Is he... Like... Intentionally trying to boost public goodwill for The Oatmeal?
BIZZARRO! BIZZARRO!
Join us when we return as we look at more ambiguous study results so that we can free associate about their meaning.
Really, I am confused by this. I am a very casual gamer these days, so I pick stuff up from Steam or Amazon when they go on sale in the $5-$10 range (basically, an electronic step up from the bargain bin gaming I used to do). So apparently EA just doesn't want my business at all, because people like me who don't want to pay $60 for a game [and will go without, instead] would just cheapen their IP if they had to put it on sale to make us buy it -- because it'd be like going out of business. Or something. How the hell does this business model even make sense with digital goods?
Derp. So if *3 MILLION* people were caught infringing music copyright... Man, I wish we had an edit button here... So close.
Just a quick mental exercise, for fun...
So, if $1.5 million is the acceptable penalty (as per the current system) for infringing copyright of 24 songs... Then what if 1% of the US Population were do this, and have to pay the penalty?
1,500,000
* 3,000,000
==============
4,500,000,000,000
So, if 100 million people were caught infringing music copyright, that would total 4.5 trillion dollars.
Then throw movie infringement into the mix. Pretty soon, there will be more infringement going on than there is money in the world!
Damn pirates, can't you see you are destroying the world economy!? The top 1% of music infringers are costing us nearly 5 trillion dollars a year! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?
//did I hit all the points?
//major sarc
Real Person: "But, I need this to backup and transfer my data!"
Collections: "Yeah, to back up and transfer your DIRTY PIRATE data!"
So am I to understand that Scafidi thinks that Vibram trying to educate its customers on why to buy "the real deal" and how to spot a fake... Is a bad thing? How the hell is protecting your brand and showing what you are paying for a bad thing? Isn't that the whole point of putting out a quality product that you want to stand behind?
The opposite case makes more sense, where you're a counterfeiter and you don't want to point out why your brand sucks ass compared to the real mccoy... And when your brand is actually just a piss poor kindergarden spelling of the actual brand name...
Glad to hear those of us in the software field came out in the clear on this one!
That's 37 billion worth of jobs created by the entertainment industry, don't you see! They're the real job creators!
/sarc
Nuclear Blast, as a rather avid metal fan, I am EXTREMELY disappointed in you over this shit.
Heh, totally meant "PIRACY" not "PRIVACY"... But I suppose it may work for either case, actually.
"We know that all of our privacy problems could be solved if only the math and computer folks could figure out how to divide by zero for us. Come on guys, why do you freetards love piracy and hate America so much?"
I've been waiting for something like this to happen; excellent news.
However, let's hope that the MPAA/CARA don't try to sabotage the movie by tagging it with NC-17 or some such nonsense.
It's almost as if we think that if we paid the artist directly for doing good work, they'd want to make more music for us to enjoy... Instead of the label saying they were losing them money, and the artist beholden to make an album like the industry wants instead of what they want.
The worst part about the move to all digital distribution channels, is that instead of realizing it as a way to save costs for both the business (no need to build as much physical media) and the consumer (delivery costs are less), they see it as a way to apply more DRM and make it so you cannot re-download your purchase nor use it across multiple devices -- even though technology shows us that this format incompatibility stuff is a bunch of fabricated bullshit in this day and age.
But they'll monetize the idea of making you buy the same shit 3 times over and call it progress... Or at least, they'd call it progress, if it still weren't for all those pesky pirates... But with just a little more DRM and restrictive licensing and policing of the internet...
Here is to hoping that this "experiment" is a complete success and opens peoples eyes to how the pricing structure should work. I have never bought an e-book (nor an e-reader, for that matter) because I can buy the books used for cheaper and if I so desire to get rid of them -- they have resale value.
I have to concur. People need to understand the difference between a "semi-automatic" and an "automatic" weapon. I've heard enough terrible fearmongering speech that preys off of ignorance of terms like this, and the ever present bullshit terminology and classification of so called "assault weapons".
It seems to me like whether the police were carrying semi-automatics or revolvers is irrelevant to the guy being arrested for snapping a photo because he was "being a dick", so to speak. If they had been carrying M-16s, M-14s, AR-15s, MP5s, or something of that nature... Then maybe the firearms references would be more interesting (and possibly relevant). As it stands, is there any reason we SHOULDN'T expect police to be carrying a semi-automatic firearm?
Hmpf
If .sex causes more porn to exist on the internet, then obviously .drm will cause less piracy to occur.