Public Voice Network
- SNEAKERS 478478
- what is hand made? 1111
- Chick of the Day 1824318243
- Angelina Joile boobs.. 2525
- Kanye video projections i… 1717
- standalone flip through? 44
- the gif animation thread 1842718427
- Scary Cool Tech Thread 312312
- The Powerball 4141
- e-cigarettes 2727
- News of the day... 656656
- Quote someone 11471147
- Edit facebook event date…
- The Useful Thread 360360
- Pic of the Day 7465674656
- WANT of the day 14071407
- Vid of the Day 1503515035
- keynote/final cut questio… 11
- 80's-90's MEMORIE… 12661266
- What are you listening to… 55735573
- Premier League 2012/13 112112
- Romanthony 55
- Smatik Update 2013 22
- The Seasteading Institute 22
Piracy Paradox II 1818 Responses
Last post: 2 years, 11 months ago | Thread started: May 26, 10, 3:37 a.m.
- e-pill
awesome video. it speaks the truth and this is why i love fashion as we evolve so much that we have to be so strong to innovate. i wonder why so little designers here walk in the fashion world as the industry is so large, and so fast paced and so moving forward that the evolution is endless.. i love it!!
:)
- Dog-earMay 26, 10, 5:44 a.m. – Permalink
- pr2
1. for a person who's trying to talk about fashion this woman is a fashion disaster.
2. a person who shows you such a simplistic interpretation of data (as around 12:45) is either a simpleton who can't compute basic information or has a double agenda, reason why no-copyrights industries make so much more money because they deal with necessities and not "artsy" stuff. There is plenty of people out there who haven't bought a book in years and yet not that many who walk around without their shoes on.
- Dog-earMay 26, 10, 12:57 p.m. – Permalink
- nb
@pr2:
1. She's not talking about fashion, she's talking about copyright.
2. Automobiles? Furniture? These are arguably no more or less necessary to an individual than books. Also, it's not like people buy one pair of shoes and a single outfit because that's the necessity. The numbers for fashion are high because people enjoy owning a bunch of clothes. Much like people enjoy owning a bunch of books.
- Dog-earMay 26, 10, 1:24 p.m. – Permalink
- pr2
It baffles me when an article can can raise some valid points and at the same time bring up some oversimplifications that truly cancel out the validity of other points - or at least put the research of the writer in serious doubt.
"But while knockoffs undoubtedly do steal some sales from originals, they are, for the most part, targeted at an entirely different market segment; people who appreciate high style but can't afford high prices."
You can't be serious. In today's information filed world only a truly naive person would believe that all i'm getting with a H&M knock off is cheaper meterial. You are making a moral choice that says i don't care that human rights were violated to create such incredibly inexpensive piece of clothing.
- Dog-earMay 26, 10, 2:41 p.m. – Permalink
- whatsup
@ pr2 + everyone else
After re-looking at the data statistics, i have to agree that in light of her discussion, the data analysis could be a little misleading. Why? Because she is running a comparison between two industries that both face copyright infringement. Insinuating that enforcing copyright protection leads to less sales.
However, these low income sales from 2007 could have been very well caused by the "digitization/ Internet". Even though these companies that are enforcing copyright protection are also the same companies whose products can be sent over the web. Unlike food, automobiles, furniture and fashion.
- Dog-earMay 26, 10, 3:05 p.m. – Permalink
- whatsup
However overall the fashion business model suggests that companies can flourish without copyright protection. A future in which, I think everyone here, including myself would like to see. Mainly because for businesses to enforce copyright protection on the internet, disturbs our freedoms online.
Can media companies follow the same path as fashion, accepting the idea of copying?
- Dog-earMay 26, 10, 3:14 p.m. – Permalink
- pr2
The problem is that in a way we already do! You find plenty of indie filmmaker who are simply begging for audience. People are giving away their films (we are not talking shorts her but feature-lenght films) for free. Now are those any good? Questionably, probably not. But then again companies like Netflix that ARE giving away content for literally free. For $8/month you can stream so much quality (Oscar award-winning) content you won't finish watching it until Christmas of 2016.
- Dog-earMay 26, 10, 3:18 p.m. – Permalink
- whatsup
^ I don't see that as a problem. The big reason for giving things away for free is to shun out the competition. Yet these same companies such as Netflix, YouTube are still making money. Where is the problem? Indie filmmakers get their audience, Netflix makes $80 Million/ per month.
- Dog-earMay 26, 10, 3:32 p.m. – Permalink
