

Movie Still from IP Man 2
Illegal copyright violations plague the RIAA and MPAA, but issues remain












Comments     Threshold


Wrong arguement
By NellyFromMA on 8/12/2011 10:14:18 AM , Rating: 5
The people who are posing an arguement against the prosecution of 'music and movie pirateing' or otherwise non-interactive media are looking at this all wrong every time I read or hear about this.

The question that needs to be posed is: if I buy a movie and me and 9 of my friends watch it not-for-profit, what's the difference between that and if one out of every 10 people buys your crappy movie or awful cd while the other 9 get it online for free.

RE: Wrong arguement
By christojojo on 8/12/2011 11:09:18 AM , Rating: 3
The thing is the companies want the money for everyone of your friends by age weight and quote they use afterwards.

Theoretical lost profits has always irritated me to. You cannot say this many downloads equals this many lost profits. Its a guess in how many would buy this or that terrible movie or soundtrack versus checking out the train wreck for free on TV. I also love the big companies complaint about theft of IP when the companies don't pay a lot of the originators much because of their theft/ sneak/ dishonest contracts.

RE: Wrong arguement
By 4745454b on 8/12/2011 11:27:36 AM , Rating: 2
I can go to my local library and "rent" (for no money at all mind you) many movies. I know I can get the original "Italian Job" there. How come the MPAA doesn't go after libraries?

It was also fine years ago to tape things off the air, either radio or TV. My dad has old recording or Dr. Demento, and I have an uncle with a complete copy of ST:TNG on VHS. So that's ok but if I download a torrent of ST:TNG I'm a law breaker?

I understand that downloading Captain America right now would be wrong. If I want to see it I should go see it. If I want to see IP man, go stream it off of Netflix. But how is downloading a copy of X song off of Limewire any more wrong then recording it off of the radio, or using one of those programs to rip it off Youtube?

I also totally agree. Just because 1million people downloaded something instead of seeing it in theater doesn't mean you have lost revenue of $7mil. Many times people grab stuff just to see it, and they never would have done so if it wasn't available.

RE: Wrong arguement


RE: Wrong arguement

RE: Wrong arguement
By TheRealArdrid on 8/12/2011 1:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
There is no difference except for the fact that Big Media expects to be paid for any access and any instance of their content and fair use currently prevents them from doing that in the former part of your example. Believe me, if they had it their way, they'd file suit against you and your friends for watching that movie in your home. As far as they're concerned, each of your friends should pony up some money for the privilege of being able to view that content in your home.

It's no different than the asinine statement made by the RIAA years ago. They truly expect to be paid for everything. Purchase a CD at the store? Pay us. Want to rip that same CD to your PC? Pay us. Want to copy that ripped music to your MP3 player? Pay us. Want to play that music at a BBQ you're hosting? Pay us for every single person who hears that CD.

That's the world they want. And, in the case of those individuals who would have never purchased the content in the first place, Big Media isn't losing a single red cent.


Related Articles
