3 Nerd-Its - +

No cost to viewer ≠ free

Comment a comment by Mark A. McBride (markmcb), published on 02 January 2009
Navigate to the top level to view all replies to the article Pirated Television Shows
other nerds have left 2 comments below

I think there is a difference. Let’s simplify the situation. Let’s say I have the only copy of the only movie in existence and everyone wants to see it. I’ve spent a lot of money making the film. I have these options:

  1. I put the film in a theater and charge admission
  2. I put the film on TV and charge advertisers for mid-film time slots
  3. I put the film on my web site and charge advertisers for mid-film time slots, pre/post film time slots, or persistent ads throughout that display on the side
  4. I put the film on a torrent and make no money

Why would I ever do the last? Why would I lose a large sum of money just so everyone else could get it free? I wouldn’t. So it makes perfect sense that if you decide I should do the last against my will that I would take legal action.

I’d like a free movie as much as the next guy, but this is piracy plain and simple.

Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
1 Nerd-It - +
RE: No cost to viewer ≠ free by VnutZ :: NR10

But you have left out that courts ruled recording of shows legal. So be it VHS or Tivo, those shows are broadcast for free over the airwaves to a mechanism that allows unscheduled viewing while skipping commercials. What’s the difference with a VHS/Tivo copy and an AVI file?

If broadcast TV didn’t exist, I’d be more inclined to agree. And I will agree movies on that medium are illegal because there is no free broadcast mechanism for these. But not TV.

Posted 02 January 2009, Hide, Parent, Reply
3 Nerd-Its - +
RE: No cost to viewer ≠ free by scottb :: NR8

I agree.

Though I think there’s a substantial difference between movies and music when it comes to piracy.

Decent video is still pretty expensive to produce — there are some really good innovators out there showing how to do it much less expensively, but it’s still not cheap. Somebody has to pay for that, and it’s only fair that the consumer chips in.

Music, on the other hand, costs nearly nothing to produce. There’s nobody involved who adds any notable value beyond what the artist did in performing the piece. A professional quality recording studio can be put together for a few thousand dollars, and Internet distribution is essentially free.

It seems to me that the barriers to creating quality music are so low that only the lazy or untalented wouldn’t get by them purely for the love of art. So I’ve got very little sympathy for the RIAA — they’re parasites from an outdated distribution model.

Movies might get there — but I’d say it’s at least another 20 years before they will. Until then, I think they deserve to recoup their costs.

Well, Except for porn. That’s already nearly free to produce. Direct to video with any willing actor — no real costs to recoup there.

Posted 02 January 2009, Hide, Parent, Reply

The Showcase

Nerd-Its   Nerd Trends   Last Ten  

  1. RE: Continuing the discussion in I Refuse to Embrace Ignorance
  2. RE: Actually... in Scientology: We've had it with you
  3. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  4. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  5. RE: Continuing the discussion in I Refuse to Embrace Ignorance
  6. RE: Where to start learning, and government support of religion in Scientology: We've had it with you
  7. RE: Where to start learning, and government support of religion in Scientology: We've had it with you
  8. RE: The Pots should stop calling the Kettles black... in God before Country in the Military
  9. RE: The true solution in Scientology: We've had it with you
  10. RE: Source for Religious Affiliation? in Scientology: We've had it with you

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

Winter Olympic sports?

View Results, All Polls
38 votes, 12 comments