What Are the Implications of Megaupload Being Taken Down?

[rootX]

About ten years ago my boyfriend had the idea of streaming music, a website like Pandora, Sony laughed at him and told him it would never happen.

Now then ten years later I go to the Pandora website and get the following message:

Sony is still laughing.

Fortunately, rdio is accessible outside U.S. too.
http://www.rdio.com/

 

[StevieTNZ]

I always find it odd that people think that it's okay to steal something just because they don't like the costs and ways something are sold.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's entertainment, not water and bread.

How do you know if you don't like it, if you've never watched it?

 

[turbo]

When I was still able to tolerate perfumes, I used to be able to pick up over $30/hr hosting open-mic jams at a couple of local taverns, along with free drinks. From time to time, people would bring in cam-corders, and I'd encourage them to share the footage with friends because the more people that showed up, the more money the tavern-owners made and the more secure my pocket-money jobs were. It was nice to play music for a few hours on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and go home with $125 or so. That was fun, especially since lots of young ladies would come into socialize and avoid the meat-market scenes on Friday and Saturday nights.

If I had to rely on recordings to stay alive, I think I'd take the Grateful Dead tack and actually encourage fans to record performances. Those GD bootlegs did a lot to keep the band popular and relevant when other bands were fading.

I don't condone piracy of copyrighted material, but if performers encourage their fans to record them and share the recordings with others, it only helps promote them. The production values of the bootlegs are generally poor, but they generate interest and probably boost record sales, overall.

The biggest problem with the "megaupload" style sites is that movie studios spend millions of dollars to produce movies, and are rightfully affronted when people steal them instead of renting or buying a copy. I have a neighbor who is a movie-nut, and he buys DVDs all the time, so I get to borrow his. The tastes of his wife and him don't line up all that well with mine, so it's nice that I don't have to pay for borrowing movies that I would not have paid for anyway. The up-side for the movie companies is that if we end up borrowing some vacuous chick-flick or silly comedy, my wife and I have big families, and we can make recommendations to other family members that we think might enjoy seeing them. There are not a lot of theaters around, and the local video-rental stores have folded, probably due to NetFlix. The way content is distributed is changing quite rapidly.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm stealing Pengwuino's posts in this thread to make a troll account on pirate bay. Good thing he can't afford to come after me.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I don't condone piracy of copyrighted material.
I have a neighbor who is a movie-nut, and he buys DVDs all the time, so I get to borrow his. The tastes of his wife and him don't line up all that well with mine, so it's nice that I don't have to pay for borrowing movies that I would not have paid for anyway.

Look on the back of said DVD. You'll find something along the following lines.

WARNING:The copyright proprietor has licensed this DVD for private home use only. Unless otherwise expressly licensed by the copyright proprietor, all other rights reserved. Any authorized copying, editing, exhibition, renting, lending, public performance etc..., is strictly prohibited.

You'll be hard pushed to find anyone who finds lending someone a DVD morally abhorrent.
Copying for non profit isn't that big an extension. The scale of 'lending' is simply larger.

So hypothetically speaking, what if we have a digital copy that self destructs after a week. It's simply like lending someone a copy of your DVD.

How and why is the line drawn there?
Who decided where the line was?

edit: Removed my rambling.

 

[Pythagorean]

Because people will say/do anything to make you feel guilty about hurting profit margins. Even when you're not breaking the law.

 

[rootX]

The way content is distributed is changing quite rapidly.

The problem is big companies are not willing to accept that (as Monique already pointed out). I am not in the favor of protecting theaters/dvd-cd/rentals industries because I feel these are things of the past.

 

[burklegirl]

I understand why Megaupload was shut down. I know there's users out there that use it for fully legal reasons, but the majority use it for pirating. I'd be upset if I paid a subscription for Megaupload though. I hope the customers are refunded.

I own Photoshop CS5 Extended. That's a $1,000 software program. I know another person who uses the same program, and pirated it. It peeved me simply because it's unfair to consumers like me who pay for it, and Adobe itself despite the fact that they're such a large company. Piracy affects consumers, as well. It's not just a slap to the creators of the product, but the consumers who pay for it.

I know a lot of people say it's okay to steal music, for example, because the musicians are "so rich". Therefore, it's okay to steal someone's car if they're rich? Virtual thievery isn't on the level of physically, but I do believe the same mortality should apply to both.

I also don't quite grasp the "it's alright to steal from well-off musicians since they're established financially". It's like saying, it's okay to steal Elton John's music due to the fact that he's rich, but not an unknown artist because he's still relatively poor. Either way, the musicians are creating a product to profit off of.

I don't see the need to illegally steal things today with services such as Rhapsody, Hulu, Pandora, Netflix, Amazon Video, Netflix etc. They make things accessible and cheaper.

It's a lot easier to subscribe to Netflix within 5 minutes then spend an hour downloading a low-quality pirated TV show.

 

[genericusrnme]

I know a lot of people say it's okay to steal music, for example, because the musicians are "so rich". Therefore, it's okay to steal someone's car if they're rich? Virtual thievery isn't on the level of physically, but I do believe the same mortality should apply to both.

I am in firm oposition to this statement.
1. physical thievery involves items that were produced and cost money to be produced, the thing you are stealing has value
2. piracy involves copies that cost nothing to produce, the copy is nothing more than a copy in an infinite sea of other copies, does it have any inherent value?

Your statement would be correct if in real life there was an unlimited supply of copies of cars. Sadly in real life there is not an unlimited supply of copies of cars. In real life, when you steal something you remove one of that item from the pool of available that items, when you pirate it you do not. There is still the same number of that items available irl.
Theft in real life costs sales because the people selling no longer have those goods to sell. Online 'piracy' does not have this issue, IRL sellers are unaffected.

Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that people who pirate material would not have bought it in the first place. Has there been any loss of profits?
No, there has not. There has been, however, an increase in publicity for the band/film/whatever, one person might show their friends who might like it and end up buying it, giving a net result of 1 extra sale.

There is also no way of accurately gauging what the end product is going to be like, another reason the car analogy fails. You can take a car for a test drive legally, you cannot 'test drive' films/music/whatever without breaking the law, this makes every single purchase you make a risk.
I'd further be willing to be that the VAST majority of pirated goods are watched/listened to once and once only to find out if whatever it was was actually good.

It really is not as clear cut as you would think it is and there are plenty of other reasons I could bring up as to why 'piracy' and irl theft are not the same.
I use the apostrophes around piracy because as I said, I'd be willing to bet the majority of piracy occurances are nothing more than test drives.

 

[burklegirl]

I am in firm oposition to this statement.
1. physical thievery involves items that were produced and cost money to be produced, the thing you are stealing has value
2. piracy involves copies that cost nothing to produce, the copy is nothing more than a copy in an infinite sea of other copies, does it have any inherent value?

Your statement would be correct if in real life there was an unlimited supply of copies of cars. Sadly in real life there is not an unlimited supply of copies of cars. In real life, when you steal something you remove one of that item from the pool of available that items, when you pirate it you do not. There is still the same number of that items available irl.
Theft in real life costs sales because the people selling no longer have those goods to sell. Online 'piracy' does not have this issue, IRL sellers are unaffected.

Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that people who pirate material would not have bought it in the first place. Has there been any loss of profits?
No, there has not. There has been, however, an increase in publicity for the band/film/whatever, one person might show their friends who might like it and end up buying it, giving a net result of 1 extra sale.

There is also no way of accurately gauging what the end product is going to be like, another reason the car analogy fails. You can take a car for a test drive legally, you cannot 'test drive' films/music/whatever without breaking the law, this makes every single purchase you make a risk.
I'd further be willing to be that the VAST majority of pirated goods are watched/listened to once and once only to find out if whatever it was was actually good.

It really is not as clear cut as you would think it is and there are plenty of other reasons I could bring up as to why 'piracy' and irl theft are not the same.
I use the apostrophes around piracy because as I said, I'd be willing to bet the majority of piracy occurances are nothing more than test drives.

I mentioned that virtually thievery is not equal to physical thievery. It's a completely separate issue. However I do believe that stealing is stealing. Obviously there is a differential level of stealing such as stealing a car vs. pirating PS CS5, but I believe that stealing virtually is stealing regardless if there is no physical contact or physical lost.

I disagree with your test-drive theory. Youtube, iTunes samples, or Amazon music will let you sample the music. Most companies also offer free trials for software. You can trial products from anywhere between 2 weeks to a month. For eBooks, you can download samples.

Pirating is not necessary.

I wouldn't buy a shirt if I couldn't afford it. Therefore, I won't buy an album if I can't afford it.

I also disagree with your loss of profit theory. There is a lost of profit. Movies, for example. Most people will not buy a ticket nor buy the DVD when you can download it for free then burn it to a DVD-R disk. I cannot even imagine how many artists, movie producers, authors. that have had their work stolen from them.

I do graphic work for my part-time job. If someone made numerous copies of my design and shared them for free, I would lose profit. Not only would I lose profit, but my copyright rights are affected. It'd also be unfair to my customers who pay for my work. It lowers the value of the product. Why spend it when the same product is available for free?

The same is happening for the people's creations that are being pirated.

 

[feathermoon]

Two things:

First, the only people in the music industry who suffered from pirating since its advent have been the record labels (the producers of physical copies--cds, tapes). Artists have benefited on the whole. Google will show you many charts and stories on this. Thus I agree that it is an industry fault for not keeping up with technology.

Secondly, the majority of pirated material is pirated by people who wouldn't have paid for the item in the first place. They would not have been exposed to it otherwise. These aren't lost profits, they're ungained profits.


From a computer gamer standpoint, DRM is among the worst things that's ever happened to gaming. I cannot believe its come to a point where legal users have to sign into internet sites to use single player (offline) games. This does not help stop pirating--games are cracked in days (sometimes days before release even)--at all. It only alienates legitimate consumers.

The respective industries NEED to change the way they do things. STEAM is convenient and so successful that its parent company Valve is able to release its games for free in some cases; Windows Live is a horrible travesty that makes me want to never buy another game with its logo on it.

Hell, Ebooks are an entire industry is completely stunted because of printing companies being unwilling to remodel.

 

[Galteeth]

The difference between sites like megaupload and sites like the pirate bay is that megaupload charges a fee for a subscription for better site access. This is different then just making files available. They are profiting directly by restricting distribution. The pirate bay is funded through advertisements. It's analagous to: I run a party where people know about places to get free cds, and since a lot of people come to the party, people pay me to advertise their products versus I run a party and people at this party have cds to swap, so you have to pay to get it again.

 

[genericusrnme]

I mentioned that virtually thievery is not equal to physical thievery. It's a completely separate issue. However I do believe that stealing is stealing. Obviously there is a differential level of stealing such as stealing a car vs. pirating PS CS5, but I believe that stealing virtually is stealing regardless if there is no physical contact or physical lost.

I disagree with your test-drive theory. Youtube, iTunes samples, or Amazon music will let you sample the music. Most companies also offer free trials for software. You can trial products from anywhere between 2 weeks to a month. For eBooks, you can download samples.

Pirating is not necessary.

I wouldn't buy a shirt if I couldn't afford it. Therefore, I won't buy an album if I can't afford it.

I also disagree with your loss of profit theory. There is a lost of profit. Movies, for example. Most people will not buy a ticket nor buy the DVD when you can download it for free then burn it to a DVD-R disk.

I completely disagree with you.
Other than select songs, most videos on youtube what would allow you to 'test drive' are still breaching copyright. iTunes and amazon samples give you 30 seconds, I believe, of a song which is not a good indicator of whether it is worth buying.
Most companies do offer free trials but a lot of those include restrictions all over the place (if you 'pirate' a piece of software and use it for the same amount of time as a trial is it still theft?).
ebooks are tricky, a few choice samples are not a good indicator of the quality of the book. There's also the issue of its okay to read a book from a library but it's 'piracy' if you download a book and read it.

I didn't say piracy is necessary. I would say that it has probably caused more sales than it has cost.
I would also say that it has help more smaller businesses than it has hindered.
I have heard far more claims from small companies that piracy has helped than ones that have claimed it hindered them (I've heard of none in the latter category)
I wouldn't agree with you on the last part, going to the effort to download something implies you care about it so chances are you'd go to the cinema to see any new releases in a series that you downloaded or related to one you downloaded. If you had never downloaded and 'test drove' an earlier film you probably would never have heard of the film and wouldn't want to see it. If you were going to take a risk and buy the earlier film then there has been a net of 0 extra sales, you have cost one sale of an old product but produced one sale of a new product. If you weren't going to buy it then you have only given an extra sale. Unless you're going to imply that these pirates are going to put themselves through the torture of some guys recording from his phone with people running across it for new releases. If they were going to put themselves through that then they would not have gone to the cinema in the first place, there has been no lost sale. If they did look at the terrible recording and they liked the film then there is more chance that the person might want to go and see the film.

A shirt is not a good analogie for piracy, when you buy an album you're not paying for the case, you're paying for the information on the disk.
When you see a shirt you can look at it hell, you can even try it on (test run).
When you see an album you can't listen to it without buying it.
Furthermore, if you weren't going to buy the cd it in the first place then you haven't cost anyone a sale, the worst you can do is give it some publicity.
If you stole the shirt you have cost the seller one sale since they have lost a product to sell (assuming there is a finite number of shirts in the shop).

Incidentally, if piracy is that bad then how come music industory revenues have increased every year since 2006?
Either the people that buy media are buying increasinly more (enough to overpower the losses from piracy) or piracy, which is apprently on the increase, is having no effect or is helping sales.
http://grabstats.com/statcategorymain.asp?StatCatID=9

 

[ThomasT]

What is your criteria for deciding if it serious enough for the DOJ to get into?

The criteria are sort of fuzzy. Because the US has so many laws, selective, even arbitrary, enforcement is the norm.

I'm curious why this particular site, megaupload, was targeted. I think that it has more to do with pressure from moneyed interests than any sense of right and wrong. Or, as I indicated in my previous post, maybe the people running megaupload were involved in more serious stuff than just facilitating the downloading of pirated movies and music.

Beyond that, and wrt your question, I simply don't consider copyright infringement to be a serious offense, especially when it's minimally affecting the bottom lines of corporations that have already made substantial fortunes from the stuff that's being pirated. Also, I think that an argument might be made for the notion that internet pirating of copyrighted movies and music actually helps the general economy, and that the legal alternative of buying the same movies and music at retail prices actually hurts the general economy.

Continuing, wrt your question, human trafficking, the terrorizing of populations (eg., those on the US southern border), murder, assault, armed robbery, organizations engaging in these sorts of activities, the preemptive invasion of sovereign countries, the abuses of the financial sector, spousal abuse, the sexual assault of children ... etc., these are serious problems, imho.

The free copying/uploading/downloading of copyrighted materials is of course illegal. But, imho, it's waaay down the list of priorities that the DoJ should be concerned about.

 

[Evo]

Also, I think that an argument might be made for the notion that internet pirating of copyrighted movies and music actually helps the general economy, and that the legal alternative of buying the same movies and music at retail prices actually hurts the general economy.

I'd like to see you post a study that backs that up.

 

[AlephZero]

Take one site out and some of the others start running for cover:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16679174

 

[vela]

I would also say that it has help more smaller businesses than it has hindered.
I have heard far more claims from small companies that piracy has helped than ones that have claimed it hindered them (I've heard of none in the latter category)

I'm curious as to whether your belief is accurate. Here's a perspective from one small business that doesn't agree with you:

http://tidbits.com/article/12719

 

[ThomasT]

I'd like to see you post a study that backs that up.

I don't know that there are any studies addressing this consideration. Anyway, I presented it as a possibility, nothing more. Consider it, and if you have an opinion on it, then you can state it here.

It's based on the assumptions that (1) a significant portion of the revenues from dvd and cd sales are kept in the financial sector, and that (2) virtually all of the money not spent by internet downloaders of pirated material is spent in the general economy.

Is there a study dealing with this?

 

[feathermoon]

I don't know that there are any studies addressing this consideration. Anyway, I presented it as a possibility, nothing more. Consider it, and if you have an opinion on it, then you can state it here.

It's based on the assumptions that (1) a significant portion of the revenues from dvd and cd sales are kept in the financial sector, and that (2) virtually all of the money not spent by internet downloaders of pirated material is spent in the general economy.

Is there a study dealing with this?

There is the general agreement, at least, that lower and middle classes tend to save less than does the upper class. I couldn't argue with your logic in that regard--but I suppose based on this the money eventually will trickle up to the rich either way.

Since money devalues constantly, I wonder if the deeply indebted then spend their money wisliest. Keynes might agree with me! I'm straying off topic slowly.

 

[nitsuj]

I'd like to see you post a study that backs that up.

A favorite retort. Wouldn't you rather see the study, then them post it.

Of course it helps the economy, it helps it become more equitable Poor people cannot become cultured / entertained, unless they spend a higher fraction of their income than those who can easily afford to pay a lot for something of little value?

A pharmaceutical company invests millions upon millions of dollars to creates a drug that cures some bad something. Their patent protection at the time of going to market is what 5 years 10 max to recoup R&D expense and make some profit. (this maybe to help keep drugs affordable, but it of course carries some negative consequences, I would guess less advanced pharmaceuticals)

movies & music is 50years after death of creator (how is that even applied where a corp' holds copyright protection?) to recoup cost and make some profit. The proposed legislation should be regarding a change in the principals of copyright protection in capitalism & piracy.
In the sense of weighing the REAL economic costs with the copyright violation (similar to how patents are protected). Unfortunately for the "entertainment industry" piracy via P2P amounts to nill real economic loss. The punishment if "caught" by the copyright holder, a civil suit. Oh right those have happened and have turned out unfavorable for copyright holders (at least here in Canada).

It would be interesting to see the comparison between average cost of R&D for a drug, & average cost of production of Hollywood's blockbusters. IMDB estimates avatar at 240 million. Gross, 2.5 billion. Yea I feel real guilty for OWNing a pirated copy. ( I did pay to see the movie, because of the 3D, a cool experience. experience, something I can't say for 99% of the entertainment I see/hear. in addition the process of filming/presenting the movie with 3D is probably patented)

I'd like to see a study that shows the REAL economic cost of piracy of movies & music.

Copyright protection is not incentive for artists to create, it's incentive for corporations to get involved and make lots of cash off the talents of others. Copyright protection should not be treated as an asset like patents. It was never the intent. Perhaps copyright protection held by corporations should expire after 5 years.

Is it worse to pirate a copy of Avatar compared to umm, Freddy got Fingered? It shouldn't be.

 

[russ_watters]

Unfortunately for the "entertainment industry" piracy via P2P amounts to nill real economic loss...

I'd like to see a study that shows the REAL economic cost of piracy of movies & music.

You're badly wrong and this has been widely publicized for the past decade. Piracy has badly damaged the profits of the entertainment industry. Here's a study, with some simple factoids on page 5:
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2011.pdf

Perhaps the clearest, to the point factoid is that from 2004-2010, the value of the global recording industry fell by 31%.

And applicable to the thread:

The IPRED law had an instant impact. In
a single day in April 2009, internet traffic in
Sweden was reported to have dropped 40
per cent (Netnod) and there were several
reported voluntary closures of BitTorrent
trackers. According to a study from Uppsala
University by Adermon & Liang, Piracy, Music
and Movies, A Natural Experiment, it was the
introduction of the IPRED law that triggered the
reduction in piracy levels. The study found
that legitimate music consumption increased
to fill the gap. For each percentage point fall
in piracy caused by the new law, there was a
statistically significant sales increase.

 

[Evo]

People if you plan to show comparison of sentences, you might want to first check on the validty of what you're posting. A Spanish murderer committed and tried in Spain under Spanish law has zero to do with American law.

 

[Char. Limit]

You're badly wrong and this has been widely publicized for the past decade. Piracy has badly damaged the profits of the entertainment industry. Here's a study, with some simple factoids on page 5:
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2011.pdf

Perhaps the clearest, to the point factoid is that from 2004-2010, the value of the global recording industry fell by 31%.

And applicable to the thread:

I don't consider a study made by someone who claims to be "representing the recording the industry" (as seen on the first page of the PDF) to be unbiased. Sorry.

 

[ThomasT]

You're badly wrong and this has been widely publicized for the past decade. Piracy has badly damaged the profits of the entertainment industry. Here's a study, with some simple factoids on page 5:
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2011.pdf

Perhaps the clearest, to the point factoid is that from 2004-2010, the value of the global recording industry fell by 31%.

And applicable to the thread:

I think that the validity of those numbers is questionable. Wrt what you point to as the clearest factoid, the drop in the value of the global recording industry might, imho, have more to do with the decline of general economies than with internet copyright infringements.

The way I'm currently thinking about it is that in order to say, definitively, that internet copyright infringement has had any effect whatsoever on the entertainment industry's gross revenues, then one would have to be able to factually establish that a certain number of the people who downloaded pirated copies of movies or music would have bought what they downloaded if they weren't able to download what they downloaded for free. (That's sort of a convoluted sentence, but I think you know what I mean.)

I don't know of any way to ascertain that.

There are some interesting correlations. But those correlations might, imo, be due, primarily, to factors other than internet piracy.

 

[Pythagorean]

People if you plan to show comparison of sentences, you might want to first check on the validty of what you're posting. A Spanish murderer committed and tried in Spain under Spanish law has zero to do with American law.

To be fair, I asked if it was true when I posted it; I didn't state it was true. I also made two posts questioning the validity of it.

 

[Evo]

To be fair, I asked if it was true when I posted it; I didn't state it was true. I also made two posts questioning the validity of it.

True, and also why you didn't get a warning, but a quick google would have given you the answer, which was my point.

 

[Evo]

Thomas try this.

Analysis carried out in this report indicates that international trade in counterfeit and pirated products could have been up to USD 200 billion in 2005. This total does not include domestically produced and consumed counterfeit and pirated products and the significant volume of pirated digital products being distributed via the Internet. If these items were added, the total magnitude of counterfeiting and piracy worldwide could well be several hundred billion dollars more.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/12/38707619.pdf

 

[Pythagorean]

True, and also why you didn't get a warning, but a quick google would have given you the answer, which was my point.

A quick google reveals opinions pages from normal users; I haven't found any official news on it.

But I think we should keep it up and inform people of the misconception, or make a new thread, because it's spreading like wildfire all over social network sites.

 

[AlephZero]

Source: Financial Times 24 Jan 2012 (edited for length - the FT devoted half a broadsheet page to this topic).

The global music industry is close to a turning point where growth from digital revenues offsets declining sales of CDs, thanks to a combination of subscription services and tougher action on privacy.

Global revenues from digital music grew 8% in 2011 to $5.2bn. A slower rate of decline in sales of physical formats means that the overall market's drop slowed to 3%, at about $16.2bn.

Rob Wells, president of global digital business at Universal Music, the largest record label by revenues, predicted the "inflection point" where digital revenues overtook physical globally would occur in 2013, after the number of downloads overtook CD sales volumes in the US last year.

Wells and others insist that subscription music services such as Spotify and Rhapsody are providing incremental revenues, rather than cannibalizing "a la carte" download services, of which iTunes remains the largest.

The number of people subscribing to "all you can eat" music streaming leapt 64% to 13.4m globally in 2011.

"Some of those big global subscription players are only playing on a small playing field. Those services will expand over the next 12 months. As they mature, they are more likely to be bundled with ISP or [phone] operator subscriptions, which is where we start to see real scale.

IFPI, the music industry's international trade organization, says there has been a 26% reduction in peer-to-peer filesharing services since the introduction of France's "Hadopi" law to suspend presistent pirates' internet connections. ISPs have also been ordered to block piracy sites in New Zealand, Belgium, Austria, Finland, Malaysia, and India.

So it would seem that if the industry provides a legal alternative to piracy, a significant number of people will pay to use it...

 

[ThomasT]

Thomas try this.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/12/38707619.pdf

Thanks Evo. I read this. Really quickly, so I might have missed something. But, as far as I can tell, my primary concern remains unaddressed. That is, what number of people who downloaded free, pirated materials would have paid for those materials if they could not have downloaded them for free? And what did they download for free that if the free option wasn't available they would have paid for?

If those questions can't be answered, then, as far as I can tell, any assertions wrt the cost to the entertainment industry wrt the free downloading of copyrighted materials are just idle speculations.

 

[Evo]

A quick google reveals opinions pages from normal users; I haven't found any official news on it.

But I think we should keep it up and inform people of the misconception, or make a new thread, because it's spreading like wildfire all over social network sites.

His name is actually Miguel Caracaño. Hard to find anything in English, since it was local news in Spain, but I *AM* the google queen!

http://www.euroweeklynews.com/news/costa-del-sol/56024-marta-del-castillo--dna-find-adds-weight-to-accused%E2%80%99s-testimony

 

[Pythagorean]

haha, good work. So much damn information in the Google Sea nowadays.

 

[nitsuj]

You're badly wrong and this has been widely publicized for the past decade. Piracy has badly damaged the profits of the entertainment industry. Here's a study, with some simple factoids on page 5:
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2011.pdf

Perhaps the clearest, to the point factoid is that from 2004-2010, the value of the global recording industry fell by 31%.

And applicable to the thread:

I haven't read the study, but "the value of the global recording industry fell by 31%" is too vague to be the clearest point. Unless your point was the recording industry is moving backwards.

If you want to call me badly wrong, note I said nill economic value. Please let me know the percentage of GDP for say the west combined is generated by copyrights that protect entertainment.

Lastly, my point is a copy of movie/music valueless. There is no figure on sony pictures balance sheet for all the copies of movies and music they plan on selling. They asset value of the copyright is [STRIKE]purely market[/STRIKE] strickley a market valuation.

viva la Hollywood!

 

[Evo]

I haven't read the study, but "the value of the global recording industry fell by 31%" is too vague to be the clearest point. Unless your point was the recording industry is moving backwards.

If you want to call me badly wrong, note I said nill economic value. Please let me know the percentage of GDP for say the west combined is generated by copyrights that protect entertainment.

Lastly, my point is a copy of movie/music valueless. There is no figure on sony pictures balance sheet for all the copies of movies and music they plan on selling. They asset value of the copyright is [STRIKE]purely market[/STRIKE] strickley a market valuation.

viva la Hollywood!

For those that post without reading the thread.

Analysis carried out in this report indicates that international trade in counterfeit and pirated products could have been up to USD 200 billion in 2005. This total does not include domestically produced and consumed counterfeit and pirated products and the significant volume of pirated digital products being distributed via the Internet. If these items were added, the total magnitude of counterfeiting and piracy worldwide could well be several hundred billion dollars more.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/12/38707619.pdf

 

[turbo]

If China would crack down on piracy, they would lose a lot of income in black markets, but western economies would get a boost. Perhaps copyright-holders would even reduce prices to penetrate the Chinese markets for more profits. After all, how much does a DVD of "Fast and Furious" cost to produce, package, and ship? The US "sticker price" of ~$15 is almost pure profit.

 

[nitsuj]

For those that post without reading the thread.


Analysis carried out in this report indicates that international trade in counterfeit and pirated products could have been up to USD 200 billion in 2005. This total does not include domestically produced and consumed counterfeit and pirated products and the significant volume of pirated digital products being distributed via the Internet. If these items were added, the total magnitude of counterfeiting and piracy worldwide could well be several hundred billion dollars more.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/12/38707619.pdf

"Could have been", "could well be", yea that's concrete enough for me to start prosecuting infringers and assign a severity of the economic impact. lol, several hundred billion! I'll have a go at spewing. The "lost" HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of revenue was spent on food, to heat the home & keep the lights on, to donate to charities, pay for health care, pay for education, instead of being spent on entertainment.

That figure of Several Hundred Billion has as much weight as my personal opinion on the matter, and that's what it amounts too, an opinion.


And I did read the excerpt, didn't bother with the link based on the excerpt.

There is a ton of theory out there on valuation. I'm gunna read about those.

 

[Pythagorean]

200 Billion? Well shoot, we should bail the pirates out then.

 

[xxChrisxx]

You're badly wrong and this has been widely publicized for the past decade. Piracy has badly damaged the profits of the entertainment industry. Here's a study, with some simple factoids on page 5:
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2011.pdf

Perhaps the clearest, to the point factoid is that from 2004-2010, the value of the global recording industry fell by 31%.

Piracy... or entertainment liberation.

All that 'value' was delivered into the hands of the masses.

vive la revolution.

 

[Evo]

This thread is pointless. Six pages of the same thing.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't consider a study made by someone who claims to be "representing the recording the industry" (as seen on the first page of the PDF) to be unbiased. Sorry.

Too bad. The only place to get a company's profots is from the company.