- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is it ok to steal media?
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:31 am to Freauxzen
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:31 am to Freauxzen
quote:
I didn't say you'd have only ONE option to purchase it. I'm talking all about OPTIONS and ACCESS. Not limitations.
My bad.
quote:
I still refuse to think that MOST Downloaders download JUST because it's free. They download because it's easy and ubiquitous, not necessarily because it's free.
This is definitely true. Most people are paying for cable/satellite now. Paying for content isn't what people are against, they just want the content on their terms and at a price they think is fair.
2
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:32 am to TigerinATL
quote:99 cents is too much to ask?
they just want the content on their terms and at a price they think is fair.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:33 am to TigerinATL
quote:
quote:
I still refuse to think that MOST Downloaders download JUST because it's free. They download because it's easy and ubiquitous, not necessarily because it's free.
This is definitely true. Most people are paying for cable/satellite now. Paying for content isn't what people are against, they just want the content on their terms and at a price they think is fair.
Exactly. But the movie industry doesn't want to accept this truth.
At least the music industry has adapted a bit. Spotify is a great service. Netflix was poised to be the movie industry's "Spotify" but the studios got scared and fricked Netflix in the A.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:34 am to alajones
quote:
99 cents is too much to ask?
Yep.
For music, the market has essentially stated that free with ads is tolerable. $5/month for ad-free is acceptable too. $10/month for unlimited play on all kinds of devices is acceptable as well.
In other words, $120 per year, for unlimited access to nearly 20,000,000 million songs. That's what the market has dictated.
This post was edited on 11/26/12 at 11:38 am
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:36 am to WikiTiger
quote:How many movies are out there that you can't get with In Demand or Netflix/Amazon prime? Most people don't keep the big DVD collections anymore. There are shitloads of movies available instantly but they aren't free.
Exactly. But the movie industry doesn't want to accept this truth.
At least the music industry has adapted a bit. Spotify is a great service. Netflix was poised to be the movie industry's "Spotify" but the studios got scared and fricked Netflix in the A.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:39 am to WikiTiger
quote:The difference is 99 cents is legal.
quote:
99 cents is too much to ask?
Yep
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:39 am to alajones
quote:
How many movies are out there that you can't get with In Demand or Netflix/Amazon prime? Most people don't keep the big DVD collections anymore. There are shitloads of movies available instantly but they aren't free.
Even if you combined Netflix and Amazon, you don't get very much. And their service is limited (No Amazon Video phone app), limited download options, etc.).
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:39 am to WikiTiger
quote:
Netflix was poised to be the movie industry's "Spotify" but the studios got scared and fricked Netflix in the A.
I think it's Netflix that got scared. If they had been willing to go to a tiered pricing structure they'd still have Starz, and if one of those tiers would have been over $20 they'd probably have HBO as a supplier rather than the competitor.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:40 am to TigerinATL
quote:
I think it's Netflix that got scared. If they had been willing to go to a tiered pricing structure they'd still have Starz, and if one of those tiers would have been over $20 they'd probably have HBO as a supplier rather than the competitor.
Agreed. Their reliance on their pricing killed them.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:44 am to alajones
quote:
How many movies are out there that you can't get with In Demand or Netflix/Amazon prime?
There is plenty of content available via today's delivery method at yesterday's prices, inflation included. I think it's $3 - $4 for an SD rental, and $5 - $6 for varying levels of HD quality. The pricing is ridiculous. A Blu Ray rental costs me $1.50 at Red Box. Give me the highest quality HD for $2 and it will be worth the convenience of not having to drive 2 minutes to the nearest Red Box. $5 - $6 is a non starter.
This post was edited on 11/26/12 at 11:45 am
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:51 am to Freauxzen
quote:So the logical alternative is illegally downloading a movie? When it takes two days to get a movie from Netflix in the mail or 5 minutes to Redbox?
Even if you combined Netflix and Amazon, you don't get very much. And their service is limited (No Amazon Video phone app), limited download options, etc.).
Don't get me wrong on my stances in this thread. I'm not weeping for a billion dollar industry that is filled with plenty of thieves. But I can distinguish between what is legal and what isn't. Whether or not it matches up with someone's own ethos.
I guess you could make the argument that in order to change things you have to break the rules. Which is fine. No doubt the industry is feeling the hurt and changing to the times. But you will have casualties in your war vs the industry. I used to download the shite out of music and movies. But I didn't want to be one of the few thousand that got a lawsuit and I didn't think it was a good thing to teach my kids to do so we have been doing the legal thing for a few years now.
This post was edited on 11/26/12 at 11:57 am
Posted on 11/26/12 at 11:57 am to alajones
quote:
So the logical alternative is illegally downloading a movie? When it takes two days to get a movie from Netflix in the mail or 5 minutes to Redbox?
I'm a subscriber of both, doesn't mean they meet my needs. They do what they do for a cost, but yes, if I want to take a movie on the road with me I download it. If I want access to a movie they don't have, Redbox may be out of it, etc.
How can we be "Out of" media in this day and age? You can't that's just an archaic idea.
quote:
Don't get me wrong on my stances in this thread. I'm not weeping for a billion dollar industry that is filled with plenty of thieves. But I can distinguish between what is legal and what isn't. Whether or not it matches up with someone's own ethos.
Agree on this. I won't say for a minute that I am being legal. Maybe I don't care. Maybe I've bought over 400 DVD's gone to movies multiples of times over, that I feel I give Hollywood and the Music Industry plenty of income. If they still refuse to meet me in the middle and I have do something slightly illegal to get my experiences, then so be it. If I didn't want to take that chance, I wouldn't. It's that simple.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 12:07 pm to alajones
quote:
So the logical alternative is illegally downloading a movie? When it takes two days to get a movie from Netflix in the mail or 5 minutes to Redbox?
For me? No, I use NetFlix and Red Box, but the younger generation has grown up in a much different world. For many of them illegally downloading a music file is to them what recording a song off the radio on my boom box was to me as a kid. It seems like an easy and natural alternative since they've been doing it their whole lives. Honestly it'd be more effort for me to set up torrents to stream to my PS3 than to go to the Red Box. But for someone that's been using torrents since junior high, going to Red Box is seen as the unnecessary inconvenience.
This post was edited on 11/26/12 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 11/26/12 at 12:20 pm to alajones
quote:
Well in that situation, there is no difference. The problem is money. Using Freaux's example, no one would have a problem with you sharing a soccer ball with your 6 friends. But the difference is, you can't clone a soccer ball and give it away to your 6 friends.
I don't think that's a fair comparison because when you let a friend borrow a CD and he rips it onto his computer, he isn't just borrowing it, he actually is cloning it. But no one has a problem with that? It's only if you share it online.
Also I think downloading music is much more widespread than movies. I don't download movies because I'd rather have the physical copy I can play on my TV instead of just having it on my computer. I know you can rip and burn it but by the time you do all that its worth it to me to just rent or buy it and have the physical medium.
This post was edited on 11/26/12 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 11/26/12 at 12:32 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
OK, so I may get a bit long winded and/or philosophical here, so bear with me.
1*) I disagree with your use of the term "steal."
2) There is a wealth of political philosophy that disagrees with the concept of intellectual property, and considers it simple economic protectionism.
3) Even if you do think that some IP protections are necessary, I would bet that you wouldn't agree with what is currently on the books (nor would most reasonable people). Nor would you like what you learn when you delve into the extreme corporate lobbying done by the entertainment industry in order to make IP protections more beneficial for themselves.
4) Markets operate irrespective of law and morality. It is up to the industry to adjust its business practice to current market trends. If an industry doesn't do that, then they will suffer the consequences of that choice.
*As to #1: Please stop using the term "steal." People are not stealing anything. They are copying. Yes, there is a significant difference, despite what the industry propagandists tell you.
+1 on all points and I believe you posted a cartoon a while back illustrating why piracy and "stealing" in the movie/tv and music industries is common. I'll see if I can find it.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 12:50 pm to Sentrius
Found it. It's pretty spot on.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 12:57 pm to Sentrius
Should be posted to death to media companies.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 1:57 pm to Freauxzen
I love Oatmeal.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 1:58 pm to Freauxzen
While I do agree with that Oatmeal (if you don't offer your content legally, people will steal it -- "you can't stop the signal"), I do think there is a real troubling problem with consumers. We've been trained by IT companies like Google and Apple that content is supposed to be free, or close to it. For companies that will sue the ever-living shite out of anyone who encroached on their IP, they have no problem with encouraging consumers to steal the IP of "content producers", or as I like to call them, "the people who actually write this shite."
The IT companies have destroyed musicians. It is now almost literally impossible to make a living at being a musician in our current economic structure. Spotify nets musicians next to nothing. iTunes is slightly better, but the streaming sites get around standard usage rates. As much as the record companies screwed over artists over the years, it is nothing compared to what IT companies have done t them. People pretty much don't expect artists to get paid for their creations.
It's wrong. Everyone gets rich but the person who actually makes the stuff. Eventually, this means they'll stop making this stuff. We are trying to morally justify not paying people who actually create things.
The IT companies have destroyed musicians. It is now almost literally impossible to make a living at being a musician in our current economic structure. Spotify nets musicians next to nothing. iTunes is slightly better, but the streaming sites get around standard usage rates. As much as the record companies screwed over artists over the years, it is nothing compared to what IT companies have done t them. People pretty much don't expect artists to get paid for their creations.
It's wrong. Everyone gets rich but the person who actually makes the stuff. Eventually, this means they'll stop making this stuff. We are trying to morally justify not paying people who actually create things.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 1:59 pm to northshorebamaman
Although I know that it isn't ok, I do think it is completely different than taking someones physical property.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News