem like you were supporting it?
Juice
Juice
Expert Member
Your analogies suck.
I think you just put the ANAL into my analogy...
????
How are "they" restrincting your freedom?
Theres that damn self-entitlement again.
"It is on the internet, therefore it belongs to me! They were asking for it by pricing beyond what I am willing to pay."
Chirp all you want. I'm willing to bet that even if the price dropped to 10c per mp3, you would still pirate, just to show them who's boss.
I was trying to say that Hollywood won't make a movie (or at least usually gets this right) which makes a loss. They make sure that every $ they spend comes back at least a few times over. If movie making becomes unprofitable they will drop costs and make cheaper movies.
Imagine a situation where everyone pirated. DVD sales and rentals would fail?
Perhaps. But Cinema showings, advertising and merchandise would not.
It is unlikely that a situation like this would develop however. People don't want to all be freeloaders. If a product is offered at a reasonable fee, people will go for it. If not, they will copy.
However, studios won't go into LOSS mode. If movies really start making losses - they'll cut costs and if not - they'll stop making movies. That obviously won't happen - while they can they can bully people with warrants and lawsuits but if society prohibits them from doing that then they'll have to adapt - OR die. Most likely most will want to live and they'll offer more reasonable pricing terms and value added benefits. Buy a DVD and get a booklet - all for a cheap price. Buy a CD and get tickets to a live concert free or include beautiful artwork or a box people will put on their shelf but at a nice price. Obviously this won't stop all copying but enough people will buy goods. Even now enough people buy stuff (CD, DVD, BD, games, merchandise, movie tickets, books) to make movies very, very profitable. Look it's the recession right? Cameron just shot AVATAR for a record sum and it brought in record box office earnings. Why worry about some downloads. You can't download a 3D IMAX screen and 40,000 watts of DTS-ES sound.
I don't think the movie, music, software industries are that bad off. Despite some people DL their junk, most people buy/rent it or at least enough people do that to sustain these astronomically high multi-million salaries actors and singers receive - not to mention all these execs. I think it's all just pure corporate greed - that wants more and more and the delusion that everyone is not only downloading their garbage but would have purchased their junk in the first place.
The freedom to 1. Not have to pay tax on media.
2. The freedom not to have to pay tax on ads.
3. The freedom not to have internet censorship and monitoring. That sites are being closed because they contain links to content.
4. That police resources are used to fight something which does not hurt anyone.
5. The freedom not to have fake FBI ads (or similar) which are unskippable.
6. The freedom not to have THEIR problem be MY problem.
Besides that, they're greedy. I can see that. I don't download their junk though. But if people want to, let them.
You a shill?
No. It's the internet and don't mess with it. Lock your garbage down better if you will but don't mess with my internet. Police your warehouse but not everyone's medium.
You haven't seen my CD and DVD collection. There's even some Hollywood stuff there - Stanley Kubrick and John Casavettes (oops he's indie). Not much Hollywood stuff - but prolly 80% of Criterion Collection Catalogue. Should Hollywood SUE Criterion because I buy their stuff instead of the garbage they churn out? Yep - going with your logic, they should - after all everything which competes with their garbage is leading to their profit losses. After all if I didn't have a choice of Kieslowski, Mungiu or Bergman I would obviously be watching Spielberg, Silver and Cameron.
Last edited:
Seriously?
What tax are you paying? How is it different from any other tax?
For every site that shuts down, another 10 start up.
Just cos I pointed out your self-entitlement attitude, now I'm a shill? truth hurts. deal with it.
If it's such garbage, then don't download it. You do it because you believe you are part of a digital revolution, when all you are doing is the equivalent of toilet-papering someones house. You get to brag to your friends about your terabytes of teh warez.
I wouldn't want to see your cd and dvd collection. I don't like jonas brothers.
Usually we pay taxes for services the government provides us. Tax on media does not go to the govt but goes to the studios/music companies which do not provide me with anything.
They should not be shut down in the first place.
You are a shill because 1. I don't have a self entitlement attitude - that's YOU projecting YOUR own feelings. 2. I don't download MPAA/RISA/etc junk.
Where did I brag I had TBs of warez. Point me to where I said that?
Secondly, yes it is Garbage and I don't download it - I buy stuff I appreciate it and lots of it. However, the industry will say because I don't buy their junk - I am pirating it. That's how the people you defend think. They believe that people who have no intention to buy their junk would have bought it and instead of blaming the poor quality of their stuff (and the high price) they blame a few internet file sharers. Oh and if they could just, they'd shut down every indie and non-Hollywood competitor too or expect a tax to bail them out. Think about this.
LOL, arguing with kids... come back when you've passed high school.
Media co's should be happy with the success they have. They make huge amounts of $$$ as is. If some kids DL music they can't afford without taking it from everyone else, it's not anyone's loss. They had no intention or money in the first place. I have no intention either - already pay $$$ for DSTV which goes to Hollywood and hardly watch it - but I don't dl their junk. I don't mind that others do - and I don't think that if all those people bought this rubbish, we'd have better entertainment, or it would be cheaper - the execs would follow the same formulas and reward themselves with more mansions in St Tropez and yachts in the Bahamas. Sorry - greed, is greed.
Last edited: