Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Digital Economy Act 2017

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Aaron
    started a topic Digital Economy Act 2017

    Digital Economy Act 2017

    So, the Digital Economy Act 2017 has now come in to force.

    There's a summary of it here:

    http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...-set-pass.html

    What's everyones thoughts on it?

  • heavywater
    replied
    Originally posted by cold fusion View Post
    [SOPA infographic]
    Is there a slightly bigger version of this? I'm on the ISS at the weekend and I'd like to be able to read it without taking it with me.

    Leave a comment:


  • cold fusion
    replied
    Originally posted by omega View Post
    Of course it matters, if supply is infinite (which for all intents and purposes, it is with digital media) then it breaks the model.
    Supply isn't realistically infinite. There's a lot of infrastructure and labour costs involved in scaling up online services.

    In any case, a simple google search would have answered your own points. Literally the very first paragraph on Wikipedia states the following:
    "In microeconomics, supply and demand is an economic model of price determination in a market. It postulates that in a competitive market, the unit price for a particular good, or other traded item such as labor or liquid financial assets, will vary until it settles at a point where the quantity demanded (at the current price) will equal the quantity supplied (at the current price), resulting in an economic equilibrium for price and quantity transacted."

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

    Thus supply and demand does still apply here.

    However if you really do object to that specific economic model then lets put things in more general terms: if 100% of the people are willing to pay for a product at 5/month then you can infer that prices are too cheap and thus you increase prices to 6/month. Even if you lose 10% of your customers, you've still increased your margins quite significantly as you have your existing customers paying 20% more while spending slightly less on infrastructure to deliver the content (piracy don't use the legal distribution channels so pirates don't cost you anything in infrastructure). It's a win-win: cheaper overheads and more income.

    This is why we need free markets. The competition drives prices down in ways that monopolies do not (as exampled above) and also encourages innovation. Currently the only real innovators are in the piracy scene because MPAA and regional distributors have a monopoly on content and thus they can define the rules for content distribution (even Netflix is held to ransom by the aforementioned. eg they've been pushing for native Linux support for years but have been repeatedly blocked by very specific DRM requirements defined by the copyright holders).

    Leave a comment:


  • shawry
    replied
    Originally posted by omega View Post
    Of course it matters, if supply is infinite (which for all intents and purposes, it is with digital media) then it breaks the model.
    That's not right supply and demand is surely you set the price people are willing to pay to get the most subscriptions?

    You supply it at the price point that will maximise your revenue.

    People then decide if they can afford/justify it.

    Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • omega
    replied
    Of course it matters, if supply is infinite (which for all intents and purposes, it is with digital media) then it breaks the model.

    Leave a comment:


  • cold fusion
    replied
    Originally posted by omega View Post
    CF, supply and demand? You've already made the clear point that digital media isn't a finite discreet product to be bought or sold (or stolen) so supply and demand doesn't apply to it.
    Supply and demand is an economic model for determining product prices. It doesn't matter if the products are tactile or not; nor how those products are "manufactured".

    Leave a comment:


  • omega
    replied
    It's as lolworthy as saying "In my opinion that costs too much so I'm not going to pay for it".

    CF, supply and demand? You've already made the clear point that digital media isn't a finite discreet product to be bought or sold (or stolen) so supply and demand doesn't apply to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • cold fusion
    replied
    Originally posted by R1gg4 View Post
    That is the most LOL worthy sentence I've read so far.

    I can just imagine the company meeting,

    Director: "We're now making record revenues and profits as everyone pays for our product and doesn't copy anything".

    Executive2: "Why don't we reduce our prices so it's cheaper for everyone?"

    Director: "and make less profit?.... LOL... you're fired!!"..
    Indeed. More likely prices will go up because of supply and demand.

    Leave a comment:


  • R1gg4
    replied
    Originally posted by omega View Post
    if everyone paid their fair share, (i.e paid for content) then it'd be cheaper for everyone. The content creators wouldn't need to charge so much 'per head' so to speak.
    That is the most LOL worthy sentence I've read so far.

    I can just imagine the company meeting,

    Director: "We're now making record revenues and profits as everyone pays for our product and doesn't copy anything".

    Executive2: "Why don't we reduce our prices so it's cheaper for everyone?"

    Director: "and make less profit?.... LOL... you're fired!!"..

    Leave a comment:


  • cold fusion
    replied
    Originally posted by omega View Post
    There's no proof that is the case though.

    How about you look at it the other way... if everyone paid their fair share, (i.e paid for content) then it'd be cheaper for everyone. The content creators wouldn't need to charge so much 'per head' so to speak.
    Below is the kind of backwards, anti-competitive crap that the movie studios have pulled over the last hundred years. They've always tried to monopolise the market and have never had consumers - their own customers - interests at heart. So no, I can't see them lowering the price if no-one pirated. Quite the opposite, prices would go up because they've gained the monopoly again.

    Leave a comment:


  • cold fusion
    replied
    Originally posted by omega View Post
    There's no proof that is the case though.

    How about you look at it the other way... if everyone paid their fair share, (i.e paid for content) then it'd be cheaper for everyone. The content creators wouldn't need to charge so much 'per head' so to speak.
    That never happened in the 100+ years of cinema. Quite the opposite, the Motion Picture Association of America have constantly campaigned against newer technologies because of their fear of embracing new technology. There's some good articles on the history of the MPAA, I'll dig them out when i get time.

    Originally posted by omega View Post
    CF I get that you've got a problem with Disney, but it's a very specific problem to focus on
    It's called an "example". I could also have exampled Sony, Universal Studios, or any of the other big players in the MPAA.

    Originally posted by omega View Post
    I do agree that the copyright system as a whole is very outdated, in a digital age, but it's core values should remain. Artists and content creators should be able to make money.
    Agreed. Sadly the artists get a very small cut from their content in the digital age. The vast majority of the money goes to the studios, record labels and distribution channels. If you really want to support the artists then you're better off going to their gigs (in the case of recording artists) or buying merchandise from their band page.

    Leave a comment:


  • omega
    replied
    Originally posted by Moonchester View Post
    my point was if they made the industries cheaper to legitimately partake in they would get far more people doing the legal thing...
    There's no proof that is the case though.

    How about you look at it the other way... if everyone paid their fair share, (i.e paid for content) then it'd be cheaper for everyone. The content creators wouldn't need to charge so much 'per head' so to speak.

    CF I get that you've got a problem with Disney, but it's a very specific problem to focus on
    The issue I have, is with the mentality that everyone is entitled to watch content, regardless of whether they pay for it or not. I'm wary of a situation where it becomes the norm for people to obtain things without paying for them, because of a basic lack of understanding of how the world works.

    I do agree that the copyright system as a whole is very outdated, in a digital age, but it's core values should remain. Artists and content creators should be able to make money.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moonchester
    replied
    my point was if they made the industries cheaper to legitimately partake in they would get far more people doing the legal thing...

    Leave a comment:


  • cold fusion
    replied
    Originally posted by omega View Post
    Both you and Moon are missing the same, very important point. Some things are a luxury, and you simply shouldn't have them if you can't afford them.

    The mentality seems to be that everyone is entitled to everything. But the capitalist world we live in doesn't and shouldn't work like that. There should still be luxuries that you can't afford, and therefore can't experience. Just because you find the prices too expensive doesn't justify not paying for it
    When copyright law gets reformed into something that's more rational, then I will agree with you. However currently the following items are technically illegal:

    * ripping a DVD (even if you keep both the DVD and the disk image)
    * using your favourite song as a phone ring tone (this is technically classed as a public performance)
    * posting a home video of your child doing something funny onto Facebook if you happen to have the TV or radio playing in the background
    * making a backup of any games you own in case the CD scratches
    * remixing a song for personal use
    * copying of any public domain characters if they happen to resemble any of those characters Disney stole (eg Snow White)
    * posting a video of your kid singing any copyrighted song (bare in mind that even songs like "I'm a little tea pot" are not even public domain).

    Copyright law is broken and it's the content holders who have manipulated the system to their advantage. We should never be in a situation where the ownership of works outlives the lifespan of the creator. We should never have been in a situation were "Happy Birthday" had to undergo a lengthy and expensive legal case to legitimise it's use in the public domain. We should never be in a situation where parents have their home videos automatically removed due to copyright holders running automated processes against video sharing sites for any perceived trace of copyright violation (so many false positives get flagged up but the DMCA is a "remove first and appeal later" process)

    Copyright law was created to allow individuals to make a living off their ideas. But they were designed to expire because once an idea had penetrated the human consciousness it was considered public domain. Originally it was only supposed to last about a decade but I don't disagree with some of the early extensions to that. However the problem is you companies like Disney who made their wealth from retelling public domain stories like The Jungle Book, Cinderella and Snow White and then ferociously defend their IP while also lobbying to constantly extend copyright law well past the point of decades. Yet nobody on here is complaining about how Disney has "stolen" those stories. And then you have music labels suing young mums into poverty because they peered an album on bittorrent and lobbying for 10 year sentences for piracy. It's all a bit disproportionate to the crime when you consider stealing a car or raping someone can carry a shorter sentence.

    This is why I make the distinction between copyright laws and stealing. Don't get me wrong; I don't agree with piracy. But copyright law is so ridiculously broken in favour of the content owners that I also don't condemn people for protesting against the system.
    Last edited by cold fusion; 09-05-17, 10:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • omega
    replied
    Originally posted by A Ginger Sheep View Post
    I think people rather unfairly get on a high horse regarding this issue. Simply put, working classes are struggling to feed their families nevermind have any luxuries in life. Therefore, they are not realistically going to take out expensive subscriptions anyway, so them using Kodi or illegal boxes is not costing the right holders money. It is the same way I used to pirate lots of games as a kid, because my parents were not in a position to buy them and I didn't have income. However, by downloading them I was able to continue to enjoy gaming and when I started working I was able to buy them legally. Same thing for music and films, used Limewire etc like everyone else I knew. However, all my games are now paid for legitimately and I pay for Sky TV, BT Sport, Spotify, Netflix and Amazon Prime. Bottom line is that demonising those who legitimately cannot afford such services is downright wrong. The majority of people will pay for content if it is affordable to them.
    Both you and Moon are missing the same, very important point. Some things are a luxury, and you simply shouldn't have them if you can't afford them.

    The mentality seems to be that everyone is entitled to everything. But the capitalist world we live in doesn't and shouldn't work like that. There should still be luxuries that you can't afford, and therefore can't experience. Just because you find the prices too expensive doesn't justify not paying for it

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X