You're missing the point. Bad movies or not, the people who produce and distribute them are asking you to pay for them. It's not like that's going to come as a surprise to anyone. I see stuff on TV all the time that I would not (well, beyond the cable rate I'm paying) pay for, ever. But that's not the same as, essentially, sneaking into a theater to see the same, not getting caught/lectured by anyone, and saying, "Well, no one told me I had to pay, at least, not to my face..."
I'm not saying no one told them to pay, only that it is seen as a victimless crime. You're comparing it to a movie theater, but you forget that taking a theater seat that could potentially be occupied by a paying customer (or that seat would make a customer happier, a 'good' seat), using the theater's restrooms, etc., constitutes the use of the producer's resources that they would not have otherwise used.
Pirater's believe this to be as close to a victimless crime as possible because no one uses any resources (except those volunteering the hosting) that they would not have otherwise used, and the producer never would have seen that revenue in the first place.
I'm always a little perplexed by this line of reasoning. If it's not good enough to enjoy... why bother obtaining and watching it?
It's not that it's not good enough to enjoy, just that it's not good enough to purchase. Can you honestly tell me that you've never watched or participated in any event that, had you been asked to pay money (or more money) prior to participating you wouldn't have?
The logic of your average pirater who thinks this way runs like so:
1) I would never be willing to pay money for that content because its cost/value ratio is too low
2) I do not consume the producer's resources by obtaining this product (i.e., if you swipe a candy bar, the company is out the production costs, but if you pirate a movie, the company only loses potential revenue that you have already stated you never would have provided)
3) The value level is high enough that it can entertain me
4) Hence, if I download this content no one loses anything they had not already lost, but I get mindless entertainment
This logic, in different forms, is what explains why people eat free food that tastes like mutilated carcasses, go to free concerts by artists they don't care about, see movie screenings in the park for movies they would never rent, or are willing to be hassled by advertisers to get free promotional goodies that they never really wanted (equivalent to the hassle of finding this junk on the Internet).
Ask them to pay for the food, concert, movie, or crappy t-shirt, and no one shows up anymore. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have enjoyed themselves, only that they're not willing to shell out their cash to support the producers.
Honestly, I find this logic interesting as it also points out that piracy disseminates the material to a wider audience than would have otherwise received it. The amount it impacts sales is up for debate, because it is simply false that everyone who downloads the movie would have bought it and that everyone who downloads the movie doesn't buy it.
I would venture a guess that a significant portion of the piraters fall into the segment of the market that never would have purchased, so the 'lost sales' are mythical in nature. The troubled portion of the market contains those that would have paid for the content if they couldn't get it another way, but they found piracy to be a suitable solution.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point. Bad movies or not, the people who produce and distribute them are asking you to pay for them. It's not like that's going to come as a surprise to anyone. I see stuff on TV all the time that I would not (well, beyond the cable rate I'm paying) pay for, ever. But that's not the same as, essentially, sneaking into a theater to see the same, not getting caught/lectured by anyone, and saying, "Well, no one told me I had to pay, at least, not to my face..."
I'm not saying no one told them to pay, only that it is seen as a victimless crime. You're comparing it to a movie theater, but you forget that taking a theater seat that could potentially be occupied by a paying customer (or that seat would make a customer happier, a 'good' seat), using the theater's restrooms, etc., constitutes the use of the producer's resources that they would not have otherwise used.
Pirater's believe this to be as close to a victimless crime as possible because no one uses any resources (except those volunteering the hosting) that they would not have otherwise used, and the producer never would have seen that revenue in the first place.
I'm always a little perplexed by this line of reasoning. If it's not good enough to enjoy... why bother obtaining and watching it?
It's not that it's not good enough to enjoy, just that it's not good enough to purchase. Can you honestly tell me that you've never watched or participated in any event that, had you been asked to pay money (or more money) prior to participating you wouldn't have?
The logic of your average pirater who thinks this way runs like so:
1) I would never be willing to pay money for that content because its cost/value ratio is too low
2) I do not consume the producer's resources by obtaining this product (i.e., if you swipe a candy bar, the company is out the production costs, but if you pirate a movie, the company only loses potential revenue that you have already stated you never would have provided)
3) The value level is high enough that it can entertain me
4) Hence, if I download this content no one loses anything they had not already lost, but I get mindless entertainment
This logic, in different forms, is what explains why people eat free food that tastes like mutilated carcasses, go to free concerts by artists they don't care about, see movie screenings in the park for movies they would never rent, or are willing to be hassled by advertisers to get free promotional goodies that they never really wanted (equivalent to the hassle of finding this junk on the Internet).
Ask them to pay for the food, concert, movie, or crappy t-shirt, and no one shows up anymore. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have enjoyed themselves, only that they're not willing to shell out their cash to support the producers.
Honestly, I find this logic interesting as it also points out that piracy disseminates the material to a wider audience than would have otherwise received it. The amount it impacts sales is up for debate, because it is simply false that everyone who downloads the movie would have bought it and that everyone who downloads the movie doesn't buy it.
I would venture a guess that a significant portion of the piraters fall into the segment of the market that never would have purchased, so the 'lost sales' are mythical in nature. The troubled portion of the market contains those that would have paid for the content if they couldn't get it another way, but they found piracy to be a suitable solution.