|
About PaulTI'm an English systems administrator, currently living in Spain and working in Gibraltar. I'm also a total movie junkie (especially horror), avid reader and listener to both music (mainly independent due to boycotting the RIAA) and podcasts. |
PaulT has not submitted any stories.
Brought to you by Floor64
About Techdirt | Contact Us | Advertise On Techdirt | Submit a Story | Twitter | Facebook
RSS
Twitter
Re: "Too Expensive" (as PaulT)
I believe you're missing the point with the "too expensive" comment. It's not a question of whether or not it's too expensive for the end consumer (i.e. you), but whether it's too expensive for the new company.
That is to say, the current market value for a song is around $1 (or £1 ($2) in the UK...). A startup company would have to be suicidal to raise their prices *above* those of the current market leader, so they have to price their goods at $1 or less.
The issue is that the RIAA are charging so much that they cannot make a profit by selling tracks at $1. Therefore, it's "too expensive", and this is what's killing the new business models before they have a chance to succeed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as PaulT)
"the 92,900 results pointed to pages that pointed to the 210 results your saw on TPB. TPB removes the torrents, and suddenly Google has zero results."
Bullshit.
There are hundreds of torrent sites listed via the Google search. The top ranked is Torrentreactor (which lists mainly usenet and private trackers on the first page, not TPB). In fact, none of the results I could see on the first 4 pages go directly to TPB, although granted some would go there eventually.
Besides, even if you were correct about TPB being the source for all of the results - what do you really think would happen to that search if TPB took down all their torrents? You really are fooling yourself if you think it's going to result in zero results - the torrents would be rehosted elsewhere. The tool people would use to find the new hosts? Google.
The RIAA played this game of whack-a-mole before with Napster - it didn't end piracy but resulted in new and interesting ways to transfer files that did not suffer from the weaknesses of Napster. Why do you think this will end differently? ...and again, why do you feel that one rule should apply to TPB and another to Google just because one company is defiant and the other makes a totally ineffective token gesture toward compliance?
Re: Re: (as PaulT)
So, you're arguing that it's fine for any company to break the law as long as it makes a token gesture of compliance? Interesting...
Let me put it this way, I just searched for "transformers 2" on TPB and Google. TPB returned around 210 results. Searching ""transformers 2" filetype:torrent" on Google returns 92,900 results.
Why do you think that Google is a lesser "threat" than TPB despite offering only a fraction of links? Why should they be treated differently if the mere link to a torrent is infringement? If the link itself is not damaging enough for Google to be attacked, why should TPB be punished?
Re: (as PaulT)
Doesn't the UK use common law? I'm pretty sure it does.
Re: (as PaulT)
"the idea that incremental improvements over existing designs (often copyright or patent processes) is in itself innovation."
Wrong. Patent processes do NOT represent innovation. There are many "patent trolls" who manage to patent obvious incremental changes (and then do nothing to bring a product to market) and thus hinder the actual innovators. Look at today's Microsoft/sudo article for a great example of how existing ideas can be passed off as "innovations" in this way. Patenting can also hinder competitors working in the same area, especially when obvious ideas are patented.
The point is obvious - patents do not necessarily represent innovation nor work that will bring improved products to market. Therefore, they are a flawed metric.
Re: This is so cool !!!! (as PaulT)
Not to mention a lot of IP & MAC spoofing and hacking anyone still using WEP (i.e. a lot of average people) - the "pirates" download as much as they like, safe in the knowledge that some innocent neighbour gets the heat if they're ever caught. Spiffy.
Re: The solution is, unfortunately for Mr. Masnick, to use more cameras. . . (as PaulT)
The problem? There are numerous studies that show that red light cameras make intersections MORE dangerous, not less. (e.g. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080313/231629539.shtml - you don't have to go very far to find it).
Also, your assumptions are faulty. You assume that human beings are logical and will change their behaviour based on logic and not emotion. Most of us realise that's not the case.
(as PaulT)
"if those fans don't want to play the game that way, they're not going to play it at all."
I disagree. They're going to play pirated versions on pirated servers, and then IW will blame the resulting lower sales on the boogeyman of "piracy" rather than their own actions. Then COD:MW3 will have even more restrictions...
Re: Re: Re: Frankly I'd rather this didn't catch on (as PaulT)
...except that ain't going to happen.
Low budget movies and big-budget blockbusters are going to continue for a long, long time. It's just that the studios always concentrate on pushing movies costing $100-200 million, often in front of cameras before the script is polished, and ignore the potential of low budget hits. The point is that it's simply hard to feel sympathy for an industry that regularly blows obscene amounts of money on low quality product.
Oh, and what does the budget matter when it comes to quality entertainment? Every single genre from horror (Paranormal Activity) to comedy (Napoleon Dynamite) to sci-fi (Primer) can and has been made for very low budgets and reaped massive rewards - and those are just the "micro budget" movies. Most movies not dependent on special effects can be produced comfortably for $40 million or less.
No matter the genre you happen to enjoy, both types of movie are out there. Nobody's forcing you to watch the genres you don't like - and they never will. I'll keep my horror, you can keep your CGI wankfests. Just stop bitching about a type of movie you don't want to see - nobody will force you to.
Re: Frankly I'd rather this didn't catch on (as PaulT)
I'm wondering, where is it that you live that people get forced to go an watch movies in a genre they don't like? Because if they don't, your post is just childish whining.
Re: somehow this sounds familiar (as PaulT)
Wow. I loved the movie Enemy Mine, and I didn't realise till this moment that it was based on a book. I'll have to find a copy (if one's available, of course!)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as PaulT)
It's somewhat easier to prove that don't own a TV (let them in and show them around) than prove whether or not you didn't commit a certain act in the past.
Either way, check out how they've expanded their remit on the below link. If it's even possible for you to do any of those things, they will tend to assume that you will, hence the difficulty in getting an exception.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as PaulT)
"Seems to me they have no choice."
RTFA, dumbass.
The identified IP address will belong to Witopia. it should be possible for Witopia to assign IP addresses to US customers that Hulu accepts as valid US addresses. they have a chocie to work with VPN providers, but have instead decided to block them completely. Stupid choice, therefore valid criticism in the article.
Re: (as PaulT)
Well, maybe I did insert a little bit of hyperbole. I certainly don't remember the TV show (I don't think it even aired in my country), and the movie was a massive flop. It was just an example of executive thinking they know what people want - spending over $100 million in the process - rather than daring to buy independent productions and properly distribute them for a fraction of the cost.
Re: (as PaulT)
Oh, and as a horror fan:
"The scary ending to this story appears to be an endless cycle of horror movie sequels."
Better than the endless remakes of movies I loved growing up with. Besides, ever hear of Saw? Friday The 13th? Frankenstein. Endless sequels are hardly a new phenomenon for the genre.
Re: Re: Re: (as PaulT)
I think the comment was pointing to the fact that there's a lot of channels available that have nothing to do with the BBC, and you'll get charged whether you watch the BBC or not.
Anyway, the licensing authority do tend to assume that you do own a TV and make it difficult for you to prove that you don't. You don't have to pay if you don't have one, but everyone I know who doesn't tends to go through an annual ball-ache trying to avoid the charge,
Re: (as PaulT)
"There is no money in piping US ads and bandwidth to countries around the world."
No American products are sold outside of the US? News to me...
As for the BBC, their budget is paid for directly by the British taxpayers. No ads, therefore, no way to recoup costs from overseas viewers. it's also worth noting that some shows broadcast on the BBC (such as Family Guy) are unavailable on the iPlayer due to licensing issues (e.g. miss an episode? Tough shit, you have to pirate it if you watch it again. US idiocy wins again!)
(as PaulT)
Blair Witch was a great movie but overexposed. A lot of people who saw it didn't like it, so they had no taste for a sequel. When the sequel came out, it was frankly inferior and only attracted a subset of those who liked the original. That's what will probably happen with Paranormal 2 if it happens.
But, the time between BW and PA is of course irrelevant. There have been numerous movies where the plan to remake have gone through at great expense (mainly from foreign movies, such as the fantastic [REC] being remade into the OK Quarantine). It's also relatively rare for a studio to pick up a low budget independent movie and give it the wide exposure that PA received. Maybe if they stopped trying to second-guess what the public wants (e.g. by spending $100 million on a remake of a TV series that nobody remembers - Land Of The Lost) and actually concentrated on quality, there won't be a decade between each success story.
Re: Re: Re: AC (as PaulT)
"The "legitimate reasons" thing is the standard worn excuse used by torrent people (there are ligit reasons to use P2P) and music downloaders (we are just testings, it's our backup, the dog ate my original copy). In the end, it's a slack response to an obviously attempt to get something for nothing."
I get Linux distros for nothing through P2P. I also get CC-licences music for nothing. Anything wrong with that? No, because I have the full permission of the rights holders.
Do you think that it's up to utorrent.com or The Pirate Bay to police my downloads in case I download something else? If yes, then you obviously must think that AT&T should be liable if I make a threatening phone call, or that UPS should be sued if I send a pirated DVD through their system.
If no, then why do you have a problem with a guy modding modems for potentially legal uses? Surely he should be privy to the same protections as everybody else I mentioned above?
Re: More relevant omissions (as PaulT)
What's point of bolding those quotes?
All that those quotes show is that people feel that their needs are not being met by legitimate sources, but that they're aware that there are moral and legal issues with filesharing instead.
Doesn't that simply strengthen the argument that the RIAA's own business model is at fault for many of their woes, just as Mike's highlighted conclusions weaken the argument that pirates never buy music?