I do not recall reading anything attributed to an official of the MPAA that everything anyone might want is available online, so it is not clear just what you think you are debunking.
It helps to read the article in question where we explain exactly what we're debunking.
My personal experience (US only) is that shortly after theatrical release the vast majority of new films can be found in several well-known and easily accessible locations that do not involve engaging in piracy. Of course there is the downside that one typically has to part with some $$, but those $$ are relatively nominal if you shop with care.
What does that have to do with anything in the post?
I enjoy going to the theater to see a movie- love the big screen and sound.
So no, I have no desire to see theaters go away.
Can you point to where we said theaters were going away? No? If you actually read the story, rather than kneejerking, you'd see that we actually said that there were clear ways that theaters can and should compete successfully.
But, you know, you never actually read what we write. You'll just lie about us. Don't you get tired of it?
If only they could learn to use Google, they could find these things.
Google? You mean the pirate's tool? Can't use that. The MPAA only uses poor, down-trodden key grips who have to log overtime to feed their starving children. They hire them to manually search the internet, as should everyone.
I'll bite. How does pricing restrict supply? To me supply means quantities currently or prospectively available, and that is controlled by a manufacturer.
Two mistakes in your statement here. First, no one said that pricing restricts supply. It's patents that restrict supply.
Second, "supply" and "quantity supplied" are two different things. They are related, but not the same. Quantity supplied is a point on the supply curve. I'm talking about using patents to restrict the supply which artificially inflates the price.
TD does not subscribe to that philosophy, or any philosophy for that matter, or so it appears, that cuts against the grain of what it openly advocates in so many of its stories that it tries to pass off as news versus what they actually comprise, editorial opinion.
From the very beginning we have *always* said that we are an opinion site. That has never changed. Why do you lie?
If you accept this as the reason without question, then you have fallen prey to intellectual laziness.
Of course, what you leave out is that *you* do this same thing all the time on stories about stories that you happen to agree with. You had no problem with DHS seizing websites because they must be infringing. You had no problem with stories about patent trolls because patents are lovely in your demented world. You have no problem with the NSA's lies about surveillance because, surely, they are right.
You are an out and out authoritarian lapdog. Yet you are the one who comes here and pedantically pretends that only you are so wise as to know what's really going on.
And then you want to flat out LIE and pretend we claimed we're not providing an opinion? You're hilarious.
The findings of our model suggest that the increased costs of simeprevir and sofosbuvir are offset by downstream savings from reductions in liver‐related complications and greater numbers of patients achieving SVR.
Economics is not just about the demand side, but the supply side.
The problem with pharma pricing is that it artificially restricts the supply, and then whines when people point that out. Price is driven by supply and demand and when you artificially block supply don't be surprised when people call you out on it.
Let me give you a simple example: were I to cut off all of the oxygen to your lungs, you might be willing to pay me a ridiculous sum of money to let you breathe again. And it would be "worth it" to you given the downstream benefits.
But I think both you and I would agree that's ethically unconscionable. Yet that's exactly what you're supporting here.
I doubt any of the other commenters have studied pharmacoeconomics, because the issue of life-years gained hasn't come up once. Let's put this in context - Gilead's new drug cures Hep C. Cures it. No more wasting away from liver failure (and other related comorbidities) in a hospital, costing taxpayers/private payers hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of a single patient's illness. As context, in Canada a hospital bed costs $1k a DAY. It's likely higher in the US. So a drug company has come up with a CURE that costs $84k for a full treatment course.
Actually, we discussed this very issue just a few weeks ago. And I still disagree with you. You have your economics wrong.
At the time, Gilead made a massive investment on an unapproved treatment, and they struck oil (so to speak). This product is not a fancy new blender - this will save hundreds of thousands of lives, and in a relative sense will cost the system far less. In my opinion, they deserve the reward for taking on the risk.
"The reward"? A reward maybe, but *not* an excessive reward that will kill others when they could be saved for very little.
Feel free to disagree with me, but if you don't have a basic understanding of how the industry works please read about it first. Things are not always what they seem.
Actually, no. All our works are in the public domain. Lots of sites repost them and can do so perfectly legally. There's no reason to issue takedowns. Why would we waste so much time doing so when we can focus on actually monetizing our work directly?
What is the worry, that someone is going to trick you that they put something into the public domain and then 35 years later terminate the grant and sue you? This is what we're worried about?
I think the much more likely scenario is heirs of the original creator seeking a payday, who don't have the same view on the public domain. Given how many stories we see of greedy heirs, this seems quite likely.
Hey guys. After talking to more people about this I've updated the post and noted that it's not as crazy as it first appeared. It appears the WH is really only dropping a bad idea that many had assumed to be dropped long ago -- and is instead focusing on a better plan to get the data out of the NSA (leaving it with the original companies).
Somewhere in there I missed the part where Costco made a copy of the watch image. At what point was copyright infringed?
The argument was that in selling the watch it was a form of distribution. Normally the First Sale doctrine protects against that when you're talking about a physical good that has a copyright-covered work built in (e.g., a book or a painting). But Omega argued that since First Sale only applied to works "lawfully made under this law" that it didn't apply to works created overseas, because they weren't made under *US copyright law.* The Supreme Court rejected that in Kirtsaeng.
So it's the distribution right that was the issue, not the reproduction right...
Hey Mike, I'm gonna come over and paint your house in colors I think I'll like. Don't worry, I'll make sure it's transformative.
Well, as long as it's for your private viewing and has no impact at all on how I or anyone else views the house, there's no problem with that, now is there? And in the case of people re-editing movies, that's exactly the case.
if Sony doesn't want to be repeatedly hacked, they should actually invest in some real cybersecurity. Storing passwords in plaintext files in a folder named 'Passwords' isn't going to cut it.
Eh, I don't think so. There's a big difference between *better security* and "unhackable." And the difference is important. It gets back to Schneier's discussions on airport security. People keep trying to set up airport security with the ridiculous claim that no bad guys can get through, but that's impossible and stupid. The way you do that is you don't let anyone fly.
The point is, if you want the benefits of air travel, you have to admit that there's some risk and then try to minimize it, while balancing the inconvenience/problems that creates. You don't try for perfect. You balance the tradeoffs.
Same with computer security. But the point NDT is making here ignores those tradeoffs completely.
Try, fail, learn, try again. That's EXACTLY how innovation works.
If that's what he was advocating, that would be right.
But it's not. He's advocating a tautology. Tautology is not innovation it's stating the same thing twice. He's not talking about improving systems, he's just saying "hey, don't do this." "Want to live? Don't die." That doesn't help an innovator in any way. It's useless.