Maybe that's the point: Claim to spend money on anti-piracy "efforts", spend $10 on a press release saying "don't do it", but in the accounts they write it up as about $100,000 for some big campaign that never existed.
Three: Last year I, an Australian, bought almost $1,000 worth of old English comedy TV shows on DVD from Amazon UK (saving about $1,500 compared to buying them locally). Nearly all of them have the FACT logo on the back but I've seen hardly any FACT ads on the discs, so if I didn't already know, I wouldn't even know what the hell "FACT" is!
Most countries have a 70 year expiration on copyright, so why aren't old films being digitized in other countries where most films prior to 1945 are in the public domain? We don't always have to use original negatives, a well looked after print can be brilliant and a damaged print can be better than nothing!
For digital data, what about the M-Disc? Although I know technically computers and disc drives may soon become obsolete whilst with the Nanoform being analogue all you need is a darn good microscope. I know places that still use microfilm!
If after SEVENTEEN YEARS you disagree with Mike so much, WHY do you continue to come here and comment? Is it because it is free? Wait, you said that low quality is what you get for free. I guess that explains why I don't pay for your comments and I really would not miss them one bit if you started charging.
If we look at it on a purely legal basis, Ed probably does belong in jail. I think what he did was good and right and morally correct and I'm glad he did it but on a purely legal basis he did break the law.
The thing is, if the law is supposed to uphold our morals then the law is failing us.
I'll tell you how seeing a movie at home can help cinemas. How often have you seen a movie and thought "Man I wish I could see this at the cinema!" but because it's months (or even years) since it was at the cinema, too bad.
I saw "Star Wars" on TV in 1994 (at age 15) and went "Wow! I wish I could see this on the big screen". Three years later I (sort of) got my wish. Now could we please have a few more re-releases internationally?
...in many countries, hey. Well, I uploaded some old cartoons that are public domain in many countries because they are over 70 years old and their coopyright has expired but they were blocked worldwide.
I disputed the claim, pointing out (without profanity, which I felt plenty of) that the cartoons were public domain due to copyright expiring and that, yes, I understood they would be blocked in the USA as they are still under copyright there, but a worldwide block was a bit off.
The claim was upheld, so I sent up another cartoon, knowing it would probably be blocked and indeed it was, despite the fact that the copyright on it had expired in like 90% of the world in 2009. Again I was polite, pointing out that the copyright had expired in most countries thus making it public domain, which YouTube failed to cover in their "Learn more about copyright" section.
But then I ended with my rude bit, which was "If you can't respect our country's copyright laws, why the fuck should we respect yours?"
However, I did not get a response, nor do I expect to recieve one. However, this to me raises the point: Do we have the public domain, or do we have the same laws across all countries just becuse the USA says so? I am in Australia, our copyright tends to expire after 70 years for films.
Those albums may have been hits but they didn't spend years floating in and out of the sales chart. Even "The Wall" doesn't have the sales of "Dark Side". I do wonder, though, how much did they "owe" EMI for each album up to "Dark Side" considering their next album was with CBS/Columbia?