5 ms·

you just have to make it inconvenient enough, and most of the people will give up. Let's verify that claim, shall we? 1. Fact: For the past 10 years the conte

by moe 14y ago

you just have to make it inconvenient enough, and most of the people will give up. Let's verify that claim, shall we? 1. Fact: For the past 10 years the content industry has been doing everything in their power to make file-sharing as inconvenient as possible. 2. Result: http://disruptive-music.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/usmusicindustryevolution.jpg http://disruptive-music.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/201... I'll tell you where your (and their) mistake is. Instead of trying to make "illegal" sharing inconvenient, the focus should be on making "legal" consumption convenient. When the content is available immediately, everywhere, at good quality, for a reasonable price, then most people have no reason to consider other channels. The content industry has only themselves to blame for not providing that. Case in point: I'd like to watch avengers, on my flatscreen at home, asap. Chances are PirateBay will make that happen before iTunes, even though I would happily pay $10 for it, if they'd let me.

huggyface 14y ago
You seem to have a confused message. On the one hand you are arguing that it is futile trying to stop file sharing by linking to dropping music sales. But then you argue that they simply need to make legal consumption convenient: Music is superbly convenient to legally purchase online, with instant gratification. What you're really demonstrating is that a lot of people simply like things for free. Hopping on the soap box and pontificating how it is everyone else's fault is a ruse that we've seen since the early days of piracy. It is always someone else's fault, and it's always some natural right to have everything for nothing.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  "people simply like things for free" Maybe those things, objectively, no longer worth as much as they used to twenty years ago? You can make things free, too, with e.g. ad-supported streaming.
- moe 14y ago
  Music is superbly convenient to legally purchase online, with instant gratification. That is a very recent invention with spotify and the ilk - and even they still have ways to go. iTunes may seem superficially convenient, but in reality it is only convenient when you already know what you want. Discovery is non-existent, and that's what many people want. And: It is way too expensive. (There, I said it!) You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph, but: Reality is that people value movies higher than music. $10 for a film is reasonable to most people. $10 for (most) albums is not. $10/month flat for all music is then again in their comfort zone, as demonstrated by spotify et al. You can now either take the stance of the music industry; i.e. cry, complain and spend all your money on trying to turn back time to the golden 80s - where consumers had little choice other than pay whatever you asked. Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy.
  - huggyface 14y ago
    It is way too expensive It's hard to compete with $0, which is the price that thieves are willing to pay. You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph I'm not in the music industry. I'm not in the movie industry. I would benefit, financially, from piracy by simply engaging in it myself. But, you know, I don't because I can't justify it. I find the arguments that do completely transparent and selfish. I honestly find these piracy excusing arguments sad for society as a whole: It is the tragedy of the commons, everyone taking a dump in the well simply because they can, making laughable arguments why what they're doing is justified ("If only there was a toilet every 10 feet and someone wiped my arse for me..."). It's hearing a teenager justify why they litter (it's the city's fault and McDonald's fault and their parent's fault and...). Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy. Yachts....another adorable excuse for theft.
    - guard-of-terra 14y ago
      Well, Russia watches Game of Thrones and we couldn't if not for pirates. This makes me un-sad for society as whole. We become richer from piracy than we could be without. Martin sells much more books in Russia right now than he would without the TV series, and HBO aren't losing money because they don't want our money anyway.
      - huggyface 14y ago
        The essentials of life -- life, liberty, the Game of Thrones without delay. Even if I accepted that argument, it has perilously little validity for the majority of participants in English language piracy discussions.
        guard-of-terra 14y ago
        It's not a question of essentials. It is a question of are we becoming a better society by pirating Game of Thrones? Yes we do. So you are going to disregard me just like HBO already did. Why should not I?
- icebraining 14y ago
  it's always some natural right to have everything for nothing No. It's my natural right to accept what people are voluntarily sharing with me, and to share what I've bought.
  - huggyface 14y ago
    and to share what I've bought. Horseshit. It is your right to refuse to purchase things that include sharing clauses you don't like. The level of discourse on any discussion involving piracy is the bottom of the septic tank, full of some of the most irrationally, short-term entitled nitwits imaginable.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Abusive terms in contracts can be disregarded. For example, where I live any term saying I have less than two years of warranty in any device I buy can be ignored.
    - guard-of-terra 14y ago
      Why do you think seller has rights to force fine print on buyer? Hint: in most jurisdictions on most goods, they can't and trying to do so make them liable.
      - huggyface 14y ago
        It isn't fine print. There are countless indy bands and indy film makers who welcome sharing of their product. Why not stick to that?
pessimizer 14y ago
"everything in their power to make file-sharing as inconvenient as possible" != a lot Their power is very limited, so really all they've been doing is nipping around the edges. Their goal is to expand that power technologically and legally in order to both stop piracy and make absolutely no concessions to consumer convenience, maintaining maximum flexibility in their choices when bringing sights and sounds to market. All profits being held equal, the studios would prefer to charge $100 million a ticket and have you watch it in a closet in some LA office. The industry creates films that it doesn't care if anybody sees, and creates music that it doesn't care if anybody hears. That's the problem, and that's why we're surrounded by crap. I'll tell you what kind of convenience I want: if I watch a movie that turns out to be deceptively marketed garbage, I don't want to have paid any more than those two hours of my life for the chance. I also want an easily streamlined, audited, and publicly supported way for me to support the artists that I want to encourage to create more things that I want to see. I don't want to be marketed to, I want to be asked, and I want honest recommendations from people who know my tastes enough to think I may like something. I don't want glorified distributors being able to hold both the artists and the consumers over the barrel to move a product that doesn't even need to be distributed any more. I don't want my culture to be a patchwork of ownership, like the land became. If I hear a song, I can sing a song. So, basically, I wouldn't happily pay $10 for The Avengers on my television, and at best that would be a partial solution for the industry IMO.

by moe 14y ago

huggyface 14y ago

You seem to have a confused message. On the one hand you are arguing that it is futile trying to stop file sharing by linking to dropping music sales. But then you argue that they simply need to make legal consumption convenient: Music is superbly convenient to legally purchase online, with instant gratification. What you're really demonstrating is that a lot of people simply like things for free. Hopping on the soap box and pontificating how it is everyone else's fault is a ruse that we've seen since the early days of piracy. It is always someone else's fault, and it's always some natural right to have everything for nothing.

guard-of-terra 14y ago
"people simply like things for free" Maybe those things, objectively, no longer worth as much as they used to twenty years ago? You can make things free, too, with e.g. ad-supported streaming.
moe 14y ago
Music is superbly convenient to legally purchase online, with instant gratification. That is a very recent invention with spotify and the ilk - and even they still have ways to go. iTunes may seem superficially convenient, but in reality it is only convenient when you already know what you want. Discovery is non-existent, and that's what many people want. And: It is way too expensive. (There, I said it!) You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph, but: Reality is that people value movies higher than music. $10 for a film is reasonable to most people. $10 for (most) albums is not. $10/month flat for all music is then again in their comfort zone, as demonstrated by spotify et al. You can now either take the stance of the music industry; i.e. cry, complain and spend all your money on trying to turn back time to the golden 80s - where consumers had little choice other than pay whatever you asked. Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy.
- huggyface 14y ago
  It is way too expensive It's hard to compete with $0, which is the price that thieves are willing to pay. You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph I'm not in the music industry. I'm not in the movie industry. I would benefit, financially, from piracy by simply engaging in it myself. But, you know, I don't because I can't justify it. I find the arguments that do completely transparent and selfish. I honestly find these piracy excusing arguments sad for society as a whole: It is the tragedy of the commons, everyone taking a dump in the well simply because they can, making laughable arguments why what they're doing is justified ("If only there was a toilet every 10 feet and someone wiped my arse for me..."). It's hearing a teenager justify why they litter (it's the city's fault and McDonald's fault and their parent's fault and...). Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy. Yachts....another adorable excuse for theft.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    Well, Russia watches Game of Thrones and we couldn't if not for pirates. This makes me un-sad for society as whole. We become richer from piracy than we could be without. Martin sells much more books in Russia right now than he would without the TV series, and HBO aren't losing money because they don't want our money anyway.
    - huggyface 14y ago
      The essentials of life -- life, liberty, the Game of Thrones without delay. Even if I accepted that argument, it has perilously little validity for the majority of participants in English language piracy discussions.
      - guard-of-terra 14y ago
        It's not a question of essentials. It is a question of are we becoming a better society by pirating Game of Thrones? Yes we do. So you are going to disregard me just like HBO already did. Why should not I?
icebraining 14y ago
it's always some natural right to have everything for nothing No. It's my natural right to accept what people are voluntarily sharing with me, and to share what I've bought.
- huggyface 14y ago
  and to share what I've bought. Horseshit. It is your right to refuse to purchase things that include sharing clauses you don't like. The level of discourse on any discussion involving piracy is the bottom of the septic tank, full of some of the most irrationally, short-term entitled nitwits imaginable.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Abusive terms in contracts can be disregarded. For example, where I live any term saying I have less than two years of warranty in any device I buy can be ignored.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    Why do you think seller has rights to force fine print on buyer? Hint: in most jurisdictions on most goods, they can't and trying to do so make them liable.
    - huggyface 14y ago
      It isn't fine print. There are countless indy bands and indy film makers who welcome sharing of their product. Why not stick to that?

pessimizer 14y ago

"everything in their power to make file-sharing as inconvenient as possible" != a lot Their power is very limited, so really all they've been doing is nipping around the edges. Their goal is to expand that power technologically and legally in order to both stop piracy and make absolutely no concessions to consumer convenience, maintaining maximum flexibility in their choices when bringing sights and sounds to market. All profits being held equal, the studios would prefer to charge $100 million a ticket and have you watch it in a closet in some LA office. The industry creates films that it doesn't care if anybody sees, and creates music that it doesn't care if anybody hears. That's the problem, and that's why we're surrounded by crap. I'll tell you what kind of convenience I want: if I watch a movie that turns out to be deceptively marketed garbage, I don't want to have paid any more than those two hours of my life for the chance. I also want an easily streamlined, audited, and publicly supported way for me to support the artists that I want to encourage to create more things that I want to see. I don't want to be marketed to, I want to be asked, and I want honest recommendations from people who know my tastes enough to think I may like something. I don't want glorified distributors being able to hold both the artists and the consumers over the barrel to move a product that doesn't even need to be distributed any more. I don't want my culture to be a patchwork of ownership, like the land became. If I hear a song, I can sing a song. So, basically, I wouldn't happily pay $10 for The Avengers on my television, and at best that would be a partial solution for the industry IMO.