Slashdot Mirror
Piracy 'Warnings' Fail To Boost Box Office Revenues, Research Says (torrentfreak.com)
A new academic study shows that graduated response policies against file-sharers fail to boost box office revenues. From a TorrentFreak report: The empirical research, which looked at the effects in various countries including the United States, suggests that these anti-piracy measures are not as effective as the movie studios had hoped. [...] Thus far there has been very little research on the topic but a new study, published by Dr. Jordi McKenzie of Sydney's Macquarie University, suggests that these "strikes" policies don't boost box office revenues. For his paper, published in the most recent issue of the journal 'Information Economics and Policy,' McKenzie looked at opening week and total box office revenues for 6,083 unique films released between 2005 and 2013. Using a variety of statistical analyses, he then measured the impact of the graduated response systems and related policies in six countries. In addition, another ten countries were included as a control measure. The overall conclusion based on thousands of data points is that these anti-piracy policies have no significant impact on box-office income.
Hollywood is enjoying a streak of box office highs for the past several years.
In short, "piracy" isn't touching their bottom line. If anything, the ability to share these movies and the associated emotions has increased it.
Word of mouth as the best form of advertisement. Who wouldda thunk it?
Preventing people from getting your movies for free does not in fact make them better able to afford your movies, or make it seem more worth it to those who can.
If you are going to the movies. It is often because.
1. You are excited to see it and really do not want to wait for it.
2. You would want to see it in a large screen, quality speakers, perhaps 3d.
3. You want a reason to leave your home, and perhaps with other people.
If you are excited to see the movie. There isn't any real rush to pirate it. This no rush means it may be available at higher quality vs legit streaming channels, or DVD/Blueray rentals (say from RedBox) for a few bucks.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
crosswalks routinely disregarded by pedestrians in a hurry
turn signals almost never used 100 feet from an intersection
dad still refuses to buckle his seatbelt, "that damn plastic liberal conspiracy killed Dale Earnhardt" he insists.
Good people go to bed earlier.
99% of movies has the same schema portrayed in various backdrops & settings, you have a protagonist battling an antagonist over either a princess or a treasure, and that is what movies are, it is the same old shit over & over & over again, it never changes and people are not wanting to spend money to see the same old schema with just different costumes
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
They make people realize they don't care for giving these assholes money, and the warnings are a reminders to simply no go to the movies at all.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
It's because pirates weren't customers to begin with. With out piracy the alternative to 99% of people pirating is just not seeing the movie.
The not so subtle suggestion you think a large portion of your patrons are no good criminals or ignorant boobs that need to be lectured at over and over again does not make them want to cooperate or cause them to embrace your way of thinking?
Wow I am totally shocked! Maybe if they were a little less in your face about it, did not threaten you jail they'd get more buy in. That and they need to stop pushing the obviously false equivalence with physical theft. Only the most radical intellectual property proponents consider that remotely equivalent. They'd find a lot more allies among the general public if they stopped clutching the pearls quite so hard. Many people myself included agree we need some copyright and intellectual property protections. Where we don't and won't agree is that it has to be FOREVER or that we need armed FBI shock troops kicking in doors and shooting peoples dogs because they copied a DVD once. Which I realize does not happen in minor cases like that but you'd sure imagine that it does after watching some of those piracy warnings and propaganda shorts they put in front of movies now.
I don't know about others but the response those things engender in me is, "These guys are nasty bullies, I don't like bullies so I don't care what happens to them, best of luck to pirates." Which is a simplistic, non intellectual response that when I sit down and think about the issues careful I realize isn't really right, but they are making an emotional appeal and so they trigger an emotional reaction; just not the one they want.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
If you think all movies nowadays are for brain-dead people, then you're just too brain-dead to find out what movies are actually playing in theaters.
There are plenty of good movies.
There may be plenty of super hero movies nowadays, but they still make up only a fraction of all movies released.
For every new super hero movie, there is atleast one new movie worth watching.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
If you want me to go to the movie theatre then do two things. Improve the whole theatre experience and make better movies.
I got tired of people talking and using their cell phones during movies. Granted that this really isn't the movie industry's fault as it's people being inconsiderate. We don't need a technological solution such as something to kill the cell signal. Just have it so that the movie studio pays for someone to be in the audience looking out for disruptive people. The usher would then go and have a quiet word with them reminding them to be nice. It works for all cases (people talking, texting, playing a game on the phone, etc) and if someone refuses they can be removed by calling security. (Of course the theatre company would have to have the balls to implement this.). Another thing I hate is the pile of ads and previews that are shown when the movie is supposed to start. I paid to see the movie, not 15 or 20 minutes of ads. (This goes for buying movies and TV shows too, especially the FBI warning on pirating. I've bought the show so don't force me to sit through a message on the evils of pirating every time I put the disc in the player.)
The other reason I don't go to the movies is that there aren't really any movies worth going out to see, or even to download. Hollywoods idea of a great movie is one that has more explosions. I want a great story that makes me think. How about something original?
To me that is the biggest reason not to enter a theater. If a get a phone call I want to pause, if I want to pee I want to pause. And I enjoy my beer which is not served in the vast majority of theaters. Theaters are designed for those who who are willing to follow rules, and the sooner they die the better.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
On the other hand, Piracy warnings seem to have been correlated with a notable increase in interest in Downloadable Cars.
If I could download a car I would.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The thing about Hollywood movies is, more and more I can't even be bothered to watch most of them when they are free, never mind the trouble of going to the theater or wasting bandwidth downloading them...
The theaters have done what they can with things like having theaters that have assigned seats and comfortable roomy chairs. But it doesn't matter how great the room is, if the movie stinks why would I go?
I don't know what it would take for movie studios to start producing interesting and original work again. Maybe they should ask Netflix how it's done...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Specifically, they don't need to wait through that unskippable crap. Only legal customers are actually penalized.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
It has to be something I can't wait to watch, and that only happens about once every 5 years or so.
At home I have a big ass TV, surround sound and I can pause and get up and get a beer from the fridge, and maybe make some more popcorn without missing anything. No queues, assholes on their cellphones or giggling teenagers either. Then there is the cost factor, the last time I went to watch a movie the popcorn and drinks cost more than the movie tickets (and it was a 3D movie). To be honest cost is not that big a deal, I earn more than enough money to absorb it, but I don't like being ripped off. Where I live the streaming available is limited, so I still end up having to pirate, I wouldn't if I didn't have to, but since it's the only way to watch certain things...
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
Purists will be the death of theaters in the end. People want to pause movies when the paused, and have their phones turned on when they want them on. Such simple mundane everyday things irritate those who would dictate others behavior to please their own. The sooner dictatorial theaters die, the better.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
If you go to the theater to see a movie it is because you REALLY want to see it.
No, it's for one of two reasons. It's a movie I want to see ON A BIG SCREEN and/or I'm going to the movie theater because I'm on a date. There are no other reasons. You go to a theater because the can provide an experience I cannot get at home. Theaters provide that - a huge screen and a great sound system at minimum. Often they have other amenities as well. If my only goal was merely to watch the movie then there would never be a reason to go to the theater.
Screaming kids, people getting up and squeezing out through the row of seats, and then back again later, and cell phones, and people talking, and telling their life story, along with narrating the film, people kicking the back of your seat, throwing popcorn . . .
You need to find yourself a better theater mate. None of that describes the experience I've had in any movie theater in recent memory. Once in a while someone gets up - not a big deal. I've never had anyone kick the back of my seat. I can't remember the last time someone talked loud enough for me to care during the movie. Certainly no screaming kids and the few times I've seen little kids get fussy the parents hustled them out quickly enough. I've never seen anyone throwing popcorn. Most people are pretty respectful and are just there to have a good time. You have a vision of theaters that is disconnected from the reality of them.
Since they've broke the record of 11.4 billion in 2016, which beat the record of 11.1 billion in 2015, I think they are doing OK, even not BETTER because of piracy.
Founder of Securityflaw Creator of
Consumers:
Not that interested to see it, even in theater. Too pricey, maybe might watch it on dvd, at friends house. Rather go out for dinner and a beer for 20$.
Free? I guess I'm not doing anything tonight, suppose I'll watch it.
Hollywood version:
OH MAN I WOULD TOTALLY GIVE THEM ALL MY MONEY ALL THE TIME BUT I CAN GET IT FOR FREE SO I WONT BUT IF I CANT GET IT FOR FREE I WILL TOTALLY GIVE THEM ALL MY MONEY ALL THE TIME THEY ARE SUPER AWESOME AND DESERVE ALL MY MONEY.
They bank on people not knowing if the movie is worth paying for in the first place. Like some game developers, they get mad at pirates or first buyers because if the game is shitty, they let people know, instead of suckering you into paying for it first and then it being too bad.
As for video games, pirates are also the biggest spenders on games. Studies have shown that, and it's because they're also their biggest fans, if they enjoy the game, they want to support the developers and have an official copy.
You go to the movie theater for the experience. Now the ticket prices themselves aren't too bad, but they charge 7 fucking dollars for POPCORN.
Your movie profits are being wrecked by greedy cinema's charging too much for "the experience" which typically is popcorn, a drink and the movie. suddenly to watch a movie it's 25-30$ instead of 12-15 which is the ticket itself. A couple / two people? Now it's 50-60$
I'd have way more friend with a friend each buying dinner for 12-15$ and then another 15$ in drinks that night than most movies.
These stupid warnings ended up pissing me off so much I simply stopped buying disks.
For a while I switched to a well know ads-free streaming platform, until they banned VPN.
Since I simply browse the web, read books or play games.
They should not underestimate how much customers despise being interrupted with stupid insulting warnings (or worse : anti-piracy videos)
What genius didn't realise the pirates will not be the ones seeing these annoying messages ?
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
Someday...
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Very much this. For the last few things like "Rogue One", I cannot even bothered to check whether they would be available online. I watched the first 5 minutes of Episode 7 and all it did was annoy me. Same with all other other "AAA" releases I looked at last year. No thanks.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It's true, and it's part and parcel to what I've been saying for years on the subject... I'm totally against piracy, especially when we're talking about entertainment content - I hate the entitlement mentality and the hoops people jump through to justify their violation of the rights of others. People work hard to create even the crappy stuff, and it's not just the artists and directors, but hundreds of other people along the line who put a lot of work into it, and it's morally not YOUR decision to just arbitrarily decide you are somehow entitled to the work of others with no compensation, even if you're not causing the loss of a sale.
However, I've been pointing out for years that the industry grows despite itself. I can mention music, but even just keeping to movies and television, the industry whined that VHS would cause their downfall, but while there was piracy, VHS opened up new revenue streams that gave them access to more money than they ever thought they'd be making - now people can buy their movies in perpetuity (kind of) instead of just a limited run in theaters.... the revenue just keeps coming in from purchases and rentals. They made the same complaint about DVDs and digital, and managed to exploit those mediums as well.
All the while, as the medium made it easier, there was more piracy, and yet the revenues kept growing. My opinion is they should just let it happen, relax, and sit back and collect their money. How much money have they wasted on lawyers and encryption technologies that only hurt the law abiding consumers? Think about it - you buy a bluray or DVD player, and part of the cost (so you are the one paying for it) is the encryption technology and region coding. That's right - the consumer pays for those things when they buy the player, the things that restrict access to content they've legally purchased.
On top of that, every encrypted disc or stream costs royalty money to the companies that created and licensed the technology - so when you buy the content, you're paying a second time. And while we may be using fewer discs these days, every blank disc carries a penalty tax to help cover piracy.
That last one is interesting... because you're being punished for a crime whether you committed one or not. I would suggest double-jeopardy laws should apply - if you bought the blank disc, and are caught with pirated content, then too bad - you've already paid the penalty that accompanies the purchase of each disc. They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You obviously have very low standards. Like most people these days, unfortunately.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Depending on how the things pan out, it might steal sales, or might give sales.
If for example your movie is good, but horribly marketed, pirates may end doing a word of mouth wave that will make at least the dvd sales be good.
Gee, who knew that pirates and file-sharers don't pay attention to the FBI splash screens? Truly a shocking revelation!!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
If someone threatens to take your Internet away, that is a big incentive NOT to go to the movies. Why would you finance the bullies?
Meanwhile, if you forget that they are spying on you and censoring the Internet, then you might go to have the "movies" experience.
And I note that a lot of people here are talking about the warnings in the beginning of the movies, but that's not what the article is talking about:
France was one of the pioneers in this area with its three-strikes anti-piracy law, and similar policies have been implemented in countries such as Ireland, South Korea, New Zealand and the United States, among others.
On the contrary - If you feel that every movie is too bad to watch, either your standards are too high or you just aren't a movie person (in which case, what are you doing here?) Most of us can find something worth watching. If you don't like the blockbusters, there's plenty of indie stuff out there.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Their premise in pushing this propaganda is that people would go to the theater to watch these movies if they didn't or couldn't download them. The problem is that there have been so many horribly disappointing movies the last few years hitting the box office that people are just voting with their dollars ..... Suicide Squad is a perfect example. It was hyped for almost two years, all of the trailers made it look amazing but the final cut was barely
more than a character introduction with nearly none of the joker that people were longing for ...... it doesn't take too many movies like this before
people just throw up their hands and give up.
Also, there is a huge contingent of people that only download movies because they don't actually enjoy going to the theater. Their best play to try
and increase revenues at this point would be to actually put some kind of system in place to see current run movies from home with a simultaneous PPV
release system of some kind. Rather than hurting overall revenues I think this would increase revenues in the end. People that like going and doing the big
screen experience would still go and people that don't would still be putting dollars into the system.
We hate you. Please buy our stuff.
I guess if I was in marketing, that approach might make sense to me?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
It's true, and it's part and parcel to what I've been saying for years on the subject... I'm totally against piracy, especially when we're talking about entertainment content - I hate the entitlement mentality and the hoops people jump through to justify their violation of the rights of others.
I'm not unilaterally against piracy. For a start, the copyright industry cartel has bribed their way into progressivly longer and longer terms. I don't see how that's remotely ethical and I think it's a find choice to pirate something sufficiently old. I cannot abide by the theft from the public domain.
Secondly, I've actually pirated a show I owned on DVD because Sony thought it would be a grand idea to load so much extra DRM on that my DVD player wouldn't play it without visible interruptions. I can't see how I was ethically in the wrong there.
And then there's DRM. I think that's ethically completely bogus, and is simply an attempt to deny users their legal rights and steal from the public domain when the copyright expires. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm not sure it's a wrong. Copyright is an incredibly powerful and restrictive set of laws which are supposed to come with a quid pro quo: someone gets limited exclusive rights for a limited time which gives them an incentive to produce and so the public domain is ultimately enriched. They are essentially stealing the right we're supposed to have and from the public domain (as in theft: once they get it, we no longer have it), so I don't think they have a good claim to have those rights they're supposed to get.
I'd say if anyone's got entitlement, it's the industry.
And then there's the issue of abandoned things: how can having a work be inaccessible to anyone for 90 years benefit anyone? How is copyright justified in that case?
I'm not really much of a pirate at all (of course I've pirated things in the past), and I've spent a substantial amount on completely legetimate media, but with every new restriction, the case against piracy gets weaker.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well, I know the industry might disagree with me, but I don't consider having a copy of something you legally own to be "pirating." I've cracked legally purchased games in the past to get around stupid copy-prevention schemes (like reading codes from a book or code wheel). How can they say you're a pirate when you've paid for it? And I'm not disagreeing that companies are bad guys, here; I'm suggesting that copyright infringement is not justified for your entertainment needs simply because they don't offer it in a format that suits you - you still don't get to decide what they "must" do. You simply get to decide NOT to buy it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
In other news: people who have extra spending money, use it on non-essentials, while those people without extra money skip buying non-essentials.
So they don't even have the decency to pretend that those anti-piracy measures were meant to curb piracy?
bickerdyke
And I'm not disagreeing that companies are bad guys, here; I'm suggesting that copyright infringement is not justified for your entertainment needs simply because they don't offer it in a format that suits you - you still don't get to decide what they "must" do. You simply get to decide NOT to buy it.
There's an argument to be made that if they don't offer it in an appropriate format (i.e. one without DRM), then they've broken their half of the bargain and so are not entitled to the protections of copyright that go along with the responsibilities they're not sticking to.
Copyright is not a natural right, after all.
Personally, I generally don't go and buy the thing: there's more than enough else mostly. But I don't see why they should get protection funded by my hard-earned taxes when they're taking all and giving nothing.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well... can you give the names of movies you think are good?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Because there's no "bargain," there's no "deal" between us and them that they can break - they are offering something, and you are free to take it or leave it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get to violate the law (and their rights) - you can champion to have the law changed all you want, though, and I'll be right there with you. The sticking point here might be DRM - I do not consider it illegal copying if you break the DRM on your legally purchased copy of something, or if you download a copy of something you got legally, but let's not be disingenuous and pretend that's what we're talking about here.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Because there's no "bargain," there's no "deal" between us and them that they can break
Allow me to quote from the US constitution, which outlines the points very succinctly:
You are falling into the trap of believing that it is somehow natural for them to be able to prevent people from sharing ideas. It is not. They are granted those rights by force of law and funded by our taxes, because it's generally considered to be worth the benefit for the restrictions is places on us.
The deal is that they get free, legally enforced terms for their works and don't have to mess with contract signing and subsequent litigation which allows them to easily profit from their works. The reason it's worthwhile is it enriches the public domain.
If they're not doing the latter, then there's not nearly such a good justification for copyright to exist at all. It is unnatural and ethically wrong IMO for ideas to be locked up in perpetiuty.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get to violate the law (and their rights
Spot the guy who dind't read my post to the end.
but let's not be disingenuous and pretend that's what we're talking about here.
If you think I'm being disengenuous, you really didn't read my post.
Let me spell it out again: there is nothing natural about locking up ideas in perpetuity. The current copyright indiustry is attempting to do that. That is IMO worse than pirating their stuff.
Copyright is a two sided thing: vasttly restrictive rights are granted to people and corporations for some supposed benefit. If they remove the benefit, then granting of those rights is unsound.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No, I read to the end - there's still no "bargain" here, none of these companies are violating the rules by "protecting" their IP. If you're not happy with copyright duration, talk to your representative - conscientious objection is not really a justification when it comes to pirating movies and music.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
No, I read to the end - there's still no "bargain"
Um yeah there is. What part of "securing for a limited time" and "to promote the progess of science and the useful arts" is unclear?
none of these companies are violating the rules by "protecting" their IP
I didn't claim they were violating the law. I claimed they were violating the deal.
- conscientious objection is not really a justification when it comes to pirating movies and music.
Spot the person who claims to have read to the end but didn't.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
ignorant boobs
I do not think it means what you think it means.
90 years is a limited time. A very long limit, but still a limit. The founding fathers, on this and many other topics, should have been more clear. While I agree it's far too long, it's not an argument in favor of pirating. Since that's the topic at hand, that's why I make the comments I've been making. You're taking it too personally.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
No you're not understanding still. I was not quoting the constitution as a point of law but as an illustration of why copyright is supposed to be a quid pro quo.
Ok then answer me this: what is the justification for copyright existing in the first place. Why should my taxes go toward bolstering corporate profits?
I claim that stuff pirating things which should be long out of copyright, or for which there is no apparent owner is entirely justified. It's trickier when you get closer to some line, but I don't really see why piracy is less justified than DRM.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It doesn't matter if DRM isn't justifiable unless you want to argue that two wrongs make a right.
I claim that stuff pirating things which should be long out of copyright, or for which there is no apparent owner is entirely justified.
I'm not going to argue with you about that. Look again at the topic of the thread - it's piracy warnings vs. box office revenue - that's movies that are in theaters RIGHT NOW, not the first print of Gone with the Wind. I do think copyright terms are far too long - thank Disney and Sonny Bono for that; I do think they ought to be challenged and made more reasonable, but it's still ultimately just entertainment, and there's a reason I'm limiting my views on this subject to simple entertainment - and recent entertainment. There's never, ever, an excuse to "pirate" "Manos: Hands of Fate." You don't need it; you don't need Star Wars; there's no valid justification for copyright infringement in these cases.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
For a start, the copyright industry cartel has bribed their way into progressivly longer and longer terms. I don't see how that's remotely ethical and I think it's a find choice to pirate something sufficiently old.
As a start, patents, which can be actual physical devices or drugs that make a major change in how we live our day to day lives, which may have taken years of research, have a protection life of 20 years.
Copyright, typically seen in the form of audio and music entertainment, have a term of author dead + 70 years.
WTF? Actual life improving device vs. pure entertainment. I would be happy if copyright was the same term as patent.
Just popped in my first bluray in months, the other night. Took me close to 10 minutes to start the movie after all of the piracy warnings, studio advertisements, ratings advisories, etc. All they're doing is punishing the people who did what they wanted, and encouraging people like me to go back to torrenting.
I haven't pirated music, on the other hand, since they removed the DRM and started selling songs at a reasonable price. It's not worth the effort for music, I'm happy to pay. But it most certainly is for movies.
..until morale improves.
That's more or less the strategy they seem to be using here. Of course what I believe is that there are people who will pay to see a movie, and there are people who won't pay to see a movie, and you're not going to convince, coerce, or otherwise force them to change their minds about not paying. What the MPAA wants to do is change hearts and minds to their way of thinking, but they're using the stick instead of the carrot. Also, they're not acknowledging that there are people who will never have their minds changed regardless of what tactics you use.
"Just" entertainment? You can trivialize anything by putting "Just" before it. Ultimately everything well end and die and nothing will be left except the heat death, so it's all pointless. That's why inserting "Just" before anything is a weak rhetorical trick.
Nonetheless entertainment dates back to before recorded history and spans every single human culture without exception. In fact tho some of oldest records we have are when someone thought to record oral traditions dating from before the invention of writing.
In other words entertainment predates corporate profits and is a much more fundamental part of what it means to be human. But it's interesting that you say "Just entertainment", not oh it's "just money".
Ok now on to the main point: you claim there is no justification for copyright infringement. Ok, but first you must justify the existence of copyright and certainly copyright I it's current incarnation.
I actually agree with you that there isn't much by the way of justification for many people to pirate currently out releases, but you made rather general claims about copyright which I disagree with. I'm not sure I agree with you about Manos, the hands of fate. That's over 50 years since its release now which would put it out of copyright by the laws that existed when it was created. It would be hard therefore to argue that the creators needed stronger incentives then because rather obviously they did not.
And finally, I think that in the case of DRM actually two wrongs do make a right: it's such a fundamental assault that overall there is a net benefit from piracy in that it causes unencumbered copies to exist. Naturally, I'm not referring to say the commercial scale pirates for example who run the DVD presses after hours then sell off the bootlegs cheap. Piracy does cover a huge range of behaviour and I'm not referring to the criminally commercial sort here.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yes, "just" entertainment - clearly not a necessity. And I'm not going to debate it with you - you either believe in IP (I do), or you don't, and if you believe people have the right to their property (I do) then you must believe it's a violation of their rights to take it without their permission, and like any other property we, as a society, protect those rights. You make it out like Disney and Fox and all the huge companies are the only winners here, but copyright protects the little guys, too.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Yes, "just" entertainment - clearly not a necessity.
That's facile. Nothing is a necessity. Property is just stuff---it's clearly not necessary since humans survived just fine without it for millennia. Hell your own life is clearly not a necessity it's just one life out of billion.
In other words sticking "just" in front of something is not an argument---it's a lack of an argument.
And I'm not going to debate it with you - you either believe in IP (I do), or you don't,
You are taking it as essentially axiomatic and beyond debate that things are they currently are are correct, even though they're not remotely consistent worldwide. For example many countries have no freedom of panorama. Would you claim that the US and UK should get with the program and implement that now because the panorama is an IP right and the existence of IP rights is beyond debate?
And that's another problem: you've lumped together everything in IP. IP spans a number of vastly different things, such as copyright, patents and trademarks all with different properties, different benefits and different rules.
Do you think it't reasonable for someone to have patented what was charmingly called e-commerce? It's just shopping and you don't need to buy things over the internet, after all. And that invention is someone's IP and either you believe in IP or you don't.
I'm not even convinced patents should exist at all, frankly.
Trademarks are important, but the rules are broken and subject to vast abuse.
And finally, it's not like piracy is some uniform thing either which is either "wrong" or "right". I can't think of any justification for why piracy of abandoned works should be illegal for example.
And what's more, I can still make all those arguments while consistently holding the view that no it's not reasonable for me go and download 'Frozen' because I can't be arsed to pay.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yes, you can make that argument because your view is consistent with mine, as I've said all along. We're not talking about abandoned works, trademarks, or patents. We're talking about warnings not affecting piracy of new movies.
Stupid sexy Flanders.