So it begins
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
this sux.....
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
I don't fileshare, and haven't since I caught every virus known to mankind from Napster. Even if it were legal, I wouldn't bother with this...just not that big a movie buff.
I'm torn on the whole issue. On the one hand, I feel for people who wish to share music or other media. It ain't like piracy is going to be stopped this easily anyway, though it does seem to be among the more prevalent methods of pirating copyrighted materials.
On the other hand, I clearly see and understand the copyright owners' position. They pay ungodly amounts of money for the exclusive right to market a piece of music, or a film, or whatever. In return, they are entitled to profit from that item. It may not seem like much to us the average fan/consumer, but multiply that download you got for free times, say, 80,000. At a buck apiece, that adds up. It denies the legal copyright owner of income, it denies the writer income, it denies the performer(s) income...everybody involved in the piece of work loses money except the individual who downloads it for free. Without someone to market the movie/song/whatever, it does not get exposure to fans. Without that, the demand for the work diminishes. We all understand the principle of supply and demand, so when you really look at it the long term far reaching effects of illicit file sharing end up costing us, the fans, more money in the long run. Sure, maybe I got me a free copy of an mp3 that I got out of paying a buck for. Seems like chump change. Like I said though, when that gets multiplied thousands of times over every day, we're talking megabucks.
The ruling will have zero effect on me personally, so it ain't like I care that much either way. I just wanted to try and present a little bit of the opposing perspective for consideration. Do I personally care if some big shot music or movie publicist gets slighted a buck on their next royalty check? Not in the least. I do however care when they start recouping those lost dollars with higher CD, DVD etc prices. And bet your ass, they will, do, and have been doing that very thing. A CD is very cheap to manufacture. Nowhere near the 18 bucks they charge a consumer for it. The extra is recouping thier losses from, among other things, piracy via file sharing. So I guess my final stance on it is, I approve of the ruling. I collect music, so I want the authentic item complete with liner notes, cover artwork...everything. I realize others don't place that high a priority on having all that with their CD. I do. I'm also tired of paying for thousands of illegal downloads when I purchase a CD.
I'm torn on the whole issue. On the one hand, I feel for people who wish to share music or other media. It ain't like piracy is going to be stopped this easily anyway, though it does seem to be among the more prevalent methods of pirating copyrighted materials.
On the other hand, I clearly see and understand the copyright owners' position. They pay ungodly amounts of money for the exclusive right to market a piece of music, or a film, or whatever. In return, they are entitled to profit from that item. It may not seem like much to us the average fan/consumer, but multiply that download you got for free times, say, 80,000. At a buck apiece, that adds up. It denies the legal copyright owner of income, it denies the writer income, it denies the performer(s) income...everybody involved in the piece of work loses money except the individual who downloads it for free. Without someone to market the movie/song/whatever, it does not get exposure to fans. Without that, the demand for the work diminishes. We all understand the principle of supply and demand, so when you really look at it the long term far reaching effects of illicit file sharing end up costing us, the fans, more money in the long run. Sure, maybe I got me a free copy of an mp3 that I got out of paying a buck for. Seems like chump change. Like I said though, when that gets multiplied thousands of times over every day, we're talking megabucks.
The ruling will have zero effect on me personally, so it ain't like I care that much either way. I just wanted to try and present a little bit of the opposing perspective for consideration. Do I personally care if some big shot music or movie publicist gets slighted a buck on their next royalty check? Not in the least. I do however care when they start recouping those lost dollars with higher CD, DVD etc prices. And bet your ass, they will, do, and have been doing that very thing. A CD is very cheap to manufacture. Nowhere near the 18 bucks they charge a consumer for it. The extra is recouping thier losses from, among other things, piracy via file sharing. So I guess my final stance on it is, I approve of the ruling. I collect music, so I want the authentic item complete with liner notes, cover artwork...everything. I realize others don't place that high a priority on having all that with their CD. I do. I'm also tired of paying for thousands of illegal downloads when I purchase a CD.
HomeLAN said:
Isn't kazaa the one registered in whatever island?
Also, bittorrent is somewhat harder to track, since the server never releases a complete list of users, those who send bad data become banned, those who never send a thing rarely get to make a bigger list. So they will actually have to download the movie files (and break the same law which they are using to sue).