The sad thing is nothing will really change until people start to accept the absurdity of the status quo and stop making groundless assumptions about all sorts of things (like quality).

Until those changes are made we wil continue getting ripped off, big business will continue to steamroll over and exploit the little guy (who probably won't be owning his work, given the current system), and people will continue to fret over something as silly as the morality of downloading something that's no longer in print!

QuoteWell, the shareholders for one. If the value of the company doesn't go up, fewer people will buy shares. With less capital, the company has less to invest in technology, research, and labour. It's called capitalism.

and look where it's gotten us.

Why should the shareholders have anything to do with the rights to an artists work? Why should big business have the right to exploit someone with creative projects they want to release.

Nine pages of discussion about filesharing, liberally sprinkled with vitriol, yet where are the people defending musicians who get screwed over by record companies, movie makers who get screwed over by studios (that 40K fan flick will never see the light of day thanks to the GW machine)?

QuoteThey pay stars millions because they have reason to believe that those stars put asses in seats. And they have a pretty good idea of how many asses a particular star can draw. Lots of very shrewd people analyze this stuff for a living.

Shrewd? really?

We all know why they are paid millions, but they don't really need to be paid millions. That's the point isn't it! Unfortunately until people start thinking differently nothing will change. People will choose to not see Iron Man if it doesn't have a top drawer name in, even though there are probably a ton of equally talented actors who could have done just as good a job if not better in the role for a fraction of the fee. We will never know.

QuoteSpecial effects are incredibly expensive. The labour costs alone for hundreds of programmers and artists earning good salaries for years is enormous. And when a company cheaps out on effects, the geekboys are the first to mock the movie for looking cheesy.

This is all very nice, but it really is bullshit. These movies don't make a loss (rarely).

But despite what the big studio bosses would like to think, and that usually revolves around $$$, the consumers don't want things like this anymore. Hence the popularity of downloading. They try and combat this with spurious bullshit about everything from quality to the finding of international child porn rings.

I'm sorry you feel the need to equate everything to the costs involved, but until people choose to see things differently filesharing will continue and nothing will improve.

Quote from: Spinachcat;273673The most interesting part of this thread is group of currently 18% who consider such downloading completely unacceptable.

That's 1 out of 5 people.   Very interesting.   I would love to see more of them post their perspective.

Well, I was one of those. The way you worded it, I did not think (and yes, there is a fair amount of interpretation on my part) that there was much room for another answer. It is still under copyright so it is illegal. My thoughts on how to deal with it I have posted at other points in the thread.

Specifically, to the wording, you ask if YOU would do it. My answer is no and I do not. Not music, software, dvds, books or anything of the like. So, for me, no and yes, I would consider it wrong to do so.

Is that what you were looking for?

Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273628Each and every time you lower the price there is a marketable decrease in quality standards. The free pdf of a book is not the same thing as acutally having a copy of the book. A dvd rip looks like complete ass on my HDTV.

You always get what you paid for right.

EBAY should be DAMNED no publisher got any money from them.

No offense but if you can't get an exact duplicate of an electronic medium you are simply doing it wrong.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680Why should the shareholders have anything to do with the rights to an artists work? Why should big business have the right to exploit someone with creative projects they want to release.

If you want the things a studio can provide - financing, technical expertise, promotion, and distribution - then you'll have to dance to their tune. If you can do all that stuff on your own, then you have nothing to worry about. Just get together with some friends, borrow money from everyone you know, and make that $300,000 science fiction spectacular you've always dreamed of and release it on youtube. Nothing stopping you.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273677The sad thing is nothing will really change until people start to accept the absurdity of the status quo and stop making groundless assumptions about all sorts of things (like quality).

Until those changes are made we wil continue getting ripped off, big business will continue to steamroll over and exploit the little guy (who probably won't be owning his work, given the current system), and people will continue to fret over something as silly as the morality of downloading something that's no longer in print!

More of your "stick to the man" mantra, which you claim to not have. Nice.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680and look where it's gotten us.

Why should the shareholders have anything to do with the rights to an artists work? Why should big business have the right to exploit someone with creative projects they want to release.

Shareholders foot the bill to produce, promote and distribute that artist's work, that's why. If the artist didn't need the shareholders, why did they sign on with said company in the first place?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680Nine pages of discussion about filesharing, liberally sprinkled with vitriol, yet where are the people defending musicians who get screwed over by record companies, movie makers who get screwed over by studios (that 40K fan flick will never see the light of day thanks to the GW machine)?

The vitriol is coming from your inane hatred of "the man" and flames your excuse for your own, or support for, file sharing for things you think you have a right to. Here it is slowly if it hasn't dawned on you yet:
It doesn't matter if a company is screwing over said artist, it doesn't give others the right to screw over both the artist and the company by taking property, intellectual or not, that is not theirs.
Simple, really.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680Shrewd? really?

We all know why they are paid millions, but they don't really need to be paid millions. That's the point isn't it! Unfortunately until people start thinking differently nothing will change. People will choose to not see Iron Man if it doesn't have a top drawer name in, even though there are probably a ton of equally talented actors who could have done just as good a job if not better in the role for a fraction of the fee. We will never know.

Why should artists be prevented from making as much as they can for their work? What gives you the right to declare their pay to high? You are extremely liberal with other people's money, aren't you?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680This is all very nice, but it really is bullshit. These movies don't make a loss (rarely).

Citation, or retract this made up bullshit.

Movies lose money all the time, it's the few blockbusters that make studios their money.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680But despite what the big studio bosses would like to think, and that usually revolves around $$$, the consumers don't want things like this anymore. Hence the popularity of downloading. They try and combat this with spurious bullshit about everything from quality to the finding of international child porn rings.

Because we should listen to you, internet Robin Hood, right?

Not only are you full of shit, you are fucking wrong as all get out. If people don't want it, why the fuck are they downloading it?

You seem to be claiming the more folks download a product, the less they actually want it!?!?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680I'm sorry you feel the need to equate everything to the costs involved, but until people choose to see things differently filesharing will continue and nothing will improve.

Until you see your actions as theft, you won't see things differently. But until then, you'll blindly torrent your favorite movie and pretend it didn't cost some company somewhere $100 million to produce it all the while telling yourself it's ok because they are screwing over the "artist".

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680and look where it's gotten us.

Capitalism made the USA the most prosperous and most powerful nation in the history of the world and raised the quality of life for many billions in other capitalist nations in a way that no other ideology has ever been able to achieve.

In fact, I shall now get up and do the money dance in praise of the Money Gods who bless me with their green power!

Quote from: Spinachcat;273697Capitalism made the USA the most prosperous and most powerful nation in the history of the world and raised the quality of life for many billions in other capitalist nations in a way that no other ideology has ever been able to achieve.

In fact, I shall now get up and do the money dance in praise of the Money Gods who bless me with their green power!

*facepalm*

Quote from: CavScout;273693Shareholders foot the bill to produce, promote and distribute that artist's work, that's why. If the artist didn't need the shareholders, why did they sign on with said company in the first place?



The vitriol is coming from your inane hatred of "the man" and flames your excuse for your own, or support for, file sharing for things you think you have a right to. Here it is slowly if it hasn't dawned on you yet:
It doesn't matter if a company is screwing over said artist, it doesn't give others the right to screw over both the artist and the company by taking property, intellectual or not, that is not theirs.
Simple, really.


Why should artists be prevented from making as much as they can for their work? What gives you the right to declare their pay to high? You are extremely liberal with other people's money, aren't you?


Citation, or retract this made up bullshit.

Movies lose money all the time, it's the few blockbusters that make studios their money.



Because we should listen to you, internet Robin Hood, right?

Not only are you full of shit, you are fucking wrong as all get out. If people don't want it, why the fuck are they downloading it?

You seem to be claiming the more folks download a product, the less they actually want it!?!?



Until you see your actions as theft, you won't see things differently. But until then, you'll blindly torrent your favorite movie and pretend it didn't cost some company somewhere $100 million to produce it all the while telling yourself it's ok because they are screwing over the "artist".

Jesus, the shit you write. Do you ever read this crap or just type and hit send?

What on earth does filesharing have to do with theft? You've had it explained how it's not remotely close to fucking theft and still your tired little mind cannot comprehend the words you read. Do you even know who Robin Hood was?

What a strange, sad, and pathetic worldview you have, you dozy fucking pissweasel. Go away, far far away.

Quote from: jgants;273657No, I mean no evidence.  Maybe you didn't notice, but Hollywood, for example, has had some record-breaking profits the last couple of years despite more copy-sharing than ever before.

You have anything to back this absurb claim up, or did you just make it up on the fly?

Gross receipts are below the all time highs. (see the chart)

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273699Jesus, the shit you write. Do you ever read this crap or just type and hit send?

What on earth does filesharing have to do with theft? You've had it explained how it's not remotely close to fucking theft and still your tired little mind cannot comprehend the words you read. Do you even know who Robin Hood was?

What a strange, sad, and pathetic worldview you have, you dozy fucking pissweasel. Go away, far far away.

I'll take it to mean you have been utterly and completely beaten in the battle of ideas. Perhaps you come across something you can copy later on to use in this thread.

If hollywood can't make a profit on the shit it spews out then perhaps paying the likes of Kan't Act Reeves 100 million a picture is not such a smart move after all.

But if you are seriously telling me that hollywood is losing money because of filesharing then you really are clutching at straws.

The idea that a downloaded piece of work automatically equals a lost sale is entirely spurious.

Quote from: CavScout;273701I'll take it to mean you have been utterly and completely beaten in the battle of ideas. Perhaps you come across something you can copy later on to use in this thread.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273702If hollywood can't make a profit on the shit it spews out then perhaps paying the likes of Kan't Act Reeves 100 million a picture is not such a smart move after all.

Whether a company makes money, or not, on their production is not the determiner for if you, as a file sharer, have a right to their property or not.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273702But if you are seriously telling me that hollywood is losing money because of filesharing then you really are clutching at straws.

Can you provide anything that shows otherwise? In any case, whether they can still make money in such an environment does not make said file sharing ok or not. Your point, and this is me being generous, seems to be as long as someone takes money, you have the right to take from them without compensation if you want to.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273702The idea that a downloaded piece of work automatically equals a lost sale is entirely spurious.

Far less so than the claim that those who download it do it because they didn't want it in the first place.