If it wasn't for analists, we would have no news...
[Edit:]
Actually, that was sarcastic, because these things never seem to say anything new.
But I just noticed at the bottom the projected iTunes movie rental price of $3-$4. That would be awesome in my book! I hope they know what they are talking about...
$3-4 dollars each is a bit much. If you're an avid Netflix user like me, you can view about 15 titles a month for around $18... which works out to about $1.20 per title.
$3-4 dollars each is a bit much. If you're an avid Netflix user like me, you can view about 15 titles a month for around $18... which works out to about $1.20 per title.
Yeah, I could do that.
10 years ago, no problem.
But now I like to watch the movies with my wife, and she doesn't watch just any movie. It has to be the "right" movie. This, for her, depends on a great many factors--many of which I do not understand. Suffice it to say, we might have 2 movies at any given time that are not the "right" movie.
The third disk I keep in rotation for TV shows that she has no interest in--I motor through Deadwood, Weeds, Alias, the Sopranos and such on my own.
Add in a relatively new kid (and another on the way) and we do not come close to using Netflix to full capacity anymore. It would be more cost effective for us to download the movies we want as we want them--and we would be getting greater satisfaction because there would not be days where we did not have access to the movies we wanted.
I would be willing to pay for that.
If only Apple (or should I say the movie companies) would give us the chance
3-4 dollars each for download rentals? As if. One reason physical media has more value, even as a rental, is you can use it anywhere. Any DVD player, any computer, most video game units, even a lot of car decks. The limitations on iTunes videos that you BUY are already far too restrictive, rentals are going to be one step short of useless.
Besides, a digital file has no value. That's why people are unremorseful about bittorrent downloading, there is no physical product, it's just a file, it's worth nothing. It's that physical product that people actually pay money for, not the content on it. If you don't get to own it, keep it, and hold it in your hands, even $1 is pushing it.
3-4 dollars each for download rentals? As if. One reason physical media has more value, even as a rental, is you can use it anywhere. Any DVD player, any computer, most video game units, even a lot of car decks. The limitations on iTunes videos that you BUY are already far too restrictive, rentals are going to be one step short of useless.
Besides, a digital file has no value. That's why people are unremorseful about bittorrent downloading, there is no physical product, it's just a file, it's worth nothing. It's that physical product that people actually pay money for, not the content on it. If you don't get to own it, keep it, and hold it in your hands, even $1 is pushing it.
What you say makes no sense.
By extension, then, I guess you don't pay for music downloads--there is nothing physical there either. I suppose you can sneek into movie theatres and watch movies for free too, because there is no physical product to pay for. I suppose you don't pay for advice from a lawyer either--I mean, there is nothing physical there.
People that grew up with the Internet (I'm guessing that you are in your 20's or younger) got the impression that anythig you can "get" on the internet is free and should always be free.
People have to make those movies--not just rich actors and directors but thousands of grips and animators and wranglers and caterers and editors and so on. I would like to see you tell some grip to his face that you shouldn't have to pay to see the movie he worked 5 months on because there is nothing "physical" there.
By extension, then, I guess you don't pay for music downloads--there is nothing physical there either. I suppose you can sneek into movie theatres and watch movies for free too, because there is no physical product to pay for. I suppose you don't pay for advice from a lawyer either--I mean, there is nothing physical there.
People that grew up with the Internet (I'm guessing that you are in your 20's or younger) got the impression that anythig you can "get" on the internet is free and should always be free.
People have to make those movies--not just rich actors and directors but thousands of grips and animators and wranglers and caterers and editors and so on. I would like to see you tell some grip to his face that you shouldn't have to pay to see the movie he worked 5 months on because there is nothing "physical" there.
By extension, then, I guess you don't pay for music downloads--there is nothing physical there either. I suppose you can sneek into movie theatres and watch movies for free too, because there is no physical product to pay for. I suppose you don't pay for advice from a lawyer either--I mean, there is nothing physical there.
People that grew up with the Internet (I'm guessing that you are in your 20's or younger) got the impression that anythig you can "get" on the internet is free and should always be free.
People have to make those movies--not just rich actors and directors but thousands of grips and animators and wranglers and caterers and editors and so on. I would like to see you tell some grip to his face that you shouldn't have to pay to see the movie he worked 5 months on because there is nothing "physical" there.
Sorry, but I find your "logic" idiotic.
The culture we're seeing grow up because of the internet, is that of people thinking if they can steal "it" without much risk attached, then it isn't really stealing at all, it's their "right" to have it.
They then build up a philosophy that copyright, licenses, royalties and such aren't something that they have to think about. They have no ability to think this through to the logical end, because they don't WANT to.
Part of this is the illogical idea of stating that the record companies are "ripping" off the artists (sometimes, but no more so than anything else), therefore they can steal (not a term they will use, of course) it off the internet, because they won't pay those record companies. They conveniently forget that by doing so, they assure that the artists (and others) get nothing at all. But, they don't want to think about that, because it interferes with their "If it's good for me, then nothing else matters." culture, and thought process, they've built up for themselves.
They are just as bad as the Chinese (and other) counterfeiters who deprive everyone who made these products of their proper income.
By extension, then, I guess you don't pay for music downloads--there is nothing physical there either. I suppose you can sneek into movie theatres and watch movies for free too, because there is no physical product to pay for. I suppose you don't pay for advice from a lawyer either--I mean, there is nothing physical there.
People that grew up with the Internet (I'm guessing that you are in your 20's or younger) got the impression that anythig you can "get" on the internet is free and should always be free.
People have to make those movies--not just rich actors and directors but thousands of grips and animators and wranglers and caterers and editors and so on. I would like to see you tell some grip to his face that you shouldn't have to pay to see the movie he worked 5 months on because there is nothing "physical" there.
Sorry, but I find your "logic" idiotic.
Music downloads... No I would not pay for them either. At least not the price itms charges for a full album. The value just is not there. I did pay $5 each to Radiohead and Saul Williams to download their new albums. In that case, the money at least actually went to the artists, and the full album was priced rationally.
Services are different, because the performance of the service can have value in certain circumstances. The presentation of a movie at a theatre does, because you get the huge screen, the big sound, the atmosphere, the snack bar, the night out with friends, etc. The DVD of that movie though, only has value in its physical form. An electronic file of a movie? Essentially no value. An electronic file doesn't provide an adaptable personal service. Same with music. A concert performance has value, a physical CD has value, an electronic file does not. A photocopy of a newspaper article has no value either, it's the same thing really.
Obviously, a lawyer's advice depending on the circumstances COULD have very serious immediate value.
Internet content absolutely should always be free, but I'm 40, not 20.
The people who work on movies do get paid very well. Once they get paid for the work they did, what anyone else does with that work is none of their concern. Work that I do ends up on torrents a lot. It doesn't bother me, because not only has the client already paid me for the work, the distribution is free promotion of my work. I have picked up new clients who found my work soley due to the torrents they were downloading.
The logic is solid. Millions of people use torrents everyday. A lot more people agree with me than agree with you.
Work that I do ends up on torrents a lot. It doesn't bother me, because not only has the client already paid me for the work, the distribution is free promotion of my work. I have picked up new clients who found my work soley due to the torrents they were downloading.
The issue comes down to the end game - when everything is basically on the Internet, the sole outlet for pretty much all creative work. When it comes to that, who will invest in your work when they're not going to get a return on that investment?
The issue comes down to the end game - when everything is basically on the Internet, the sole outlet for pretty much all creative work. When it comes to that, who will invest in your work when they're not going to get a return on that investment?
Gotta agree. It's what the WGA is on strike about, what the DGA is going to negotiate about, and come summer, what SAG is going to deal with. When the majority of distribution goes from physical to digital, how do the initial investors get their money back, and if they can't because everyone has stolen the product, why should they invest... which means there will be much less product than what we are used to.
Work that I do ends up on torrents a lot. It doesn't bother me, because not only has the client already paid me for the work, the distribution is free promotion of my work. I have picked up new clients who found my work soley due to the torrents they were downloading.
But you're just one person in the equation. How do your clients feel about it, assuming that they need to sell it to make money?
Music downloads... No I would not pay for them either. At least not the price itms charges for a full album. The value just is not there.
So let me get this straight. If you think the price of something is too high, you are entitled to steal it. No, you are wrong. If you don't agree that the convenience of legal downloading has enough "value" for you then you should buy the album on CD.
Quote:
I did pay $5 each to Radiohead and Saul Williams to download their new albums. In that case, the money at least actually went to the artists, and the full album was priced rationally.
Well, good for you.
Quote:
Services are different, because the performance of the service can have value in certain circumstances. The presentation of a movie at a theatre does, because you get the huge screen, the big sound, the atmosphere, the snack bar, the night out with friends, etc. The DVD of that movie though, only has value in its physical form. An electronic file of a movie? Essentially no value. An electronic file doesn't provide an adaptable personal service. Same with music. A concert performance has value, a physical CD has value, an electronic file does not. A photocopy of a newspaper article has no value either, it's the same thing really.
Huh? This is the well thought out version of your "logic?"
The movie at the theatre has value because you want to see it enough to pay +/- $10 to have that privilege.
If a friend of yours had free passes to the theatre, you would continue to go even if you didn't have to pay--it still has value, just someone else is paying.
A DVD of a movie has value to you because it enables you to see a movie you want to see. Prices vary wildly but have almost nothing to do with the "physical form" you are so fixated on. The DVD itself is worth less than a dollar. Packaging may cost a few bucks depending on the bells and whistles. What gives the DVD enough value to charge 2-3 times the theatre price for some people is this:
Physical rentals (ala Blockbuster or Netflix) have value because they enable you to see a movie you want to see. The value is much less than buying the DVD because of the fact you are renting, not owning. You cannot keep it indefinitely (without paying more in fees that buying) and you have nothing left at the end. You end up with nothing, but that doesn't mean it had no value.
Digital downloading has value because it enables you to see a movie you want to see.
Whether you are downloading to own (current iTunes movies) or using a downloading rental model (suspected iTunes future option or current Netflix for Windows users option) you are getting the value of seeing a movie in the convienence of your own home or work or iPod--without even having to leave the house to get it. Just because bittorrent allows you to get it for free does not make it right.
Quote:
Internet content absolutely should always be free, but I'm 40, not 20.
I guess you want to live in a world where no one makes a living off of creating anything. Physical media is on its way out. In your dream world, current YouTube amateur content will be the epitome of art and entertainment.
Quote:
The people who work on movies do get paid very well. Once they get paid for the work they did, what anyone else does with that work is none of their concern.
Because people like you are the minority right now. Other people are paying them while you are freeloading. If people stop buying or renting movies because they know they can get them for free, the earning power of future movies will go down and that WILL affect peoples jobs. Sure the thousands of people who worked on Harry Potter 5 got paid before a single ticket was sold. but investors and studios may not put as much $$ into Harry Potter 7 if they see that people are not paying to watch it. That would cost jobs. (I don't knot that it could happen that fast, but you get the idea.
Quote:
Work that I do ends up on torrents a lot. It doesn't bother me, because not only has the client already paid me for the work, the distribution is free promotion of my work. I have picked up new clients who found my work soley due to the torrents they were downloading.
This works for some models. If you have a single client who pays for your work, then this can work out fine. Especially if the work is specific such that other people can look at it to get an idea of your talent, but would still need you to create something to work the best for them. But it depends on your work. If future clients don't come to you because what you put out for free worked fine for them, you would not be so cavalier. Imagine if somebody is about to sign a contract with you and then sees they can use some of your work on the internet for free. Or imagine if a client paid you $10K to create something for them and then saw that their competitors are getting to use it for free. Are they going to want to pay you next time to create something for them and for their rivals? I do not know what your work is, but I assume you want to get paid for it.
Quote:
The logic is solid. Millions of people use torrents everyday. A lot more people agree with me than agree with you.
This is the logic of a freeloader. Many millions more do not use torrents. Most of the people who buy music on iTunes have the ability to get it for free, but they would rather do what is right.
That doesn't mean that I think the system is working. I think that some people go to torrents out of frustration because the DRMs being used are clunky, because the prices are out of kilter and whatnot. I am not saying I would never use them either--I just would not delude myself into thinking I was not stealing. Heck, I have switched to a second movie in a multiplex many a time. Even when I was 20 I knew I was stealing.
Or it will be done much more cheaply--not to the standards we now enjoy!
Absolutely. Lately when I'm raising money for a movie, digital distribution has become a real factor. And investors ask a lot of questions about that. Piracy does come up in the conversation, and that has to be taken into account in the business plan. Everyone is worried about getting their money back, as they always have, but in the past they never worried about it being stolen from them.
People who download the stuff for free when they should be paying are thieves, plain and simple. If they want to get the laws changed, I'm all for it. But right now it's illegal, and it will effect the bottom line.
People who download the stuff for free when they should be paying are thieves, plain and simple. If they want to get the laws changed, I'm all for it. But right now it's illegal, and it will effect the bottom line.
It's not theft. Theft requires a loss. The original product is still there for anyone who wants to buy it, and nobody paid to produce a product that cannot be sold.
Perhaps it's illegal where you live, but downloading for personal use is perfectly legal here.
It's not theft. Theft requires a loss. The original product is still there for anyone who wants to buy it, and nobody paid to produce a product that cannot be sold.
Perhaps it's illegal where you live, but downloading for personal use is perfectly legal here.
Unless you live in Russia, or some other place where the rule of law doesn't hold, then it is illegal to download copyrighted works without paying for the use.
Unless you live in Russia, or some other place where the rule of law doesn't hold, then it is illegal to download copyrighted works without paying for the use.
Courts in Canada have repeatedly upheld an individual's right to copy and/or download for personal use. The Canadian copyright act specifically states that copies made for private use are not an infringement of the copyright.
Unless you live in Russia, or some other place where the rule of law doesn't hold, then it is illegal to download copyrighted works without paying for the use.
Comments
At least use realistic numbers.
Otherwise, your argument makes sense.
Netflix offers streaming movie rentals at no extra cost above the regular subscription, they just don't have is a set-top box or portable devices.
Or Mac support of any kind...
If it wasn't for analists, we would have no news...
[Edit:]
Actually, that was sarcastic, because these things never seem to say anything new.
But I just noticed at the bottom the projected iTunes movie rental price of $3-$4. That would be awesome in my book! I hope they know what they are talking about...
$3-4 dollars each is a bit much. If you're an avid Netflix user like me, you can view about 15 titles a month for around $18... which works out to about $1.20 per title.
$3-4 dollars each is a bit much. If you're an avid Netflix user like me, you can view about 15 titles a month for around $18... which works out to about $1.20 per title.
Yeah, I could do that.
10 years ago, no problem.
But now I like to watch the movies with my wife, and she doesn't watch just any movie. It has to be the "right" movie. This, for her, depends on a great many factors--many of which I do not understand. Suffice it to say, we might have 2 movies at any given time that are not the "right" movie.
The third disk I keep in rotation for TV shows that she has no interest in--I motor through Deadwood, Weeds, Alias, the Sopranos and such on my own.
Add in a relatively new kid (and another on the way) and we do not come close to using Netflix to full capacity anymore. It would be more cost effective for us to download the movies we want as we want them--and we would be getting greater satisfaction because there would not be days where we did not have access to the movies we wanted.
I would be willing to pay for that.
If only Apple (or should I say the movie companies) would give us the chance
Besides, a digital file has no value. That's why people are unremorseful about bittorrent downloading, there is no physical product, it's just a file, it's worth nothing. It's that physical product that people actually pay money for, not the content on it. If you don't get to own it, keep it, and hold it in your hands, even $1 is pushing it.
3-4 dollars each for download rentals? As if. One reason physical media has more value, even as a rental, is you can use it anywhere. Any DVD player, any computer, most video game units, even a lot of car decks. The limitations on iTunes videos that you BUY are already far too restrictive, rentals are going to be one step short of useless.
Besides, a digital file has no value. That's why people are unremorseful about bittorrent downloading, there is no physical product, it's just a file, it's worth nothing. It's that physical product that people actually pay money for, not the content on it. If you don't get to own it, keep it, and hold it in your hands, even $1 is pushing it.
What you say makes no sense.
By extension, then, I guess you don't pay for music downloads--there is nothing physical there either. I suppose you can sneek into movie theatres and watch movies for free too, because there is no physical product to pay for. I suppose you don't pay for advice from a lawyer either--I mean, there is nothing physical there.
People that grew up with the Internet (I'm guessing that you are in your 20's or younger) got the impression that anythig you can "get" on the internet is free and should always be free.
People have to make those movies--not just rich actors and directors but thousands of grips and animators and wranglers and caterers and editors and so on. I would like to see you tell some grip to his face that you shouldn't have to pay to see the movie he worked 5 months on because there is nothing "physical" there.
Sorry, but I find your "logic" idiotic.
What you say makes no sense.
By extension, then, I guess you don't pay for music downloads--there is nothing physical there either. I suppose you can sneek into movie theatres and watch movies for free too, because there is no physical product to pay for. I suppose you don't pay for advice from a lawyer either--I mean, there is nothing physical there.
People that grew up with the Internet (I'm guessing that you are in your 20's or younger) got the impression that anythig you can "get" on the internet is free and should always be free.
People have to make those movies--not just rich actors and directors but thousands of grips and animators and wranglers and caterers and editors and so on. I would like to see you tell some grip to his face that you shouldn't have to pay to see the movie he worked 5 months on because there is nothing "physical" there.
Sorry, but I find your "logic" idiotic.
You are totally correct. Well explained too.
What you say makes no sense.
By extension, then, I guess you don't pay for music downloads--there is nothing physical there either. I suppose you can sneek into movie theatres and watch movies for free too, because there is no physical product to pay for. I suppose you don't pay for advice from a lawyer either--I mean, there is nothing physical there.
People that grew up with the Internet (I'm guessing that you are in your 20's or younger) got the impression that anythig you can "get" on the internet is free and should always be free.
People have to make those movies--not just rich actors and directors but thousands of grips and animators and wranglers and caterers and editors and so on. I would like to see you tell some grip to his face that you shouldn't have to pay to see the movie he worked 5 months on because there is nothing "physical" there.
Sorry, but I find your "logic" idiotic.
The culture we're seeing grow up because of the internet, is that of people thinking if they can steal "it" without much risk attached, then it isn't really stealing at all, it's their "right" to have it.
They then build up a philosophy that copyright, licenses, royalties and such aren't something that they have to think about. They have no ability to think this through to the logical end, because they don't WANT to.
Part of this is the illogical idea of stating that the record companies are "ripping" off the artists (sometimes, but no more so than anything else), therefore they can steal (not a term they will use, of course) it off the internet, because they won't pay those record companies. They conveniently forget that by doing so, they assure that the artists (and others) get nothing at all. But, they don't want to think about that, because it interferes with their "If it's good for me, then nothing else matters." culture, and thought process, they've built up for themselves.
They are just as bad as the Chinese (and other) counterfeiters who deprive everyone who made these products of their proper income.
What you say makes no sense.
By extension, then, I guess you don't pay for music downloads--there is nothing physical there either. I suppose you can sneek into movie theatres and watch movies for free too, because there is no physical product to pay for. I suppose you don't pay for advice from a lawyer either--I mean, there is nothing physical there.
People that grew up with the Internet (I'm guessing that you are in your 20's or younger) got the impression that anythig you can "get" on the internet is free and should always be free.
People have to make those movies--not just rich actors and directors but thousands of grips and animators and wranglers and caterers and editors and so on. I would like to see you tell some grip to his face that you shouldn't have to pay to see the movie he worked 5 months on because there is nothing "physical" there.
Sorry, but I find your "logic" idiotic.
Music downloads... No I would not pay for them either. At least not the price itms charges for a full album. The value just is not there. I did pay $5 each to Radiohead and Saul Williams to download their new albums. In that case, the money at least actually went to the artists, and the full album was priced rationally.
Services are different, because the performance of the service can have value in certain circumstances. The presentation of a movie at a theatre does, because you get the huge screen, the big sound, the atmosphere, the snack bar, the night out with friends, etc. The DVD of that movie though, only has value in its physical form. An electronic file of a movie? Essentially no value. An electronic file doesn't provide an adaptable personal service. Same with music. A concert performance has value, a physical CD has value, an electronic file does not. A photocopy of a newspaper article has no value either, it's the same thing really.
Obviously, a lawyer's advice depending on the circumstances COULD have very serious immediate value.
Internet content absolutely should always be free, but I'm 40, not 20.
The people who work on movies do get paid very well. Once they get paid for the work they did, what anyone else does with that work is none of their concern. Work that I do ends up on torrents a lot. It doesn't bother me, because not only has the client already paid me for the work, the distribution is free promotion of my work. I have picked up new clients who found my work soley due to the torrents they were downloading.
The logic is solid. Millions of people use torrents everyday. A lot more people agree with me than agree with you.
Work that I do ends up on torrents a lot. It doesn't bother me, because not only has the client already paid me for the work, the distribution is free promotion of my work. I have picked up new clients who found my work soley due to the torrents they were downloading.
The issue comes down to the end game - when everything is basically on the Internet, the sole outlet for pretty much all creative work. When it comes to that, who will invest in your work when they're not going to get a return on that investment?
The issue comes down to the end game - when everything is basically on the Internet, the sole outlet for pretty much all creative work. When it comes to that, who will invest in your work when they're not going to get a return on that investment?
Gotta agree. It's what the WGA is on strike about, what the DGA is going to negotiate about, and come summer, what SAG is going to deal with. When the majority of distribution goes from physical to digital, how do the initial investors get their money back, and if they can't because everyone has stolen the product, why should they invest... which means there will be much less product than what we are used to.
Work that I do ends up on torrents a lot. It doesn't bother me, because not only has the client already paid me for the work, the distribution is free promotion of my work. I have picked up new clients who found my work soley due to the torrents they were downloading.
But you're just one person in the equation. How do your clients feel about it, assuming that they need to sell it to make money?
Music downloads... No I would not pay for them either. At least not the price itms charges for a full album. The value just is not there.
So let me get this straight. If you think the price of something is too high, you are entitled to steal it. No, you are wrong. If you don't agree that the convenience of legal downloading has enough "value" for you then you should buy the album on CD.
I did pay $5 each to Radiohead and Saul Williams to download their new albums. In that case, the money at least actually went to the artists, and the full album was priced rationally.
Well, good for you.
Services are different, because the performance of the service can have value in certain circumstances. The presentation of a movie at a theatre does, because you get the huge screen, the big sound, the atmosphere, the snack bar, the night out with friends, etc. The DVD of that movie though, only has value in its physical form. An electronic file of a movie? Essentially no value. An electronic file doesn't provide an adaptable personal service. Same with music. A concert performance has value, a physical CD has value, an electronic file does not. A photocopy of a newspaper article has no value either, it's the same thing really.
Huh? This is the well thought out version of your "logic?"
If you want something, it has value to you.
CASE #1
The movie at the theatre has value because you want to see it enough to pay +/- $10 to have that privilege.
If a friend of yours had free passes to the theatre, you would continue to go even if you didn't have to pay--it still has value, just someone else is paying.
Case #2
A DVD of a movie has value to you because it enables you to see a movie you want to see. Prices vary wildly but have almost nothing to do with the "physical form" you are so fixated on. The DVD itself is worth less than a dollar. Packaging may cost a few bucks depending on the bells and whistles. What gives the DVD enough value to charge 2-3 times the theatre price for some people is this:
- you can watch the movie whenever you want
- you can share the movie with friends
- it may include extras
- you can sell it when you are done with it
Case #3Physical rentals (ala Blockbuster or Netflix) have value because they enable you to see a movie you want to see. The value is much less than buying the DVD because of the fact you are renting, not owning. You cannot keep it indefinitely (without paying more in fees that buying) and you have nothing left at the end. You end up with nothing, but that doesn't mean it had no value.
Case #4
Digital downloading has value because it enables you to see a movie you want to see.
Whether you are downloading to own (current iTunes movies) or using a downloading rental model (suspected iTunes future option or current Netflix for Windows users option) you are getting the value of seeing a movie in the convienence of your own home or work or iPod--without even having to leave the house to get it. Just because bittorrent allows you to get it for free does not make it right.
Internet content absolutely should always be free, but I'm 40, not 20.
The people who work on movies do get paid very well. Once they get paid for the work they did, what anyone else does with that work is none of their concern.
Because people like you are the minority right now. Other people are paying them while you are freeloading. If people stop buying or renting movies because they know they can get them for free, the earning power of future movies will go down and that WILL affect peoples jobs. Sure the thousands of people who worked on Harry Potter 5 got paid before a single ticket was sold. but investors and studios may not put as much $$ into Harry Potter 7 if they see that people are not paying to watch it. That would cost jobs. (I don't knot that it could happen that fast, but you get the idea.
Work that I do ends up on torrents a lot. It doesn't bother me, because not only has the client already paid me for the work, the distribution is free promotion of my work. I have picked up new clients who found my work soley due to the torrents they were downloading.
This works for some models. If you have a single client who pays for your work, then this can work out fine. Especially if the work is specific such that other people can look at it to get an idea of your talent, but would still need you to create something to work the best for them. But it depends on your work. If future clients don't come to you because what you put out for free worked fine for them, you would not be so cavalier. Imagine if somebody is about to sign a contract with you and then sees they can use some of your work on the internet for free. Or imagine if a client paid you $10K to create something for them and then saw that their competitors are getting to use it for free. Are they going to want to pay you next time to create something for them and for their rivals? I do not know what your work is, but I assume you want to get paid for it.
The logic is solid. Millions of people use torrents everyday. A lot more people agree with me than agree with you.
This is the logic of a freeloader. Many millions more do not use torrents. Most of the people who buy music on iTunes have the ability to get it for free, but they would rather do what is right.
That doesn't mean that I think the system is working. I think that some people go to torrents out of frustration because the DRMs being used are clunky, because the prices are out of kilter and whatnot. I am not saying I would never use them either--I just would not delude myself into thinking I was not stealing.
Now that you are 40 what is your excuse?
... which means there will be much less product than what we are used to.
Or it will be done much more cheaply--not to the standards we now enjoy!
Or it will be done much more cheaply--not to the standards we now enjoy!
Absolutely. Lately when I'm raising money for a movie, digital distribution has become a real factor. And investors ask a lot of questions about that. Piracy does come up in the conversation, and that has to be taken into account in the business plan. Everyone is worried about getting their money back, as they always have, but in the past they never worried about it being stolen from them.
People who download the stuff for free when they should be paying are thieves, plain and simple. If they want to get the laws changed, I'm all for it. But right now it's illegal, and it will effect the bottom line.
People who download the stuff for free when they should be paying are thieves, plain and simple. If they want to get the laws changed, I'm all for it. But right now it's illegal, and it will effect the bottom line.
It's not theft. Theft requires a loss. The original product is still there for anyone who wants to buy it, and nobody paid to produce a product that cannot be sold.
Perhaps it's illegal where you live, but downloading for personal use is perfectly legal here.
It's not theft. Theft requires a loss. The original product is still there for anyone who wants to buy it, and nobody paid to produce a product that cannot be sold.
Perhaps it's illegal where you live, but downloading for personal use is perfectly legal here.
Unless you live in Russia, or some other place where the rule of law doesn't hold, then it is illegal to download copyrighted works without paying for the use.
Unless you live in Russia, or some other place where the rule of law doesn't hold, then it is illegal to download copyrighted works without paying for the use.
Courts in Canada have repeatedly upheld an individual's right to copy and/or download for personal use. The Canadian copyright act specifically states that copies made for private use are not an infringement of the copyright.
http://www.news.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html
Unless you live in Russia, or some other place where the rule of law doesn't hold, then it is illegal to download copyrighted works without paying for the use.
or if you live in this guy's head, apparently.