By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo unite... to support internet censorship.

 

What's your opinion on this?

Great! Those damn pirates... 44 26.67%
 
Scary stuff... 106 64.24%
 
See results. 13 7.88%
 
Total:163
miz1q2w3e on 18 November 2011

Piracy is bad but censorship is WAY worse



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 18 November 2011
Seece said:
Mr Khan said:

More accurate to say that if pirates do become paying customers, that it becomes a wash economically. You don't generate money from nothing, and its not like these people who might be consuming certain intellectual properties are sitting on the money that they would be spending, but it is generally acknowledged in economics that a good deal of piracy comes from customers who you are priced too high to access in the first place.

The alternate point is that companies could choose to meet such people in the middle through lower-cost (e.g. ad-supported), but they choose instead to whine to governments and continue to play their games of junk economics

Read HappySquirrel's comment on it in the thread i made, he states it more clearly

No, anti anti piracy people bend the argument anyway they can to justify it. Music and Dvd's I find hard to believe priced out of many people's price range, least of all the majority, I flat out don't believe that. For games there is used and renting, which is better than pirating. At the the of the day that excuse is whack.

In terms of generating money, you're right, middle to majority of people only have a certain amount to spend and if they are forced to buy a movie insted of pirating, then they have to give something else up (not ALL, there are people with a lot of disposable cash left over at the end of the month, and they pirate not because they can't afford the product, but because they can.)

However, this is why the games, movies and the music industry people are pushing these piracy laws, and making the government listen, because for that middle/majority of people that would sacrafice spending elsewhere to buy a movie of game, you're assuming they're sacraficing something of the same, wheras it could be a takeaway, or clothes, or something else entirely irrlevent to whoever is fighting for this.

Value is relative, which is the foundational principle of Demand. There are certain customers you will never reach, or certain customers that your business model cannot reach. That is not to say that objectively you have stuff priced too high, but that at the end of the day a given customer simply won't buy for the price you're willing to sell at. I am not saying that the majority of pirates could not afford to pay for these things, but that the will to pay for them isn't there

And that's the root of the fallacy here. You cannot make these people into customers, so why waste so much time and resources (and in this case, expensive propaganda campaigns to lobby Congresspeople) when at the end of the day, these are non-customers?

And then, of course, we have the hideous methods being employed in the course of this bill. We're talking about fundamentally changing the internet for what is, basically, no good reason at all.

You like your Prince of Persia avatar, right? Well after this law, VGC moderators will have to remove it, despite the fact that you are British and the site is British, because if Ubisoft has a mind, they could petition the Justice Department and VGC would lose all hits from the USA overnight. So out of fear of the law, VGC will have to enforce the law's standards internally



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Makaha on 18 November 2011
Mr Khan said:
Seece said:
Mr Khan said:
crissindahouse said:

since i never crack games or movies it's good for me in one case. that would mean more money for the companies because people have to buy then instead of clicking the downlaod button. maybe ea willl get in the black then and don't have to fire like 500 more employees.

if it would only affect those things i wouldn't have a problem. no music videos on youtube? i could live with that as well i don't really need them only the music and i buy all music i really like.

but i have a feeling this will work not as good a s i hope and that this would be one more step to a world in many movies like equilibrium shown.

We have to nip this in the bud now. This bill is an absolute bad, and will not increase revenue that anyone receives, and will instead kill jobs. A lot of websites will go out of business if this becomes law, a lot of foreign websites will lose tons of ad revenue, and the gains made will be miniscule. Pirates do not become paying customers

Rubbish, you have no proof what people will do if they can't pirate something. It's wrong to assume they'll all go out and pay for games (or anything else), but it's just as wrong to assume they'll give up entirely.

More accurate to say that if pirates do become paying customers, that it becomes a wash economically. You don't generate money from nothing, and its not like these people who might be consuming certain intellectual properties are sitting on the money that they would be spending, but it is generally acknowledged in economics that a good deal of piracy comes from customers who you are priced too high to access in the first place.

 

 

Well in terms of music, many teenagers today have never bought any music, at all.  Zero. Nada. Zip.

So you're saying that if teenagers couldn't get music illegally online, they wouldn't be listening to music at all??

That's total BS.  In national polls in the US, most teenagers value their music collection the MOST--more than movies and games, and yet they don't pay for it.  They expect to get it for free, like it's an entitlement.  As a songwriter and producer myself, I can guarantee you that producing music is not free.  My 5-string Fender bass by itself cost over $1,000.  My Roland VS-1680 hard disk multitrack cost $3,500 when I bought it back in 2000.  Over the years, I easily spent over $10,000 on my synth/keyboard, acoustic and electric guitars, percussion etc.

When I talk to teenagers in some online forums and I suggest to them that they can save their allowance from their parents (if they get an allowance) to buy music.  That's what I did when I was a teenager, but to the young generation, most can't understand that concept.

 



 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3oVRJm-RBU

Mr Khan on 18 November 2011
Makaha said:
Mr Khan said:

More accurate to say that if pirates do become paying customers, that it becomes a wash economically. You don't generate money from nothing, and its not like these people who might be consuming certain intellectual properties are sitting on the money that they would be spending, but it is generally acknowledged in economics that a good deal of piracy comes from customers who you are priced too high to access in the first place.

 

 

Well in terms of music, many teenagers today have never bought any music, at all.  Zero. Nada. Zip.

So you're saying that if teenagers couldn't get music illegally online, they wouldn't be listening to music at all??

That's total BS.  In national polls in the US, most teenagers value their music collection the MOST--more than movies and games, and yet they don't pay for it.  They expect to get it for free, like it's an entitlement.  As a songwriter and producer myself, I can guarantee you that producing music is not free.  My 5-string Fender bass by itself cost over $1,000.  My Roland VS-1680 hard disk multitrack cost $3,500 when I bought it back in 2000.  Over the years, I easily spent over $10,000 on my synth/keyboard, acoustic and electric guitars, percussion etc.

When I talk to teenagers in some online forums and I suggest to them that they can save their allowance from their parents (if they get an allowance) to buy music.  That's what I did when I was a teenager, but to the young generation, most can't understand that concept.

 

1. Anecdotal evidence

2. The fallacy here is to equate every bit of pirated music as lost revenue. Sure teens wouldn't go without music, but they wouldn't necessarily consume at the same levels either



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

ReactiveActive on 18 November 2011

If a website is doing nothing illegal they have nothing to fear! and if they are doing illegal things i hope they get raped in prison.



 

Around the Network
Makaha on 18 November 2011
Mr Khan said:
Makaha said:
Mr Khan said:
 

More accurate to say that if pirates do become paying customers, that it becomes a wash economically. You don't generate money from nothing, and its not like these people who might be consuming certain intellectual properties are sitting on the money that they would be spending, but it is generally acknowledged in economics that a good deal of piracy comes from customers who you are priced too high to access in the first place.

 

 

Well in terms of music, many teenagers today have never bought any music, at all.  Zero. Nada. Zip.

So you're saying that if teenagers couldn't get music illegally online, they wouldn't be listening to music at all??

That's total BS.  In national polls in the US, most teenagers value their music collection the MOST--more than movies and games, and yet they don't pay for it.  They expect to get it for free, like it's an entitlement.  As a songwriter and producer myself, I can guarantee you that producing music is not free.  My 5-string Fender bass by itself cost over $1,000.  My Roland VS-1680 hard disk multitrack cost $3,500 when I bought it back in 2000.  Over the years, I easily spent over $10,000 on my synth/keyboard, acoustic and electric guitars, percussion etc.

When I talk to teenagers in some online forums and I suggest to them that they can save their allowance from their parents (if they get an allowance) to buy music.  That's what I did when I was a teenager, but to the young generation, most can't understand that concept.

 

1. Anecdotal evidence

2. The fallacy here is to equate every bit of pirated music as lost revenue. Sure teens wouldn't go without music, but they wouldn't necessarily consume at the same levels either

 

Anecdotal evidence??

Which part of my post??

 

In regards to your second point, sure, not every bit of pirated music is lost revenue, but the fact that many teenagers don't buy any music, at all, speaks for itself.  If you were to shut down the internet completely (not saying that would ever happen), how else do you think teenagers would get their music??  Well, it would be old school again, which means they would have to BUY their music, like how it was before.



 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3oVRJm-RBU

PullusPardus on 18 November 2011

i don't mind i never pirate games.

Edit : and yeah i don't care about people who pirate stuff.



VGKing on 18 November 2011

Censorship isn't the answer. How about making games worth buying? I heard the Skyrim PS3 version is broken. Guess what I"m downloading on my PC right now?

This really shows who are the "evil" companies in the industry. I'm really sad to see Sony on this list. Activision IS NOT on the list which gives me hope.



JoeTheBro on 18 November 2011
Mr Khan said:
Makaha said:
Mr Khan said:
 

More accurate to say that if pirates do become paying customers, that it becomes a wash economically. You don't generate money from nothing, and its not like these people who might be consuming certain intellectual properties are sitting on the money that they would be spending, but it is generally acknowledged in economics that a good deal of piracy comes from customers who you are priced too high to access in the first place.

 

 

Well in terms of music, many teenagers today have never bought any music, at all.  Zero. Nada. Zip.

So you're saying that if teenagers couldn't get music illegally online, they wouldn't be listening to music at all??

That's total BS.  In national polls in the US, most teenagers value their music collection the MOST--more than movies and games, and yet they don't pay for it.  They expect to get it for free, like it's an entitlement.  As a songwriter and producer myself, I can guarantee you that producing music is not free.  My 5-string Fender bass by itself cost over $1,000.  My Roland VS-1680 hard disk multitrack cost $3,500 when I bought it back in 2000.  Over the years, I easily spent over $10,000 on my synth/keyboard, acoustic and electric guitars, percussion etc.

When I talk to teenagers in some online forums and I suggest to them that they can save their allowance from their parents (if they get an allowance) to buy music.  That's what I did when I was a teenager, but to the young generation, most can't understand that concept.

 

1. Anecdotal evidence

2. The fallacy here is to equate every bit of pirated music as lost revenue. Sure teens wouldn't go without music, but they wouldn't necessarily consume at the same levels either

It doesn't matter if it is directly lost revenue. For my quick example I'll sell a magic potion that can cure any disease for $100,000 and is also distributed for free on black markets. Sure many people that would take it for free wouldn't be willing to spend $100,000 for it like you said but what about the customers I already have? Besides morals there is no reason to keep buying my potion when you can get it for free. This is the same problem with music and etc. Why should anyone keep using iTunes when the exact same product is free at other places?

I fully support this bill and anyone that doesn't support its GOAL (not necessarily the bill itself) is a moron.

*Getting rid of piracy on the internet, nothing to do with censorship.



Links

Mr Khan on 18 November 2011
JoeTheBro said:
Mr Khan said:
Makaha said:
Mr Khan said:
 

More accurate to say that if pirates do become paying customers, that it becomes a wash economically. You don't generate money from nothing, and its not like these people who might be consuming certain intellectual properties are sitting on the money that they would be spending, but it is generally acknowledged in economics that a good deal of piracy comes from customers who you are priced too high to access in the first place.

 

 

Well in terms of music, many teenagers today have never bought any music, at all.  Zero. Nada. Zip.

So you're saying that if teenagers couldn't get music illegally online, they wouldn't be listening to music at all??

That's total BS.  In national polls in the US, most teenagers value their music collection the MOST--more than movies and games, and yet they don't pay for it.  They expect to get it for free, like it's an entitlement.  As a songwriter and producer myself, I can guarantee you that producing music is not free.  My 5-string Fender bass by itself cost over $1,000.  My Roland VS-1680 hard disk multitrack cost $3,500 when I bought it back in 2000.  Over the years, I easily spent over $10,000 on my synth/keyboard, acoustic and electric guitars, percussion etc.

When I talk to teenagers in some online forums and I suggest to them that they can save their allowance from their parents (if they get an allowance) to buy music.  That's what I did when I was a teenager, but to the young generation, most can't understand that concept.

 

1. Anecdotal evidence

2. The fallacy here is to equate every bit of pirated music as lost revenue. Sure teens wouldn't go without music, but they wouldn't necessarily consume at the same levels either

It doesn't matter if it is directly lost revenue. For my quick example I'll sell a magic potion that can cure any disease for $100,000 and is also distributed for free on black markets. Sure many people that would take it for free wouldn't be willing to spend $100,000 for it like you said but what about the customers I already have? Besides morals there is no reason to keep buying my potion when you can get it for free. This is the same problem with music and etc. Why should anyone keep using iTunes when the exact same product is free at other places?

I fully support this bill and anyone that doesn't support its GOAL (not necessarily the bill itself) is a moron.

*Getting rid of piracy on the internet, nothing to do with censorship.

If you fully support the bill, then you support corporate free reign to prosecute individuals without due process

Thus if you truly support this bill, you are opposed to the Bill of Rights



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.