Liverpool FC Forum

MudFace wrote:bill gates isnt complaing loudly about piracy

Hence the reason he introduced software activation! 

MudFace wrote:its so quiet i can hear your heart beating.

And as for your movies,its probably due to low demand that the production has gone down,not sharing.

Otherwise microsoft would have shut down a long time ago,with its products being the most pirated in the world.
But bill gates isnt complaing loudly about piracy,coz hes making enuff cash already.

mudface, are u serious or have u not read what i wrote. i will put this in the simplest way possible.

big companies have lots of money so can make there rubbish blockbusters and also the class independants.

pirate movies downloaded or brought cost the big companies lots of money.

big companies stop making the quaint indie films that wont make as mucha s they are losing more money on illegal downloads.

note the word illegal in illegal downloads.
bill gates brings out more versions than anyone, and music in single form is not the problem, its the movies im talking about so if theres no real arguament u have then shhh   

hawkmoon269 wrote:

MudFace wrote:bill gates isnt complaing loudly about piracy

Hence the reason he introduced software activation! 

Sabre wrote:

One film is only £2.20 and yet HMV in London want £19.99 .

Don't you find this outrageous if true? how the same legal prize can vary that much ? I'd love to buy those DVDs, there are a couple of TV SHOWS I want in DVD. Can you PM please with the url? or post it here please?

dawson99 wrote:

MudFace wrote:its so quiet i can hear your heart beating.

And as for your movies,its probably due to low demand that the production has gone down,not sharing.

Otherwise microsoft would have shut down a long time ago,with its products being the most pirated in the world.
But bill gates isnt complaing loudly about piracy,coz hes making enuff cash already.

mudface, are u serious or have u not read what i wrote. i will put this in the simplest way possible.

big companies have lots of money so can make there rubbish blockbusters and also the class independants.

pirate movies downloaded or brought cost the big companies lots of money.

big companies stop making the quaint indie films that wont make as mucha s they are losing more money on illegal downloads.

note the word illegal in illegal downloads.
bill gates brings out more versions than anyone, and music in single form is not the problem, its the movies im talking about so if theres no real arguament u have then shhh   

are you saying that those quaint indie films of yours attract more downloading than the other movies?
Then that can only be because they are not worth buying in the first place.

Take a movie like 'undercover brother'.
Its an african american film created on a very small budget by a small company,yet the movie had so much demand that it actually was at one time number one in the best selling movies in the US.
I bet it was also highly shared and 'illegally downloaded' as you put it.

My point is simple too:The people downloading or sharing are not the market these products was targeting in the first place.
The guys buying are

dawson99 wrote: undercover brother? ?
you are taking the now.
what i have been saying is that the bigger companies still put a lot of money into independants. but every time king kong is copied, thats a tenner taken out of the indie fund.

am i getting through to you?
Mcfly? McFly??

you did not read my post!

I think you havent seen the movie(generation gap?),just search it on google.its really funny

dawson99 wrote:under cover brother my . first of all that film had a budget of 25 million dollars, hardly indie. and was made by universal studios.

if it wasnt for miramax we would not have kevin smith films. we wouldnt have films like before suset or before sunrise

JBG wrote:I'm with Dawson with this and he is correct about the economics of film production.

Small films are risky in that many of them don't turn a profit. If it becomes a cult hit then the distributors will eventually turn a profit from DVD and tv sales. However, a lot of small films lose money. Small films are usually financed from the profits of blockbusters. If these profits go down, small films suffer.

Who here thinks downloading Lost is piracy? You could argue that its shown for free on tv, so downloading it is "free".

In actual fact, its not. The production of Lost is financed directly and indirectly by advertising. The American company which makes it sells it to European tv networks in order to make money from it. These European tv networks in turn make money off Lost from advertising time. However, if a lot of people download it from the internet while it is running in America there is a potential ripple effect of European viewing figures going down because people have already seen it.

I say "potential" because its only a drop in the ocean at the moment, but say, in 10 years time we'll all probably have 250Mbit broadband connections where an episode can be downloaded almost incidentally (or streamed) and people will watch US shows at their leisure from their computer, without the ads. This WILL effect shows like Lost. The producers will say sod it, and won't bother.

The arguement that "we are being ripped off" is a bit immature. If you think a DVD is too expensive, don't buy it. Its a simple as that. Nobody is putting a gun to your head. However, that doesn't give you the licence to go out and nick it.

People can't have it both ways. Shop around and buy it - legally - as cheap as possible but if you don't like the price then don't buy it.

Its a bit like saying, Mercedes cars are a rip off and too expensive, I'll steal one from a showroom, test drive it, and return it if I don't like it, but I'll keep it if I do.

what i have been trying to say is that those sharing movies or downloading are not the people who would normally buy it.
That is they are not the target market of the product and if sharing was not possible,they wouldnt buy it anyway.

And on the mercedes thing,yes if i really want the car,i would steal it...if i am that daring.
Am sure in your town its riskier to own a new merc than an old toyota