Plus, they'll pay to go see it again so they can text through the parts they missed the first time. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the film is no longer showing and they have to buy the Blu-ray to see the rest.
So even though you and I might not like it, business savvy theater owners will cater to their audience which happens to be 22 years who won't turn off their phones.
And retirees; don't forget, they're the other group that's growing in attendance numbers year by year.
And not the movie you paid to see? You mean they turned off and put away their phones before the actual movie started? Why, how devastatingly rude of them.
If AMC does this and the other theaters don't, I'll just not got to AMC theaters anymore and enjoy my movies elsewhere without the annoying millennial crowd.
You're missing the point. When I took the test, it was undoubtedly compared to a certain group, on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV.
No, you're missing the point.
Presumably the test designers tried to make it as representative as possible (I didn't find the test group in a quick skim of the Wikipedia article), so that 100 would be close to the average of the population as a whole
Which population? The country in which you took it? The planet? And is that further broken down into age groups, or by gender? Without knowing that, knowing which scale you were measured on is meaningless; the scale and the population (norming group) are two distinct properties of the test, of which you know only one. You can find more information about one specific test using that scale here, where you'll note that the test is valid for ages 16-90 and that the testing and scoring procedures vary by age group (for example, three test sections are not administered to the 70-90 age group).
IQ is a statistical value, any typical variables which might apply to statistical analysis of a population also apply to IQ, demographics and sample size included.
If every person in this programming group were to take the same IQ test, I'd expect the scores to be uniformly above 100.
And, if the scoring is administered properly, it would be renormalized after that sample was added. Sores change over time as tests are further normalized.
I don't really like tossing around actual IQ scores, but if the best they could say of you is that you had a higher IQ than 95% of the population you came in considerably lower than me.
Reviewing the statistics provided for my test more closely, I fall into the scoring group (130-144 for the test I took, a number which may or may not correlate with the test you took, thus why we don't throw those numbers around) which, collectively, scored higher than 97% of test takers in my norming group (again, Americans age 32-35). They do not break down further than that, but I am at the higher end of that range and less than 1% scored above that group. So, the lowest score in that grouping represents the bottom to the top 3%, the lowest score in the next highest grouping represents the bottom of the top 0.7%. I'm somewhere near the top of that range. Not that it really matters, we're still poking back and forth at each other like a couple of idiots; I dare say my intellect allowed me to recognize that sooner than you, however.
Now that I've stated the facts, I will not engage in your pissing contest, especially if you're hell bent on pissing upwind.
Bah... yeah, brain fart. I'm on painkillers for my back at the moment, so... there's that. I realized my folly while writing up an explanation of how 9 is a prime in base 2 (1001)... which, of course, is not true.
Yeah, I see the result of your continued editing now, but it looks like you missed one more; the last instance of "prime" has an opening single-quote with no closure.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here; I've actually never bothered pointing these errors out before because the previous editors didn't seem to care. You do, so I figure it's helpful.
I saw this on the front page while it was still littered with broken Unicode. Thanks for actually doing some editing, but you guys missed one: oetaxicab.
The music industry would have the courts believe so, but it is not. Nor is it stealing to download videos from Youtube, many of which are published directly by the artist or their label. In fact, that's the most popular way people "pirate" music today and it's not piracy at all, because it was the copyright holder who selected that distribution channel. Of course, there also exists a massive collection of illegitimate music videos on Youtube, but I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about what you can find on Youtube Music, which includes a massive catalog of popular music.
Ah, but then I could just copy it back. Sure, every copy devalues the currency, but when you can just copy yourself more, well... Sure, it would lead to the collapse of the monetary system and we all generally agree that would be a bad thing, but would it really? Playing devil's advocate here, would it really be bad to level the playing field between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich, making both participate equally in the barter system that would replace the collapsed monetary system? I guess it depends which side you're on; for the middle class, though, not much would change.
I agree with this position, the question is, then, how long is fair? If we say movies make their money in 1 year, so we make it 1 year, will that still hold true? Or will people just wait a year for it to enter into the public domain, then see it for free? Even at 2 years, most people will likely wait, with only diehard fans of a series, author, director, or actor paying to see it. We might see significantly more sales at a 3 year copyright term, with more still at 4 years, but not as much as the jump from 2 to 3. I would go so far as to posit that a 3.5 year term, with one possible 3.5 year extension if it can be shown that the work is still profitable, would suffice today. Of course, I don't have data to back that up, but I don't believe anyone does, so the correct term would need to be derived experimentally, starting with cutting back to the original 14 year term, then reducing the term by 1 year each year until the studios can demonstrate a sizable decline in sales that cannot be caused by other factors. Once that point has been reached, increase the copyright term by 6 months and see if sales of new works pick back up; if the do not, increase by another 6 months (and you've now undone that previous 1 year reduction) and call it done. It's a process that may take anywhere from a few years to a little over a decade to complete, but it's the only way to honestly strike a fair balance between protecting the public domain and protecting content creators' ability to keep food on the table while creating content.
For an example of this sort of term adjustment working in the real world, look at how prices are set for pretty much any product or service.
It only deprives the copyright holder of potential income if you would have bought in the first place and you don't buy afterward. Take me, or example: I don't buy things I can't return unless I'm 100% certain I'll be satisfied with my purchase. I will 100% not pay for a movie I haven't already seen; if I can legally see it without paying for it, I'm not going to pay for it; if I can't, I'm going to pirate it and pay for it if I like it. I have a sizable movie collection to back this up.
So, you see, my piracy does not deprive copyright holders of a damn thing. Even if I could not pirate, I would not buy their wares anyway; and that piracy often leads to actual sales. Recently, it lead to me going to see Deadpool with a friend on opening night, then with my wife 2 days later, and with another friend a week after that, as well as the purchase of several pieces of Deadpool merchandise, and it will lead to my purchase of the Deadpool collectors edition or director's cut on Blu-Ray when that is released. None of that would have happened without piracy; I'd have waited until a friend bought the Blu-Ray or DVD and just watched theirs.
And therein lies the fault in the argument that piracy creates loss. In your crashed car analogy, you can prove loss; you weren't able to get to work because you lost use of the car. There is no way to prove that a downloader would (or even could) have purchased the content absent the download, nor can you prove they did not purchase it afterward (nor can I prove I actually went to see it 3 times, as I don't keep ticket stubs; I can show credit card statements listing purchases are 3 theaters on 3 different nights, but that does not prove what I saw on those nights).
And this is why it will never be proven one way or the other, and why the industry will continue to cry about it, all the way ro the bank. They probably write off a loss for every confirmed download, to boot.
Indeed, and I was not disagreeing with that position at all, just pointing out that it is merely one of two possibilities. I say we stop pirating altogether and watch the worms squirm. Just as soon as this year's summer flicks drop.;p
Ah, but piracy isn't taking anything, it's copying. I can't return a copy to you, because the copy was never yours to begin with; nor did I take your copy in order to make mine. As for you taking money electronically from my bank account, that would be akin to me moving the data from your hard drive to mine; you can no longer access your data because I store it, just as I can no longer access my money because you stole it; that is not so with copying and, if it were possible, I'd have absolutely no problem with you copying the money in my bank account.
Indeed, especially when someone just throws their number out there with no understanding of what it actually means or what group they're actually being compared against. Which I see all the time.
And I'll say, I tend to surround myself with other highly intelligent people; to the point where, though I'm in the top 5% of my demographic, within my circle of friends I'm probably the idiot. That's not by accident, as I rarely choose to befriend people I have to explain things to more than once; I prefer intelligent conversation.
"Never" is an absolute term. It takes only one example to disprove an absolute. Allow me to stand up: In the past 15 years I have not bought a single movie I have not first pirated. I've bought a number of movies, but, again, it only takes one.
Why? Because I can't return a crapfest I'm not satisfied with, like I can return just about any other product, and I work hard for my money, just like the studios. And just like all the people making the other products I can return if not satisfied. When I can return a DVD or Blu-Ray just like any other product, I'll stop pre-purchase pirating. If they find a way to effectively stop piracy without allowing returns for a full refund, I'll quit buying altogether.
And I know I'm not the only one who does it, because I have friends who do the same. But, again, it only takes one example to disprove an absolute.
That's a very gray area you're treading. There is no proof that piracy affects the studios' income one way or the other. Clearly, it does, but it is impossible to prove whether it is a net positive or a net negative. Consider the following anecdote, then take a nice grain of salt:
Intuitively, it reduces that income, because people who are pirating are not buying. Counter-intuitively, many people who otherwise would not buy because they can not return media they are not satisfied with pirate to sample, then buy. As far as music is concerned, I fell into the latter group for a decade and a half, then I started using Rhapsody and no longer need to do that. When it comes to movies? Nothing like Rhapsody exists for movies.
As a result, I pirated the hell out of Deadpool. I also went and saw it with a friend on opening night, with my wife 2 days later, and with another friend a week after that, and intend to buy the Blu-Ray when it comes out. Why? Why would I pay for it if I've already gotten it for free? Because I rather enjoyed it and would like to encourage more of the same.
So, then, why not just buy all the movies I want to see? Simple. I want to support the ones I enjoy, and encourage more of the same; but I also want to not support the ones I do not enjoy, and discourage more of the same. How can I do that if I can't get a refund on the ones I don't like?
I mean, I can go buy basically any product not produced by a media company, try it, and return it within a reasonable time if I do not like it. That's why I, and many others, don't follow similar patterns with other products. We don't steal cars, then come back a week later to pay for them, because we can test-drive that car before we pay for it, and we get a warranty with that car so anything that goes wrong with it during the initial ownership period gets fixed; we can also turn around and sell that car to someone else. Buying a house, you walk through it, possibly hire an inspector to make sure everything is on the up-and-up, and if anything is misrepresented during the buying process, you have legal recourse and can get your money back (and then some). If I buy a gallon of milk, get home, open it, and it is spoiled, I can get my money back.
If I buy a DVD of a movie and the movie turns out to be crap, I can't return it, I can't get my money back, I'm stuck with the crap movie and I'm out my $20. At best, I can exchange it... for another copy of the same crapfest.
And, so, I pirate before I buy. For the past several years, that has resulted in much more piracy than purchasing; more recently, the tables are turning and I'm seeing the fruits of my labor, more and more movies are coming out that I actually enjoy and end up buying. Hell, I haven't touched a Disney movie in a decade and a half but I can tell you, having seen The Jungle Book illicitly, that's gonna be my first IMAX movie in over a decade and my 3rd Blu-Ray purchase this year (assuming both it and Deadpool come out in the next 8.5mo).
In my case, piracy certainly is increasing their profits, as I wouldn't be buying anything from them otherwise.
Now for the grain of salt: I am but one person. While I know there are many out there doing what I do, for the reasons I do it, whose actions do effectively increase profits for the studios, I also know there are many out there who do not. Of that latter group, there are many who would buy if they could not pirate, those are lost sales; and there are many who would not buy, no matter what, and those are not lost sales. We can ignore that 3rd group, who would not buy under any circumstance, as they represent a neutral position.
The question is, are there more people practicing pre-purchase piracy, like me? Or are there more pirating instead of buying?
And if the answer is the latter, are there enough more people in the second group than the first that the millions of dollars spent on anti-piracy measures (and lost sales from people who don't want to deal with that crap) represent a smaller number than what is lost (and I mean truly lost, as in not made up in post-piracy sales by people like me, and not pirated by people who wouldn't have bought anyway) to piracy.
Whether or not it is "ok" bears no relevance to whether or not it is "stealing" or "theft". There are a great many things which are neither stealing nor theft, which are also not ok. But then, you knew that, just like you knew your logical fallacy was bullshit before you typed it.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, they'll pay to go see it again so they can text through the parts they missed the first time. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the film is no longer showing and they have to buy the Blu-ray to see the rest.
So even though you and I might not like it, business savvy theater owners will cater to their audience which happens to be 22 years who won't turn off their phones.
And retirees; don't forget, they're the other group that's growing in attendance numbers year by year.
And not the movie you paid to see? You mean they turned off and put away their phones before the actual movie started? Why, how devastatingly rude of them.
If AMC does this and the other theaters don't, I'll just not got to AMC theaters anymore and enjoy my movies elsewhere without the annoying millennial crowd.
You're missing the point. When I took the test, it was undoubtedly compared to a certain group, on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV.
No, you're missing the point.
Presumably the test designers tried to make it as representative as possible (I didn't find the test group in a quick skim of the Wikipedia article), so that 100 would be close to the average of the population as a whole
Which population? The country in which you took it? The planet? And is that further broken down into age groups, or by gender? Without knowing that, knowing which scale you were measured on is meaningless; the scale and the population (norming group) are two distinct properties of the test, of which you know only one. You can find more information about one specific test using that scale here, where you'll note that the test is valid for ages 16-90 and that the testing and scoring procedures vary by age group (for example, three test sections are not administered to the 70-90 age group).
IQ is a statistical value, any typical variables which might apply to statistical analysis of a population also apply to IQ, demographics and sample size included.
If every person in this programming group were to take the same IQ test, I'd expect the scores to be uniformly above 100.
And, if the scoring is administered properly, it would be renormalized after that sample was added. Sores change over time as tests are further normalized.
I don't really like tossing around actual IQ scores, but if the best they could say of you is that you had a higher IQ than 95% of the population you came in considerably lower than me.
Reviewing the statistics provided for my test more closely, I fall into the scoring group (130-144 for the test I took, a number which may or may not correlate with the test you took, thus why we don't throw those numbers around) which, collectively, scored higher than 97% of test takers in my norming group (again, Americans age 32-35). They do not break down further than that, but I am at the higher end of that range and less than 1% scored above that group. So, the lowest score in that grouping represents the bottom to the top 3%, the lowest score in the next highest grouping represents the bottom of the top 0.7%. I'm somewhere near the top of that range. Not that it really matters, we're still poking back and forth at each other like a couple of idiots; I dare say my intellect allowed me to recognize that sooner than you, however.
Now that I've stated the facts, I will not engage in your pissing contest, especially if you're hell bent on pissing upwind.
But, then, who would call me on my shenanigans?
Bah... yeah, brain fart. I'm on painkillers for my back at the moment, so... there's that. I realized my folly while writing up an explanation of how 9 is a prime in base 2 (1001)... which, of course, is not true.
So good to see Slashdot back in the hands of someone who gives a damn.
And when you get down to base 2 it seems like every other number is a prime and there are quite a lot of emirps in that set. ;)
Yeah, I see the result of your continued editing now, but it looks like you missed one more; the last instance of "prime" has an opening single-quote with no closure.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here; I've actually never bothered pointing these errors out before because the previous editors didn't seem to care. You do, so I figure it's helpful.
I saw this on the front page while it was still littered with broken Unicode. Thanks for actually doing some editing, but you guys missed one: oetaxicab.
The music industry would have the courts believe so, but it is not. Nor is it stealing to download videos from Youtube, many of which are published directly by the artist or their label. In fact, that's the most popular way people "pirate" music today and it's not piracy at all, because it was the copyright holder who selected that distribution channel. Of course, there also exists a massive collection of illegitimate music videos on Youtube, but I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about what you can find on Youtube Music, which includes a massive catalog of popular music.
Well, you've got my email address; let me know when it launches. :)
Ah, but then I could just copy it back. Sure, every copy devalues the currency, but when you can just copy yourself more, well... Sure, it would lead to the collapse of the monetary system and we all generally agree that would be a bad thing, but would it really? Playing devil's advocate here, would it really be bad to level the playing field between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich, making both participate equally in the barter system that would replace the collapsed monetary system? I guess it depends which side you're on; for the middle class, though, not much would change.
I agree with this position, the question is, then, how long is fair? If we say movies make their money in 1 year, so we make it 1 year, will that still hold true? Or will people just wait a year for it to enter into the public domain, then see it for free? Even at 2 years, most people will likely wait, with only diehard fans of a series, author, director, or actor paying to see it. We might see significantly more sales at a 3 year copyright term, with more still at 4 years, but not as much as the jump from 2 to 3. I would go so far as to posit that a 3.5 year term, with one possible 3.5 year extension if it can be shown that the work is still profitable, would suffice today. Of course, I don't have data to back that up, but I don't believe anyone does, so the correct term would need to be derived experimentally, starting with cutting back to the original 14 year term, then reducing the term by 1 year each year until the studios can demonstrate a sizable decline in sales that cannot be caused by other factors. Once that point has been reached, increase the copyright term by 6 months and see if sales of new works pick back up; if the do not, increase by another 6 months (and you've now undone that previous 1 year reduction) and call it done. It's a process that may take anywhere from a few years to a little over a decade to complete, but it's the only way to honestly strike a fair balance between protecting the public domain and protecting content creators' ability to keep food on the table while creating content.
For an example of this sort of term adjustment working in the real world, look at how prices are set for pretty much any product or service.
It only deprives the copyright holder of potential income if you would have bought in the first place and you don't buy afterward. Take me, or example: I don't buy things I can't return unless I'm 100% certain I'll be satisfied with my purchase. I will 100% not pay for a movie I haven't already seen; if I can legally see it without paying for it, I'm not going to pay for it; if I can't, I'm going to pirate it and pay for it if I like it. I have a sizable movie collection to back this up.
So, you see, my piracy does not deprive copyright holders of a damn thing. Even if I could not pirate, I would not buy their wares anyway; and that piracy often leads to actual sales. Recently, it lead to me going to see Deadpool with a friend on opening night, then with my wife 2 days later, and with another friend a week after that, as well as the purchase of several pieces of Deadpool merchandise, and it will lead to my purchase of the Deadpool collectors edition or director's cut on Blu-Ray when that is released. None of that would have happened without piracy; I'd have waited until a friend bought the Blu-Ray or DVD and just watched theirs.
And therein lies the fault in the argument that piracy creates loss. In your crashed car analogy, you can prove loss; you weren't able to get to work because you lost use of the car. There is no way to prove that a downloader would (or even could) have purchased the content absent the download, nor can you prove they did not purchase it afterward (nor can I prove I actually went to see it 3 times, as I don't keep ticket stubs; I can show credit card statements listing purchases are 3 theaters on 3 different nights, but that does not prove what I saw on those nights).
You can prove damages, while the studios can't.
They can, they just have to hope they don't get audited... and they pay to avoid that.
And this is why it will never be proven one way or the other, and why the industry will continue to cry about it, all the way ro the bank. They probably write off a loss for every confirmed download, to boot.
Indeed, and I was not disagreeing with that position at all, just pointing out that it is merely one of two possibilities. I say we stop pirating altogether and watch the worms squirm. Just as soon as this year's summer flicks drop. ;p
Ah, but piracy isn't taking anything, it's copying. I can't return a copy to you, because the copy was never yours to begin with; nor did I take your copy in order to make mine. As for you taking money electronically from my bank account, that would be akin to me moving the data from your hard drive to mine; you can no longer access your data because I store it, just as I can no longer access my money because you stole it; that is not so with copying and, if it were possible, I'd have absolutely no problem with you copying the money in my bank account.
What content? Yours is an attitude I would like to support.
Indeed, especially when someone just throws their number out there with no understanding of what it actually means or what group they're actually being compared against. Which I see all the time.
And I'll say, I tend to surround myself with other highly intelligent people; to the point where, though I'm in the top 5% of my demographic, within my circle of friends I'm probably the idiot. That's not by accident, as I rarely choose to befriend people I have to explain things to more than once; I prefer intelligent conversation.
"Never" is an absolute term. It takes only one example to disprove an absolute. Allow me to stand up: In the past 15 years I have not bought a single movie I have not first pirated. I've bought a number of movies, but, again, it only takes one.
Why? Because I can't return a crapfest I'm not satisfied with, like I can return just about any other product, and I work hard for my money, just like the studios. And just like all the people making the other products I can return if not satisfied. When I can return a DVD or Blu-Ray just like any other product, I'll stop pre-purchase pirating. If they find a way to effectively stop piracy without allowing returns for a full refund, I'll quit buying altogether.
And I know I'm not the only one who does it, because I have friends who do the same. But, again, it only takes one example to disprove an absolute.
That's a very gray area you're treading. There is no proof that piracy affects the studios' income one way or the other. Clearly, it does, but it is impossible to prove whether it is a net positive or a net negative. Consider the following anecdote, then take a nice grain of salt:
Intuitively, it reduces that income, because people who are pirating are not buying. Counter-intuitively, many people who otherwise would not buy because they can not return media they are not satisfied with pirate to sample, then buy. As far as music is concerned, I fell into the latter group for a decade and a half, then I started using Rhapsody and no longer need to do that. When it comes to movies? Nothing like Rhapsody exists for movies.
As a result, I pirated the hell out of Deadpool. I also went and saw it with a friend on opening night, with my wife 2 days later, and with another friend a week after that, and intend to buy the Blu-Ray when it comes out. Why? Why would I pay for it if I've already gotten it for free? Because I rather enjoyed it and would like to encourage more of the same.
So, then, why not just buy all the movies I want to see? Simple. I want to support the ones I enjoy, and encourage more of the same; but I also want to not support the ones I do not enjoy, and discourage more of the same. How can I do that if I can't get a refund on the ones I don't like?
I mean, I can go buy basically any product not produced by a media company, try it, and return it within a reasonable time if I do not like it. That's why I, and many others, don't follow similar patterns with other products. We don't steal cars, then come back a week later to pay for them, because we can test-drive that car before we pay for it, and we get a warranty with that car so anything that goes wrong with it during the initial ownership period gets fixed; we can also turn around and sell that car to someone else. Buying a house, you walk through it, possibly hire an inspector to make sure everything is on the up-and-up, and if anything is misrepresented during the buying process, you have legal recourse and can get your money back (and then some). If I buy a gallon of milk, get home, open it, and it is spoiled, I can get my money back.
If I buy a DVD of a movie and the movie turns out to be crap, I can't return it, I can't get my money back, I'm stuck with the crap movie and I'm out my $20. At best, I can exchange it... for another copy of the same crapfest.
And, so, I pirate before I buy. For the past several years, that has resulted in much more piracy than purchasing; more recently, the tables are turning and I'm seeing the fruits of my labor, more and more movies are coming out that I actually enjoy and end up buying. Hell, I haven't touched a Disney movie in a decade and a half but I can tell you, having seen The Jungle Book illicitly, that's gonna be my first IMAX movie in over a decade and my 3rd Blu-Ray purchase this year (assuming both it and Deadpool come out in the next 8.5mo).
In my case, piracy certainly is increasing their profits, as I wouldn't be buying anything from them otherwise.
Now for the grain of salt: I am but one person. While I know there are many out there doing what I do, for the reasons I do it, whose actions do effectively increase profits for the studios, I also know there are many out there who do not. Of that latter group, there are many who would buy if they could not pirate, those are lost sales; and there are many who would not buy, no matter what, and those are not lost sales. We can ignore that 3rd group, who would not buy under any circumstance, as they represent a neutral position.
The question is, are there more people practicing pre-purchase piracy, like me? Or are there more pirating instead of buying?
And if the answer is the latter, are there enough more people in the second group than the first that the millions of dollars spent on anti-piracy measures (and lost sales from people who don't want to deal with that crap) represent a smaller number than what is lost (and I mean truly lost, as in not made up in post-piracy sales by people like me, and not pirated by people who wouldn't have bought anyway) to piracy.
Whether or not it is "ok" bears no relevance to whether or not it is "stealing" or "theft". There are a great many things which are neither stealing nor theft, which are also not ok. But then, you knew that, just like you knew your logical fallacy was bullshit before you typed it.