Don
As far as I'm aware pretty much all mainstream HD-DVD and BR movies are HDCP enabled.
Disgusting !
- Thread starter Dicehunter
- Start date
Proof please? Let's see proof of why he's an list artist.
I've listed stats that back what i said, so far you've shown nothing other than your opinion.
with out the unnecessary DRM it wouldn't of happened. and it's hardly been well published as k your parents if they know they'd need hdpc to play hd dvd's etc in a few years, ask any one you know who is in a position to buy a £1000+ tv, most won't know and will depend on it being told them by the manufacturer, which of course they wont do as it costs a lot of money to put on, and they can count on people not knowing and buying anyway.
ironically he may well buy pirate hd media now just so he can watch it.
A new study in the Journal of Political Economy by Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf has found that illegal music downloads have had no noticeable effects on the sale of music, contrary to the claims of the recording industry.
Apparently it doesn't even hurt the companies.
Yes, people disagree with the study but the fact is that there is no consensus that it does have an effect. I find it hard to trust record company sanctioned studies since they clearly have an interest in the findings. Can you see the RIAA releasing findings that say downloading has no effect?
Jokester said:
Would Lily Allen have made any money at all if she didn't effectively give away her songs in the first place? No.
Maybe the fact that millions of people were able to listen for free contributed to the publicity and the sales of her CD when it was actually released?
Maybe by downloading loads of music people can see if they like an artist and then buy the CD. There was nothing stopping you burning all the Arctic Monkeys tracks to CD after they were widely distributed for free. Yet they were the fastest selling band ever.
Soldato
http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/318833
Created a Poll outside OcUK, let's see how the results will be, vote if you want, ignore it if you want.
Created a Poll outside OcUK, let's see how the results will be, vote if you want, ignore it if you want.
Still missing the point (and this is what I said in the beginning).Im sure "fiddy's" bank manager would agree that he's doing pretty well for himself
The statement from the OP was that "Even the artists don't mind piracy". I'm still waiting for the proof that the majority of artists don't mind having their work pirated.
Personally I could give a toot about 50cent, like I say he's one fairly minor artist on the scale of things being "quoted" on a torrent site. Hardly proof that the majority of artists think piracy is a good thing.
Pointless poll as you've biased the question, of course it's OK to download a music file if I pay for it, or it's free, or a sample or 101 other reasons.
How about "Would you be happy if people dishonestly pirated your hard work".
Don
Actually all their study showed was that popular tracks were the most pirated. No **** sherlock!
That also ignores the fact that the study is based on a model they created, whilst models created by other staticians show that it does have an effect (by their own admission I must add).
A lot of signed bands offer the music for free on myspace, their own websites and other sites, but the fact is they're only making money through selling their stuff through music publishers.
So def not A list then, he doesn't even make it into the top 200 artists for sales.
You're still waffling about stuff that has nothing to do with the OP.
I still don't see how the "quote" on a torrent site, from this one artist justifies the statement "even the artists don't mind piracy"... Like you say burden of proof and all that.. Not holding my breath.
Erm, pretty much everything, you spend that sort of money on a modern TV and its reasonable to expect it to work correctly with modern media.
You shouldnt need to be an engineer of some sort to be able to choose a TV that will work as reasonably expected.
Like I said, the TV was not mis-sold, as from a legal point of view he made an errornous purchase.
If it wasnt for DRM, honest joe would be able to enjoy all the benefits of his very nice, expensive telly.
Can you really not see the point there? does that sound like the way it should be to you?
meh i get bogged down in details sometimes.
any who, I've made my point, i will casually pirate till someone makes something like i suggested. purely because it's easier.
Soldato
This topic should be split into 2, one based on trying to help the original poster and another based on moral debate on piracy.
well if they think it's acceptable is not really the point i could think it's wrong to commit murder but then go and massacre 50 people, fact i don't think its right to butcher people wouldn't change the fact that i did.
From what you've said i assume you have illegally downloaded something once?
Soldato
ROFL I've just laughed so hard, a little bit of wee came out.I call.....
And here;s one of Dicehunters holiday photos:
Last edited:
Associate
Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what music sales would be like if it weren't possible to illegally download music. If sales have not declined due to illegal downloading, would they have risen otherwise? Would they have fallen and downloading is having a positive effect? Or are all the people who are downloading really those people who wouldn't have bought the music anyway and so sales are completely unaffected?
The record industry seems to believe the first is true, which is naive in the extreme. In reality, there will be a little of each model present plus other factors that mean it's a very complex subject. What really matters is how the music industry reacts, and my view is that they're going about it in entirely the wrong way.
If you combine figures from the RIAA, MPAA and BSA non-commercial unauthorised digital reproduction was equal in lost sales to the GDP of Bangladesh last year.
(yes I bothered to go and add all the figures up, but then I'm doing a dissertation on it)
Also, people always claim that music sales have declined since p2p - that's not entirely true - they were declining long before Napster and, in 2004 (IIRC), they actually increased.
(yes I bothered to go and add all the figures up, but then I'm doing a dissertation on it)
Also, people always claim that music sales have declined since p2p - that's not entirely true - they were declining long before Napster and, in 2004 (IIRC), they actually increased.
Did I ever say I didn't?
I do think there's a massive difference between being sent a couple of specific tracks over MSN by someone and then going and buying the album and just downloading a crazy amount of torrented stuff.
so on a poll saying is it acceptable yes or no, you would have to say yes?