The Lone Ranger

[Sava]

You mean, like physical CDs or DVDs or Blu-rays?

FWIW, piracy in copyright infringement goes back to 1603.

Sure.

It's an obsolete idea from an era where people were just as much property as songs.

[Sava]

Likewise. The Sava Poly rant against world hunger has yet to appear.

make a thread about it *****

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Glorified Masterpiece Theater" doesn't make any sense. MT doesn't make the programs, it replays them, and the programs in question were already popular and award winning in the UK.

That's basically what it means - ie, not really that much better British TV costume dramas.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's an obsolete idea from an era where people were just as much property as songs.

So now copyrights are an obsolete idea? Keep digging.

[Sava]

jaywalking is a bigger problem than software piracy

spitting in public

it's such a maddeningly miniscule amount of harm (IF ANY AT ALL) that it isn't worth solving

[giblets]

jaywalking is a bigger problem than software piracy

spitting in public

it's such a maddeningly miniscule amount of harm (IF ANY AT ALL) that it isn't worth solving

It's a serious problem. No one has made a movie in years.

[Docfeelgood]

jaywalking is a bigger problem than software piracy

spitting in public

it's such a maddeningly miniscule amount of harm (IF ANY AT ALL) that it isn't worth solving

Damn! when you roll you really roll!

[Elok]

So did you pay to watch the entertainment or not?

The real litmus test, to me, is whether it actually causes harm. The studios are clearly making smaller and smaller profits as a result of piracy. A good part of that is their own fault for failing to respond to changing technology, but the piracy is clearly hurting them. That an actual physical object was not removed hardly matters, since the cost of a DVD represents the cost of making the stuff on it; the cheap plastic of the actual DVD is just as much of a "wrapper" as the box. The other argument for it is that they haven't lost anything if the people who pirate wouldn't have wanted it enough to pay for it anyway--but that's somewhat disingenuous IMO because the question "am I willing to pay [X] for this?" is inevitably going to be informed by the unspoken corollary "or should I just get it for free?"

(not going to chew out DFG for this personally, for various reasons)

[Docfeelgood]

It's a serious problem. No one has made a movie in years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

jaywalking is a bigger problem than software piracy

spitting in public

it's such a maddeningly miniscule amount of harm (IF ANY AT ALL) that it isn't worth solving

Once again, shoplifting from Walmart is a ridiculously miniscule amount of harm. Morally ok?

Piracy obviously costs content makers millions of dollars from people consuming what they make without payment for it (see Elok's post above). You can try to squirm and quibble that it isn't akin to shoplifting, but the practical result is exactly the same. So why exactly is one not ok and the other ok? What is wrong with people shoplifting a movie?

[Imran Siddiqui]

(not going to chew out DFG for this personally, for various reasons)

I gotta be consistent. If I chew out Oerdin for doing so, I can't give DFG a pass.

[Docfeelgood]

The real litmus test, to me, is whether it actually causes harm. The studios are clearly making smaller and smaller profits as a result of piracy. A good part of that is their own fault for failing to respond to changing technology, but the piracy is clearly hurting them. That an actual physical object was not removed hardly matters, since the cost of a DVD represents the cost of making the stuff on it; the cheap plastic of the actual DVD is just as much of a "wrapper" as the box. The other argument for it is that they haven't lost anything if the people who pirate wouldn't have wanted it enough to pay for it anyway--but that's somewhat disingenuous IMO because the question "am I willing to pay [X] for this?" is inevitably going to be informed by the unspoken corollary "or should I just get it for free?"

(not going to chew out DFG for this personally, for various reasons)

Did you know that the budget for Jack and Jill was $79 million?
How can they justify that amount of money for a turd like this?
Box office gross was $149,673,788.

THEY ARE NOT LOSING MONEY!

[Docfeelgood]

I gotta be consistent. If I chew out Oerdin for doing so, I can't give DFG a pass.

You must give up!
You don't know the power of the dark side

[Imran Siddiqui]

The real litmus test, to me, is whether it actually causes harm. The studios are clearly making smaller and smaller profits as a result of piracy. A good part of that is their own fault for failing to respond to changing technology, but the piracy is clearly hurting them. That an actual physical object was not removed hardly matters, since the cost of a DVD represents the cost of making the stuff on it; the cheap plastic of the actual DVD is just as much of a "wrapper" as the box. The other argument for it is that they haven't lost anything if the people who pirate wouldn't have wanted it enough to pay for it anyway--but that's somewhat disingenuous IMO because the question "am I willing to pay [X] for this?" is inevitably going to be informed by the unspoken corollary "or should I just get it for free?"

Of course there are the secondary results. For example, some studios ARE responding to the high rates of piracy by creating content that doesn't translate to piracy - such as super high special effects movies because people will want to see that on a big screen rather than on a computer, or reality television because a lot of the thrill is finding out the result ASAP and then discussing it on social networking. When people complain about the content on offer, they fail to realize that to a great extent it is due to studio attempts to combat piracy by offering consumers something that is simply a visual treat (for movies) or contests where instant social media is important (for TV).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did you know that the budget for Jack and Jill was $79 million?
How can they justify that amount of money for a turd like this?
Box office gross was $149,673,788.

THEY ARE NOT LOSING MONEY!

The budget does not count promotional costs. Usually a movie needs to make double its budget to make money. In addition, only about 50% of the box office gross goes to the studios.

So yes, they may have lost big on Jack and Jill.