Posts by The BigYin

Re: The customer defines value

1) It's not piracy. It's not theft. It's copyright infringement.

2) No, the consumer was lied to. They were sold beef that was actually horse. This is fraud. Nothing wrong with selling horse, just call it horse.

So you are conflating a license infringement (which is civil) to bare-faced fraud (which is criminal) in order to make a point. The two are not comparable.

"you're gong to end up with lowest common denominator entertainment."

If that's what the market wants, then that's what the market wants. Thing is, it won't happen. If other sectors we have lowest common denominator products and services (e.g. Budweiser and chain-pubs); we also have other products and services for people who give a shit (e.g. real ale and non-tied pubs).

It's not up to you to decree what the market wants, it's up to the market to decide.

Re: I think theres a bit more to it than risk free and saves money.

" "I would admit though since signing up for Netflix and Lovefilm the amount of movie piracy I do has taken a massive dive."

Bingo."

So....a service is provided, offering what the consumer wants, at a price the consumer feels is fair...and piracy drops? Well blow me down. If only more people could understand this.

Re: The customer defines value

"You might think my house is worth 20p; it doesn't mean I'm obliged to sell it to you for that."

True. But if everyone (are a large enough majority) think your house is worth 20p; guess how much you house is worth? I like to think my house is worth £1Billion. Shame I can't sell it for that, isn't it?

What the RIAA et al are engaged in, is restricting the free market to enforce a cartel. This is not a good idea at all. It prevents free-market economics from being able to set the price. It allows for exploitation of territories through pricing differentials. It prevents the market from exploiting/norming those differentials; which is exactly how lots of businesses operate and is (by-and-large) keeps the market honest (until the lobbyists get involved and block free-trade).

Some infringement is because people are arseholes - true. Not going to argue that. Some infringement is because people are frustrated at the all the restrictions (OS and region locks, non-distribution ect) imposed on them that make it hard/impossible to get the media legitimately. I put it to you that the latter group is probably bigger then the former.

It is interesting that some companies (e.g. HBO) are trying a different tack. Rather than attack the pirates, they seem to be interested in offering a better service (specifically for "Game of Thrones", the most infringed TV series last year). A "build it and they will come" kind of thing. This IMHO is the way forward. Stop wasting the money on the lawyers and lobbying, use it provide a better service.

Re: When will the studios realise...

The price the infringers are setting is 0.00, that's not the market. Just because there is theft we do not say the market has set a price of 0.00 for beans.

At least shops do not externalise their costs like the RIAA, what with new laws etc.

So what is the market price? Depends. That might be £15 for the latest Hollywood offering, or it might be £0.50. The cost of the movie is not the customer's concern. Me, I pay £5-£10 for a movie, but I don't buy on release day.

I deliberately pay more to people who play fair. So "The Tunnel" got £15.

Do not think for one second that just because I am pro-free market, pro-global market and anti-artificial barriers, anti-protectionism; that I in some way want things for nowt.

Re: Fighting piracy is costing the movie industry millions.

Can't use Blu-Ray so, meh. Stuck.

Re: When will the studios realise...

"Region locks and regional licensing aren't there to stop me and you getting stuff at the "price the market sets" "

Of course they are. If I buy a region 1 DVD, it won't play in my region 2 player. This allows a different price to be enforced for different markets, rather than let the market determine its own price (and there will always be variation due to shipping etc).

"because the price we pay correlates very closely with the cost of production."

Except it when it doesn't. Which is why the UK (to name one) pays much more for good than (say) the USA, even thought they get made in China. Case in point, I import my own parts from the USA (even though they come from Japan); I save about a third off the UK price after freight and taxes. This is apparently "OK" and makes me a savvy shopper. But if I tried it with movies...OH NOES!...DOOM!...I am in breach of copyright!....I am by-passing technological measures!....The humanity!

"Because "the market" is very different for people on a nice 20k+ a year wage and the poor sods who make our trainers for £1 a day."

Quite correct, which is why the market should be allowed to set it's prices. Any artificial disparity will be re-set by people exploiting the differential. Oh wait, no it won't; that's now illegal. Ask CD-Wow. Also, if the local price turns out to be too high in some regions, the choice is quite stark; don't sell in those regions or improve the wages so the goods are be affordable (yes, this will raise prices here but that's OK, it means we won't be having our cheap goods subsidised by someone else's suffering; also, it will aid local producers).

"Spiderman Umpteen is the true value of Spiderman Umpteen. Maybe it's crap overhyped blockbuster sh!te, but it's still an expensive production."

So what? If you can't sell it at the unit price you made it you know what happens? You go out of business. Simple. Perhaps a few loses and bankruptcies might focus their minds slightly, and give the decent indy producers a chance.

"American film studios would not be able to afford to sell at the street price for Ougadougou the world over"

Umm...no. Because languages do vary, so there is a natural barrier right there. I have no issue with a DVD clearly having a "region" to declare what languages it contains. I object to the lock.

"Spiderman Umpteen might be good for developing countries as they could instead build their own film industries and stop exporting their cash to rich US conglomerates, but that's a different issue"

No, it's the same one, It's called "free trade". The current system, along with price fixing, tries to enforce the status quo. That's fine for us fat, white Westerners; it's a bit of a shit for the 6 billion other folks on the planet.

"The producer offers, the consumer accepts or rejects."

You have that backwards. The consumer offers. The seller has to choose whether or not they accept.

"Part of what they offer is the DRM, region locking etc, and that is the producer's prerogative.

So they next time I can't pull a movie off a DVD onto a HDD so I can watch it, I should return it for a refund? I'm trying not to infringe, I'm trying to support the products I like, they are making it harder and harder for me to do so.

And how can I tell in advance if I can use it? Looks like CD/DVD, says it's a CD/DVD...why it contains a rootkit or dodgy tracks that make is dangerous/near impossible to use.

"But nobody seriously describes IP infringement as a legitimate "market force"."

No one has. All I have moaned about are artificial barriers to free trade. i.e. market control, which isn't very capitalist. You know "capitalism", that thing that's supposed to allow us all to be free too compete?

Re: When will the studios realise...

"stuff is worth what people are willing to pay for it"

I think you'll find that's called "free market economics". If you don't like the price the market sets, you do not have the right to interfere in said market and create artificial barriers (e.g. region locks) to try and get the price you want (which is what the RIAA, BPI et al try and do).

"if it's not packaged exactly how you want it you'll get it for free anyway"

If it's packaged in a way that make it difficult for me to use, I have been driven very close to infringing. It's not always obvious that one is purchasing a what is in effect defective product.

"Do you steal dented tins from supermarkets?"

Infringement != stealing. Which is why we call one "infringement" and the other "stealing".

Re: Fighting piracy is costing the movie industry millions.

That anti-infringement stuff does my head in "You wouldn't steal a purse...."

And I won't infringe on your copyright either. Which is why I paid for the bloody film! Now get off my TV and let me watch my film!

ARGH!

Or use a player that skips it.

Re: CPRM?

CPRM? Customer Punishment and Restriction Mechanism?

Re: Fighting piracy is costing the movie industry millions.

A few weeks ago I wanted to watch "Dark Knight". The DVD had been sitting on the shelf for quite a while. I don't have a DVD player in the lounge, I normally rip the DVD to a server and then watch it over the network (which lets me view it in the lounge, office, bedroom, garden etc). Could I get the movie on to the server? Only with a lot of frustration.

It would have been easier to torrent the movie or go for an illegal download.

So this thing I had given good money to purchase and done my bit to support the industry was actively trying to make my life difficult. I don't condone infringement, but sometimes...it's just easier even when you have paid for the blasted thing!

Re: Nope

Isn't that entrapment?

Re: Okay, so when so I get to call 6 strikes...

You are a content creator, you are not who the RIAA are here to protect. In fact, they would probably go after you as your free approach denies some of their members the chance to charge.

The RIAA are here to protect large movie studios (who deny actors, writers etc a fair share of profits through false accounting), not to defend content creators.

Re: There's a reason for Geolocation lockouts.

So the RIAA would be better of in campaigning for more copyright harmony and helping form a truly global market?

Not going to happen with that dinosaur defender.

Re: I don't give a shit anymore...

Oh yeah. And it's bot piracy, it's the uploader committing a breach of license. It doesn't even constitute stealing, which is why it was always considered a civil and not criminal offence.

Piracy involves rape, kidnapping and murder; license infringement, not so much.

Do not allow the likes of the RIAA to further attack your freedom by allowing them to control your language.

Re: I don't give a shit anymore...

I want to pay, but artificial barriers to free trade prevent me from doing so.

I do without, but it costs the sellers and they wonder why sales are dropping. The Internet has no borders (yet) and they need to recognise that. Or maybe that's why we see so many news laws and plans trying to control people's freedoms.

Re: "This is the first really big attack on Macs,"

I'll type this slowly. Publicly admitted. And I find it funny you ate comparing a dead OS to a living kernel which supports more hardware, more filesystems, more...

Re: Life without Java

Java on the server is fine.

Java on the client would be fine if it wasn't managed by Oracle.

Re: "This is the first really big attack on Macs,"

GNU/Linux is developed in the open, so it will look like they have many bugs as one can see them all. Some bug won't even be a GNU or Linux issue, they'll be integration issues for a particular distro. Also, many of these bugs will be duplicates as various distros have a bug reported to them (a new ticket) which then gets filed with upstream (might be a new ticket, might join an existing one). This is before we get into the severity of said bugs. The projects are co-operative units, not closed and secretive monoliths like Apple and MS.

MS is cagey about what bugs they have and their publicly known list is probably a subset of the true picture.

I would have expected Apple to be the same if not even more anti-open, but as you cite no sources I guess we will just have to take what you say with a very large pinch of salt.

As for anti-virus - all PCs should run anti-virus, if only to protect Windows from itself.

Re: Fscking ridiculous

And the similarities continue - the Barry Trotter parodies were better than the originals.

Downvotus Extremus Beginus!