Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 1 2010 : 1:43PM
The reason I singled you out is because you keep saying the same thing. On one hand you say: I am not advocating or encouraging theft or copyright infringement and how you wish to qualify it. Then you say: except to say that by watching a scene on a tube site I have not deprived you of any actual future or potential income/revenue since I: (1) had no prior intention in actually buying it . Yes you have. You are not getting morality preachings from Vivid, it is from me. If you had no intention of purchasing a movie or a scene, then why watch it illegally? Your support of these sites is what is disturbing.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 1 2010 : 5:21PM
Well about the Mona Lisa, it only has value because there's only one of it. However if the technology existed to produce perfect copies of it it's value would drop precipitously. And thus we see one of the main reasons why content producers don't like their content being shared, because they wish to maintain a system of artificial scarcity to keep the price of their content high to make as much money as possible even when technology necessitates that they change their business model and allow the consumer to access the content as they want. It's actually equivalent to what the music industry had to understand after fighting it for years. Namely that many people don't want to purchase whole albums anymore they only want a few songs from said albums. But they fought this because they knew their profit margins would be lower if they changed, but technology made it inevitable that they would have to change their business model. And so they have. And for this industry they're fighting the inevitable, but eventually they'll have to change their business model to accommodate the new technology And as has already been stated, being potentially deprived of income because content is shared is not equivalent to the theft of a physical product. Most people understand this. And if one wanted to try and determine whether or not the content producers have even potentially been deprived of income one would have to know what the intent of the downloader was. In many cases someone merely downloads content because it is free. In other cases someone would purchase the content if it wasn't freely available, and in other cases one wouldn't purchase the content at all even if it was only available by purchase. Edited by - Zaer on 3/1/2010 5:25:46 PM
Well, I have bought a ton of porn DVD's, download sub sites, HD downloads, and just last week my first BD. I have also downloaded porn. Usually some script re-encode kiddie has dumped the resolution and fit it to 1/2 CD's. If I like the content enough, I'll buy the full res Disc or join the site. Take for example Carmen Rivera stuff-I found about her because of piracy and bought most of her DVD's. She made money off piracy, but I'm surely not the rule but the exception.
You're free to disbelieve me, but that doesn't make my statement any less true, and anybody who's spent significant time looking into that scene knows it's true. Heck, the people doing the initial ripping and uploading often appear to be so anonymous (no web presence, no IRC, no public email addresses) that anybody who isn't an inner-circle member would find it difficult to even contact them. They're doing it for some dubious "net fame", it really is that simple even if that's perhaps hard to fathom. And as I stated, of course that doesn't rule out that some other people along the "distribution chain" are making illegal profits. But that's the core problem for the industry as far as file-sharing goes - the guys at the top of the chain aren't in it for profit*, and neither are the guys at the bottom (the aforementioned small-time uploaders, and also the great majority of only-downloaders). The profiteers are sitting in the middle, and as the history of piracy shows, if you take out one distribution path another will simply spring up. The industry may not like "adapt-or-die" comments, but their whack-a-mole strategy isn't likely to be any more fruitful. * Possibly excluding specialized setups such as the apparently Brazzers-owned tube sites - but even in those cases I'm not sure if they actually bother to rip other people's content themselves, or just use what's already floating around and/or rely on individual uploads. Nevertheless, the fact that the guys at the top of the chain often don't care about money is what separates online/digital piracy from the good oldfashioned brick-and-mortar piracy such as the Australian store DM/PR mentioned. (By the way, I don't hold grudges across threads.)
Hmm, that's an accusation I've never seen before (though I'm not about to disbelieve it out of hand). One thing that does (or rather, did) set Brazzers apart vis-a-vis file sharing - they were apparently the first major (web) company to make large-scale efforts at getting their stuff pulled quickly from file-sharing sites, i.e. not the blogs and forums themselves but the Rapidshares of the world, so for a while the impression seemed to be that one could easily get everything, except Brazzers scenes. That's changed somewhat, I think, though there are still vast differences in the "half-life" of different producers' illegally-uploaded stuff. And of course, what I've just detailed probably qualifies as ironic in many people's minds. But it's certainly not true that "nothing comes up" when you search for Brazzers content on file-sharing forums. Perhaps at a few sites, but there are tons of 'em - traffic is much more concentrated on a few sites at the tubes, presumably because running one of those actually incurs major costs (bandwidth and server structure), unlike a rinkydink file-share blog or forum that practically anybody can start up. Edited by - shalalin on 3/1/2010 9:39:38 PM
Actually such technology doesn't exist yet. The technology being referred to would have the ability to completely at the atomic level reproduce any physical object and we don't yet have that capability. And if we did, rare artworks which could be reproduced with few copying errors would lose their value.Many producers of products don't want the market flooded with their product as that will drive down the value of it. And while you can replicate as many as you want you'd rather not unless it's selling at a certain price, which is why many in the industry continue to fight the new technology as they believe to adapt to the technology will cost them a substantial amount of profit. It's actually equivalent to what the music industry had to understand after fighting it for years. Namely that many people don't want to purchase whole albums anymore they only want a few songs from said albums. But they fought this because they knew their profit margins would be lower if they changed, but technology made it inevitable that they would have to change their business model. And so they have. And for this industry they're fighting the inevitable, but eventually they'll have to change their business model to accommodate the new technology And as has already been stated, being potentially deprived of income because content is shared is not equivalent to the theft of a physical product. Most people understand this. And if one wanted to try and determine whether or not the content producers have even potentially been deprived of income one would have to know what the intent of the downloader was. In many cases someone merely downloads content because it is free. In other cases one would purchase the content if it wasn't freely available, and in other cases one wouldn't purchase the content at all even if it was only available by purchase.Actually it's a detailed description of why the industry is fighting the new technology, namely that they believe it will substantially lower their profits, but adaption is inevitable, as was the case in the music industry. Edited by - Zaer on 3/2/2010 7:14:36 AM
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 8:19AM
One would assume that this thread should have been started by a maker of porn, complaining that tube sites and such were stealing his stuff. It wasn't. The original poster wrote a long explanation that he just HAD to download clips, and it wasn't his fault. He didn't argue that he wasn't stealing. He argued that he didn't WANT to steal, but circumstances forced him. Since then, many others have shown up with every kind of twisted logic, evasion, and legal obfuscation to claim that what we all do is necessary, or isn't stealing at all, or that it's harmless, or that the porn makers even WANT us to download their stuff for nothing. It reminds me of the oft done scene in the old TV sitcoms when the mom enters the kitchen to find little Johnny standing there. She asks him, "What are you doing, Johnny?" to which he answers "I didn't steal any cookies. Honest!" while he frantically brushes cookie crumbs off his shirt. This thread was started and continues because of GUILT. The people here that are at pains to show why uncompensated downloads aren't stealing, arent hurtful, aren't wrong -- they aren't trying to change anybody's mind but their OWN. They keep trying to make that unaswerable argument that they aren't stealing to prove that they aren't, not to Hollywood Woody or Duefuss or Mike South, but to THEMSELVES. The most dim witted poster here knows he isn't really going to convince US of anything. Simply by arguing that unauthorized posting and downloading of porn is not stealing, they are agreeing that it IS.
This might sound stupid but I'm not kidding.It's an honest question: So if I see a clip or 3 on YouPorn -or- RedTube THAT is considered stealing ? Is just watching considered 'downloading' ?
You can buy porn DVDs on eBay and use PayPal to pay.I have several times.
[Link]
MikeSouth Deactivated User
511 Posts 11/02
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 11:12AM
It might be an honest question but I think you already know the answer and are just looking for justification. Is it stealing when I hire you to work for me at whatever it is you do then dont pay you? Of course it is. Just because you can get away with it doesn't make it right.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 12:31PM
For one thing, they get away with it because, so far, no one entitled to press charges has done so against someone who has illegally uploaded or dowload his material. As long as there is no percieved risk, all the FBI warnings and laments for lost income won't change a thing.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 12:33PM
Beholding the speciousness of your arguments is breathtaking. You are simply trying to justify your own thievery. Is it ok to steal money because the producer/creator didn't print enough to go around? Michelangelo should have been financially penalized for his work because he artificially kept his output low? You apparently never heard of the economic law of diminishing returns. When did there become some sort of mandate against anyone making as much money as is legally possible on what they have created? A thief is a thief is a thief. There are no justifications
As I said, those sites are not responsible for the content uploaded by users. They're not legally required to check the legal status of what their users upload. Only when they get a valid complaint do they have to remove something. The site itself can't be taken down because it only provides a platform for users to share videos and the rules clearly state that copyrighted content is not allowed. They're virtually immune to legal action, same as torrent sites.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 1:06PM
He is one smart guy, probably the smartest guy i ever met. And he is right.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 1:45PM
This is the deal. These sites claim that "users" upload stolen content. A porn company, like Vivid, searches these sites for their stolen content. Once found, they send a letter to the offending site demanding that the stolen content be taken down within 48 hours. In the meantime somebody else uploads the same content and the process is repeated. Of late a $2 million lawsuit has been filed against Brazzers, a owner of most of the "tube" sites. You can check the "Porn News Forum' for more detail.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 1:57PM
What thievery are you talking about again? Because this discussion has been about how content sharing is copyright infringement, it is not equivalent to the appropriation of a physical product. Which most of the public and many of the courts understand. And Da Vinci's Mona Lisa was brought up to state that if his artworks, or any rare artworks for that matter, could be reproduced cheaply the originals wouldn't have much value, which is obvious. As for Michelangelo, he depended on patronage, he didn't depend on copyright law to make his money and interestingly enough he made artistic works which are superior to much of the dreck that is produced today. And the issue of artificial scarcity was raised to refer to the fact that many producers of various products would prefer to have only a certain number of their products being sold at a given price. Thus they seek to maintain scarcity to keep prices artificially higher than they would be if technology was allowed to produce a greater number of their products. Digital technology though has made inevitable that the former system of artificial scarcity that was in place for decades for certain content is largely at an end. But rather than change their business model some of these content producers wish to engage in a futile fight against it. Edited by - Zaer on 3/2/2010 1:58:48 PM
If turnabout is fair play, I would love to see some genius programmer write code that would automatically play and re-play all the content on millions of computers without anyone ever clicking on any of the ads. Burn baby bandwidth burn.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 3:41PM
your argument about artworks is kind of ridiculous. How many reproductions of the Mona Lisa have been sold over the last 100 years? I would venture to say millions. No matter how good a reproduction is, even if exact, there is and will forever be only one Mona Lisa, it's value will never decrease. Many fine art pieces have been counterfeited, to perfection, the original is still the original. Many of the dupes have sold for big money as counterfeits. As for a futile fight against it, read Steven hirschs solution, fight free with free. We sell ads and traffic. That would stop it dead in it's tracks.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 4:30PM
Even if the copies of an artwork are sold -- or given away -- AS copies, without the original's owner's consent, it is, legally, a crime. Technically, Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is in the posession of The Louvre, which must give its permission for the work to be copied in any way -- even for an artist to paint a copy of it. That they do NOT object to the proliferation of copies is their prerogative, but they legally could.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 4:48PM
^oops I didn't mean to infringe on Di Vinci's rights, as the painter of the Mona Lisa.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 4:55PM
Repeating the same lame arguments does not convert illegality into legality. If you are so convinced of your position, advise any of the companies from whose products you are "sharing", of exactly what you are doing. While doing that, don't forget to use your real name, and the phone number and address of yourself and your attorney.
I get it now.Just like YOUTUBE they are 100% proteced.It's like I buy spray paint and deface a wall,the spray paint company is NOT liable for my mis-use of their product.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 5:13PM
It is laughable -- or cryable, that the great artists never had any real ownership of their own art, muchless did they earn much money for them (Van Gogh traded many of his works for food and materials). Even today, a painting is owned by the one who buys it, not the one who painted it
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 8:23PM
^Didn't they usually have patrons who supported them?
On the topic of artificial scarcity-just look at the mainstream movie studios which form the MPAA. They are TERRIFIED of the Redbox Kiosks at Walmarts, and other retailers, where people can rent a new release for a buck, OR wait a few weeks for an off rental Redbox disc being purged to the secondary used market for like $8. Lets see pay today $14/19/24 for a retail copy, rent for $1, or wait 3 weeks to own for $8. They fear/feared devaluing their content. What did they do? Innovate-no. (1) They sued Redbox, and (2)They withheld new releases and directed retailers to limit the number of copies they could purchase at retail. Poor movie studios.......Usually they go crying to politicians for legislated protection. Every single VHS deck was infected with macrovision protection-in US legislation. Hell, the very device they feared soo much they took it to the supreme court to kill, actually created the home video market which is where over half their profits come from nowadays. Did big content innovate? No. Remember the abomination called DMCA? EVERY single burnable DC/DVD disc is taxed to compensate the content owners for duplication. There will ever be a solution to the problem of piracy only tactics to limit it. How many billions of dollars have the content owners dumped into content protection measures over the years (DRM) to protect their antiquated business models? Lets see, some examples are Macrovision, CGMS, the ill fated Broadcast Flag, CSS, AACS, BD+, watermarking, 5C, etc......... Every one was circumvented. All they did was inconvenience/piss off consumers. Do content owners innovate? No-they cry like babies all the way to Washington. I'm sure the porn industry would like to do the same, but they worry about the government prosecuting them so they cannot be publicly supported by the politicians. Poor porn industry. Wont the industry ever learn?
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 2 2010 : 10:12PM
Agreed. They believe they can continue their flawed business model through litigation.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 3 2010 : 11:58AM
Yes. Even today artists often have fans of their work that are guaranteed customers for whatever they put out. Generally, however, the artists with such patrons are already established and there art is a pretty solid investment almost guaranteed to bring a great return in the future, though rarely to the artist himself. For other artists, income is just as iffy as it always was. Even at its height, the patronage system meant little more than subsistence for the artist. DaVinci advertised himself to prospective patrons not as an artist, but as an inventor of weapons. Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel begrudgingly, as part of a deal with Pope Julius to give him the sculpture work he really wanted. Carravagio died carrying his painting of David with the Head of Goliath up the Italian coast on foot to try to get HIS patron to buy it. Artists have NEVER had it easy.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 4 2010 : 2:04PM
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Mar 4 2010 : 2:44PM
I think that your post essentially boils down to: "content providers are stupid and therefore deserve to be ripped off". You and the other poster are also basically saying: we have a right to watch porn, so stealing it is not a crime. Absurd.
Wicked Pictures,Vouyer Media, Axel Braun Productions, Marc Dorcel, JoyBear Pictures, abbywinters.com 1390 Posts 7/05
Posted - Mar 4 2010 : 3:03PM
In a thread bursting at the seams with misinformation and ill-informed opinion being asserted as fact, this may be the single most ridiculous thing I've read. Working in the DTV end of mainstream as well as adult, I can tell you that EVERYONE, from the majors (Universal, Warner Bros.) to the mini-majors like Lionsgate, to the feisty independents have been only too eager to partner up with RedBox. Long story short, the more passive streams of income you can create in more territories, the better. It's a win/win for both the producer and distributor. I'm done with this thread, but a bald-faced lie of this magnitude couldn't be allowed to go on unchecked. Roads To Moscow / Twitter: @roadstomoscow Edited by - Roads To Moscow on 3/4/2010 3:05:12 PM
One man's trash can be the next man's treasure. 1187 Posts 1/04
Posted - Mar 4 2010 : 3:39PM
College students are: Clever and smart. Many are poor, going to classes limits employment. Many have plenty of free time. So, some will figure out ways to copy CD's and DVD's, and they will record from digital radio, cable/internet/DirecTV, do the rent, rip, return boogie from NetFlix or RedBox, some will upload to P2P websites or UseNet, and if someone manages a way to defeat those implementations, they'll figure out a way around that too. Some college students find it both fun and, sad to say, profitable, to steal copywrited material and it's protection mechanisms. The Disney Corporation has tried valiantly to limit piracy of their movies, they have almost unlimited funds, but the best they can do is hinder, not prevent. Similar to termites, the best that can be done is to limit the damage and tolerate some of what they do. You can fight 'em, but you can't defeat 'em.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 4 2010 : 3:56PM
Great to know our youth of today will be our future thieves of tomorrow. The best thing that can be done is to start to prosecute some of these people and make an example out of them. Which is being done, but on a small scale. I think if Joe College Guy gets wacked with a $250k fine and 5 years in jail, which is the penalty, his friend, Brad College Guy just might think twice.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 4 2010 : 4:10PM
Just FYI, some of the companies emerging to combat piracy. If there is a market for theft, there is a market to stop theft. BSA’s Three-Part Response to piracy. The Business Software Alliance’s (BSA) global Internet piracy plan consists of several components – three of which fall under the heading of enforcement. • BSA has deployed a global Internet crawler system which identifies infringing files being offered on a host of Internet sites and protocols. BSA investigates and uses the system to send notices to ISPs seeking their assistance and to pursue suspected Internet pirates. • BSA brings high-profile, high-impact civil litigation. For example, in 2002, BSA executed court-ordered seizures in multiple states against vendors who advertised pirated software online. • BSA promotes criminal prosecution of Internet pirates through a range of activities, including ensuring coverage under the law, providing training to enforcement authorities and developing, referring and supporting criminal cases. Recent announcements by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding successful prosecutions of Internet piracy rings are evidence of significant activity in this area. Notice & Takedown BSA’s notice and takedown programs are designed to enable high-volume removal of infringing content by enlisting the cooperation of Internet service providers (ISPs), auction sites and other Internet intermediaries. BSA investigators process leads from outside sources and proactively search the Internet using the Media Sentry crawler system to identify member company products being offered for unauthorized download or sale. In the majority of cases, BSA seeks to terminate the infringing activity by calling upon the relevant ISP(s) to remove the offending content or take other appropriate action. BSA’s notice and takedown programs worldwide have generated tens of thousands of notices directed at infringing activity on Internet auction sites, Web sites (including so-called “warez” sites), file transfer protocol (FTP) sites, Internet relay chat (IRC) channels, Gnutella, Hotline, Fastrack and other P2P services, redirect services, mail-order sites and newsgroups. BSA operates programs in North America, Latin America, Europe and Asia. Civil Litigation BSA looks to bring or support civil litigation involving important precedents, high-volume infringing activity or the opportunity to positively influence public attitudes and behavior. One such suit, filed in the United States, was directed at piracy on IRC channels. IRC channels are locations on the Internet for real-time, multi-user, interactive conversations. In addition to providing a venue for chats, some IRC channels have become a forum for the exchange of digital files, including copyrighted software. BSA sued 25 participants in the “warez4cable” IRC channel (patronized by users with high-speed cable connections to the Internet). As part of the action, BSA, under the supervision of U.S. Marshals, carried out court-ordered seizures of computers and equipment used by a number of the defendants. To settle, defendants had to agree to cease their infringing activity and make payments to BSA. In another case, BSA filed suits against thirteen individuals advertising and selling pirated software on Internet auction sites. In the spring of 2002, BSA executed three unannounced court-ordered seizures on individuals running mail order operations out of their homes in Kentucky, Missouri and Pennsylvania. Under the supervision of U.S. Marshals, BSA carried away computers, equipment and CDs used in the mail-order operations. BSA also joins or files amicus briefs in significant cases, such as the Napster and Verizon appeals. Criminal Prosecutions BSA has helped put Internet piracy on the law enforcement radar screen, remove obstacles to criminal prosecution of Internet pirates and generate criminal cases. In the United States, for example, BSA played a key role in enactment of the NET Act, which allows for the criminal prosecution of infringing activity, whether or not the infringer derived any commercial advantage or financial benefit. BSA also spearheaded amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines, increasing the likelihood that conviction for Internet piracy will result in a term of imprisonment. BSA has also focused on identifying, developing, referring and supporting cases for criminal prosecution and recently has seen increased activity in this area. In December 2001, for example, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that in three separate operations federal law enforcement agents executed approximately 100 search warrants worldwide as part of an unprecedented Internet piracy investigation into piracy on the Internet. Those operations, code-named “Buccaneer,” “Bandwidth” and “Digital Piratez,” were aimed at individuals and at “Warez” groups – the term used to describe groups that specialize in the collection and dissemination of software programs and other digital works online. The co-leader of one Internet piracy group, called DrinkOrDie, was sentenced in May 2002 to 46 months in prison. See www.cybercrime.gov/ipcases for examples of law enforcement cases. Auction
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 4 2010 : 4:18PM
There isn't a right to watch that content. And as has already been said, sharing purchased content is not equivalent to the appropriation of physical property. Most people understand this. Edited by - Zaer on 3/4/2010 4:19:16 PM
besides the issues involved, i think this thread has so many posts because it's such a tempting title. he doesn't want to steal porn? he does it anyway because he's naughty and needs to be spanked?
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 4 2010 : 5:45PM
Let's look at the last part of your comments. Say YOU shoot a movie, paid for talent and all production, advertising, artwork and printing, not to mention replication, location and filed all the proper paperwork, ie 2257, testing and so on. You replicate let's just say 2000 pieces. You sell 1 piece and that buyer puts it up on a share site, now you can't sell the other 1999. Do you feel that your physical inventory is worth anything? it is not. Once you piss in the pool, the pool has been pissed in. Does that person have the right to upload that to a share site? No they do not. Now it costs YOU time and money to have it removed. Just to have someone else who downloaded that 1 copy put it back up in the next hour. More time and money. Do you see how that person just ruined your movie and cost you loads of money? You don't need the hard copy to steal, you are doing the same thing as if you walked into a store and stole it off the shelf, but quicker and with much less risk. So now we start suing the torrent and tube sites, those that are domestically located are easier to serve the the off shore or European ones. More time and more money. I think we invest in a company that identifies IP addresses and goes after the end user. A couple of good solid fines, maybe some jail time would slow it down, but if you cut off their computers, or guarantee a nice solid virus every time someone downloads a movie to a website, now you are talking. I don't even know if there is technology out there that could do that, but a guy can dream.
Are there any good places to find pre-owned and out-of-print DVD and VHS porn, besides eBay and ADT? Ebay sellers seem to be a bunch of hacks. (Why does shipping cost $6-8 per DVD?) ADT is better caliber of trader/seller (less shady), but slim pickings, probably due to the smallish number of folks who participate in selling/trading. Where's the "real" eBay of porn? Where do the "true" porn collectors and traders gather?
If its FREE easy and available Im on that Team Regardless of wt I got, I get robbed enough every G.D day. Let market forces dictate the capitalist market. lower prices blue ray as standard I might discuss currency.
What rock have you been living under? Maybe the smaller studios, but not Uni,WB,Fox. Please get your facts straight before making foolish statements. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/08/fox-to-redbox-hands-off-our-movies-for-30-days.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/08/warner-bros-going-after-netflix-along-with-redbox.html http://newteevee.com/2009/08/18/redbox-v-universal-will-move-forward/
That is your extrapolation, not what I said. What I was saying is that the content owners have a long history of X innovating X legislating protection of their antiquated business models and have been in denial of new technology and blame all their woes on piracy. They have wasted billions of dollars on protection measures which only inconvenience their paying customers yet which on the other hand are of little consequence to "pirates". How sad is that the paying customer is penalized and this fosters those honest customers to look for alternatives-legit or not.
A very good article summarizing content owners historical fear of technology: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/100-years-of-big-content-fearing-technologyin-its-own-words.ars/2
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 12:10AM
You are have been living under a rock of entitlement. You have neither the facts or the argument. No one is against the rental of their of the content. Red Box, as well as NetFlix etc. buy thousands of tittles each for each DVD that they rent. Studios large or small love paying customers.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 5 2010 : 12:12AM
First off, why does everybody have to be so NASTY? If you have a rebuttal for someone, just say it. Why do you have to intimate that the guy lives under a rock? That won't make your argument any sounder. I read your references; the first two, anyway. It's late and my dog (pictured left} is waiting for her belly rub. Your first reference reads in part:Your second reference includes the following:Neither of these articles say anything LIKE the movie companies "are TERRIFIED of the Redbox Kiosks at Walmarts, and other retailers." Instead, it sounds to me like they simply want more money from these rental operations. There doesn't seem to be anything so terrible about getting $460 million, or trying for a little more than that, and one would hardly be "seeking new deals with kiosk operators and mail-order subscription companies" that thet were terrified of. edited to fix quote format Edited by - duefuss on 3/8/2010 1:09:07 PM
