• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    plindboe wrote
    What bothers me about this is that people never seem to acknowledge the promotional effects downloading has. People who download a score illegally, still end up on message boards ranting about how much they love the music, just like everyone else, thereby having positive effects on sales. There is no doubt that illegal downloading can generate lost sales as well, when people choose to download instead of buy. But the people who wouldn't otherwise have bought an album, but downloads it for free, can only generate potential positive effects on sales (provided he likes it and talks about it of course). I sometimes wonder how small and insignificant boards like FSM, filmtracks and maintitles would be if people didn't download illegally.

    In my impression, the people who download illegally tend to be the ones buying albums as well. No doubt there are people who download exclusively and people who buy exclusively, but I bet they are fringe minorities. Most fans of the music tend to use whatever means they have at their disposal to acquire music, and these people are the ones the labels earn a living from.

    Overall, it's difficult to say whether sharing harms or helps sales as there are factors pointing in either direction. And yet, there are plenty of simplistic and fanatical outcries out there advocating either position as the absolute, undeniable truth.

    Peter smile


    Can't agree. It is called theft and it is a crime the same as going to a CD store and stealing one.
    Thomas
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    franz_conrad wrote
    I think with both the Ron Jones box set and the Spartacus box set out there, a lot of collectors who have room in their budget for one box set have just gone with the one they feel is more essential (no surprises North might prevail to long-standing collectors). Mind you, I would never get the Jones box -- there'd be no point giving me one for Christmas, as from my memory of that show, while it's good for TV (and particularly for that time), it just isn't what I listen to. What surprises me is not that it's been available on file sharing sites, but that anyone who wasn't a devotee of the show would download it in the first place. And if they are a devotee, then I'm very surprised they haven't. (Surely that is a small set of consumers?)

    Mind you, I do get where Lukas and others come from when they feel their efforts are being enjoyed by others costlessly. And where it's meaningful here is that there is utility being derived by these consumers, but their enjoyment of the product cannot alleviate the cost strain to the producer, as their enjoyment is unobserved. And it's not an anonymous company here -- these are fairly small businesses in the end, they need the revenue. (Mind you, if I was an investing man, given this situation, the last business I'd be investing in is music distribution right now.)


    Knowing how film music fans think and operate, and of course their usual social data, i am pretty convinced that in this case, those who'll download this are separated in 2 crowds: 1. those who download out of curiosity and because - well, they CAN and who'll listen once or twice and either delete it entirely or have it sitting in a hard disk somewhere and forget about it. 2. those who'll love it and most probably Will eventually buy.

    So, there's a point of weird promo going on in there, especially with this kind of titles.

    The world is in very deep financial shit right now, i doubt you at Australia felt that as you aren't as lazy and ego maniac like the rest of the world (and esp.EU) it seems and you're going even better than previous years (at least this is what various sources report), but people are either saving huge or have very little money compared to previous years.

    If you're in a very problematic - ESPECIALLY NOW, business like music distribution - and esp. FILM music distribution, you ought to think of the risks before deciding to release a very expensive piece of music that actually addresses few people. WHen it fails, like it did here, you ought to be professional and weigh all this; ranting and bitching online with emotional outbursts and calling your army to back you up, is doing much professional harm to your profile as a company.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    sdtom wrote
    Can't agree.


    What don't you agree with specifically? I think I made some valid and important points that people tend to forget in these kinds of debates.


    sdtom wrote
    It is called theft and it is a crime the same as going to a CD store and stealing one.
    Thomas


    I base my actions on whether they're harmful or not. The legal system does not determine my morals, though they are usually in agreement.

    And, no I don't agree that stealing and copying is the same thing. There are similarities for sure, but to call them the same is to oversimplify, since the latter doesn't necessarily take anything away from the owner. It's only if you would otherwise buy, but choose to download instead, that the owner will lose out.

    Peter smile
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    Piracy is NOT the same as theft. This is a legal misconstruction and this fallacy has actually caused a couple of court cases to fail and -at least here in The Netherlands- one expensive awareness campaign to have been aborted.

    In a nutshell:
    Theft is taking something away, so that the original owner is deprived of it.
    Piracy is making a copy of the item, so the owner never actually loses it.
    Handy diagram.

    The only point worth debating in any practical sense (because both legal and moral points are shaky at best on both sides) is whether or not the pirate makes the owner lose income (or devaluate his product) by copying.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    My opinion is that anyone who downloads this should be brought to justice. Not because downloading is illegal, but because you'd have to be clinically insane to want 14 discs of Jones' music from the show.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    LOL! biggrin

    But NO Steven, the reason it didn't sell it's piracy. You don't know what you're talking about. It's all ffshrine's fault.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    As for the legal side, it really is very complicated; strongest recent proof: piratebay. Fighting the pirates is a battle already lost.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010 edited
    What I am thoroughly disappointed in is the so-called power of Trekdom.
    Trekdom managed to tag another season to the show. Trekdom managed to have a space shuttle called "Enterprise".

    Yet they fail at making the ultimate in anorakdom a resounding success?
    Nah-nu nah-nu to all of them. angry
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    Trekdom? Have I missed some life changing moment?? confused
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    Isn't that the official name for the collective power of Star Trek fans?
    Besides teh films and series, I know the difference between Klingon and Romulan Bird Of Prey ships, but that's where my deeper insights into the phenomenon that is Star Trek ends... shame
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010 edited
    Oh right!? I had/have no idea? ( that's me n' you both then )

    Trekdom eh? uhm
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    Yep, I remembered correctly:
    TREKDOM:
    TREKKERS:
    TREKKIES:
    "Trekdom" is short-hand for Star Trek Fandom, which is separate from mainstream sf fandom while having a degree of overlap. "Trekkers" is the polite way to refer to these people; "Trekkies" has derogatory overtones. It has been remarked that some of the most devastating holy wars have been between, not different religions, but different sects of the same religion; there is something of this here. Many sf readers consider Star Trek to be mediocre or even "dumbed down" sf.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    p.s. My nerdiest ability is my dexterity in doing Spock's 'live long and proper' schtick with either hand.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    Martijn wrote
    Yep, I remembered correctly:
    TREKDOM:
    TREKKERS:
    TREKKIES:
    "Trekdom" is short-hand for Star Trek Fandom, which is separate from mainstream sf fandom while having a degree of overlap. "Trekkers" is the polite way to refer to these people; "Trekkies" has derogatory overtones. It has been remarked that some of the most devastating holy wars have been between, not different religions, but different sects of the same religion; there is something of this here. Many sf readers consider Star Trek to be mediocre or even "dumbed down" sf.


    I learn something new everyday cheesy See, I even thought 'Trekkers' was the derogatory term.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    Timmer wrote
    p.s. My nerdiest ability is my dexterity in doing Spock's 'live long and proper' schtick with either hand.


    So do I, but I tend to accompany it by saying 'nah-nu nah-nu'.
    It's lost me much respect in that community. sad
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    I like it! beer

    If you don't mind, I'm stealing that for the next time that happens biggrin
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
  1. Record labels haven't really been able to adapt very well to the new digital era I think. I suppose that they tried that with DRM - and that was a bit of a disaster. Getting that balance between retaining copyright but not limiting the purchaser's ability to use the music as they see fit once they have bought it (which could include giving it away to their friends or the wider community.)

    And what's with this geographic restriction on purchasing of music? I know that it's all to do with licensing and maybe it's even to do with an assessment of whether it is financially feasible to release a digital title in a backwater like Europe, but it does tend to stimulate illegal sharing.

    Not sure where this adds anything to the discussion, but it was just a thought that the discussion sparked.
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010 edited
    Martijn wrote
    Piracy is NOT the same as theft. This is a legal misconstruction and this fallacy has actually caused a couple of court cases to fail and -at least here in The Netherlands- one expensive awareness campaign to have been aborted.

    In a nutshell:
    Theft is taking something away, so that the original owner is deprived of it.
    Piracy is making a copy of the item, so the owner never actually loses it.
    Handy diagram.


    I disagree with both of you. Yesterday I was at my local Borders and I purchased a DVD because they had a 40% off coupon. While in the store I noticed a DVD with The Lodger, The Undying Monster, and Hangover Square which I would have purchased if my good friend had not sent me copies awhile ago. There was nothing collectible nor exciting liner notes, nothing to make me purchase it. Did I hurt anyone? Nope. Will the lost of one sale hurt a big company? Nope. Was it wrong? Yes. Did purchasing something else offset this situation? Not really. Peter I could steal your credit card number make a purchase and no harm would come to you other than the hassle of having to change your credit card number. I didn't pirate your number I stole it. It is the same thing in my eyes as taking the card off a table you're sitting at and using it.

    Martijn I think your country as well as others are merely playing with words because at this point and time there is nothing they can or choose to do. Someone is hurt ultimately by the fact that you did download instead of buying it. Someone way down on the scale of things could have been laid off because sales were off on a particular item and as a result economic cuts had to be made. According to your way of thinking I could go to Borders and steal a CD carefully copying it along with the liner notes and then return it to the store who only has to reshrink wrap the item. I stole it however you want to look at it. If I steal food from a store to feed my family it is still stealing.

    I was nearly hurt yesterday because some repair person in a electric repair vehicle was driving and talking on his phone. If I hadn't slowed down because I saw him yakking there would have been an accident. In California you can be given a ticket for doing this but its not enforced because most people ignore the law and there aren't enough police. Still wrong even though 90%+ of the population does it.

    Thomas smile

    The only point worth debating in any practical sense (because both legal and moral points are shaky at best on both sides) is whether or not the pirate makes the owner lose income (or devaluate his product) by copying.
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010 edited
    The fact that you didn't buy those DVDs simply means someone else can buy them. On the other hand, If you had stole them from the shop, then there's no chance they'd be purchased - you'd have them. Sure, the shop has lost a potential customer thanks to piracy, but this is very different from having their stock literally reduced by theft.

    As for your analogy, stealing a credit card number only becomes theft as soon as you use that number to purchase something in someone else's name. This is not the same as downloading a copy of a file since using the file doesn't require money to be spent by the owner of the file each time you use it. Your analogy, I'm glad to say, is not a very good one. As for "stealing" the CD and making copies then returning it, although morally dubious, it's clearly not the same as literally stealing the CD. Ultimately you've ended up returning the product to the store, in which case they haven't made a direct loss such as stealing would incur. Again, this just illuminates the difference between stealing and piracy.

    I think what you've done is wrongly assumed people are advocating piracy simply by illuminating the obvious difference between stealing and piracy. The fact is they're not the same. But that doesn't make piracy any more justifiable.

    The point worth debating is that piracy is not quite as clear cut as theft.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    I'd like to know exactly where the law stands on all of this?
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorErik Woods
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    This is where the law stands!
    host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    Timmer wrote
    I'd like to know exactly where the law stands on all of this?


    Which law system would have your preference?
    Common? Chinese? French? International European? Shariah? Ex-Soviet?
    Well, you get my drift.

    Most pertinent law systems (i.e. American federal law and the internal law of the European states) make a very clear distinction between copying and stealing,as well they should. Emotional appeals and hypotheticals notwithstanding, the law deals with facts, not hypothetics (Except for some American state courts, but I'll come to that in a minute).

    Theft is in most law systems punishable.
    Copying sometimes is, given a certain set of circumstances.
    But the main difference is not in penal law, it's in civil law, or in the assessment of damage.
    You take a good away, the damage is clear: it's the net worth of the taken good.
    But what is the actual damage of copying? Mind, I'm asking for verifiable facts here, not opinions. Who is actually losing money (not might, could or would... but does)?
    That's where the system breaks down.

    To my mind, the only way to address the issue in court is through penal law.
    Theft carries a fine and/or a prison sentence, based on jurisprudence and codices (although less so in Anglo-American common law). That's the way it should be for piracy: one clear offense, with one clear (set of) penalties.

    Unfortunately lawsuit-happy America has already passed some extremely dodgy sentences in civil court, where damages were awarded based on hypothetical losses calculated on what an uploader and downloader might or might not do, and considering that if he did others would do the same, leading to some exponentially growing curve of potential loss: one uploader has ten downloaders, each of them has ten, and each of them as well, et cetera. And all of them are assumed to have otherwise purchased the album...and that is the total damage presented. As FACT. Which is LUDICROUS.
    Luckily in appeal many of these verdicts were overturned, but the mindset is still there.

    Which brings me to reiterate my point.
    Keep this in the penal arena. Not the civil one.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010


    applause Or, indeed, make things even simpeler!
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2010
    sdtom wrote
    Martijn wrote
    Piracy is NOT the same as theft. This is a legal misconstruction and this fallacy has actually caused a couple of court cases to fail and -at least here in The Netherlands- one expensive awareness campaign to have been aborted.

    In a nutshell:
    Theft is taking something away, so that the original owner is deprived of it.
    Piracy is making a copy of the item, so the owner never actually loses it.
    Handy diagram.


    I disagree with both of you.



    Steven already refuted your example, Tom, so I'll just add my voice to his in this matter.

    Emotionally you may disagree.
    Legally though, copying is not the same as theft. Neither is theft the same as murder. Or murder the same as joy riding.
    They are clearly and concisely and exclusively defined (at least in Dutch legal codices), and they are NOT the same.
    Opinion doesn't come into it.
    The law does NOT and should NEVER just "be a matter of opinion".
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2010
    Martijn wrote
    Yep, I remembered correctly:
    TREKDOM:
    TREKKERS:
    TREKKIES:
    "Trekdom" is short-hand for Star Trek Fandom, which is separate from mainstream sf fandom while having a degree of overlap. "Trekkers" is the polite way to refer to these people; "Trekkies" has derogatory overtones. It has been remarked that some of the most devastating holy wars have been between, not different religions, but different sects of the same religion; there is something of this here. Many sf readers consider Star Trek to be mediocre or even "dumbed down" sf.


    epic face-palm-mt

    Get a life.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2010
    Martijn wrote


    applause Or, indeed, make things even simpeler!


    Well, sometimes this is the law; and the guy's a music producer wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2010
    We can agree to disagree on this situation
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2010
    We can indeed, but you'd still be wrong. As Martijn rightly said, it's not a matter of opinion.
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2010 edited
    sdtom wrote
    I disagree with both of you. Yesterday I was at my local Borders and I purchased a DVD because they had a 40% off coupon. While in the store I noticed a DVD with The Lodger, The Undying Monster, and Hangover Square which I would have purchased if my good friend had not sent me copies awhile ago. There was nothing collectible nor exciting liner notes, nothing to make me purchase it. Did I hurt anyone? Nope. Will the lost of one sale hurt a big company? Nope. Was it wrong? Yes. Did purchasing something else offset this situation? Not really.


    Since you otherwise would have bought it, the copyright owner has lost a sale. This is different from a situation where a person downloads, but wouldn't otherwise have bought it. In the former, the company ultimately loses out due to the copying, in the latter situation there's no lost sale at all, as there would be no sale to lose.

    If your point is that even though a person might say that he wouldn't otherwise have bought a certain product, there's no guarentee this will necessarily be the case, then you have a valid point. Reality is never that clear-cut.


    sdtom wrote
    Peter I could steal your credit card number make a purchase and no harm would come to you other than the hassle of having to change your credit card number. I didn't pirate your number I stole it. It is the same thing in my eyes as taking the card off a table you're sitting at and using it.


    No, you would be actively doing harm, to both me and the bank. You're harming me by causing a hassle and you're taking money away from the bank, harming the company and their customers. This is a totally different situation than copying something you wouldn't otherwise have purchased, where no one is ultimately harmed.


    sdtom wrote
    The only point worth debating in any practical sense (because both legal and moral points are shaky at best on both sides) is whether or not the pirate makes the owner lose income (or devaluate his product) by copying.


    I somewhat agree, though I notice you ignore the promotional value downloading can have, a point I think it's important for you to acknowledge, if you have any interest in what effects downloading can have. Whether the owner loses out or not aren't the only options. There's also the possibility that the owner gains because of downloading.

    Downloading has promotional effects similar to radio, in that it gets alot more people listening to and talking about music that they would otherwise never have heard of, thereby generating sales. Of course it can also have worse effects on sales than radio, since people can download the full products (almost), but this fact doesn't take the positive promotional effects away. I know personally that I've convinced people on several occasions to buy CD albums, simply from me ranting about how good they are. These aren't imaginary or minor effects, promotional effects can have huge impacts.

    So which downloading related factors are biggest? - the ones that decrease sales, or the ones that increase sales? This question is in fact very complex, and not at all as easy to answer as many people pretend. I've read about various studies on this, and the results tend to differ. Some say downloading hurts sales, others say it helps sales, and probably the most reliable studies are the ones concluding that whether sales are affected positively or negatively pretty much depends on the circumstances; for instance whether we're talking about niche markets or popular music; or how well the products in question are promoted by other means.

    Peter smile
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2010
    So what is the purpose of the piracy statement at the beginning of the film? If this is a somewhat positive thing why are the DVD's copy protected?
    confused Thomas
    listen to more classical music!