Do you plan on publishing your quirks and qualms to help others get to use and improve Linux? When (if) you do so, do you plan on giving some sort of guidelines indicating to whom you believe Linux to be a good solution? (With your reasons listed)
Yes, perpetual drugs are easier to create. Not necessarily easier to manufacture, but easier to create, and significantly less expensive to research. But the rewards are also much greater and as such the incentives for a cure decreases, given perpetual income.
Take insulin for diabetics. It's a billion dollar worldwide industry. Will it go away? Probably not in the current economic model. Is there a cure? Likely, but whoever created the cure was likely killed, or his rights to it were bought and boxed.
A: Yes. It's the law. You may choose to not follow it and that's ok. Just as long as you're willing to suffer the ramifications. If you don't agree with the law, lobby your Congressman and ask to have it changed. Untill then, shut up and sit down.
Foremost, I don't have a congressman, although I have lobbied several congressmen, senators, presidents, priests, kings, and almighty rulers about many things. For everything I might lobby for as a person, there is a hired employee of a company lobbying against me, with dedicated tasks as a full time day job, compared to my part time excursions into the politic.
Secondly, making it law doesn't make it right. In fact, in Canada, if a law undermines intelligence, morality, the UDHR, it is of null and void effect.
They are ALL MADE TO RECOUP THE MONEY SPENT! And with a little luck make a little money to compensate the risk taken in making it in the first place. Under current IP law, thay have the right to recoup there investment in a fair marketplace.
I've noticed a trend between big spending movies, and bad movies. They are all too often one and the same. Money invested has no bearing in real value. Compare Windows with Linux. Prefer Windows, would you? But no, this isn't about Linux, or free speech, or free beer, or freedom of expression, or rights of individuals, or the rights of companies to make money. I say it is about the segregation of the rich and the poor.
But I won't argue that any more. Some people see it, some people don't.
And as an art form, people who truely admire works of art, admire the works of art created by those who are proud of their creations, who enjoy their work. People recognize and adomnish the money makers.
Your proposed bargaining position is akin to that of a ransomer. Whether you choose to ransom people, goods, or IP is irrelevant. Ethically, you are not bargaining from a position of good faith. Certainly, from a practical perspective, an anonymous ransomer has a strong position, but certainly the position is not ethical.
But isn't a distributor in a position of ransom when they say I can only view their media if and only if I pay the price they demand? I obviously have some value attached to the product, but what if my values do not extend to the price that it is being offered for. Some would say that I should forsake this entirely.
Positive: I should be given the option to bargain. I have the "ace" in that I can copy a movie that is not fairly bargained. That encourages fair bargaining on their part, but leaves the onus on me to attend to the morality of the bargain. Not good.
Normative: If I like a movie and do not want to pay the given predetermined highest margin by the distributor, I have the option to copy it. This (according to other posts) does not decrease the price of the movie. Thus, despite the fact that my monetary reward does not go to the distributor, indicative of my distaste with current prices, the prices do not change.
The prices of bad movies do go down, I've noticed. Mostly due to lack of demand. But the price of good movies remain stagnant, largely.
There is a difference between goods and IP, in that the distribution of IP is generally a good thing. Take education, libraries, engineering designs, photographs, etc., that enshrine our world with (relatively) good things. Would not the distribution of free entertainment benefit everyone? Without equal distribution, we provide artificial, albeit generally temporal, segregation. Equal treatment, or equal rights. Egalitarian or equalitarian. Do I have the right to see a movie, despite not being able to afford it? I have equal access to knowledge. I can use that knowledge to make money. What if I don't have the capacity to reap the benefits of knowledge. Am I to be segregated, and not able to see the movie? Normative: yes.
Cultural standards would indicate that entertainment is exempt from the free distribution of beneficial IP. Because someone can make money off of it. I'm not so sure this is a good thing.
Or have you actually used this argument to convince a rational, educated adult of your viewpoint who didn't already agree with you?
Well, it's more difficult than fist anticipated to get the full extent of my position across, thoroughly and accurately, via Slashdot. But yes, I've sat down with a think tank and brought this issue up, and our conclusions have been posted. That's not to say that it was ubiquitous opinion; all posted alternative viewpoints were mentioned in discussion, but we found sufficient ground to support the position I gave. When it comes down to it, the precise answer you gave was the better solution to the norm:
The way these help liberate people is because they can be their own distributors, not so you can distribute their wares without their permission. Big difference.
The distribution model, and moral obligations of the consumer, are far better when there is no mass distributer with alterior incentives, such as shareholders. Not to say that this is the best solution; there are ramifications to direct distribution, but it does not generally fall into the category of industrial-sized problems. The key is in individual freedoms, consumer and producer wise, putting the distributor aside.
Direct distribution models also promote community, and are somewhat buffered against many immoral interpretations by virtue of community. But then, morality is contextual, cultural generally, and there are issues therein that I won't get into.
As for monopolies on music and movie distribution, they exist, especially in terms of actors who sign with a particular company, and thereafter they are monopolized by that company.
I'm sorry that when I mentioned the fact that, people have been given the personal technology to avoid paying for things that are overpriced , I failed to mention the implications and potentials available to the producers of music and movies and want not. You could have made your statements without disagreeing with me. Mine was a normative statement (what is), yours is positive statement (what should be), mixing them does not work well, except in elegant solutions where they agree.
lol. I'm quite a jolly fellow, usually, but I do have a serious bone to pick with some people, yes. In this particular case, I've a bone to pick with bad movies that make a lot of money and people who defend those people on the grounds that's life, or more precisely, that's capitalism. I believe that if the Hollywood blockbuster wasn't guaranteed money, then more effort would be put into making good movies, rather than blockbusters.
Copyright infringement is one way to not reward those making movies. But, then, people only really copy good movies. On the other hand, there are movies for which I'm not willing to pay for, but I am willing to watch. It's a fine line to draw. I believe that if I want to watch a movie, I don't think someone really has the right to keep me from watching one, or copying it. But the authors should also be rewarded for their work. But if it's in the grey area where I'm not willing to pay, but am still willing to watch, can the producer justify keeping it from me, wherein his forwards have been for nothing if I don't get to watch it. Catch 22. Muddy, yes. Valid, maybe.
After a certain point, when I have "enough" money, I plan on giving the rest to charitable causes. In my (humble but loud) opinion, one should not be able to live off the interest of their own money -- I think people have some obligation to contribute positively to society. It's difficult to describe "too much" money; I see your clausal resolution: 1) a lot of money is the point at which it is immoral 2) I expect to have a sufficient amount of money 3) one cannot draw the conclusion that I would have an immoral amount of money; there is richness in giving, more than richness in having, money aside. So it doesn't follow precisely.
When I think about multimillionaire producers risking millions on a movie production, I try to keep in mind that this is just like me buying a car, at one extreme, me buying different fancy of ice cream at another extreme, in relative terms of value.
There isn't as much comparison between the actions of the dictators and the exploitation of people by producers, so much as there is the same mentality. When you cannot be punished you tend not to care. This applies to those that commit copyright infringment as well, but the difference is that copyright infringement deprives the producer of the material of monetary awards. Taking money from multitudes, dumb enough to pay for it or not, and providing them a disservice by misleading them through hyped advertisements, or just overpricing art for the sake of profit, has some issues, as well.
I'm glad that you responded casually, becoming more sensible than the prior response to that. Most debates start off the other way, regressing into asshole and loser namecalling.;) In turn, I retract "asshole" -- I'm glad you followed up. Between almost every argument, there's middle ground. Usually grey ground, though, and often external to the initial statements. The area I'm arguing is gray in itself -- the arguments are not clear cut because there is no model to reflect it, and we balance the rights of the individuals, rights of the movie maker, abilities of individuals, morality of the individuals, morality of the profiteers, and the color of brown mud.
Being positivist, I'd be inclined to argue towards what will be, rationalizing or not, and attempt to not only justify what will be, but find some solutions to the problems that are inherent with that. Most of the arguments I've seen have been along the lines of "you're wrong.", not looking at what will be, and how we will deal with it. A lot of the traditionalists stagnate the argument with issues of "what is" and "deserves in our current model". Society is pushing technology into the hands of people, and technology is providing people with choice, and in turn choice takes power away from the people I like least.:)
What's to stop me, with that kind of logic, from deciding that every entertainment I want is overpriced?
The ratios I used were the intuitive threshold, for me, that would decide whether or not I would pay for something. Skew the ratio, it being subjective and all, and every entertainment form could be overpriced. But reasonable people keep this ratio in check.
Translation: "I don't have a lot of money, don't expect to ever have a lot of money, and feel a deep resentment at people who do, and who thus expose my deep feelings of avarice and inadequacy."
How do you suppose that? You have no gauge of my financial situation, and if you want to kid yourself that someone who sticks up for poor people must themselves be poor, you're quite distraught. My reasons for defending the rights of individuals is that I've worked with the Red Cross and Amnesty International, refugees of Yugoslavia and Kosovo and Ukraine and Nigeria, and have come to the conclusion that centralizing perpetual greed fundamentally wrongs people.
I grew up in a poor town in the poorest province in Canada (Newfoundland), and have spent my whole life dealing with people who are unable to defend their rights against capitalism and centralized governments. My father was a doctor, and I grew up being one of the select few well off in the community from which I came.
My monetary stability is quite secure, and I'm quite certain that it'll get even better with age and experience, but that does not change my arguments. They are universal, attacking a problem. You have attacked me, obviously without knowing anything true, based on assumptions, leading me to believe that you are a genuine asshole.
There seem to be two arguments of anticapitalism here. The most prominent is the copyright infringement inherent to various forms of duplication where the author is not paid. The other is the strict monopolization by distributors who overcharge to make profits. Both of these are fundamentally wrong, and by way of MP3's and digital movies, the people have been given the personal technology to avoid paying for things that are overpriced.
ie. With 2,000% profit per CD in a single one-hit wonder CD, the incentive to compete does not exist, mostly because the recording industry has not only a monopoly on the distribution of music, but on the productions of the artists themselves. Why support SDMI? Because it will reduce copyright infringement? No -- because it can be used to scare artists into believing it's necessity, wherein the recording industry can sign off the artist's rights.
On the flip side, at $20 a CD, the incentive to purchase that CD is lowered due to the ratio comparing the amount of money I have to the amount of money it costs, in comparison to the prospective entertainment value of that particular CD. Thus allowing morally justifiable (not necessarily legally justifiable) copyright infringement when the cost of the CD takes a large percentage of my money for a low prospective entertainment value, in comparison to the ratio profit over cost of the CD produced.
(ps. the number of people defending monopolies here is really creepy!:))
A) Get your widgets! $20 B) $2 A) $20. B) $10. A) $20. B) Forget it, I have options. I'll not listen to it or I'll go copy it. At least when I copy it, I do get to know the artist and if I really enjoy it will likely subsequently buy further articles, and I get the enjoyment of actually getting the entertainment. Both sides benefit, to a certain degree. Not monetarily, perhaps. But money isn't everything.
And you're quite correct about the voluntary payment. That model has been proven to hardly ever work, but then, one might argue that it's never been implemented properly, either.:)
And unless you feel like putting those theatres out of business (which pirating movies certainly would do) it's a risk you'll just have to take. Read a movie review, for crying out loud. A lot of the reviewers are idiots, but there are a few good ones out there.
When I go to the theatre, I want to pay money to be entertained. I don't want to have to think and plan what movie I want to see. There should be something there along the line of what I want to see, and I pay for the big screen and popcorn and nice trailers and big theatre sound. That's what I pay for.
I can't believe you wrote that you "don't have the time... [and] the energy " to watch a bad movie. How does time or energy factor into this? You'll spend the same amount of time on a film whether you steal it or pay for it legitimately. Besides, if you don't have the time or energy, maybe there are more pressing issues to deal with than entertainment
When I say I don't have the time and energy to put into watching a bad movie, I mean I'd rather put my time and energy into something rewarding or satisfying. If I enjoy it, then it's worth paying for. If not, then it's just a pure sacrifice, and I have a chip on my shoulder for the fellow that gets my money.
And we all need entertainment. Even the most stoic of us. And sometimes, it's nice to go to a movie. My wish would be that when I go to a movie, if I enjoy it, I pay double, if I don't, I get my money back. I'd like to be able to vote with my dollar, for the next person, at least.
In reality, how does someone know that they've made a horrible movie when they rake in the money. I don't know.:)
That's a good point. (It's been stated a couple of times, but that's the clearest.)
Of course, I don't have any pirated films that I've never paid money for in the first place. In fact, I don't have any pirated films... possibly because I have no real method to copy them. Speculating, I'd have to say that any movie worth having, I'd pay for myself. But, if I could get a movie for free, perhaps one that I'd only watch once in my life, I'd not be willing to pay for it, but more than willing to copy it.
I understand where you are coming from. The argument wasn't that Pharmacutical companies making money was fundamentally wrong, but that they made it by exploiting through collusion.
And indeed, it is a noble trend that they embark upon by providing research, but their research is generally geared towards providing perpetual solutions, and not cures. What reasonable pharmacutical company seeking money would make a cure, when they can have perpetual money for some half-antidote.
How do I know they do this? Because I work at a University in the labs being used and rented by the pharmacutical companies.
But back to movies, (I'm quite fine with pharmacutical company exploiting people, btw, because I think we need more research in medicine even at moral expense.), the money going into movies goes to no half-noble cause, and as such your arguments are somewhat... obviated. And as for genetic patents, I'm still undecided.:)
Your arguments were quite close to the flip-side. (There's always a flip-side to every argument, that is equally valid.) But it is inconsiderate to consider those arguments to which you are attempting to resolve as rationalizations. It would appear more that you don't like the arguments, then that you have valid counter-arguments.:)
You know, we haven't really looked at the issue of practicality. If we did, then the moral arguments are largely irrelevent.:)
In terms of contract negotiation, I have the ace in that I can copy the movie with no degradation of the product. The morality of employing that ace is not in question. The reality is that I have it, and without guarantee of service, I can readily employ it. Thus those with whom I negotiate are in a position where they might want to negotiate, whereas before they could remain steadfast without fear of any sort of reprisal.
That's life? That's life? You're answer to putting an industry out of business is "That's life"? Yeah, that's really good. What a wonderfully dillusional world you must live in, where everything revolves around you.
Our species is responsible for the death of a third of the genetic diversity on this planet. I don't think putting the movie industry out of business will really change any life.
Grow up. You can't have everything for free. There are time when payment is due - people work hard and deserve to be compensated for their time.
Precisely my point, my dear boy, precisely my point. Except I would apply it to the producers of overpriced movies.
I must say, I lose a bit of respect for/. every time I see such a childish, selfish rant like this one marked as "Insightful".
I'm sure/. is deprived by the decrement of your respect in it. You might rely better on your ability to add to the community, rather than insult it.
In a real industry competition prohibits failure. We have a stock market and investment firms abound from all over the world to provide just the capital we need to make a prospective movie a reality. In a monopolistic situation such as this, the incentive to produce good movies does not exist.
Extortion has to be the biggest stretch of the imagination. No one needs movies. You don't have to pay their price, but don't expect to get something for free, just because you don't think it's reasonable.
Is it a stretch of the imagination that someone making millions of dollars would leave prices high such that they might make margins where no alternative exists to their form of entertainment? And is entertainment really unnecessary? Never before in my life have I seen a society so deprived of real connections between people. In fact, I believe there is a need to see movies, listen to music, watch tv. Because the natural social bonds are slowly break down after years of exposure to mass media.
If you don't pay for a movie, then the producers don't get a return on their investment. If they don't get their money back, they won't sink money into another film. Unless you're satisfied with a thousand films a year that all look like "Blair Witch", then someone needs to shell out a couple million.
Again, this is the flip side of a coin that isn't recognized here. If a producer make a horrible movie, still makes his millions, because I and millions of others paid to see his film, is that not an attrocity? The producer did it to all the innocent, unknowing people that paid to see the crappy movie that was produced. And what incentive does that give him? Produce shitty movies. People will go see them anyway, I still make the mint, and don't have to put the effort into producing something of entertainment value.
I don't feel like gambling my money on the entertainment prospect of a movie every time I go to the theatre. I don't have the time, the money, the energy, or the incentive.
The real issue: Will years of mind-bogglingly bad movies produce a state where one cannot recognize the true value of a film, such as Blair Witch project, wherein we have been spoiled or brainwashed, by Hollywood marketing.
Just to be stickle: It's copyright infringement when I copy indiscriminately, until 40 years when it's no longer copyrighted. At which point I can copy as much as I please.:)
But that's external to the arguments at hand. If I buy a license to get a movie, I should not have to pay until after I have seen the movie. Entertainment is not guaranteed, so why should my money be guaranteed? And it seems inappropriate to boycott the movie industry when I can vindicate my arguments by inflicting copyright infringement upon them.
Which, I might add, does give them exposure of actors, advertisements, directors, etc., to which I might later on be biased towards or against. And as such, they have gained something by me watching their film.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks!
Yes, perpetual drugs are easier to create. Not necessarily easier to manufacture, but easier to create, and significantly less expensive to research. But the rewards are also much greater and as such the incentives for a cure decreases, given perpetual income.
Take insulin for diabetics. It's a billion dollar worldwide industry. Will it go away? Probably not in the current economic model. Is there a cure? Likely, but whoever created the cure was likely killed, or his rights to it were bought and boxed.
As for Mickey, it's US $110 per second, as I recall.
Secondly, making it law doesn't make it right. In fact, in Canada, if a law undermines intelligence, morality, the UDHR, it is of null and void effect.
I've noticed a trend between big spending movies, and bad movies. They are all too often one and the same. Money invested has no bearing in real value. Compare Windows with Linux. Prefer Windows, would you? But no, this isn't about Linux, or free speech, or free beer, or freedom of expression, or rights of individuals, or the rights of companies to make money. I say it is about the segregation of the rich and the poor.But I won't argue that any more. Some people see it, some people don't.
And as an art form, people who truely admire works of art, admire the works of art created by those who are proud of their creations, who enjoy their work. People recognize and adomnish the money makers.
Positive: I should be given the option to bargain. I have the "ace" in that I can copy a movie that is not fairly bargained. That encourages fair bargaining on their part, but leaves the onus on me to attend to the morality of the bargain. Not good.
Normative: If I like a movie and do not want to pay the given predetermined highest margin by the distributor, I have the option to copy it. This (according to other posts) does not decrease the price of the movie. Thus, despite the fact that my monetary reward does not go to the distributor, indicative of my distaste with current prices, the prices do not change.
The prices of bad movies do go down, I've noticed. Mostly due to lack of demand. But the price of good movies remain stagnant, largely.
There is a difference between goods and IP, in that the distribution of IP is generally a good thing. Take education, libraries, engineering designs, photographs, etc., that enshrine our world with (relatively) good things. Would not the distribution of free entertainment benefit everyone? Without equal distribution, we provide artificial, albeit generally temporal, segregation. Equal treatment, or equal rights. Egalitarian or equalitarian. Do I have the right to see a movie, despite not being able to afford it? I have equal access to knowledge. I can use that knowledge to make money. What if I don't have the capacity to reap the benefits of knowledge. Am I to be segregated, and not able to see the movie? Normative: yes.
Cultural standards would indicate that entertainment is exempt from the free distribution of beneficial IP. Because someone can make money off of it. I'm not so sure this is a good thing.
Direct distribution models also promote community, and are somewhat buffered against many immoral interpretations by virtue of community. But then, morality is contextual, cultural generally, and there are issues therein that I won't get into.
As for monopolies on music and movie distribution, they exist, especially in terms of actors who sign with a particular company, and thereafter they are monopolized by that company.
I'm sorry that when I mentioned the fact that, people have been given the personal technology to avoid paying for things that are overpriced , I failed to mention the implications and potentials available to the producers of music and movies and want not. You could have made your statements without disagreeing with me. Mine was a normative statement (what is), yours is positive statement (what should be), mixing them does not work well, except in elegant solutions where they agree.
Copyright infringement is one way to not reward those making movies. But, then, people only really copy good movies. On the other hand, there are movies for which I'm not willing to pay for, but I am willing to watch. It's a fine line to draw. I believe that if I want to watch a movie, I don't think someone really has the right to keep me from watching one, or copying it. But the authors should also be rewarded for their work. But if it's in the grey area where I'm not willing to pay, but am still willing to watch, can the producer justify keeping it from me, wherein his forwards have been for nothing if I don't get to watch it. Catch 22. Muddy, yes. Valid, maybe.
After a certain point, when I have "enough" money, I plan on giving the rest to charitable causes. In my (humble but loud) opinion, one should not be able to live off the interest of their own money -- I think people have some obligation to contribute positively to society. It's difficult to describe "too much" money; I see your clausal resolution:
1) a lot of money is the point at which it is immoral 2) I expect to have a sufficient amount of money 3) one cannot draw the conclusion that I would have an immoral amount of money; there is richness in giving, more than richness in having, money aside. So it doesn't follow precisely.
When I think about multimillionaire producers risking millions on a movie production, I try to keep in mind that this is just like me buying a car, at one extreme, me buying different fancy of ice cream at another extreme, in relative terms of value.
There isn't as much comparison between the actions of the dictators and the exploitation of people by producers, so much as there is the same mentality. When you cannot be punished you tend not to care. This applies to those that commit copyright infringment as well, but the difference is that copyright infringement deprives the producer of the material of monetary awards. Taking money from multitudes, dumb enough to pay for it or not, and providing them a disservice by misleading them through hyped advertisements, or just overpricing art for the sake of profit, has some issues, as well.
I'm glad that you responded casually, becoming more sensible than the prior response to that. Most debates start off the other way, regressing into asshole and loser namecalling. ;) In turn, I retract "asshole" -- I'm glad you followed up. Between almost every argument, there's middle ground. Usually grey ground, though, and often external to the initial statements. The area I'm arguing is gray in itself -- the arguments are not clear cut because there is no model to reflect it, and we balance the rights of the individuals, rights of the movie maker, abilities of individuals, morality of the individuals, morality of the profiteers, and the color of brown mud.
Being positivist, I'd be inclined to argue towards what will be, rationalizing or not, and attempt to not only justify what will be, but find some solutions to the problems that are inherent with that. Most of the arguments I've seen have been along the lines of "you're wrong.", not looking at what will be, and how we will deal with it. A lot of the traditionalists stagnate the argument with issues of "what is" and "deserves in our current model". Society is pushing technology into the hands of people, and technology is providing people with choice, and in turn choice takes power away from the people I like least. :)
Regards.
I grew up in a poor town in the poorest province in Canada (Newfoundland), and have spent my whole life dealing with people who are unable to defend their rights against capitalism and centralized governments. My father was a doctor, and I grew up being one of the select few well off in the community from which I came.
My monetary stability is quite secure, and I'm quite certain that it'll get even better with age and experience, but that does not change my arguments. They are universal, attacking a problem. You have attacked me, obviously without knowing anything true, based on assumptions, leading me to believe that you are a genuine asshole.
ie. With 2,000% profit per CD in a single one-hit wonder CD, the incentive to compete does not exist, mostly because the recording industry has not only a monopoly on the distribution of music, but on the productions of the artists themselves. Why support SDMI? Because it will reduce copyright infringement? No -- because it can be used to scare artists into believing it's necessity, wherein the recording industry can sign off the artist's rights.
On the flip side, at $20 a CD, the incentive to purchase that CD is lowered due to the ratio comparing the amount of money I have to the amount of money it costs, in comparison to the prospective entertainment value of that particular CD. Thus allowing morally justifiable (not necessarily legally justifiable) copyright infringement when the cost of the CD takes a large percentage of my money for a low prospective entertainment value, in comparison to the ratio profit over cost of the CD produced.
(ps. the number of people defending monopolies here is really creepy!:))
Reductio ad absurdum is not a valid form of argument. Name calling and hand waving doesn't work either.
A) Get your widgets! $20
B) $2
A) $20.
B) $10.
A) $20.
B) Forget it, I have options. I'll not listen to it or I'll go copy it. At least when I copy it, I do get to know the artist and if I really enjoy it will likely subsequently buy further articles, and I get the enjoyment of actually getting the entertainment. Both sides benefit, to a certain degree. Not monetarily, perhaps. But money isn't everything.
And you're quite correct about the voluntary payment. That model has been proven to hardly ever work, but then, one might argue that it's never been implemented properly, either. :)
And after 40 years it no longer applies.
Just thought I'd convolute the argument even more.
And we all need entertainment. Even the most stoic of us. And sometimes, it's nice to go to a movie. My wish would be that when I go to a movie, if I enjoy it, I pay double, if I don't, I get my money back. I'd like to be able to vote with my dollar, for the next person, at least.
In reality, how does someone know that they've made a horrible movie when they rake in the money. I don't know. :)
Of course, I don't have any pirated films that I've never paid money for in the first place. In fact, I don't have any pirated films ... possibly because I have no real method to copy them. Speculating, I'd have to say that any movie worth having, I'd pay for myself. But, if I could get a movie for free, perhaps one that I'd only watch once in my life, I'd not be willing to pay for it, but more than willing to copy it.
We won't get into music and MP3's. :)
And indeed, it is a noble trend that they embark upon by providing research, but their research is generally geared towards providing perpetual solutions, and not cures. What reasonable pharmacutical company seeking money would make a cure, when they can have perpetual money for some half-antidote.
How do I know they do this? Because I work at a University in the labs being used and rented by the pharmacutical companies.
But back to movies, (I'm quite fine with pharmacutical company exploiting people, btw, because I think we need more research in medicine even at moral expense.), the money going into movies goes to no half-noble cause, and as such your arguments are somewhat ... obviated. And as for genetic patents, I'm still undecided. :)
Your arguments were quite close to the flip-side. (There's always a flip-side to every argument, that is equally valid.) But it is inconsiderate to consider those arguments to which you are attempting to resolve as rationalizations. It would appear more that you don't like the arguments, then that you have valid counter-arguments. :)
Cheers!
In 4 years I get to watch Disney's Steamboat Willy. lol.
In terms of contract negotiation, I have the ace in that I can copy the movie with no degradation of the product. The morality of employing that ace is not in question. The reality is that I have it, and without guarantee of service, I can readily employ it. Thus those with whom I negotiate are in a position where they might want to negotiate, whereas before they could remain steadfast without fear of any sort of reprisal.
Not in Hollywood. A "big budget" and good marketing campaign is enough to get your return on an investment.
In a real industry competition prohibits failure. We have a stock market and investment firms abound from all over the world to provide just the capital we need to make a prospective movie a reality. In a monopolistic situation such as this, the incentive to produce good movies does not exist.
Is it theft, if I steal it and you have nothing less?
I believe that the good movies are not there to make money, and the satisfaction that their movies are appreciated would justify their work.
This says nothing about movies produced to make money, however.
I don't feel like gambling my money on the entertainment prospect of a movie every time I go to the theatre. I don't have the time, the money, the energy, or the incentive.
The real issue: Will years of mind-bogglingly bad movies produce a state where one cannot recognize the true value of a film, such as Blair Witch project, wherein we have been spoiled or brainwashed, by Hollywood marketing.
But that's external to the arguments at hand. If I buy a license to get a movie, I should not have to pay until after I have seen the movie. Entertainment is not guaranteed, so why should my money be guaranteed? And it seems inappropriate to boycott the movie industry when I can vindicate my arguments by inflicting copyright infringement upon them.
Which, I might add, does give them exposure of actors, advertisements, directors, etc., to which I might later on be biased towards or against. And as such, they have gained something by me watching their film.