This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Morality of Torrenting....
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
The philosophical distinction - qualitative and quantitative, makes a huge difference. As it stands, uploads are often qualitatively different, too.
It's pretty clear that if it were possible, piracy in the software context would be disastrous for new up and coming artists, with whom people may not have an emotional attachment and therefore wouldn't be willing to invest for 'the original work', which is the only qualitative factor of difference. Certainly, the artist's own licensed replications of the works would become worthless.
Post by
gamerunknown
Which doesn't explain why many upcoming artists are willing to release their work completely free in order to attract attention and become established. In fact, the past two gigs I've been to have been on the merits of an artist's work on youtube, along with the past three albums I've bought.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
If I was willing to give away some cookies that I made, does that then give people the right to steal cookies from every other person who makes them? New artists distribute tracks for free for the same reason that Costco gives away free samples of products. To create a desire in the market. They don't plan on providing people with free food every day because that's a smart market strategy. They give people enough to make them hungry for it, then ask them to buy more later. What you're talking about it the equivalent of marketing costs for larger artists. Big companies spend money to get their artists names out there. Small artists take a loss on potential income to do the same thing. It's temporary for all of them, and once they have a market that will buy their albums, they'll either stop or giveaway like 1 song per album and make people buy the rest.
Post by
gamerunknown
Not necessarily. Sometimes permanent free distribution through channels like youtube is efficient enough to generate attention for profitable distribution channels like gigs.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I catch up on TV shows by streaming... on sites like 4od or iplayer (require TV licence). Only show I didn't do that for was House, because I wanted to watch them back to back on DVD.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I have to wonder how people keeping their money and choosing to torrent movies contributed to this.
I think it's more likely the extortionate prices they charge to see movies and buy snacks did more than the few people who are willing to watch cam rips of movies.
I'm sure I've said this before, but you don't think that's a catch-22 at all?
Also, I'm curious why you seem to think that prices are the cinema's fault - do you happen to know how much the cinema has to pay for the rights to host a show?
Post by
Adamsm
First few weeks the cinema's are paying the production company for the right to air the movie, which is why we get gouged on the concession food; once they've paid a significant portion, the money then goes to semi-profit.
But really, even on the cheap days, if you get a large pop and a large popcorn, you are paying anywhere from half to 3/4's of your ticket price; so yeah to me, if it's a not movie I want to see on the big screen(and since Potter has ended, there really isn't that much draw), I'd 'prefer' to download a good cam, cook up some popcorn in my air popper(corn itself is cheap from the bulk food store), have a 2 liter bottle of pop, curl up on my nice comfy bed, and watch the movie in the privacy of my home with no children screaming, no people talking, and just relax.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Possibly. But they're the
only ones
who can do anything about it.
Why do you think that?
Their response of making sure it's the 'little people' in the equation (cinemas, technical staff involved in production etc) who suffer because they're supposedly losing money won't get my sympathy any more than if they were threatening to kick a dog if I don't do what they say.
I'm not questioning your sympathy to the companies, I'm curious why you don't have sympathy for the cinemas themselves (i.e. the dog in your analogy).
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
just wait for DVD/Pay-per-view/Streaming releases which are usually cheaper.
Just on that note, I was just on holiday for a few days earlier this week, and wanted to hire a copy of The Lion King (i.e. Disney) from the local video store for $1.95. They wouldn't let us rent it, because we weren't residents in their state, so we went back to the hotel and looked around on the pay-per-view channel. Cost? Sixteen bucks. Urgh.
As an aside, why is it that the customer is always right, unless they're the customer of an entertainment company in which case they're wrong and if you demand anything better than what they want to deliver, you're spoiled and entitled and morally reprehensible?
I don't actually think the customer is always right. I actually think that in most cases, the customer is usually spoiled and entitled and morally reprehensible, irrespective of what company it is.
Recent non-entertainment company example here
- if you can't follow a few rules set by whoever you're buying from, I don't think you deserve the product.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Recent non-entertainment company example here
- if you can't follow a few rules set by whoever you're buying from, I don't think you deserve the product.
And in the same vein, if you don't have any respect for your customers, you don't really deserve to remain in business.
Post by
Squishalot
She doesn't sound like the sort of person that should be in the service sector to me. If you can't be civil to your customers, I don't think you deserve any, as it seems she found out.
And in the same vein, if you don't have any respect for your customers, you don't really deserve to remain in business.
I think you've missed the point. She's rolling in the dollars. Her business is profitable. But she's personally sick and tired of the way customers treat her rules. Her restaurant has a membership system and rules that are on the website, plastered on the door, and are drilled in upon membership initiation. Respect is a two-way street - follow their rules and they'll treat you right. Break their rules, and you'll be turfed onto the street. What's wrong with that?
Post by
Adamsm
And the rules she came up for her restaurant are a little much for the area she's in. But there's still the fact that if she's that tired of it, why not get someone else to manage it and just sit back and count the money she's raking in? Closing the doors due to personal dislike of the customers is an almost childish move.
Post by
Nathanyal
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the rules she has. Sure some of them might seem a little obnoxious, but she has a right to do so. She doesn't want people using all her soy sauce up, when they don't need it. She rather people not mess with how her tables are setup, making it easier on the people working there. She don't want those people that are on their cell, being oblivious to those around them.
And while I worked at a McDonald's, that is one of the most annoying things ever. People come in the drive through and are on the phone talking still, not even paying attention that they are at the speaker. Or they inside talking on the phone and not ordering when there are others waiting for them to move.
The only thing I have a problem with is her requiring them to bring a container to bring any leftovers home. And that can also cause people to break one of the rules she posted about them wasting food. If they can't bring it home because they didn't have a container, then it will just go to waste because she refuses to give out "doggy bags".
And since it is a place that requires people to join as a member and go through a program to do so, she has a right to these rules. It is like if you're joining a country club, or any club for that matter. If you want to become a part of that community, you follow their rules. Much the same for coming to Wowhead. If you want to talk on the forums, you follow their rules. If you don't like them and decide not to, you get banned.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.