Denying download of films is denying information to weaker class?
Do you honestly believe only poor people download?
What do we do with those that have more than enough money, but they chose to spend it on something else?

Also, do you believe that being without money entitles you to have everything?
Do you go to your nearest Ferrari owner and ask him to lend you the car because you can’t afford it?

There’s no problem in changing society into communism, but shouldn’t we tell that to the authors of copy right before they start making movies?

You might see that a number of smart people will quickly change their jobs.

Anyone who’s in the biz around the europe will see a different pattern.
Only an idiot will take top 5 or top 10 movies of the year to do the chart.

The pattern known in some european countries is showing that with piracy people tend to go far less to cinemas. They become more picky about what they actually pay for. So they narrow their cinema visits to maybe two or three movies a year (talking about average). So that means that top5 or top10 movies might start doing even more or at least the same as previous years.
But that also means that all those “mid range” films are getting hurt badly, which is a sad thing, as it’s in that category that you can find best movies of the year.

Why else would many yearly box offices go down even in years when average ticket price went up?

It’s an idiotic research by a person that has no experience in movie distribution.

When you see the true yearly data for every country, then you can start talking about piracy and how much change it made.

Of course, there can’t be much more piracy in 2008 than it was in 2007. Almost anyone interested is already pirating as much as he wants. So piracy is no longer lowering box office, it just keeps it low(er).

It’s true that the traditional sense of the word “consume” can’t be applied to ideas, since they can theoretically be “replicated” without loss of form or power. Nonetheless, most of those who listen to music are still consumers; it’s just that the product they consume is not a good, but a service.

After all, the “great forum of ideas” model of music is a fantasy. Most people are not great musicians, or indeed, even capable of playing an instrument. Nor do most of them have any opinions or knowledge concerning music that would be of any value to the rest of the world. Still, for various reasons, they enjoy listening to music. But if they cannot produce it themselves, how can the public experience music? Well, it just so happens that there are excellent musicians who will produce and record music expressly for the enjoyment of others. This is a service, and because there are relatively few musicians who have only so many hours per day, it is /scarce./

This is why musicians should be paid. Most music is not a “big idea,” but a form of entertainment. We’re not paying for an idea, but for an experience. And it’s not hard to see that if we decide that musicians should not be paid, that there will be much less of that experience to be had; if musicians are not paid for their music, they will either have fewer hours and less energy with which to produce their music, or give it up entirely.

Now, this is where my own certainty on the subject ends. I would be the first to say that the current system is broken. Before the internet, the labels provided a useful service by exploiting economies of scale to efficiently aggregate advertising and distribution under one roof. They were still screwing their artists, but the artists needed the labels too. But today, neither advertising nor distribution is beyond the reach of a determined individual with a few hundred dollars to spend. And many consumers are rightly wondering why they have to subsidize the payrolls of the rapacious legions of lawyers and administrators when the record labels no longer serve a useful function. Moreover, by spending vast sums of money on lobbying and suing file sharers for extortionate sums, the labels are producing market distortions which have negative effects on artists, consumers, and citizens alike.

I think there is an argument to be made that one should not support the record labels. We are still left, however, with the moral imperative of compensating musicians for the time they spend producing something that we enjoy. And since most people do not have any form of opinion or knowledge which would be useful to the musicians, this compensation will still have to take the form of money. The question of how to accomplish this is a difficult one, but I believe that the market is already in the process of solving it.

Now that the internet makes advertising and distribution available to individual artists for a tiny fraction of the previous cost, any company whose business model relies on providing those services at higher-than-internet economic cost will either have to change their model, or fail. The savings of internet-provided ads and distribution will eventually be passed along to the consumer, resulting in substantially lower prices. And once music sales are transacted on a forum directly controlled by and associated with the originating artist, the behavioral effects of personal interaction will come into play; consumers will be much less likely to take their music for free when piracy stops letting one thumbing one’s nose at an evil corporatocracy, and instead means directly stiffing the artists.

The result will be a musical and artistic revolution in the long term. In the short term, however, since the artists are paid indirectly through record labels, we are each inexorably faced with the choice of whether to sacrifice the needs of the artists in the interest of hastening the demise of the labels. I think we have to support the artists somehow, but I’m not sure how to do it.

No, your basic premise is flawed and you’re too brainwashed to even see it. Ideas, the product of creative minds, are not *consumed*. When you conceive of an idea and pass it on to someone else, the idea does not disappear, nor does it diminish. Quite the opposite, it *grows stronger*.

The entire concept of “consumer” is based on the notion of physical resources that can only exist as a single instance. When I build a hammer, physical resources are consumed to produce that hammer. Once allocated to producing the hammer, those resources cannot be used for any other purpose (unless/until the hammer is recycled). It’s based on the scarcity of physical resources. The concept has absolutely no bearing on Ideas or human creativity.

As long as there are living people, there will always be new ideas. There’s no scarcity, and the fact that I share an idea with you doesn’t prevent me from continuing to use the idea myself. When you buy into the notion that intellectual property is sold to the population and consumed, you’re buying into a Big Lie.

The notion that the distribution of ideas must be tightly regulated is yet another Big Lie. If you come up with a revolutionary New Idea and never tell anyone else about it, it has a value of exactly zero. Ideas and intellectual property only become valuable when they are disseminated – the more people you can reach with your idea, the more valuable it becomes.

And of course, once you’ve distributed your idea to a population, it only matters if that population actually appreciates it and assigns a value to it. Ideas have no intrinsic value. Their value can only be judged by their potential impact on society. Ideas that are rejected, ignored, and forgotten, have no value…

The Big Media industries used to actually serve a purpose – by distributing their products, they enabled artists to have their work exposed to a wide audience, and the value of the artist’s work was directly measured by the sales figures. But Big Media has been the tail wagging the dog for a long time now – instead of finding actual talent and simply exposing them to the world, they’ve been hunting for marketable drones that could be easily promoted, regardless of talent. And in the meantime, the Internet has come along to serve their original purpose far better than they ever could.

Wake up already…

When I read the article and looked closely, I couldn’t see or think of much yet, but with the P2P Networks in the second picture, I looked at it for a second and loled so much…

It’s so dumb, that it’s totally hilarious…

Here is the pledge:
http://www.28chan.org/pledge.php

JT
http://www.FireMe.To/udi

They can bitch and moan all they want. Theatres smell, are uncomfortable, noisy, are attended by inconsiderate clods and are unjustifiably expensive. The sounds is way to loud and I have to sit through rushes. I can’t bring my two year old daughter (for the consideration of others paying all that money for a movie). So theatres are a no-starter, for me. On top of all of it, I smoke and can pause the movie at home as needed.

Funny that this issue appears to be as political as some of these artists get. Most, really. Most of these pity-party artists are gutless absentees when issues of political import arise in society. Their precious “careers” are not to be put in jeopardy for the “rest of us”. And I know that’s how they view us- ,as wallets and pocketbooks without our own perspective. You know what’s funny? I find that the less you pay for something, the less it is important to your being. As an example, I bet 50% of the movies I watch, I don’t even finish. Hells yes I’m glad I didn’t give my family’s hard-earned money to some stupid theatre or media giant for those ones.

How many other people on here don’t finish much of what they watch? That would be interesting.

Oh? You aren’t sure why?

Then I recommend you learn how to read. Or is literacy too advanced for your curriculum? sniff :(

Eicos from Special Ed. : “No, the business model muuh-gnu wants to overturn is the model of charging for content. Here, read it yourself:

So, according to muuh-gnu, information is fundamentally free, and there must be no legal restrictions on its sharing.”

And you see, dear, this is why you need to notify your Special Ed. teacher ASAP to revoke your computer room privelages. The comment you “read” is wildly different from the comment in reality.

If you weren’t suffering from prenatal braindamage, your response there would be called a strawman. But you are, so let’s just forget all this unpleasentness and get in a great big hug-circle!

Eicos from Special Ed. : “I think “free information” is a nice idea, but the problem is that if information is free, there’s very little incentive for people to develop any products which can exist as information.”

Nine Inch Nails brought attention, but apparently not enough to hammer it into your oversized forehead, to the fact that offering a product for free doesn’t stop people from buying it if they’re given the option. Because even if you give something away for free, there are no shortage of people willing to pay for it.

You act like the economy and artistic creativity would fall in to shambles if copyright was abolished, but copyright has been dead since the moment Napster pushed filesharing into the mainstream.

Information already is free. Welcome to the real world.

And one last thing, Shortbus…

Eicos from Special Ed. : “No, I believe in laws preventing theft. I am a pirate too”

Nice try, but the only people who associate theft with filesharing are either A, MAFIAA sockpuppets, or B, utterly clueless.

You should remember that the next to you pretend to be a “pirate”.

P.S.,
Hay everybody, don’t call Eicos a “fag”. He’ll beat u up IRL :O!! He doesn’t seem too offended when you call him a retard, though. I’m guessing closet-homosexual. It’s ok 2 b gay, Eicos.

But, for every actor that gets $20 million a picture, there’s probably a thousand that get paid squat and get squat in residuals. Bud Cort, who starred in “Harold And Maude” said in an interview that he got absolutely nothing from video sales, and that his residual check was about $29 a year. Actors are probably afraid to try to change this for fear that they’ll be blacklisted.

Not completely unlike the way that big music companies rip off their artists; some bands don’t get a penny from CD sales once management and distribution have taken their shares. The lucky ones maybe get a whole 5% of the CD retail price.

Are you telling Eicos to shut up, then offering him a cigarrette?

I’m afraid that when you throw insults around, you weaken your position and invalidate your argument.

Many thanks for your views. You make a lot of valid points.

Please don’t let the trolls annoy you :-)

Or maybe he is still counting his under the table money from the movie industry.

“But ultimately, a person who creates content needs to be compensated somehow by the people who consume that content. That should be obvious.”
The fact is that the viewer of the art also has their own idea about the art, and their ideas count as much as their own. The compensation is that it is seen. For example, when you write a message, the compensation is that people read the message. The same goes for art.

“No, I believe in laws preventing theft.”
Copying a CD for your friend is not theft, or taking a copy of a CD from a friend is not theft. Simply put, the friend who is giving it to you, is willingly giving it to you. Therefore, it is not theft.

“Well, then I guess I don’t own my bank account, my stocks, my bonds, or my domain names.”
You own your own bank account, but what other people do with their own bank account should be their own business. Analogously, people who create their art have the right to do whatever they want with their art, but what other people do with their own copies, like giving it to a friend, should be their own business.

A substantial number of people here think that the creator is the only one who should have a say on what is to be done for art. This is obviously wrong. Other people have their own ideas on what could be done with the art, and their ideas are as creative as the original creator. When one hears some kind of music, one has one’s own idea of it, and one should be able to create an offshoot of it, or do other things with the music that the original creator has not thought up of.

I have set up a simple pledge so that you can help me with this simple idea:
http://www.28chan.org/pledge.php
I am soliciting the readers of TorrentFreak to support and help my cause.

How are those not tangible? They’re certainly more tangible than culture.

> “No, I believe in laws preventing theft.”

Copying isn’t theft.

> “But ultimately, a person who creates content needs to be compensated somehow by the people who consume that content. That should be obvious.”

Industries should be left on their own from government intervention to keep them up like this. We don’t need the government to decide what industries should exist and enforce laws that go against the nature of culture to keep them as profitable as they want.

> “This is a foolish analogy. When people switched from vinyl to CDs, the artists making the music on those media still got paid. The only difference was the equipment. If people switch from CDs to illegal torrents, the artists will NOT get paid. Of course, the record companies are greedy and screw their artists, but how are the artists supposed to get paid if they have no legal recourse against freeriders?”

The point was using copyright laws to keep up the music industry.

Why not use laws to keep up the vinyl industry? If we don’t, no vinyl will be produced any more! We need to do it! Think of all the people who make vinyl records! They won’t have a job without it! Just one more exclamation mark! :)

Glass blowing is still in biz.. what the hell else am I supposed to smoke out of? hah

I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to accuse me, among other things, of having Down’s syndrome. The only person who should be embarrassed here is you. Now then, shall we get on to the reason you’re completely wrong?

You say, “In addition, the business model in question is the ass-backwards business model of selling pyshical (sic) copies to consumers who can make their own fucking copies because they have broadband and a media burner at home. If that business model went bye-bye, it would not infact (sic) mean the end of the movie industry.”

This is a straw man attack. (You do know what that means, right?) The sale of physical instantiations of art is clearly NOT the business model in question. It’s obvious that only a few cents out of the purchase of a CD or DVD pays for the media and packaging. Most of what you’re paying for is the right to play back, at your leisure, the music or video that’s ON the media. This is why, for the right price, most labels would be just fine with legal, DRM-free downloading.

No, the business model muuh-gnu wants to overturn is the model of charging for content. Here, read it yourself:

“Our freedom to copy and share information amongst each other must not be revoked even if it _does_ harm an industry branch.”

So, according to muuh-gnu, information is fundamentally free, and there must be no legal restrictions on its sharing. Since the recording and movie industries live by accepting money in return for providing content, this legal theory would destroy those industries.

I think “free information” is a nice idea, but the problem is that if information is free, there’s very little incentive for people to develop any products which can exist as information. You can call people retards all you want, but until you address this fundamental weakness in your arguments, nobody will take you seriously.

You can’t? Well, then I guess I don’t own my bank account, my stocks, my bonds, or my domain names.

“So you believe in having laws to keep industries?”

No, I believe in laws preventing theft. I am a pirate too, and I believe, like Rekrul does, that the copyright system needs a major overhaul. But ultimately, a person who creates content needs to be compensated somehow by the people who consume that content. That should be obvious.

“If there is no law banning CDs then the vinyl record industry will die. How about that?”

This is a foolish analogy. When people switched from vinyl to CDs, the artists making the music on those media still got paid. The only difference was the equipment. If people switch from CDs to illegal torrents, the artists will NOT get paid. Of course, the record companies are greedy and screw their artists, but how are the artists supposed to get paid if they have no legal recourse against freeriders?

You don’t care if there’s a movie industry? Great. Because if there’s no business model, there sure as hell won’t be any movies.”

Greetings!

I’m afraid to inform you that the post you are replying to is a product of your own imagination. In reality, muuh-gnu didn’t call for the destruction of the copyright and the patent systems.

In addition, the business model in question is the ass-backwards business model of selling pyshical copies to consumers who can make their own fucking copies because they have broadband and a media burner at home. If that business model went bye-bye, it would not infact mean the end of the movie industry.

Finally, muuh-gnu’s top concern was that basic communication and information exchange rights never be revoked in order to artificially prop up and outdated business model. Not that Hollywood can keep crapping out movies.

Three strikes. You’re out.

But don’t cry, my wittle sweetums. It’s not really your fault. You can’t help having Down’s Syndrome.

Just tell your Special Ed. teacher that the Internet is too complicated for you, they’ll understand. And an embarrassing situation like this will never happen again.

What the hell? It’s the other way around. People pirate them because they’re hits.

True, but the copyright system definitely needs an overhaul. The current term of life of the artist plus 70 years is ridiculous. It may be great for the artist’s kids, but it sucks for everyone else.

Software from the 1980s will be under copyright until long after I’m dead, even though it’s already old enough that you need a virtual machine to run it on.

There are many old movies and TV shows that have never been released on DVD or even VHS, that are illegal to copy because they’re still under copyright, even though the studios that created them obviously see them as worthless.

Copyright shouldn’t be automatic, it should require effort and expense on the part of the rights holder. This would force companies to decide which of their copyrights are truly worth hanging onto and which should be allowed to pass into the public domain.

The corporations should also stop trying to force DRM on everyone. It clearly does virtually nothing to stop piracy and only makes life more difficult for honest users. I’d consider paying for cheap, DRM-free digital copies of films and TV shows, but there’s no way I’m going to pay for a file that only works under limited conditions with certain software.

Having said all that, I think everyone is missing the big picture about this survey. While it’s good news to those of us who think the MPAA and RIAA have way too much power, this survey, in the words of Tommy Lee Jones “they mean precisely… dick.” No mainstream news outlet is going to print this story. No politician is going to go against their corporate masters and give credence to it. The MPAA probably won’t even bother to respond to it, other than maybe to claim that it’s just an attempt by pirates to justify their actions.

I means absolutely nothing to the rest of the world.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

Durability maybe, but bit-for-bit duplication of data produces an IDENTICAL copy, not ‘low grade sample reproductions’. How could you possibly arrive at any _other_ conclusion?

Please put brain in gear before poasting further…

HTH
HAND
kthxbai

> “Just because information is intangible and fungible doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value, and it doesn’t mean that it should be free.”

You can’t own something intangible, though.

> “You don’t care if there’s a movie industry? Great. Because if there’s no business model, there sure as hell won’t be any movies.”

So you believe in having laws to keep industries? If there is no law banning CDs then the vinyl record industry will die. How about that?

This is an example of the sort of shocking ignorance that makes anti-xxAAers look bad. The very existence of the copying machines that you feel obviate the need to pay for information would not be possible if it were not for a strong system of intellectual property protection. Just because information is intangible and fungible doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value, and it doesn’t mean that it should be free. Destroying the copyright and patent systems would eviscerate the creative economy.

You don’t care if there’s a movie industry? Great. Because if there’s no business model, there sure as hell won’t be any movies.

I’d also wonder if those statistics (average ticket cost for a given year) are affected by those less expensive movie theaters where you can see a different selection of movies for a dollar or two.

Not that piracy would be a/the cause of less attendance, as there are only 3 people on earth who enjoy dealing with cammed movies (the mpaa, the riaa, and the guy who recorded it thinking “this is gonna be sweet”). :p they could also try to get some idea of the number of cell phone complaints, number of parents taking babies to movies, etc.

Pacino gets shot, a baby cries, and the guy next to me is begging his girlfriend to not flush his apparently dead fish down the toilet. No thanks.

If the study showed that the industry was truly doing bad, it still would be moronic to prohibit copying just in order to keep a copy industry living.

This study by the pirate party was imho a huge waste of time. They instead should directly fight for our right to communicate freely and without censorship. They do not “owe” the industry a proof that our copying does not harm them. Our freedom to copy and share information amongst each other must not be revoked even if it _does_ harm an industry branch. (Especially one which can not exist under normal circumstances and needs a massive prohibition law to live.)

I dont care if a movie industry exists at all. I just dont want my basic communication and information exchange rights to be revoked in order to keep an obsolete business model (selling copies of stuff) working. Nobody fucking needs such a business model, we now all have our own copying machines.

A vast number of ‘Unauthorized Downloads’ (UD), over 95%, are those that would never have been sales.

Applied to the record industry, this is a huge promotional increase that has fueled the concert industry (of which labels are starting to take big cuts through 360 deals).

When applied to the movie industry, (UD) begs for new visions in revenue development, which are vast, from product placements to inserted promotional tags- use your imagination, people.

But what is clear here is that (UD) is a scapegoat for media monsters who see an opportunity to set the stage for unimagined revenue streams through legislation, framed as if all the other problems from the past, including bad business practices and a bad world economy, have just disappeared. After nearly 10 years, if (UD) were as deadly to their revenues as they keep screaming, .. they would be dead already.

Bill Wilkins
http://www.meltedmetal.com

I have my doubts about this.
The last 3 or 4 times I went to the cinema I left the room with a tremendous head-ache, this was about 2 years ago. I have no idea why this happens but I haven’t gone back there ever since.
I don’t know if the cinemas in the US are different than the ones here in Portugal, but the movies always have lots of “dust” in a picture that is generally very blurred and out of focus.
When I went to see Minority Report everyone in the room left early and asked for their money back because you couldn’t see a thing.

The Cinema is dying. I’m happy with watching DVD movies on my TV set, and I don’t need a huge screen if the only thing I can see in it is a blur.

In my case, pirated movies had nothing to do with it. And I don’t think I’m the only one…

=]