|
| |
|  | | | | | 'Let's say you're a big fan of Jonathan Carroll (as am I). You read all his
books. But instead of buying them, you know where there's a blind spot in your local bookstore where the mirrors can't catch you, so you just go in, grab his latest book, shove it in your bag, and leave. Or, conversely, you borrow a copy from the library, go to the office where you work and can use the copy machine for free, photocopy the entire book and keep it.'
Or...you go to the library and check it out for free? Maybe I've been stealing from shitty authors like Carroll all these years... | | | |
| | | | | | | you think this guy is intellgent? sympathizing and over ratiomalizing a simple act of veiwing isnt intelligence, I dont care how amny tv shows he wrote for or created. but hey, what does my opnion really matter? although...let me ask a quick question or 2:
if I record to a song on the radio am I stealing it? if I record a show off the television, is it stealing? both these forms of entertainment where, at one pont, seen asa major threat, the industry adapted and got over it. it's a little thing called survival. grow a dick...
do we deny progress simply because it's makes the jobs of all these people seem irrellevant. an entire technology is formed, released, and it's a huge success; a way to share information on a level never before imagined and it's all to be thrown away. why? becuase some rich guy or record company is put out?
no one gave half a shit when poor people where replaced by machines. no one gives a shit now adays that a ton of jobs are being outsourced, every major corporation downsizing to extend their own profit margin.
How about all the lower class that effects? all the people whoalready suffer? What this guy is saying is that now that the priviledged are being replaced by machines, we have to care? but when it comes down to giving back to the little guy, screw that?!
whoever agrees with this man is just simply wrong. | | | |
| | | | | | | So your agument is: 'nobody gives a damn about software developers, and they lose jobs to outsourcing' and 'poorpeople were replaces by machines,' and somehow it's all a fault of actors and writers? 'Let these bastards feel some pain, too?'
Think about it this way. Yes, the execs are like the digestive system to the rest of the 'body' of creative professionals. Yes, it's not pretty, and there's a lot of shit coming out from the marketing and middlemen, but by circumventing the execs you're starving the muscle, the heart and the neurons.
And fucko, he's not talking about copying songs off the radio. He's talking about, say, not buying the DVDs but downloading off the net instead. Even you can see how that's not adding money to anyone's pockets, can't you?
And don't insult the word 'progress' by your mismatched, half-assed implications. Progress is when you create, not when you consume. Your desire to consume for free contributes jackshit to progress, and not that great for economics either. | | | |
| | | | | | | | My personal opinion of file sharing is this: give me a product of value, and I will eventually buy it. I had every single Family Guy episode downloaded at one point, and I bought them. I had tens of movies downloaded, and I bought the good ones. I download full albums and but them on CD after a few listens. If you're telling me I needed to buy Catwoman before downloading...well that's silly. If I shit on a paper plate, will you buy it sight unseen when I tell you it's artwork , or will you look at it and decide if it's worth buying? It's a matter of churning out good work in Hollywood, and until I see more good quality work, I will download in an effort not to be ripped off by opportunistic people who wish to make a buck at my expense. | | | |
| | | | | | | | Joey, your argument is sound but misplaced here. Industrialization put a lot of poor people out of jobs, I guess, but that was evolution, or at least progress.
The only progress going on here is newer and slicker ways of stealing. If pirate ships had suddenly developed jet engines, you think the British Navy would have gone 'that's progress then, pip pip' and toddled off to become obsolete?
Assuming you accept the whole 'downloading is theft' premise, which I'm still undecided about. I mean, I don't want artists and developers to go hungry. But my downloading their content for free instead of paying for it only affects them financially if I would have otherwise paid for it, which in almost every case is a solid No. Is it theft if I take it but it's still there after I'm gone?
I really do think a lot of content producers end up getting more exposure this way than they would elsewise. Now, whether that exposure leads to dollars or financial assurances, I don't know.
Also, we all know it's not going to stop anytime real soon, the **AA be damned. In the meantime, maybe the distributing middlemen will realize they need to make the user experience more enjoyable if they're going to attract consumers. Example: popcorn that doesn't cost $7, available in a theater without sticky floors or crappy movies with 15 minutes of commercials in front of 25 minutes of trailers. Example: CDs that don't cost $18 and don't contain five filler tracks to push the one hit single and two backup also-rans. Example: signing non-shitty bands that are actually worth the vomit I'd like to drink myself into at their shows.
| | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | I download movies/music, it's theft, I'm a thief, but I'm ok with that.
and
What Vas said. | | | |
| | | | | | | For me, the point at issue is another:
Surely, its bad for the actors/writers aso, but these people are just the pawns of this industrie. You can compare this to the drug business:
the opium farmer gets 100$ per kilo, while the distributors earn 10000 for it. One earns the product, one earns the money.
Downloading gives people the ability to steal from the distributors, you know, the ones which were enforcing laws which take away the privacy, the freedom and the power of the people. This progress began at the time were companys and lawyers had the ability to do that.
Nobody likes authority, nobody likes big companys.
Its some kind of Robin Hood mentality - take from the rich, give to the poor.
Of course, this whole progress is completely absurd, on the one side we have the downloaders, the thieves if you want so, and one the other side we have the big corporate fuckers, which can enforce more and more laws becourse of the theft. | | | |
| | | | | | | Aside from the moral argument around downloading, with the case pointed out in the letter to JMS, I wonder how downloading can affect tv show ratings. Ratings are determined by Nielsen families, correct? So, unless one of those families is downloading versus watching, how are the ratings affected? My assumption, perhaps incorrect, is that downloading televison shows is not something that is happening on a mass scale that would affect, statistically, Nielsen ratings. But, perhaps I'm wrong in that assumption. | | | |
| | | | | | | | I had about a thousand records and 500 8-tracks that I couldn't play because the record industry stopped supporting the format. I have about 500 casettes and that format is on the way out too.
When the recording industry reimburses me for all the music I can't play any more I'll stop rebuilding my collection by downloading.
I can understand the arguement that the little guys in the recording and film industries depending on residuals but maybe it's time that the artists and techs get a higher percentage of the outrageous amounts charged for CDs and DVDs. It costs less than half a buck each to mass produce a CD. Most of the artists aren't seeing much of the $18 that they cost at WalMart.
| | | |
| | | | | | | Here's the truth they don't want you to know: almost every family is a 'Nielsen family.' All digital cable receivers that I am aware of can send back the summaries of channel popularity and even more descriptive tables of TV viewing, on demand, without your knowledge. In the contract you sign with your cable company, there's even a clause that says they may sample your box (pardon the innuendo).
| | | |
| | | | | | | where do I download hitch? | | | |
| | | | | | | sorry, ain't hap'nin.
AND I'm an artist, so I can empathize with the writers and making little money struggling. If you don't like it, get a real job. If I could make money doing it I would, but such is not always the case. I don't complain, I survive.
It's seems that the real question is; money or integrity? Choose.
it's how the media works. Most of the bloggers who break huge stories, before major media does, aren't mking any money. So why do it?
You can either write good shit, maybe not make as much money -or none at all-, or you can right garbage like baylon 5. haha. | | | |
| | | | | | | Basically, JMS's argument boils down to, 'I had to work to make this, so fucking pay me.' I can respect that to a point. However. I don't buy a car the dealer doesn't let me test drive. Or, to avoid metaphors: as a consumer, it is my right to NOT spend my money until I am either certain I will receive its value in return, or am willing to speculate and understand my risk in doing so. Television shows are in absolutely no way free to me, as a consumer. In fact, if you are watching a cable station, you're paying for it twice. Partly in money, for cable. Also partly in time; the whole point of television shows is to drag people to the set to watch some advertisements. The entire crux of the post he is replying to hinges on whether or not the premise 'downloads hurt revenue' is true. JMS never addresses this point anywhere in the body of his response. All he really says is, 'Fucking pay me.' *I* shouldn't feel entitled to your work? Yeah okay buddy, and you shouldn't feel entitled to my dollars.
Ultimately, for me as a consumer these days, television itself primarily serves a try-before-you-buy function, before I go down to Best Buy and pick up a DVD set. By television here I mean internet; I don't pay twice for shit, as noted above, hence no cable. If JMS wants to compete on the grounds of metaphors, fine, I'll take him on: - I won't pay for a Renoir or a Monet that I have never seen.
- I won't buy a car I have never driven.
- I won't buy a DVD set for a show I have never watched.
- I won't buy a ticket to a movie I have seen/heard nothing about.
How the industry intends to get something in front of me to cajole a few bucks out of my wallet so I can have all of it: THAT is the real question of the year here. (Hint: TV doesn't work for me anymore, and it's gonna work less and less for everyone else too as time marches forward) | | | |
| | | | | | | | Azron: 'I had about a thousand records and 500 8-tracks that I couldn't play because the record industry stopped supporting the format.'
True for 8 trax, NOT true for rekkadz. People still make record players. I have one myself. It works great. For that matter, the record companies still press a some quantity of vinyl.
But the entertainment industry still deserves to be afflicted with filesharing networks.
| | | |
| | | | | | | There are names in economic theory for all this: the 'deadbeats' are called the free-rider problem, and it arises everywhere when insufficent information doesn't allow prices to be setr correctly (Ex. the road system; a lot of people don't pay taxes and use the roads anyway, because it's difficult to tie proof of tax payment and road use efficiently). What the 'entertainment' industry has is a decaying monopoly: Barriers to entry into that market are falling fast, and the monopolist is not adapting. The 'creative sector' were part of that monopoly, but hey are the weakest part, because for them the situation is one of monopsony; many suppliers, just one buyer. If the buyer faces hard times, then so do the suppliers.
New forms of compensation for creative workers will have to be found, as the current modes have proved unsustainable. As to what forms they will take, not even the most fanciful among economists can really take a guess. In the meantime, Mr. Game Programmer, I would suggest that if you seek economic security and/or more money for your work, you should look into another sector, less exposed to the economic impact of piracy.
As to morals, these come and go; when stealing has become convenient for those in power (or for a great majority of people), they simply cease to call it stealing! Witness the great American land grabs, or the partitions of Africa and Poland. | | | |
| | | | | | | I just think the residual system is nuts. I'd love to get paid again and again for work I did years ago.
| | | |
|
Hey. You. Yeah, you, anonymous person.
If you logged in, you could comment, you know...
| | |
| Sexual Asspussy | This is awesome.
This is the first pornsite I've found in years that I'd actually advertise to swarmers. When you first load it up, it looks just like every crappy scam site out there, except that it's real. It's huge, it's updated constantly, there's no spam, no popups, and no bullshit -- and it's completely free. When you sign up through that link above and respond to the confirmation email, I make a bit of loose change.
See what other swarmers have to say about it. People love this place, so I feel fine about sending you there and am confident you will enjoy boners.
|
|
| My God, It's Full of Azron |
|
|
|
