What are your thoughts on tape and disk sharing?
John Leister
or VCDs amongst each other, where there is no direct cost to the
receiver of said items, save for postage?
Considering some of the retail prices being asked for stuff albeit
in box sets and in full seasons, I can't see how nearly 200 dollars
is considered a fair price for one season of TNG, and price wise
Paramount are one of the worst offenders.
Don't they realise if they lowered the price more people would
buy the fully LEGAL item instead of cheep bootlegs or even
tape trading, which I don't think is that much of a big deal anyway.
That's also not to say I support any large scale forms of piracy. In
general if I like a show I will purchase the proper product but I
see no problem in trading tapes where there is no cost.....
Bob Byrne
"John Leister" <fyrd...@senet.com.au> wrote:
> What is the general consensus here about sharing copies of tapes
> or VCDs amongst each other, where there is no direct cost to the
> receiver of said items, save for postage?
I think you'll find most people will get their entertainment where ever
they can. I like DVD quality so tapes and VCD don't interest me in
the slightest. On the other hand I have no hesitation in downloading
episodes of a series that hasn't screened here yet. Mind you I don't
download huge video quality eps to put on a disc or whatever, I just
want a preview, around 1 to 2Mb per minute of footage. If I really
like it I'll buy it eventually when it is available, eg, the current Stargate
SG-1 series, I have every available volume on DVD and a preview on
my hard drive.
> ......., I can't see how nearly 200 dollars
> is considered a fair price for one season of TNG, ......
Neither can I so I don't buy them. I'll bide my time and eventually they
will be in a bargain bin or available 2nd hand when someone realises
they have close to $1800 of 'no longer watched' DVD's sitting on the
shelf.
--
Bob
<bby...@bigpond.NOCAPSnet.au>
John Leister
Exactly.......
And Paramount wonder why people do copies and bootlegs.
If the product were sold at a more reasonable price there is a
good chance that they would sell more units...
Stephen Souter
<fyrd...@senet.com.au> wrote:
> Exactly.......
>
> And Paramount wonder why people do copies and bootlegs.
>
> If the product were sold at a more reasonable price there is a
> good chance that they would sell more units...
Another innocent victim of circumstance (and a greedy multinational).
If someone could not buy (say) the latest Mercedes at what they considered
a reasonable price would it be all right in yoru opinion for them to steal
one instead? (And then blame the car manufacturer for not being prepared
to sell it to them at their price?)
Theft is theft.
It's not even as if we were talking about stealing one of life's
necessities to keep the kids from starving. We are talking about copies of
movies & TV episodes.
The penchant for downloading bootleg versions of such things is making it
increasingly likely that one day measures will be put in place which may
well turn round and bite the legitimate activities of the rest of us. The
anti-theft measures on some CDs already make it impossible to play those
on most if not all PCs. Then there are those new self-destructing DVDs
Disney recently announced.
And those are merely the tip of the iceberg.
--
Stephen Souter
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/
Jarkko Altonen
>What is the general consensus here about sharing copies of tapes
>or VCDs amongst each other, where there is no direct cost to the
>receiver of said items, save for postage?
>
>Considering some of the retail prices being asked for stuff albeit
>in box sets and in full seasons, I can't see how nearly 200 dollars
>is considered a fair price for one season of TNG, and price wise
>Paramount are one of the worst offenders.
What is TNG?
Darren
"Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3ecb5c89.5394640@news-server...
Star Trek: The Next Generation.
D.
Bob Byrne
"Jarkko Altonen" <jar...@nospam.com> wrote:
> What is TNG?
Short for STTNG - Star Trek The Next Generation
--
Bob
Jarkko Altonen
>> What is TNG?
>
>Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Why would anyone pay $200 bucks to watch that?
Darren
My guess is because they like it.
Thou
Stephen Souter wrote:
> In article <3EC9E184...@senet.com.au>, John Leister
> <fyrd...@senet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Exactly.......
> >
> > And Paramount wonder why people do copies and bootlegs.
> >
> > If the product were sold at a more reasonable price there is a
> > good chance that they would sell more units...
>
> Another innocent victim of circumstance (and a greedy multinational).
>
> If someone could not buy (say) the latest Mercedes at what they considered
> a reasonable price would it be all right in yoru opinion for them to steal
> one instead? (And then blame the car manufacturer for not being prepared
> to sell it to them at their price?)
>
> Theft is theft.
>
Your analogy is flawed, cowboy. A car is a physical item, and if it is taken,
then the producer has lost an asset. If information is pirated, all the
producer has lost is the opportunity to sell it to the individual who has the
pirate copy. If this individual can not afford the item at retail price in
the first place, it is arguable that the producer has lost anything at all
The cost of piracy is shared across the "legitimate" consumers, the
production studios, the key creatives, and everyone else down the food chain,
but the studios do have a tax limit. If the product continues to escalate in
price, a threshold will eventually be reached where it is no longer available
to their legitimate market, and various other links in the chain. That will
only feed the piracy market.
Some will argue that piracy will inevitably lead us to a stage where art of
any kind is no longer financially viable. I doubt it will reach that level as
the anti-piracy arms race keeps it out of reach of most chumps, but even if
it did, who cares? Do Brad Pitt and Rupert Murdoch really deserve the wealth
they now posess? Will we live in a world without music and drama? Of course
not. We would live in a world without financial interest in art.
Stephen Souter
> Stephen Souter wrote:
>
> > In article <3EC9E184...@senet.com.au>, John Leister
> > <fyrd...@senet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Exactly.......
> > >
> > > And Paramount wonder why people do copies and bootlegs.
> > >
> > > If the product were sold at a more reasonable price there is a
> > > good chance that they would sell more units...
> >
> > Another innocent victim of circumstance (and a greedy multinational).
> >
> > If someone could not buy (say) the latest Mercedes at what they considered
> > a reasonable price would it be all right in yoru opinion for them to steal
> > one instead? (And then blame the car manufacturer for not being prepared
> > to sell it to them at their price?)
> >
> > Theft is theft.
> >
>
> Your analogy is flawed, cowboy. A car is a physical item, and if it is,
> taken then the producer has lost an asset. If information is pirated,
> all the producer has lost is the opportunity to sell it to the
> individual who has the pirate copy.
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, eh? :-)
So you would distinguish shoplifting a DVD from a store from downloading a
copy of the contents of a DVD (whether stolen or duly paid for) from a
website. One is stealing. The other is "merely" pirating.
(Pirates, of course, do not engage in theft.)
By that yardstick I suppose plagarism isn't theft either. You've merely
deprived the original author of an "opportunity" (as opposed to a physical
asset).
In fact you would presumably find it OK to download a movie, burn it to
DVD, and sell it off the back of the proverbial truck. All you've deprived
the original owner of is an "opportunity".
Better yet, re-edit the downloaded movie, putting your name in place of
the original director's and producers', then burn that to a few thousand
DVDs--and voila! Your very own movie.
Just because intellectual property cannot always be felt, smelt or
touched, does not make it as much of an asset to its owner as the physical
sort like motor cars. That's why there are laws to prevent the theft of
such things as copyright, trademarks, and patents.
> If this individual can not afford the item at retail price in
> the first place, it is arguable that the producer has lost anything at all.
So if nobody bought such things at the retail price but instead downloaded
them for free you're saying that the owner has not "lost anything at all"?
I'll bet Thomas Edison said exactly the same thing when he acquired a
pirated print of George Melies famous film _La Voyage dans la lune_ from
someone in London. Afterwards he made a fortune exhibiting copies of it
throughout America. A fortune from which (AFAIK) Melies himself received
not one penny.
Is Edison a thief because of that physical theft of the pirated print, or
is he NOT a thief because (not counting that print) all he stole from
Melies was an "opportunity"?
> The cost of piracy is shared across the "legitimate" consumers, the
> production studios, the key creatives, and everyone else down the food
> chain,but the studios do have a tax limit. If the product continues to
> escalate in price, a threshold will eventually be reached where it is
> no longer available to their legitimate market, and various other links
> in the chain. That will only feed the piracy market.
Fascinating gobbledegook.
Presumably the cost of stolen cars is also "shared across the 'legitimate'
consumers". Or at least those who "consume" car insurance.
> Some will argue that piracy will inevitably lead us to a stage where art of
> any kind is no longer financially viable. I doubt it will reach that level
> as the anti-piracy arms race keeps it out of reach of most chumps, but
> even if it did, who cares? Do Brad Pitt and Rupert Murdoch really
> deserve the wealth they now posess?
Why stop there? Do Stephen King or J.K. Rowling deserve theirs?
What about the not-so-rich? The guy who sells the occasion novel, short
story, or screenplay. The small independent filmmaker. The part-time
artist who sells seascapes and flower paintings at the local coffee shop.
Are they entitled to the "wealth" that might come from the sale of their
work?
Or (since Robin Hood only steals from the rich) are they an exception?
> Will we live in a world without
> music and drama? Of course not. We would live in a world without
> financial interest in art.
If nobody was prepared to pay for art there would be no movies. Or at
least none most people would be prepared to download, let alone watch. It
is those who do pay to see them or who buy the videos or DVDs who pay for
new films to be made. If movie makers go money at all from making movies,
they would have to subsided by governments or go out of business.
And what government would be prepared to sink into a single film the
hundred or two hundred million dollars that an action blockbuster like T3
or Matrix 2 now costs?
Not just once, but repeatedly.
If you want to keep seeing films like X Men 2 or Matrix 2 or Terminator 3,
then somebody has to pay for them. If even the fans won't do so, then who
will?
stuart
difference - I agree both are stealing. However in one scenario, there is 1
item (say a dvd in a shop). You shop lift it, and the shop doesn't have it
any more. With pirating, you pirate it, and the original still exists. So,
the 'stealing a car' analogy is not correct as you can't steal a car and
leave the owner with the car.
With pirating you make the original owner poorer to the extent of the
opportunity lost through extra sales. If you were honestly never going to
buy that dvd or cd, then there is no loss to the studio. But in many cases
you really would have bought it, or bought less than before. I would say
most people downloading and copying are not the struggling poor, but in many
cases perfectly able to buy the cds and dvds that they wish to.
In some cases too, a download can make you buy the original. I have
downloaded lots of music, sometimes almost whole albums, and then thought to
myself, for $20 I can just buy it - and next time I walk into target or
dicksmith or Big W and its $19.60 I just buy it. Overall I would say that
downloading has caused me to spend more on music than I would have
otherwise.
Stuart
"Stephen Souter" <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
news:s.souter-220...@mac39a36.edfac.usyd.edu.au...
John Leister
understanding the POV of people that feel the need to
do that.
Piracy is only a problem when people are making it a profitable
business and not for one to one tape or disk sharing as "One off items"
Sir Pudgie
>
> Why would anyone pay $200 bucks to watch that?
I take it you're not a Trek fan. ;-)
Perhaps you should ask the tens of thousands (conservative estimate)
worldwide who have anted up to do just that. :-)
Trevor S
@freenews.iinet.net.au:
>> >Star Trek: The Next Generation.
>>
>> Why would anyone pay $200 bucks to watch that?
>
> I take it you're not a Trek fan. ;-)
I am.
> Perhaps you should ask the tens of thousands (conservative estimate)
> worldwide who have anted up to do just that. :-)
I am not one of them, IMO the price is to much.
Trevor S