Controversial Torrent Streaming App 'Popcorn Time' Shuts Down, Then Gets Reborn

An anonymous reader writes "A piece of software called 'Popcorn Time' drew a lot of attention last week for encapsulating movie torrents within a slick, stream-based UI that made watching pirated films as easy as firing up Netflix. The app ran into trouble a few days ago when it was pulled from its hosting provider, Mega, and now Popcorn Time's creators say they're shutting it down altogether. They say it was mainly an experiment: 'Piracy is not a people problem. It's a service problem. A problem created by an industry that portrays innovation as a threat to their antique recipe to collect value. It seems to everyone that they just don't care. But people do. We've shown that people will risk fines, lawsuits and whatever consequences that may come just to be able to watch a recent movie in slippers. Just to get the kind of experience they deserve.' However, the software itself isn't a complete loss — the project is being picked up by the founder of a torrent site, and he says development will continue."

Comments

Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

The belief you "deserve" an experience, or are entitled to the enjoyment of other's work.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm happy to pay for...

1. timely
2. 1080p and/or 1080p 3D
3. portable, clean (but reasonable DRM accepted) ...movie file / TV show episode file download.

Nobody wants my money.

Steam is something I currently consider reasonable. I can log in anywhere and (re)download my purchases and use them freely. Sadly it's just for PC/Mac games.

Netflix is closest to usable, but they fail #1 and #3. I also grossly dislike the fact that something being on Netflix today does not guarantee it is there tomorrow. Shows and movies get yanked out all the time with no rhyme or reason. Heck, just a couple of weeks ago I decided that I'd like to re-watch Stargate. Old but popular Sci-Fi TV series that is already pretty much out of rerun circulation on the TV. Surely Netflix has it.

Nope.

Certain "Bay" that shall not be named had it in perfect set of high quality files that I can watch at any time and that nobody can take away from me tomorrow based on their whim. I would have paid for that, but nobody wanted my money. I actually tried - every single place told me my money was no good because I did not live in the US. I did not want a mountain of DVD discs on my shelf (tho I did consider buying a bunch of boxed sets but the total shipping costs and the sheer physical amount of discs and the hassle of juggling them put me off).

Wake me when the studios match at least Blu-Ray release dates with worldwide, downloadable (not streamable) high quality offerings at a price point that is less than the Blu-ray box (as Blu-rays have resale value while downloads generally do not).

Not holding my breath. Nope.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

Paid for what?

The entire notion that you should be able to have a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods that infringe upon free speech and private property rights is something I believe qualifies as an "entitled asshole mentality."

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

reasonable DRM

Isn't something that actually exists.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[J3947]

Your comment completely ignores the economic situation of creators. There's a large overhead cost and a very small per-unit cost. Pirates want to pay the per-unit cost and ignore the fact that creators have the burden of paying-off the large overhead cost. Copyright (or "government enforced monopoly") is a way to balance that equation so that creators can actually get sufficiently paid for their labor. If you're going to ignore the economics of the situation, then of course you're going to arrive at ignorant opinions about copyright.

BTW, it isn't about "ideas or methods" it's about taking someone's work VERBATIM. It's disingenuous to claim it's about ideas.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[jones_supa]

I understand that people need to be able to earn a living, but we tend to create scarcity in order to create profit. Think of the cost of reproducing a film these days, or an mp3, do you think each copy is worth the fee charged for it?

It's not only the reproduction costs but it also includes the value of the hard work of the artist.

At first glance it would seem that "no one loses anything" when you make a copy of some song. But it's kind of like making fake money -- no one loses money if you print money, but in the end the value of the money decreases due to inflation. It's the same for music: if enough people just take a free copy, the value of the music decreases. Then the artist and/or record company do not see feasible to produce that artist's music anymore.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[J3947]

"Copying bits hurts no one"

No, it undermines the economic system of creation.

Besides, if "copying bits hurts no one", then I guess you're also a fan of the website "Is Anyone Up?".

"You either deserve to have access to it, or the Web deserves to be shut down."
See: "False Dilemma": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Essentially, all you're doing here is trying to take something bad (piracy, malware, email scams, etc) and chain it to something good (the internet) and then claim that we have to accept the former if we're going to accept the latter. Of course, most every technology comes with some bad aspects. It makes no sense to say "we should not try to eliminate the bad effects of a technology if we want to have that technology".

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[fph il quozientatore]

I'm a mathematician. I am a "creator", paid by your taxes to produced good research ideas that are later put on arXiv.org and on my website for everyone to download. This system seems to work well, at least in our field. Just sayin'...

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

DRM necessarily means that you're not in full control of your computing, or that someone is attempting to take control away from you, and that alone means it's automatically bad. Steam is not "reasonable DRM," as reasonable DRM does not exist. And as far as I'm aware, games on Steam don't *need* to use DRM.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Richard_at_work]

Everything you "own" is protected by a government enforced monopoly over that item - why are the laws which protect your stuff better than the laws which protect other peoples stuff?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[CohibaVancouver]

No, it undermines the economic system of creation.

I agree 100%, but the Slashdot groupthink seems to be that the era of an 'economic system of creation' is over. Opinion seems to be that all content should be made free by creators ('content is just bytes and wants to be free.')

Exception seems to be paid admissions to live performances (music / theatre) as that appears to still be acceptable - Not sure how that works for people like my author-brother, though.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Lumpy]

But you are not making $1.2million per release, so you cant afford yet another gold plated Ferarri...

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Anonymous Coward]

I run a business selling bottles of air but people keep breathing from the atmosphere instead of buying mine. I demand to get paid. I'm doing hard work and it's expensive to do what I'm doing. Let's fix this problem. First of all, we need to subsidize my work with taxes. Then we need to stop all these free-breathers. They are DESTROYING the economy. Think of all the sales and even healthy competition that would occur without a bunch of kids running around stealing what is essentially my work.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[David Jao]

THIS.

Restrictions on computing or copying are unacceptable. Full stop. This is not negotiable. Copying is as natural as breathing in the digital age. Everything else, without exception, has to start from this premise and work around it. Nothing else is compatible with technological progress. Nothing else is compatible with free society.

If artists cannot sustainably produce music under this constraint, then so be it. Better to have no music at all than no freedom of computing.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[jones_supa]

Yeah, well, try to make a song once. It does not have to be a big hit, but you have to make a finished product. Write and sing some lyrics, play some guitar, record it with a computer. I assume that you would find that it's not as trivial as bottling air.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you keep paying for it. Try not paying municipal taxes on a house you supposedly "own" and see how far you get.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[jones_supa]

Should commercial software also be distributed freely?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[terrab0t]

It would be nice if the existing big studios were intelligent and competitive enough to eventually catch up with technology, but if even the piracy they rave and lobby the government over won't push them forward, they may never join the rest of us.

The future lies in content producers who already sell their work mainly online. It woudn't surprise me to see vhfx.tv releasing an app like Netflix, or adding their library to any number of other convenient online media stores. They get it. Digital distribution is better for them and their customers.

The existing large media companies will only follow suit long after we have all abandoned them for the ones who do things sensibly. However, that will never happen unless we stop giving them our money and start giving it to people who use services like vhfx.tv

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[nblender]

But it's kind of like making fake money -- no one loses money if you print money, but in the end the value of the money decreases due to inflation. It's the same for music: if enough people just take a free copy, the value of the music decreases. Then the artist and/or record company do not see feasible to produce that artist's music anymore.

Yes, kind of. Only not really at all.

I can print as much fake money as possible and burn it or wallow around on the floor in it and I haven't really devalued the nation's currency at all. Now, if I turn around and try to sell that money to someone as my money, the your analogy holds. However, I can make a copy of a song and listen to it in an infinite loop all day and as long as I never intended to purchase the song in the first place, I haven't devalued the song in any way. (Until such time as I turn around and give or sell it to someone else).

The first content provider who sets up a voluntary "donation page" where you can pay what you think a pirated movie was worth to you, will be seen to "finally get it"... See: Radiohead.

If I could register with an organization and submit donations for movies that I pirated and watched, I would absolutely pay. I still pay my cable bill even though I pirate all of my TV and haven't turned my cable boxes on for over 2 years.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[jones_supa]

However, I can make a copy of a song and listen to it in an infinite loop all day and as long as I never intended to purchase the song in the first place, I haven't devalued the song in any way.

You consumed the song's value when you listened to it. But before that you didn't pay for it. So you devalued the song.

You got value for listening the music, the artist got no value for making it.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[BronsCon]

Yes, you can resell you physical BluRay disc, but why would you, and who would buy it? Then, you're stuck with a viewing license for media you no longer posses, while the buyer now holds media they have no license to view. I actually read something to this effect in a license that came with a BluRay copy of a movie once; if I happen across it again, I'll reply to this post with verifiable details.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Windwraith]

Yeah, in places like Europe you can't get certain content even paying, and the content we have is more expensive than in the US (at least videogames and movies). And importing certain content in Spain will make it automatically taxed on customs, with a bullshit "handling" tax our government sneaked upon us, above 60â for importing a $30 videogame or movie. Since few people imports anything here, nobody ever speaks of it.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[David Jao]

Yes, absolutely. Commercial software represents about 1% of our economy, even under the current copyright regime which artificially tilts the market in favor of the software sector. It's absolutely, criminally insane from a policy perspective to hold the other 99% of our economy hostage to this special interest. Lifting the artificial technological restrictions imposed by copyright would grow our economy by much more than 1%, every single year.

To take just one example, if not for copyright restrictions, Google Books would provably be willing to make available for free to every human on the planet the entire contents of the Library of Congress. You're telling me that the future potential growth from making this knowledge available isn't worth trading 1% of our economy on a one-time basis?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

However, I can make a copy of a song and listen to it in an infinite loop all day and as long as I never intended to purchase the song in the first place, I haven't devalued the song in any way.

It doesn't matter whether you did intend to purchase it or not; money you never had isn't something you can lose.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[mrbester]

Maybe the author gets "value" (quoted because you're trying to ascribe a dollar amount to an intangible) from creating. Maybe they also get value from the fact that people want to listen to it. If an author is purely doing it for the money then that denigrates the act of creation and makes them a production line worker. Which is exactly what the big labels want, drones that increase their bottom line and to hell with the quality just so long as it sells.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[BronsCon]

I'm all for artists and production crews getting paid for their hard work. After all, I survive on copyright and I enjoy getting paid or my work. What I can't get behind is (and let's simplify by making the assumption that the theatrical release brought in just enough to cover production, distribution, and the gap between wholesale and retail, for the BluRay release, that none of that revenue went toward paying for the production of the movie itself, and that there was no profit from the theatrical release) being asked to pay $40 for a BluRay copy of a $20M budget flick *after* it's sold 500,000 copies. Pay *something* for it? Yes, but they've recouped their production costs. Remember that a movie budget includes *every* expense, pay for the actors, production crew, stage hands, and the guy that brings the director his coffee, the cost of renting props (and creating one-off props) and buying or renting set locations. Everything. 500k * $40 = $20M. They've been paid at that point. All of them. Everyone.

Now, let's acknowledge that the theatrical release already covered the production budget and brought in a bit of profit. Moving away from the earlier simplification, we also have to admit that, while the $40 cost of a BluRay isn't pure profit, the production and distribution costs of that BluRay disc are much less than the $30 wholesale; pennies per disc, but let's call it $1 to be extra fair to the industry. So they're making $29 on that disc when the store buys it; on a movie that's already been paid for and turned a profit. The people who did the actual work have already been paid by this point, so piracy really and truly is not hurting them; the store they might have bought it from lost $10 or so in profit (and if that store happens to be Target, they probably deserve it at this point, anyway), but the studio can't say they lost the $29 they would have made when the store restocked that sold copy, because the store likely won't restock it unless it's a brand new release, anyway.

For a large subset of pirates, this is the motivating factor. Wholesale the damn disc for $10 with a retail of $15, $5 and $7.50 for DVD, and make a noticeable dent in piracy. Allow (DRM-free) downloads, from the day the BluRay becomes available, for 2/3 of those prices (since there's no resale possible -- and those prices would be $10 for 1080p, $5 for SD) and take out an even larger chunk. Allow *unlimited* streaming, also from the day the BluRay becomes available, at 1/3 of those prices (for those having trouble following along, that's $5 for 1080p and $2.50 for SD) and one-time streaming for $2 for 1080p or $1 for SD, and yes, there will still be pirates, but nobody will bat an eye when you prosecute them.

And if the studios do this first-party, they will reap all of the profits. As it is right now, They see less than $2 for 1080p and $1 for SD from Apple, when someone streams a movie from iTunes, so it would be a win all around.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing real science isn't trivial either. Yet, us scientists give away all of our work for free, collecting just our salary, not related to how many people benefit. Science is more important than art, so why do artists get to make all the money? The least the artists could do is give scientists free access to their art.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[jones_supa]

Agreed, I hope no one does music just for the money! But they have to get reasonable kind of money as being a musician is often the main job of an artist.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gnupun]

Maybe the author gets "value" (quoted because you're trying to ascribe a dollar amount to an intangible) from creating.

Financially speaking, the author would derive better value from flipping burgers if all he got from his book was a momentary emotion of "having created something awesome."

If an author is purely doing it for the money then that denigrates the act of creation and makes them a production line worker.

Really? In that case, software devs should work for free as there is a lot of creativity (but not as much as an author) involved in creating software.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[J3947]

paid by your taxes

Considering that this economic model doesn't exist for software developers, musicians, movie studios, or authors, I don't understand your point. Further, I don't think those people should be paid by taxes because either the government ends up paying a bunch of people (regardless of the quality of their work) or the government picks and chooses who gets paid. Neither of those are good systems. I trust the free market to decide who should get paid for their work, but just as you don't depend on people donating money so that you can pay your bills, I don't think that other people should have to, either. Hence copyright.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Jane Q. Public]

Anonymous Brave Guy might not have been 100% correct, but he did have some good points. Getting shouted down does not mean he was wrong about everything.

Recent abuse of government does not mean the whole concept of government is bad. In the same vein, recent abuse by copyright holders does not mean the concept of copyright is bad. It served us well for most of 200 years. It still can.

The trick is to rein in the abuse, not to destroy something that demonstrably works well when it is allowed to.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[J3947]

That's a stupid and non-analogous example. If we took your example seriously, it would mean that authors would be allowed to stop *OTHER AUTHORS* from selling books. You clearly do not understand copyright.

Re: Entitled Asshole Mentality

[corychristison]

If I could register with an organization and submit donations for movies that I pirated and watched, I would absolutely pay. I still pay my cable bill even though I pirate all of my TV and haven't turned my cable boxes on for over 2 years.

I thought this up quite a while ago, and even brought it up on slashdot once before. I was modded down because the people who did see it screamed "think of the transportation industry!"

Anyway, my vision is quite clear. The media companies put together a website in which we could simply buy a license to obtain a copy of a specific work by any digital means available in whatever formats available.

The idea is since they are selling the license only, it completely cuts out the cost of producing physical media and the costs of distribution. Therefore, the per unit costs would be drastically reduced. For example, a full length movie would be $5.00 or less. A price point I think most people have no problem spending even if the movie turns out to be garbage. It could result in more sales, is easier to track sales. I can even envision companies set up to sell these licenses coupled with high quality versions of these works.

This obviously is a dream. As no media corp would consider it because, well, they are greedy assholes and enjoy their monopolies and ability to fuck with everyday normal people like me who flat out have no need for physical media or DRM encumbered crap I can't play on my home media center.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[J3947]

See: Radiohead.

Article: "Radiohead won't repeat 'In Rainbows' release / Band says pay-what-you-like system won't happen again"
Source: http://www.nme.com/news/radioh...
What was your point exactly?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

Recent abuse of government does not mean the whole concept of government is bad.

That's not at all the point I've been making, not even about copyright. My point, as I've made clear, is that copyright itself is intolerable because it infringes upon free speech and real private property rights, regardless of any 'good' people think it does. The less important point I make is that there's no actual scientific evidence that it even is beneficial to begin with.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[J3947]

you have no scientific evidence [slashdot.org] (been there, done that) that copyrights and patents are effective.

Considering that your version of "scientific evidence" involves creating an alternative universe with no copyright and seeing how things work out, your claim is utterly irrelevant because all you've done is limit "scientific evidence" to something that can't practically be done. You've moved the goalposts so far away that nobody can actually meet the level of proof you demand. You're like a creationist who says that we can't know if evolution happened unless we build a time-machine and since that can't be done, then I have "no scientific evidence" for evolution.

Copyright infringes upon freedom of speech (through the use of censorship and other means) and private property rights, while patents infringe upon the latter. That alone makes them intolerable to me.

All moral and legal systems are based on consequences. We support freedom of speech because the consequences are generally bad if we don't. However, we make allowances for certain cases (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater). Similarly, we know that lying is bad. In a court of law, lying is called "perjury" and it is punishable by law. If you claim that you wrote something that was actually written by someone else, that lie is called "plagiarism" and it's frowned upon. In other cases, like telling a white lie or lying to protect someone (e.g. protecting someone from being killed by Nazis), we permit and even praise such actions. All lies could also be put under the umbrella term "freedom of speech" (which would suggest that all lies should be legal). So, why are some lies treated very differently than other lies? Because of *consequences*. If you hold some stance that freedom of speech is absolute, then all lies should be permissible and legal. The fact that we care about consequences rather than absolute principles changes things. Copyright (like laws against perjury) might seem like affronts to your principle of free speech, but they are specific exemptions that exist because they are important in creating the kind of society that humans want to live in. I'd go so far as to say that even laws against theft of property isn't a moral absolute, but rather, a principle that we hold to because of the consequences. (And, I'm sure you could complain that government taxation that is used to help poor people could also be classified as "theft" and therefore morally wrong, but I see it as a specific exemption to the "don't steal from one person to give to another person" rule which actually produces a better world.)

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

Considering that your version of "scientific evidence" involves creating an alternative universe with no copyright and seeing how things work out

Been there, done that. The least you could do is say something that wasn't already said in one of those comments; something I didn't already respond to. The next best thing would be to get rid of copyright, since, again, there is no scientific evidence for it, and by default, restrictions should not exist, so the burden of proof is on those defending restrictions.

We support freedom of speech because the consequences are generally bad if we don't.

I support freedom of speech because I believe freedom of speech is a good thing in and of itself and should not be limited. I simply like the idea of being able to speak freely and not being censored. That is why I do not care for the 'safety mentality' that gives us 'amazing' things like the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, and all those other things the government uses to violate our rights.

However, we make allowances for certain cases

You might, and society obviously does, but I don't.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Jane Q. Public]

"That's not at all the point I've been making, not even about copyright."

Uh... that sure as hell is what it looked like you were saying with the comment I replied to.

You weren't "making points" at all. You were simply making bald claims of philosophy.

Now, I happen to be somewhat on your side when it comes to GP's statement about "deserving" somebody elses' work. But that doesn't mean I agree with you about copyright in general not being useful or good.

We DO have evidence of what happens when you do not have a reasonable body of copyright law: Soviet Russia and Red China. In both cases, their production of innovative invention and art was reduced to a fraction of what it had been. And in both cases, what innovation there was was almost strictly government-sponsored. They tended instead to just "borrow" what others had already developed in the way of both art and technology. I'm not saying their production of ideas stopped. But it was reduced rather drastically.

This *IS* historical -- and scientific -- evidence that absence of personal gain, as a motivation to to innovate, results in less innovation. And it is not the only such evidence.

Anything else is counter-factual wishful thinking.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[David Jao]

Right, attack the messenger. Do you have any substantive arguments? Didn't think so.

In a world lacking music, the human species can survive. In a world lacking free sharing of knowledge, the human species is doomed to die. Take your pick.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

You're speaking like a "conservative" screaming "government intervention" when their leadership propagandizes, or "liberal" screaming that the rich are behind a nefarious scheme to put down the poor when told by their masters (while those opposed are advocating eliminating some kind of thing that actually harms the poor the most). But the worst part is, you're using libertarian rhetoric to do it, and injecting emotion-laden buzzwords to get a reaction ain't thinkin'.

In the US context, "[...] government-enforced monopolies on ideas and methods" happens to pertain to PA-TENTS, , a separate class of objects altogether.

Access to copyrighted works recently-made with little merits or contribution to the advancement of useful arts and sciences, in any way, is neither a public good nor a public right; they are copy-righted, by their creators, to extract a return for their efforts and basically because they want to, and nobody really actually disagrees with this (openy and publicly); personally I'm fine with monopolizing-away Hanna Montana bullshit. (If you want to see how television effects children, take a sample of the Disney-raised little princesses that watched that shit over the last six or seven year.)

But vast collections of facts, cleverly arranged and not really a creative act (though courts like to find, wherever possible, how it could possibly be creative)? Nope on that. (I'm looking at various kinds of 'scholarly' works.)

But patents should never be granted on facts of nature or mathematics or merely exploitative or derivative consequences: the supreme court never pretended they (or their isomorphisms, ideas and methods) were patentable, on the grounds that anything so fundamental to knowledge, science work, and being human, violates and does violence to men's natural rights...until they not only stopped caring about those but even questioned that they exist (even the Conservatives: pick-up Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America" and you'll find a quasi-libertarian Authoritarian 'as-long-as-process-is-followed'" statist).

Movies however belong to the domain of copyright. And these days, they're barely even artistic, thinly-veiled engagements of the most prurient interests; appeals to emotion; some either substituting a identity-less character so you can step-in (a well-known trick to make something explode in popularity because the consumer feels as though everything is happening directly to them) or celebrations of those with personality cults (hence, no real acting anymore: just people playing themselves with a different name and context).

And then there is that useful distinction that stands quite well: idea vs. expression. Now if the optimal and only expression, such as a scientific formula mathematically derived, then no it's not...copyrightable (a different class); but any of the material "pirated" in this scenario isn't of that nature. It was just appropriated by all with the chance to see what they want, when they want...

Note however, I already appropriate (for those who used the link) for fair-use, though only through reference, a copyrighted work: it's called fair-use.

But...if you were thinking before you posted, you would know that they are separate issues, that there are methods of critiquing copyright, but shouting "government-enforced monopolies" and sleighting with "ideas and methods" would get-up the cheering of the horde here because they're near-and-dear words that play to certain prejudices...whereby you poison the well [of thinking] before it can commence.

Speaking of the Supreme Court: it is to such stupidity, whether libertarian, Conservative, Progressive, etc., that words by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes are wise, that is, that men should think not in words but in things.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

you would know that they are separate issues

Obviously, I acknowledged that they are separate issues. Not sure what the point of your comment was.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[radarskiy]

The entitled asshole is the person that refuses to engage the market for his work then complains about not making any money.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

But I *do* find it funny that you talk about "emotion-laden buzzwords" when you're the one who made a comment titled "Entitled Asshole Mentality" and then went on to mock people who supposedly think they're entitled to other people's work (whatever that means).

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

You're importing separate issues. I wasn't speaking of justice or injustice regarding their misbehaviors, but the entitlement felt by Americans to access everyone else's.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

Either your government is in some kind of treaty that we also hate, or else you're just not looking hard enough, but you don't have a right to consume entertainment--neither do I. You can make your own--it has nothing to do with discrimination--and I don't shill for anyone: I do tech support these days and deal with assholes who feel like we should give them everything and more all day, as though they deserve (all the services + also all our labor + setting-up all their networking, configuring all their computers, cleaning them because they won't stop surfing porn--or let us know when it would be useful--and worse).

If you were crying about access to textbooks then I'd side with you--maybe (if our system weren't so twisted). But you feel discriminated and butthurt cause you can't catch an episode of the Walking Dead, 24, or the next movie? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

To put this into perspective folks: I'm homeless. I work out of hotspots for my job, and I don't feel like I MUST be able to watch anything, and basically I don't. Yet all around me people who say how you just have to have this or that, a smartphone, such and such style, be able to read something, etc...I would settle living in a tent off a campus and having access to a university library. :(

Re: Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

xD Says the guy who uses "corporate slaves." I'm not moaning about entitlement--I didn't pick that up from the media or libertarians or even conservatives. I picked it up working in thousands of houses of ordinary Americans demanding free services, products, extra attention, etc., which neither I (nor those I worked for, including companies large and small) could afford. Neither I (nor those I usually work for--often including the larger companies) could even always afford what we install or build, yet those chatter-boxes would yammer-on how you can do without. "Entitled asshole" comes from recent experiences which I would write here, but I think I might try to publish them cause, ya know, the potential to make some money for your experience is nice when you're homeless. To you people who think you deserve entertainment and comfort yet would likely vote against something like a damn ratty-looking homeless guy living next door...YOU terrorize people, enslave them, and then cry about tyranny you've brought on yourselves: if you want it to stop you not only have to not pay those corporations you whine about (and demand from, which in turn to be "profitable", i.e. remain operating must become more and more psychopathic, even while they do, indeed, harm themselves by promoting the mentality of "you deserve it"), but also stop consuming their dung. You do want to avoid eating dung, don't you?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

p.s. being willing to pay still doesn't entitle you to service, nor does it mean that them accepting your pay woudn't actually be in many ways harmful to them, e.g. doing business in a jurisdiction like Russia is always a bad idea should they try to reinterpret the laws and apply the new school ex post facto. There's this thing call natural liberty, which means neither payment nor force entitles you to what is another's. On the other hand, if you want to pay someone here to ship you a movie and the government tries to stop them...then they (not you) have a valid suit for abuse of law, conspiracy to wield government as a hedge for business interests and to do the bidding of a cartel, etc.

e.g. those who argue that a man's law should be upheld simply because that man is powerful...I have no interest in doing business with (do you wonder why the bureaucrats scream for class-status and laws protecting their "right" of access to businesses and services, as does everyone else?). Similarly, your "willing to pay" tidily goes along with the class of assholes who like to buy others' rights, "I'm willing to pay!"

But work for? I help people fix computers. So be careful with who you libel and accuse, lest God judge you. x)~

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Pseudonym Authority]

Scientists that give their work away for free are almost invariably funded by the government. May I assume that you have no objection to supporting movie studios by taxes? Of course, to match this completely, the government should also have some say in what gets funded, just as with scientific research.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Pseudonym Authority]

I don't know about these `artists' of which you speak, but I personally have never gotten any nutrition or shelter from the bubbly feeling I get when I do something nice on the internet.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

p.s. simply put, there is a remedy (hard to obtain in this day and age of progressive jurisprudence married with no-natural law): it's called disgorgement. I care for government-funding of studios only to the extent it robs poor people of the ability to held themselves and society of the charity that could be granted to the ones who want to, while access to shit packaged as media you just must swallow as the next big thing, shit that ain't your shit, I care not at all about: it doesn't truly help the leisure class or those whom they stomp on while whining they're put upon.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[silviuc]

I can't complain about access to textbooks because *any* digital store would sell them to me with no problem. I'm a citizen of a country that is both a member of the EU and NATO and everybody else wants my money except the scumbags in Hollywood. I don't want to look "hard". I don't want to jump through hoops and use VPNs. They refuse to allow me access to content based on my location. I'm disciminated against. It infuriates me and I don't give a shit if you think that my problem is laughable.

Even more aggravating is having those same scumbags call me a thief if I "dared" to copy some of their content to watch it. Nevermind that they never wanted to do business with me in the first place, so I would be stealing what exactly? Certainly not the money that they *refused* to take from me.

They have no right to discriminate against me and forbid me access because I happen to live in some "other" country. What you call "entertainment" I call culture, no matter the quality. There's no reason to forbid access to it based on geographical location.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Pseudonym Authority]

Why is it wrong to for them to make a profit? I understand and sympathize with the criticisms of the entertainment industries which constantly pushing for harsher laws, but the other major side of this fight expects it to be a charity. I don't see (very many) people seriously demanding car companies start selling cars at cost.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[BronsCon]

Where was I, or anyone else, demanding anyone sell anything at cost? There is no justification for a 3000% wholesale markup. None, whatsoever. My proposal is a reduction from 3000% to 1000%, still a very attractive markup, and an increase of retail margins from 25% to 50%, with the introduction of new, profitable, first-party services and a shift from less profitable 3rd-party streaming to more profitable (for the studios) and less expensive (for the consumer) first-party streaming services. That spells a win all around and would put an enormous dent in piracy.

It would convert me, at least.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gmhowell]

Stan Lee is a douche who ripped off more than his fair share of writers and artists. You'd make a stronger point if you cited Steve Ditko.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

"Entitlement" is clearly understood...and people are assholes about it. And "entitled to other people's work" is simple: it's what you get when "the customer is always right" is believe or practiced, hence all the beat-up (like an abused dog) service workers crushed between both the scumbags that have been referenced here and the supposed "corporate-enslaved" folks whining because the impossible hasn 't been done and, "GIVE ME YOUR MANAGER, I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU DEAL WITH!!!" (though they're idiots who won't be getting nuttin').

e.g. easiest example: the thousands of calls I've taken with huffy people demanding we refund them "cause I can't use my service and haven't been able to for weeks!!!!!" (their device is broken).

For those who don't know, this idea you have a right--because you are willing to pay--to another's authorship, movie, services, goods, etc., is that very idea of entitlement which is so repugnant: it means having a right to the extension of the lives and labors of those, with no natural relations to yourself, whom owe you nothing but to respect that you too exist, and should be permitted to unfettered. Whether that's achieved through one or another means, it means you're a tax on an other's life.

There are some arguable exceptions, e.g. a truly public-beneficiary water system or [GASP!] hospital system (if you can afford it) unlike, say, what we have where the boomers have promised themselves their children's and children's children's inheritances so they can live fat and drive-up the prices of housing for millions around the globe as they begin flocking to Panama, Belize, and etc. (like the old crass, careless European classes were once notoriously hated for), all while ignoring that what they're buying was stolen from some poor farmer to build their cute little abode by an ocean/golf course/exotic mountain/suburban home (--this is a big one, ask the farmers).

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Jane Q. Public]

"So your evidence is to point to past societies that were and are vastly different from our own in a myriad of other ways. Different economic systems, different forms of government, etc. Really?"

No, I'm pointing to current societies that still exist today only because they have adopted more reasonable economic principles, which allow individuals to profit from their own labor. The contrast is clear, and the reasons for it are also.

"Who says there would be an absence of personal gain?"

There WAS absence of personal gain, in the examples I pointed to. Are you really so thoroughly missing the point here?

"Much like copyright itself."

You keep saying so, but you have offered exactly zero evidence. Merely statements of ideology.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

For those who don't know, this idea you have a right--because you are willing to pay--to another's authorship, movie, services, goods, etc., is that very idea of entitlement which is so repugnant: it means having a right to the extension of the lives and labors of those, with no natural relations to yourself, whom owe you nothing but to respect that you too exist, and should be permitted to unfettered.

Now that you've explained what you meant, I can say that I have seen no such people, and I think hardly any exist. I see people criticizing current business models, but that isn't the same as saying you're entitled to something. I also see people infringing upon copyrights, but again, merely downloading something because it's there is not the same as saying you're entitled to something.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Jane Q. Public]

"... but I do not see how you would come to that conclusion."

Obviously. I already mentioned this.

"I'm not the one in need of evidence."

Since you're the one making the extraordinary claim, which seems to violate both common sense and the evidence that IS available, I'd say you are.

Re: Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

To lose money, they'd have to have the money to begin with. Since the money in question belongs to other people, companies can't lose it, because it was never theirs to lose.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[antifoidulus]

Mathematics for the most part is a "universal" good, mathematics research benefits large swaths of society and is in fact necessary for a modern economy. Movies on the other hand are not a "universal" good, I don't watch very many movies and thus don't want to subsidise someone who does. I also would prefer the people have a direct say in what gets made and doesn't get made through their money rather than a government office deciding what they want to see.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[pitchpipe]

The belief you "deserve" a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods.

It's not a belief, they paid for it.

Paid for what?

They paid good fucking money for the laws that give them a perpetual monopoly over ideas and methods, and they expect fucking results.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[nurb432]

if *I* make a copy, nothing is lost as i was not going to purchase the product the first place. You may think it diminishes the product's value, but it doesn't.

The artist ( or developer, etc ) also might make a sale later due to my recommendation as without the copy, i would have never heard it in the first place and could not recommend it. If i determine the product had value to me, id even pay for it afterward.

You may see it as a way to get out of paying for something, while i dont. If it wasn't for the potential abuse by others, all products could be that way. Get it for free, and if you dont like it you dont pay ( or you get return it no questions asked, if its a ' hard good' ).

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[sumdumass]

Slight correction for you. Downloading is not defined as a copyright violation. Copyright does not protect who gets access to a protected work, just who can copy and distribute it. Downloading does neither unless you stretch the meaning of the word copying to include the machine you are downloading from making and transmitting a copy to you.

And the lost sale/money argument is incorrect. If you own a canoe rental business and I come in the middle of the night when you are closed and use your canoes without paying you, you are still entitled to the rental fees even though there is no noticeable degradation of the property or inability to rent the canoes. It is a process called conversion which is under the theft laws. Copyright restricts access except when the copyright owner allows and if they demand a fee, you accessing without paying that fee is a loss to them of the entire fee because the law has made it that way.

Now, I do not disagree with your overall premise though. Downloading by those who wouldn't normally go and see the movies or buy the CDs likely does help the studios and artists. The alternative would not be them making a purchase, it would be them ignoring the content altogether had an opportunity not risen that allowed them access. So I am confident that if they were not able to download, no sale would happen just as if you put locks on your canoes. But just as I converted your property for my benefit in the canoe scenario, I would be doing the same in downloading your movies and music without payment and you would legally be otherwise entitled to that payment.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Jane Q. Public]

"I make no extraordinary claims. The evidence people have brought forth simply do not disprove the null hypothesis."

This isn't a controlled experiment, so they don't have to. How ridiculous.

If you want to conduct such a study -- preferably blind or even better double-blind -- I'll wait.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Sabriel]

Or, the government could pay citizens a flat stipend out of the national budget, and let the citizenry individually/collectively decide how much the artists/studios should get. Based on some of the "art" my government has subsidised in the past, the citizenry would do a far better job of it.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[jones_supa]

if *I* make a copy, nothing is lost as i was not going to purchase the product the first place. You may think it diminishes the product's value, but it doesn't.

It does diminish it. You already acquired a free copy instead of getting the product through the official distribution chains intended by the creators. It does not matter if you "didn't plan to purchase the product in the first place" or if you don't even listen to the music at all and it's just sitting on your hard drive. When taking the free copy, you acquired the value of the product, but didn't give anything back for it.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[jones_supa]

You certainly raise a valid concern, but for that, we need arrangements where money is more effectively carried to the actors and musicians. Making a pirated copy ensures that no one gets money, which is the absolutely worst option.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[pepty]

The problem with private property rights is that they infringe on civil rights, regardlesss of any good people think private property does. To know that it's beneficial, you'd have to be able to peer into an alternate dimension where private property doesn't exist and our society is otherwise entirely the same. Comparing us to older societies without private property is nonsensical because they were different in a myriad of other fundamental ways. So, where is your scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that private property is beneficial?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

This isn't a controlled experiment

No, but it is a matter of laws, so their evidence had better be damn good, otherwise they're restricting people based on bullshit speculation, which is simply unacceptable.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

I don't argue for private property rights merely because they bring about good results, but because they enable people to have more freedom in certain areas and more privacy.

Repeating what I said and altering it a bit does nothing to change the fact that you have a complete lack of evidence.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

While you're at it, make the same sort of post about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, privacy, etc. just for good measure. It won't do any good, but it's just for completeness.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[IamTheRealMike]

Is the iTunes Store not to your satisfaction? It's always worked fine for me. I never notice the DRM.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[sumdumass]

The net effect is exactly the same, no noticeable loss to you or anyone outside of a legal privilege to collect fees. The analogy fits quite well as your private property only remains yours because of a legal construct. Otherwise I could simply claim it as mine and there would be nothing you could do other than take it from me if you can.

You simply cannot show one so the analogy is adequate to illustrate a concept. BTW, waiving your hands in the air screaming the analogy is bad doesn't address any real implications brought up by it, it's just attempting to dismiss something out of convenience and not because of any sound logic or anything. I can see why you posted AC.

Guideline: when your strongest argument is nitpicking an analogy instead of the concepts presented by it, you are intellectually lazy and you failed.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Imrik]

The problem is that if everyone pays the per-unit cost, movies can't be made, only distributed. For the system to work everyone has to pay the per-unit cost, a share of the overhead, and a bit of profit.

That said, I disagree that pirates only want to pay the per-unit cost, many would be willing to pay the regular price to get things in the format they want at the time they want. Since this is frequently not available, they resort to piracy.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[CohibaVancouver]

Yes that works because those directly involve real people on real locations with real organizing doing real work

So yesterday, when I saw many people hard at work in my city filming Continuum they weren't real people on real locations with real organizing doing real work?

Fascinating. What exactly were all those crew members doing?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[sg_oneill]

The belief you "deserve" an experience, or are entitled to the enjoyment of other's work.

Won't SOMEBODY think of those more fortunate than us?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[pepty]

So you have the freedom to make arguments with a lack of evidence while others do not? If your argument is that laws you don't like require evidence from a parallel society that does not and cannot exist you're going to have to use the same standard for laws you accept or cut bait. But don't worry about it: since absolutely no laws have ever met the standards you espouse your argument is pretty much irrelevant outside your own head.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

So you have the freedom to make arguments with a lack of evidence while others do not?

No, what really gets me is when they claim that copyright is beneficial. That's usually when I start asking for proof (or when I explain my position). If they merely said something subjective like "I feel that it's just." or "Authors should have such a freedom." then the discussion would be different. If something like that is why you support copyright, then I disagree with you, but I won't ask you for evidence, because it would be irrelevant. But when people say that it is beneficial, I'm going to ask for evidence, because these restrictions affect others' fundamental rights, and presenting scientific evidence is the least these copyright losers could do.

If your argument is that laws you don't like require evidence from a parallel society that does not and cannot exist

Sheesh. It's like people are shocked when unfounded statements (that copyright is helps innovation) are questions. Why don't we all just believe a bunch of made up bullshit, and never require evidence for anything? Or we could make everything like the typical psychology study and use subjective criteria (like what often seems to happen with this) and terrible standards of evidence. That would also be great.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[sumdumass]

In that regard, the analogy fits. But what good is that? If that's the best you can do for an analogy, you may as well give up.

Give up on what? Copyright is only a legal construct too. Like it or not, it's valid and the premise is valid.

Look, if you can't think up a proper analogy for copying bits, don't bother. Analogies are usually garbage and unnecessary, anyway. How about just arguing your damn points without bringing up unrelated junk?

I don't need an analogy for copying bits. I gave a good and accurate analogy concerning the act of conversion which is theft by law. I do not care if you download something, take a CD or DVD from the store or whatever, you are taking it without the legal right to do so and those who would have received compensation normally are entitled to that compensation when you do.

Like I said, your hand waiving is intellectually lazy. I will add that you are doing a poor job at both rebuttal and forwarding any counter points.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Jane Q. Public]

You still don't get it, do you?

It's only you and a select few others who think it's "bullshit speculation". Just about everybody else looks at the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion. Including Russia and China.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

It's only you and a select few others who think it's "bullshit speculation".

I hope you don't think that mentioning popularity will do anything for you. It's really a terrible argument.

Just about everybody else looks at the evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion.

Because they are illogical, or so I would say.

Including Russia and China.

Russia and China can come to whatever conclusions that they want, and it has no effect on me. You're disregarding the multiple other factors that could be at work here, as people who present this type of garbage evidence usually do.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[BronsCon]

Where's the subsidy on *my* work? Where's *my* guarantee of profit? I didn't address money-losers or direct-to-disc flicks because it doesn't matter what their pricing is. Maybe charging a bit less per unit will increase sales enough to them to turn a profit, maybe not, but if there wasn't enough interest for the movie to turn a profit in theaters (or even be picked up by any), it's not likely.

Where's the justification for a 3000% markup? There simply isn't one. If you think the interest in your product is so low that the only way to make it profitable is to gouge the few people who will be interested, perhaps you should be making a more interesting product. All you do be gouging is further reduce the number of people interested in your product.

Before you go off and try to compare the above to high-end car manufacturers (that *is* the way of Slashdot, is it not?), I'll tell you why it's a bad comparison. Plenty of people want a Ferrari, so they can set their price as high as they want and people will still buy them; and they're smart enough to keep the price at a level where they know demand will outpace production. If they don't, they're left with unsold inventory and don't make as much as they could have by lowering their prices enough that they sell out (they not only have production costs, but also transport and storage costs for unsold inventory). It's impossible to copy one for considerably less than it costs to buy one, so buying one is really the only viable way to get one; and if you have enough money for a Ferrari but aren't positive that you want one, you can test drive it, pop the hood and inspect its internals, and get a good feel for whether you're going to like it, all before you put a single penny on the table. Where can you legally do that with movies or music, which you can not get your money back for if not satisfied?

And it's not just cars; there is no industry or product you can compare the entertainment industry and/or their products to, because none of it matches up. The industry doesn't give a shit whether people want their product, or how popular their product actually is, they set their price where they want it, regardless of the market, and expect people the pay it whether they actually want the product or not. When they get tired of paying to store their unsold inventory and end up destroying it, that's entirely their fault for not lowering the price to a point where people will buy it. Just one way to limit that loss but, like a petulant three year old, they just take their ball and go home. And we're talking about a product that is easily copied, which, in the end, is a double-edged sword; many will pirate and then never buy, no matter what, but some (such as myself) will buy titles that aren't complete shit, as a way of saying "I liked that, please make more" or not buy as a way of saying "that was shit, don't make shit like that anymore", which is a free-market concept that even a lot of pro-free-market peeps can't wrap their head around. And that covers the test-drive or trial period, which would be wholly unnecessary if people could return the damned things if they weren't satisfied with them.

And all of that ignores the fact that, once the store buys it, the studio has been paid for it. It doesn't matter if I buy it or not; that only affects the store. And if it was direct-to-disc or wasn't profitable in theaters, it won't see enough sales for the store to bother restocking it, piracy or not, so the studio best have turned a profit on it by the time it hits shelves.

The way the free market is supposed to work is that companies are supposed to set their prices based on what the market will bear, of bear the consequences of fewer sales (price too high) or lower margin (price too low); the entertainment industry is, by and large, not doing this and they are bearing the consequences of their prices being too high. Rather than correcting for this, like every other industry, they are trying to litigate and legislate their future.

Will piracy ever stop

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Jane Q. Public]

"I hope you don't think that mentioning popularity will do anything for you. It's really a terrible argument."

It wasn't an argument intended to prove my point. It was an observation based on experience. You seem to have tunnel vision in that regard.

"Because they are illogical, or so I would say."

We already know this. But that statement is no more "logical argument" than the observation I made. So why are you bothering?

"Russia and China can come to whatever conclusions that they want, and it has no effect on me. You're disregarding the multiple other factors that could be at work here, as people who present this type of garbage evidence usually do."

Now you're trying to read my mind. I have not "disregarded" those things.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

It wasn't an argument intended to prove my point. It was an observation based on experience.

Please, bestow upon me some more of your observations.

So why are you bothering?

Well, if you can make random observations that I find useless, I sure can make random statements that you may find useless. Like this.

Now you're trying to read my mind. I have not "disregarded" those things.

You just sucked them up as if your snap was a mere spaghetti noodle, yes?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Jane Q. Public]

"Well, if you can make random observations that I find useless, I sure can make random statements that you may find useless. Like this."

Okay. I thought you wanted to have a reasonable discussion. But you've been trying to distort it into some kind of weird pseudo-logical argument of some kind, without presenting any actual facts or evidence. In one breath you're trying to make it into a logical argument, in the next you try to "refute" my evidence by simply saying it's wrong, and in the next you're playing the mind-reading game... and behind it all you haven't presented a shred of evidence to back up what is indeed a rather outrageous claim, given the historical evidence.

Nice trolling, if that's what you intended. But whether you intended it or not, that's what you're doing and I have no need to waste more time here.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

Okay. I thought you wanted to have a reasonable discussion. But you've been trying to distort it into some kind of weird pseudo-logical argument of some kind, without presenting any actual facts or evidence. In one breath you're trying to make it into a logical argument, in the next you try to "refute" my evidence by simply saying it's wrong, and in the next you're playing the mind-reading game

No idea what you're talking about. I simply respond to bits of your comments in ways that I feel appropriate.

and behind it all you haven't presented a shred of evidence to back up what is indeed a rather outrageous claim

??? You're the one defending laws that restrict people and making outrageous claims. You provided "evidence," but not good evidence. Evidence can be just about anything, but it isn't the same as proof.

given the historical evidence.

There you go again. This is just something you want to believe. It's almost as if you've heard it so many times that you've been brainwashed by the propaganda.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[Jane Q. Public]

"No idea what you're talking about."

That has been obvious for a while now.

"I simply respond to bits of your comments in ways that I feel appropriate."

And that has, too.

"??? You're the one defending laws that restrict people ... You provided "evidence," but not good evidence. Evidence can be just about anything, but it isn't the same as proof."

Again you're trying to make pseudo-logical arguments but failing. It isn't possible to "prove" a negative.

"... and making outrageous claims."

You don't seem to get the point that you are in a very small minority of people who think so. The vast majority of other people don't think so at all. No, that's not a "logical argument", nor is it "proof", but it should give you cause to examine your assumptions very closely... which my guess is you haven't done. It's only a guess, but I have reasons for it.

"Evidence can be just about anything, but it isn't the same as proof."

No shit, Sherlock. Your point is?

"given the historical evidence."

"There you go again. This is just something you want to believe. It's almost as if you've heard it so many times that you've been brainwashed by the propaganda."

No. If you're trying to make a logical argument, you're failing. I've presented evidence. You might disagree with that evidence but you haven't presented a single reason for thinking it's false, even a little, in any way. All you've done is make bald assertions that "you are wrong" and "it's all in your mind" and "you are brainwashed."

These are the arguments of an ideologue, not a person who wants to have a genuinely logical argument or discussion.

Goodbye.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

It isn't possible to "prove" a negative.

No shit, Sherlock. Your point is?

You don't seem to get the point that you are in a very small minority of people who think so. The vast majority of other people don't think so at all. No, that's not a "logical argument", nor is it "proof", but it should give you cause to examine your assumptions very closely... which my guess is you haven't done. It's only a guess, but I have reasons for it.

Not only is it not a logical argument or proof, but it's completely ridiculous that you keep bringing this up. Feeling a bit desperate, are we?

Most people don't even *comprehend* this subject, you fool. They don't give two shits about copyright, have been fed propaganda about it since birth (that copyright infringement is theft or stealing, that copyright is a net benefit on society, or that it's just like property), and basically think nothing of it. You can see this when so many people either don't even understand what copyright is, when people use words like "theft" to describe copyright infringement, or when they use propaganda terms like "intellectual property." So why would I care about your precious majority? And even if that *weren't* true, talking about popularity is utterly and completely meaningless, as I have my own ideas and do not feel they need to be popular.

No shit, Sherlock. Your point is?

My point is that I've determined that you're an idiot who needs a bit of babying. Looks like you need a diaper change.

No. If you're trying to make a logical argument, you're failing.

Right back at you.

You might disagree with that evidence but you haven't presented a single reason for thinking it's false, even a little, in any way.

I did, but you ignored it, it seems. I'm not going to go through it again, because it seems that you're either not reading my comments or are utterly incapable of even comprehending my words. Such is the case with worthless minds. If you're going to accuse me of not even attempting to refute the shitty evidence you brought forth, then you're just going to look ignorant.

These are the arguments of an ideologue, not a person who wants to have a genuinely logical argument or discussion.

Right back at you.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[BronsCon]

Your argument is that you will only pay for IP to pay the production crew:

No. My argument is that there is 0 justification for a 3000% markup and that 1000% is much more reasonable. Since when is a 1000% markup "at cost" or "not paying"? Work on your reading comprehension, quit trolling, or fuck off; I'm not sure which of these applies in your case, but I'm sure you can figure it out.

Your argument, snarf, completely leaves out the profit for the investors. If there is no potential for profit, there is no investment.

Wrong again. My argument suggests shifting the primary source of profit from theatrical releases and physical disc sales, which are what the industry claims is shrinking, to first-party (as in run by the studios themselves) download and streaming services, which will prove to be more profitable, simply by giving consumers what they want. Where do I say, anywhere, that the content should never turn a profit? Where do I say it should be free, or sold "at cost" after production costs have been recouped? I don't. I do, however, say that a 3000% markup is indefensible after those costs have been recouped.

What I won't do is believe investors should be capped in how much they make. Nor the actors who demand $20 million. If they can get it, it's not my problem.

And what I'm proposing is likely to net everyone involved even more money, while costing the average consumer even less, as the many pirates who do so primarily due to the brokenness of the system become paying customers. You did catch the part, in my original post, about first-party streaming, right? The part where I say they could charge $2 for 1080p and $1 for SD, and make more per stream than they do off of iTunes, all while providing better value for the consumer (the same product, cheaper, with more profit for the studio because there is no middle-man).

To repeat, I'm a pirate and 100% opposed to government dictated IP...

...and a troll, or an idiot.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[kenshin33]

Considering that your version of "scientific evidence" involves creating an alternative universe with no copyright and seeing how things work out, your claim is utterly irrelevant because all you've done is limit "scientific evidence" to something that can't practically be done.

I didn't know the fashion industry existed in an alternate universe ???? (except from trademarks they have nothing)

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[kenshin33]

isn't copyright a restriction? so by definition any market involving it is not free?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[kenshin33]

isn't the minimal price to break even is the marginal cost for +1 unit produced? (in the first chapter of any economic book)

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[BronsCon]

And you're in the minority. Have fun with that.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[BronsCon]

There people deserve the experience they were sold when they backed the Veronica Mars movie. They're entitled to it, as it is what Warner Bros. agreed to when they took their money. Instead of getting what they paid for, Warner Bros. is refunding their money when they complain. This company took investment funds from investors (that's what you do on Kickstarter) and, rather than hold up their end of the bargain, are retroactively saying "we actually didn't need your money, none of it was used to fund the production of this picture, so we're returning it to you, in whole". Except, that's now actually what they're saying, or they would be retuning everyone's money, without prompting. That's just what they're hoping we'll all hear. What they're really saying is "we don't care about our investors or our customers; doubly so when they are one in the same".

None of this is news, however. If they cared about their customers, we'd have first-party (e.g. studio-owned) unencumbered (e.g. DRM-free) download services and first-party streaming services (DRM might be acceptable here, actually) by now, and the industry would be making a killing off of them, even at lower rates than the 3rd-party "pay per stream" services (think iTunes).

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

Except I was talking only about generic infringement of movie copyrights by those who very likely aren't investors. Your comment is therefore irrelevant--no offense. It is an interesting case of an breach of trust, potential failure to uphold a contract, and a whole host of other issues.

What is pertinent however, is that you have no entitled to be cared for (by movie executives)--and it's stupid to think "the industry" would. They don't get ahead by caring, they get ahead by crushing the competition (in their minds). They don't sell care, they sell violence, sex, raw emotion...

And people happily buy it up from those who mock them for so easily blowing their cash on bullshit.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

Except I was talking only about generic infringement of movie copyrights by those who very likely aren't investors. Your comment is therefore irrelevant--no offense. It is an interesting case of an breach of trust, potential failure to uphold a contract, and a whole host of other issues.

What is pertinent however, is that you have no entitled to be cared for (by movie executives)--and it's stupid to think "the industry" would. They don't get ahead by caring, they get ahead by crushing the competition (in their minds). They don't sell care, they sell violence, sex, raw emotion...

And people happily buy it up from those who mock them for so easily blowing their cash on bullshit. You don't care for complete strangers to whom you sell a little more wasted time (life). You care if you tell them "get out of here" (theater) or "drop this subscription and get off the couch" (at home) "and do something real with your money." idk, like have a kid--buy the kid some art supplies and learn something together, transmit [worthwhile] "values"...

But should a group invest in a project and it fails...let them claim their legal entitlement in court to disgorge the wrongful takings as well as lost opportunities and enjoyment and whatever else they can validly claim, don't drop a SPECIFIC "they were entitled" in the middle of discussing GENERAL copyright infringement as a protest "slimy pretentious publicaly-vapid assholes who think [their own] emotion is everything don't care about us!" WAAAAAAA The problem in a liberal society is their kind of mental illness can go unchecked (and it spreads); the problem in a conservative one is that worse actors simply won't limit the beatings to superficiality but extend it as far and wide as possible. xD

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[BronsCon]

Oh, we're in full agreement on this point. It never hurts to see counterexamples, though; keeps the world-view from getting too narrow, y'know.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

Not the point. The point is distraction from the actual issue: yours wasn't even a counter-point. It's a separate issue. ;)

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[BronsCon]

Well, yeah, you can reduce any scenario down to black and white if you define it narrowly enough. It's a hell of a good way to stifle intelligent discussion on a topic, though, which is why it's generally frowned upon by those of us who are interested in that aspect of the debate scene.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[infinitelink]

Still not the point: the point is, the issue here was copyright. Throwing-in sleights and attacks based on something else, ridiculous. Then protesting that it's being narrow? hah. And it isn't being black-and-white, it is being "correct", meaning precise, honest, to-the-point. If you wanted to make it something else you might say, "on another issue, these people..." but otherwise I simply won't appreciate what you're saying by saying and not saying. That kind of allusive dishonest (intended or not--context does matter) should be called-out every time.


The unfortunate truth is, the businesses serving the general that survive are typically those who DON'T care--they keep their problems separate from customers' to a great degree. In niches and technical services there are exceptions. But you don't see Google putting-up easy means to contact them very directly, not anyone that matters--and the unspoken 'secret' is that proficient people don't use gmail anyway, they go with AOL, Comcast, or CenturyLink e-mail services...and all of those [quite unacceptable] companies actually take huge losses supporting crap that really aren't their issues: to the point that to survive you either turn-off empathy and keep it a very distant professionalism, or your quite (I know this first-hand). I'm talking the fact that...tens of thousands of the idiots call screaming that they're not paying for what they can't use (because their computer is broken) or they demand the company sends someone to install everything they have for free (because though using DSL they removed their own phone jacks while re-doing the basement) or their iShit isn't working (which constantly have problems connecting properly because the networking software is improperly done) or [I won't accept that last agent's explanation that my computer is broken, it's been working 6 years!!!!] and more...

All of those are just examples from my last hour handling such people last night: they're not even very important in the light of the fact that simple support of what you actually are either responsible for because it's your stuff or because you've agreed to do it usually means dealing with someone whose verbal and technical ability is about on par with an advance form of dementia. Now magnify this over millions and then ponder why (a) large companies would be i. secretive ii. defenive iii. lobby to-death in their advantage (when politicians will gladly come tear them apart for being tze 'evilz') (b) selectively empathetic (c) push costs and quality down as much as possible while raising prices (d) etc. They can't keep-up the contact with these idiots--it's only getting worse with the downward spiral of Amerika obsessing over its [bad] food and [bad] "entertainment" rather than working to understand real things and doing real work.

Castigating someone who is whining on behalf of those who have little to no intelligence on such topics is therefore not a good way to stifle intelligent discussion, but a good way to point-out the bullshit that passes for intelligence. And the point is: if you want big-budget info/enter-tainment for nuthin', oh well. If you feel like you deserve a service that someone else refuses, it's probably not discrimination, it's probably not even about you at all (nobody is thinking of entering eastern Europe any time soon in a big way, haven't been and especially now really really aren't: thanks Eur-asian progressivism! The latter really being, by the way, the self-describing term used by those movements that gave us the darling gems stretching from Russia's western borders to the pacific, and down through to the Indian ocean.) If you want it...build it yourself. Take the risks (it may be a colossal failure and you may not get your life back but at least you can exchange former dreams for future respect for trying), don't demand it from somebody else--you could go to convince them or their shareholders, however.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality

[BronsCon]

And you still think I disagree with you. Enough so that you wrote all of that. After I straight-up said we agree on that point. Because we do. I'm using short sentences now. For your benefit. Can you guess why?

This is indeed a service problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is indeed a service problem, which I've been saying for years. I'm happy to fork over $$ to any service that lets me watch the latest episodes of my favourite TV show or a movie that has recently been released.

No stupid region codes, no stupid staggered releases to other parts of the world (yes, I am in YURP), just a reasonable price for access to the latest contest. Netflix goes a long way, but generally has older content (which, I guess, is easier to license).

I feel that I have no other option but piracy, and if a legitimate alternative would be available, I'd use it.

Re:This is indeed a service problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Different AC Here but in fact, I buy a lot of mp3, non-DRMed, non-region encoded, music. A few albums a month from the Amazon MP3 store.

If I could buy non-DRMed, non-region encoded movies, I'd buy about as many. As it stands, I buy zero.

Re:This is indeed a service problem

[gIobaljustin]

I mean, if you disregard pre-teen freeloaders with no money and little morals

Copying bits has little to do with morality.

Re:This is indeed a service problem

[gnupun]

Copying bits has little to do with morality.

Then neither is sitting in a mostly empty movie theater without paying for a ticket, or taking a bus or train ride, when they are mostly empty, without paying for the ticket. In both cases, the owners of those establishments are not losing any money by your freeloading because hardly anyone is using them at that moment.

Re:This is indeed a service problem

[gIobaljustin]

Then neither is sitting in a mostly empty movie theater without paying for a ticket, or taking a bus or train ride, when they are mostly empty, without paying for the ticket.

Yeah, but you risk being kicked off by the property owners. But there is no tangible harm there, you're right.

Re:This is indeed a service problem

[Windwraith]

iTunes doesn't carry certain songs into Europe, so even if they are under one Euro a pop, we just can't get it through there.
I am not sure about Netflix but when I checked it back in the day it was as region locked as Hulu, is that still the case?

Likewise certain mobile apps are also region-locked, even when they are free.
The whole region lock is a very complex issue, not to mention certain governments tax multimedia content on customs even if it's just a $2 comic book, to discourage importing physical content.
It's not as easy as just paying for it, at least for us. If it was just paying for it, it wouldn't be a big issue. I have absolutely no reservations about paying for what I want, and most of the stuff I like is actually rather cheap.

Re:This is indeed a service problem

[QuasiSteve]

I think you're mixing up two things - although the end-result to the user is largely the same.

Region locking would mean that if you tried to 'import a song/movie' from the U.S., you can't play it back on your European music player. See e.g. the region locks on DVDs and computer games.

What you're referring to though is market segmentation/differentiation. E.g. releasing of a title in one market, but not in the other, or under different terms - be that release date difference or price difference, etc.)

While it's certainly unfortunate that iTunes doesn't carry all material, does that also mean that alternate stores don't carry said material?
If they do, then what is the barrier in buying from them?
If they don't, how does that reduce all options to "I will just pirate it" versus "I will just not get it".

( Note that for music especially chances are good that you will be able to find it on YouTube - even if you're in Germany and GEMA blocks most of the results there's practically always an alternate - and Google tends to have the appropriate licensing in place. I do say 'tends' because there's plenty of YouTube videos of content that certainly isn't covered by a blanket license :) )

Import taxes are something you really should take up with your government - especially when it's over just a $2 comic book.
( I can understand why some import taxes exist, and generally don't mind paying them - but I'd contest a charge like that on principle. )

Re:This is indeed a service problem

[lennier1]

There's an iTunes store in most European markets, but it's more of an afterthought where the original videos are usually inacessible and you only get localized/dubbed crap even though the original version is right there next to it on the server.

Re:This is indeed a service problem

[Windwraith]

Oh, I just don't get it if I am prevented from purchasing it at all. It's not like I need a certain game or song to go. In that case I boycott the product, and yes, that includes not playing it.

There's no bigger form of protesting against an artistic creation than paying it no attention whatsoever.

Entitled Asshole Mentality

[gIobaljustin]

The belief you "deserve" a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods.

Sounds like a great idea

[wisnoskij]

Most torrents are probably added to watch right away, so if more emphasis on getting the first part first, and watching while it is downloaded, how is this not simply a good thing.

Re:Oh stop sugar-coating a turd

[MightyYar]

Then why do I willingly pay for both Netflix and Prime? Those services are extremely convenient, but the selection is not always there. Usenet/torrent are good fill-ins for those services, and probably will be until these knuckleheads realize that their government-enabled monopoly isn't really very enforceable anymore.

Entitled Asshole

[Stellian]

Or as Simpsons' Lenny would put it: "All we want is brand new, big-budget entertainment in our homes for nothing. Why doesn't Hollywood get that?"

A service problem indeed.

Re:Entitled Asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

Or as Simpsons' Lenny would put it: "All we want is brand new, big-budget entertainment in our homes for nothing. Why doesn't Hollywood get that?

Again, most of you are missing the point. It's not all about begin free, I think most people are not adverse to paying reasonable charges for entertainment. However, the modern crop of Hollywood movies are just not worth the ticket price. Most of them are simply "remakes" of movies I watched as a kid in the 70's. I don't need to watch those again at $12 a pop, $18 if it's in "3D". For a family of four with teens one movie with popcorn and drinks can blow the whole entertainment budget for a month,

With big screen TVs the whole "theater experience" just isn't what it used to be. Even a modest 42" TV is better than a theater because I can control the sound volume. I can pop up a large bowl of popcorn and get a six pack of pop for less than what just the bowl of popcorn costs at the theater. I don't have to walk on sticky floors and day old popcorn, the only screaming children are my own AND I don't have to worry about getting shot by some demented off-duty cop in the back row. Oh, and I can pause the movie if anyone needs to take a break.

I don't want free, I want reasonable. Why doesn't Hollywood get that?

Re: Entitled Asshole

[Karlt1]

Okay. If you want reasonable just wait for three to four months for the movie to come out on video on demand and pay $5.

Re: Entitled Asshole

[Sabriel]

Personally, I do wait the months until a movie becomes a cheap rental at the local DVD store. Doesn't change the fact that copyright (and patent) law is a protection racket.

"Hi, we're the government, Bob has a patent on that widget, so you have to pay him whatever he demands or stop selling them. Oh, you came up with the design independently? Doesn't matter, he filed a patent and paid us our fee. Now step away from your widget-maker or it'll go badly for you."

Protection racket.

Re:Entitled Asshole

[Kethinov]

Or as Simpsons' Lenny would put it: "All we want is brand new, big-budget entertainment in our homes for nothing. Why doesn't Hollywood get that?"

Just because you invested an extraordinary amount of money in something doesn't mean you deserve extraordinary government intervention to guarantee you a return. If new technology undermines your business model, find another business model.

Re:Entitled Asshole

[xenobyte]

As long as we don't have to pay for the same product again and again and again... Today we pay when a movie hits the cinemas, then again when it hits pay-per-view movie channels, then again via advertising when it hits the general networks and then again when the DVD or blu-ray is out so we finally can take it home to view when we please... That's just insane.

It should be possible even at the very first premiere of a movie to decide not to go to the cinema and just take the movie home right away on blu-ray. The waiting (and exclusion) game is exactly what created the piracy culture.

Re: Entitled Asshole

[Karlt1]

Why do you think that you have the right to a movie that another company spent millions of dollars to produce?

And what does patent law have to do with movies?

Re: Entitled Asshole

[Sabriel]

Ah, but I don't think I have the right to such a movie. I just recognise the fact that the particular legislative framework erected to protect their profitability is flawed at a fundamental level, and it continues to empower the dysfunctional sociopolitical environment that originally built that framework, feeding on itself - which is why copyright terms have increased from seven years to more than seventy years. Hellooooo, Mickey.

TLDR? Bad laws empower bad people; that some good was done along the way is no excuse.

And what "patent law have to do with movies" is that they share the same fundamental flaw and a similar origin. We study history that we may avoid repeating it, right?

Re:Entitled Asshole

[SuperDre]

However, the modern crop of Hollywood movies are just not worth the ticket price.

Well, why do you want to watch them anyway?
Everything is becoming more expensive, people want higher wages, the money has to come from some place.. A can of cola is also much more expensive now than it was in the 70's...
If you think a modest 42" TV is better, than you really are going to the wrong movietheaters..

And what is reasonable? some people think 1 dollar is still too much, others think 10 dollars is still too cheap..
Let's not forget those movies costs millions of dollars to make these days (again, people want more wages) and that money has to come from somewhere.. If people keep pirating movies, it'll take longer for the producers to get their investment back..

And as I said, if you think current movies are crap, why watch them anyway, even the bad remakes.. Let's not forget, movies/series are still just luxury products, so if you think it's too expensive, just leave it be and wait until it pops up at some tv-channel near you, where you 'pay' through having to watch ads..

YIFY

[Dunge]

Great idea, too bad YIFY torrents are always very compressed and quality is far from the real scene releases.

Re:YIFY

[SeaFox]

We're talking about a pirating scene that still thinks Xvid/AVI is a great format to use. I bet they play them on their Pentium 4s running Windows XP, too.

Re:YIFY

[Dunge]

Actually movies usually are x264/h264 video with DTS/AC3 audio

Re:YIFY

[SeaFox]

Not sure about "usually".. There are some change, but overall I'd say there's a long way to go.

I wasn't talking about YIFY's encodes specifically. Although anyone who thinks 900 MB for a 720p feature length movie is good is smoking something, even without 5-channel audio.

I'm even seeing two-CD encodes still (movie broken into two 700MB AVI files) with recent films. Ignoring that folks are more likely to be playing right from the PC hard drive or a flash stick, are people still seriously debating the cost difference between a DVD-R and a blank CD?

I know i'm going to get zapped by this but...

[cyberzephyr]

I found out about Popcorn time from Huffington post last week and used it 3 times. It was amazing. If you did not get the chance to see it then, too bad. Netflix sucks by comparison for something that lasted 4 day's.

Now as for legality, I feel something might have been illegal about it (hehe) but i wish it were not. I am totally unashamed about what i did. It truly was something to see.

Re:I know i'm going to get zapped by this but...

[cyberzephyr]

I think so but at the same time it reminds me of "old school" cable where people were buying the Mike Tyson fight and charging for it, i personally saw the Tyson and Holyfield fight (Tyson bit off his ear) and had to pay $20.00 for it and it lasted what? Fifteen seconds? Thank god the $20.00 paid for beer afterward.

That seems to be the problem in my mind, the Companies concerned are not getting a cut of that revenue.

I'm a software developer

[Kartu]

And please, don't mix me into this.
Most money in this area is spent on "tailor made" "for this company only" projects, makes no sense to copy them.

On the other hand we have HTC paying Microsoft for every Android phone they sell because MS managed to patent insane shit like "showing icon in the loading area of the browser".

No, thanks.

Re:Oh stop sugar-coating a turd

[Pseudonym Authority]

So what you want is instant gratification because you are unable to wait patiently for six months. Okay, fair enough.

Re:if they just charged less

[Pseudonym Authority]

You refuse to pay what the asker wants and download it without paying anyway, and somehow the RIAA is the glutton. Riiiiiiight~

Shema Yisrael!

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's a service problem.

No, it is a property problem. Movies are the properties of the studios who created them or licensed them. You have to pay them for using those movies, watch equalling use.

If you don't want to pay, we may as well introduce communism in USA and the rest of the Free World. Communism, where supposedly everything was free as in beer, apparently worked so well. Except there was nothing there that could be called free as in speech, but there was oppression, lack of innovation, general stagnation, rampant alcoholism and ulterior antisemitism among the populace. Because of that, every jew living in the USSR dreamed of being able to emigrate beyond the Iron Curtain, especially to the USA.

Don't forget that Hollywood is run by jewish people to this day. No wonder bittorrent's ace site PirateBay is closely connected to the scandinavian far right political parties, as the online file sharers are the modern day "crystalnacht" looters. The idea that it is not a crime to rob a jew is rearing its ugly head on the net once again.

The only comfort is, movie pirates also download japanese "anime", which is such a wicked, satanist and morally corrupted phenomemon, that its consumers, be them paying or pirates, are certain to destroy themselves via the adopted habits of "hug pillow" masturbation, paranormal beliefs, social isolation and eventual shut-in behaviour which results in a drastically shortened lifespan. Therefore movie pirates soon erase their genes from the global pool, while the jewry is here to stay, with a history of over 5700 years to back them up!

The numbers game.

[westlake]

Commercial software represents about 1% of our economy

and your source for this number is to be found where?

Commercial software is usually tightly integrated into the workflow of a business. The clerical working using MS Office, the architect or engineer running AutoCAD. The contribution of these programs to the economy can't be measured without looking at the productivity of their users and the quality of their work.

The bridge becomes a national landmark, it is structurally sound, completed on time and under budget.

Re:The numbers game.

[David Jao]

Oh good! A substantive response for once. Let's discuss the points you raised.

I admit I made up the 1% figure, but I believe it is a reasonable estimate. Would you like to challenge the accuracy of the number? If anything, I am convinced that closer scrutiny would reveal it to be too high of an estimate. 2013 US GDP was 17 trillion dollars. Microsoft's 2013 revenue was 77 billion dollars, about 0.5% of GDP. Of course, Microsoft is not a pure software company; some portion of that revenue is hardware, services, and so on. There are other software companies, of course. I have never heard anyone reasonably justify a much higher cost than 1%.

It is true that the benefits of commercial software far exceed its costs, but from a public policy perspective that's completely irrelevant. The cost of producing this software is ~1% of the economy. If commercial software did not exist, the government or any public body could (provably) replicate the exact same benefits at the exact same cost. Government support for something on this scale is not a ridiculous idea; it's exactly how most basic research in science is actually done in the US. Hence 1% (or less, if I'm overestimating the cost) is the correct figure to use for policy prescrptions.

Re:The numbers game.

[Imrik]

While I don't disagree with the overall idea, I doubt the government could provide the same benefits without greatly increased costs.

Re:The numbers game.

[drkstr1]

Instead of directly managing and funding research, the government could provide tax breaks for companies who hire programmers that contribute to open source (presumably on projects beneficial to said company). They could also provide funding in the form of grants to orgs that create new and useful software, of which society as a whole benefits from.

Re:Oh stop sugar-coating a turd

[MightyYar]

Of course I want instant gratification - that's the whole point of convenience. The sad fact is that I can get a better product for free than anything I can pay for.

Re:Oh stop sugar-coating a turd

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you want is instant gratification because you are unable to wait patiently for six months. Okay, fair enough.

Let's say that if there would be a TV show set in fantasy mediaval setting with huge plot twists involved and as a viewer I should wait for six months to a year to see the latest episodes and magically somehow avoid all the discussions and memes from the show which are on every-fscking-corner-of-the-internet? Yeah, that works out just fine...