The Motion Picture Ass. of America (MPAA) has filed lawsuits against YouTV.com and Peekvid.com, claiming the sites' "sole purpose... is to disseminate content that has been illegally reproduced and distributed". Civil lawsuits were filed against YouTVpc and Peekvid in US District Court in Los Angeles for "damages and injunctive …
Produce less crap...
Maybe if the major motion picture studios produced less crap, people would be willing to pay to see movies. I think that pirated movies etc. are a testament that people aren't willing to pay the prices asked by the producers.
I never knew I was so bad
So, if I watch a small sized grainy extract of a DVD or tv show, I'll assume I've seen the entire thing and wont bother going out to buy it (or staying in to watch the tv show and its adverts). Also, it was of course the case that I was seriously thinking about going out to buy a full retail DVD of every piece of crud I've ever seen on these sites. If we make these assumptiions then the figure of 7bn may be justifiable for a world audience.
Over the years it's 'facts' like these that have made me disbelieving and cynical about anything the entertainment industry says on the subject of copyright violation and it's effective cost/loss.
On a related subject, I suspect the 'injunctive relief' they are seeking is delivered by hand, because I've alwasy thought they were a bunch of onanists.
I recently downloaded Lord of War and enjoyed it so much that I bought a copy which I otherwise would not have.
The MPAA should realise that this is in fact a sale gained and stop promulgating the arrant nonsense that every download is a lost sale.
It isn't. If the downloader never intended to buy it in the first place, no sale has been lost.
Can they possibly prove that everything is a copyright violation? If not, then it seems hard to see how they could get an injunction against them for all downloads. Yes, an injunction against facilitating the distribution of copyrighted material, but to keep them from doing business?
When will the MPAA and RIAA realise?
If someone pirates something, it isn't necessarily the case that they would have bought it in the first place?
How many times have you wondered what a single sounds like? You download it, if it's good you will end up buying the single or even the album. If you download a movie that has just come out, the same applies, you won't get a good copy, even if you do, in all likelihood you will go and see it on the big screen if it means that much to you. Games are the same, if you like how it plays, buy it.
There are however certain people, obviously quite a few if it's $7bn they've lost, that don't do that, these are the people that wouldn't buy, rent or watch most of the crap that is generated in the first place, so it isn't actually costing anyone any money.
They can go on about lost revenue until they implode, no matter what, there will always be people that don't want to pay for something and will steal it in one way, but at least they aren't stealing it physically from a shop when it's pirated, that really is lost revenue.
It seems to me that the biggest 'weasel words' of this entire copyright/piracy ordeal is the phrase the Motion Picture and Recording Industry Ass.es use when they say they're "Losing" money. They are in fact, NOT _Losing_ money, they are simply not _Gaining_ money.
If I download a movie or television show, my actions did not cost them any more or less than it cost them to produce it in the first place. They just didn't make any money from it.
I really just wish they would stop claiming that they're being robbed blind by the downloaders while at the same time ripping off all the legitimate buyers, stifling real creativity, and making all forms of digital life difficult for everyone with horribly implemented and Micro$ponge dependant 'Digital Rights Management'
Hosting Content ?
Can I get this right, they are being harrassed for posting links to sites that have copyrighted content (unpaid for), does this also mean they are going to go after google for "infringement by identifying, posting, organizing and indexing links to infringing content found on the internet" if this is the case, all search engines are flouting the law merely by producing links to this material. This also makes anybody who puts up a link to youtube a criminal and also the advertisers who appear on said site...this madness has to stop
Lost sales, haha
Yeah right, every download is a lost sale.
And the "Children of Men" movie I downloaded yesterday appealed so much to me that I didn't even *watch* it entirely, I fast skipped, didn't like it and deleted it in a matter of minutes.
But yeah right, I'd have bought the DVD...
I mean, who in their right mind wouldn't buy every single DVD out there? They're all so excellent.
And to think they're working on ways to prevent people from changing channels or muting the TV during adverts...
*** MARK MY WORDS ***
Next thing we know, getting up your fat butt to pee during the TV ads will be illegal, you'll have to do so during the movie.
*** MARK MY WORDS ***
While we're at it...
...I've got to get in a lick at the BSA's similar stance. They claim, for instance, that the copy of the $4,000 3D Studio Max 6 I downloaded when I was 14 and had $18 to my name resulted directly in a $4,000 loss - as if, had I not found a buddy who got it somewhere and put it on a million floppies, I would have rushed out and bought it.
If you're going to take that stance seriously, you might as well cut to the chase, and define merely *wanting* a product without subsequently *purchasing* it as piracy. Think about Lord of War and fail to buy? You're guilty of theft! Come to think of it, I probably shouldn't say that so loudly... you never know who's reading these posts...
Seems clear to me
Why the knee-jerk reaction every time the MPAA says anything? Their complaint here seems perfectly valid. Their members are producing something, these sites are gaining advertising revenue through providing it for free to others, all without any payment to the original producers. How is that fair? This is blatant free-loading off others' work.
And it always makes me laugh when people use the "if their stuff wasn't so crap maybe people would buy it" argument. If it's so crap, why are people wasting their time making and watching shoddy copies of it? This is just a transparent attempt at justifying the copyright infringement.
Nor does the "I watched it then I bought the DVD" angle amount to much. The fact is that most viewers do not do this most for most things. A few anecdotal examples don't outweigh the majority of cases.
"Piracy" and sales
I know my local used-LP shop has gotten hundreds of my dollars, all based on my mp3 collection.
To wit: I like classic rock. I download mp3s of the bands I like. If the songs are good, I'm very likely to buy the original LP.
LPs are cool. You get the jacket artwork, the liner notes, and a vinyl disk that contains the original sinewave of the music. The quality is higher than mp3, and the media will last virtually forever, if you take proper care of it.
However, in that even used LPs run for $10-$20, it's unlikely I'd buy one in the blind, not knowing I'll like the music on it. Therefore, if it weren't for my collecting mp3s, it's highly unlikely the owner of the local used record store would ever have gotten my business.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets using glowing KILL RAY
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked