Piracy Paradox II
- Started
- Last post
- 18 Responses
- pr20
e-pill, from all your comments it looks like you have a serious anal sex obsession.
- drgsss0
Destroy America and do the same with music
- e-pill0
the ignorance in this thread makes me happy.
i love the fact that only a few get it..the rest of you.. hahaha at you.
- whatsup0
^ Oh and YouTube is worth 1 Billion...
- whatsup0
^ 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.
- pr20
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.
- whatsup0
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?
- whatsup0
@ 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.
- you seem to not get it which i love and that is the world has a place for you.. new jersey!!e-pill
- pr20
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.
- Additionally, knockoffs with brand names to them show the consumer only cares about the name rather than the quality of a product.orrinward
- a product. Gucci-patterned baseball caps and horribly shaped tees with a massive 'Prada' slogan are an attempt to look stylish with no appreciation of style.orrinward
- to look stylish with no appreciation of style.orrinward
- pr2 you seem to not read or understand the article or video.e-pill
- im not going to get into it with you unless you have some ass fucking stories for me..e-pill
- but you speak with ignorance beyond retardedness.. and i love it@!!e-pill
- especially since you ass fuck fashion chicks in the ass and post about it.e-pill
- there is nothing greater than reading of your ass fucking stories of williamsburg hookerse-pill
- when you talk fashion and it sounds like clatter of dead rabbits. ass fuck stories.. yo!!e-pill
- e-pill0
The Piracy Paradox
- pr20
It doesn't change that fact that: "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." meaning her statistical interpretation is highly skewed.
- Those "facts" are unrelated.nb
- you totally lost me here.pr2
- I mean, they're unrelated to your point. Also, they aren't facts, they're assumptions.nb
- do some research and you will know those are facts.pr2
- There are plenty of people who haven't bought books, and plenty who have. And some have shoes, some do not! Irrelevant!nb
- wait, you are bringing up a shoeless guy from Africa into this conversation?pr2
- PR2.. dont open your mouth unless its about ass fuckinge-pill
- nb0
@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.
- pr20
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.
- whatsup0
Awesome
- detritus0
*bmp
- e-pill0
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!!
:)
- detritus
or 'Lessons from fashion's free culture'.
A TED talk by Johanna Blakely