New Anti-Piracy Law

[LuvsGurl]

I say you deserve 1/3 less pay from your job! if you make $12.00 and hour I say you deserve $8.00 and hour! That is exactly what you are demanding of a business!

Actually, no. Most of the money from media sales goes to the production companies. Musical artists make much of their money from tours, movie stars make much of their money from theater debuts of shows. Media stores might make a few bucks profit, but let's be honest, the days of physical media you buy from a real walk-in store are numbered anyways. Soon enough everything will just be downloaded and stores like FYE will be out of business.

Once a production has gone to CD/DVD/whatever the people who work to make it and sell it only get a very small percentage. However, the record labels and production houses (MGM, Paramount, Universal, Warner, Sony, EMI, etc.) make billions every year off the stuff. It is their megafortunes that are being threatened by illegal downloading and it is their attorneys and lobbyists who are leading the charge to stop it. If they lowered the prices sure, they wouldn't make as much money... but they wouldn't have to spend as much trying to stop theft either.

[babyghost]

Back and forth forever.

While I tend to avoid downloading anything legal or not.

My opinion is that information in all its forms should be made readily available to any who choose to view/hear it.

Then again that is what libraries are for, it never hurts to wait a few weeks and then drive ten minutes to the local library to get the latest movie or listen to the latest songs.

[Clarkin]

Actually, no. Most of the money from media sales goes to the production companies. Musical artists make much of their money from tours, movie stars make much of their money from theater debuts of shows. Media stores might make a few bucks profit, but let's be honest, the days of physical media you buy from a real walk-in store are numbered anyways. Soon enough everything will just be downloaded and stores like FYE will be out of business.

Once a production has gone to CD/DVD/whatever the people who work to make it and sell it only get a very small percentage. However, the record labels and production houses (MGM, Paramount, Universal, Warner, Sony, EMI, etc.) make billions every year off the stuff. It is their megafortunes that are being threatened by illegal downloading and it is their attorneys and lobbyists who are leading the charge to stop it. If they lowered the prices sure, they wouldn't make as much money... but they wouldn't have to spend as much trying to stop theft either.

Yes stars n stuff make a buttload of money, but why is it that you insist on not paying ANYONE????

Is physical media on the way out, maybe so... But why acceslerate it and screw up the local ecconomy by illigally downloading all movies n games n TV shows?

Let's say you own a construction company and you want business, the guy that works at FYE (your store example) gets his/her hours cut because so many people are downloading illigally (These stores do sell Itunes and other Download cards as well as Physical media). Now let's call this employee Billy. He usually takes home let's say $400 a week after taxes before the hours cut. But now since people like you feel it's OK to steal by illigally downloading Billy gets his hours cut in half! Now Billy only takes home $200 a week. Now the expansion onto his house will have to wait, OH SHIT YOU LOST BUSINESS AND MONEY FROM BILLY! Now you are fucked because you didn't think Billy deserved any money because Metallica and George Lucas and MGM and Molly Hatchet made enough money. Do you care about Billy? I know you could care less for George, Metallica, MGM and Molly....

Think about it! Stop thinking about the last person to lose money and think of the stores that hire people and keep the economy going first. It's beyond annoying when you fucking thieves try to find ways to make it OK to steal.

Or let's say you work as a nurse, you still are a downloader because you belive it doesn't hurt anyone at all other than George Lucas and Metallica.... Now Billy comes in for medical treatment, but wait Billy got his hours cut and now can't pay the medical bills, Nancy can't pay either since the Movie store she worked at closed down because of downloading. Eventually 100 people can't pay their medical bills and guess what all 100 of them worked at these physical media outlets. 100 unpaid medical bills totalling over $200,000 OH SNAP! The medical place you work for may have to cut YOUR hours or let you go since so many bills have not been paid.

But wait fuck these 100 people, right?

[drynot]

One of the biggest issues with downloading and what-not nowadays is convenience and cost. I rented a movie from one of those red box machines just the other day. A new release for 2 DOLLARS!!!! A Blockbuster store with its employees and all its overhead simply cannot compete with that. I signed on with Netflix for their streaming only plan for 8 bucks a month and there are tons of movies and TV shows on there....

Itunes is great because you can pick and choose the songs you want to buy. I think we've all bought CD's with one or two great songs on them and the rest are junk.....

I am all for keeping people employed and whatnot but technology changes....you need to keep up or you'll be left behind.

[Clarkin]

One of the biggest issues with downloading and what-not nowadays is convenience and cost. I rented a movie from one of those red box machines just the other day. A new release for 2 DOLLARS!!!! A Blockbuster store with its employees and all its overhead simply cannot compete with that. I signed on with Netflix for their streaming only plan for 8 bucks a month and there are tons of movies and TV shows on there....

Itunes is great because you can pick and choose the songs you want to buy. I think we've all bought CD's with one or two great songs on them and the rest are junk.....

I am all for keeping people employed and whatnot but technology changes....you need to keep up or you'll be left behind.

At least when you pay for those, you are keeping someone employed. Which I am all for. If you haven't noticed I am 100 billion percent against Illigal downloading.

Heck you yourself could own a Red Box!

[babykeiff]

I've read most of the views on this topic, some of which I agree with, and others I don't. However, one point that has not been is this one.....

If you compare the cost to download, burn to DVD, print the associated box etc, to the purchase price of the ORIGINAL DVD, the savings are so fractional to make the downloading a waste of time - that is despite the poor quality and lack of other features normally found on a DVD.

I will give you an example - a specific series was broadcast on TV, and I recorded - via series link, the complete TV series. I wish to keep the series, so I decided to buy a collection of recordable DVDs to burn it. Apart from the time involved, it would cost approx $40 in DVDs to burn the collection. I could purchase the original box set for $42.

Although, with the TV senario, I recorded the programs legally, and it would be illegal to do similar via downloading on the internet, the cost savings are $2, which does not compensate me for my time.

IMHO, 1 - it is not cost effective (via time or money) to download media from the net, 2- Better quality can always be obtained from an original DVD / CD copy. 3 - Getting the originals always gives the extra features that the downloads don't. 4- IT is safer (no added adds / viruses etc from dodgy downloads. 5- Eventually, the money goes to the product owner.

I am not suggesting that you all go out and purchase from your local media store.... Do shop around. My own DVD collection is 1000 films (all originals), as is my CD collection. I have 'ripped' my own CD music to MP3 format - so I can easily place tracks on what ever device I wish, but I still OWN the originals.

Originally, music was released on vinyl as singles, with an average cost (in todays money) of $1 per track, or $5 per album. With 60%-70% of music being shared on the internet, the cost per album is now $10-$20. The music manufacturers are still making the same money, same percentage of people are getting the tracks, but less and less people are sharing the costs. As the internet sharing increases, and purchase decreases, costs escalate as do security protocols - to eliminate copying.

I fear, that if the copyright infringement doesn't stop, that the newer electronic media devices will not be able to own music / films, but will need to pay per play music & films. I think it was Apple that started introducing this type of 'pay per play' concept.

[Leilin]

Let's say you own a construction company and you want business, the guy that works at FYE (your store example) gets his/her hours cut because so many people are downloading illigally (These stores do sell Itunes and other Download cards as well as Physical media). Now let's call this employee Billy. He usually takes home let's say $400 a week after taxes before the hours cut. But now since people like you feel it's OK to steal by illigally downloading Billy gets his hours cut in half! Now Billy only takes home $200 a week. Now the expansion onto his house will have to wait, OH SHIT YOU LOST BUSINESS AND MONEY FROM BILLY! Now you are fucked because you didn't think Billy deserved any money because Metallica and George Lucas and MGM and Molly Hatchet made enough money. Do you care about Billy? I know you could care less for George, Metallica, MGM and Molly....

Think about it! Stop thinking about the last person to lose money and think of the stores that hire people and keep the economy going first. It's beyond annoying when you fucking thieves try to find ways to make it OK to steal.

Or let's say you work as a nurse, you still are a downloader because you belive it doesn't hurt anyone at all other than George Lucas and Metallica.... Now Billy comes in for medical treatment, but wait Billy got his hours cut and now can't pay the medical bills, Nancy can't pay either since the Movie store she worked at closed down because of downloading. Eventually 100 people can't pay their medical bills and guess what all 100 of them worked at these physical media outlets. 100 unpaid medical bills totalling over $200,000 OH SNAP! The medical place you work for may have to cut YOUR hours or let you go since so many bills have not been paid.

But wait fuck these 100 people, right?

Errr... you situation is not analogous to reality for several reasons:

1: It assumes that people who download would be otherwise purchasing the media. This would be very hard to prove and I'd be willing to bet that the opposite is true.

2: It doesn't take into account people who LEGALLY download and holds them as equally guilty based on this particular consequence. Billy doesn't get money towards his job if I acquire a song via iTunes or Amazon.

3: It assumes that the first expense to be cut would be billy's pay or job. The former is inaccurate simply for the fact that most of the kids who work at FYE are making minimum wage. The latter is inaccurate simply for the fact that chains like FYE often fail to complete with the larger (as in physically larger) stores, do less business, and are therefore on skeleton staff 100 percent of the time anyway, meaning Billy would only lose his job at the point when the company can no longer keep the store open.

4: It assumes that the company is too stupid to diversify its business model. This is is why Suncoast went out of business (several times). This is why Best Buy has not, recently. They adapted. Suncoast (and FYE) did not.

Mind you, I don't buy the "they make enough money" argument either, but your argument has an equal lack of basis in reality.

Originally, music was released on vinyl as singles, with an average cost (in todays money) of $1 per track, or $5 per album. With 60%-70% of music being shared on the internet, the cost per album is now $10-$20. The music manufacturers are still making the same money, same percentage of people are getting the tracks, but less and less people are sharing the costs. As the internet sharing increases, and purchase decreases, costs escalate as do security protocols - to eliminate copying.

Uh. What? The cost of an album on CD in 1995 (before Napster hit its peak) was 16.99 (using the Rod Stewart CD 'A Spanner in the Works,' which it top 10 billboard, as an example), give or take, depending on popularity of the musician.

The cost of a new CD now: 12.99 for the new Beyoncé CD.

Prices have gone down, not up, at least in the US.

[babykeiff]

Originally, music was released on vinyl as singles, with an average cost (in todays money) of $1 per track, or $5 per album. With 60%-70% of music being shared on the internet, the cost per album is now $10-$20. The music manufacturers are still making the same money, same percentage of people are getting the tracks, but less and less people are sharing the costs. As the internet sharing increases, and purchase decreases, costs escalate as do security protocols - to eliminate copying.

Uh. What? The cost of an album on CD in 1995 (before Napster hit its peak) was 16.99 (using the Rod Stewart CD 'A Spanner in the Works,' which it top 10 billboard, as an example), give or take, depending on popularity of the musician.

The cost of a new CD now: 12.99 for the new Beyoncé CD.

Prices have gone down, not up, at least in the US.

The first single I purchased, cost me the sum of IR£0.35 which works out at about 25 US cents. The title is not important, but the format is. It was a 45RPM vinyl single. The cost of the track pro rata to the cost of living etc works out at approx $1. As I said originally.... it was vinyl. This was before Napster.... and all other peer to peer file sharing, where music sharing was created using a record player and a tape deck, and the illegal copying was recording from some radio station. The year would have been around 1980, and we would hang out at freinds houses listening to the cassette copy of the music. As we got money, we would eventually buy the album on tape as it would last longer, until it got chewed by some misaligned tape player. It was 1982 when the first CD was released, and they were originally being sold for about $25 in todays money. As more and more artists chose CD instead of vinyl, and the CD player machine became more available, the price has dropped to about $10. I still have a huge collection of music on tape, which most of them I have duplicated to CD.

In my opinion, it was not the internet / Napster etc that has decreased the price of CDs, but the mass purchase of same. It was Napster etc that created the concept and culture of trying to get stuff for free, and the following belief 'copying music etc from another is not wrong....'

[Leilin]

The first single I purchased, cost me the sum of IR£0.35 which works out at about 25 US cents. The title is not important, but the format is. It was a 45RPM vinyl single. The cost of the track pro rata to the cost of living etc works out at approx $1. As I said originally.... it was vinyl. This was before Napster.... and all other peer to peer file sharing, where music sharing was created using a record player and a tape deck, and the illegal copying was recording from some radio station. The year would have been around 1980, and we would hang out at freinds houses listening to the cassette copy of the music. As we got money, we would eventually buy the album on tape as it would last longer, until it got chewed by some misaligned tape player. It was 1982 when the first CD was released, and they were originally being sold for about $25 in todays money. As more and more artists chose CD instead of vinyl, and the CD player machine became more available, the price has dropped to about $10. I still have a huge collection of music on tape, which most of them I have duplicated to CD.

In my opinion, it was not the internet / Napster etc that has decreased the price of CDs, but the mass purchase of same. It was Napster etc that created the concept and culture of trying to get stuff for free, and the following belief 'copying music etc from another is not wrong....'

Pardon. For clarity, the statement I meant to address was...

As the internet sharing increases, and purchase decreases, costs escalate as do security protocols - to eliminate copying.

... and that statement is objectively false. Regardless of the reasoning, the price per track and per album and per single is less now than it was immediately before the filesharing sites gained popularity and came into wide use. Furthermore, more and more services such as iTunes and Amazon music have moved from DRM-heavy to DRM-free models to attract more users. Every part of that statement is completely false.

[babykeiff]

"As the internet sharing increases, and purchase decreases, costs escalate as do security protocols - to eliminate copying."

Leilin, may i introduce you to the concept of business = investing money to make money.

The following are using pseudo figures....

If original sales were 1,000 per year, and cost to produce were $1 per unit, minimum sales price would be $1.17, which would equate to a 17% return on investment.

In the record industry, costs are roughly brokedown as follows:-

Production Cost - Master Copy = $5,000

Manufacture Cost - per track = $0.75

Sales have now to recoup the original investment cost plus the manufacturing cost of the track. If enough people purchase the track, the track can be sold at $1 each. Enough people is 20,000 copies. For every person that downloads this track illegally will force the sales price to increase to recoup the losses invloved. Adding a security protocol to prevent copying / downloading is an added expense.... lets say it costs $1,000. The sales figure would hve to reach 24,000 copies, OR the sales price would have to reach $1.05. Distribution and delivery costs have not been added for simplicity, but I think that you can understand this.

This is simple economics, which is applied in business.

Allowing a company to gain a level of control ensures said company will exploit its customers. History has proven this.

[Leilin]

... except the result, which is the claim you made.

Costs have GONE DOWN. Logically, yes, business could have raised costs. They have, however, not. You're missing the point here:

Piracy has not caused an increase in the cost of an album for the end-user. Period. This is fact. Is it logical? Does it matter? It. Is. Fact.

You were wrong. Dead wrong. Your statement did not represent reality. As you say, history has proven this. Attempting to change the claim you made...

As the internet sharing increases, and purchase decreases, costs escalate as do security protocols - to eliminate copying.

...is simply moving the goalposts.

[Diapered Jason]

Looks like congress is going to vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill this Wednesday. Alright, I will admit that while I was not skeptical, I am now. Though I appreciate the bills intentions, there is too much room for abuse.

[Leilin]

Looks like congress is going to vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill this Wednesday. Alright, I will admit that while I was not skeptical, I am now. Though I appreciate the bills intentions, there is too much room for abuse.

Obama has already said he will veto if it hits his desk.

[DKN117]

Guess what's back, back again...