Bootlegger Gets 33 mos in jail!

[John E Clark]

 

The Huffington pose article which mister Drysdale posted, disagrees with your opinion. That's where I got the 50% drop in sales with no rebound data. And no, I do not follow the adult video industry.

 

I don't understand why you're bringing up other issues that have nothing to do with piracy. You seem to be saying that all sources of information do not gybe with what you believe are the benefits of piracy to the media market. Is this not what you're saying?

 

How does wanting something, entitle you to having something?

 

This is the quote from person who mentions '50%'.

----

Nate Glass, who runs TakeDownPiracy, an organization battling online porn copyright infringement, estimates DVD sales have dropped by 50 percent since 2007.

---

 

Now, this is a test... where does the phrase 'due to piracy' figure in.

 

There are any number of 'reasons', but just because the person who runs 'TakeDownPiracy' makes a statement, does not mean that 'piracy is the major cause'.

 

Further

---

"A mid-level company that might have earned $350,000 a month in DVD sales before that was earning maybe $150,000 to $200,000 when the recession hit," Glass said. "That may have partly been due to the recession, but there hasn't been a bounceback like in other industries."

---

 

So, with this further quote, again, no 'rebound due to piracy' is to be found.

 

In the same article...

 

----

Sapoutzis, (Theo Sapoutzis, the CEO and Chairman of Adult Video News (AVN)), "guesstimates" the industry made as much as $13 to $15 billion during its peak in the mid-2000s, before the recession. He accepts Cummings' suggestion that 80 percent of porn companies are now defunct or struggling, but Sapoutzis sees that as a sign that the porn business is maturing, not dying.

----

 

So, again, no declamation about the effects of 'piracy'... in fact offers a 'industry maturing' reason for the disappearance of a number of production companies.

 

And another...

----

Roberts, (Darren Roberts, who was the CEO of AVN between 1996 and 2010), said despite the economic hardships the business has apparently faced in recent years, he thinks things are bouncing back. "I am seeing the light at the end of the tunnel," he said. "DVD sales are coming back from two years ago. It was doom and gloom for a while, but people who put out good high quality product survived."

----

 

What DVD sales are coming back from two years ago... and according to that industry worker... "people who put out (....) high quality product survived'... hey what a concept... put out a quality product and survive.

Edited September 2, 2014 by jeclark2006

[George Ebersole]

The article specifically states the drop in sales is due to piracy.

 

But question still persists; how does wanting something, entitle you to having it?

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Can you show where the losses are marginal? Can you demonstrate where one person DL'd for free a film title, or bought a bootleg DVD for some very low price boosted or was inconsequential to normal sales of that same media?

 

Show me a report from a reputable source, criminal records, revenue data from the majors, or sales data from retailers, where piracy helped boost sales of that same title.

I could just as well ask you to prove your claims by showing me numbers. You know these numbers do not exist and are impossible to establish.

 

The only numbers we have access to tell us that the industry is doing as well as ever - I'm not going to post them again: tickets sales on the rise, Blu Ray sales on the rise, VOD the best thing since sliced bread, etc.

 

We can therefore extrapolate that the impact of piracy is marginal. Yes, it is and will remain an extrapolation, but at least it makes sense. On the other hand, extrapolating from those same numbers that piracy has a devastating effect on the industry does not make any.

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

The article specifically states the drop in sales is due to piracy.

 

But question still persists; how does wanting something, entitle you to having it?

George,

You're such a hard-ass. If naive belief in that premise was prohibited then almost the entire human species would be screwed.

 

If you apply the same moral rigor to, say, diet and transportation issues and the immanent dangers thereof then you all become bicycle riding vegetarians, yes?

 

Probably not. Moral outrage is normally applied in a selective and skewed manner.

 

Just Laugh.

[John E Clark]

The article specifically states the drop in sales is due to piracy.

 

But question still persists; how does wanting something, entitle you to having it?

 

I do have the right to buy a DVD, and further view or sell it where ever I want. The Supreme Court has ruled on that.

 

---

The Supreme Court has ruled that copyright owners cannot legally forbid people who buy their works to sell them in the US, even if the items in question were made outside the US. The decision upheld a geographically unlimited first sale doctrine — a provision which holds that once someone buys a book, DVD, or other work copyrighted in America, they're free to sell or rent it without the copyright holder's permission. In doing so, it created a major precedent for breaking down international sale barriers, granting legal status both to people who simply want to sell items bought abroad and to those who make money by taking advantage of cheap prices outside the US.

---

 

As for 'piracy', I've been advocating that the 'action' taken by copyright holders is wrong headed if the expectation is that by 'suppressing' piracy by any means, including draconian sentencing, will change their sales picture in the least.

 

I have further claimed that 'piracy' except in certain cases, does not detract from 'profits' any more than many other types of 'loss', one most significant, is the switch of how people receive content.

 

DVD 'sales' are either flat or declining because people are changing how they obtain content. Not due to en mass purchasing 'pirate' copies over legitimate copies.

 

This changed happened earlier in the porn industry than in non-sex content, and one can use certain lessons to apply to what may be the future for such content.

 

The Music industry has been whining about piracy, all the while growing, all the while offering up more Saint Miley Cyruses as pop icons, etc. But from their tell they are ready for the breadline next year, unless more draconian legislation is enacted.

 

All the while certain countries continue to have 'robust' pirate industries, which would affect an international corporation's bottom line in a more significant way.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

And this is how we justify theft in the 21st century?

 

No, that's how we define theft, or more to the point, something that isn't theft.

[Guest]

 

No, that's how we define theft, or more to the point, something that isn't theft.

 

Bizarre.

 

R,

[John E Clark]

But question still persists; how does wanting something, entitle you to having it?

 

There is a concept of 'adverse possession', and the concept has been discussed relative to 'copyrights'. 'Adverse possession' includes such things as a 'squatters', and there are statutes in various states that if a squatter continues 'possession' beyond some statute of limitations, the property rights pass to the squatter.

 

In the case of 'copyrights' it may be more on the order of 'abandoned property' for some types of materials. This also is one of the reasons for 'orphan artworks legislation' to somehow address works for which the original copyright holder is either unknown, or no longer able (as in like dead...), to assert their rights.

 

The point is that 'ownership' is not as clear cut as your question implies. So, yeah, if there is property abandoned, I nave a 'right' to take it, as does anyone else. The procedure for attempting to find the legitimate owner is frought with problems, especially in the are of 'art', of which, 'film' is a subset.

 

As for civil disobedience relative to 'media' and 'content', I don't think a number of 'innovations' on distribution would have occurred had there not been the threat if not actuality of massive/significant civil disobedience on the part of consumers.

 

Audio tapes and then video tapes both were railed against by the respective media industries as leading to their emminent demise. As history has shown, no such meltdown occurred. One can point to bad choices on how much to spend on productions, and the complete lack of viewer interest as to why several studios hit the skids, and piracy playing absolutely no part, or only a minor role.

 

If the 'law' had followed your implicit statement of 'the copyright holder's decisions are inviolate', then you would be paying $100 per blank tape(or whatever the current popular recording media is, say USB sticks or blank BDs), or just not available to anyone other than 'authorized distributors' of media.

 

As it is that threat/actuality has acted as a competitive element in the market, and as the maxim for capitalist endeavors goes, 'the market determined the lowest price for the highest quality'...

Edited September 2, 2014 by jeclark2006

[George Ebersole]

 

 

George,

You're such a hard-ass. If naive belief in that premise was prohibited then almost the entire human species would be screwed.

 

If you apply the same moral rigor to, say, diet and transportation issues and the immanent dangers thereof then you all become bicycle riding vegetarians, yes?

 

Probably not. Moral outrage is normally applied in a selective and skewed manner.

 

Just Laugh.

 

If you read the previous posts this isn't purely about moral outrage, of which there is plenty, it's about denial of monetary compensation for products and services.

 

Maybe you need to go over the thread before commenting.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

Bizarre

 

For Pete's sake, are you being deliberately dense?

 

Many people have pirated your movie. You still get to sell the movie. No? Understand? Comprende?

 

It's not going in, is it...

 

P

[George Ebersole]

 

There is a concept of 'adverse possession', and the concept has been discussed relative to 'copyrights'. 'Adverse possession' includes such things as a 'squatters', and there are statutes in various states that if a squatter continues 'possession' beyond some statute of limitations, the property rights pass to the squatter.

 

In the case of 'copyrights' it may be more on the order of 'abandoned property' for some types of materials. This also is one of the reasons for 'orphan artworks legislation' to somehow address works for which the original copyright holder is either unknown, or no longer able (as in like dead...), to assert their rights.

 

The point is that 'ownership' is not as clear cut as your question implies. So, yeah, if there is property abandoned, I nave a 'right' to take it, as does anyone else. The procedure for attempting to find the legitimate owner is frought with problems, especially in the are of 'art', of which, 'film' is a subset.

 

As for civil disobedience relative to 'media' and 'content', I don't think a number of 'innovations' on distribution would have occurred had there not been the threat if not actuality of massive/significant civil disobedience on the part of consumers.

 

Audio tapes and then video tapes both were railed against by the respective media industries as leading to their emminent demise. As history has shown, no such meltdown occurred. One can point to bad choices on how much to spend on productions, and the complete lack of viewer interest as to why several studios hit the skids, and piracy playing absolutely no part, or only a minor role.

 

If the 'law' had followed your implicit statement of 'the copyright holder's decisions are inviolate', then you would be paying $100 per blank tape(or whatever the current popular recording media is, say USB sticks or blank BDs), or just not available to anyone other than 'authorized distributors' of media.

 

As it is that threat/actuality has acted as a competitive element in the market, and as the maxim for capitalist endeavors goes, 'the market determined the lowest price for the highest quality'...

 

No, that doesn't answer anything.

 

How does your wanting something entitle you to that thing.

 

What, in your desire, makes it public recognition that you should have and own a copy of whatever it is you desire.

 

What is your expertise in film anyway?

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

If you read the previous posts this isn't purely about moral outrage, of which there is plenty, it's about denial of monetary compensation for products and services.

 

Maybe you need to go over the thread before commenting.

I'll just help you join your own dots here....

"..moral outrage.." due to "..denial of monetary compensation.."

 

If there was no moral outrage, and the back and forth reactions that began there, this thread would be sparse. Can't apologize for responding to the most obious thing going on here.

 

You should have laughed, now it's clear you are a hard-ass.

[George Ebersole]

Moral outrage is when someone pirates your work without getting your permission, and that work is specifically yours to do with as you please.

 

It is possible not to be outraged while your work is pirated for monetary gain. If a pro-co took your script or story, and produced it, you might shrug and then file a suit, and hope your lawyer and a judge can get you just rewards without being worked up about it.

[John Miguel King]

 

 

If piracy is such a good thing let's start giving everything produced by society away for free and see how well the economy does, free cars, free homes, free furniture, free gas, free food, everything will be free. After all what right to companies have to charge money for anything? It should all be free!

 

Uhmm, then poverty would be impossible by design as the very concept of money would not exist. It might just even lead to a society where goods would be designed and built to last, where energy and materials would no longer be wasted in pointless consumerism, where we'd be aware of the fact that we inhabit a planet with finite resources and that without it we can't surive, where a person's worth would not be determined by their account but by their capacity to improve the lives of her/his fellow humans.

 

I LIKE IT.

 

It's called STAR TREK. :D

Edited September 3, 2014 by John Miguel King

[Mark Dunn]

 

For Pete's sake, are you being deliberately dense?

 

Many people have pirated your movie. You still get to sell the movie. No? Understand? Comprende?

 

It's not going in, is it...

 

P

 

I for one understand it perfectly, I just don't accept it.

If you work in a creative industry your livelihood depends on the reproducibility of the work and on the ability to control that reproduction. That must be going in.

Many people have pirated my photographs. I still get to sell it. So what? I still haven't been paid by the pirates.

[Brian Drysdale]

It's about maximizing the return on a risky investment. Basically, the most paying customers, with the minimum seepage to potentially paying customers by routes that do not add to the return on the investment. I'm cynical enough to believe that quite a few people will go for the free or a lower cost route pirated route if the option is there, rather than buying at an official price they can afford and would otherwise be prepared to pay. Nothing like those free lunches.

[George Ebersole]

Like I said earlier, I view it like speeding. If the police aren't around and a lot of other people are doing it, then why not press the accelerator a little?

 

There actually are numbers. I think the DOJ and MPAA have them. How those translate to individual films, I don't know.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Do you speed while driving if the police isn't there? If not, why do you assume a majority of others do? If yes, why would you complain about people who speed?

 

You're basically saying that you have the decency and honesty to refrain yourself from pirating audiovisual content, but that "a good few others" are lowly criminals. You have the moral high ground and the willpower to do what others can't, or rather in this case to not do what everybody else does.

 

I know the world can be rotten sometimes but damn, that's a healthy dose of cynicism right there. With a bit of arrogance spread on top.

[Mark Dunn]

Nicolas, I wonder if you failed to notice that George is employing irony, a quality not possessed by all his compatriots but in rich supply among Anglophones on my side of the Atlantic.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Mark Dunn

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Indeed, I perceived no irony in George's last post. I wonder if I failed to detect it, or if it simply wasn't there.

 

It is not the first time the "speeding" allegory is used by George to describe the behaviour of pirates in this thread.

 

That being said I think it is a pretty valid comparison, so the irony, if there is any, is lost on me.

[George Ebersole]

Do you speed while driving if the police isn't there? If not, why do you assume a majority of others do? If yes, why would you complain about people who speed?

 

You're basically saying that you have the decency and honesty to refrain yourself from pirating audiovisual content, but that "a good few others" are lowly criminals. You have the moral high ground and the willpower to do what others can't, or rather in this case to not do what everybody else does.

 

I know the world can be rotten sometimes but damn, that's a healthy dose of cynicism right there. With a bit of arrogance spread on top.

 

I actually have complained. The analogy I was making was to compare tendencies of behavior. But the analogy falls apart because the repercussions are different. One can end in tragedy, because it's a matter of public safety. The other, if unchecked, possible financial ruin, but more likely a curbing of profits and income to make more product.

 

I've not really argued the moral aspect of theft, though I have pointed it out. I'm arguing the practicalities of unchecked theft of intellectual property, and the economic impact thereof.