Summations Only

I was going to buy Skyrim, but then my firend said: "Wait, I can put a copy on your computer", so I didn't buy it. They definately lost that sale.I downloaded and liked a NIN album, and I'm a big fan of Trent, so then I went and bought it to support him. He definately did not lose that sale.The Louis CK thing was set up from the get-go, so I don't think that's a good example of how things will happen if any and all downloading is legalized.If any and all downloading is legalized, then there will be loss of sales money. Its inevitable.Cracking down tighter on downloading isn't the solution tho.

It is not well known the suits have no legal merit. There are indeed criminal penalties for dowloading a relatively small numbers of a copyright protected work. See link to 17 USC 506Chapter 5 - Circular 92 | U.S. Copyright OfficeThere are also substantial statutory civil penalties for downloading a single copyright protected work, and the RIAA has been successful in getting relatively large awards in court.See Statutory damages at the same link.You might well believe that such laws are inappropriate, but given that they are on the books, the RIAA is completely justified in pointing out the possible damages if they have to sue, damages which might well include the RIAA's lawyer fees.And for about the third time, downloading mp3s does not involve violating the DMCA. There is no technological protection on CDs so ripping a CD to upload a music track does not violate the DMCA. Instead, downloading an mp3 violates the provisions of 17 USC 106 that involve the copying and/or distribution of copyrighted works.I ask that you support your statement to the contrary. But I fully expected that you will instead insist that I defend that we even have a system of copyright laws at all.

Seriously, crashfrog. Surely you can come up with some reasons why people go to the movies that don't involve putting food on the table for artists. My daughter goes to the movies with her buddies because she thinks the movie is cool, hip, funny, etc., and because it's fun to do so. I sincerely doubt that she gives much thought to the fact that some portion of the ticket price goes to supporting Angelina Jolie in the life style of which she is accustomed.I go to the movies on rare occasions, and grumble about the cost of everything, and refuse to go again until my wife gives me the "you never take me anywhere" speech. I don't go to patronize anyone. I go for the entertainment.Movie theater operators operate because they make money hand over fist selling junk food at inflated prices and some money on ticket sales. They don't care why you come to the movies, as long as you come.

Let me be more clear: The people who only download are largely the people who never intended to pay anything for seeing the movie in the first place. I addressed this before; I think that that number of people is insignificant overall. I cannot see their activities having such drastic impacts on prices that you seem to imply in your post. The people who buy/pay to see movies:

• Are unable to download them. In which case downloadable movies don't represent competition regarding these consumers.
• Prefer the format in which the payed-for movie is presented (in a theatre, in a box, etc.). In which case, downloading is not an option for them to satisfy their wants regarding that film; so downloadable movies don't represent competition regarding these consumers.
• Decide to download and buy/pay to see the movie. As in the first case, downloading doesn't represent competition regarding these consumers because they'll buy the movies anyway.

The people who don't pay to see a movie but download it instead:

• Never intended to buy it anyway; so they cannot be thought of as 'lost market' because there was never any intention for them to be a part of the market.
• Would have bought it if downloading it for free were not an option. These people, and only these people represent lost revenue for the film industry; but it is my firm belief, as I've mentioned before, that these people represent such a small number of the actual audience of the film that the revenue lost through them is insignificant.

Once again, your objection here is based on the (false) belief that the vast majority of people who decide not to download but instead buy a movie do so only because downloading is illegal and they don't want to break the law.But this premise remains unsubstantiated.Jon

Yes, and those analog copies did not allow infinite distribution, because after a couple of generations the audio copies were unusable. If fact, under the Audio Home Recording Act, it is completely legal to make personal use analog copies of music.It is only digital copying that has made any difference whatsoever.

Right. And as you dishonestly omitted by again quoting me out of context, the point is that the RIAA doesn't have the power they claim to immunize you from criminal prosecution.

No, people go to the movies because they want to see movies. But again, in a world where you're under no obligation to support an artist's work unless you enjoy it, why would anyone pay for a movie unless they wanted to support the artist? Why wouldn't you just go to the free theaters, if patronizing an artist was meaningless to you?

My argument also includes thes people: The number of people who are unable to download, either because of lack of broadband...or more importantly, lack of knowledge on how to download movies and music, then burn them in such a way as to use them elsewhere, is shrinking.In 20 years, the current generation of younger people, those who are generally more computer savvy and have grown up with the experience of downloading movies and music will replace the people who don't have a computer, don't have broadband, or don't have much computer knowledge.As those people die, or get access and experience, the amount of downloading will go up, and those who would have downloaded had it been available to them will begin doing so. I'm aware of that, but so has yours. The only way to substantiate these premises is to leave things alone and see what happens.Personally, I'm all for this option. Don't do anything until you know there is a problem. The RIAA and the MPAA are worried about a potential problem and are trying to nip it in the bud, but are going to draconian extremes to do so. SOPA and PIPA are in the same draconian vein.I'm all for downloading and the free exchange of culture, but I do see the potential for piracy to end up driving down the quality of especially movies. Music, I'm not too worried about, as there is another revenue stream available, namely live shows and swag.

No... The value of anything is what other people are willing to give up for it.Scarcity doesn't make something more valuable. A meteorite hurtling at my head is a pretty scarce thing, but it is in no way valuable to me, because there is nothing I would give up in exchange for the opportunity of having a meteorite hurtling down at my headnothing. In fact, not having a meteorite hurtling at my head, despite being far less scarce, is more valuable to me, because were I in the path of a meteorite, there are few things I wouldn't give up in order to get myself out of its path.Value is a measure of perceived utility, quantified in terms of what we'll give up for that utility, and that quantity standardized in terms of currency.The only thing scarcity does is help reveal the perceived value.Jon

This only reveals that there were, in fact, not as many people who actually thought the movie was worth the price being charged for it. Which only means that the entertainment industry needs to come up with content people actually want to pay for, instead of laws forcing them to pay for it. I wasn't aware that the quality of movies could get any lower than it already has.With the exception of some really big hits, most of the movies these days quite frankly suck ass, which is probably a large contributing factor to why people download them instead of paying to see them. For content that people actual want, there will always be a profitable market.Jon

You're turning the argument around. You're right, not everything that is scarce is valuable, however, everything that is valuable would be more valuable were it more scarce. Yes, but wouldn't you say that not having a meteorite hurtling at your head would be even more valuable to you if it were more common for meteorites to be hurling at your head? But what we're willing to give up for utility is often predicated on how likely it is that we'll be able to get that utility later. No, scarcity is a driver of perceived value, not merely an illuminator of it. Right now, a sandwich, while very utilitarian (it keeps you alive) is worth about $5 (for a footlong sub from Subway) but if you were in a survival scenario where food was scarce, you'd probably be willing to give a lot more than $5 for a sandwich. As its scarcity goes up, its perceived value goes up as well.

Well, in that case, what we've determined is that nothing is worth anything, because if everything were free, people would take the free option over paying for it. It's human nature to try and get something for less than they perceive it is worth. It's called getting a deal, and stores use it to great effect with sales and other promotions intended to make people fell they're getting something for less than it is worth. [qs]I wasn't aware that the quality of movies could get any lower than it already has.[/i]I agree, the quality of most movies now is terrible, but trust me, it could get worse. But that leads to another question; would the quality of movies be as bad as it is if people who were technically savvy were paying for movies rather than downloading them for free?Probably. Hollywood caters to the lowest common denominator usually...but it's still a question ot be asked. Possibly, but you'd have to convince the financiers of that fact, and if they perceive the risk as too great, their wallets clench up so tight the dead presidents are gasping for air.

No.The amount people are willing to pay does not change when the supply changes; only the amount that they actually pay changes.

Because no one ever puts money in the hat of a street performer...

I did not dishonestly do anything. Your accusations of dishonesty and lying whenever we disagree have become quite routine. I suppose they are part of your charm.No the RIAA does not have any such power, but without even looking, I suspect we will find that the RIAA cease and settle letters don't promise immunity or anything else that they cannot deliver.Generally speaking, though, there are plenty of examples of the feds pursuing federal charges for criminal copyright infringement upon request from copyright holders like Apple, Adobe, and the RIAA. Yet I am not aware of a single case where a settling defendant has been prosecuted by the feds. Are you?And of course you do not dispute that the possibility of having to pay huge damage awards is very real. It's small wonder that people who actually have uploaded music, and by and large only uploaders have been sued, have settled. They are facing a very real prospect of being found liable for amounts that dwarf the offered settlements.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.