How piracy has benifited everyone

the_syco

Was reading a few threads, and suddenly reliased something: piracy has helped us greatly.

In the past:

• Films came out here 3 months or more after being released in the states (Alens Versus Predator).
• Games were released in the US months before they came out here.

Now, and in the future:

• Star Wars 3 --> worldwide release on the same day.
• Battlefield 2 --> worldwide release within days (not months) of each other.

So... what do you think? I don't care if its right or wrong in this thread, I want you to give examples how it has benifited us, or not (certain copyrighted CD's unplayable in MAC's/PC's).

Blisterman

Yeah, its good to see positive responces, rather than just sueing everyone who downloads, like the music industry is doing.

4Xcut

Yoy know your right. It has also benifited companies as people will be less likely to pirate new films if they don't have to wait for months to see them

monkeyfudge

Aren't films that get worldwide international releases usually really bad?

They do this so word of mouth doesn't have time to spread across the atlantic.

Even the film you gave as an example is one of the worst films of recent years.

kasintahan

There is the argument that librarys never hurt book sales but that if the book was invented after the "liberal" "freemarket" capitalist state then that librarys would forn part of the illegal underground.

ghostchant

most films still don't get worldwide releases.
a lot of the bigger films get worldwide releases, but that's been the case for a number of years now (like the lord of the rings, harry potter and the last two star wars films)

but I'd say you're right - piracy must have been one of the reasons, if not the only reason, for this

joeljkp

monkeyfudge wrote:

Even the film you gave as an example is one of the worst films of recent years.

Maybe in your opinion (how'd you see it?), but not in worldwide opinion, which is what counts.

KdjaCL

Eh no thats kinda wrong, some BIG movies come out same day for big opening weekend no other reason but for dosh. Movies still use the same reels so for now next few months before digital cinema fully starts that trend will keep going where reels are used in US then sent worldwide. Also movie stars are usually in town to promote said moive cant happen if it opens everywhere same time. All of last 3 Star wars movies have had same day release worldwide along with some other big movies.


Games that dont req localisation are released worldwide BF2 is one such game , one which isnt is Pysconauts cracking game out in US now but some of the humour is american so will be slightly changed before it comes out here.


kdjac

joeljkp

By the way, Episodes I and II were both released overseas around the same time.

Sangre

Downloading music has got me into artists I never knew about so I would now go to their concerts which I would have never gone to.
Although I've never bought a CD in my life, never bothered

Kernel

I think it has certainly brought down the overinflated prices of DVDs and CD's, and made the big moneybag music / film companies include a few extras and things to entice people to buy the product.

If someone likes something that they have pirated, then they usually buy the 'real' product if they can afford to.

Sleepy

I haven't bought a bad CD since I got broadband. I'm a music fan and collector so I buy most, if not all, albums released by artists I already like. The ability to download a few tracks from albums released by artists I'm not familiar has lead to me buying more, not less albums but nowadays when I buy something from an artist I've not been a fan of already, I know what I'm buying.

BlitzKrieg

true.

I'm currently in a dileama. I want to see sin city, but i'm going away on june 3rd and thats when its released here and i really want to see it. While Piracy would be the easy way out its the sort of film i respect and would not download.


I've only bought 2 cds all my life, never went to a gig. After started downloading mp3s i've been to loads. Metallica made more money off me downloading then any of their cds.

goin'_to_the_PS

title should be changed "how piracy has benifited us" not everyone, just us in europe

Kernel

goin'_to_the_PS wrote:

title should be changed "how piracy has benifited us" not everyone, just us in europe

That's very pedantic.

La Cucaracha

I agree about the music. My music taste has broadened significantly in the last few years, its all thanks to stealing. yay! I also agree about international releases, that would stop me downloading crappy copies of films some dude taped in the cinema.

segadreamcast

"Reviews counted: 34" - RottenTomatoes.

Still plenty more people left to say that it's terrible which - in my estimation - it probably will be.

goin'_to_the_PS

Kernel wrote:

That's very pedantic.

eh.. no its not, the title is misleading, so should be changed. no very padentic at all

Kernel

goin'_to_the_PS wrote:

eh.. no its not, the title is misleading, so should be changed. no very padentic at all

It is pedantic. I'm sure everyone here realises that he is talking about Europeans/Irish, since this is an Irish message board with very few johnny foreigners. Take Kernel's advice, and don't worry about such trivial things. You'll live longer.

Pighead

Kernel wrote:

That's very pedantic.

Stop being so pedantic Kernel

Gone West

I just want to echo what has been said. I am now *into* more bands, and proper rock music, not the crappy pop/RnB that you hear on the radio. Since I have started downloading Mp3's (since 1998) I have gone to loads of gigs.

Tiffany

Does anyone know why we've always had to wait about 5 months for movies to come overseas?

WhiteWashMan

FuzzyLogic wrote:

I just want to echo what has been said. I am now *into* more bands, and proper rock music, not the crappy pop/RnB that you hear on the radio. Since I have started downloading Mp3's (since 1998) I have gone to loads of gigs.

so proper music is only music you like then?

what a strange thing to say.

fuzzylogic by name....?

what exactly is proper rock music?

MorningStar

Tiffany wrote:

Does anyone know why we've always had to wait about 5 months for movies to come overseas?

It's a funding thing. It's really expensive to advertise a film so rather than spend all the money at once on a film that might not make it the release it in one area. This means they then know if it is worth spending money on advertising the film much in another area, if it goes straigh to video, are aided by the popularity from the first area etc... Basically there are benifits. It is a bigger risk and more expensive for a world wide release. The piracy issue was never seen as an issue untill video but is a lot worse now because of DVD and the internet. Video had a tranmission standard that automatically gave region control but DVD had it inserted in which is why we have region codes.
The basic business model needs to change but it means more risk and less profit. This is why the film industry resists and the music industry is in a similar state.
Piracy and copyright also applies to things like medicine. This is where it could really hurt people. If there is no profit in this the research will stop and medicine won't be available or invented. THe US government stomped over medicine right over SARS and one of the spoils of WWII was Asprin and other medical copyrights.
To rate the release of a movie as an amazing benifit is a little much if the same behaviour causes death. Plus the funds from piracy go somewhere if it funds drug dealers there is another way it might hurt people and in theory could cause your DVD player to be stolen .

Just playing devil's advocate.

padser

What about the fact, with for example tv shows, they make their money almost exlusively from advertising (indirectly by selling series to tv company who pay on basis of advertising revenue during the break) downloading online could spell doom. Dont get me wrong i download online as well. Im a big fan of 24 but this time around i havnt bothered watching it on sky, iv just downloaded it when ever i want to watch an espisode. The only people getting money for this are the ESB and NTL broadband, and none of this goes back to the makers of 24. Im just worried that in the long run if its not profitable to make tv shows because of this less quality shows will be produced!!!!

MorningStar

padser wrote:

What about the fact, with for example tv shows, they make their money almost exlusively from advertising (indirectly by selling series to tv company who pay on basis of advertising revenue during the break) downloading online could spell doom. Dont get me wrong i download online as well. Im a big fan of 24 but this time around i havnt bothered watching it on sky, iv just downloaded it when ever i want to watch an espisode. The only people getting money for this are the ESB and NTL broadband, and none of this goes back to the makers of 24. Im just worried that in the long run if its not profitable to make tv shows because of this less quality shows will be produced!!!!

This is a bit of a simplistic view. The makers of TV series now know there is a market for the DVD sales, merchandise etc.... They will expand a budget on this premise. Baywatch did not make it's money from advertisement it was through world wide syndication it was actually cancelled and then went into independent production I think. There have been a few TV series that make their money through direct sales of their shows Highlander and He-man are ones I know of. I think many kids cartoons get done this way.
TV shows are now aware of the download issue and the likes of Tivo. They are now going to bring in product placement into TV series which while not unheard of it is set to increase.

skywalker

MorningStar wrote:

Plus the funds from piracy go somewhere if it funds drug dealers there is another way it might hurt people and in theory could cause your DVD player to be stolen .

I hear it funds terrorism too, according to the ads anyway.


And I always thought the reason for delayed cinema releases, was that they re-use the reels.

MorningStar

skywalker wrote:

And I always thought the reason for delayed cinema releases, was that they re-use the reels.

It may have been part of the original reason at one point but now it is part of the business plan on many movies. There are still low budget films that would have a very small reel run, low budget doesn't just mean production it's everything.

Dublin8

Hi

I was born in pakistan and i know the miricles of piracy

if you go to pakistan and india

every one there is a whizz kid :eek:

its just the blessing of piracy

i have used millions of software where you proballay havent heard about

just coz u get them soo soo cheap

1 euro for a windows xp u and imagine the rest ur self

pakistan and india is a heaven for computer programmers and it specialists

bp_me

damn commies.....

edit:

why isnt the image tag working properly????

padser

MorningStar wrote:

This is a bit of a simplistic view. The makers of TV series now know there is a market for the DVD sales, merchandise etc.... They will expand a budget on this premise. Baywatch did not make it's money from advertisement it was through world wide syndication it was actually cancelled and then went into independent production I think. There have been a few TV series that make their money through direct sales of their shows Highlander and He-man are ones I know of. I think many kids cartoons get done this way.
TV shows are now aware of the download issue and the likes of Tivo. They are now going to bring in product placement into TV series which while not unheard of it is set to increase.

Its not a simplistic view to this extent. Im not saying Tv shows will die out completely. Far from it. However up to now Tv shows have got money (and in fact in reality for most shows, the majority of their money {shows making significant money from merchandise like friends etc are rare}) indirectly from advertising druing add breaks. To deprive them of that is going to take a big chunk of money out of the TV industry. Only logical follow on is less TV shows, and of lower quality. Im not saying it will make TV shows extinct but i cant see how it wouldnt seriously damage the industry by depriving them of their main source of revenue

padser

Dublin8 wrote:

Hi



1 euro for a windows xp

I hate microsoft as much as the next guy. But if everyone paid 1 euro for windows XP, windows XP wouldnt exist because it wouldnt have been made. Also people like you paying 1 euro for it mean people who bought it had to pay more for it :mad:

MorningStar

padser wrote:

. Only logical follow on is less TV shows, and of lower quality. Im not saying it will make TV shows extinct but i cant see how it wouldnt seriously damage the industry by depriving them of their main source of revenue

It is a possibility but again probably unlikely. THe increase in TV channels hasn't reduced the amount TV available even though the advertisement money has been spread more thinly. A change is needed in the industry alright but it doesn't mean shows dry up. New revenue off tv series have been created along the way. DVD,books, magazines, in show advertisement, channel subscription etc... I don't disagree with the point you are making I just don't think it will have the major impact you are saying. I don't think advertisement is the main form of revenue for many shows anymore, while the majority probably still do they will have to change but that doesn't mean disappear. Actors just won't get the huge salaries, Friends production didn't shoot up but writing and actor prices did because they wanted a share of the profit. If there was less profit there would be less money given to these people.
A lot more complicated than advertisement is the main form of money. THe market has changed drastically so traditional business models won't work anymore or maybe they won't. I heard the same concerns when video tape came out it's not a new point. Piracy on TV shows is certainly a low concern at the moment it's Movie and Music that is the real problem.

Blisterman

I hate people pirating things just to save money. Id only download stuff, I can't buy otherwise, and I still buy the DVDs of TV shows.

Dublin8

its not a fair world mate
thats the secret of all the it experts from far east
cheap access to top softwares

padser wrote:

I hate microsoft as much as the next guy. But if everyone paid 1 euro for windows XP, windows XP wouldnt exist because it wouldnt have been made. Also people like you paying 1 euro for it mean people who bought it had to pay more for it :mad:

WhiteWashMan

padser wrote:

I hate microsoft as much as the next guy. But if everyone paid 1 euro for windows XP, windows XP wouldnt exist because it wouldnt have been made. Also people like you paying 1 euro for it mean people who bought it had to pay more for it :mad:

i dont hate microsoft?

it has brought computing to the masses.

you people make me laugh.

anyway, do i download software illegally.
yes. i play test it. if i dont like, it doesnt get played. if i like it, i buy. its that simple. call it an extended demo version if you will.

dont download music, except for the odd song, and mst of that is either classical, or game or film related. cant remember the last time i downloaded an album. many eayrs ago i suspect.

i dont really have time for warez monkeys or software pirates. the designers, writers, coders and whatever else deserve their money for the work if youa re going to enjy it.

MorningStar

In all fairness the US forced other countries to extend the copyrights on things that were about to expire. The likes of Elvis early work was just about to be copyright free. There is war between the rich and poor

Kernel

MorningStar wrote:

The basic business model needs to change but it means more risk and less profit. This is why the film industry resists and the music industry is in a similar state.

I agree with you on that, however, gambles are only made when the loss can be afforded by the business, which is why you see endless sequels and the occasional original gem.

MorningStar wrote:

Piracy and copyright also applies to things like medicine. This is where it could really hurt people. If there is no profit in this the research will stop and medicine won't be available or invented. THe US government stomped over medicine right over SARS and one of the spoils of WWII was Asprin and other medical copyrights.

Asprin was actually used by the ancient Egyptians, and synthesised and widely used by the Victorians, it wasn't a product of WW2?

I'm not sure I follow your point about copyright regarding medicine. In my opinion, copyrighting medicine is necessary in order to promote profit (the ruler of all in the 21st century), but it can also make the medicine too expensive for poorer nations. A perfect example of this is the fact that the WTO recently pressured India into accepting their copyright laws, which will result in medicine increasing hugely in cost, to the point that many Indians will no longer be able to afford it. Previously, India stuck to a copyright law which basically meant that the method of manufacture of a drug was copyrighted, but the drug itself was not... after all a drug is just a collection of molecules, so how can you patent molecules? And yes, I know everything is just molecules, but drugs/chemicals are a little different.

It's estimated that 2 million people died in the Congo of preventable disease in the last 4 years, largely because they can't afford the treatments!

MorningStar

Kernel wrote:

I agree with you on that, however, gambles are only made when the loss can be afforded by the business, which is why you see endless sequels and the occasional original gem.

Asprin was actually used by the ancient Egyptians, and synthesised and widely used by the Victorians, it wasn't a product of WW2?

!

Businesses don't just take risks that they can afford. Companies go bust all the time because of it. THe huge drop in share price on one of the medical companies shows this. Filmfour nearly went bust as a result of the movie they did with Nicole Kidman. Not sure of all the names and details but basically companies can close due to risks they take.

Sorry I mixed up asprin with something else but there were other medical copyrights taken off German companies at the end of WWI and II. You are also right about the negative effects that copyright effects poorer countries. It also has to be noted that India is taking jobs away from countries like Ireland while also not paying copyright money to the companies providing the employment. As a memebr of the EU we were never able to do this. There are humaine issues and business issues one shows an obvious human cost the other doesn't and is generally seen as greed but has similar impact. Medicine is the creation of things that didn't exist it is no different from any other production. Anybody could build a car to look and react like another but copyright stops it.

User45701

If TV shows and movies where aired at the same time all over the world i wouldnt download

padser

Kernel wrote:

but the drug itself was not... after all a drug is just a collection of molecules, so how can you patent molecules? .


!

I think the medicine point is actually almost identical, you say that you cant patent a collection of molecules, of course you can, if that collection is of particular value, and you discovered that it is of value then you should be able to make money from it. If you cant you wouldnt bothered making the discovery in the first place and you sure as hell cant afford to put in the money to make the next one.

Someone answer this, if i run a drug company, and i have two choices,
a)spend 200 million developing a new drug that saves lives and makes 400 million profit
b)let someone else develope the drug, copy it, and make 400 million profit.

Which will i do??? Patenting drugs prevents option B and facilitates new drugs being developed. sure we need controls and we need to make sure medical drugs are available to all but it cant be to the detriment of R&D

Kernel

padser wrote:

I think the medicine point is actually almost identical, you say that you cant patent a collection of molecules, of course you can, if that collection is of particular value, and you discovered that it is of value then you should be able to make money from it. If you cant you wouldnt bothered making the discovery in the first place and you sure as hell cant afford to put in the money to make the next one.

Someone answer this, if i run a drug company, and i have two choices,
a)spend 200 million developing a new drug that saves lives and makes 400 million profit
b)let someone else develope the drug, copy it, and make 400 million profit.

Which will i do??? Patenting drugs prevents option B and facilitates new drugs being developed. sure we need controls and we need to make sure medical drugs are available to all but it cant be to the detriment of R&D

Yes, but you've completely glossed over the point. The method of manufacturing the drugs could be patented, but if someone could manufacture the drug in another way, then under old law it would have been allowed. What about plans to patent human genes? Do you also agree with that? After all, it costs money to research and identify a gene?

bp_me

Kernel wrote:

Yes, but you've completely glossed over the point. The method of manufacturing the drugs could be patented, but if someone could manufacture the drug in another way, then under old law it would have been allowed. What about plans to patent human genes? Do you also agree with that? After all, it costs money to research and identify a gene?

Often times the drug itself is patented.

Wertz

Look at the amount of artistic creation that pirated copys of Adobe Photoshop have fueled across the web.
I mean €600+ for a s/w suite puts it far beyond the reach of most people (who don't use it for work). Adobe make their money from selling the licenses to companies all over the world; it doesn't really hurt the company to have pirated versions loose on the web since the vast majority of people who d/l would never have considered buying it in the first place.
I understand that coders, devs and shareholders don't deserve to loose revenue through piracy and that counterfeiting has the potential to crash some sectors of the software industry...PS is the only pirated application I have/use and the only time it get's dug out is when I need to make a sig or crop some photos (which I could easily do with a generic photo editing suite).
If I were to ever become good enough with it or managed to find a job that I used it in, I would quite happily fork out the dough.

Kernel

bp_me wrote:

Often times the drug itself is patented.

The drug is always patented according to WTO copyright laws, but we were talking about Indian law and how that has been forced to change, resulting in much more expensive medicine (but more profits for western drug companies).

People, not profit.

The_Bullman

MorningStar wrote:

Sorry I mixed up asprin with something else ....

did you mix it up with Sarin? I'm always doing that

LadyJ

Ha! I thought this was a thread about how PRIVACY is a benefit! Was gonna tell a totally off topic story about forgetting to lock my bedroom door being caught red-handed doin..... stuff!

Kernel

LadyJ wrote:

Ha! I thought this was a thread about how PRIVACY is a benefit! Was gonna tell a totally off topic story about forgetting to lock my bedroom door being caught red-handed doin..... stuff!

Ah you can't do that... you have to tell us now.

LadyJ

Key words are: aunt,vibrator and shame!

padser

Kernel wrote:

Yes, but you've completely glossed over the point. The method of manufacturing the drugs could be patented, but if someone could manufacture the drug in another way, then under old law it would have been allowed. What about plans to patent human genes? Do you also agree with that? After all, it costs money to research and identify a gene?

I actually think its pretty irrelevent whether what gets patented just so long as whoever forks out for the R&D get the profit from the drug. Keeping prices down can be achieved through strict regulation> The drug industry is one of the few where i would support a cap on profits, something like if you develope a new drug you can be sole producer for say 20 yrs and make a profit over and above R&D expensives of x% over that timeframe.

And yes if Expensive R&D is required to identify a gene then in order to fund that research i have no problem if that gene is patented (just so long as i dont get in trouble for having the gene )

sceptre

MorningStar wrote:

In all fairness the US forced other countries to extend the copyrights on things that were about to expire. The likes of Elvis early work was just about to be copyright free. There is war between the rich and poor

Disney - not Elvis. Even the earliest stuff recorded by Elvis wasn't going to be out of copyright for a good quarter century after Disney's Steamboat Willie. It isn't quite true that the US forced anyone else to extend their copyright terms either but they did extend their own and other countries followed with the odd nudge from WIPO.