But as some people said, "Snitches get stitches" or "grounded and pounded". There is a very real risk that recording video or taking pictures in bars that don't pay could get you some stitches especially if you're there alone and word gets out. That said theses bars make tonnes of money off of dragging people out to watch PPV events they don't want to pay for at home so it seems like a fair target causing actual damage. Many bars will take in 10k or much more a night so why is the pay so low? If your taking all the risk, out of pocket for expenses, and then they use your information to sue, certainly for upwards of 10k since the law works so well in their favour, shouldn't you be paid at least in the thousands? It seems like they only care about PPV infringement a little bit. Feel sorry for the suckers who need the cash but at that pay they might have to hire illegal immigrants, don't fall for it.
You and the movie industry fail to understand something and that is Economics.
1) Piracy is what happens when prices are too high it is the ultimate form of price discrimination (like what airlines use for tickets)
2) You can often lower prices and make more money (Wal-Mart)
3) Something pirated is very rarely if ever a substitute for something sold i.e. The choice is not piracy or purchase, it's piracy or nothing. Thus piracy enables people to watch more movies that would not have otherwise watched.
4) This distribution leads to word of mouth and site marketing for those people who do have the funds to purchase movies (such as parents). Studios seem to be aware of this when they leak screeners.
5) The avant-garde film producers (even under major studios) release pirated copies of their movies to spark such buzz (often in secret) and in equally in secret may credit such distribution to their success at events such as the Oscars. (N.B. Most Oscar judges 99-100% will not have paid to watch the film)
6) Stop sounding a like a government prosecutor, we need to abolish criminal copyright infringement, our government shouldn't be using our money, or the money we give to studios, to put people in prison or fine them. Copyright damages should be about actual damages caused with no punitive, and then in this case we'd get to the heart of the issue. At present all it teaches is disrespect for the rule of law, alludes to a corrupt system, and constitutes and injustice. As MLK said, "an injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere."
The key thing everyone forgets is that a patent or copyright is entirely useless without the MONEY needed to protect it from infringement. In fact many a company has explored patented inventions only to copy them wilfully and knowingly as in the intermittent wiper case (and film). They can do this because the cost of litigation is so high that it pushes any small player out. Has this decimated the economy? No it prompts people to keep inventing rather than rest on their laurels (or IP) as many companies often do, after all Apple didn't think of the iPod first. The world the Crimson speaks of is right here and now, and the ideas for many of the products you see around you may have been stolen. Imagine if that wasn't the case and any person could simply patent anything and have it enforced, we may never have seen many of the products we use to today because the applicant lacked cash or business acumen; unfortunately patent application abuse isn't limited to individuals though and that is dangerous. What the MPAA wants is for the whole economy to like it does for domain names, and so we have bookstores called Amazon, auction sites called eBay, and magazines called TechDirt. We work around it as much as we can, although name issues aren't as broad as whole product issues. In the end all the obvious names people bought became worthless, and courts simply took others away. Innovation kills stringent patent and copyright enforcement, it has to, and there are many examples of that.
As for copyright I think it's absurd that someone can have one hit single and live a modest life never having to work again. Are these items priced correctly? How are we promoting innovation there? Should we compile a list of one hit wonders?
AP news sucks, seriously fact check a random sample of 10 reports, you'd be surprised what you find, but it does have some cool pictures. Fox news, well there aren't enough expletives in the world to begin to cover what I think of Fox or Murdoch himself for that matter.
This is just the reflex grip of a starving man for a mirage. I am very happy to see that they are finally dying, in large part, from their own stupidity. Do not patronize their sites, many times key facts are wrong or misleading, and it is one thing to be deceived for free but quite another to pay for it especially since they'll both take payment in exchange for providing content. Maybe instead of just taking payment and giving editorial control to advertisers, they should seek employment of a foreign intelligence agency. I'm sure Iran would love to have US moth piece.
The simple answer to this is that music that people download for free isn't necessarily music they would have purchased anyway. The choice is not between to pay or not pay it is not to pay or not at all in most cases.
This is not true, the Kindle 2s in addition to having a built in dictionary that puts the word definition at the bottom of the screen in two lines so that you can learn new words instead of inferring a definition, allows bookmarks, highlights, and notes. In addition to this you can view all your bookmarked pages, highlighted text, and notation in a separate screen with no need to flip through the rest of the book. It is beyond convenient with the exception that the exclusive Sprint linked Whispernet, lack of USB sync, proprietary book format, and DRM leaves much to be desired.
This is true but, not to repeat others here most of what you pay for in a book is the printing and distribution especially with crude oil prices on the rise, and promotion of course to a lesser extent. This industry needs to be turned on its head though.
I have to say that despite so many well respected professors supplementing their income with text book writing, the quality is unbelievably poor. Many textbooks contain such a plethora of unusable and indigestible information that they bold type for you (typically humanities books) while others cover such a wide variety of topics that no single topic is covered in adequate detail if you should have a problem (typically math and science books). Add more than one suggested book for each class and it's likely no one will read them unless the professor takes exam questions from the footnotes.
eBooks could be just the tool for your professor to write their own book, just for the class that they teach and sell it to students themselves. I can think of worse ways to spend a summer. As a side note, being that through to graduate school one would be expected to spend over $10,000 on textbooks I am not weeping for the industry as it stands.
That said, I don't think anyone protested the idea of a library when those were popularized and the salable book as we know it has flourished since then.
"Apple and Harley Davidson have both gotten much larger by creating business models based on restriction."
I believe that is a spurious conclusion. They have succeeded in the short term in spite of those policies by restricting so much that they create an artificial monopoly that cannot last. They prolong the life of this monopoly by pretending it doesn't exist and adopting exceptional foresight and quality control; market saturation is a century away if it's even possible.
-The rest is spot on as they say except that when there is quantity you have to distinguish yourself from you competition usually with quality (or adopt ruthless practices and incur anti-trust violations).