Content was used that should have been paid for and wasn't. Simple as that. Trying to claim that some would not have paid for it anyways is wrong, as they should have not used the content if they had no intention of paying for it.

The MPAA needs to be taken to task and maybe shut down (don't we wish). "Human error?" Yeah right. You don't release studies/reports like that without checking and double-checking your facts. They're already been caught doing naughty stuff and being hypocrites. It's interesting that they said one thing to one group and something else to another group. Liars.

Content was used that should have been paid for and wasn't. Simple as that. Trying to claim that some would not have paid for it anyways is wrong, as they should have not used the content if they had no intention of paying for it.

Thank you.

Well, that was a reply to Grazer's post. I don't know why it popped up here to the top.

Anyway, this just shows what a bunch of liars the MPAA and RIAA has always been. They sue people, make up ridiculous losses and force them to pay. Oh your kid downloaded a Britney Spears song, well then you owe us $100,000! They're a bunch of corporate douchnozzles, and I'll be glad when they're out of business. Ooh their losing money, well good. F*** them. :D

That is a very well thought out post and I agree. It's a shame you wasted it on PC_Fool, the biggest retard on Betanews.

Heh...

I'm impressed. You actually were able to find the 'post' button at least.

Maybe next time we can try for the ever elusive "reply" button... Wouldn't want you to trigger an aneurysm or anything.

Gang, I think y'all are missing the point all together. MPAA admits it lied about the loss figures. Why did they lie? In order to advance their position that new laws to restrict filesharing are vitally needed. Yet only a low percentage of filesharing concerns pirated movies/music. The vast majority of it is totally unrelated to their products.

The question you should really be pondering is WHY do these international corporations want to restrict free flow of information which has nothing, directly or indirectly, to do with their business interests? What do they gain from this? Where is their profit in these new, draconian laws?

We are standing in the forest, only seeing the tree directly in front of us, totally oblivious to the tree that is crashing down to smash us into the ground.

hmmmmmm... 44% down to less than 15%... a 2 year old could guess better than that!

And what is the percentage accuracy of this statement?

Missing the point.. The MPAA needed to enforce to congress people that they are losing alot of money.. (just look at the cost at the box office.. what a bad year they had.. ;) )... This is good for new laws and tax writeoff's

Make up numbers to get your point across.. The RIAA and MPAA companies loses 1,000,000,000.00$ per day.

Well the IRS certainly won't allow the RIAA and MPAA member companies to write down their business (calculate losses) using these kinds of fantasy numbers, but the public and the politicians seem to buy it...not to mention some of the folks that post here.

Well the IRS certainly won't allow the RIAA and MPAA member companies to write down their business (calculate losses) using these kinds of fantasy numbers

They couldn't anyway. There's no way to quantify the number of pirated copies.

I never said they could calculate an actual number.

Hell, I never even said they could use those numbers in any meaningful way.

All I said was using the content in a manner that was not licensed is a loss.

not to mention some of the folks that post here.

But hey, I love being patronized and condescended to; so please, continue.

theft is cool

...it is when it comes to pissing off the RIAA & MPAA

AGAIN MPAA admits 'human error' in its revenue loss estimates from piracy
By Tim Conneally, BetaNews
January 23, 2010, 12:33 PM

"A more accurate figure, the MPAA now says, is about 8 percent,..."

29% margin of error?

Right.

So we're done believing *Any* number these guys throw out, right?

hard to calculate a loss when you don't know that the people doing the pirating would have ever bought it in the first place

In order to consume content, it would have had to be purchased or pirated.

If not pirated, the only other alternative...is purchased.

All piracy=loss.

{Edit}From a business perspective, this *is* how it works. Of course, from your Entitled, "Information wants to be free", "I only wanted to try it", spoiled, whiny-brat perspective, all bets are off.

Many people buy after they pirate. Let's not get into details but if it wasn't for piracy, software titles like Adobe Photoshop wouldn't be worth as much as they are now.

wrong. there are two alternatives to pirating: purchasing or not purchasing. just because someone wants something doesn't mean that they are willing or able to pay for it; that is why these studies are bunk.

A very naive view. Many so called pirates would think twice about acquiring most content if it would cost them anything. Unfortunately a lot of content is pure junk with non-return clauses attached, which applies to all kinds of software (incl media...). Vendors try dictating prices and the market simply doesn't put up with it.

Talk about missing the point:

The content costs money.

The content was consumed.

The studio got no money.

Money was lost.

It is as simple as that from a business standpoint. Product was consumed without being paid for. This is a loss.

You guys can sugarcoat it any way you want. You can even call me names. The logic stands, as it has for centuries...

there are two alternatives to pirating: purchasing or not purchasing

Not for consumed content.

Consumed content is either pirated or purchased.

End of Story.

You can twist the words, try to fudge the meanings, whatever. The point remains the same.

lmao...

I stole it, but then I bought it, that makes it OK, right?

w/e

And photoshop? Pure BS...

Let's not get into details on why it's BS, but I'll give you a hint: You have *no* possible way to prove such an asinine claim.

Except that the definition of "consumption" has potentially different connotations in the digital age. Just because a digital copy is currently seen as the same as a physical copy of something doesn't mean that will always stand, or that it is "correct". Traditional consumption and loss models don't account for the fact that there is no manufacturing cost for digital goods and there was no physical loss to the company. A digital loss is still surely a loss, but should it be defined and counted the same way as a physical one? It is now, there's no doubt of that, but is that really the most reasonable approach?

Don't get me wrong, I make no excuses for anyone pirating or otherwise stealing anything. But I do think there are greater issues to consider here and that the metrics used to discuss these issues should be carefully considered. Digital media presents new challenges that were either impossible or at least very unlikely with physical goods. If a "product" is a simple arrangement of bits, what happens if you encrypt those bits - is it no longer the same product and can it then be freely transmitted? Is it only the decryption that then becomes illegal? Or is it the actual listening? What about different bitrate versions of songs - the binary definition is completely different, yet it is identified as the same song. In terms of physical goods this is little different from counting a knock-off as the original and counting loss in the same way.

The bottom line is it's not as simple as these industry organizations would like us to think and that may be increasingly true as digital goods and services are more specifically defined in a legal sense. Likely we will end up with digital goods continuing to be treated much the same way as physical goods, but the mere fact that they do not act in the same way (I can copy your bits without you losing your bits and without affecting your bits in any way - you could be completely unaware of my copying) means that these matters should be considered more in-depth.

"In order to consume content, it would have had to be purchased or pirated.

If not pirated, the only other alternative...is purchased."

Actually, there is a second alternative... not consumed. Calling every instance of piracy a loss relies on the assumption that consumption would occur in the absence of piracy.

In modern societies, if a purchaser is not satisfied with their purchase, especially if it has a defect, they can return it for a refund or exchange it for a non-defective version. In most cases, any defect that prevents the merchandise from functioning in the manner it should is considered a defect.

However, intellectual property based products seem to somehow exempted themselves from this basic rule. If a movie fails to entertain, why shouldn't theater patrons/dvd purchasers get refunds? If a software product has bugs, shouldn't it be up to the user to decide whether to overlook them or not; and shouldn't they be entitled to "upgraded" (i.e. fixed versions) without further monetary investment?

(As a side note on "consumables", when is the last time your grocery store's suppliers restricted the manner in which you could consume those consumables?)

Not everyone has money for luxuries--if someone
only has three bucks that isn't tied up in food,
rent their using a college system to DL and watch
a movie does not cut sales.

My now vague memories of college are that most
students did not have money for pizza delivery,
and had to budget to get 3.50 to go see a movie.
(Hey, I said "vague," OK? Been a while.)

The only name I'd call you is whelp - obediently following the master. Then again it's not your fault growing up in an autocratic and censored society. Hence ultimately 'we' (as beeing addressed as a group) can only feel sorry.

You can't return your memory of a movie, therefore you are still in possession of the content of the movie. In addition, if you had purchased the movie (DVD or VHS, for example), the store can't tell if you made a copy of the movie and are therefore trying to get the movie for free. Likewise with software. You could have made a copy and are trying to get it for free. Install MS Office, return the software, and voila... free copy.

"You can't return your memory of a movie, therefore you are still in possession of the content of the movie."

I can't return the bite of food I took, before I found out it had turned bad, either. I doubt they'd ask for it. I guess it really comes down to what you think you are paying for with a movie. I expect to be entertained, perhaps others expect to be robbed of two hours of their lives that they will never get back?

"In addition, if you had purchased the [copyable item], the store can't tell if you made a copy of the [copyable item]..."

So, I should suffer for a crime I didn't commit, without a trial? Retailers are police, judge, jury, and sentence pronouncers now?

Normally you are quite sharp on these things, but you are buying an assumtion with a fallacious foundation.

That assumption is based upon:

money lost = potential revenue (based upon actual content consumed x margin) - real revenue

You are basing this on the "content was consumed" fact, and this is unchallenged. Unfortunately, that fact is irrelevant (or at the very least misleading) to this because the actual consumption of the content did not incur any expense on the part of the copyright holder, so to equate the difference in this theoretical profit and the real profit is very misleading. No other other industry would consider such fantasy numbers in any business planning.

Now, if you do some research and put a real ratio into the equation where you assume that no content was consumed without payment and therefore less content would be consumed as this, no-doubt, would influence a consumtion decision, you can build a case for loss that does not rest on potentials.

Did they miss out on actual sales...yes, but not to the extent alleged. Did they miss out on revenue to which they are entitled?...yes, but that is a different conversation because most companies, if not all, miss out on revenue to which they are entitled through fraud, waste, and abuse, just to name a few methods.

To say profit was lost and provide only the 100% loss based upon consumption, is the same as a politician lamenting his opponent taking food out of the mouths of children by voting for a reduction in the school lunch program funds, when what was actually done was to vote for a smaller INCREASE than had originally been planned. This sort of argument is intellectually dishonest and misleading unless the standards used to make such statements are accepted by most parties in the conversation.

We have not even looked at the additional production costs associated with the manufacture of the content that "could have been" consumed had all consumption been purchased. This has to be measured against the "lost profit", as must lossed due to normal causes. Has this been factored into the equation? I don't know, the MPAA has not been transparent enough as far as I can see.

I think we can go down a similar path if we look at all the land that used to belong to the Native Americans and now is used by non-natives descendents. You can say that they should have been paid for this land and calculate the value in today's dollars, but at the end of the day all you have is a moral argument and not a theft case where actual value can be shown to have been stolen.

edit:
Another thought. If consumption becomes the benchmark, then arguably I should pay each time I consume it should I not? If I buy a DVD, I do not. If a DVD is rented by someone, the MPAA's members are not compensated every time it is viewed.

Why then is the consumption the proper benchmark to be used for calculating profit lost when a digital download is watched (consumed), when that is not the criteria for measuring just compensation if I buy physical media?

Well reasoned post. Thank you.

"Let's not get into details on why it's BS, but I'll give you a hint: You have *no* possible way to prove such an asinine claim."

I'm afraid that also goes for your claim that everything pirated would have been purchased otherwise. I don't condone piracy but that argument has always been absurd.

Does sharing equate to pirating?
If I purchase digital media and decide to share or loan it to someone else so that they too can enjoy it. Is that to be considered pirating? This is such a grey area that is yet to be well defined. When we had cassettes and you cover the "copy hole" and dub it, I do not remember hearing anyone crying piracy... the same for VHS tapes... and those were infinitely easier to copy than today's digital media where now you have to break the encryption first.
The bottom line is that in todays age, although production costs have gone down, the prices have not, so folks are intent on finding work arounds.
Remember when watching a movie at a theatre, including popcorn and a pop was below $10?
Now a days, you cannot even watch a matinee for under $10 unless it is being subsidized in someway.
Notice how fast the DVD versions of movies are coming out now, just to try and defeat piracy and recoup potentially "lost revenue"?
There was a time when you had to wait at least a year before a movie even went to DVD or VHS (when that was still around). Now the wait is less than 2 months.
As long as there is available content, folks are going to "share".
One final example, if folks combine resources to buy content and then that content is passed around, can that be considered pirating?

How do you think companies like Adobe and Microsoft have come to dominate their industries and have become the defacto standard in their respective fields. A large installed user base is worth a certain level of loss to 'piracy', as admitted by Jeff Raikes (Microsoft's Business Division President in '07.) That user base may very well buy the product later or more likely be the reason the company they work for buys it later in multiple copies! It's good to have a loyal and experienced user base... even if they didn't all pay for it. You know darn well that this fact was figured in to their internet business model calculations. I know I've taped CD's from people and later bought my own copy. It really isn't a far fetched fantasy that a 'pirate' may end up as a paying consumer in the end.

Also in the case of an OS, a large user base (whether they payed for it or not) means a lot of companies are going to want to make their software for that OS. A lot of software for an OS means more people are going to buy it, and the cycle continues.

How do you think companies like Adobe and Microsoft have come to dominate their industries and have become the defacto standard in their respective fields

Quality Products. (Have fun with that, trolls)

The comment did not imply piracy was why they had such a large base, it was meant to imply they could live with a small amount of it, and that having a large base implied some piracy.

our claim that everything pirated would have been purchased otherwise.

Show me where I said that.

I dare ya.

*shakes head*

No-one cried because it was not *anywhere* near the level it is at now.

It exploded when digital formats became easy to reproduce and trade. Now they've taken notice and started enforcing their rights.

It's never been legal to "copy and share" music or movies.

Except that the definition of "consumption" has potentially different connotations in the digital age

No, it doesn't. It's pretty simple. It's just that you want it to be grey and choose to see it that way.

Just because a digital copy is currently seen as the same as a physical copy of something doesn't mean that will always stand,

Where did I mention or even bring up the future state? We're talking about right now.

Traditional consumption and loss models don't account for the fact that there is no manufacturing cost for digital goods and there was no physical loss to the company

Yippee. Yer point? The laws today say it very clearly. Could that change? Sure. But that's not the point I was making.

. A digital loss is still surely a loss, but should it be defined and counted the same way as a physical one? It is now, there's no doubt of that,

Then we are in agreement. Look, I didn't want to get into a huge debate on the future of copyright. Hell, if you've seen any of my posts in the past you likely know I am a HUGE proponent of MASSIVE copyright reform in terms of limitations, terms, and transfer.

But...as it stands now:

"They may never have bought it, it can't be counted as a loss" is absolute Bull. I can, it is, and it does.

Few things:

I don't care how it "should" be.

That wasn't my point. The OP claimed it wasn't a loss. I simply made the point that, according to the current state, it *is*.

Plain and simple. I even tried to make it come across that simply.

Everyone wants to argue semantics. I couldn't care less. The reality is now, and piracy=loss. Anything else is wishful thinking at this point.

...and really, the fact that they don't lose money by the act doesn't mean squat. It's a tired argument that's been defeated so many times by logic and common sense that I really don't even want to get into it now.

That is so old.

Not having the money for luxuries means you don't have to pay while everyone else does?

**** off.

lmao..

in order to consume content

Miss that part?

never said i supported what they are doing, was just saying if someone ops to dl and watch a movie doesn't mean they lost any revenue because that person probably wouldn't buy it anyway

Yep, and it sucks. For the record, I do agree with you.

Sort of, but not really. Your underlying argument that "every instance of piracy is a lost sale" assumes that every instance of consumption would occur whether or not piracy was an option. I was merely pointing out in more flowery words that many instances of consumption would not occur if piracy were not an option.

That's not the only thing that is old. [rolleyes] Your predatory capitalistic beliefs are what is truly old. You know,the same Reaganomics that is turning the USA into a third world country and a joke to be pitied now.....

I suppose that you think that if they don't have any bread that they should eat cake instead. [smiles]

True. The real loss occurs when it is being sold through piracy and the money isn't being sent to the makers.... It has been more than proven that downloading alone doesn't adversely affect sales, in fact it actually helps them...

You have *no* possible way to prove such an asinine claim.

It can be proven in one area sort of(if you think about it) just look at anime sector the videos are rampant all over but you never hear of the amime makers complaining because they know it helps move merchandise.

Plus they get the added benefit of fansubbers doing translations to other languages so all they have to do is look to see whats popular and where so they can make the local dubs and merchandise with less risk.

"In order to consume content, it would have had to be purchased or pirated. If not pirated, the only other alternative...is purchased."

There you go. You're basically implying that every time someone downloads a song or movie and watches it someone else has lost money. The only "wishful thinking" in that scenario is on the part of the entertainment industry.

The content was not "consumed" in the way you are implying, nothing vanished. This is why it's called copyright infringement and not theft. As has been pointed out to you many times just because little Johnny downloads a copy of High School Musical does not mean that he was ever going to buy it. That does not make piracy ok, it's obviously still wrong and still illegal but to say that it caused a loss of money is fallacious. There is no way to know and that's why all these figures they come up with are BS pulled out of thin air.

The logic stands, as it has for centuries...

They had digital media centuries ago? Who knew...that's the problem. You are following the same dinosaur logic as the RIAA and MPAA. Yes there is a problem with piracy but they are going about fixing it the wrong way, still clinging to physical formats and equating the downloading of a song with physical theft.

You are just rambling now. Obviously you have no wish to listen to other ideas or opinions and give them any thought. You are just going to stick your fingers in your ears while shouting "I don't care! I'm right and you're wrong!".

Take your Socialistic Anarchist beliefs back where they belong... You about 12 years behind the financial curve and don't seem to know that Reaganomics have not been used for a very long time. If they were the US would be in better shape, not thats it's in bad shape at all. The economics here are pretty good overall.

assumes that every instance of consumption would occur whether or not piracy was an option

No, it doesn't. That doesn't even enter into it.

I love how you guys will try to rationalize this crap. It's BS and you *know* it.

If a track costs $.040, and you download it for free, you owe the label $.040. Until you pay that, it's a loss.

Period.

Your intentions, the possibilities of you *not* downloading it, don't mean squat because you *did* download it.

I did nothing of the sort.

I put it simply so you might understand. That failed...

Let me try again:

Content - Consumed.

Value placed upon it by Artist - Not paid.

Artist - Missing that money.

(Throw the labels, production, etc in there wherever you want, it really doesn't matter)

But, as far as that goes, I'll go even further:

You're basically implying that every time someone downloads a song or movie and watches it someone else has lost money.

Ok. I won't imply it. I'll state it straight out. The song or movie has a certain value associated with it that *you* have no say in. *You* Consumed it. Until you *pay* that value associated with it, over which *you* have no say, the artist, label, studio w/e is short that amount.

Again, spin it any way you want, your arguments boil down to an overblown sense of entitlement and and a complete lack of understanding of IP.

*laughing*

So because *neither* of us has *any* proof, you get to make whatever asinine claim you want as fact?

Puh-leez.

*laughing*

Sorry.

Want to discuss how it "should be"?

Great. it *should* be like it was in the 1800's. Bands should have to TOUR to make money. (What? Work for a living???) The music should be free. This "question" of loss should be irrelevant.

Happy?

The reality:

It's not the 1800's. If we're lucky, it might begin resembling that again at some point in the future.

Until then, your argument: "I wouldn't have bought it" is absolute BS.

Non-consumption is non-consumption, meaning, you don't consume it.

Consumption means you consumed it. If you didn't pay for it, it's a loss.

There's no *way* you can argue that. None. You can whine about it all you want, but that is the way it is.

So yes, I am right and you are wrong. Truth hurts, but ya'll need to wake up.

The content was not "consumed" in the way you are implying,

It was consumed in *exactly* the way I was implying. You downloaded it, watched/listened to it, and didn't pay anyone.

There's this law, you see.... you have to pay for it if you want to watch/listen to it and the artist has assigned a value to it.

As has been pointed out to you many times just because little Johnny downloads a copy of High School Musical does not mean that he was ever going to buy it.

Again, meaningless. Intentions don't mean squat. Rationalization is a fun game, but it is meaningless. The content was downloaded, it was not paid for, Johnny owes the artist the value placed upon it and until that gets paid, the artist is short that amount.

The logic stands, as it has for centuries...

They had digital media centuries ago?

So stuck on 'digital' that you don't think the very same reasoning and morality that applied then applies now? How convenient.

Yes there is a problem with piracy but they are going about fixing it the wrong way, still clinging to physical formats and equating the downloading of a song with physical theft.

*laughing my a** off*

I *never* said I agree with it. As a matter of fact, I have stated *Several* times that I do not. However, I am not *blinded* by my disagreement. Just because *I* disagree does not mean I can ignore the *reality* that exists today.

Whether or not they would have bought it doesn't mean s***.

It's a rationalization, and a weak one at that.

Tell it to the actors/artists. "I watched your movie for free, but it's okay, I wouldn't have bought it anyway"

What a load of crap. It just cost more than you were willing to pay, so you found an alternative method of getting it.

The fact that you seem to think piracy is a cause and not an effect of that amuses me to no end...

If a movie fails to entertain, why shouldn't theater patrons/dvd purchasers get refunds?

It's $8 bucks. There were trailers, reviews. Cry me a freaking river.

The music? The radio, the bands website, and reviews. The CD costs, what? $14 max? Again, cry me a freaking river...

Software? *laughs* Same again, mate. It's called being responsible. Research your investment if the money you are spending on it means that much to you. Otherwise, you deserve the disappointment you are bound to endure.

I think the point that we are trying to make here, albeit in a clumsy fashion, and that you are missing, partly through your own closedmindness, is that consumption is not currently the model used to determine payment for movies. There are leanings in that direction with some products, and there are some failed attempts to implement a pay-per-view model (like you get with a cable company) in the physical media. Remember the first Divx?

The model is currently, one of licensing in combination of possession of media. I can now buy a DVD and have as many friends as I want watch it. So I can have consumption between 1 and thousands of times by any number of people...all for one price. If you try to equate that with a download model where in many cases the person who downloaded it is the only one that watches it (then deletes it to save hard drive space), and so estimate losses based upon a 1:1 model with no ratio or use factor, you are applying an undrealistic and misleading calculation to the loss.

If there were no downloading, then the person who now downloads it, could borrow his buddies DVD, or go to the library, or to the video rental store, or buy a used DVD. There has still been consumption, but the studio has not gotten an additional dime of profit...and rightfully not. The consumer has followed the licensing rules. In rarer cases or in cases where the consumer has more resources he may purchase a physical or digital copy of the movie, but in the demographic that downloads the most (college students) that will be the exception and not the rule. So in any of thes very common cases, the studio did not recieve profit for consumption, but the product was consumed (watched). What is the difference then? The only difference is that the content owner approves of the behaviors that resulted in consumption through renting, borrowing, or buying used, and does not approve of the downloading behavior. So we have the content owner regulating behavior of the consumer so that it better supports their outdated business model, the actual profit is the same...that is what this is about.

This does not speak to the moral issue of the free downloading or the legal issue of the person that offered the download freely and I am not trying to in this post. That is not the specific point I am making, most of us agree that to not follow the the law is wrong, but we are talking now about the calculation of losses, you cannot calculate your losses based upon a model that bears very little relation to your real profit and not be accused of misleading others by it.

So to equate the downloading with lost profit on a 1:1 basis with consumption is applying a fantasy standard that bears no relation with the reality of the current legal consumption methods and the compensation model.

The vast majority of consumption of movies does not compensate the studios based upon the number of times it was consumed, but rather based upon the number of times a license was issued. Yes there is a relationship, but it is certainly not a 1:1. I am certain that a realistic ratio can be calculated, but that would not get the shock value of the purposely inflated "LOSS" numbers that we see from the MPAA.

"If they were the US would be in better shape, not thats it's in bad shape at all. The economics here are pretty good overall."

Hahahaha.

No.

This isn't rationalisation at all.

There is no way in hell that people with 160GB music collections would have purchased all that music if pirating wasn't an option.

Sure, they would have bought *some*, but you can't count all.

That is fact, not rationalisation.

You cannot claim that it is all loss (though it seems you can where lawyers are involved) though you can claim it is illegal. It is not loss of revenue that is making it illegal, it is taking it without consent from the owner.

"There's this law, you see.... you have to pay for it if you want to watch/listen to it and the artist has assigned a value to it."

See my point above about what part is the illegal part and what part is *derived* from it being illegal.

The illegality of not paying for music isn't the not paying, it's the fact that you do not have consent from the copyright holder to 'consume' that music.

In order to 'consume' the music you must have the copyright holders permission, and to gain that permission you must have followed their rules which state that you must pay them a fee.

I hope I made that clear, it seems a bit wordy.

As we all know... just having a "Quality Product" doesn't cut it in the marketplace. Time after time consumers have ended up with the inferior of several competing technologies because one of them obtained a larger user base first. (VHS/Beta. Some would argue BluRay/HD.)

No. Piracy is not the ONLY reason why they have such a large user base... but it does contribute significantly to their user base and they recognize that there is some value there in those users.

Mr. Raikes said:
"Our number one goal is that we want people to use our product. If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else, and that's because we understand that in the long run the fundamental asset is the install base of people who are using our products."

So you can see that he is not just saying "we're so big we can handle some losses to piracy." It's rare that you hear honest comments such as these from Corporate Execs. I'm sure he probably caught hell for saying so in public!

Of course the idea behind this rationale is to hopefully convert these users into paying customers somewhere down the road. It DOES happen. I learned the basics of Photoshop a long while back from a 'borrowed' copy. As a kid I certainly could not afford $700 for Photoshop. Later in life I had obtained a job that required some graphic work. When the boss asked what software to buy? I told him to get PHOTOSHOP, and for the 6 years that I worked there we upgraded through several versions, all legal. I would say that Adobe got their fair reimbursement for their software.

Is piracy wrong? Yes. Will it ever be stopped? No. While it can be devastating to smaller companies we need to realize that the big boys see things very differently.

"Quantity has a Quality all its own."
- Josef Stalin

LMAO...

Only the geniuses here could spin "we want it to be us rather than somebody else" into "Piracy made us what we are today!"

Grasp at those straws, JimBob, grasp!

...again, you're reading more into it than I am intending to imply:

I'm not talking about the guy who *bought* the DVD. He paid for it, he can watch it as many times as he wants...the law even allows him to invite friends over. Isn't that kewl?

I have no problem with this.

I'm talking *solely* about those pirating the content in terms of downloading it without buying it for their own personal use, when such use is not covered under any license.

The model doesn't enter into here because I am not discussing the fringe uses or "grey" areas.

I could understand the "closeminded" comment if I were bringing all of that into play. I am not.

Neither are they. They are not counting your friends viewing your movie at your house as a loss. :)

If there were no downloading, then the person who now downloads it, could...

borrow his buddies DVD Illegal

or go to the library, Legal

or to the video rental store, or buy a used DVD. Both legal

There has still been consumption, but the studio has not gotten an additional dime of profit...and rightfully not

..except for the part where it isn't....(loaning it to a friend)

I am utterly failing to see how these fringe uses apply in any way to piracy. Again, you are taking my intended meaning and applying it to a broader range than intended.

I'm not talking about fringe uses.

Do I need to say it again?

I am talking about "Piracy".

Remember my original comment? "All Piracy=loss".

So to equate the downloading with lost profit on a 1:1 basis with consumption is applying a fantasy standard that bears no relation with the reality of the current legal consumption methods and the compensation model.

When applied to the broad range of possible methods of consumption, sure. In relation to Piracy however, it is dead on.

Just because a user pirating content can "say" they would never have purchased it, they took the time, they downloaded it, and they watched/listened to it. It was simply a case of it costing more than they were willing to pay so they retrieved it by other means. A pirate saying they would never have bought it is BS. You know it. I know it.

There is no way in hell that people with 160GB music collections would have purchased all that music if pirating wasn't an option.


^^^ BS.

If it was 10 cents per 100 songs, they'd have bought it. It just cost more than they were willing to pay. Pure rationalization. Nothing more.

When consent of the owner costs $0.40, it is loss. Again, you're rationalizing.

Sure.

Clear as mud.

What is consent from the owner?

you must have followed their rules which state that you must pay them a fee.

Right... consent=$$$

You basically just restated my point. By trying to say legal != money, you said consent=money & consent=legal, which means legal=money.

*shrug*

Sounds about right. We can *hope* this changes over time, but as it stands....

Must be one of those Nay Sayers from the Left... Explain how the economy is in pretty much the best shape it's ever been but we are in such bad shape? I doubt you can. Sure there are a few flat spots but overall it is pretty good.

Economy is suffering from slower growth.

keyword: growth.

*Listen* to the news, don't just take their emotional cues.

/off-topic

I would differ with you on the borrowing. The license does not exclude this and it is protected under fair use.

Is it wrong?

Well we can talk philosophy about that.

Is it illegal?...No. No crime has been committed, local, state, or federal.

Does it violate an unenforceable and extralegal license agreement that is understood by only a tiny fraction of those who enter into it by purchasing a DVD?...

Possibly, but not being a lawyer, I am perhaps not the best person to give an answer on that. I do know that a contract in order to be binding has to be fully understood by both parties to it...that is not the case here.

I also want to clarify what we are talking about. I am not reading more into anything. You keep mixing up the legal issues with the moral issues and then applying them to this article.

This article is about how the MPAA calulates their losses, they have admitted to fudging the numbers. Many of us here are alleging that even when they use their own calculations correctly, those calculations are irrellevant and even misleading due to the flawed assumptions.

Their assumption (and yours) that all consumption of a pirated movie equates to a 1:1 loss of profit (retail price or margin per unit - matters not) bears very little in relation to the profit/consumption model for legal uses, and so is completely invalid to be used as a basis for complaining about lost profit.

What you call fringe uses, accounts for most of the consumption as most DVD's are watched multiple times by more than one person. How is a video rental chain with billions of rentals per year fringe? Then what about that fact that they sell all non-damaged used DVD's to their customers.

You sound like a preacher expounding on some obscure point of religous doctrine that hinges upon actions that no one else will see. If I watch my Brother's DVD or if I download an illegal copy, or if I get it from the library, or if I buy it at a pawn shop, the studio does not get paid. The only difference is one of where the copy came from. Most likley the pirated one was made from a valid original, the only distinction here is that I am not restricting the availability of that original if I watch a pirated copy, but I am if I rent/borrow a DVD. That is the difference.

The economic pressure generated by my restricting the availability of that copy for 2 hours while I watch it averages out to increased profit to the studios because more copies will be purchased. That is fine, but we should be honest about what the the actual impact is instead of applying fantasy standards to public profit-loss statements when addressing piracy.

So while I agree that all consumption in violation of the license is Piracy. I do not agree that Piracy = Lost profit on a 1:1 basis as you do. Since an unrealistic ratio is used for the calculation of the lost profit, I assert that these numbers should be ignored by all until they perform their due diligence in using realistic numbers and stop the hysterics.

Wow... "Piracy made us what we are today!" ???

Raikes didn't say that... and I didn't say that. Nor was it implied. Raikes just acknowledges that there is inherent value in their install base, paid and unpaid. No grasping. Just a statement of fact.

Silly 'Tool

By chirayu

posted Jan 23, 2008 - 1:25 PM

Many people buy after they pirate. Let's not get into details but if it wasn't for piracy, software titles like Adobe Photoshop wouldn't be worth as much as they are now.

Pretty much what started this whole thread.

The license does not exclude this and it is protected under fair use.

Uhh... Fair use doesn't specifically mention borrowing anywhere, but...w/e.

understood by only a tiny fraction of those who enter into it by purchasing a DVD?

...who's fault is that? Copyright has been around for decades upon decades. Blame the schools, blame the consumers. The studios/labels are not introducing anything new here.

Most likley the pirated one was made from a valid original, the only distinction here is that I am not restricting the availability of that original if I watch a pirated copy, but I am if I rent/borrow a DVD. That is the difference.

No, the difference is you are licensed to watch it when you rent it, you pay for that license when you rent it (and the rental store pays the license fees). When you download it, you don't pay that license fee. No-one does. That is the difference. A copy has been produced, transferred and viewed without the license being purchased.

Why? Who cares.

How? Who cares.

End result: The studio/label did not get paid for that license.

Would they have gotten paid for it had you "borrowed" it or watched it at someone else's house? Yes, that it part of the license of the original purchaser, and thus, already paid.

Does it matter if the downloader would have purchased it or not had the download not been available? No. The only reason they didn't pay for it, was because licensed means didn't appeal to them. That's simply not a valid reason.

"It's $8 bucks....$14 max?...if the money you are spending on it means that much to you"

It is not about the money, it is about the principle.

"There were trailers, reviews."
Often the trailers have the only good parts of a movie, and reviews are subject to the reviewers tastes. I remember the first time I agreed with Siskel&Ebert..."Joe vs The Volcano"...god that was horrible, the previews totally misrepresented it.

"The music? The radio, the bands website, and reviews."
You mean they actually play something other than commercials on radio now, last few times I tried listening to the radio, I hit maybe one song in a 20 minute drive...and it is always the same song (often one of only two or three good ones the band will ever produce). Not all bands have websites, Amazon's samples can help sometimes; but sometimes the compression is so bad you can't tell if the songs sucks or if it is just the compression. Reviews are again subjective. A lot of people say the black album was when Metallica "sold out", I personally think it was one of their best, and they last one I actually liked.

"Software? ...It's called being responsible. Research your investment...Otherwise, you deserve the disappointment..."

Buyer beware, the mantra of every snake-oil salesman their ever was; and of many car salesman and realtors if regulation didn't prevent them.

You seem to think one has to be a pirate to disagree with you on this. I am not. If I want to watch/rewatch a movie, I'll put it on my queue at Netflix... I'd rather not waste the space in my home storing it anyway. There is very little music coming out anymore that I care for. I buy the little that I do like. Most software has demos. I try them before I buy and research competitors software as well. Just because I feel I should have been able to get my money back on movies that failed to entertain, music that sucked, and software that didn't have demos and misrepresented its capabilities/features/entertainment value, doesn't automatically make me a pirate. In most of those cases, I probably wouldn't even bother getting the refund as I am often to apathetic to go through the motions necessary.

"If a track costs $.040, and you download it for free, you owe the label $.040. Until you pay that, it's a loss."

If you don't have the option to download it for free and refuse to pay what they are charging, how is that a "loss" when no consumption occurs?

"If it was 10 cents per 100 songs, they'd have bought it. It just cost more than they were willing to pay."

I almost think you are making our point. If it costs more than the consumer is willing to pay, then it will not be sold in the first place. So the sale cannot be lost if it would not have happened in the first place.

Laugh all you want the proof is in the profits anime is a very big and makes a lot of money.

I know there is no proven facts to prove my claim but look at all the money involved and do what i said in my first post and think about it.

Funny, I don't recall calling you a Pirate.

Buyer beware, the mantra of every snake-oil salesman their ever was; and of many car salesman and realtors if regulation didn't prevent them.

No, the mantra of free-market. Regulation is good, but only in cases where there is clear and present danger. A bad movie isn't going to kill you, so suck it up and move on.

There is *no* reliable and consistent way to see if someone truly did or did not like the movie, so there is *no* way such a refund system could ever be implemented. It's a price we pay (no pun intended) to give the artists/writers/directors/w/e incentive to continue to create.

Sure, you may be of the opinion that it all sucks now. That's your right, w/e. Hell, we may even share the opinion that the compensation has gotten largely and grossly out of hand, and that terms and limitations of copyright are flat out absurd.

All well and good, and we can work to change them, but using it to excuse piracy (even if you aren't one), simply doesn't make any sense. Not to me, anyway. Unless, of course, you advocate them doing so out loud and in public in some sort of "civil disobedience" spectacle, willing to face any and all consequences to make their point.

The sale was lost because the moron felt entitled to it and didn't want to pay for it at the stated prices.

My point was that the sale would have happened had the user not been a cheap-ass, entitled free-loader. :)

*gasp*

Nothing.

But consumption occurred, so it's moot.

Seriously. I am totally not understanding how someone can claim, with a straight face, that the "I wouldn't have bought it" argument makes any logical sense whatsoever.

You are very clever but you are not being clear enough with what you mean.

So what is the consumption that must be paid for? Is it the production? Is it the transfer, the production of a copy, perhaps the presentation of it in an audio/visual way. Or is it the viewing by a person?

Right now the content holder is paid for different things depending on the media used. DVD's are produced and sold. The studio is paid for this regardless of how many times it is watched. A pay per view movie is paid for each time it is displayed on a subsriber account. A digital DRM protected movie is paid for each time it is downloaded (regardless of how many copies are made locally). A movie studio rents a movie and sells tickets. I believe (and correct me if i am wrong) they pay based upon how many seats they have. A radio station buys a CD and can play it to as many people who hear it with no royalties, but a webcaster pays royalties for streams.

Itunes pays based upon licenses/downloads purchased and places limits upon how many devices are simultaneously authorized to decrypt the files, but actually encourages you to make backups of the files (production/copying) and even protect them by moving them elsewhere (transfer). All of this is within the license agreement, but would violate the license agreement for other media, sometimes even media from the same studio. For you to say that this is simple and anyone should understand it either means you are far more intelligent than you demonstrate, or that the topic is actually quite complex.

There is no one consumption model, so I was using that of a person actualy viewing or listening, but since no revenue of any sort is paid back to the MPAA or RIAA member based upon how many people actually see/hear a work, it is unrealistic to use a standard so closely linked with that for calculating lost profit.

That is the point of many of these posts, if you think I am arguing with the morality of piracy or the legality of offering someone elses copyrighted work for download then you are tilting at windmills.

Do me a favor, go ask 15 people on the street.

"What do you use to resize an image?"

I gurantee you, 10 out of 15 will say "Photoshop". Now you go figure why adobe photoshop's name is out there and why they are able to charge what they do.

it is a great piece of software but if it wasn't for an average joe getting his hands on a pirated copy of it. It wouldn't be so popular.

There are plenty of other alternatives out there which people don't even explore.

PC_Tool, I didn't mean to offend you in any way. Just voicing my opinion.

"There is *no* reliable and consistent way to see if someone truly did or did not like the movie, so there is *no* way such a refund system could ever be implemented. "

I see your point, as I am sure there would be plenty of cheap/entitled/etc people that would say it sucked just to get their money back; but I still don't think it is fair to the honest consumer.

"It's a price we pay (no pun intended) to give the artists/writers/directors/w/e incentive to continue to create."

Yeah, but I would rather people not give Uwe Boll anymore incentive to create anything.

"All well and good, and we can work to change them, but using it to excuse piracy (even if you aren't one), simply doesn't make any sense."

I wouldn't say I am trying to excuse piracy... perhaps explain it; but probably not even that. I am all for calling a pirate a pirate, and an illegal download and illegal download; but an illegal download is not always a lost sale. (Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if chronic offenders download the same tracks more than once because they forgot they had it. Somehow I don't think those should count as lost multiple sales.) I think you and I agree for the most part on the issue, I just dispute that illegal download=lost sale.

"Unless, of course, you advocate them doing so out loud and in public in some sort of "civil disobedience" spectacle, willing to face any and all consequences to make their point."

That would actually be rather interesting to watch.

Over half of the theoretical 10 who say "Photoshop" probably think it's a catch all term for photo editing software. It is a great piece of software because it caters to professionals needs, and requires a lot of developer effort to do so. Even if those theoretical 10 were actually using Photoshop, it would be extreme overkill for their needs. 5 could get away with using MSPaint, 2-3 with XnView, 2-3 with PaintShopPro. Only 1 would actually need the advanced features Photoshop, if that (In such a small sample of Photoshop users, I doubt there would be one that actually needed it).

It makes perfect sense. If someone sees a song online that they never had any intention of buying but downloads it because it's free and takes like 10 seconds to download, did the record company lose that sale? Keep in mind this person absolutely would not have bought it. So no, they didn't lose any money. Was it wrong of that person to download it? Yes. Did they cost the company money? In this case no. It does not cost them anything for someone to listen to a song, regardless of whether they charge for that priviledge or not.

Now are there cases when a person would have bought it had they not been able to download it freely? Of course, and overall money is lost to piracy but the point is that not EVERY case of piracy is a lost sale.

Edit: Yes I know others have said this already but you don't seem to be getting it.

"the profits anime is a very big and makes a lot of money"
Actually, anime isn't really all that profitable right now compared to other ip based products. The Japan-based ip holders are expecting more and more licensing revenue from licensors, and the consumers are expecting cheaper and cheaper prices. Heck, Geneon just halted all production at the end of last year, leaving several series unfinished. Also, rumour has it that ADV will be ceasing distribution of Newtype USA soon.

That said, fansubs have been a boon to the U.S. anime industry, and still probably are for now. Though no official of any company has given them direct credit, they are often used to figure out what might sell well over here and gives the companies a good word-of-mouth advertising base when they do release something. However, when fansub downloaders fail to buy products that they like when they are released over here then they become a detriment to the industry rather than a benefit...even if they do get others to buy it.

You're still missing the point everyone here is trying to get across. I'm not denying that piracy is wrong, and I'm not denying that money is lost to piracy. I am denying that every case of someone downloading a song is a lost sale. It's not, end of discussion. You can talk about "consumption" and the idea that the artist lost money because their song was not payed for but in reality "nothing" was actually taken from them if that person would not have payed for it in the first place.

I borrowed some movies from a friend the other day by the way and "consumed" them. I didn't pay the studio one cent. I consumed their movies and didn't pay. Did I break any laws by doing this. No I didn't. Did the studios lose any money? No they didn't. Your "consumption" argument is a bunch of corporate hot air.

I'd respond to your argument, but you're apparently an idiot, so I'll just smile and feel sorry for you.

If you actually are interested in a response, I have, several times in this topic, responded to that excuse/rationalization of yours.

You are very clever but you are not being clear enough

You're cute with your little backhanded insults, but not cute enough...

So what is the consumption that must be paid for? Is it the production? Is it the transfer, the production of a copy, perhaps the presentation of it in an audio/visual way. Or is it the viewing by a person?

Good God, man.

It's the payment of the value placed on it by the owner of the copyright for the use.

Ignoring the whole "Why should I pay for it, no-one's losing out" (While everyone else is paying for it) BS...

We have given the copyright owner sole rights to this, they have set a price, the downloader owes them that amount and until it is paid, a loss is incurred.

Sure, it's not something they can put to the bottom line. They don't get to print out IOU's, or realistically claim, with any kind of accuracy a total for all piracy, thus making the numbers pretty meaningless, it is *still* a loss.

Money that should have been paid for a particular use was not. I really cannot put that any simpler.

it is unrealistic to use a standard so closely linked with that for calculating lost profit.

Not once have I ever claimed it was. There's no way they will ever know the amount of content that has been pirated. Duh? It's pretty obvious. But just because it cannot be accurately calculated does not make it anything less than a loss.

then you are tilting at windmills.

So long as I have you, my trusty Sancho Panza, we're good. ;)

but I still don't think it is fair to the honest consumer.

Not even going to touch that one. ;P

Yeah, but I would rather people not give Uwe Boll anymore incentive to create anything.

lmao... Ewe...(No pun...yadda...)

That would actually be rather interesting to watch.

Too bad there isn't a single one of them that has the sense of integrity and spine to do anything of that nature.

13 of them said, "What?"

The other two asked me what they should use.

What is your guarantee good for? Does it mean you'll shut up now?

Just letting you know there is absolutely *nothing* that could logically back up such an opinion.

You can go ahead and have it, hell, you can believe the sky is a orange-ish shade of green.

Just be aware that folks are going to call you on it at every opportunity and try not to get too offended by it.

That's okay, you miss my point, I'll miss yours and we can both still get on with our lives.

Isn't that lovely?

Replace "borrowed" with "download" and you might get closer to understanding my point.

The Oxford definition of Pirate:

• noun 1 a person who attacks and robs ships at sea. 2 before another noun denoting a text, film, recording, etc. that has been reproduced and used for profit without permission: pirate videos. 3 before another noun denoting an organization that is broadcasting without official authorization: a pirate radio station.

• verb 1 dated rob or plunder (a ship). 2 reproduce (a film, recording, etc.) for profit without permission.

Oxford definition of the word profit:

• noun 1 a financial gain, especially the difference between an initial outlay and the subsequent amount earned. 2 advantage; benefit.

So as long as "pirates" are not making profit it is legal ? And therefore moral ?
When all of the premises are true the conclusion must also be true. Have I missed a fundamental logic reasoning here ?

From the perspective of your "consumed" speech there is really no difference between them. You consume the song either way. It's in your head forever and you didn't pay for it. Oh dear!

I didn't say it wasn't an effect, but I'm glad your so easy to amuse. It's was also partly a cause though. The more people using an OS, the more popular it becomes. The more popular it becomes the more software that is written for it, making it even more popular, and indeed it also increases piracy (which again increases the number of people using it). You really can't grasp the concept can you? I wish I could say that amuses me to no end, but it's actually kind of sad.

I'd respond to your argument, but you're apparently an idiot

Name calling, really? I'm disapointed. While I do not agree with you on this particular issue I had been of the opinion that you were more mature and intelligent than that. Well I'll just smile and end this conversation with the knowledge that not only are you closed minded, you're also incapable of mature discussion. So feel free to call me a doodyhead if you like, go back to your crayons and write up some more inspiring speeches in defense of your beloved MPAA. Sorry to get you so upset, lol.

You missed: "reproduce (a film, recording, etc.) for profit without permission."

No profit is involved directly, but no permission was involved, invalidating your premise.

tester272001 had it right according to the oxford dictionary according th the link

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/pirate

Wrong.

Borrowed is paid for. The guy you are borrowing it from paid that license.

Downloading is not paid for, no-one paid the license for the use.

OS because oxford is behind the curve, you get a freeby?

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

*laughs*

You think I am defending the MPAA.

Wow.

The level of people's ability to *think* around here sinks lower by the day, doesn't it?

I do so enjoy our exchanges, even if you can be aggravatingly obtuse at times.

I think we are perilously close to agreeing here about something, but for the life of me, I can't put it into words. I am not sure we should let that happen.

I did not insult you, even backhandedly. It was a compliment (Clever), the rest of the statement did not invalidate it, it simply expressed my frustration with the lack of clarity in your posts.

You jump all over the place and on the one hand, defend the MPAA's calculations on the basis that all consumption without license equals loss, but then in the same thread, admit that we can't know how much there is. Since the volume of the consumption is half of the equation, you have no number at all if you are missing this.

I think that you can find out how much consumption occurs at least in a very rough way. If you are willing to accept a margin of error, a total of infringing consumption can be extrapolated. After all, they did this in order to come up with numbers in the first place. Taking this and using a realistic model for how much profit this would equate to if the consumption had been through valid channels will give you a resulting loss. I posit that this number would bear no resemblance to the numbers the MPAA throws out due to the lack of any sort of ratio to account for "fringe" uses. They are not interested in putting forth even token efforts to produce accurate estimates. They take a theoretical worst case estimate that has no real world licensing analogue and present it as a "LOSS". This is duplicitous and lacking any real value.

It's the payment of the value placed on it by the owner of the copyright for the use.

I am glad we agree. The content holder has placed a value on it. Even more convenient that value corresponds to the various media and licensing options. We know for example, what you shoulld pay if you borrow a DVD from the library...nothing. We also know what you should pay if you buy a DVD at the store, or download a DRM laced movie...face value.

So if you use these methods as a guide and apply it consistently to the pirated copies using a demographic analysis that estimates the method that would be used if the consumtion took place legally, you end up with...a real number. Is it perfect, no, but it will be near the actual loss by some measure of error, instead of being some arbitrary shock value number that they made up out of whole cloth.

Ignoring the whole "Why should I pay for it, no-one's losing out" (While everyone else is paying for it) BS...

I have never asked this question. You are arguing with yourself, and not one of your smarter personalities either.
I am glad you think I am cute...makes me want to go shave my back.

Wrong. Someone had to buy the CD before they could upload it.

*laughs*

But they didn't buy the rights to upload it.

Are you dense?

Borrowing it to someone: Rights licensed to you when you purchased it.

Inviting friends over to watch it: Rights licensed to you when you purchased it.

Uploading it to any Tom, d*** or Harry on the Net? Not covered by the rights licensed to you when you purchased it, and obviously, none of those rights transfer to the people you are uploading it to.

Pretty basic stuff here, sparky.

The point remains that no-one paid the license for the downloader's use.

You jump all over the place and on the one hand, defend the MPAA's calculations on the basis that all consumption without license equals loss, but then in the same thread, admit that we can't know how much there is. Since the volume of the consumption is half of the equation, you have no number at all if you are missing this.

Two seperate things. All acts of piracy being construed as a loss has no impact on their complete and total inability to calculate with any sense of accuracy whatsoever the quantity of pirated material, so any number based on the the quantity is obviously pulled out of someone's ass. In the same vein, just because they cannot possibly hope to quantify the number of pirated copies floating around, the fact that piracy=loss (someone didn't pay for the license to do what they did with the content) isn't any less true.

I think that you can find out how much consumption occurs at least in a very rough way. If you are willing to accept a margin of error, a total of infringing consumption can be extrapolated.

How on earth would they be able to, with any accuracy, know how many people downloaded a certain track from the USENET? or BT (When each torrent is now supported by DHT and multiple trackers?) I'm not a statistician, but I think it'd be a herculean task...

Ignoring the whole "Why should I pay for it, no-one's losing out" (While everyone else is paying for it) BS...

I have never asked this question. You are arguing with yourself, and not one of your smarter personalities either.

Didn't attribute it to you. I was referencing others in this topic. Didn't mean to accuse you of anything.

...other than being cute. Though I could live quite happily without any further information regarding the status of your back-hair.

I've never seen a CD license since they don't really come with one. I'm sure they have one written up in fancy lawyerese somewhere, and I'm willing to bet it doesn't allow sharing your CDs with friends either. They recently stated that even making backups of your own CDs for yourself was illegal.

You're getting off track anyway, I'm making the point that just because a person listens to, or as you like to say "consumes" a song that doesn't mean that the company has lost any money. The result of borrowing or downloading is the same, they listen without paying. Anyway it's apparent you can't discuss anything without throwing out personal insults so I'm not going to waste any more of my time talking to you. I'll let you "win" and get in the last word, though I still disagree with you.

I think I pulled muscle laughing. I won't violate your sensitivities with more information than you are ready for.

Let's see if I can put this horse out of its misery.

We agree that calculating the total number of tracks with any accuracy is (it is safe to say)...problematic. Not impossible, but very difficult to come close to any reasonable level of accuracy. It would have to be done with a smaller sampling that classical statistics best practices call for...like miniscule even. That would result in double digit margins of error at the very least, but you would have something to start looking at.

We also agree that there is no concrete linearity between the number of tracks pirated and the real losses to the industry. There is a relationship, and it can be calculated with some level of surety, but not much.

Even more, we both agree that piracy = loss because the rights holder was not paid for consumption. However, I think we differ on the model for how that lost compensation should be represented in numbers.

Finally, I am sorry for the multiple personality cheap shot, but I figure you dish it out around here so much you can take it...I seem to be right.

Nah, I still think yer a jerk. :p

we both agree that piracy = loss because the rights holder was not paid for consumption. However, I think we differ on the model for how that lost compensation should be represented in numbers.

I don't think it *can* be represented in numbers. Just that it is there. Pretty moot to be arguing about something that can never really be quantified, but I get a bit wracked when someone tried to use it as an excuse...."It's not like they lost any money".

We also agree that there is no concrete linearity between the number of tracks pirated and the real losses to the industry.

I think I am reading this part wrong.

I believe that *every* track pirated is a real loss to the industry. The artist *did* get screwed, and the pirate *did* get something for nothing. There's a value there, and that would be the face-value of the track, movie, w/e. I just don't think there's any way to turn that into an actual total.

I've never seen a CD license since they don't really come with one

It's called copyright law. Been around for decades upon decades.

Copyright law specifically states that backups for archival purposes are explicitly legal. Fair use seems to imply that sharing, so long as no duplication occurs, is fine.

Heh... run. You apparently don;t know squat about copyright so why even discuss it? Educate yourself first, eh?

****

Hey, How'd you get my password!

You better run 'cause I patented using "****"
as my password and ehh. Never mind.

PC_Tool? When I play, I do so only to make a
child laugh, or to get the kids caretaker
to think I'm worth time? Understand?
So please, note that If I don't answer it
is probably 'cause I'm a little bit deaf.

For me, it would be a bad idea to answer what
I'm saying any time soon. You, of course are
much smarter than I so play on.

but.
I define "lie" as "[attempt to deceive]."

I -defined- theft as took what weren't person's, but that def has problems.
I now define "stole" as "[improperly prevented
profit]."

And let's wax so philosophical about what
"profit" means--It's the negative of loss.
But what is loss.

Now, "improperly." If I prevent a rape I have
stolen that experience from the rapist. --_So_
_not_ improper.

BTW, I do plan to read the rest of this thread.

Feculence. Sorry.
Forgot that this top posts. Please read comment
three second. (and don't read this one.)

My rules of order forbid my saying anything, but,
WTF I'm hardly sober at all.

I just saw an advert for a holiday that was done
with (this year) for about six months.
This means I haven't consumed any broadcast TV
content for about six months.

Please bear in mind that I've not yet sued you
for patent infringement for your use of my
password "****"

"My point was that the sale would have happened had the user not
been a cheap-ass, entitled free-loader. : "

My point was that I have been so penny less that I have, years
later, walked out on otherwise fine situations because the
waiter/waitress/date just couldn't get that "No, thank you, I'll
skip the rice, please" means "no." (Usually, the date and
waiter or waitress have tried to get me to try the rice, and well:

Waiter/waitress. Don't be stupid.
Date: Thank you very much for being like that so soon, saves me
some time.

But I think I digress. Yeah, I do.

Oh, sigh.
With the college system of free access to a network some who do
not have money for elbow macaroni (no salt, pepper, water, heat,
etc.) can get can get can get (3 times, I say "can") a song about
BBQ Iguana on Mexican radio and perhaps pay for the
scent of food with the sound of money.

But, human error, hey, I think I'm wrong.