Summations Only

Most big budget Hollywood movies do make a profit still. It may not be as big as it once was, but it's more than enough to cover the cost of production and advertising and still make a profit.The issue is that the RIAA and the MPAA claim that every song, movie, or TV show downloaded is lost income, which is crap. If I'm not willing to pay $30 for a CD from some new artist, I may download it to try it, but if downloading were not available, I still would not buy it because it wasn't worth $30 to me.What I have found, however, is that I'm willing to spend the time downloading a new artist's songs, and if its good, I may decide to go out and buy the next CD, or maybe buy tickets to the concert, or something. So really, by me downloading an album, the industry has actually made more money than they would have.It is also a great marketing tool for new artists. They can post their music, or book, or low-budget film to the internet, build up a following, and begin to make money on it. This, of course, also pisses off the RIAA, MPAA and the labels because its money that is being made without filtering through them first.

I'm pretty suire Crashfrog has consistently said that he doesn't have an issue with copyright, merely its abuse and continuation into perpetuity.

Crashfrog has said that getting rid of copyrights wouldn't have the dramatic effects some are claiming, but he also said that he doesn't want to actually get rid of copyright, just reform the rules of copyright.Huntard is claiming that in countries without as drastic copyright protection as in the US, they still pay. He may be arguing for abolishing copyright entirely, but I didn't say he wasn't.

Another thing that crashfrog seems to overlook are the people who would download movies and music if it were legal, but don't because it is illegal. Claiming that we currently live in a world where everyone who wants to download does is just wrong. I know quite a few people who obey the law, even when they think the law is stupid, including people who won't download, or who won't smoke marijuana, "only" because they are illegal.

Not in my (decidely small sample) experience. All the people I know who don't download do so because it's against the law. If it weren't, they would download. There are a lot of people who have no moral qualms about doing something, but just don't want to break a law, even when they think the law is not right.There is a group of people for whom "breaking the law" is dissuasion enough.

This may be the case, and as I told crash, I only have a small sample size, i.e. the people I know who don't download. But of those people, everyone I know who doesn't download, does so merely because of the illegality, and would download if it were not illegal. They are also, to a large degree, avid collectors of media. My brother-in-law doesn't have cable, so he buys every TV show he wants to watch on DVD/Blu-ray. He has tons of DVDs of movies and TV shows. In fact, he'll buy one just to see fi its good.Others use Netflix because it is legal and is as close to downloading for free as they can get without breaking the law.There are also a few who find downloading inconvenient, because they don't want to worry about trying to burn a DVD, and don't want to watch stuff at their computer.So, in summary, I'm not sure how significant this group of people are, but I don't think ignoring therm and saying everyone who would download already is, is the right way to think. I do think that if it became legal, the amount of downloading would rise significantly, and the sale of said media would decrease. Whether that would begin to reverse once the novelty of downloading wore off is another thing to consider.All told, the effects of removing copyright rules regarding downloading are all but impossible to deduce without actually doing it.

I guess I could have said "download illegally" or "download without consent of the copyright holder." But I assumed everyone knew what we were talking about and I could use a shorthand.ABE: I'm not one who views "illegal downloading" as bad. I engage in it myself from time to time, however, I can think of a way, perhaps.While downloading a copy of LW18 doesn't deprive someone else of the use of it, it does contribute to devaluation. Just like counterfeiters are arrested, not necessarily for stealing, but for creating more money than the Fed has put into circulation, thus devaluing the money.Right now, if you were to ask someone what they would pay to see LW18, they might say $7, like it costs to go to a theater. Or maybe even $25 to buy a new DVD. Others might wait until the DVD has been out a while and drops to $10 or even $5. But really, this is a combination of the perceived value of the currency and the perceived value of the media.If it became more the norm to download a movie for free, the perceived value of the movie tends to slide downward. Now, the MPAA and RIAA could (though won't) keep ahead of this trend by lowering the cost of the medi in question to keep it in line with the perceived value of said media, but the actual value of the currency isn't going to change. This will lead to less and less return on the cost of making said media, which will either go up (as it has thus far) or remain relatively steady.Again, I'm a fan of piracy, and I agree that it's not stealing, per se, but it does lead to a devaluation.Gold is worth a lot because of its rarity. If we took one of the asteroids that have a large amount of gold, and somehow mined it and shipped it back to Earth, the value of gold would end up decreasing.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.Edited by Perdition, : typo

How do you know this? Sometimes, I buy a movie so I can have it "legitimately" after downloading it and watching it. If the download were legitimate, I wouldn't buy it as well. I would say this is true, but if downloading a free copy of a movie is legal, how many people who would have paid to see it will decide not to? Are you saying it would be zero?

I don't understand this at all. The value of anything is in its scarcity or the cost it takes to create (and the cost of creation is usually dictated by the scarcity of materials needed to create it.) But this is my point. The cost of the file is zero, which means people assume its not worth anything, since it was so cheap andeasy to get. However, the cost of the movie is not zero. There is the cost of paying the actors, the crew, paying for the film, the electricity, the writers, the fuel used for driving everyone where they need to go, the cost of costumes, the craft services. There is a lot of cost in making a movie, but if the finished product is valued at or near zero dollars, what's the point in making it? Not exactly. As you pointed out, the cost of copying or creating a digital file is close to nothing. In all other forms of monopoly loosening, there is still a cost associated with the creation of the product. If it suddenly became possible for me to create a virtual copy of the iPhone and sell it without infringing on any patents, I would still have to sell the phone at a minimum price, just to recoup the cost of materials, energy, and labor. So even in a vibrant marketplace of iPhone clones, there will be a minimum price that everyone sort of equalizes at which is the cost of production plus some percentage of profit.In the digitla age, the cost of production of the digital file for anyone oput there not actually involved in the making of the movie is zero. They can give it away for free and not lose anything, so the equilibrium point is going to sit at zero dollars. This is vastly different than any other monopoly breaking we've ever dealt with. I fully agree that after the content creator has had a fair amount of time to recoup the cost of production, the media in question should become free and open, but I do think the government has a vested interest in protecting that fair amount of time for the content creator.Wow, you got me arguing on the side of the movie studios there, and I'm one who doesn't feel a qualm about downloading a movie or television show. I guess I'm just a hypocrite.

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.

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.

Speaking of unsubstantiated assertions.In my sandwich analogy, I'm not willing to pay very much for something I know I can go down the street and get for a good price, or even go home and make for myself. However, if I were in the desert and the sandwich were all that was keeping me alive, I'd probably be willing to give up just about anything for the sandwich.You can't say that in my normal life, here in a semi-populous city in the Midwest of America that'd I'd be willing to give up just about anything for such a common commodity. If I know I can get it a little further down the road, the amount I'm willing to pay is dramatically lower than if it could be the last opportunity for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, I forgot about all those amazing street performers that people are climbing over themselves to pay for the performances by, as opposed to, I don't know, feeling empathy for a fellow human being who's down on his luck.But even if people were paying for the performance itself, sit and watch one of those street performers. What percentage do you think actually pay anything, and what do you think the average amount paid is?

Ok, so established names might not have any trouble raising money. What if I had a cool idea for a game? How would I be able to convince a bunch of strangers that my idea was good enough to just give me money to create it?Remember, if I explain too much of my idea, without copyright, someone else, who either has money or an established name, could come along and steal the whole idea, publish it faster than me and I'm left where I am.