Piracy is necessary and doesn't hurt revenues

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I've said this for eBooks and I'll now say it for DVD. This is a gray area and will be until there is a legal ruling in a court of law. FAIR USE was in place before DMCA. There is nothing at all legally that says that DMCA trumps Fair Use. So unless it's ruled in a court of law, it may very well not be illegal to do what HarryT is doing. IT's not black & white. Please don't go quoting the DMCA saying that's how it is, because that's not how it is.

Do you know 100% that Fair Use is trumped by DMCA? I don't and I dont know anyone else who does know. So get this in front of a court of law and then we'll know. But for now, it's not valid to quote the DMCA and say that's being done is illegal.

Jon, I am stating there is a law on the books. That's different from there being no law on the books. The fact that the law exists has a chilling effect on the public, at least to some extent. Isn't that a rational interpretation of the current situation?

Hollywood is happy with the chilling effect without adjudication, it costs them nothing further. Besides, in a court case, they might lose. Or win.

But from an individual's viewpoint, it increases the legal risk from zero to above zero, no matter how low you may want to put it. (I concur it's very low today, but who knows what sort of hissy fit Hollywood might have tomorrow?)

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But from an individual's viewpoint, it increases the legal risk from zero to above zero, no matter how low you may want to put it. (I concur it's very low today, but who knows what sort of hissy fit Hollywood might have tomorrow?)

... if nothing else, then due to the fact that lawsuits can be expensive even if you win.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Jon, I am stating there is a law on the books. That's different from there being no law on the books. The fact that the law exists has a chilling effect on the public, at least to some extent. Isn't that a rational interpretation of the current situation?

Hollywood is happy with the chilling effect without adjudication, it costs them nothing further. Besides, in a court case, they might lose. Or win.

But from an individual's viewpoint, it increases the legal risk from zero to above zero, no matter how low you may want to put it. (I concur it's very low today, but who knows what sort of hissy fit Hollywood might have tomorrow?)

But, the legalities of that law are unknown. So don't say it's 100% correct. It either is or is not. Fair Use could still trump the DMCA. Unless there is a court case, nothing is clear.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Regional restrictions are an attempt to create artificial scarcity, to cynically try to increase monetary value by offering less product.

Regional restrictions were in place a long time before the internet. The intent was for a publisher to be able to sell printing rights in other countries/regions. The restrictions ensured the foreign publisher of an exclusive market in their region. This allowed more books to be more widely available in foreign markets, not making them scarcer. pricing depended on the market in the country the books were published in and wasn't cranked up AFAIK for foreign books.

Helen

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Regional restrictions were in place a long time before the internet. The intent was for a publisher to be able to sell printing rights in other countries/regions. The restrictions ensured the foreign publisher of an exclusive market in their region. This allowed more books to be more widely available in foreign markets, not making them scarcer. pricing depended on the market in the country the books were published in and wasn't cranked up AFAIK for foreign books.

Helen

Exclusive markets make books more available? I guess by decreasing competition.-)

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Regional restrictions were in place a long time before the internet. The intent was for a publisher to be able to sell printing rights in other countries/regions. The restrictions ensured the foreign publisher of an exclusive market in their region. This allowed more books to be more widely available in foreign markets, not making them scarcer. pricing depended on the market in the country the books were published in and wasn't cranked up AFAIK for foreign books.

Helen

It doesn't really matter how long they have been around or why they were put in place in the first place. What matters today is what effect they have today.

Today they are nothing more than a tool to create artificial scarcity. At least in the realm of digital content.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But, the legalities of that law are unknown. So don't say it's 100% correct. It either is or is not. Fair Use could still trump the DMCA. Unless there is a court case, nothing is clear.

It's 100% that the law has been passed. It's not 100% that the law would pass Constitutional muster...

[U2Bono269]

I don't want to get into the piracy debate here, but after reading this thread it seems obvious that there's a bigger problem.

Media companies (companies that make and distribute books, film, music), have not found a way to adequately deal with the internet and digital media as a whole. As a person who no longer uses physical media at all, it's difficult for me to get what I'm looking for. Until a better method of distributing digital media is found, these issues will grow.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by U2Bono269

I don't want to get into the piracy debate here, but after reading this thread it seems obvious that there's a bigger problem.

Media companies (companies that make and distribute books, film, music), have not found a way to adequately deal with the internet and digital media as a whole. As a person who no longer uses physical media at all, it's difficult for me to get what I'm looking for. Until a better method of distributing digital media is found, these issues will grow.

I think that the media distributers are dealing at least adequately. I can usually buy what I want to buy in the way of media far easier than I could buy physical copies way back when.

Sure there are (to me)minor inconveniences and glitches in the system(s). But it all seems to be at least adequate? Maybe I am misunderstanding your meaning.

Helen

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I think that the media distributers are dealing at least adequately. I can usually buy what I want to buy in the way of media far easier than I could buy physical copies way back when.

Sure there are (to me)minor inconveniences and glitches in the system(s). But it all seems to be at least adequate? Maybe I am misunderstanding your meaning.

Helen

Are you from US or UK? That would explain your perspective.
Rest of the world isnt that simple.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Are you from US or UK? That would explain your perspective.
Rest of the world isnt that simple.

There are other places?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Are you from US or UK? That would explain your perspective.
Rest of the world isnt that simple.

Canada which is not nearly as simple and or as cheap as the US but certainly better than adequate.

Perhaps it is the English language speaking portion of the world that it is adequate in. I do know that in some countries it is more difficult/expensive to buy anything online, and in some English speaking, but this is not at all limited to media. Perhaps businesses in many countries are to entrenched in traditional sales or are unwilling to go out on a limb and compete.

The post I was replying to specified media distributers as being at fault. Are their many countries that you can buy most things online easily except for media?

Helen