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