3 ms·

Because the people who run those companies are literally extremely old, very ignorant about technology, and they do not care what people want, only what they pe

Because the people who run those companies are literally extremely old, very ignorant about technology, and they do not care what people want, only what they perceive as the best money-making investment. They don't want change, they want business as usual, but their business model is dead, it's dead and rotting and they are going to accept that one of these days. Meanwhile pirates will keep stealing their worthless products.

kayman 10y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head. There is big generation gap on how the execs view the business model vs how their teenagers are using the product. And as the new generation slowly takes over, the model will evolve. Evolve or die right!
- eggy 10y ago
  I agree mostly with this, but I am not sure it is all generational gap, or that large entities move slowly. Also see my comment above about IP and copyright in reference to Zara copying an indie artist's designs and placing the patches on their clothing. How come it is not ok when the shoe is on the other foot? To be clear, I am sincerely asking here, since I go through bouts of taking one side then the other on music, movies, copyright, and other IP.
  - simbalion 10y ago
    It's not different legally, they both have a right to protect their intellectual property. There is a case to be made that people should have a human right to see or consume any media which might be enriching to their lives, even if they can't afford to. But seeing a movie is not the same as archiving and distributing that movie. In my opinion, software and movie piracy is a side-effect of an industry that does not properly serve it's own market. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't play a role in that. Smart people would recognize that they are playing the game wrong, and they would have adapted their model by now. Some have tried, Netflix is a great effort to move in the right direction but it's been crippled by the idiotic licensing structure of the pre-internet business model. Without getting into debates about morality or ethics, the MPAA and RIAA are getting what they deserve for responding to these challenges by responding with hostility toward their own consumers. They have not responded properly to the situation, and they dug themselves into further trouble.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      > It's not different legally It probably is different legally. There are civil remedies and criminal penalties. Criminal penalties tend to apply for willful infringement for commercial gain. So when I download a movie it doesn't count. If I download movies and sell them it does. Zara removing the copyright notices from a designer's work, placing it on their clothing, and selling it pretty clearly moves it into the criminal end of copyright violation.

kayman 10y ago

I think you hit the nail on the head. There is big generation gap on how the execs view the business model vs how their teenagers are using the product. And as the new generation slowly takes over, the model will evolve. Evolve or die right!

eggy 10y ago
I agree mostly with this, but I am not sure it is all generational gap, or that large entities move slowly. Also see my comment above about IP and copyright in reference to Zara copying an indie artist's designs and placing the patches on their clothing. How come it is not ok when the shoe is on the other foot? To be clear, I am sincerely asking here, since I go through bouts of taking one side then the other on music, movies, copyright, and other IP.
- simbalion 10y ago
  It's not different legally, they both have a right to protect their intellectual property. There is a case to be made that people should have a human right to see or consume any media which might be enriching to their lives, even if they can't afford to. But seeing a movie is not the same as archiving and distributing that movie. In my opinion, software and movie piracy is a side-effect of an industry that does not properly serve it's own market. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't play a role in that. Smart people would recognize that they are playing the game wrong, and they would have adapted their model by now. Some have tried, Netflix is a great effort to move in the right direction but it's been crippled by the idiotic licensing structure of the pre-internet business model. Without getting into debates about morality or ethics, the MPAA and RIAA are getting what they deserve for responding to these challenges by responding with hostility toward their own consumers. They have not responded properly to the situation, and they dug themselves into further trouble.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > It's not different legally It probably is different legally. There are civil remedies and criminal penalties. Criminal penalties tend to apply for willful infringement for commercial gain. So when I download a movie it doesn't count. If I download movies and sell them it does. Zara removing the copyright notices from a designer's work, placing it on their clothing, and selling it pretty clearly moves it into the criminal end of copyright violation.