Chicagoist: Future Leaders of America Are Pirates

pylbug

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:33:37 -0600

Thanks for such intellectual conversation, Olderty. It's totally my fault that you can't spell.

olderty

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:50:13 -0600

Professor pylbug, thank you so much for spelling lesson. Boy, was my face red!! [BTW, don't be a douche bag, no meaning was lost in translating an 'a' to an 'i'.] I don't think you even read what I stated above, other than to run a spell-checker on it. You saw your username and needed to reply. I didn't even use the word copyright or piracy, did not advocate it, and did not defend 'useless' other than to say techdirt.com is a good website reporting on such topics. To quote myself: "It's a good tech news source that definately makes some valid points - along the lines of what 'useless' is after." [I left the 'a' there for you.] Techdirt does not advocate piracy either, only fair use. No, I am not affiliated with the website. [[I like brackets too!]]

pylbug

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:55:14 -0600

That's cute, Completely Useless. Such a charmer. Olderty, I wasn't arguing that their business model isn't broken. If you re-read my comment, you'll see I was merely pointing out that the quality of the content has no bearing on the legality of piracy. Quality of content and copyright are two very different things. (I don't care for either most of the time, but that's not the point.) Can you point to something specific on techdirt that proves otherwise? I see nothing that says pirating a "good" movie is any more okay than pirating a "bad" movie, which is what Completely Useless originally implied. Lack of imagination has nothing to do with protection of intellectual property. It doesn't matter if you agree with copyright law or not. [BTW, there's no "a" in definitely.]

magitad

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:17:55 -0600

As a recording artist, I should be getting a piece of the money recovered by the RIAA, et al. You'd think. But no. So where does the money go? Not to the people who made the movies or the records. Follow the money. They know their distribution technology is outdated, and they're grabbing cash while they still can.

olderty

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:12:32 -0600

As an '03 grad of Purdue, I can neither confirm nor deny these allegations. And as for 'buster' and 'pylbug', check out techdirt.com. It's a good tech news source that definately makes some valid points - along the lines of what 'useless' is after. Their market is broken, and the way they go about defending what's left of it rides a very thin line of legal.

completely useless by september

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:41:42 -0600

No, I was just pointing out how their WHOLE system is dying. Not just their silly way of how they're going about their defense of copyright. The VAST majority of the movie industry's earnings come from domestic opening weekend and foreign DVD sales. (This means movies are being specifically targeted at 15 year olds and Asian markets). And foreign piracy (especially in Russia and China) are WAY worse than a couple thousand college kids on Bit Torrent. I was arguing for a complete revamp of their funding, marketing, and distribution model and I explained that poorly. No need for personal attacks... pedophile.

pylbug

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:31:37 -0600

Wow, Completely Useless, your screen name really fits your comment. "It's just both movie and music industries of late have shown zero interest in ever taking chances that they've cranked out many terrible products." This has nothing to do with copyright or intellectual property. Nothing. The content of the work is irrelevant; whether you like it or not has no bearing on how legal or illegal it is to copy and distribute without permission. You fail to explain why you think everyone wants to pirate such mediocre content, anyway. Are you trying to argue that piracy wouldn't be illegal if Hollywood had better taste? That's more ridiculous than copyright law itself.

completely useless by september

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:46:05 -0600

Buster, That's all well and good, and you're right, it is their copyright to enforce. It's just both movie and music industries of late have shown zero interest in ever taking chances that they've cranked out many terrible products. Couple this with complete lack of imagination in marketing their wares and zero flexibility in their distribution model (especially in a rapidly shifting time when they need to be more nimble) and you can see why they've decided to get all sue crazy and blame "pirates" rather than actually improve the way they do business. And now they expect the universities to take money out of funds meant to possible improve college campuses just in case someone downloads "Scary Movie 4" or some American Idol reject's new album. Fantastic.

Buster

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:03:27 -0600

Read the Copyright Act. Piracy is illegal (that's why it's called "piracy.") The motion picture and music industries are entitled to enforce their rights. If you think it shouldn't have these rights, lobby Congress to change them. Though, if you're successful, don't expect to get to see a lot of $150 million budget big summer movies. Everyone focuses on the movies that make $500 million but forget about the many many other movies that barely break even or that lose $50 to 100 million or more. I'm not saying that sucessful movie and music people don't make a lot of money, but everyone forgets that it's a VERY unpredictable business, and you can't build test versions of your product -- you need many tens of millions to make a movie and tens of million more to advertise it and after all that money it can still be a big stinking flop. The rare $500 million-grossing movie pays for a lot of other losses. Like yacht building or commercial real estate development these are high risk/high return businesses. That's why it's a problem when people steal copies of successful films instead of paying for them.