Because one copy reaches a few people, rather than tens of thousands?
Illegal file sharing on the Internet, what should we do?
- Thread starter SiD the Turtle
- Start date
Because one copy reaches a few people, rather than tens of thousands?
Those old dudes who run the companies probably have absolutely no idea about what you just said means.
Yea, but surely the point remains that it is legal? Just a similar concept on a bigger scale. Instead of each friend selling it on again and again, picture each friend trading it in for something else with someone else. Which is also legal.
Is essentially the same thing just on a massive scale isn't it?
(yes i've done it. no i'm not defending it. I'm just enjoying this debate, so playing devil's advocate)
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
It's a very different thing I think you'll find.
You have one copy and pass it onto a friend, who passes it onto another friend etc etc. That's legal.
Say you took your copy, and burnt 10 copies, then handed them out to your friends. That's illegal.
Do pirates delete their copy when they upload it to someone else? I don't think so somehow.
But there is only ONE copy in your original (legal) scenario - Ten people down the selling chain, the previous nine people can no longer watch it.
With the file sharing scenario, not only are a 1000 times more people (or more) all watching it, they can all watch it at the same time.
Simply put, if file sharing did not exist, would sales go up? I don't think anyone could say "no".
Would disagree to a very small degree, in that they would get no more sales out of me, but thats largely because I already buy things in the first place
.You're right. I thought of the same argument a minute after I clicked post
Had just woken up and wasn't thinking straight 
NeilFawcett said “Simply put, if file sharing did not exist, would sales go up? I don't think anyone could say "no". “
No and Monty Python is proof. They allowed everyone to file share this year or was it last year, they put all their stuff for free on youtube and other sites and after doing that sales when up something crazy like 1000%.
So if file sharing did not exist sales would go down.
No and Monty Python is proof. They allowed everyone to file share this year or was it last year, they put all their stuff for free on youtube and other sites and after doing that sales when up something crazy like 1000%.
So if file sharing did not exist sales would go down.
Filesharing is an awkward topic; as far as I can see there are good points and bad points to it.
On the positive, it's very useful thing. I'm a music student, and wanted to do work I was given at home, but couldn't justify spending that much on music software just to do some work with a program I probably wasn't going to use much. Basically I viewed acquiring illegal cracked copies as more of a 100% student discount (to try the software per se, as a student), and I imposed on myself an ethos that if/when I was in a position to benefit financially from the work I did within Cubase SX / Logic / Ableton Live, then I would purchase a license beforehand, and thus give something back to the developers. I see no issue with this; to me it's like a slightly blurred form of morality with software underpinned in being in the awkward financial situation nearly all of us students are in.
Recently, my music production got serious and I started doing live gigs, and I bought all the music software I would need, which cost me a lot, but I stuck to my word. (Also I didn't like the idea of cracked software on my Mac, seemed wrong somehow lol)
I'm also a big fan of Battlestar Galactica, but again as a student I can't justify getting a Sky box for a few months just to watch one show (I also don't own a TV). My parents have Sky at home, so I feel I'm justified by downloading the episodes as they air on Sky as an extension of their license here. Again, it's a blurred form of morality, but I think it works. I'll buy the box set 1-4 when it comes out as I really want to watch it in better quality, so they've not lost any money by me doing this in my opinion.
'Piracy' can be good or bad depending on what you use it for. A lot of people are greedy and if they can get something for nothing, they will, especially at the moment. I think that people should grow up a bit; it's a useful thing if you use it more responsibly.
People should also look at free legal alternatives; a lot of Open Source software is free; I use NeoOffice, a version of OpenOffice for Mac which is totally compatible with Office, and it's free. Linux has come a long way recently and is a great free choice for an OS.
On the positive, it's very useful thing. I'm a music student, and wanted to do work I was given at home, but couldn't justify spending that much on music software just to do some work with a program I probably wasn't going to use much. Basically I viewed acquiring illegal cracked copies as more of a 100% student discount (to try the software per se, as a student), and I imposed on myself an ethos that if/when I was in a position to benefit financially from the work I did within Cubase SX / Logic / Ableton Live, then I would purchase a license beforehand, and thus give something back to the developers. I see no issue with this; to me it's like a slightly blurred form of morality with software underpinned in being in the awkward financial situation nearly all of us students are in.
Recently, my music production got serious and I started doing live gigs, and I bought all the music software I would need, which cost me a lot, but I stuck to my word. (Also I didn't like the idea of cracked software on my Mac, seemed wrong somehow lol)
I'm also a big fan of Battlestar Galactica, but again as a student I can't justify getting a Sky box for a few months just to watch one show (I also don't own a TV). My parents have Sky at home, so I feel I'm justified by downloading the episodes as they air on Sky as an extension of their license here. Again, it's a blurred form of morality, but I think it works. I'll buy the box set 1-4 when it comes out as I really want to watch it in better quality, so they've not lost any money by me doing this in my opinion.
'Piracy' can be good or bad depending on what you use it for. A lot of people are greedy and if they can get something for nothing, they will, especially at the moment. I think that people should grow up a bit; it's a useful thing if you use it more responsibly.
People should also look at free legal alternatives; a lot of Open Source software is free; I use NeoOffice, a version of OpenOffice for Mac which is totally compatible with Office, and it's free. Linux has come a long way recently and is a great free choice for an OS.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
that is part of ther problem, plus business like to reduce risk, doing something like i suggested may be seen as a risky move, impacting the revenues/margins STF numbers in ways that would skew their sales, posting a lesser number in some sales channels (box office) but higher in dvd/download sales.
obviously the guy who owns the box office number wants to grow his revenue, not decrease it. The guy who has a separate budget/business plan for marketing the DVD when it lands some 8-12 months later would find himself without job/dimished responisibilities as the marketing would all be done at the same time as promoting it at the box office for both channels... hence he is reluctant to press for a a change to the current process as it may harm his job role...
My girlfriend always pulls a face if I ask her if she wants to watch a movie off my PC, yet always suggests we pick a movie up from the dvd shop...?
Is there a lesson somewhere in there?
Why buy it , spend lot of money i can call it west of money
while you can find it free also DVD
think about it
It cancels itself out for most people. I download Lost at university, but my parents pay Sky a subscription so, in theory, I could Sky+ all the episodes I download 'illegally' and watch them when I come home. Thus, if file-sharing did not exist ABC would not be benefiting from any increased revenue.
As for music, I have no sympathy whatsoever. Horrendously over-priced and all the chart acts generate enough money from videos/gigs etc. I'd be overjoyed if piracy had a serious effect on record sales as it would make these overpaid morons less wealthy and drive down the price to meet demand. I only ever pay for a song on iTunes (and have only started doing that since the removal of DRM) if I can't acquire a particular song by other means.
Same attitude towards films. Cinema prices are obscene, as are DVD/Blu-Ray prices. All they'd need to do is lower the prices and I would certainly buy more of my favourite films on Blu-Ray and would without a doubt go to the cinema more often. So many times at uni my girlfriend and I contemplate going to the cinema but end up staying in because we realise it'd cost us about £20 by the time we've bought
two tickets and some popcorn. I'm sure that even a gym-style membership to Cinemas would generate more revenue and fight piracy more effectively.
The industry need to grow up, stop suing John Doe and his mates and make changes which will protect their business in the future. Internet piracy will never die. The evolution of technology and piracy are bonded like star crossed lovers.
As for music, I have no sympathy whatsoever. Horrendously over-priced and all the chart acts generate enough money from videos/gigs etc. I'd be overjoyed if piracy had a serious effect on record sales as it would make these overpaid morons less wealthy and drive down the price to meet demand. I only ever pay for a song on iTunes (and have only started doing that since the removal of DRM) if I can't acquire a particular song by other means.
Same attitude towards films. Cinema prices are obscene, as are DVD/Blu-Ray prices. All they'd need to do is lower the prices and I would certainly buy more of my favourite films on Blu-Ray and would without a doubt go to the cinema more often. So many times at uni my girlfriend and I contemplate going to the cinema but end up staying in because we realise it'd cost us about £20 by the time we've bought
two tickets and some popcorn. I'm sure that even a gym-style membership to Cinemas would generate more revenue and fight piracy more effectively.
The industry need to grow up, stop suing John Doe and his mates and make changes which will protect their business in the future. Internet piracy will never die. The evolution of technology and piracy are bonded like star crossed lovers.
Last edited:
This is so true. I think the legitimate stores that sell media (music, games, movies, etc), could learn a thing or to from the illiegal sites that allow you to download the media for free.
In some cases, there is a lot of (older) music out there that cannot be downloaded from legitimate sources. People who really want this songs are forced to do without or download illegally.
So what you are saying, is that it stops people from *simultaneously* being able to enjoy the product. No individual has more than one "copy" of it - despite the fact that :
a) In order for a DVD to be played, it has to be copied into memory - thus the process of playing creates a second "copy" - and if you think I'm being pedantic, Blizzard recently used this defence to sue WoWGlider in a court of law because they "altered" a second copy of World of Warcraft in memory.
Now, assuming that you have an output audio and video, and you have a AV Receiver that plays it out to a big screen and a surround sound system, you could potentially have 3-4 copies (counting the data in the wires, display on screen, multiple systems) live at any particular time and that is with a SINGLE DVD in there. Is the number of "simultanous copes" really a valid way of limiting piracy? Sounds arbritrary to me.
The fact is that the "state" of something is *not* sacred - I can't sell you the fact that I have blond hair - but that is what they are trying to do. Its ridiculous and entirely naive, and they are going fail again and again.
They exist already, pay X amount and go as many times as you like. Shame they are a yearly membership though.
That really is pathetic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
Words cannot begin to describe how pedantic you are being.
Lol... Yes it is I guess, but I do have a point that albums are too expensive.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 3,462
- Location
- Sheffield
There was a very good business prospect I saw a while ago with a download service similar to iTunes, but much better. Basically, you upload a song, when someone buys it, the record label gets paid, and you get credit to buy more songs. This encourages people to upload and spread music, and also discourages people from illegally sharing, because this way, they get rewarded for it. It not only allows the record labels to get paid, but hopefully pulls people away from illegal sharing, and also spreads music from new artists.
Here's a link.
It's a shame it didn't take off (I don't think so, anyway).
Here's a link.
It's a shame it didn't take off (I don't think so, anyway).