Netflix is getting a price increase

[CoffeeBlack]

Why would anyone use netflix when:

 

www.dreamfilm.se

www.swefilmer.com

www.sweflix.se

 

thats the swedish free film sites:D

Because we aren't all thieves...

[Misanthrope]

Because we aren't all thieves...

 

[Argent]

Unsurprising following the Comcast deal.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a least another $2 price hike this time next year depending on how many other deals they need to make.

[CoffeeBlack]

I love the IT Crowd!

[LegendKillerRG]

I used netflix to its full extent, back when Breaking Bad season 1-4 was uploaded to netflix, my data usage(T-Mobile Unlimited) went up to literally 99GB..

[Askew]

Thanks Comcast.

[Hyp0xia]

Because we aren't all thieves...

You seriously need to get a dictionary and look up the word "thief."

[CoffeeBlack]

You seriously need to get a dictionary and look up the word "thief."

Please describe my misuse. There are more types of thievery than stealing physical goods.

[Misanthrope]

Please describe my misuse. There are more types of thievery than stealing physical goods.

 

Counterfeiting isn't thieving even if we were talking about physical goods. And usually counterfeiting or "piracy" involves someone actually making money of copied goods or goods otherwise sold (key word here being sold) without the original creator's explicit consent i.e. I produce and/or sell fake Channel bags or whatever. Stealing means that you take one particular item from an owner. Copying the item and then reselling it it's a completely different crime. Copying it and then giving it away for free should be a misdemeanor at best. The fact that you compare it to a crime that's 2 levels more severe it's quite simply propaganda to exaggerate the severity of the crime and it's importance. And that's if we're talking about whomever uploads the content not who downloads it which would be yet another level of severity separation.

 

And mind you I am not making the argument that it isn't a crime at all, because as fucking stupid and retarded the entire concept and specially it's punishment can be I am not arguing that it is legal because it isn't. But I'm not about to call people who pirate content "thieves" for the same reasons I'm not about to call drunk drivers who don't even happen to get into an accident or get anything beyond a D.U.I. ticket "Serial killers"

 

Or to give you another example, What Linus has been doing at the end of several WAN shows by selling review samples isn't legal, would you really call him a "thief" and report LMG to the authorities so he's thrown in jail? Not really yet this is exactly what happens to some people that have been sued or charged.

[CoffeeBlack]

Counterfeiting isn't thieving even if we were talking about physical goods. And usually counterfeiting or "piracy" involves someone actually making money of copied goods or goods otherwise sold (key word here being sold) without the original creator's explicit consent i.e. I produce and/or sell fake Channel bags or whatever. Stealing means that you take one particular item from an owner. Copying the item and then reselling it it's a completely different crime. Copying it and then giving it away for free should be a misdemeanor at best. The fact that you compare it to a crime that's 2 levels more severe it's quite simply propaganda to exaggerate the severity of the crime and it's importance.

 

And mind you I am not making the argument that it isn't a crime at all, because as fucking stupid and retarded the entire concept and specially it's punishment can be I am not arguing that it is legal because it isn't. But I'm about to call people who pirate content "thieves" for the same reasons I'm not about to call drunk drivers who don't even happen to get into an accident or get anything beyond a D.U.I. ticket "Serial killers"

 

Or to give you another example, What Linus has been doing at the end of several WAN shows by selling review samples isn't legal, would you really call him a "thief" and report LMG to the authorities so he's thrown in jail? Not really yet this is exactly what happens to some people that have been sued or charged.

I'm not talking about the middleman, I'm talking about the end user. They are knowingly benefiting from content that they are not paying for. This directly prevents money from going to the content creator. I call that theft. A synonym of thief is robber. Would you not say that people using pirated content are not robbing that content creator from money they are entitled to by the laws that we abide by?

And your analogy to LMG is completely irrelevant. It is not even remotely similar to piracy.

[Misanthrope]

I'm not talking about the middleman, I'm talking about the end user. They are knowingly benefiting from content that they are not paying for.

 

Yes, but they are not depriving anybody of content by physically stealing it or otherwise making it unavailable to legitimate buyers. Is not the same as stealing. You might think it's just as damaging and such (you'd be wrong, but you might think so) but you cannot redefine words, and more importantly, legal terms just because you're outraged.

 

This directly prevents money from going to the content creator. I call that theft. A synonym of thief is robber. 

 

And there's no actual robbery for the aforementioned reasons: downloading does NOT prevent anyone from getting the content legitimately. Robbing does. That's what we call a fundamental difference.

 

More over, there has never been conclusively proven that downloading directly and definitively impacts sales. That's just a conclusion that while it might seem logical (specially after it gets repeated ad nausem) it's just not the case at all. In fact many content creators have reported that their content sales numbers remain the same and indicate that the most pirated content like Game of Thrones are simply the most successful and most desirable media, meaning that the show it's popular not that it's hurt by piracy. For more on this please google "Correlation does not equal causation" 

 

And your analogy to LMG is completely irrelevant. It is not even remotely similar to piracy.

 

It's not a direct comparison, it's an analogy: We know that it's as a matter of fact not really legal as the hardware manufacturers didn't gave him the products to be sold and he likely isn't registered as an official distributor for those products (although technically he might be by selling through his former employer NCIX for tax purposes, but that's besides the point) Now would anybody seriously consider reporting him to the authorities? No because nobody considers this a serious or morally reprehensible crime. You also wouldn't stop a police officer and go "Look that gentleman over there just crossed a street in the middle of the road and threw a cigarrette butt on the floor, call the s.w.a.t. team and arrest him for littering and j-walking!"

And without the years of constant bitching by the content distributors (who are surprisingly still in business in spite of not having made even a single fucking dent on piracy for the last 30 or 40 years)  most of us wouldn't morally accuse somebody of being a "thief" and report him to the authorities for "piracy" because he downloaded a movie that might not even be legally available for purchase (as it is so fucking often the case for anyone outside the US) Just as you wouldn't turn a friend over to the police because he recorded a song off the radio on a cassette tape 20 years ago, just as you don't really call the police on somebody who stops outside of a restaurant to listen to a song on their speakers without actually purchasing anything (Thief! Just got to listen to content for free without becoming a restaurant customer and henceforth accessing the restaurant rights to the material being broadcasted! Because yup, that's actually also illegal)

[CoffeeBlack]

Yes, but they are not depriving anybody of content by physically stealing it or otherwise making it unavailable to legitimate buyers. Is not the same as stealing. You might think it's just as damaging and such (you'd be wrong, but you might think so) but you cannot redefine words, and more importantly, legal terms just because you're outraged.

I didn't say they were depriving anyone of content. They are depriving the content creator of the money they deserve. I'm not redefining words. I see more in words than you do, words can mean more than one thing. No word has any single definition or meaning. Under every word there are implied meanings.

 

 

And there's no actual robbery for the aforementioned reasons: downloading does NOT prevent anyone from getting the content legitimately. Robbing does. That's what we call a fundamental difference.

Where did I say it does prevent anyone from getting it legally? It does however enable those that are willing partake of illegal content to do so.

 

More over, there has never been conclusively proven that downloading directly and definitively impacts sales. That's just a conclusion that while it might seem logical (specially after it gets repeated ad nausem) it's just not the case at all. In fact many content creators have reported that their content sales numbers remain the same and indicate that the most pirated content like Game of Thrones are simply the most successful and most desirable media, meaning that the show it's popular not that it's hurt by piracy. For more on this please google "Correlation does not equal causation" 

Of course it hurts the creators. Obviously not the popularity, but it hurts the bottom line of the creator. Youtubers hate when their content gets re-uploaded. Why? Because they are losing money on it that someone else is making. HBO would make more money if people didn't torrent Game of Thrones. It's as simple as that. To deny that suggests you have a basic misunderstanding business finance, economics, and retail.

 

 

It's not a direct comparison, it's an analogy: We know that it's as a matter of fact not really legal as the hardware manufacturers didn't gave him the products to be sold and he likely isn't registered as an official distributor for those products (although technically he might be by selling through his former employer NCIX for tax purposes, but that's besides the point) Now would anybody seriously consider reporting him to the authorities? No because nobody considers this a serious or morally reprehensible crime. You also wouldn't stop a police officer and go "Look that gentleman over there just crossed a street in the middle of the road and threw a cigarrette butt on the floor, call the s.w.a.t. team and arrest him for littering and j-walking!"

Um, I called it an analogy. It's just a really, really horrible one. The two crimes are not remotely similar. When you make an analogy, it should relate more to the scenario other than the fact they are both illegal.

And without the years of constant bitching by the content distributors (who are surprisingly still in business in spite of not having made even a single fucking dent on piracy for the last 30 or 40 years)  most of us wouldn't morally accuse somebody of being a "thief" and report him to the authorities for "piracy" because he downloaded a movie that might not even be legally available for purchase (as it is so fucking often the case for anyone outside the US) Just as you wouldn't turn a friend over to the police because he recorded a song of the radio on a cassette tape 20 years ago, just as you don't really call the police on somebody who stops outside of a restaurant to listen to a song on their speakers without actually purchasing anything (Thief! Just got to listen to content for free without becoming a restaurant customer and henceforth accessing the restaurant rights to the material being broadcasted! Because yup, that's actually also illegal)

 

We are obviously never going to agree on this. I believe illegally downloading a movie, game, or song is wrong. You will never change my mind by splitting hairs with philosophy. I believe in a free market society where people who work hard should be payed for their service or good by those who use it. If your morals allow you to not feel bad about cheating someone out of money, fine.

[Misanthrope]

We are obviously never going to agree on this. I believe illegally downloading a movie, game, or song is wrong. You will never change my mind by splitting hairs with philosophy.

 

It's not "philosophy" it's legal terminology and common sense. But I get your point: you don't want your mind be changed or to question your own opinions at all, bury your head in the sand all you want it's fine by me, at least you're being honest and not attempting a lengthy and pointless discussion.

[CoffeeBlack]

It's not "philosophy" it's legal terminology and common sense. But I get your point: you don't want your mind be changed or to question your own opinions at all, bury your head in the sand all you want it's fine by me, at least you're being honest and not attempting a lengthy and pointless discussion.

I do question my opinions all the time. I grew up in an extremely religious household and now believe in no god at all. You're not going to change my mind, not because I'm burying my head in the sand, but because I have researched and formed my own opinion as have you. When you and someone else don't agree on something, you don't have to insult somebody when they refuse to submit to your reasoning. I'm a graduate student in financial economics and care about bottom lines. To say bottom lines aren't hurt by piracy is wishful thinking. When 1,000 people pirate Bioshock: Infinite, that is $60,000 of revenue that Irrational did not receive as a direct result.

[Misanthrope]

When you and someone else don't agree on something, you don't have to insult somebody when they refuse to submit to your reasoning.

 

Maybe if you didn't interpret a different opinion and view as someone attempting to submit you to any reasoning you wouldn't feel insulted when mild sarcasm is thrown at your lack of arguments and responses? Whatever let me go submit a few others with more lame humor.

[CoffeeBlack]

Maybe if you didn't interpret a different opinion and view as someone attempting to submit you to any reasoning you wouldn't feel insulted when mild sarcasm is thrown at your lack of arguments and responses? Whatever let me go submit a few others with more lame humor.

I don't. But how is saying I don't question my own opinions and bury my head in the sand not an insult spurred by the fact that I won't agree with you?

[Misanthrope]

I don't. But how is saying I don't question my own opinions and bury my head in the sand not an insult spurred by the fact that I won't agree with you?

 

I wouldn't call it a personal insult, I would call it a fair description to someone who says "You will never change my mind by splitting hairs with philosophy" 

[helping]

When 1,000 people pirate Bioshock: Infinite, that is $60,000 of revenue that Irrational did not receive as a direct result.

I wasn't going to say anything before as Misanthrope was pretty much spot on IMO, but are you sure you believe your own statement? (assuming your numbers aren't arbitrary keyboard slamming)

[Misanthrope]

It's time to bring that picture again! Well maybe it's not but it cracks me up everytime ((awful)pun intended)
 

[CoffeeBlack]

I wasn't going to say anything before as Misanthrope was pretty much spot on IMO, but are you sure you believe your own statement?

Yes, assuming they are all going to get the game.

[Misanthrope]

Yes, assuming they are all going to get the game.

 

This is why I suggested that you looked up the "correlation does not equal causation" term in google, you know one of those annoying arguments you dismissed as "philosophy" when it's in actuality used in the scientific method? An excerpt then:

 

In a widely studied example, numerous epidemiological studies showed that women who were taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But randomized controlled trials showed that HRT caused a small but statistically significant increase in risk of CHD. Re-analysis of the data from the epidemiological studies showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from higher socio-economic groups (ABC1), with better-than-average diet and exercise regimens. The use of HRT and decreased incidence of coronary heart disease were coincident effects of a common cause (i.e. the benefits associated with a higher socioeconomic status), rather than cause and effect, as had been supposed.[3]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

[CoffeeBlack]

This is why I suggested that you looked up the "correlation does not equal causation" term in google, you know one of those annoying arguments you dismissed as "philosophy" when it's in actuality used in the scientific method? An excerpt then:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

I don't need to google it because I know what it is. My mistake was being too simple in my statement. Obviously not all of them will buy the game if that were their only option. But that does not mean that none of them would. Then the ones who do will be paying Irrational for the game.

[Misanthrope]

 But that does not mean that none of them would. 

 

Yet this is the exact argument that companies make, their follow this logic:

 

1) We made X game, we expect to sell 500,000 copies

2) How did we come to that conclusion? Well Y genre games usually sell this much, and our game it's just as awesome! Our board of directors will surely be pleased!

3) Game comes out, sells only 300,000 copies

4) We subponea some downloading numbers out of the pirate bay records. We've seen about 100,000 downloads on the torrent of pirate bay.

5) The evils of piracy costs us 100,00 sales! The pirate bay must be sued for 100,000 x USD 60 because that clearly correlates with our estimates

6) What do you mean it doesn't correlates exactly? What? What do you mean how did we came up with those numbers? Look, thieves! LOCK EM UP, STOP ASKING QUESTIONS! We need a trial to show to our board of directors before they panic and think we just made a fucking crappy, copycat game nobody liked!

 

That's how this arguments go, that's why we use the correlation does not equal causation argument. It's likely that there's no direct link between lost sales and downloads. In fact the example I gave might even be as accurate: If we could look at the data of people who download games I'm pretty sure you'd find a bunch of kids, students and lower middle class or worst individuals doing the majority of the downloading who couldn't otherwise afford to buy many, if any games at all. There is no market loss cause there wasn't a market to begin with. Not unless you can successfully link it with something other than correlation based on nothing.

[CoffeeBlack]

Yet this is the exact argument that companies make, their follow this logic:

 

1) We made X game, we expect to sell 500,000 copies

2) How did we come to that conclusion? Well Y genre games usually sell this much, and our game it's just as awesome! Our board of directors will surely be pleased!

3) Game comes out, sells only 300,000 copies

4) We subponea some downloading numbers out of the pirate bay records. We've seen about 100,000 downloads on the torrent of pirate bay.

5) The evils of piracy costs us 100,00 sales! The pirate bay must be sued for 100,000 x USD 60 because that clearly cprrelates with our estimates

6) What do you mean it doesn't correlates exactly? What? What do you mean how did we came up with those numbers? Look, thieves! LOCK EM UP, STOP ASKING QUESTIONS! We need a trial to show to our board of directors before they panic and think we just made a fucking crappy, copycat game nobody liked!

 

That's how this arguments go, that's why we use the correlation does not equal causation argument. It's likely that there's no direct link between lost sales and downloads. In fact the example I gave might even be as accurate: If we could look at the data of people who download games I'm pretty sure you'd find a bunch of kids, students and lower middle class or worst individuals doing the majority of the downloading who couldn't otherwise afford to buy many, if any games at all. There is no market loss cause there wasn't a market to begin with. Not unless you can successfully link it with something other than correlation based on nothing.

I'm not defending the company's stance. I do not agree with RIAA in that picture you posted. I believe in a middle ground. They do lose money from piracy, it's just a fact. They obviously do not lose the exact market value of the downloads. My post was obviously too simple and did adhere to the company's stance. I know not everyone would buy the game, but I know many still would as many still do.

[Misanthrope]

They do lose money from piracy, it's just a fact. 

 

Facts require evidence, impartial and incontrovertible evidence. Evidence that to date I have not seen. Actually I've seen more evidence of the contrary with games without any drm posting solid sale numbers, not to mention GOG.com runs a successful business based on that very notion.