It pays to keep people uneducated: it's easier to scare, persuade, and misinform them.
the real scientists are all on Fox News.
I've rewritten my response to this series of quotes three times now.
Scientists on Fox News as a rebuttal to the implication that there are powerful forces trying to scare and misinform the uneducated... just makes my skin crawl.
I have nothing personal against Republicans and conservative independents, although I disagree with them on many issues. Fox News is your enemy, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.
Tom Cruise and the CoC(k) people aren't batshit crazy. They are much more disgusting that bat guana. Batshit crazy is apt for a world class chess player who has gone round the bend. Most politicians who go off the deep end are much more commonplace - they are dogshit crazy!;^)
I think there's probably a direct correlation between an individual's standing in the Church of Scientology and the ratio of evil:batshit-crazy in their hearts.
A thief is a thief is a thief. It cost them something to produce the product you're copying and you're depriving them of the reward for that labor and initial outlay. It's still theft no matter how you justify it.
What a facile viewpoint. There are two ways to define theft, of course. There is the legal definition, and there are definitions based on personal ethics.
The former does not include copyright infringement. It simply doesn't. (well... okay, not in the US - I don't know about other nations' laws) Rail all you want, this fact does not vary (... in the US) based on your loud but ill-informed assertion.
The latter could be based on any number of things, but is ultimately only relevant to the individual who subscribes to that ethic. You may well raise your voice and insist others adopt your set of ethics, but it is entirely unreasonable to expect the world to conform to your personal sense of appropriate behavior. Ultimately, we can only control our own actions within the context of our environment.
I suppose I shouldn't respond to an AC, but I think this is a point worth making.
Even if only 10 people out of the 1 million who pirated would otherwise have purchased the game, the company has still lost money to piracy (about $600). The goal is to quantify that cost accurately, and determine what is acceptable and reasonable. It seems most people on/. are angry that the game execs are being unreasonable with the numbers, yet mistakenly rail against any quantification of them.
Although I am a filthy pirate, I tend to agree with most of your assessment. The problem, to me, is twofold.
First, there is no method to accurately determine how many pirates have also bought the software in question to avoid particularly draconian DRM (Venn diagram!). This happens at least some of the time, and there is no way of which I am aware to quantify that behavior.
Second, there may be an advertising component to piracy. If, picking a number out of my.. hat, one in five copyright infringements result in a purchase, it could easily be argued that loss by piracy is only 80% of a fair and accurate infringement estimate. And the vendor estimates are always and without deviation inflated. I can imagine a situation where piracy results in net sales increase, a la Stardock, but I assume these are outliers and not the general rule for software. Perhaps it is closer to true for certain kinds of music, but that is supposition. Of course the other side of that conjecture is that a sale gained through piracy could become a customer gained through piracy, which is worth a great deal more to a business than a single sale, and would tip the balance further towards a net gain.
Anyway, I personally rail against suspect quantification which does not account for all factors. I am strongly in favor of accurate estimated quantification - because no number will truly be accurate, of course. I would love to see an organization offering an accurate estimate to businesses, but it would be corrupt before it opened its doors, so I suppose that's just the criminally optimistic side of me.
Any of which may be relevant if this was in the UK, but this was in the US.
What are you talking about? Sex offenders are branded for life in the US. They "can" live where they want to, but with the registry etc they can easily be bullied out of neighborhoods, which becomes de facto restricted living.
Not that I support pedophiles (the fact I feel I have to say that makes me sad), but I'm deeply concerned about how easily people changed criminal punishment. A law against pedophiles can creep into a law criminalizing many kinds of sexual expression that are not harmful (easy example is 16 year old and an 18 year old).
This is totally non sequiter. Move along, nothing to see here.
I would be very interested in hearing what suggestions you have for Arizona to 'deal with immigration'. You obviously don't like the law they passed. What the Feds have been doing ain't getting the job done. So really, I'm open suggestions.
This conversation isn't about brainstorming for a solution, it's about identifying this particular solution as bad. Realistically, the only ways that I see to properly enforce immigration law are not themselves legal. I don't pretend to have the solution, but without a fundamental change to copyright laws, it really is a stalemate.
Wait, what did I say? Immigration laws. I meant immigration laws.
I'm sorry, are you saying that these people are harmful and dangerous because they disagree with you on various policy issues? And have the gall to actively participate in our democratic process to try and implement policies that they believe are best for our society?
No, I'm saying that people are harmful or dangerous when they try to force others, through legislation, to engage in practices that are harmful to the advancement of the education and health of our citizens. I'm not going to waste time detailing them, as I have responded elsewhere with my views.
I suspect you would cite it as proof of their "lunacy" if they accused you of "being dangerous b/c you are actively trying to undermine society's values by, i.e. legalizing gay marriage". And yet your rhetoric sounds pretty much the same to me.
It may sound the same to you, but you are mistaken.
Since you bring it up, gay marriage is an excellent example. It has zero effect on non-gay families. It seems to make some people feel their personal commitments are harmed by someone else's, but that is purely a self-imposed harm.
Refusing to acknowledge two people's commitment to each other on moral grounds, when marriage can be entered into by any man and woman at a whim and with zero intent of commitment, is plainly a logical fallacy. This isn't a subjective topic.
But you have to add "Some" to the beginning of that sentence. Fundies are all around you. They're in places you don't expect.
As with any generalization, my remarks could never apply to every member of a community. I tend to assume people understand that, as a basic truth, but I wanted to state it explicitly here. Sorry for the confusion.
In other churches, and I have real experience with this, they vote for reasonable things and have a genuinely intelligent world-view.
I can only speak for my own experience, although I concede that my exposure to fundamentalism is purely through those outspoken enough to have their voices heard. If there is an individual who holds fundamentalist beliefs but does not try to impose those beliefs on others, I have no quarrel. My experience indicates there are vastly fewer of this type of fundamentalist.
Aiming at fundamentalism and not education and culture is treating the cough, not the lung infection.
This is certainly true, but we still get lozenges or anaesthetic for our throats as part of treatment. There is a growing culture of ignorance perpetuated largely by (what appears to be) christian fundamentalist populations. It isn't treating one or the other, they are the same.
It doesn't have to mean a baby-killer. There are plenty of very nice fundamentalists in the world.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. I certainly acknowledge that all fundies aren't baby-killers of course; however Christian fundamentalists are actively harmful to any meaningful discussion in the US surrounding issues such as education, contraception, church/state separation, sexuality, and probably a host of others which escape me at the moment.
They may be very "nice" people, but that doesn't absolve them of being dangerous. Killing babies and blowing up buildings are the least insidious forms of harm.
I'm a practicing Muslim ("fundamentalist" if you prefer) but most Muslims and Islamic scholars do not espouse the RevolutionMuslim kind of ideology.
The statements by RevolutionMuslim are mostly for intimidation purposes and will most likely have no bearings in reality.
I know many devout Christians who would be deeply offended to be called fundamentalists. I know a few hyper-devout Christians who are self-described fundamentalists.
My only point is, please don't start calling yourself a fundamentalist if you aren't. Those people are deranged and dangerous. There are plenty of people towards the center of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian belief system who are firm believers and practitioners that are not "fundamentalists".
Of course, I think you're all a little crazy for being Theists, but at least you guys are *actively* trying to hurt people. (I kid, I kid...)
Before the current conflict in Iraq...brainwashed by Western media...
This is the part where you are supposed to provide informative links to support your contention, and set us all free of this indoctrinated delusion perpetrated by Western media that the shia/sunni conflict started prior to 2003.
Art has a deeper meaning than what it directly presents. Art uses its medium to make a subtler point that is separate from the medium.
I often have the conversation with a friend, an abstract sculptor and painter, about What Art Is. Some artists do not have a "deeper meaning", they are simply making art for art's sake - an aesthetic pulled from purpose for the sake of the pleasure of seeing it. So then What Is Art?
We generally end up back at the conclusion that the only reasonable definition of art is its impact on the viewer. Taking that perspective to the extreme, there is no such thing as "bad art", because the viewer just discounts as art that which does not move him. Some might even view a sunset as art, drawn by a divine being. Bearing that in mind, it is patently absurd that games could never be an artistic form of expression.
I believe this decision rests with the viewer. I suppose the viewer could choose to see something as "bad art", rather than "not art". It seems to me that such a viewer is choosing to put someone else's definition of art before his own, though - and I don't believe that is reasonable. Still, if that is his choice, then it is bad art for him - and therefore it is bad art in at least one instance, and so it can be called bad art. (So I lied, there is bad art, but it exists only as a result of poor self-worth.)
Ultimately, though, What Art Is seems as useful as a debate over Does God Exist. You buy it or you don't, but such conclusions are drawn from personal experience and reflection, not debate.
Seriously? Is people who think like this a large enough fraction of their market base that they actually feel like they have to appease them?
The only reason to defend sexting is if you like child pornography. You aren't a... pedophile... are you?
I mean, think of the children.
The children know that Freedom is what we believe in our hearts to be morally right! And we here in America love our freedom, no matter what some experts would like us to believe! After all, 9/11 happened because they hated our Freedom, so anyone that can't think of the children might as well be terrorists. It's about Family Values.
Family, Faith and Freedom are what separate us and make us the greatest nation in the world!
If she was creeped out with the picture I could see where they were coming from, but she wasn't.
The puritans strike again!
EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY.
T.H. White knew it. People who cannot accept pluralism will always despise that which is Other. The only cure is exposure to different cultures early and often. Exposure in an engaging way - not just the Museum of Tolerance method.
Vast portions of the population of the United States of America are huddled clumps of self-confirming societies. Anything that contradicts whatever crazy thing they decide to believe becomes criminal, and everything else is required to be part of the society. It is the source of the culture of ignorance, and unchecked it will become the impetus for the next Dark Age.
Or, you know... Asia will take the lead and drive the world forward into the 22nd century. That's where my money would be if I lived another 100 years to see.
According to this map, if you live in any of the states with a ratio that is greater than 1.0 then.... YOU'RE WELCOME. There are 18 states that spend less in Federal money than they pay out. Using my advanced degree in subtraction, that leaves 6 states which are "spending more than their fair share". No wait, that's 32. Sorry, it was an honorary degree.
So all you gits in Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, North Carolina, Vermont, Iowa, Nebraska, !Wyoming!, Kansas, Arizona, Idaho, Tennessee, Maryland, Missouri, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Maine, Hawaii, Montana, Kentucky, Virginia, South Dakota, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, and New Mexico can just please shut the hell up.
Now, of course, if you live in one of the 18 that are contributing more, as I am, thank you. I say thank you, because you are contributing to the national well-being of this country, and therefore I benefit *even though I too am paying out more than "I" receive*!
If you feel that you are being treated unfairly, then I suggest you stop paying Federal income tax. Instead, calculate your "share" of any Federal resources you consume over the course of the year and pay that instead. I would be very surprised if that was less money than your income tax.
Tough? Sure is, but, well, no-one said that actually standing up for your principles is easy.
Avoiding offending content is not standing up for the principles in question. Standing up would be getting large numbers of people to widely advertise their intention to infringe, then to do it and choke the prisons. It will come to this, but we aren't there yet. Everyone's preoccupied with religious extremists and the financial crisis, and sausage-making on Capitol Hill.
I think it's very sad. By the time enough people know what they're losing, there will be very little they can do about it.
There are losses and there are gains, both have been demonstrated, and no one knows which outweighs the other. There are absolutely losses, as you suggest. But there may or may not be net losses.
completely boycott them, in all forms, legal or not, for a certain period of time. Say, a year.
Okay, I can see that being an interesting challenge. Now one for you (and anyone else that cares to try). Try avoiding TV/film advertising for one month. No ads. No muted TV, no channel surfing. If you watch Hulu, block the ads. If it's not on Hulu torrent it. Put your TV in the corner and use it for CSPAN and PBS.
After you get over the withdrawal (I mean - literally. Try it.) you will look back and wonder how you lived with all that noise. It's like Harrison Bergeron.
I'm not saying people should be pirating, but I am saying that consuming media "as is" causes us direct harm in measurable ways.
What about the costs of producing the movie? Actors, writers, directors? And even if you think those people are overpaid, what about cameramen, editors, set designers, etc?
Those costs are incurred for the first copy. The rest are trivially cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
It pays to keep people uneducated: it's easier to scare, persuade, and misinform them.
the real scientists are all on Fox News.
I've rewritten my response to this series of quotes three times now.
Scientists on Fox News as a rebuttal to the implication that there are powerful forces trying to scare and misinform the uneducated... just makes my skin crawl.
I have nothing personal against Republicans and conservative independents, although I disagree with them on many issues. Fox News is your enemy, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.
Tom Cruise and the CoC(k) people aren't batshit crazy. They are much more disgusting that bat guana. Batshit crazy is apt for a world class chess player who has gone round the bend. Most politicians who go off the deep end are much more commonplace - they are dogshit crazy! ;^)
I think there's probably a direct correlation between an individual's standing in the Church of Scientology and the ratio of evil:batshit-crazy in their hearts.
A thief is a thief is a thief. It cost them something to produce the product you're copying and you're depriving them of the reward for that labor and initial outlay. It's still theft no matter how you justify it.
What a facile viewpoint. There are two ways to define theft, of course. There is the legal definition, and there are definitions based on personal ethics.
The former does not include copyright infringement. It simply doesn't. (well... okay, not in the US - I don't know about other nations' laws) Rail all you want, this fact does not vary (... in the US) based on your loud but ill-informed assertion.
The latter could be based on any number of things, but is ultimately only relevant to the individual who subscribes to that ethic. You may well raise your voice and insist others adopt your set of ethics, but it is entirely unreasonable to expect the world to conform to your personal sense of appropriate behavior. Ultimately, we can only control our own actions within the context of our environment.
I suppose I shouldn't respond to an AC, but I think this is a point worth making.
Even if only 10 people out of the 1 million who pirated would otherwise have purchased the game, the company has still lost money to piracy (about $600). The goal is to quantify that cost accurately, and determine what is acceptable and reasonable. It seems most people on /. are angry that the game execs are being unreasonable with the numbers, yet mistakenly rail against any quantification of them.
Although I am a filthy pirate, I tend to agree with most of your assessment. The problem, to me, is twofold.
First, there is no method to accurately determine how many pirates have also bought the software in question to avoid particularly draconian DRM (Venn diagram!). This happens at least some of the time, and there is no way of which I am aware to quantify that behavior.
Second, there may be an advertising component to piracy. If, picking a number out of my.. hat, one in five copyright infringements result in a purchase, it could easily be argued that loss by piracy is only 80% of a fair and accurate infringement estimate. And the vendor estimates are always and without deviation inflated. I can imagine a situation where piracy results in net sales increase, a la Stardock, but I assume these are outliers and not the general rule for software. Perhaps it is closer to true for certain kinds of music, but that is supposition. Of course the other side of that conjecture is that a sale gained through piracy could become a customer gained through piracy, which is worth a great deal more to a business than a single sale, and would tip the balance further towards a net gain.
Anyway, I personally rail against suspect quantification which does not account for all factors. I am strongly in favor of accurate estimated quantification - because no number will truly be accurate, of course. I would love to see an organization offering an accurate estimate to businesses, but it would be corrupt before it opened its doors, so I suppose that's just the criminally optimistic side of me.
I think the only regret I've had since I quit watching TV is that I have no idea what's going on in Lost anymore.
I still watch Lost, but I have to admit I have the same regret.
Any of which may be relevant if this was in the UK, but this was in the US.
What are you talking about? Sex offenders are branded for life in the US. They "can" live where they want to, but with the registry etc they can easily be bullied out of neighborhoods, which becomes de facto restricted living.
Not that I support pedophiles (the fact I feel I have to say that makes me sad), but I'm deeply concerned about how easily people changed criminal punishment. A law against pedophiles can creep into a law criminalizing many kinds of sexual expression that are not harmful (easy example is 16 year old and an 18 year old).
This is totally non sequiter. Move along, nothing to see here.
I would be very interested in hearing what suggestions you have for Arizona to 'deal with immigration'. You obviously don't like the law they passed. What the Feds have been doing ain't getting the job done. So really, I'm open suggestions.
This conversation isn't about brainstorming for a solution, it's about identifying this particular solution as bad. Realistically, the only ways that I see to properly enforce immigration law are not themselves legal. I don't pretend to have the solution, but without a fundamental change to copyright laws, it really is a stalemate.
Wait, what did I say? Immigration laws. I meant immigration laws.
I'm sorry, are you saying that these people are harmful and dangerous because they disagree with you on various policy issues? And have the gall to actively participate in our democratic process to try and implement policies that they believe are best for our society?
No, I'm saying that people are harmful or dangerous when they try to force others, through legislation, to engage in practices that are harmful to the advancement of the education and health of our citizens. I'm not going to waste time detailing them, as I have responded elsewhere with my views.
I suspect you would cite it as proof of their "lunacy" if they accused you of "being dangerous b/c you are actively trying to undermine society's values by, i.e. legalizing gay marriage". And yet your rhetoric sounds pretty much the same to me.
It may sound the same to you, but you are mistaken.
Since you bring it up, gay marriage is an excellent example. It has zero effect on non-gay families. It seems to make some people feel their personal commitments are harmed by someone else's, but that is purely a self-imposed harm.
Refusing to acknowledge two people's commitment to each other on moral grounds, when marriage can be entered into by any man and woman at a whim and with zero intent of commitment, is plainly a logical fallacy. This isn't a subjective topic.
But you have to add "Some" to the beginning of that sentence. Fundies are all around you. They're in places you don't expect.
As with any generalization, my remarks could never apply to every member of a community. I tend to assume people understand that, as a basic truth, but I wanted to state it explicitly here. Sorry for the confusion.
In other churches, and I have real experience with this, they vote for reasonable things and have a genuinely intelligent world-view.
I can only speak for my own experience, although I concede that my exposure to fundamentalism is purely through those outspoken enough to have their voices heard. If there is an individual who holds fundamentalist beliefs but does not try to impose those beliefs on others, I have no quarrel. My experience indicates there are vastly fewer of this type of fundamentalist.
Aiming at fundamentalism and not education and culture is treating the cough, not the lung infection.
This is certainly true, but we still get lozenges or anaesthetic for our throats as part of treatment. There is a growing culture of ignorance perpetuated largely by (what appears to be) christian fundamentalist populations. It isn't treating one or the other, they are the same.
Thank you for your thoughtful remarks.
It doesn't have to mean a baby-killer. There are plenty of very nice fundamentalists in the world.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. I certainly acknowledge that all fundies aren't baby-killers of course; however Christian fundamentalists are actively harmful to any meaningful discussion in the US surrounding issues such as education, contraception, church/state separation, sexuality, and probably a host of others which escape me at the moment.
They may be very "nice" people, but that doesn't absolve them of being dangerous. Killing babies and blowing up buildings are the least insidious forms of harm.
I'm a practicing Muslim ("fundamentalist" if you prefer) but most Muslims and Islamic scholars do not espouse the RevolutionMuslim kind of ideology.
The statements by RevolutionMuslim are mostly for intimidation purposes and will most likely have no bearings in reality.
I know many devout Christians who would be deeply offended to be called fundamentalists. I know a few hyper-devout Christians who are self-described fundamentalists.
My only point is, please don't start calling yourself a fundamentalist if you aren't. Those people are deranged and dangerous. There are plenty of people towards the center of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian belief system who are firm believers and practitioners that are not "fundamentalists".
Of course, I think you're all a little crazy for being Theists, but at least you guys are *actively* trying to hurt people. (I kid, I kid...)
>.>
.
None of them is as stupid as all of them.
Before the current conflict in Iraq...brainwashed by Western media...
This is the part where you are supposed to provide informative links to support your contention, and set us all free of this indoctrinated delusion perpetrated by Western media that the shia/sunni conflict started prior to 2003.
Proceed.
Art has a deeper meaning than what it directly presents. Art uses its medium to make a subtler point that is separate from the medium.
I often have the conversation with a friend, an abstract sculptor and painter, about What Art Is. Some artists do not have a "deeper meaning", they are simply making art for art's sake - an aesthetic pulled from purpose for the sake of the pleasure of seeing it. So then What Is Art?
We generally end up back at the conclusion that the only reasonable definition of art is its impact on the viewer. Taking that perspective to the extreme, there is no such thing as "bad art", because the viewer just discounts as art that which does not move him. Some might even view a sunset as art, drawn by a divine being. Bearing that in mind, it is patently absurd that games could never be an artistic form of expression.
I believe this decision rests with the viewer. I suppose the viewer could choose to see something as "bad art", rather than "not art". It seems to me that such a viewer is choosing to put someone else's definition of art before his own, though - and I don't believe that is reasonable. Still, if that is his choice, then it is bad art for him - and therefore it is bad art in at least one instance, and so it can be called bad art. (So I lied, there is bad art, but it exists only as a result of poor self-worth.)
Ultimately, though, What Art Is seems as useful as a debate over Does God Exist. You buy it or you don't, but such conclusions are drawn from personal experience and reflection, not debate.
Now that monopoly is gone, but you behave like it's still there.
Really, though, it is.
Note, that article is two years old.
It would be easier to tell it's a parody if it actually contained some humor instead of mean spirited ranting.
It would be harder to do a parody if it weren't for humorous mean-spirited ranting.
Seriously? Is people who think like this a large enough fraction of their market base that they actually feel like they have to appease them?
The only reason to defend sexting is if you like child pornography. You aren't a ... pedophile... are you?
I mean, think of the children.
The children know that Freedom is what we believe in our hearts to be morally right! And we here in America love our freedom, no matter what some experts would like us to believe! After all, 9/11 happened because they hated our Freedom, so anyone that can't think of the children might as well be terrorists. It's about Family Values.
Family, Faith and Freedom are what separate us and make us the greatest nation in the world!
God Bless America.
If she was creeped out with the picture I could see where they were coming from, but she wasn't.
The puritans strike again!
EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY.
T.H. White knew it. People who cannot accept pluralism will always despise that which is Other. The only cure is exposure to different cultures early and often. Exposure in an engaging way - not just the Museum of Tolerance method.
Vast portions of the population of the United States of America are huddled clumps of self-confirming societies. Anything that contradicts whatever crazy thing they decide to believe becomes criminal, and everything else is required to be part of the society. It is the source of the culture of ignorance, and unchecked it will become the impetus for the next Dark Age.
Or, you know... Asia will take the lead and drive the world forward into the 22nd century. That's where my money would be if I lived another 100 years to see.
Or maybe Oliver Wendall Jones?
You must be old here.
Statistically they've all moved on with life and found women.
Quite right. I'm gay, so I'm still around.
Very sorry to reply to a troll, but "The End of Days" seems to be talking a lot, and so here seems as good a place as any to reply.
http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/
According to this map, if you live in any of the states with a ratio that is greater than 1.0 then.... YOU'RE WELCOME. There are 18 states that spend less in Federal money than they pay out. Using my advanced degree in subtraction, that leaves 6 states which are "spending more than their fair share". No wait, that's 32. Sorry, it was an honorary degree.
So all you gits in Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, North Carolina, Vermont, Iowa, Nebraska, !Wyoming!, Kansas, Arizona, Idaho, Tennessee, Maryland, Missouri, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Maine, Hawaii, Montana, Kentucky, Virginia, South Dakota, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, and New Mexico can just please shut the hell up.
Now, of course, if you live in one of the 18 that are contributing more, as I am, thank you. I say thank you, because you are contributing to the national well-being of this country, and therefore I benefit *even though I too am paying out more than "I" receive*!
If you feel that you are being treated unfairly, then I suggest you stop paying Federal income tax. Instead, calculate your "share" of any Federal resources you consume over the course of the year and pay that instead. I would be very surprised if that was less money than your income tax.
See you in January 2011.
Tough? Sure is, but, well, no-one said that actually standing up for your principles is easy.
Avoiding offending content is not standing up for the principles in question. Standing up would be getting large numbers of people to widely advertise their intention to infringe, then to do it and choke the prisons. It will come to this, but we aren't there yet. Everyone's preoccupied with religious extremists and the financial crisis, and sausage-making on Capitol Hill.
I think it's very sad. By the time enough people know what they're losing, there will be very little they can do about it.
There are losses and there are gains, both have been demonstrated, and no one knows which outweighs the other. There are absolutely losses, as you suggest. But there may or may not be net losses.
Also, my hat is a crab, your argument is invalid.
completely boycott them, in all forms, legal or not, for a certain period of time. Say, a year.
Okay, I can see that being an interesting challenge. Now one for you (and anyone else that cares to try). Try avoiding TV/film advertising for one month. No ads. No muted TV, no channel surfing. If you watch Hulu, block the ads. If it's not on Hulu torrent it. Put your TV in the corner and use it for CSPAN and PBS.
After you get over the withdrawal (I mean - literally. Try it.) you will look back and wonder how you lived with all that noise. It's like Harrison Bergeron.
I'm not saying people should be pirating, but I am saying that consuming media "as is" causes us direct harm in measurable ways.
What about the costs of producing the movie? Actors, writers, directors? And even if you think those people are overpaid, what about cameramen, editors, set designers, etc?
Those costs are incurred for the first copy. The rest are trivially cheap.