If a person who makes a chair wants to sell it such that customers must pay per sitting, then that is the chair makers right, and it should be respected.
But, it seems that the current business model is working out fine for chair makers, thus they CHOOSE to sell their product for one price, unconditionally.
The movie industry CHOOSES to license their movies with conditions. This is what works best, given the economics of the movie industry.
The economics of the chair industry and the movie industry are soo different, that it is completely illogical to compare them.
If a movie maker wants to allow public showing of his movie for free, then that is his right, but it should also be right to disallow that.. Same goes for the chair maker. If he would like to sell his chair in a store with a sign on it that says: "5 cents per sit", then he should be able to do that.
However, there are many reasons why movie makers sell their movie the way they do, and there are many reasons that chair makers sell their chairs the way they do. The bottom line is that they do what they do because that is what works best in their industry. If you don't like the way they choose to sell, don't buy.
But in any case, the point I am making is this: The producer of a product should be able to sell his product in any fashion he wants.
My point is inferred, I thought perhaps you would draw the inference from the movie comparison.
Should a movie theater be allowed to go buy a DVD at normal price, and show it in their theater without paying the copyright holder?
"Hey, that's different!" you say "the theater is using the movie as their main attraction, not as side entertainment like the dentist's office" (that's what you just thought didn't you?)
Well, the deal is that most movie theaters make only a small portion of their income from ticket sales. They are there to basically recoup the fees they must pay to show the movie, and the theater makes their real money selling food.
So, the deal is that theaters would be happy to show the movie for free, and not charge admission at all. They would make a lot more money.
Well, there goes the movie industry.
Now the reason public performance is a different right that private use should be apparent to you.
yes. Public performance is seperate from private use. Ever see the warning at the beginning of a VHS tape or DVD that says the movie is for private use, and may not be displayed publicly? Same deal with a CD.
So, a business wants to use music as part of their business (yes, playing a CD for customers counts), but does not want to pay for it...... How is that not stepping on artist rights? People have jobs making that music, and they should get paid when their music is used.
many artists don't care about money, and give their music freely. That's their right. But that doesn't mean we have the right to trample on artists who choose to sell their music to make a living
The artist gets paid only if he/she was the songwriter. Performance royalties are paid for the song only, not for the recording (two seperate copyrights), so the record company doesn't see a dime either. The only people who get paid are the songwriter and the publisher (at worst a 50/50 split, if the songwriter runs his/her own publishing, and many do, the songwriter gets it all)
here's your quote:
"and then, ironically, they made more money off the technology than they did at the box office"
Incorrect.
The movie industry made money off of the ability to PLAY VHS tapes. The technology to record them (which in not necessarily tied to the ability to play them) is what was contested.
Now, back to P2P...
Read this slowly and try to understand: The MPAA is not trying to shut down P2P. They are suing the people who use P2P to distribute pirated movies.
I have no beef with P2P. I have beef with pirates, as I do with all people who exploit others wrongfully.
I'm not questioning your 180 million number. I am questioning your information regarding the effect of piracy of box office numbers.
Here's another quote from you: "The amount that download affects is smaller than what the weather affects, in my opinion."
What do your base your opinion on? I don't mean to insult, but your personal anecdotal evidence is hardly justification for the claims you are making.
I'm glad that if you like a movie you will see it in the theater, and if you want to own it, you buy it. That makes you one of the good ones, and I applaud your honesty.
Unfortunately, many people choose to be less honest than you, and it is within the MPAA's moral and legal rights to do something about those people, BEFORE IT BECOMES A BIGGER PROBLEM.
Who are you to tell the Motion Picture Industry how to run their business? They have business, and it is their right to sell their products as they see fit. You may choose to buy, or to not buy.
Furthermore, the Video Cassette PLAYER became a source of revenue for moviemakers, but the ability of said players to RECORD has not helped the movie industry at all. It was ruled to be legal, due to the abilty to "time-shift" television shows (read teh Betamax decision if you would like to have a clue).
And while VCRs are legal, the MPAA TO THIS DAY combats piracy on video cassettes, and rightfully so. This is the same thing they are doing on P2P. The technology has been ruled legal (see the Betamax decision if you would like to get a clue), but that doesn't mean that the actual act of piracy is not hurtful to the industry, whether it is on VHS or P2P.
RECAP: The act of piracy is seperate from the technology used in said piracy
The movie industry derives revenue from several sources, including box office recipts, DVD sales, and CHs sales. It is not right for pirates to take away any of these revenue streams. The motion picture industry has the right to make money off of their products as they see fit. Since you so enjoy going to movies, would you be thrilled if box offices prices had to be raised in order to make up for slumping DVD sales due to piracy?
If you disagree, then that's fine... There are many other ways you can spend your entertainment dollar
Well, I'm happy that you find moviegoing to be a nice social experience. Not everyone does, and not everyone wants to pay for the experience of going to the theater. It is with those people that piracy hurts box office numbers.
ALso, you're completely forgetting about DVD sales. Piracy is a big blow to those numbers.
on what information do you base your assumption? Do you think it's possible that without piracy, teh film may have made 190 instead of 180? And surely piracy will hurt DVD sales much more than it will hurt box office recipts.
In the MGM v. Grokster case (the court case that ruled P2P networks themselves are legal), the judge did state in his decision that the P2Ps intentionally found a loophole in copyright law and exploited it. In the same breath, he implied that congress should enact a law to close this loophole.
I've read that case from beginning to end several times, and in light of it, this new law makes a lot of sense.
If Apple wanted to pay the standard licensing fee for the recordings, then it would not be a problem. However, Apple negotiates reduced rates for the music it sells, thus complicating the issue, and making it an whole affair to sell in new markets.
Lots of CDs sell for $5 or $10. You need to look harder for them, because since they are cheap, less money can be spent on producing and marketing them. Does this make sense to you?
Lots of artists get a bigger share of their CD sales. You need to look harder for them, because since more money goes to the artist, less money can be spent on producing and marketing them. Does this make sense to you?
The high priced-CDs cost the labels a lot of money to make, and they chage accordingly. If you feel they are too expensive, then go cruise the cutout bin at your local record store. Or buy online from small labels who can't afford distribution because their records are so cheap.
A fundemental law of engineering applies here: You can't get something for nothing
1. During the rise of file sharing, the economy was also growing. The record industry is very sensitive to economic conditions, thus the industry still managed a small growth in sales despite losses from filesharing.
2. For the last couple years, sales have been declining, not growing
3. I don't know where you got your statisic that the big labels are making loads of money, but I assure you that most of the major labels have been in the red for a few consecutive years.
Slashdot Mirror
If a person who makes a chair wants to sell it such that customers must pay per sitting, then that is the chair makers right, and it should be respected.
But, it seems that the current business model is working out fine for chair makers, thus they CHOOSE to sell their product for one price, unconditionally.
The movie industry CHOOSES to license their movies with conditions. This is what works best, given the economics of the movie industry.
The economics of the chair industry and the movie industry are soo different, that it is completely illogical to compare them.
If a movie maker wants to allow public showing of his movie for free, then that is his right, but it should also be right to disallow that.. Same goes for the chair maker. If he would like to sell his chair in a store with a sign on it that says: "5 cents per sit", then he should be able to do that.
However, there are many reasons why movie makers sell their movie the way they do, and there are many reasons that chair makers sell their chairs the way they do. The bottom line is that they do what they do because that is what works best in their industry. If you don't like the way they choose to sell, don't buy.
But in any case, the point I am making is this: The producer of a product should be able to sell his product in any fashion he wants.
are you for real?
My point is inferred, I thought perhaps you would draw the inference from the movie comparison. Should a movie theater be allowed to go buy a DVD at normal price, and show it in their theater without paying the copyright holder? "Hey, that's different!" you say "the theater is using the movie as their main attraction, not as side entertainment like the dentist's office" (that's what you just thought didn't you?) Well, the deal is that most movie theaters make only a small portion of their income from ticket sales. They are there to basically recoup the fees they must pay to show the movie, and the theater makes their real money selling food. So, the deal is that theaters would be happy to show the movie for free, and not charge admission at all. They would make a lot more money. Well, there goes the movie industry. Now the reason public performance is a different right that private use should be apparent to you.
yes. Public performance is seperate from private use. Ever see the warning at the beginning of a VHS tape or DVD that says the movie is for private use, and may not be displayed publicly? Same deal with a CD.
So, a business wants to use music as part of their business (yes, playing a CD for customers counts), but does not want to pay for it...... How is that not stepping on artist rights? People have jobs making that music, and they should get paid when their music is used.
many artists don't care about money, and give their music freely. That's their right. But that doesn't mean we have the right to trample on artists who choose to sell their music to make a living
The artist gets paid only if he/she was the songwriter. Performance royalties are paid for the song only, not for the recording (two seperate copyrights), so the record company doesn't see a dime either. The only people who get paid are the songwriter and the publisher (at worst a 50/50 split, if the songwriter runs his/her own publishing, and many do, the songwriter gets it all)
here's your quote:
"and then, ironically, they made more money off the technology than they did at the box office"
Incorrect.
The movie industry made money off of the ability to PLAY VHS tapes. The technology to record them (which in not necessarily tied to the ability to play them) is what was contested.
Now, back to P2P...
Read this slowly and try to understand: The MPAA is not trying to shut down P2P. They are suing the people who use P2P to distribute pirated movies.
I have no beef with P2P. I have beef with pirates, as I do with all people who exploit others wrongfully.
Here's another quote from you: "The amount that download affects is smaller than what the weather affects, in my opinion."
What do your base your opinion on? I don't mean to insult, but your personal anecdotal evidence is hardly justification for the claims you are making.
I'm glad that if you like a movie you will see it in the theater, and if you want to own it, you buy it. That makes you one of the good ones, and I applaud your honesty. Unfortunately, many people choose to be less honest than you, and it is within the MPAA's moral and legal rights to do something about those people, BEFORE IT BECOMES A BIGGER PROBLEM.
Who are you to tell the Motion Picture Industry how to run their business? They have business, and it is their right to sell their products as they see fit. You may choose to buy, or to not buy. Furthermore, the Video Cassette PLAYER became a source of revenue for moviemakers, but the ability of said players to RECORD has not helped the movie industry at all. It was ruled to be legal, due to the abilty to "time-shift" television shows (read teh Betamax decision if you would like to have a clue). And while VCRs are legal, the MPAA TO THIS DAY combats piracy on video cassettes, and rightfully so. This is the same thing they are doing on P2P. The technology has been ruled legal (see the Betamax decision if you would like to get a clue), but that doesn't mean that the actual act of piracy is not hurtful to the industry, whether it is on VHS or P2P. RECAP: The act of piracy is seperate from the technology used in said piracy The movie industry derives revenue from several sources, including box office recipts, DVD sales, and CHs sales. It is not right for pirates to take away any of these revenue streams. The motion picture industry has the right to make money off of their products as they see fit. Since you so enjoy going to movies, would you be thrilled if box offices prices had to be raised in order to make up for slumping DVD sales due to piracy? If you disagree, then that's fine... There are many other ways you can spend your entertainment dollar
Well, I'm happy that you find moviegoing to be a nice social experience. Not everyone does, and not everyone wants to pay for the experience of going to the theater. It is with those people that piracy hurts box office numbers. ALso, you're completely forgetting about DVD sales. Piracy is a big blow to those numbers.
on what information do you base your assumption? Do you think it's possible that without piracy, teh film may have made 190 instead of 180? And surely piracy will hurt DVD sales much more than it will hurt box office recipts.
Gateway has closed down its stores, and Best Buy is rapidly expanding. Who won? Sad but true.
In the MGM v. Grokster case (the court case that ruled P2P networks themselves are legal), the judge did state in his decision that the P2Ps intentionally found a loophole in copyright law and exploited it. In the same breath, he implied that congress should enact a law to close this loophole. I've read that case from beginning to end several times, and in light of it, this new law makes a lot of sense.
If Apple wanted to pay the standard licensing fee for the recordings, then it would not be a problem.
However, Apple negotiates reduced rates for the music it sells, thus complicating the issue, and making it an whole affair to sell in new markets.
Lots of CDs sell for $5 or $10. You need to look harder for them, because since they are cheap, less money can be spent on producing and marketing them. Does this make sense to you? Lots of artists get a bigger share of their CD sales. You need to look harder for them, because since more money goes to the artist, less money can be spent on producing and marketing them. Does this make sense to you? The high priced-CDs cost the labels a lot of money to make, and they chage accordingly. If you feel they are too expensive, then go cruise the cutout bin at your local record store. Or buy online from small labels who can't afford distribution because their records are so cheap. A fundemental law of engineering applies here: You can't get something for nothing
1. During the rise of file sharing, the economy was also growing. The record industry is very sensitive to economic conditions, thus the industry still managed a small growth in sales despite losses from filesharing.
2. For the last couple years, sales have been declining, not growing
3. I don't know where you got your statisic that the big labels are making loads of money, but I assure you that most of the major labels have been in the red for a few consecutive years.