i wouldn't give a dime to any site they only payment would be only to pay my internet accessOriginally Posted by susiserken
twat
BT Rep: +35
i wouldn't give a dime to any site they only payment would be only to pay my internet access
Persona non grata
My understanding of the whole file sharing thing is fairly clear.I realize that in some cases that it proves beneficial to the artists involved, although I think you would be hard pressed to find many cases outside music where the cost to the creator outweighed the loss.
But that is entirely beside the point.As it stands the distribution of material protected by copyright is against the law most places and morality and ethnics aside by "thief" that's all I was saying there.
As for this statement
.I agree with you when you say some bad people are there but some very good people are also there. Let us condemn both the bad people here and there. Let us praise the good people of here and there
I think that my use of the word "some" would have made it apparent that it wasn't a blanket condemnation and I am quit willing to praise a good altruistic scener just as soon as I have the pleasure of meeting one.
.suppose it has 10000 potential buyers and all of them buy the product. The actual producer would get his targeted income. Now after the release of the movie on bittorrent there would be additional viewers of the movie as it would be provided to them free. Let us further suppose if the movie was not provided to them for free they would not have bothered to view it. Suppose some of these free viewers like the movie and actually buy it. What would happen! ... There would be additional sales which means additional income for the businesses
You seem to lack a basic understanding of commerce specifically and humanity in general.
The whole process of production is based on getting the greatest return on your product and not meeting some fictitious "I'm satisfied ,I'm rich enough now and I will happily quit" line.Why? Simply because the producer is not only answerable to him/her/themselves but also to their investors
If producer A generates X amount of dollars for said investors but producer B generates 2X amount for them where do you think their money is going to go next time?.
Find me a producer who is satisfied with less and you will find me a failed producer.
As for people trying before they buy ,I don't have the exact figures but I am pretty sure it's a landslide towards the "got it for free, screw the Man " side.If you can change that I am willing to accede to all your arguments
BT Rep: +3
Well said^^.
I, personally, have no illusions in what I'm doing when I download another movie/album/game/etc. I am fully aware that I am depriving a content provider of potential revenue. If not for freely available files on the Internet, I would definitely be spending more on movies/music/games/etc. I definitely do not "file share" because I feel like sharing something with random people. Not to say that I don't share, I've uploaded literally thousands of ebooks/music/movies to various trackers, but it is definitely not the driving force behind my piracy.
I'm sorry OP, but your opening statements seem incredibly naive. I really don't think these two sites could possibly attract more attention to BT trackers than TPB already has, who I'm sure generate much more revenue than STN or Vizz ever could. And, I wouldn't go so far as to state that they are selling other people's property. As far as I can tell they are simply offering membership for a fee. It's not really that different than the means used by other more popular trackers to generate revenue. I mean, I've seen numerous people here in these forums actually encourage those looking for a specific tracker to pay someone to buy the invite from the tracker, which will remain nameless, for $20 (or whatever the actual cost is).
I personally wouldn't pay for STN's or Vizz's service, but I'm sure there are quite a few people (read 1000s) who would jump at this chance. Especially in the case of STN, who it seems provide something distinct from most other trackers, nearly direct scene access. That is, if their claims in regard to requests are true.
If it's true that the group that runs STN also runs a number of P2L topsites, it actually seems like a logical extension for STN to go this route...a scene topsite accessed via BT, essentially.
We can try to change it and if not then at least can think about it. You should read my previous post carefully I have talked about educating the people about the correct way of filesharing. I have talked about trackers posting messages like "buy it if you like it" etc etc. This may bring the change or vice versa. I never tire to think positively well some people never tire to think negatively also!You seem to lack a basic understanding of commerce specifically and humanity in general.
The whole process of production is based on getting the greatest return on your product and not meeting some fictitious "I'm satisfied ,I'm rich enough now and I will happily quit" line.Why? Simply because the producer is not only answerable to him/her/themselves but also to their investors
If producer A generates X amount of dollars for said investors but producer B generates 2X amount for them where do you think their money is going to go next time?.
Find me a producer who is satisfied with less and you will find me a failed producer.
As for people trying before they buy ,I don't have the exact figures but I am pretty sure it's a landslide towards the "got it for free, screw the Man " side.
When I download and then seed back a file i actually share it whether I think so or not.
May I ask why?
BT Rep: +2
Thinking we will see another "what happened to stn or vizz" thread with members bitching about donations and how they lost $ donating to them. Don't join and let them do them. If your not a member what is there to boycott?
At present we would very soon be seeing threads like "How to delete my account on STN and Vizz". They are refusing to delete the accounts of their members. If the authorities find about the members who subscribed I don't know a single clause of law which would protect them from fines up to the extent of thousands of dollars/pounds.
Caution to parents! Check your young children activities if they had signed on these sites you would be in serious potential danger.
BT Rep: +7
What clause(s) of law are you relying upon to find the "subscribers" are liable?
Well if they are charged as direct contributors to the finance of this site and which they in fact are if they subscribed then it is not the question of finding the clause which charge them but rather they one which saves them and there is no such thing. They would be treated as partners/helpers of the site admins/staff/mods etc.
BT Rep: +7
You seem to have some idea of the law, but not nearly enough for me to bother explaining why you're wrong.
Last edited by TrollinThunder; 11-19-2009 at 04:37 PM.
lol! ok you tell me why they would not be charged?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
If you can change that I am willing to accede to all your arguments
Bookmarks