|
Whilst I understand the need to start bringing in money, there has to be another way of doing this. The organizers cannot be serious - charging $20 for a weekend tournament is too much, while the game itself costs $40 (HotS)- $60.
The masses of gameplaying people are, in fact, not very wealthy, mostly young players with little personal income. I work, and I get a decent salary, but even myself, with my salary, didn't want to spend $20. Me watching it is a time investment already, and paying on top? No way.
If they want to make this work, either the cost has to be substantially reduced/removed. Get it from advertising, get it from other sources, make it popular, make it accessible.
PS This is true for GSL too, BTW. In case of GSL, the time it starts is such that even if it was free, I wouldn't watch it.
|
On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really.
did you read the article that you linked?
"We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"
to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads
Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy
edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr
|
|
|
On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise
How is it unethical?
|
On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really. did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr
So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction.
|
On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really. did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction.
I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10
On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical?
how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else
|
On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really. did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else
If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything.
Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically.
|
On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really. did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically.
I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only.
You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it
downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that
|
On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really. did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that
Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy.
|
On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really. did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy.
how is it not ethical for your friend to copy it and give them to you. The singers and producers worked hard to make his product, and you are taking the service without compensating them.
Most people have pirated things at one point or another, but don't try to justify yourself into thinking that its not unethical. That's just shady
I don't think you have full grasp of what are intellectual properties. When people sell you CD or software, they aren't selling you the physical copy, those have almost no worth at all. They're selling you the content AND the license for you and only you to use them
|
On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really. did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy.
That's called a copyright infringement sir. Yes even copying it and giving it to a friend is illegal AND unethical. You are stealing money from not only the place you bought it from, but also the composer and the record label etc. You are stealing money from at least 3 sources if not more when you give music to your friends like this.
|
On February 29 2012 11:13 Xxavi wrote:
Whilst I understand the need to start bringing in money, there has to be another way of doing this. The organizers cannot be serious - charging $20 for a weekend tournament is too much, while the game itself costs $40 (HotS)- $60.
The masses of gameplaying people are, in fact, not very wealthy, mostly young players with little personal income. I work, and I get a decent salary, but even myself, with my salary, didn't want to spend $20. Me watching it is a time investment already, and paying on top? No way.
If they want to make this work, either the cost has to be substantially reduced/removed. Get it from advertising, get it from other sources, make it popular, make it accessible.
PS This is true for GSL too, BTW. In case of GSL, the time it starts is such that even if it was free, I wouldn't watch it.
Just a note, GSL is free to watch as long as you watch it live. It doesn't change the fact that its so damn late, but it is free if you watch it at that time.
|
On February 29 2012 15:06 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really. did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. how is it not ethical for your friend to copy it and give them to you. The singers and producers worked hard to make his product, and you are taking the service without compensating them. Most people have pirated things at one point or another, but don't try to justify yourself into thinking that its not unethical. That's just shady I don't think you have full grasp of what are intellectual properties. When people sell you CD or software, they aren't selling you the physical copy, those have almost no worth at all. They're selling you the content AND the license for you and only you to use them
If someone pirates they think thier work is worthless by definition. Worthless is that for which you will not pay.
|
On February 29 2012 15:09 Ghost.573 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really. did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. That's called a copyright infringement sir. Yes even copying it and giving it to a friend is illegal AND unethical. You are stealing money from not only the place you bought it from, but also the composer and the record label etc. You are stealing money from at least 3 sources if not more when you give music to your friends like this.
I'm not taking anything for which I would otherwise pay. I don't buy music so whether I hear some or not affects nobody let alone 3 sources.
|
On February 29 2012 15:30 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 15:09 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really. did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. That's called a copyright infringement sir. Yes even copying it and giving it to a friend is illegal AND unethical. You are stealing money from not only the place you bought it from, but also the composer and the record label etc. You are stealing money from at least 3 sources if not more when you give music to your friends like this. I'm not taking anything for which I would otherwise pay. I don't buy music so whether I hear some or not affects nobody let alone 3 sources.
But you're still getting something for free that you would otherwise be forced to pay for. And the fact that you chose to still watch MLG by going around the paywall rather than watching one of the free tournaments like assembly shows that it's worth paying for, you're just cheap and don't want to pay for it, so now you're making excuses to try and feel better.
|
On February 29 2012 15:38 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 15:30 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:09 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. That's called a copyright infringement sir. Yes even copying it and giving it to a friend is illegal AND unethical. You are stealing money from not only the place you bought it from, but also the composer and the record label etc. You are stealing money from at least 3 sources if not more when you give music to your friends like this. I'm not taking anything for which I would otherwise pay. I don't buy music so whether I hear some or not affects nobody let alone 3 sources. But you're still getting something for free that you would otherwise be forced to pay for. And the fact that you chose to still watch MLG by going around the paywall rather than watching one of the free tournaments like assembly shows that it's worth paying for, you're just cheap and don't want to pay for it, so now you're making excuses to try and feel better.
How does that argument even work? Just because there was free regular player streams or Assembly the same weekend it means that people didn't watch them and that MLG is worth paying for? Stupid to say the least, especially considering the person you're arguing against, tdt, is american and MLG was scheduled better for people living in the US. Still doesn't mean that he'd pay for it if there was no other SC2 related stuff online.
Also look at IPL4. That's a tournament i'd be willing to pay 15-20 bucks for if i didn't already have a GSTL ticket.
GSTL finals and IPL4 the same weekend with an actual crowd and, probably, on par or better production compared to MLG.
|
On February 29 2012 16:26 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 15:38 hunts wrote:On February 29 2012 15:30 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:09 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:
[quote]
did you read the article that you linked?
"We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"
to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads
Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy
edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:
[quote]
if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble.
This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc
saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now.
But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. That's called a copyright infringement sir. Yes even copying it and giving it to a friend is illegal AND unethical. You are stealing money from not only the place you bought it from, but also the composer and the record label etc. You are stealing money from at least 3 sources if not more when you give music to your friends like this. I'm not taking anything for which I would otherwise pay. I don't buy music so whether I hear some or not affects nobody let alone 3 sources. But you're still getting something for free that you would otherwise be forced to pay for. And the fact that you chose to still watch MLG by going around the paywall rather than watching one of the free tournaments like assembly shows that it's worth paying for, you're just cheap and don't want to pay for it, so now you're making excuses to try and feel better. How does that argument even work? Just because there was free regular player streams or Assembly the same weekend it means that people didn't watch them and that MLG is worth paying for? Stupid to say the least, especially considering the person you're arguing against, tdt, is american and MLG was scheduled better for people living in the US. Still doesn't mean that he'd pay for it if there was no other SC2 related stuff online. Also look at IPL4. That's a tournament i'd be willing to pay 15-20 bucks for if i didn't already have a GSTL ticket. GSTL finals and IPL4 the same weekend with an actual crowd and, probably, on par or better production compared to MLG.
if he watches it, he places some values in it. If he believes those values are not worth the price, then he doesn't get those values. You can't keep the values and not pay the price and uses "not worth it" as a justification
|
On February 29 2012 16:38 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 16:26 karpo wrote:On February 29 2012 15:38 hunts wrote:On February 29 2012 15:30 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:09 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:
[quote]
So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:
[quote]
How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. That's called a copyright infringement sir. Yes even copying it and giving it to a friend is illegal AND unethical. You are stealing money from not only the place you bought it from, but also the composer and the record label etc. You are stealing money from at least 3 sources if not more when you give music to your friends like this. I'm not taking anything for which I would otherwise pay. I don't buy music so whether I hear some or not affects nobody let alone 3 sources. But you're still getting something for free that you would otherwise be forced to pay for. And the fact that you chose to still watch MLG by going around the paywall rather than watching one of the free tournaments like assembly shows that it's worth paying for, you're just cheap and don't want to pay for it, so now you're making excuses to try and feel better. How does that argument even work? Just because there was free regular player streams or Assembly the same weekend it means that people didn't watch them and that MLG is worth paying for? Stupid to say the least, especially considering the person you're arguing against, tdt, is american and MLG was scheduled better for people living in the US. Still doesn't mean that he'd pay for it if there was no other SC2 related stuff online. Also look at IPL4. That's a tournament i'd be willing to pay 15-20 bucks for if i didn't already have a GSTL ticket. GSTL finals and IPL4 the same weekend with an actual crowd and, probably, on par or better production compared to MLG. if he watches it, he places some values in it. If he believes those values are not worth the price, then he doesn't get those values. You can't keep the values and not pay the price and uses "not worth it" as a justification
Man this is some idealistic stuff. IF we lived in a perfect world people wouldn't watch if they didn't think it was worth the price, in this case it's 2012 and we're on the internet. People with nothing better to do WILL bypass (or in my case, just click the mlg link) simple security to watch stuff like this. If it was harder to do (like GOM for example) practially no one would even care to try and either pay or just not watch. It's not about justification, it's just the truth and it won't change even if you regurgitate the same old naive arguments about "you don't pay you shouldn't watch".
We don't live in an ideal world and companies need to offer products/services that's worth buying, else people will pirate. Spotify is really popular, you know why? Because it's competitively priced and offers something much more accessible than downloading flac/mp3. Steam is popular because they offer a simple system for buying and managing your games, without having to download/seed/crack them. GOG.com is a popular site selling old games because they offer extras (soundtrack etc) and often solve stuff like compatability issues and other shit you need to fix yourself if you download.
|
On February 29 2012 15:27 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 15:06 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 10:05 TheSir wrote:On February 29 2012 08:39 iky43210 wrote:
since we're arguing about the concept, it isn't about "how much" but whether will it or not. You personally argued that piracy does not affect sales, and it is just clearly not the case.
Maybe read some articles about it before you say anything further about piracy, there are a ton of articles/studies about it and i'll give you 2 examples which most recently were published: - Techdirt: The Sky Is Rising!- Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office SalesPiracy is wrong but affecting sales in general? No not really. did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. how is it not ethical for your friend to copy it and give them to you. The singers and producers worked hard to make his product, and you are taking the service without compensating them. Most people have pirated things at one point or another, but don't try to justify yourself into thinking that its not unethical. That's just shady I don't think you have full grasp of what are intellectual properties. When people sell you CD or software, they aren't selling you the physical copy, those have almost no worth at all. They're selling you the content AND the license for you and only you to use them If someone pirates they think thier work is worthless by definition. Worthless is that for which you will not pay.
Grats you own a dictionary. Try taking this argument to a court of law and see where it gets you. My bet is on jail if you download music or anything else w/o paying for it.
|
On February 29 2012 16:59 Ghost.573 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 15:27 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:06 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:did you read the article that you linked? "We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 06:00 crms wrote:
Why are people arguing like internet piracy and how it pertains to business is some brand new problem to tackle? There have been limitless case studies about this issue and nothing about the issue is unique to esports. Jesus Christ, let's stop thinking we're so special for one second and just look at the facts, history, and studies that have already taking place regarding internet piracy. Esports isn't going anywhere because 1 tournament experimented with a high price and people pirated. God damn, I'm glad (or hope) none of you work in an industry with any piracy or copyright infringment, you'd have boarded up the windows and gone home by now.
Millions of people pirate videogames, music, and UFC events (an event people ignorantly compare to esports PPV) all the time, yet some how I don't forsee, Zuffa (LLC that owns the UFC) or Valve going out of business anytime soon. In fact I think Valve made 400 million dollars last year. if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble. This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now. But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. how is it not ethical for your friend to copy it and give them to you. The singers and producers worked hard to make his product, and you are taking the service without compensating them. Most people have pirated things at one point or another, but don't try to justify yourself into thinking that its not unethical. That's just shady I don't think you have full grasp of what are intellectual properties. When people sell you CD or software, they aren't selling you the physical copy, those have almost no worth at all. They're selling you the content AND the license for you and only you to use them If someone pirates they think thier work is worthless by definition. Worthless is that for which you will not pay. Grats you own a dictionary. Try taking this argument to a court of law and see where it gets you. My bet is on jail if you download music or anything else w/o paying for it.
And my bet is that copyright infringement won't net you jailtime in any sane country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
