So in the end, it was massively profitable for the artist, who should get the bulk of the profit in the first place, right up to the point they sold the production and/or distribution rights for something like $250k – a right that was always up for negotiation by the way. That was when you started seeing it on the shelves.

I work in an area thats notorious for bootleg asian movies. There have been numerous crackdowns in the area over the years, and its slowly getting better.

But it always reminds me what the MAFIAA and friends are about – you download a single file, they consider you exactly the same as the bootleggers that run a professional operation for profit. No middle ground, you’re as bad as them. End of discussion, and if you disagree with them or their ‘studies’, then you’re probably a dirty scummy bootlegger as well.

If you disdain file sharing related studies conducted by serious researchers then what would you have to say about biased shady bogus anti-piracy studies conducted or sponsored by anti-piracy outfits?

Nothing obviously since anything that bashes the filthy pirates is good while anything that actually shows they are good ppl is evil. How typical.

I haven’t read the study yet but it’s fairly obvious from the summary presented by TF that it goes against what MAFIAA says in many points while not supporting everything said here by TF articles and comments. So that must’ve been mr Murdoch frustration since it actually condemns the extreme anti-piracy (or rather anti-sharing) stance and its base arguments displayed by MAFIAA.

If anything, this study seems to prove that all it takes is reformulating the business models currently available. Like, it seems there’ll be a service here in my country selling movies for $3. I’m CERTAINLY buying freakloads of movies to watch at home. Obviously, it ain’t happening if it’s DRM crippled.

start saying that around and watch the US trolls fly off the handle.
economic terrorism on behalf of the rich is wrong. Trickle down economics has failed.