MPAA gets major win in court

[JimmyTango Profile]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050210-4606.html?82551

My reponse: GOOD. I hope every single eprson that DL'ed a movie for free gets to pay a fine.

[SavageParrot Profile]

Well maybe if they made film that were actually worth paying for and didn't inflate the prices they might have fewer problems...

[JimmyTango Profile]

Originally posted by SavageParrot
Well maybe if they made film that were actually worth paying for and didn't inflate the prices they might have fewer problems...

Same old lame excuses.

Boil it down: 'I am self centered and don't give a crap, paying 15 bucks for a DVD is too much money(because I am cheap) and the movie studio's who invest billions into producing movies each year OWE ME SOMETHING.

[cavalierlwt Profile]

Actually there's studies that show dl'd movies have little or no impact on ticket/DVD sales.

[Evan Profile Website]

Originally posted by cavalierlwt
Actually there's studies that show dl'd movies have little or no impact on ticket/DVD sales.

Same with downloaded music - it doesn't impact the sales of CD's.

[JimmyTango Profile]

Actually, it does. If you were going to buy it and instead down loaded it for free instead of buying it, right there a sale is lost, so sales were impacted. No study needs to be done, it is common sense.

How many CD's would you have bought instead of DL'ing them(or the songs you wanted from the CD)? Lets be nice and say a total of 5 different CDs. Lets be nice again and say each CD was an even $10. That is $50 in lost sales right there, from one person. Again, that is being nice. $10 is cheap for a CD, and I highly doubt that you DL'ed only 5 songs from different CD's. BTW, 'you' not being any specific person, just one who DL's music.

The little studies out there are going by what the industry move in total CD's or ticket/movie sales, since they are not down from previous years it is used as a BS reason why we should all download movies and Cd's for free since the industry isn't being 'impacted.' Common sense: download something for free instead of buying it, a sale is lost, sales become impacted.

Look at the studies that show huge drops in CD sales around college campus's. This is the main reason college networks are being targeted by the industry.

Movie rental has flattened out(and is a huge business). Why do you think Blockbuster came up with the 'no late fees?'

I find it sad that people have to rationalize stealing something. You stole it, the industry you stole it from still making a profit doesn't matter.

[-7-Slappy]

Movie rental has flattened out(and is a huge business). Why do you think Blockbuster came up with the 'no late fees?'

Because they're getting wholesale raped by NetFlix & outfits like them?

But I pretty much agree with your ideas here. It's stealing to DL copyrighted material. It's wrong. Do it & be ready to pay the price.

[Evan Profile Website]

The only price I should pay should be one where I'm not overcharged $15 for a $5 piece of plastic - and even then most of the money goes directly to the RIAA and not the artists themselves.

And JT, every single MP3 I have on my hard drive also has a completely legal version with it. I always buy the actual CD's (and get them for cheap) after downloading them, and most of the people I know do the same thing.

[SavageParrot Profile]

Originally posted by JimmyTango
Same old lame excuses.

Boil it down: 'I am self centered and don't give a crap, paying 15 bucks for a DVD is too much money(because I am cheap) and the movie studio's who invest billions into producing movies each year OWE ME SOMETHING.

Actually I don't download films and have a rather vast collection of dvds, my point was that rather than spending vast quantities of money on this pointless witch-hunt they could just invest in making some more (and preferably some better) films.

Seriously out of all the people I know (and I am talking real world here no online), there is only 1 who regularly downloads films and I know a lot of people...

More people sneak into movie theaters than download films but wheres the obsessive witch-hunt and threats of thousand dollar fines there? If you are downloading films to burn on to disc and sell then fair enough a little book throwing is in order but otherwise lets get a little perspective. These people wouldn't buy the film either way. They would just wait till it was on tv and then tape the fucker; that's the level of crime we are talking about for the majority of people, not the big bad terrorism funding evilness these greedy hollywood motherfuckers are trying to make out.

Surely it was revenge enough that all those people downloaded 'Pearl Harbour' and most probably watched the first ten minutes before their brains dribbled out through their ears:cool:

[Colonel Ingus Profile]

Actually there have been studies that show CD sales have changed and grown because people preview the songs and actually know what they are buying before purchasing.

And sorry guys but your arguments are based on bullshit suppositions.

Not that I don't respect intellectual property rights, I even see the need for them.

But these same "poor abused" producers that you are defending also license this material to be shown/played for free on the radio, internet, and television.

In essence it has already been released to the public domain.

Irregardless of any quality level bs you want to get into please explain to me what the difference is between me downloading a bands newest hit as an mpeg file and myself using a tapedeck a recording it from the nearest rock station? Funny I never hear any message over my radio stating it is illegal to copy anything I hear.

And if this really is a horrible thing that violates property rights why aren't they going after the people who produce the recording mediums?

I guess its easier to sue 83 year old dead women who've never owned a computer:

http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2005/02/04/music_industry_sues_83_year_old_dead_woman/

than say Sony or Memorex?

[cavalierlwt Profile]

I saw LOTR TTT in the theaters, and I dl'd it off the net, I still bought the extended DVD of it. The DVD had good price a and was packed with features. BlackHawk down, same thing, saw it in theaters, DL'd it, and bought the DVD. The only movie (of sorts) that I've dl'd and never bought is porn. Downloading a movie is no substitute for going to the theater. Going out to the movies is an event that is more than just seeing a movie, it's kind of special in it's own way. Watching a crappy divx rip or someone's in-theater camera captured version isn't going to replace it. Nor will it replace the DVD, with all it's features and extras (think LOTR again)
There a few people who are too cheap or poor to either go the movie or buy the DVD, who will DL it instead. Those people were never going to buy it in the first place, no cash lost there. It's still wrong for them to take without paying, but it's not like the MPAA suffered an increased material expenditure, like if a person stole a car from a Chevy dealership. I'm not saying DL'ing is right, just that it's not hurting them financially. BTW, screwing people over is a two way street. When CDs came out they enticed people to leave behind their old format with the promiise that CDs wouldn't wear out, the scratches wouldn't make a sound like a scratch on a record makes, etc. In fact, I remember the salesman dropping a CD on the floor and walking on it to show me how tough it was. Turns out CDs and DVDs are made of a very, very soft plastic, and scratches do screw them up if there is more than a few. If bought and re-bought so many CDs and DVDs because they make those damn things out of plastic that is about as hard as wax. I'm positive they could give them a coating that make them much, much more resistant to scratching. It's karma baby, they got extra sales out of people that way, now people are pissing them off.
Please note, I'm not making the point that DLing is OK for this reason, just that these guys are not the babes in woods they claim to be.

[-HaVoC- Profile]

I'll tell you what Jimmy. You get them to stop releasing it every few years in a different format requiring a different player and I'll pay for the rights to watch or listen. I repeat, pay for the right once.

Boy I can't wait for HDVD to make my collection yet again obsolete. I am tired of paying for the same material over and over again in a different format. I have some family in the movie industry they couldn't agree with me more.

Gluttony is ugly even with great effects and marketing campaigns.

[SavageParrot Profile]

Pfft I'll stick with dvd till they stop producing it, it's small, and pretty damn durable so long as you treat it right. No need to switch, not like with videotape where they wear out

[JimmyTango Profile]

Originally posted by -HaVoC-
I'll tell you what Jimmy. You get them to stop releasing it every few years in a different format requiring a different player and I'll pay for the rights to watch or listen. I repeat, pay for the right once.

Boy I can't wait for HDVD to make my collection yet again obsolete. I am tired of paying for the same material over and over again in a different format. I have some family in the movie industry they couldn't agree with me more.

Gluttony is ugly even with great effects and marketing campaigns.

So, you are mad at the progress of technology? By far the worst reason I have ever heard.

[Jeffro Profile YIM]

Music on the radio blows. Most are talentless hacks made by the music industry (lil john and the eastside boyz, ashlee simpson, etc...). Everytime I flip on a radio channel in my car, there is nothing on. Therefore, I download the music I want to listen to, not what the radio wants me to hear.