I just had to stop and think about all these "losses".
It just seems like there are basically three types of "pirate".
A. Those who cannot afford the content but want it.
B. Those that can afford the content but ONLY consume it BECAUSE it's free.
C. Those that can afford the content and WOULD purchase the content if it was not free.
The problem with the content industry is that they count all three groups as a lost sale when ONLY group C is a lost sale.
Then it gets even trickier. Group C is most likely the smallest group and as the amount of choice increases, Group C starts to migrate into Group B.
Then my head nearly exploded when I began to wonder why this is even an issue. Watching the content via stream or download shouldn't even be a crime. It's the person who illegally distributed the content who is actually breaking the law.
In a concerted effort with the Met Police, ICE, FACT, MPAA, MI5, CIA, and Interpol; movie piracy was finally vanquished completely.
Special agents successfully raided the house of the 24 year old mastermind of worldwide movie piracy, and have the suspect in custody pending his extradition to the US and subsequent detention in Guantanamo Bay.
Outside of a police station in the West Midlands, Chris Dodd, president of the MPAA proudly proclaimed, "Mission Accomplished."
Seems that all of the big players should keep a close eye on Google. Google is lighting up fiber networks and it might not be long until they cover those same areas with WiMax or similar 4G service.
My best guess is that Google has done the math and realizes that the profit on IP traffic is insanely high. So they can compete with the big players by offering service at say 300% mark up instead of 30,000% mark up and look like saints.
Re: Re: The IRS should be used to go after real crooks: The Rich.
"The rich" are not inherently crooks, but in general they have the means to influence policy and their general slant is counter productive and harmful.
There is an excellent talk on TED that completely debunks the hypothesis that "the rich" are job creators. The crux of the argument is that job creation is an expense and is the last resort of any business. In other words, reducing taxes on the wealthy does not spur job creation, but rather increases wealth which is not proportionately distributed into the economy. Consumers are the actual engine of growth. If demand rises then jobs need to be created to handle demand.
The point being, that "the rich" have historically allowed their greed to drive societies to the brink of implosion.