And when you turn on the television and find that Ted 2 is playing on a broadcast network? Or a friend invites you over and you watch his copy? You're not paying for your consumption there either, so you best wipe your brain clean.
The current business model for media distribution doesn't reflect current reality. Companies that have learned how file sharing works have also learned how to leverage them for a new business model. Pirating media has had no genuine impact on consumptive behavior; people who want to see movies in the theater or read a book will buy it when they can afford it, not before. The more a distribution company harasses users in the name of combating piracy the more people turn to piracy just to bypass the harassment.
Repeated studies show that digital sharing allows people to sample content before they decide whether or not they think it's worth their money. The only time this has ever hurt sales of a product is when it wasn't very good in the first place.
Networks pay licensing fees to show movies, and if your friend paid for his movie, then he's free to show it in his own home to whomever he likes, so long as he's not trying to sell tickets. If you're going to be insulting, you might want to at least learn what you're talking about first.
Your whole argument is not only factually untrue, it's flat out ridiculous. First of all, there is a reason you pay for content before you consume it: because the consumption is the product. When you buy a book, or a CD, or a DVD, the physical item itself isn't the product, the product is the story/information/movie contained on it, and once you've consumed it, you can't "unconsume". It's not up to consumers to decide that they should be allowed to sample a product, that's a decision for the content provider to make. If you can't afford to see a movie, or buy a book, or buy a video game, then you don't get to have it, period; a lot of people can't afford a Ferrari, does that make stealing one okay?
Your arguments seem to have come straight out of the RIAA press releases. Piracy has helped more content creators than it hurts; if anything it hurts distribution outlets more than the content creators. And the distribution outlets don't get hurt unless they product they're distributing wasn't worth our time in the first place.
The fact is that current technology has made the old model of distribution and consumption obsolete. The fact that distribution companies are fighting this change doesn't alter that fact, it just means they're trying to leverage the law to protect their business model rather than adapt. I have no sympathy for them. Content creators who seek alternate methods of distributing their content tend to flourish, especially the smaller ones who never get a fair shake from the old distributors.
That is simply not true- it doesn't even conform to basic logic.
If someone creates content that you don't feel is worth your money, then don't buy it, but you don't get to steal it and then blame them for not making a better product.
The fact is that current technology has made it easier for people to steal content, that doesn't make it any less wrong, or illegal. Individuals and companies who own content have a right to be paid for that content, and any argument- any argument, to the contrary is simply nonsense.
And when you turn on the television and find that Ted 2 is playing on a broadcast network? Or a friend invites you over and you watch his copy? You're not paying for your consumption there either, so you best wipe your brain clean.
The current business model for media distribution doesn't reflect current reality. Companies that have learned how file sharing works have also learned how to leverage them for a new business model. Pirating media has had no genuine impact on consumptive behavior; people who want to see movies in the theater or read a book will buy it when they can afford it, not before. The more a distribution company harasses users in the name of combating piracy the more people turn to piracy just to bypass the harassment.
Repeated studies show that digital sharing allows people to sample content before they decide whether or not they think it's worth their money. The only time this has ever hurt sales of a product is when it wasn't very good in the first place.
Networks pay licensing fees to show movies, and if your friend paid for his movie, then he's free to show it in his own home to whomever he likes, so long as he's not trying to sell tickets. If you're going to be insulting, you might want to at least learn what you're talking about first.
Your whole argument is not only factually untrue, it's flat out ridiculous. First of all, there is a reason you pay for content before you consume it: because the consumption is the product. When you buy a book, or a CD, or a DVD, the physical item itself isn't the product, the product is the story/information/movie contained on it, and once you've consumed it, you can't "unconsume". It's not up to consumers to decide that they should be allowed to sample a product, that's a decision for the content provider to make. If you can't afford to see a movie, or buy a book, or buy a video game, then you don't get to have it, period; a lot of people can't afford a Ferrari, does that make stealing one okay?
Piracy hurts content creators, and any argument to the contrary is, at best mistaken, if not flat out lying.
Your arguments seem to have come straight out of the RIAA press releases. Piracy has helped more content creators than it hurts; if anything it hurts distribution outlets more than the content creators. And the distribution outlets don't get hurt unless they product they're distributing wasn't worth our time in the first place.
The fact is that current technology has made the old model of distribution and consumption obsolete. The fact that distribution companies are fighting this change doesn't alter that fact, it just means they're trying to leverage the law to protect their business model rather than adapt. I have no sympathy for them. Content creators who seek alternate methods of distributing their content tend to flourish, especially the smaller ones who never get a fair shake from the old distributors.
That is simply not true- it doesn't even conform to basic logic.
If someone creates content that you don't feel is worth your money, then don't buy it, but you don't get to steal it and then blame them for not making a better product.
The fact is that current technology has made it easier for people to steal content, that doesn't make it any less wrong, or illegal. Individuals and companies who own content have a right to be paid for that content, and any argument- any argument, to the contrary is simply nonsense.