Urban Cohorts wrote:People steal and commit all sorts of "immoral" acts. These things are highly situational and subjective. I could site a hundred examples from each socioeconomic group of doing such things, but it would all end up being the same- people do things that aren't "right" for the benefit of themselves all the time.
So again, because lots of people break a law (or any other "immoral" act), that makes it ok? I remember hearing the "if everyone else jumped off a bridge....." talk when I was a wee little tyke. Are we not teaching that anymore? Now the mob mentality dictates right and wrong, legal and illegal?
As for the land of excuses-https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... m&hl=en_US
We really live in the land of the rich. Always have, most likely always will. I'm not a big fan of either the extremely wealthy (because they ultimately control everything, and always have) or the extremely poor (because they tend to take advantage of handouts that deserving people could use). I see this every single day having to deal with MassHealth. People on state funded insurance driving a Lexus, talking on a iPhone, and putting various narcotics (that 9/10 people are either addicted to or sell) into their coach purses.
That's a whole different discussion, but anyone who is worried about what anyone else's financial worth is has quite a few problems. To relate it to this discussion, I don't care if the movie companies profit in the trillions, it's none of my concern (or business for that matter), and it certainly doesn't make it ok for me (or anyone) to steal from them.
EDIT TO ADD - If we were discussing people stealing an overpriced necessity in an attempt to save their lives, then I might stipulate that there is some blame on the part of the companies involved (and possibly the government), but we are talking about a luxury item here. No one will live or die if they attend or don't attend a movie.
I think we all know what rich is. I understand that things are relative, but we need to start the comparison from the TOP. And the wealth divide in this country is the highest it has ever been. I'm not against wealth disparity, but when the middle class shrinks to practically no one (the ongoing trend in the US), that is when major problems (revolutions) start to occur IMO. Numerous examples throughout history.
Again, different discussion, but wealth divide isn't a valid excuse for breaking the law.
The Artful Dodger wrote:I don't think the entertainment industry really has an enlightened understanding, for a lack of a better term, as to why piracy exists. People not wanting to pay to go to the movies vs. downloading/streaming the movie for free is part of it, but I see it as a symptom to a greater problem. That very problem within the industry lies in the fact that they're slow and/or too resistant to change their business model when that very model is being disrupted.
Fact of the matter is, people are willing to pay for content; it's more convenient to buy than pirating for free. When studios/content providers limit distribution to more traditional ways (i.e. theater, DVD, cable/satellite, regional DRM zoning), then people want to take the path of least resistance to consume that content. The music industry struggled with this years ago when people preferred to download/purchase individual songs rather than albums. People tend to want to see films on an on-demand basis especially with the technology available but with catalogs on streaming sites such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, et. al. being limited, people will seek out other avenues to watch what they want to watch. What the studios, the networks, and the powers that be must realize is digitizing content for the masses to consume isn't necessarily a zero-sum game.
I agree. It would help the movie industry quite a bit to have all new releases available from the get go on some sort of streaming downloadable platform. And I agree that they are not moving in that direction fast enough. Still doesn't make it ok to break the law though, and steps do need to be taken to enforce those laws. I said earlier that I don't like the current language of SOPA, so I'm not defending that particular bill, just acknowledging that steps do need to be taken to combat the illegal activity.
Tavish wrote:I don't subscribe to the theory that it is the government's job to protect a business model that is failing. I didn't agree with it when they bailed out companies when the meltdown happened and that was with companies that would have affected just about everyone. I'm even more against it when the bailout is just to keep the companies profits high. Passing laws to protect a failing business model is the same concept as just handing cash over to the company.
The bailout is complicated, but on the overall I didn't agree with it either. If a business fails, it fails. So we agree there. The difference here is that we're talking about people breaking the law and costing companies billions. And you think that's ok, the government shouldn't try to stop it, it's the companies' fault other people are breaking the law. Doesn't really make any sense.
Sure the enforcement of copyright infringement can be improved. Any illegal activity could be greatly reduced with the right amount of sacrifice of freedoms. It is a balancing act of how many liberties are willing to be given up in order to protect specific interests. In the case of SOPA/PIPA type legislation the main focus is pitting one industry (entertainment) against another (technology). Neither will be satisfied with the outcome, but if the government was smart they would err on the side of promoting the growth of the technology sector which is stands to lose magnitudes more in revenue and jobs than the entertainment industry should due process be removed.
Sacrifice of freedoms? What freedoms? Are you seriously making up a "right" to illegally download someone else's copyrighted material? Anyone with a toolbar has their internet history tracked, traced, and sent to a third party. On top of that, haven't you seen this?:http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240105197/US-approves-ISP-data-retention-bill
So what's the big deal?
There is no battle here, the only thing "technology" loses in all of this is the ability to host illegal content (and profit from it). How many of the little people (make-up, hair, cameramen, etc) have lost their jobs, taken pay cuts, or are underpaid due to the billions lost to piracy?
So due process is a made up right but copyright is not? Shutting down "collaborators" via SOPA type legislation doesn't stop the illegal act. It simply makes for more innocent bystanders with no legal protection.
Shutting down collaborators makes committing the illegal act more difficult. Do you leave your front door or car unlocked? No? Why not? Because locks, alarms, etc, make it more difficult for a criminal to break the law. Doesn't make it 100% safe, and I said earlier it wouldn't perfectly stop piracy, but it would help.
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.
Live or die. Make your choice.