backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by Trisped.. on Feb 22 at 2:02 AM

Another study shows BitTorrent piracy may not have a negative impact on box office sales in the US

A joint study between the University of Minnesota and Wellesley College indicated online BitTorrent piracy doesn't have a significant impact on movie sales.

U.S. consumers are more likely to head to the theater to watch a movie, even with numerous piracy options available.  Additionally, there is no direct correlation between movie availability on BitTorrent and in-theater movie releases, despite the availability of cam releases and DVD screeners for free via the Internet.

However, international consumers are more likely to choose piracy over the box office, because of a lack of viewing options overseas.    

As part of the "Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office Sales'" paper, researchers looked for a correlation between US and international movie sales tied to piracy.

Against the argument offered by the RIAA and MPAA that online piracy hurts sales, University of Minnesota and Wellesley College researchers have proven otherwise.

"We do not see evidence of elevated sales displacement in U.S. box office revenue following the adoption of BitTorrent, and we suggest that delayed legal availability of the content abroad may drive the losses to piracy," researchers noted.  "We find that longer release windows are associated with decreased box office returns, even after controlling for film and country fixed effects."

Copyright groups continue to blame Internet piracy for a decline in sales and revenue; however, research has shown otherwise.  Even with global efforts to stop pirate services and attacks on individuals, movie trade groups are expected to remain steadfast against Internet users.  

"In short, we do not see much evidence that piracy displaces U.S. box office sales in our data, although this result should be taken cautiously as the 'experiment' for examining US piracy is less clean than that for international piracy," researchers also noted.

Instead of a direct assault on Internet piracy, movie trade groups need to focus on expanding the number of movie theaters internationally, along with reducing international release window timeframe.  Movie studios also must ensure their marketing efforts generate buzz, or international movie viewers will remain reliant on the Internet to pirate films.

The battle between copyright groups and online movie pirates will continue, and it seems unlikely either side will make significant progress.  The MPAA will ultimately pressure the government to help enforce anti-piracy legislation, plus verify ISPs will keep better check on subscribers.

Source: BetaNews



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You cannot beat the Movie Theater Experience
By FastEddieLB on 2/15/2012 5:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
You can't watch a camrip in 3D and they're usually at the worst possible seat in the whole theater to avoid being seen. When I want to watch a new movie, I pay the $6 to see the matinee (+3D fee if applicable) because I have a theater right down the street from where I live.




RE: You cannot beat the Movie Theater Experience
By joex444 on 2/15/2012 5:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well good for you.

I'm in Switzerland where it costs 30CHF to see a matinee. Yes, it's in "3D" as well. Let me convert that to your USD you speak of. That's $32.50. In the summer last year it would have been around $42. For a matinee.

Hope you keep that up. If you don't do something, the MPAA seriously will try to imprison any pirate and then jack the prices up. I hope the prices in Switzerland show you what they are already doing. I wouldn't be surprised to see the prices hit $100 per ticket in 10 years.


RE: You cannot beat the Movie Theater Experience
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 5:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm in Switzerland


That's your problem. I am pretty sure the Swiss government can levy taxes on movie theatre tickets based on a variety of strange concepts...including if the theatre's are not appropriately spread out geographically.

Maybe a hard look at home much you're paying in taxes would help? I know Switzerland pays for lots of benefits for its people. Part of the price is increased taxes and costs to everything.


RE: You cannot beat the Movie Theater Experience
By joex444 on 2/15/2012 6:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, taxes are high. Gas works out to about $7.50/gal. Still cheaper than France for some reason...

Anyways, $6 for a matinee would be unheard of here. And we often get a delayed release. Just how successful is that kind of business structure if it's not even released at the same time?


RE: You cannot beat the Movie Theater Experience
By espaghetti on 2/15/2012 8:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you guys keep electing people that want to tax you so much? Is there no alternative to them?


RE: You cannot beat the Movie Theater Experience
By Denithor on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: You cannot beat the Movie Theater Experience
By safcman84 on 2/16/2012 4:45:08 AM , Rating: 4
Maybe by USA definition, but most parties currently in Power are not the socialist ones.

France might get a socialist government this year, if Hollande beats Sarkozy

UK Labour party (traditionally the "workers" party) is not currently in power. Though there is no true socialist party in the UK anymore (minor political parties aside)

etc

Besides, we like our "socialist" benefits - like free or heavily subsidised health care for all. Most Europeans cant understand why the USA citizens dont want universal healthcare cover for all. Its alien to us.


By seamonkey79 on 2/16/2012 7:08:33 AM , Rating: 2
Because it's more expensive for the people that are working for it. I pay about twice as much into Medicare as I do for my own insurance coverage.


RE: You cannot beat the Movie Theater Experience
By Paj on 2/16/2012 7:27:16 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Besides, we like our "socialist" benefits - like free or heavily subsidised health care for all. Most Europeans cant understand why the USA citizens dont want universal healthcare cover for all. Its alien to us.


Yep. My girlfriend was hit by a car last year, on her way to work. within half an hour, an ambulance had collected her, taken her to the nearest hospital, performed the necessary scans and taken all necessary precautions. All required treatments, medications etc were given freely and promptly as required.

the NHS in the UK may have its problems, but I have never been so grateful for the existence of a public health system in my life. I shudder to think what would have happened to her if she was living in the US and uninsured.

I don't have any problem paying extra in my taxes to ensure that those like me, or even those less fortunate than me, can benefit from this level of service.


By Keeir on 2/16/2012 11:02:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Besides, we like our "socialist" benefits - like free or heavily subsidised health care for all. Most Europeans cant understand why the USA citizens dont want universal healthcare cover for all. Its alien to us.


Mostly because we don't want to pay 40 dollars to go the Movies.

Universal Healthcare is not "free". UK citizens pay for it in numerous ways. A significant fraction in the US do not envy UK life in general and are skeptical that you can just pull out the "good" things without "bad" things coming along as well. This is personal preference. Not a value judgement. I find nothing wrong with the way Europeans live, I just wouldn't want to live the same way.


RE: You cannot beat the Movie Theater Experience
By espaghetti on 2/16/2012 1:52:15 PM , Rating: 1
Individualism & Freedom
I'm so sorry for you that these concepts are alien to you.


RE: You cannot beat the Movie Theater Experience
By Taft12 on 2/16/2012 4:31:32 PM , Rating: 3
Freedom is increasingly alien in the USA.


By Gentleman on 2/17/2012 4:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
And aliens are becoming less and less free


By Flunk on 2/16/2012 9:18:39 AM , Rating: 3
Wait for it to come out on DVD before you pirate it. Cam rips suck.


By coldpower27 on 2/16/2012 1:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty insane in terms of pricing.

In Canada, IMAX 3D is about $19 Regular price give or take, you can knock this off some by using corporate tickets which are usually $3 cheaper or so then buying a ticket at the theatre day off.

Regular 3D is $3 Cheaper by itself so roughly $16 regular price. So it depends on what you want.

Why don't Swiss consumer vote with their pocketbooks and not go to the theatres then, unless on average you guys make more and it offsets the increased cost anyway..


By Anonymous Blowhard on 2/16/2012 11:17:43 AM , Rating: 5
Hold on, let me pause the 1080p Blu-Ray, have no noisy people around me, get up from my perfectly placed seat on the couch with my girlfriend in front of the 70" set at home, and cross the non-sticky floor.

...

There, I'm back. Had to go take a #1 and get some more snacks that didn't cost $20, and a couple drinks. Alcoholic, no less.

Now, I believe you were saying something funny about not being able to beat the theater? Carry on, I'll wait. After all, I can pause the movie.


By Motoman on 2/16/2012 3:21:25 PM , Rating: 1
Can't disagree more. 3D movies are crap...I'm tired of "trying them one more time" too. Even at the Imax.

The fact of the matter is that the typical home theater setup that I and pretty much everyone I know has is *way* better than watching a movie at the theater. There is nothing about seeing a movie at the theater that is "Better" than watching it at home.

On very rare occasions when we "just can't wait" we'll go to a theater to watch a new movie. But the vast majority of the time, we just wait for it on disk. Much, much better these days.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2012 3:43:05 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, you can beat it. This was a relatively bad year for the Box Office, people are starting to figure out the "experience" just isn't worth the money or trouble.

First off, 3D sucks. Secondly, I don't do "camrips". I get the whole DVD. Soon I'll be getting whole Blu-ray's.

Going to the movies means paying as much to watch something as you can own it. The concession stand's are a goddamn RIPOFF. 20$ for popcorn and two drinks?? Not to mention your entire movie experience is often ruined by other people. Actually being around other people in general isn't all that great unless it's someone you know.

This isn't the 1950's. We have affordable high def equipment and TV's sitting right in our homes. Great audio too. Going to a movie isn't as attractive as it used to be. Especially when SO many movies today are just horrible. It's almost like gambling but with much less chance of a reward.

Hollywood better get the message. We've become an on demand society. Getting in the car and overpaying for a turd of a flick while some idiot is talking on his cellphone or crinkling his goddamn loud candy wrapper isn't that appealing to us anymore.


This just in
By cknobman on 2/15/2012 5:21:35 PM , Rating: 5
Studies have shown that Sh!tty movies negatively impact box office revenues.

Surprise surprise




RE: This just in
By FastEddieLB on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: This just in
By kleinma on 2/15/2012 5:49:44 PM , Rating: 5
Avatar was not a shitty movie...

Was it the best movie ever?? Hell no, but was it SHITTY? I mean there are some REALLY, REALLY bad movies out there, that fully qualify as shitty or worse that shitty, but I don't think avatar, even with its cliche been there done that plot line, falls into that category. It was at least entertaining to watch, and one of the few 3D movies that have come out that was actually worth seeing in 3D.


RE: This just in
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/15/2012 5:57:15 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with this. It damn sure wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, but it sure was entertaining. The epic final battle in 3D was worth the price of admission for me.


RE: This just in
By FaceMaster on 2/15/2012 6:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Avatar was about the effects. About the explosions. About the ATMOSPHERE of the world. I reckon a deep storyline would have made the film worse. I wish there hadn't been any storyline at all, and that it had all just been them exploring the world... ending with a massive battle, of course.


RE: This just in
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2012 4:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The epic final battle in 3D was worth the price of admission for me.


You mean the dumbest battle in a movie since Starship Troopers? :P

I mean come on! Hey we have spacecraft and giant flying ships, and we're going to wipe out these primitive natives who fly around on giant birds and shoot arrows. So is the plan to, you know, bomb them into oblivion from high altitude? Nope. We're going to fly below treetop level so they can somehow fight back.

The battle only seems effective because the movie does such a good job of beating the message into your head that humans are everything terrible, and the Na'vii blue people are so very very good. And we all want them to win so desperately.

Avatar is probably the most overrated movie ever. It's not Star Wars. People will NOT be talking about it and buying it in 10+ years. It just wasn't really that good despite it's hype. Avatar is like Titanic in that aspect.


RE: This just in
By BurnItDwn on 2/15/2012 5:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ehh, it depends on how you look at it.
From the prospective of "the story is everything", Avatar was shitty. Simply a regurgitated cliche IMO.

However, if you look at it from different angles, it certainly has some redeeming factors, I mean, the cast was good, and even though the story was shitty, it was very well made, but, that doesn't excuse the story!


RE: This just in
By Raraniel on 2/16/2012 12:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Last Airbender was shitty.


I fixed it to something on which we can all agree.


RE: This just in
By Raraniel on 2/16/2012 12:14:21 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Last Airbender was shitty.


I fixed it to something on which we can all agree.


RE: This just in
By Paj on 2/16/2012 7:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
The production design was up there with the best of them. The sense of 'place' - the ecosystem that they conceived, and how all the flora and fauna fitted into it, was exceedingly well done.

That and some damn good action sequences! Seeing it at IMAX in 3D was hugely enjoyable.

It made up for a lot of the deficiencies in the story, script and characters, which were definitely present.


RE: This just in
By Flunk on 2/16/2012 9:17:45 AM , Rating: 1
The plot certainly was, regurgitated for about the fourth or fifth hacknied time.

I was so annoyed by that movie, not because it was a terrible movie but because it could have been so much better. Yes the visuals were great (although I'm still not sold on the 3D gimmick) but the plot was one of the lamest pieces of filth I've seen in ages.


RE: This just in
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2012 4:13:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Avatar was not a shitty movie...


Yes. It. Was.

In every other metric besides visuals, it was an utterly mediocre movie. The only people who think otherwise place such high value on looks and effects (teenagers) that all other categories don't matter.


RE: This just in
By erikstarcher on 2/16/2012 5:32:54 PM , Rating: 1
"Shitty" /= "utterly mediocre"


RE: This just in
By overlandpark4me on 2/16/12, Rating: 0
So?
By Lugaidster on 2/16/2012 6:52:52 AM , Rating: 1
I'm amazed that so many people rationalize this. It doesn't matter if it affects the bottom end or not. My life is not affected if people die in Africa. My life is not affected if criminals don't go to my suburbs. My life is not affected if someone dies in a car accident because one driver is drunk. Yet, that doesn't mean we shouldn't care; it doesn't mean it's fair.

I'm sick and tired of the same old arguments. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway", "They're still rich", "Prices are too high", "It's a scam". No matter how you put it, you're still ripping of the author of the copyrighted material. You're still abusing the labour and time spent to create the product, no matter how shitty it is. And you're still mocking the people that did pay for the content. In other words, it's still unfair.

The worst part is that the only thing you achieve with piracy is proving you still wanted the product. Even if you weren't going to buy it. As such, the makers will demand what's rightfully theirs. If you people really want to see prices fall, stop consuming altogether. Otherwise you're just as full of crap as the ones you're opposing.

And no, I don't work for the industry and I'm not involved in any single way with anyone who is. I'm simply just tired of the cynicism. If you can't afford it, do something else within your price range, or get a better job. There's dozens of places in the 'net were you can get legal quality content for free.

Cheers.




RE: So?
By WT on 2/16/2012 9:07:26 AM , Rating: 1
Well said !! +1 to you, my good man.


RE: So?
By Taft12 on 2/16/2012 4:44:11 PM , Rating: 4
Anti-piracy efforts diminish the product for legal, paying customers.

The pirates get to start watching their movie immediately (subtitled, as opposed to crappy dubbing for non-English-speakers) while the guy who paid for it has to sit through FBI warnings on the DVD or car and cellphone commercials in the movie theater.

The legal product is inferior to the illegal one. A huge problem in the industry.


RE: So?
By Lugaidster on 2/20/2012 8:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
And I agree, but it still doesn't justify piracy. From a purely practical point of view, pirated products are the better alternative for the most part, but it still isn't fair.

In the end, your argument is just an excuse to pirate. If the product just doesn't appeal to you, don't buy it. We aren't talking about life and death here, nor are we talking about must-have stuff.

And besides, that statement of yours only applies sometimes. iTunes apps are usually as practical as their pirated alternatives (sure they have DRM, but they work the same way), and are really cheap for the most part. Yet they get pirated as well, and a lot. The same for Android apps, and indie games sold through services like Desura, and DRM-Free songs sold through Amazon or iTunes, etc. Only a part of pirated products are more convenient than their legal versions, all the other are just excuses.


RE: So?
By Lugaidster on 2/20/2012 9:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
Forgot to mention, if the movie is dubbed and the theater doesn't offer an alternative, blame your government, not the industry. In my country, all non-kids movies are offered either subtitled or both. And I look to commercials as a way to subsidize the price I pay for tickets, which isn't that high to begin with.

Besides, no ripped copy of a movie ever compares to the original DVD/Blu-ray. Unless you get an ISO (which means all that crap about FBI warnings etc.), you usually miss out on the extra content and chapters and good menus (nice and simple for mom and dad to use). So I see it as a trade-in.

PC-Games however...


Apples to Oranges
By MrTeal on 2/15/2012 5:38:53 PM , Rating: 5
Of course there isn't going to be a large impact on a movie's box office. Generally a high quality torrent isn't available until the movie is close to home video release, and even if it were there is no comparison between a theater and watching a DVD or BluRay at home for most people. This would be like studying whether internet streams of a big fight negatively affects ticket sales, when the question they should be asking is does a free stream affect pay per view sales. Similarly, they study should have been on whether torrent downloads have an effect on legal DVD/BluRay purchases or On Demand movie rentals.




RE: Apples to Oranges
By someguy123 on 2/16/2012 1:32:47 AM , Rating: 3
The study doesn't seem to be as biased as this article is. They point out that slow localization may drive people to piracy and possibly incur losses (be it interest or otherwise). The real point of this study is that substantial delays to distribution show signs of driving those with interest towards piracy. reduce the release windows and you'll grab more interested viewers.


I don't go to cinema cause of dubs
By Nyu on 2/15/2012 8:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
I live in a specific European country, all movies here in the cinema are dubbed; cept the rare occasion where friends really bug me to go, I absolutely hate watching a dubbed movie, so end up waiting for a decent BD rip on the net with original language and including English subs if possible.




By haplo602 on 2/16/2012 2:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
this is the exact reason why I don't go to theaters anymore (and having 2 small kids).

I HATE dubbed movies. They always botch the atmosphere for some reason in my country.

getting a DVD with original sound and subtitles is the way to go for me ... but I rarely buy them on release. they cost as much as a theater ticket.


Study itself could use reworking.
By Akimbojoe on 2/16/2012 4:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
All the data is from 2007 and relies solely on Bit Torrent downloads (not the only source for illegal movie downloads) and doesn't take into account the effect of hardcopy distribution from digital sources.

One could easily argue that over the past 5 years (since the data was gathered) internet adoption, broadband access and broadband speeds have all increased. Secondly, the study relies heavily on... "guessing".

Also, the article above was terribly written, stating the authors opinion over and over again without giving any details (on methodology for instance) or linking to the study at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id...

The results suggest not that online piracy does not hurt ticket sales but rather that the movie industry exaggerates the impact. From the study:

quote:
Our findings indicate that, as a lower bound, international box office returns in our sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of pre-release piracy.


And again, that data is from five years ago.




By Taft12 on 2/16/2012 4:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be so sure -- we all have lower bandwidth caps since those days!


Here's a study for ya
By TSS on 2/15/2012 7:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
In 2011, dutch movie theatres sold a total of 30 million tickets, making it the best year for the dutch movie theatre industry since 1978.

In the netherlands, downloading (for consumers) is legal.




iy7tiuyt
By voodoochile123 on 2/16/2012 2:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
oooooooooo




By letmepicyou on 2/18/2012 12:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
I propose a deal with the MPAA / RIAA / Retail marketers. We'll officially concede that downloading music and movies from the web without paying is stealing, if they agree that draconian return policies in place preventing us from returning S****Y merchandise are stealing, too.

When we can return any music, dvd, blu ray disk, video game, at any time for DISSATISFACTION, for a full refund, we'll shut down the sharing system ourselves.

So long as we have ZERO PROTECTION as consumers, I say, one good rip off deserves another.




Perspective
By Trisped on 2/22/2012 2:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
Stealing is stealing, even if the content is not available in your area.

That being said, this article does support my point that most people would pay a reasonable amount if the content was available in their area. Some do not want to pay at all, but they could probably be feed by a lower quality, ad supported version of the content.

Of course the problem is that once this becomes the norm people will stop paying $10-15 per person and start watching everything online. If content producers want to stop piracy they easily can, but the goal is not to stop piracy, it is to make money.




It doesn't matter
By Beenthere on 2/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: It doesn't matter
By sigmatau on 2/15/2012 6:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you have to pay "$10K per copy"? Why not $10 - $20?


RE: It doesn't matter
By espaghetti on 2/15/2012 8:52:55 PM , Rating: 5
Lawyers


RE: It doesn't matter
By bigboxes on 2/16/2012 1:01:29 AM , Rating: 3
It's not piracy to download a movie. No matter how many times you say it it's not stealing. Say it with me Beenthere... C O P Y R I G H T - I N F R I N G E M E N T !


RE: It doesn't matter
By mathew7 on 2/16/2012 6:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.... copyright is COPY RIGHT. Downloading is obtaining a copy, but the server/hoster makes the copy. For torrents, if you have 0 share ratio then you did not copy. For a .9 share ratio you did not copy the whole movie. Most of the time, the 90% of the movie you uploaded (previous example;if isolated) cannot be used by itself. Maybe some images could be extracted, but those are worthless (ok... lawyers could argue this in court).


RE: It doesn't matter
By erikstarcher on 2/16/2012 2:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
What difference does it make whether C O P Y R I G H T - I N F R I N G E M E N T ! is stealing, piracy or what else you want to call it, it is still illegal! Say it with me bigboxes... illegal. You are obtaining something for free, that the creator wants (and has the sole right) to sell. Now the creator didn't make the money they could have. If you wouldn't have bought it to begin with, I guess that means you didn't want it, and there is no excuse for infringement on their copyright.


RE: It doesn't matter
By bug77 on 2/16/2012 3:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
Can you really not see the circular reasoning?

Big media says downloading is illegal because it hurts them, Congress makes it happen. Studies show downloading does not significantly impact big media, big media says "maybe so, but the law says it's illegal".

You have to realize IP laws come from an era when it took some serious effort to duplicate a recording and it was prohibitively expensive to copy a movie. In the digital era, this cost is almost zero. The question that has to be asked now is: is it worth it to keep enforcing monopolies that made sense 100 years ago, at the expense of millions of users? I'd say no.


RE: It doesn't matter
By erikstarcher on 2/16/2012 5:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong, I think the present system is pretty fracked up. I have downloaded plenty of stuff I should have paid for and I don't agree with big media trying to pass these laws.

But answer me this:
If downloading wasn't illegal why would anyone pay for any media?
And if no one pays for it, why would artists produce it?

If Windows, Office, Photoshop, etc were freely and legally available, why would the companies spend time and money to make them?
Just because a little downloading doesn't hurt, doesn't mean that it should be a free for all. Just because it is now easier, shouldn't mean that is now OK.

It is already against the law to obtain copyrighted material without paying for it and I think that is all that is needed. Not these draconian laws like Pro IP Act, DMCA, etc. They just keep making the same things illegal over and over again.

The media companies need new business plans, not new laws. They need to be reeled in and put in their place. But that doesn't mean everything digital should be free just because it isn't a physical item.

"Is it worth it to keep enforcing monopolies that made sense 100 years ago, at the expense of millions of users?" I'd say no also.

Is it worth it to keep enacting new laws that don't make sense now, at the expense of millions of users? I'd say no.

Is it worth it to through out laws, at the expense of millions of creators just because some people are cheep and don't want to pay someone for their work? I'd again say no.


RE: It doesn't matter
By bug77 on 2/17/2012 5:24:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If downloading wasn't illegal why would anyone pay for any media? And if no one pays for it, why would artists produce it?
If Windows, Office, Photoshop, etc were freely and legally available, why would the companies spend time and money to make them?


If it costs next to nothing to produce a digital copy, it should be available for next to nothing. $15 can be 10% of the monthly income in a fairly developed country. Why would artists keep doing what they do? Because they've been doing it for thousands of years before RIAA/MPAA.
Now software is another issue entirely. Please note that it's not Microsoft, Google or Adobe pushing for SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and such. These companies have adapted to the digital age and they offer value you don't get when you pirate their product (support, updates and such). That's why people still buy their products.


RE: It doesn't matter
By bug77 on 2/16/2012 5:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
Please remind me: if it doesn't have an impact, why is it a crime in the first place?


RE: It doesn't matter
By rika13 on 2/16/2012 1:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
Because a bunch of very loaded dinosaurs (who got fat and lazy eating prey that literally walked up to them and jumped in their mouths) are paying politicians off to make giant space rocks illegal.


RE: It doesn't matter
By Taft12 on 2/16/2012 5:01:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What impact piracy has or does not have on box office sales isn't relevant to the fact that piracy is a crime.


Something being illegal or classified as a crime doesn't make it morally wrong. Used to be a man could own slaves. Fortunately society made forward progress.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki