southsider2k5 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 20, 2012 -> 07:56 PM) I pay for it also. I still prefer cd format even. I'd buy more if it were cheaper. Hence...deadweight loss. That doesn't necessarily translate to more profits though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 09:38 AM) Someone has to put money into the system. [/b]Through history that has been wealthy patrons, advertisers, governments, and consumers. Pick which one you want in your business model, but make no mistake, someone has to put money into the system. If it isn't the consumer, then be willing to accept the music and movies that come out because you will have very little influence. The reply here is ridiculously simple. Is there not enough money being put into entertainment these days to fund sufficient entertainment options? I'd say there's more than enough money going in. And there's so much money going in that a handful of companies are more than content to use a portion of that money to make sure that new competition does not arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) The reply here is ridiculously simple. Is there not enough money being put into entertainment these days to fund sufficient entertainment options? I'd say there's more than enough money going in. And there's so much money going in that a handful of companies are more than content to use a portion of that money to make sure that new competition does not arise. Who is putting in the money for the song that is pirated? Whose money is making that possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) Who is putting in the money for the song that is pirated? Whose money is making that possible? The taxpayer who is spending their money on copyright enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 03:54 PM) The taxpayer who is spending their money on copyright enforcement. Too tough to answer? When an artist and record company puts out a CD how are they suppose to receive a return on their investment? Currently they sell copies of the recording. When people stop paying for the song, how do the investors earn back their money? Who is paying and why? /watching how Balta dodges again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) Who is putting in the money for the song that is pirated? Whose money is making that possible? The millions who still buy it even though it is readily available. What harm is done to society if balta downloads a movie he would never have paid any money for? Producing the digital copy cost nothing. No one was deprived of physical goods as in retail theft. An additional person was able to enjoy something at no additional cost to anyone. Obviously, if everyone started pirating, there would be an issue. But there is no reason to believe that will happen and ample evidence that it won't. There is no convincing evidence that pirating is currently having a negative effect on creative output/entertainment options. So why should society as a whole make sweeping changes to stop a non-problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 04:58 PM) Too tough to answer? When an artist and record company puts out a CD how are they suppose to receive a return on their investment? Currently they sell copies of the recording. When people stop paying for the song, how do the investors earn back their money? Who is paying and why? /watching how Balta dodges again. Who gets to decide what an appropriate return on investment is when the retailer is protected from competition by copyright law? If you go buy a car, the profit the car dealer is making is determined by the balance between supply and demand. This is not the case in intellecutal property cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 04:02 PM) Who gets to decide what an appropriate return on investment is when the retailer is protected from competition by copyright law? If you go buy a car, the profit the car dealer is making is determined by the balance between supply and demand. This is not the case in intellecutal property cases. Seems the Obama admin wants to do just that in regards to oil companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 05:21 PM) Seems the Obama admin wants to do just that in regards to oil companies. This is actually not the worst comparison at all. The government, through subsidies and taxes, passes along huge benefits to fossil fuel companies. The government, through copyright law, passes on huge subsidies to the owners of certain copyrights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'd like to point out that SOPA is mainly defending the RIAA. Who are a bunch of dicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 05:29 PM) I'd like to point out that SOPA is mainly defending the RIAA. Who are a bunch of dicks. And the MPAA. Who are equally large ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 04:02 PM) Who gets to decide what an appropriate return on investment is when the retailer is protected from competition by copyright law? If you go buy a car, the profit the car dealer is making is determined by the balance between supply and demand. This is not the case in intellecutal property cases. When an artist and record company makes an investment in an album, how are they suppose to recoup their investment? Who pays them when a song is pirated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 04:28 PM) This is actually not the worst comparison at all. The government, through subsidies and taxes, passes along huge benefits to fossil fuel companies. The government, through copyright law, passes on huge subsidies to the owners of certain copyrights. So when millions of people start driving off without paying, it will be ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 05:50 PM) When an artist and record company makes an investment in an album, how are they suppose to recoup their investment? Who pays them when a song is pirated? No one here is saying that they can't be compensated for their investment in some fashion. The question is about the level. You're the one who is telling us that we need additional protection beyond what is currently available. That is the whole point of this law...that these industries need expanded protection, again. In 1790, copyright protection lasted 28 years. It currently lasts 95 years. Now we need to expand the government's efforts even more for what reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 05:51 PM) So when millions of people start driving off without paying, it will be ok? Do you have a problem when millions of people begin using generic drugs after a copyright period expires? It would make drugs even more profitable if we expanded copyright protection even more on medication. Why do we limit the return on investmetn that they can make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 04:55 PM) No one here is saying that they can't be compensated for their investment in some fashion. The question is about the level. You're the one who is telling us that we need additional protection beyond what is currently available. That is the whole point of this law...that these industries need expanded protection, again. In 1790, copyright protection lasted 28 years. It currently lasts 95 years. Now we need to expand the government's efforts even more for what reason? So if a company wants too much profit it is ok to steal from them? When people steal they are allowing the company zero profit, I can't believe you think that is fair. How will investors earn back their investment if people are allowed to pirate movies and music? Technology makes for a better thief and the laws need to keep pace. The second paragraph is an attempt to put words in my mouth to divert the conversation away from a point you have lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 04:55 PM) Do you have a problem when millions of people begin using generic drugs after a copyright period expires? It would make drugs even more profitable if we expanded copyright protection even more on medication. Why do we limit the return on investmetn that they can make? I have a problem with people stealing. Do you have a problem with businesses expecting to get paid for items they have for sale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 06:02 PM) So if a company wants too much profit it is ok to steal from them? When people steal they are allowing the company zero profit, I can't believe you think that is fair. How will investors earn back their investment if people are allowed to pirate movies and music? Technology makes for a better thief and the laws need to keep pace. The second paragraph is an attempt to put words in my mouth to divert the conversation away from a point you have lost. If people steal a cancer drug that is on copyright, but it keeps them alive, is that a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 05:03 PM) If people steal a cancer drug that is on copyright, but it keeps them alive, is that a bad thing? Wow, I didn't know the latest Foo Fighter CD was that important to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 05:03 PM) If people steal a cancer drug that is on copyright, but it keeps them alive, is that a bad thing? That was a stupid argument and I've been agreeing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 06:03 PM) I have a problem with people stealing. Do you have a problem with businesses expecting to get paid for items they have for sale? If the business is only able to earn a profit on its products thanks to the government deciding that they should, then I start to have a problem with that unless someone can demonstrate for me a societal benefit, which is what I want the government to do. Once the government has provided sufficient protection that a reasonable profit can be turned, then I'm good with it. There is plenty of money to be invested in entertainment right now. Hell, there is more than enough invested in it. Copyrights were 28 years when the first copyright law was passed in 1790. They now are 95 years. Copyright law in this country is excessive to the point of insanity, for the protection of a handful of media companies. And in all economies, excessive legal protection always leads to the creation of a black market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 06:05 PM) Wow, I didn't know the latest Foo Fighter CD was that important to you.It's the exact same argument. Who gets to choose what an appropriate profit margin is on a drug? We could save hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide right now if we broke every copyright on every medication. But we don't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 05:06 PM) That was a stupid argument and I've been agreeing with you. Then I will ask you, or anyone, who pays? How do investors, whether it is the artists or those that pay them, make an investment, how are they suppose to earn back their investment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 06:08 PM) Then I will ask you, or anyone, who pays? How do investors, whether it is the artists or those that pay them, make an investment, how are they suppose to earn back their investment? They currently are doing exactly that. The system we have works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 05:08 PM) It's the exact same argument. Who gets to choose what an appropriate profit margin is on a drug? We could save hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide right now if we broke every copyright on every medication. But we don't do that. You still haven't explained why a business should be expected to give away their product. When investors invest in a movie or album, who pays when someone steals a copy? Who pays? Since you can't seem to figure it out, it is on the people who actually buy the product. As that pool gets smaller and smaller they pay more. You can justify stealing all you want. You can complain about profits. You can bring up cancer drugs and God knows everything else. But the conversation is about music and movie downloads. Since the evil investors want to make money you believe people should be allowed to steal from them. I disagree and believe companies should be protected by law when someone steals their stuff. I think Nike should be protected from Chinese counterfeit of their products, I think Clancy deserves the right to sell his books, not have them pirated on-line, and I believe record companies deserve to have people buy their product not steal it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts