I myself never said it wasn't stealing. But I'd say it's fair game. Hit them where it hurts. They'll eventually get it.chittydog wrote:
If that business model doesn't work anymore, that doesn't mean that it's not stealing, it only means they're not going to stay around forever.
Basic logic. The few paying for the developmental cost. There is also a cost that goes into copy protection.jsnipy wrote:
evidence?Kmarion wrote:
Piracy drives the cost up.
No its not that basic. You are under the faulty presumption that each pirated copy equates to a copy that would be bought. True, the copy protection costs are concrete.Kmarion wrote:
Basic logic. The few paying for the developmental cost. There is also a cost that goes into copy protection.jsnipy wrote:
evidence?Kmarion wrote:
Piracy drives the cost up.
who specifically?Hurricane2k9 wrote:
They'll eventually get it.
Last edited by jsnipy (2009-05-13 20:50:29)
I disagree. Stealing =/= fair game. Is it okay to steal clothes if they're overpriced? Hilfiger costs 3X as much as Target brands for about the same quality.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I myself never said it wasn't stealing. But I'd say it's fair game. Hit them where it hurts. They'll eventually get it.chittydog wrote:
If that business model doesn't work anymore, that doesn't mean that it's not stealing, it only means they're not going to stay around forever.
No not each but certainly some. You are under the faulty presumption that without the opportunity to pirate those would be pirates would never legally purchase software. I never claimed that it was an even 1 for 1 trade off, nor is an even trade off nessecary to understand that every penny lost is passed along to the end consumer.jsnipy wrote:
No its not that basic. You are under the faulty presumption that each pirated copy equates to a copy that would be bought. True, the copy protection costs are concrete.Kmarion wrote:
Basic logic. The few paying for the developmental cost. There is also a cost that goes into copy protection.jsnipy wrote:
evidence?
My monthly bill for Verizon FIOS TV is higher than for internet. I can get the same shows like 24 and House on Hulu, which would mean I'm paying less for being able to view those shows.chittydog wrote:
I disagree. Stealing =/= fair game. Is it okay to steal clothes if they're overpriced? Hilfiger costs 3X as much as Target brands for about the same quality.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I myself never said it wasn't stealing. But I'd say it's fair game. Hit them where it hurts. They'll eventually get it.chittydog wrote:
If that business model doesn't work anymore, that doesn't mean that it's not stealing, it only means they're not going to stay around forever.
I never stated insinuated any presumptions (your use of the word tells me much ), I was just countering the point you made and the fact that you said it was "basic logic", which it is not.Kmarion wrote:
No not each but certainly some. You are under the faulty presumption that without the opportunity to pirate those would be pirates would never legally purchase software. I never claimed that it was an even 1 for 1 trade off, nor is an even trade off nessecary to understand that every penny lost is passed along to the end consumer.jsnipy wrote:
No its not that basic. You are under the faulty presumption that each pirated copy equates to a copy that would be bought. True, the copy protection costs are concrete.Kmarion wrote:
Basic logic. The few paying for the developmental cost. There is also a cost that goes into copy protection.
I was mocking you.. you didn't tick it silly goose. ..loljsnipy wrote:
I never stated insinuated any presumptions (your use of the word tells me much ), I was just countering the point you made and the fact that you said it was "basic logic", which it is not.Kmarion wrote:
No not each but certainly some. You are under the faulty presumption that without the opportunity to pirate those would be pirates would never legally purchase software. I never claimed that it was an even 1 for 1 trade off, nor is an even trade off nessecary to understand that every penny lost is passed along to the end consumer.jsnipy wrote:
No its not that basic. You are under the faulty presumption that each pirated copy equates to a copy that would be bought. True, the copy protection costs are concrete.
lolwutKmarion wrote:
I was mocking you.. you didn't tick it silly goose. ..loljsnipy wrote:
I never stated insinuated any presumptions (your use of the word tells me much ), I was just countering the point you made and the fact that you said it was "basic logic", which it is not.Kmarion wrote:
No not each but certainly some. You are under the faulty presumption that without the opportunity to pirate those would be pirates would never legally purchase software. I never claimed that it was an even 1 for 1 trade off, nor is an even trade off nessecary to understand that every penny lost is passed along to the end consumer.
Would simple logic be better? How about easily understood? Perhaps I give people too much credit.
Yeah, what I meant to say was that Hulu is the equivalent of Comcast lowering its prices and making more competitive deals. There was competition (in cable's case Verizon, in media's case file sharing) and they (Comcast in cable's case, the studios in media's case) made a response (lower prices and Hulu respectively).chittydog wrote:
Hulu is not the same as file sharing, it's a site that the networks allow to show their programming.
I otherwise agree with the example you're giving, since it's not really file sharing. Services like Hulu provide much needed competition and keep prices/quality in check.
You needed evidence for something a child could understand.jsnipy wrote:
lolwutKmarion wrote:
I was mocking you.. you didn't tick it silly goose. ..loljsnipy wrote:
I never stated insinuated any presumptions (your use of the word tells me much ), I was just countering the point you made and the fact that you said it was "basic logic", which it is not.
Would simple logic be better? How about easily understood? Perhaps I give people too much credit.
I can tell you are getting angry i will drop it. Thanks for the insult.Kmarion wrote:
You needed evidence for something a child could understand.jsnipy wrote:
lolwutKmarion wrote:
I was mocking you.. you didn't tick it silly goose. ..lol
Would simple logic be better? How about easily understood? Perhaps I give people too much credit.
Last edited by jsnipy (2009-05-13 21:20:15)
Circumventing a cap would be very circumstantial.. Jacking wifi, hacking bandwidth meters. Not nearly as easy as pirate bay. I guess in time as the "hey I'm not paying for it" market increases those tools could become easier to acquire/use. It's a constantly changing game. I can remember when free pay channels was as easy as sliding a plastic card into the right spot of a cable box. Yea, I go back.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Yeah, what I meant to say was that Hulu is the equivalent of Comcast lowering its prices and making more competitive deals. There was competition (in cable's case Verizon, in media's case file sharing) and they (Comcast in cable's case, the studios in media's case) made a response (lower prices and Hulu respectively).chittydog wrote:
Hulu is not the same as file sharing, it's a site that the networks allow to show their programming.
I otherwise agree with the example you're giving, since it's not really file sharing. Services like Hulu provide much needed competition and keep prices/quality in check.
@Kmarion then people will either find ways to circumvent the caps (which would be illegal, like file sharing) or new ISPs will pop up. I remember reading about an ISP for a town in North Carolina that offers far better prices than Time Warner does, and even has a 100Mbps package for around $150 a month.
lol.. never. I really thought it was very simple. Call me an asshole turd er something nipsy, I understand .jsnipy wrote:
I can tell you are getting angry i will drop it. Thanks for the insult.Kmarion wrote:
You needed evidence for something a child could understand.jsnipy wrote:
lolwut
There is a three zipcode rule with that. If you're three zipcodes away (from your wife) it's ok.Locoloki wrote:
isnt this kind of like saying sleeping with a hooker isnt cheating on your wife
Definitely not, I'm not at all angered (maybe a bit surprised you got riled, then again im not in DAST much). My point is is that your statement is more like a mantra rather than a fact.Kmarion wrote:
lol.. never. I really thought it was very simple. Call me an asshole turd er something nipsy, I understand .jsnipy wrote:
I can tell you are getting angry i will drop it. Thanks for the insult.Kmarion wrote:
You needed evidence for something a child could understand.
Last edited by jsnipy (2009-05-13 21:23:13)
Come here.. lets hug it out bitch.jsnipy wrote:
Definitely not, I'm not at all angered (maybe a bit surprised you got riled, then again im not in DAST much). My point is is that your statement is more like a mantra rather than a fact.Kmarion wrote:
lol.. never. I really thought it was very simple. Call me an asshole turd er something nipsy, I understand .jsnipy wrote:
I can tell you are getting angry i will drop it. Thanks for the insult.
ok ...Kmarion wrote:
Come here.. lets hug it out bitch.jsnipy wrote:
Definitely not, I'm not at all angered (maybe a bit surprised you got riled, then again im not in DAST much). My point is is that your statement is more like a mantra rather than a fact.Kmarion wrote:
lol.. never. I really thought it was very simple. Call me an asshole turd er something nipsy, I understand .
^^^^LOLjsnipy wrote:
ok ...Kmarion wrote:
Come here.. lets hug it out bitch.jsnipy wrote:
Definitely not, I'm not at all angered (maybe a bit surprised you got riled, then again im not in DAST much). My point is is that your statement is more like a mantra rather than a fact.
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7016 … riage2.jpg
Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-05-13 21:48:03)
My friend uses Hulu for all his TV most of the time because his mom doesn't have a TV, so he just has a nice computer because his dad builds them for a living.Kmarion wrote:
I'm using hulu more and more. If people start canceling their tv packages I fear fios is going to go the route of bandwidth caps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGNiLf7s0cw
