Feeds

back to article US entertainment lawyer casts doubt on Megaupload case

The Stanford Law Schools Center for Internet and Society has added a voice to the growing number of lawyers that expect America’s charges against Kim Dotcom and the “Megaupload conspiracy” to collapse in court. At issue, the article says, is that DCMA requirements under criminal law are different from the tests that apply under …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

So it's about now that we can expect dotcom to be labeled as an al queda supporter and shipped off to gitmo never to be seen again. civil law? criminal law?? none of it applies there.

simples

22
2
Silver badge

HE WILL BE RELEASED...

Then a few months from now he will not be heard of again, the USA will contend that he has moved on or is keeping a low profile.

In the mean time he will be holidaying in a small cell in Morocco or Syria or Wherever, because we all know that rendition does not exist.

There is absolutely no truth in it at all!

At no time did any flights pass through UK airspace.

Good luck dotcom, you will need it.

7
2
Pirate

Well obviously

But we all knows that copyright violation (opps...sorry....PIRACY) puts money in the pockets of organised crime and Terrorism. Also I'm pretty sure Ive heard that al queda are terrorists. QED he is .

What more justification do the Americans need to place a order an XXXL jump suit with reinforced crotch?

0
1
Silver badge

@LarG

Maybe, maybe not. I dunno but it is possible to keep an eye out for this. I've read (and then noticed) that dotcom held the leading position in the online FPS game Call of Duty. If he's released I'd imagine that he'll pick up right where he left off.

0
0

@Naughtyhorse

>>"So it's about now that we can expect dotcom to be labeled as an al queda supporter and shipped off to gitmo never to be seen again. civil law? criminal law?? none of it applies there."

Of course.

Since if the USA does anything at all, it is obviously precisely as singleminded in its pursuit of stopping copyright infringement as the most bedroom-bound teenager is in his pursuit of doing it to get the latest movie or game downloaded.

Because the grown-up world really is as black-and-white as that, and the only sane way to think is to believe that what might be important to me must be equally important to everybody else, who is either with me or against me.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

the words...

"hoist" and "petard" come to mind.

At least he can afford a proper legal team. As morally uncertain as this is, I'm always up for seeing legally aggressive corporations given a massive slapping.

12
2
Silver badge

indeed

although he can claim massive costs as they seized *all* of his assets didnt they? No sir'ee I had no offshore accounts in the cayman.

0
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

It's about time...

...that any country with an extradition agreement with the USA starts looking at said agreement with a big magnifying glass.

36
0
Mushroom

Forget the magnifying glass, how about a blowtorch?

21
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Anonymous Coward

Oh yeah 'cos the death penalty has worked wonders to cut crime and stop thieving bastards all over the planet hasn't it?!

2
1
Silver badge

err

works in singapore. I was happier using the subway at 10:30pm in singapore than in the US (in fact after rush hour forget it in the US).

1
7
Coat

There might be another reason

@Danny 14: I think your fear of slow-hour subway in the US has something to do with the "right" to bare arms.

Or something. Pretty sure you're allowed to wear a T-Shirt on the Singaporean MRT too...

1
0
Silver badge
Joke

Flight risk

I'd say!

Imagine sitting next to him in economy.

The guy is HUGE

4
0

Gitmo administrator worries

"We don't appear to have any orange jumpsuits in that size."

The US military's Lockheed C-130 Hercules planes should be able to carry him just fine tho.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Sadly a few weeks out in the sun with all that sensory deprivation kit they make the poor bastards wear, will soon that out.

1
0
Megaphone

These guy's have been charged (have they)

but not convicted but yet everybody is convinced they are guilty.

I call trail by media. (official sponsors of ACTA/SOPA/PIPA)

Welcome to the new order... sponsored by the old order.

Next we will be invading some small country because they wouldn't allow us to build a gas pipeline

14
3
Silver badge

Let me correct that.

Everyone is convinced they *will* be found guilty.

Simply because truth and justice are no longer the American way ( and it's doubtful they ever were)

18
1
Pirate

They never were ...

Remember, it was "Truth, Justice AND the American Way". Three separate items there.

3
0
Bronze badge

I thought it was "Truth, justice OR the American way".

2
0
Flame

...........invading some small country.................

Canada's not small. And it's oil sludge, not gas. No need to invade anyway. Albertistan and Harper are giving it away.

0
0
Silver badge

But the money laundering charge?

The greasy, fat fuck is as dodgy as they come. They must have found something they can extradite him for surely? His accounts would make Harry Redknapp's look rock solid I'd bet.

3
10
Silver badge

accounts?

Cut and dry. Money comes in tax goes out. NZ had no reason to investigate, it is the US claiming the money is for illegal activity therefore laundering.

8
1
Megaphone

He may well be

The money laundering was thrown in to make the case meet it's "extradition" requirement. Even if he was money laundering that charge is against the individual not the company. If that's the only one they get him on I hope everyone with a mega account sues the US Gov for it's heavy handed approach to a legitimate business.

Oh and if that does happen don't expect MAFIAA, the RIA or your bent politicians to pay for the cost of fixing this mess, no sir. That will be covered but the public purse.

6
1
Silver badge

Whoa there.

I'm just saying I assume the US has something relatively substantial to pin on him and that from his previous history there's every reason to suspect his financial dealings are less than perfect. If they don't then fair enough. I somehow suspect he isn't going to be 'magically disappeared' by the all-powerful CIA+MPAA secret societies though. These kinds of things can be more readily attributed to fuckwittery than evil conspiracy.

2
4
Silver badge

Yep. Everybody KNOW Al Capone killed dozens and

ordered hundreds of hits and thousands of assaults, but what they eventually nailed him on was tax evasion. It's them financial laws everybody breaks, even when they are trying to be law-abiding citizens.

0
0

@IPatentedItSoIOwnIt

>>"If that's the only one they get him on I hope everyone with a mega account sues the US Gov for it's heavy handed approach to a legitimate business."

'Everyone' would seem a bit hopeful. I suspect that even if some might, many of the account customers would be unlikely to go around trying to sue the government.

At least once, they'd be unlikely to try that one or two had been investigated on some real or invented pretext, and found to be in possession of things that they shouldn't be in possession of.

Even if the *company* was found to be operating within the law, that doesn't by any means mean the same would be true of all the *customers*.

0
0

Who protects the unpopular?

Kim Dotcom isn't someone I can get behind personally. He is pretty much at the opposite end of that scale. But the U.S. government has really overstepped. Legal protection and due process apply to everyone, not just to those we like.

I see the possibility of civil suits. Perhaps a bunch of them. But not a vast criminal conspiracy.

22
1
Bronze badge
FAIL

RE: I see the possibility of civil suits.

What good do they actually do? As some other poster pointed out, if there any damage awards, the taxpayers get stuck with the bill; NOT the MAFIAA (who, IMH{NS}O, OUGHT to be paying the award). Lastly, a money damages award does nothing to stop some fuckwit from doing the exact same thing again.

Now, if you want a deterrent, put some Fed's ass in the slammer for a good 20 years; then you have a deterrent.

4
1
Boffin

@Fatman, i think the GP post meant they see the possibility of civil suits _against_ Dotcom as being reasonable, not against the government.

If I understood correctly, they were hinting that treating this as a criminal matter was a bit over the top, and it only really meets the standard for some civil proceedings, at best, not a 70-man army storming a mansion compound with black choppers and sniper rifles. (i made that last part up, btw. but it's fun to think about)

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Stanford Law Center

If you want to see something *really interesting* - check out which individuals and organizations have donated the bulk of the Stanford Law Center for Internet and Society's funds.

Stanford Law Center Center for Internet and Society is strongly associated with what Andrew Orlowski would generously term the "Copyfighter" movement. It's basically the freetard version of someone from an MPAA backed institute talking about copyright. They have a particular philosophical agenda to push which boils down to "piracy, under no circumstances, not now, not then, and never in the future has no impact on the sale of the items which are pirated".

3
3

And there's the question.

Who are these pirates?

'piracy, under no circumstances, not now, not then, and never in the future has no impact on the sale of the items which are pirated'

Though there are undoubtably people who will copy something and share it on-line, and there are again undoubtably people who will download stuff that is made freely available online - who are these people?

Do they care about the work in question or the money?

Since both side of the equation above do not swap any money it can't be the latter, so it must mean that the people doing the 'pirating' are necessarily people who, on the one side, want people to see this stuff, and on the other side people that want to see the stuff in question.

I put it to you, members of the reg forum reading this, that the MPAA etc. are ignorantly interfering with a very effective publicity and promotion campaign run by people that think the content is worth something.

I further put it to you that a far more effective campaign by the MPAA etc. would be to make the audience of their products share the files as far and wide as possible 'tell your friends, neighbours, people you meet about this' and have a link available for purchasing the official product, make donations or a flattr button.

After all peoples disposable income is fairly fixed - and people will only be spending it on what they feel is worthwhile, if they don't know about your product you're not going to be getting their money.

Or the MPAA can carry on with their 'backed into a corner' approach and we can all point and laugh as they get dragged into the future.

ttfn

4
2

once the 5 tabs of acid wears off you just had....

"piracy, under no circumstances, not now, not then, and never in the future has no impact on the sale of the items which are pirated"

Paul once you land back down on reality I suggest a rethink, This is gibberish of the highest order Sites like Megaupload have destroyed plenty a SME business and sent numerous one man outfits to the wall, years ago we did a bit of a fact gathering exercise when the Game Far cry was released at a retail price of £24 IIRC per unit and it sold 730,000 units within four months of release.

Good show you say , well within 3 hours of the pirated version going online there were 33,000 irc gets , 40,000 seeds on Torrent sites, tons of spots on FXP boards, ftp sites, usenet...etc. All in 3 hours, there were more pirated copies within the first week than legitimate copies in four months, no much of an effect.

But here is the real funny thing fat gimps like billy bunter aka fat ass dot.com who make wads of cash out of it, i've heard people say yeah but i used MU legit , just my personal files. The only reason MU could offer this service was through the money it made through piracy whether directly or by round about means.

If you want to play a game, listen to a song, watch a movie, use a piece of software, buy it. All this diametric garbage them us, reminds me of the winace v's winzip fiasco ..Let’s not deal with facts there to inconvenient.

And Paul if you think my product is too pricey don’t buy it, but stealing it is ok.. I really want 458 spider guess it’s ok for me to steal one because i can’t afford it right or should Ferrari knock £120000 of the price just because i can’t afford it.

You be pissed if EMI or EA were stealing £100 per month from your wages before you where paid, but when the shoe is on the other foot?.

A thief is a thief .

3
12

@Paul_Murphy

I think the 'sample, then maybe buy' approach maybe works rather better for things like music than for MPAA output.

If I got lent or given a copy of a music track by a mate, or downloaded it legitimately or otherwise, and I liked it, I might end up buying the album it's from, or other stuff by the same artists, at least partly because I'd likely be listening to it repeatedly and would feel some kind of guilt if I was just freeloading.

Also, even a not -particularly-high-quality track would likely be good enough for me to make some kind of decision on.

If I got given a copy of a film, if it was low quality I probably wouldn't watch it, and if it was high quality I'd be fairly unlikely to buy it after watching it, and not necessarily particularly likely to buy other stuff from the same actors/directors.

If I was only ever going to watch it once or twice, I think I'd feel rather less guilt about that than about music that I enjoyed much more frequently.

Possibly if a copy of a movie was a passable but not great quality one, and I had a HD setup I might be persuaded to buy a BD version, but that would still likely only be for a very few movies.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Priacy and FOSS / Cheapware

Don't forget that piracy of commercial software hurts FOSS and smaller cheaper software companies - why use the GIMP when you can download Photoshop for free? Why use one of the many less expensive small commercial mail servers when you can download Exchange or Domino? Why use Ubuntu when you can grab a copy of Windows of a download site?

Then, when you've downloaded whatever commercial software you want, why would you contribute any funding to a FOSS project? After all, you don't use any of them, so why bother?

4
3
Silver badge

Damage to other software (@AC)

'Why use the GIMP when you can download Photoshop for free'

'Why use one of the many less expensive small commercial mail servers when you can download Exchange or Domino'

Not everyone wants all of Photoshops features and find it too complicated. Therefore, they use the GIMP. Just because something can do more, does not mean everyone wants it all and wouldn't appreciate a simpler alternative. Exactly the same applies to Exchange and Domino. Also, try running Exchange and Domino on a small, energy efficient server and see how far you get.

'Why use Ubuntu when you can grab a copy of Windows off a download site'

Well, now you're just being silly. There are a huge number of users who use Linux (of whatever flavour) in preference to Windows and its not all for money reasons. If you can't think of at least 10 reasons to use Linux over Windows, you can't be trying that hard.

6
0
Facepalm

No wonder

>Why use Ubuntu when you can grab a copy of Windows of a download site?

No wonder you posted that as AC

1
0
FAIL

...umm, you might want to be careful with that...

You are stepping perilously close to the 'all fighter pilots are evil because they kill people, except ours' conundra...

Situation the First:

I walk into my local HSBC with a working version of Vasquez's somewhat modified MG42 and steal what little cash the bank has, jump in the car and disappear into the distance.. while the local police try to coax their Diesel Focus into life..

Situation the Second:

Disney use a DVD copier machine ($5000) and a load of blank DVD's ($0.01 each) to copy on 40 year old tat that even 8 year olds cringe at - and then sell it at £15 a shot, to parents that are barely making ends meet as it is... they used to call that profiteering...

Both are little more than theft, but one person will be making the HMP Broadmoor equivalent of a Diane Fossey documentary while the other is sitting comfortably (and lets not forget, making sure that plenty of lawyers are on hand in case someone mentions a certain Walter Disney & his raving anti-semitism).

Not to mention the fact that the only difference between the person doing the precise same thing as Disney but in their garage and selling the results for half the price - is a piece of paper saying Disney are allowed to?

Profiteering is nothing more than legalised theft. Profiteering is what the media industry has been doing for years.

I pay to watch TV in the UK for example, for the life of me nowadays I dont know why. I used to enjoy watching, back in the day, Buffy and Angel. I'd go with Buffy but I'd be thinking of Tara etc etc.

I could tape or use other methods to record *something I paid for* for very little - corporations can do it for practically nothing because of economies of scale - but for the 7 series of Buffy you pay £100+ for a boxed set...? and thats honest commerce?

Would you buy an iPhone for £20,000? because thats the equivalent mark up you are paying for a piece of cardboard and a printed frontispiece. (apple fanbois excepted of course).

All this stuff with Megaupload is basically the US govt throwing its toys out of the pram because the PHBs got ass-raped over the SOPA/PIPA debacle. Its basically gulf war the 3rd. Lets go harass and dick around with someone who had NOTHING TO DO with whats got us with our panties in a knot, because we feel like it and we rule the world.

Personally I would like a fair compromise. Fair profits for the corporations concerned and the artists concerned. Fair prices for the customer. Selling something at a 50% markup is one thing - a 5000% markup is something else entirely.

As to Megaupload I hope and strongly suspect that this 'trial' will fall apart faster than a UK Police Corruption investigation. Notwithstanding the fact that the US has overstepped its mark to the point of needing the hubble telescope as a visual aid, they have also taken data that is entirely legal (for the given value of legality in this day and age), from people who have done absolutely nothing wrong, and seem intent on destroying it just because they can. I wonder how many businesses have been damaged by this action?

Now, forgive me if I am wrong, but stealing someones own work and data and then destroying it is theft is it not? much the same as stealing someones Lexus and having an impromptu barbecue over its burning carcass is theft (and theft, sonny, thats just for starters).

Not to mention the albino mastodon in the room but people, and this is the important bit, so sit up and listen at the back...

PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS COPIED AND SHARED STUFF BETWEEN EACH OTHER...

How do you think the Bible got to be such a popular title? - yup, they copied it (although to be fair, blokes with swords cutting up people who didnt agree with it was somewhat of an incentive)

How do you think people learned about new music acts and stuff they now like? you guessed it, from mates giving them copies of albums or songs - I remember being at Uni and my friend lent me a copy of a Cranberries album.... OH GODS, BURN HER AT THE STAKE NOW!!!!!!

Funny isnt it, that in the intervening years I went and BOUGHT, with my money, the CD's and the like that that band have produced.

The only thing sadder and more pitiful than the US justice system would be drowning puppies, and there would have to be alot of them..

6
2
WTF?

you can type that shit..but boy does it sound stupid when you say it.

Mike don't be a child and turn this into linux v's windows i am sure you can find plenty of silly little forums for that.

The point is valid, the vast majority of the public who download warez are not exactly intrested in fanboy flag waving or linux most think a distro is a 70's themed night club that servers food and they want the best product they can get and through the path of least resistance. Not everyone yes but just the vast overwhelming majority do, usenet stats, Bt stats etc all backup it up there is only one silly person in here.

The point still stands why would the majority of downloaders/leechers even bother with anything other than top quality safe products why take on the hassle of actually trying something new or moving out of your comfort zone, if you think otherwise then then you being naive.

0
4

jemma when you get all growd up and that and join the adult posse....

Jemma how would you feel if you worked your but off for a Phd , sweating blood , sleepless nights and years of hard graft, then just as you submit your work you're be told someone else had already submitted that body of work identical in every way word for word, and they accepted their work first and yours becomes void.

Of course the other person just pirated your work...but hey that’s cool in your society beacuse you say

"PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS COPIED AND SHARED STUFF BETWEEN EACH OTHER..."

I find your attitude simplistic and child like and far removed from the society and technical systems behind it, just like my 13 yr old nephew’s friend who told me how he was the Foo Fighters greatest fan then proceeded to offer me a DVD with all their albums on it...woo some fan.

The reason some software is so pricey is because of the stupendous level of piracy in the wild, not just having to charge more because lost profits on pirated copies but development cost of adding DRM and other unneeded code just to try to thwart piracy...And honestly it is more about damage limitation most companies now are just happy with stopping piracy during the first few weeks of release let’s face it so long as sites like MU exist and greedy little people like yourself they have no choice. And as you seem to have the business of a house brick i won’t even bother to take apart your comment on mark-ups.

1. DRM

2. HIGH SOFTWARE COSTS

3. STRUGGLING START UP DEVELOPERS

4. PUNITIVE LEGISLATION

5. WAREZ SITES 2.0 OR NOT

6. SMALL SOFTWARE HOUSES FORCED TO JOIN THE BIG GUYS TO SURVIVE

7. LENGHTY DEVELOPEMNT TIMES

8. STRUGGLING ARTISTS TRYING TO MAKING A LIVING

9. CANCELLATION AND TERMINATION OF PROJECTS LIKE TV SHOWS

10. STUNTED GROWTH IN THE OPEN SOURCE MARKET

All of the above are not caused by big business nor goverments or slimy shit buckets like dot.com...they're caused by you.

so now you have made your bed lie in it....should be a natural for a student.

2
6
Anonymous Coward

@Jemma

"Personally I would like a fair compromise. Fair profits for the corporations concerned and the artists concerned. Fair prices for the customer. Selling something at a 50% markup is one thing - a 5000% markup is something else entirely."

I'd have liked a fair compromise too. The corporations have had their chance though. They deserve no quarter.

0
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Meh

@ AC 15.25

I hate to say I am beginning to agree with you. Corporations havent done fair since Walter Disney married a Markovicz...

0
0
Paris Hilton

missed your porzac i see..no sharp objectd around are there

well i have Phd mines is the one on non linear optics, Jemma maybe if you had put as much effort into being a student as posting that huge wall of text you would have one too.

I am 40 yrs old have 3 kids and run my own business (software), and it is I and market who says how much my products sell for or what value is attached to them not you, if it's to dear for you get a proper job and stop scrounging.

Oh and I am scottish too, i fear for the health of the nation if your are a recent product of our education system, i work my ass off constantly so do my employees you are just a freetard taking up oxygen. But I see that your point is everybody greedy, corrupt and lazy apart from you...eh they pay for stuff and work hard to achieve it .

I would love to take apart your post but it is just mindless gibberish..are you paris by any chance

0
5

@Jemma

>>"Situation the Second:

>>"Disney use a DVD copier machine ($5000) and a load of blank DVD's ($0.01 each) to copy on 40 year old tat that even 8 year olds cringe at - and then sell it at £15 a shot, to parents that are barely making ends meet as it is... they used to call that profiteering..."

So breadline parents keep buying Disney DVDs even though their kids hate them and presumably only ever play them once, if at all, and then throw them away in disgust?

Maybe there's a reason some people are on the breadline.

>>"Profiteering is nothing more than legalised theft. Profiteering is what the media industry has been doing for years."

It's nothing remotely like 'legalised theft' if the thing being 'overcharged' for is an unnecessary luxury, rather than something like water or electricity or basic foodstuffs.

If someone wants to charge a seeming fortune for a DVD, or for a pair of jeans with a particular label on, they're not forcing anyone to buy it. At best, they're advertising in the hope that people will buy it, but people who are mentally incapable of resisting advertising for things they can't afford seem likely to get well and truly screwed in the modern world sooner rather than later.

>>"I could tape or use other methods to record *something I paid for* for very little - corporations can do it for practically nothing because of economies of scale - but for the 7 series of Buffy you pay £100+ for a boxed set...? and thats honest commerce?"

It is honest commerce.

If people think it's a rip-off, they should simply fail to buy it unless/until the price comes down.

And if they thought so little of it that they couldn't be bothered to record it themselves, why should they be particularly bothered what it costs?

(As it is, it seems like the limited edition numbered box set is ~£100, but a non-fancy one is £50, (effectively, £7 per series) from play.com or Amazon UK)

>>"Personally I would like a fair compromise. Fair profits for the corporations concerned and the artists concerned. Fair prices for the customer. Selling something at a 50% markup is one thing - a 5000% markup is something else entirely."

It's pretty daft to work out a 'markup' based on the marginal cost of something where upfront costs of making the first copy are large.

It's like saying "Other people have already paid/should pay for the fixed costs, so I want my version for fuck all."

If they really had a 5000% markup, that'd be reflected in their accounts.

Now, if you could change the rules so that having the TV rights bought effectively wiped out any further claim to copyright ownership in the relevant country, so that the series really *was* 'something you had paid in full for', maybe you *could* have DVDs sold for a markup on their marginal cost of production just large enough to make it worthwhile making them..

Though, of course, in such a situation, with one revenue stream cut off, the TV rights may well become more expensive, and they'd still have to be paid for by someone, one way or another, whether through license, advertising, or subscription.

At least charging for the boxed set does put some of the costs directly onto the people who *really* like the programme, which seems to have an element of fairness around it.

And if selling the TV rights pretty much exhausted the copyright, would that actually make things better in terms of choice or quality?

At least at the moment, an independent production company could gamble on their new series being popular and set the price they ask TV companies to encourage someone to take the series on in the hope that they could recoup some money from future DVD sales, and the BBC can commission a flagship nature programme or other big budget production knowing that they can not only sell it for overseas distribution, but also make a decent amount of money from disc sales.

>>"Notwithstanding the fact that the US has overstepped its mark to the point of needing the hubble telescope as a visual aid, they have also taken data that is entirely legal (for the given value of legality in this day and age), from people who have done absolutely nothing wrong, and seem intent on destroying it just because they can. I wonder how many businesses have been damaged by this action?"

I guess it depends how many businesses were retarded enough to use MU as a storage provider for stuff they didn't have copies of anywhere else.

>>"PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS COPIED AND SHARED STUFF BETWEEN EACH OTHER..."

You reckon there might be a meaningful difference between me giving a copy of something to a mate, and me doing the equivalent of posting copies to anyone in the world who asks for one, with a business rewarding me for doing that while making money out of it themselves?

1
0
Meh

What nation would that be? since right at the moment the Scots seem undecided about precisely what nation they are members of. Although I have to be fair, Scotland is about the only place in history where one of its best known Kings actually retired!

Now your position comes somewhat clearer, I hope you will be proud of yourself, because the position you espouse is precisely the worst possible for your families continued success.

Apple want to re-organise text books and the like in Jobs's image. All very well and good, and laudable. Until you realise that when they've done it, they'll have copyright, which means they'll charge what they like. A boss of Apple isnt very happy with a certain bunch of people, latterly found in the rough area of the Levant, oh look the history of a certain unpleasant event is somewhat massaged...

AND YOU'LL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT PAY, AND ACCEPT IT.

Or your grandkids will end up in room-temperature-IQ hell.

Because if the copyright Ghazi nutters who are involved in downing MegaUpLoad and all the rest of it get their way - how long do you think it'll be before Wikipedia goes down in flames? Free, openly distributed information, we cant have that can we?

I am reminded of a film called Santa Claus, and the memorable line....

"A sequel. That's it. We'll bring it out on March 25, and we'll call it... Christmas 2!"

Wont your grandkids be happy with their all new Christmas by Apple, to go with their classroom by Apple etc etc...

As I have said repeatedly. I am happy to pay a fair price. If I can get the same or better product at a lower price, then I pay a lower price. Thats one of the reasons I wont touch BMW or Apple, and thats above and beyond idiotic or shabby business practices respectively.

If your customers pay your prices good on you - you might have got the balance right.

I remember when I used to work in Cambridge, with DTP companies mainly, most of whom were using a certain piece of software - 90% of which was 'pirated'. Do you know *why* it was pirated?

Because EVEN THE REPS SELLING IT ADMITTED the price was too high.

If companies of all descriptions sell their wares at an honest fair price then people will be happy to pay those prices, but precisely why should I pay £50,000 for something when a competitors product does a better job at £25,000?

More to the point, if something like a car costs me say, £15k, and the actual entire build cost is £7-8k thats all well and good.

But if I am charged £15k for something which cost the person selling it & making it £100... then its a definate no.

Once a music CD has been mastered every further copy from that master costs a single blank CD, some ink, and some electric - maybe 6p in all per CD. Now I would like you to explain to me precisely why, charging every single customer a mark up of 99.6% is fair and ethical?

0
0

@Jemma

>>"I am happy to pay fair money for fair goods."

>>"$15 per music CD for a album that sells millions is not fair money for fair goods, when it costs maybe £500 and a lyricists time to write, produce, master copy the album and sweet sod all after that."

Do a lot of work for the music industry, then?

And as for your comments at the *end* of your post, there's attacking someone's arguments as stupid or wrong in various ways, and there's even calling someone an idiot/freetard/RIAA shill/CIA stooge/commie/liberal/teenager/limey/septic/whatever, but what you wrote seems to be going a long way beyond where most people here seem to draw the line on personal attacks even when arguing against someone with very different views.

0
1

>>"If companies of all descriptions sell their wares at an honest fair price then people will be happy to pay those prices, but precisely why should I pay £50,000 for something when a competitors product does a better job at £25,000?"

Seems like a bit of a straw man argument there.

Is anyone here saying that you *should* buy the £50,000 product?

>>"More to the point, if something like a car costs me say, £15k, and the actual entire build cost is £7-8k thats all well and good."

>>"But if I am charged £15k for something which cost the person selling it & making it £100... then its a definate no."

Well, especially if the product is not important enough to human survival to be counted as some kind of 'right', unless they're illegally stopping other people from designing and producing their own competing products for £200, it's not obviously any of your damn business /what/ it costs them to make one more unit.

You simply have to choose whether the price is something you think is worth paying or not, and, if not, don't bloody buy it, just sit back and wait for competition to emerge, if you honestly think you're right.

If competition doesn't emerge at the £200 level and has consistently failed to emerge at that level, unless you actually have real evidence of some Giant Conspiracy preventing other people from making their own creations, that might suggest you got your calculations wrong.

0
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

Industry whiners

Games have been pirated for decades yet the industry continues. If a game is any good at all, expect it to be pirated. Even blockbusters get pirated. It doesn't really matter in the end.

You will succeed or fail based on the quality of your work and whether or not you can convince anyone to buy.

People that are successful in the industry realize that they aren't just competing with the rest of the industry but anything that can distract the customer.

If you are trying to blame piracy for your troubles then you are a loser trying to blame someone else for the fact that you can't make it in a tough market.

1
0
Silver badge
Linux

The nonsense of mindless branding

The idea that the unwashed masses that accumulate pirated software have any business touching Photoshop is highly amusing. It's simply overkill. So is the GIMP really. However, people tend to focus on big recognizable names because they don't really have any clue or anything meaningful to say.

If you are willing to pirate stuff, you can simply pirate a better targeted tool.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.