Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So piracy is justified. I can't see it for free legally and if I try to watch it free illegally they will use a threat of force to stop me. Clearly the best course of action is to stand up the attack on my sense of entitlement.
I'm not sure if you are doing your usual extremist/objectivist/freetard bit or not, but I think the issue is more complex than that anyways.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not sure if you are doing your usual extremist/objectivist/freetard bit or not, but I think the issue is more complex than that anyways.
Well the issues are:
can the stations stream shows for free legally and at least break even?
is it allowable to pirate shows you can't see for free?
is it okay to shoot people who sue you for pirating their stuff? (which Wild Shadow said he hope would happen on the first page)
this is what someone should do..
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This reminds me of the discussion here where someone claimed it was his natural right to kill repo-men.
Repomen are always ass-holes. The first rule of a job interview is being friendly; so how do they do it? Do they put on a mask during their interview, or what?
Like 11 or 12 years ago, one came to my house to repo my truck. I came close to beating the fool's ass, but I didn't wanna spend the night in the slammer. And it wasn't because he was gonna repo my ride (that's just him doing his job), it was because of his attitude. I think they get a power-trip from doing what they do.
That's why stuff like this happens: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21592566/detail.html
http://www.wkrg.com/financial/article/repo_man_shot_killed/22451/Jan-08-2009_12-09-pm/
http://www.truthblue.com/2010/03/repo-man-shot-while-taking-car-in-conn.html
Re: Hurt Locker people butthurt over piracy
Originally posted by Robtard
The war against movie piracy is getting downright explosive. The producers of the Oscar-winning "The Hurt Locker" are preparing a massive lawsuit against thousands of individuals who pirated the film online. The case could be filed as soon as Wednesday.Voltage Pictures, the banner behind the best picture winner, has signed up with the U.S. Copyright Group, the Washington D.C.-based venture that, as first reported in March, has begun a litigation campaign targeting tens of thousands of BitTorrent users.
According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit should be filed this week. He declines to say exactly how many individuals will be targeted, but expect the number to be in the tens of thousands, if not more. "Locker" first leaked onto the web more than five months before its U.S. release and was a hot item in P2P circles after it won six Oscars in March. Despite the accolades, the film grossed only about $16 million in the U.S. -end snip
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ia3e81d4dc935f423aef090323c40270a
Thoughts?
Hahaha...You're only posting this cos it means you. Please don't give them my address...Thanks. 😆
Odd though that if it hadn't been pirated long before it was released then I don't think it would have been as popular as it was because most of the hype was spread by word of mouth long before it was tipped for any awards.
Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/04/tv-economics-101-why.html
The gent who wrote that article seems a little biased towards TV licensing. It's quite easy to build a global network of advertisers, cost little to produce an online ad (sometimes), and the ads are extremely easy to embed into a streaming service (because they are like templates).
The market is resistant to change. They are not used to making money from online ads.
The person in the article said this:
"Someone will probably find a way to make real money streaming online soon, and then the business model will shift (again) and you'll see more episodes of TV online. Until that happens, this is why you don't see more shows online."
dur dur dur dur dur dur
Netflix and Blockbuster. dur dur
Netflix much more so than BB, of course.
If there was NOT a TV market to begin with, the online streaming market would make a lot more money. The writer in the article doesn't seem to realize this and, instead, thinks the online market a second, very low, option. Which makes me face palm.
Of course, the viewer have to be setup to watch online in their "main viewing area", and that's another problem. It's a slow change but it is happening. I only watch online shows, now. I rent movies for the rest through netflix.
I am way too busy to even care about whether or not I'm watching a movie that came out 6 months ago or 6 days ago, so I'm not up to date on how the whole piracy thing is going in terms of quality.
The only thing I can really form an opinion on is that the few times I've watched someone's copy of a film that was still in the theaters, it strongly resembled a person's point of view when they're two seconds away from vomiting. Blurry, shaky, and with distorted audio.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well the issues are:
can the stations stream shows for free legally and at least break even?
is it allowable to pirate shows you can't see for free?
is it okay to shoot people who sue you for pirating their stuff? (which Wild Shadow said he hope would happen on the first page)
Issue one and two I'd agree with, three is of course insane everyone sees that, but I'd say there's probably more to the morality of pirating than just the "okay if you can't see it free" argument.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The gent who wrote that article seems a little biased towards TV licensing. It's quite easy to build a global network of advertisers, cost little to produce an online ad (sometimes), and the ads are extremely easy to embed into a streaming service (because they are like templates).The market is resistant to change. They are not used to making money from online ads.
The person in the article said this:
"Someone will probably find a way to make real money streaming online soon, and then the business model will shift (again) and you'll see more episodes of TV online. Until that happens, this is why you don't see more shows online."
dur dur dur dur dur dur
Netflix and Blockbuster. dur dur
Netflix much more so than BB, of course.
If there was NOT a TV market to begin with, the online streaming market would make a lot more money. The writer in the article doesn't seem to realize this and, instead, thinks the online market a second, very low, option. Which makes me face palm.
Of course, the viewer have to be setup to watch online in their "main viewing area", and that's another problem. It's a slow change but it is happening. I only watch online shows, now. I rent movies for the rest through netflix.
He's talking about international problems. Your "Netflix and Blockbuster" doesn't fit so well with the article as they are solely doing that on a by country basis, I also don't know how much they make with the streaming part of their operation. Like he said there are problems with the ownership of the rights that make it complex to stream for other countries. Additionally you say it is easy to make and embed, however that doesn't really help when you don't get the returns on your advertisements. Also building a global network of advertisers is easy? Tell me how, I'd like to be a billionaire.
Though again, you live in America, you don't face the problems that this article addresses, to pretend they don't exist is silly.
Originally posted by Bardock42
He's talking about international problems. Your "Netflix and Blockbuster" doesn't fit so well with the article as they are solely doing that on a by country basis, I also don't know how much they make with the streaming part of their operation. Like he said there are problems with the ownership of the rights that make it complex to stream for other countries. Additionally you say it is easy to make and embed, however that doesn't really help when you don't get the returns on your advertisements. Also building a global network of advertisers is easy? Tell me how, I'd like to be a billionaire.Though again, you live in America, you don't face the problems that this article addresses, to pretend they don't exist is silly.
It does fit well. Fits quite nicely. It's not entirely up to Netflix and Blockbuster to fill the holes in other countries. Other companies could easily startup and start streaming and it's in the producers' best interests, actually, because it maximizes revenue.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It does fit well. Fits quite nicely. It's not entirely up to Netflix and Blockbuster to fill the holes in other countries. Other companies could easily startup and start streaming and it's in the producers' best interests, actually, because it maximizes revenue.
No, as he explained that would decrease their chances of getting shows picked up potentially losing a large chunk of money. Or pissing of the way people that make them money at the moment. You should address these points he makes in the article, because even if the things you said were true, and I think some of them are definitely harder than you make it out to be, those problems still stand.
You know I agree with you that streaming is the right way to go, but I can see that there are problems in the way of it that'll need to be addressed and solved first.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, as he explained that would decrease their chances of getting shows picked up potentially losing a large chunk of money.
You're thinking too closed mindedly, just like Craig. You're thinking the exact opposite of what you should be. You're too hung up on the classical distrubution of "TV." Thnk outside of the box for a change and, literally, not inside the TV box.
Slates and "large" screened mobile phones are taking us by storm. Soon, people will be able to watch TV while pooping, taking the dog for a walk, on their coffee break, at a family reunion, etc. It will become much more economically feasible to stream instead of distributing to a TV Station. They can host their own material. We may see a shift ware from actual telivision stations and more towards producers.
Don't get caught up on the classical delivery of media, like Craig obviously is. Already, people are producing "made for the internet" only shows, some of them quite popular. The first people to capitalize on this will make billions a year: See Netflix. 😄
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're thinking too closed mindedly, just like Craig. You're thinking the exact opposite of what you should be. You're too hung up on the classical distrubution of "TV." Thnk outside of the box for a change and, literally, not inside the TV box.Slates and "large" screened mobile phones are taking us by storm. Soon, people will be able to watch TV while pooping, taking the dog for a walk, on their coffee break, at a family reunion, etc. It will become much more economically feasible to stream instead of distributing to a TV Station. They can host their own material. We may see a shift ware from actual telivision stations and more towards producers.
Don't get caught up on the classical delivery of media, like Craig obviously is. Already, people are producing "made for the internet" only shows, some of them quite popular. The first people to capitalize on this will make billions a year: See Netflix. 😄
Like I said, I think you are ignoring the facts of the distribution model atm. Like he said he doesn't disagree with you he just sees the legal problems with it. Like, how do you think it should work, who buys the servers to bring the streaming stuff. And should they buy the different shows?
So yeah, in a perfect unicorn fart world you are right, this is easy peasy. Sadly that's not the world we are living in so that's why there's currently those problems, which hopefully will be resolved in time, as consumers and advertisers further understand the value of streaming to them.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Like I said, I think you are ignoring the facts of the distribution model atm.
Like I said, I think you're stuck on the old-school and are getting hung up inside the box, just like Craig.
Nothing in your post brings anything new or relevant to the discussion. Don't waste my time.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Like I said, I think you're stuck on the old-school and are getting hung up inside the box, just like Craig.Nothing in your post brings anything new or relevant to the discussion. Don't waste my time.
Well, you are wrong in your argument. But since you are right about there not being anything new to be addressed we should indeed drop it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, because that was my point.
I assume your point was that I am wrong and an idiot. I obviously can't convince you of that not being true as I have tried for 4 posts now, but perhaps I can convince you I am not in marketing, which for some reason you seem to think is the type of idiot I am...