Govna su uplutala u Piratski zaliv

[Franz Xaver von Baader]

Ali taj princip isključuje bilo koga ko koristi distributivnu mrežu bilo kog tipa da bi trgovao. Nema smisla da to ograničavamo na recimo muzičare ali ne i na proizvođače krompira, auto-delova ili deterdženta za veš. Svaki od njih je uložio merljiv, izvršen rad u proizvod i sada čeka da mu tržište kompenzuje isti kupovinom jedinica robe od kojih on dobija deliće. I onaj ko je dizajnirao formulu praška za pranje veša ali i onaj ko je na traci radio da ga spakuje u vreću i ubaci u kamion. Svi oni kao i muzičar zavise od distribuirane prodaje a jedino njemu treba da ne priznajemo pravo na to prihodovanje zato što je njegov proizvod lako kopirati? To postaje praksa ali se opet postavlja pitanje pravičnosti.

pa je li pravično da, ako već potežeš krumpire ili aute, onaj tko je uložio svoj rad u proizvodnju krumpira ili auta, može prodati svoj proizvod samo JEDNOM, a ovaj koji je uložio svoj rad u glazbu odradio to jednom, pa mu je umnoženo u desetine tisuća i sada on taj proizvod prodaje BEZBROJ puta ako treba?
ha, ni to onda nije pravično

dalje odlaziš u nebuloze, pa to ne bih komentirao.
i tebi je jasno da su razlike  između skidanja glazbe i uzimanja zbiljske stvari očite. a obojici nam je jasno da je pitanje polemično. da se raspravljati.
u svakom slučaju, nemam nikakav problem da skinem glazbu s neta. čak to preferiram, u svijetu kakav jest. to je pravednije.

što se tiče tvog prijedloga da društvo osmisli način; slažem se. samo sam ja za to da se ne uzima porez građanima, nego da se kompenzira iz kapitala, tj. industrije koja uzima ogromne profite na čitavom tom svijetu zabave.

[mac]

Porezuju se i prihodi i posedi. Nije bitno odakle bi došle pare za novo znanje.

[Alex]

Ako hoćemo bolje društvo onda je početna premisa vrlo jednostavna: ukinuti autorska prava. Kada jednom informacija postane javna onda niko ne može da je povuče, niti je bilo kakva upotreba informacije ičim uslovljena. Društvo treba graditi oko te početne postavke. Takvo društvo je moguće.

Mac, izvini, ali ovo je nešto najbesmislenije što sam čuo poslednjih meseci.

Da li si svestan do čega bi to dovelo?

Jesam svestan, ali čini mi se da se razilazimo oko posledica. Ja cenim da bi dovelo do širenja znanja. Šta ti ceniš?

primer 1

Pojavi se dobar strip - recimo Hellboy - posle 2-3 epizode vidi se da je reč o vanserijskom delu, talentovanog autora, koje obećava još bolje naredne epizode, strip skreće pažnju probrane publike, ali strip skreće pažnju i konkurencije, koja u njemu vidi zlatnu koku, pojavljuje se u narednom periodu 23 nove verzije Hellboya od loših kopija preko pristojnih, pa do varijacija koje izneveravaju osnovnu ideju, a imaju površnu sličnost (izgled junaka, logo...) - rezultat je - vrlo brzo se originalni strip gasi usled komercijalnije konkurencije, nestaje u moru hiperprodukcije sličnih (istih) naslova - uzalud neki poznavaoci pokušavaju da skrenu pažnju na originalno delo, široka publika ne sluša, značajan strip biva ubijen u startu.

primer 2

pojavi se dobra pevačica (recimo Ejmi Vajnhaus), snimi dobar album, izbaci dobar singl, postaje in, odjednom se pojavljuje 67 kopija, pevačica istog izgleda, sa istim pesmama (i nekim novim, lošijim), slabijeg vokala, sa istim ili sličnim albumima (pesme, naziv, omot...) - prvobitna Ejmi pada u zaborav, uzalud poznavaoci pokušavaju da skrenu pažnju na original, publika ne sluša, druge Ejmi su svuda unaokolo...

[Franz Xaver von Baader]

dobrodošao u svijet masovne kulture. ti tvoji primjeri neke hipotetičke situacije su zapravo preslika zbiljskog stanja kakvo jest (već sada).

[mac]

Ne znam zašto bi neko uopšte konzumirao proizvod slabijeg kvaliteta kad mu je po istoj, "nabavnoj", ceni dostupan proizvod dobrog kvaliteta? Ako su mi i dobar i loš Helboj besplatni, zašto bih čitao lošeg Helboja?

[Meho Krljic]

Ali taj princip isključuje bilo koga ko koristi distributivnu mrežu bilo kog tipa da bi trgovao. Nema smisla da to ograničavamo na recimo muzičare ali ne i na proizvođače krompira, auto-delova ili deterdženta za veš. Svaki od njih je uložio merljiv, izvršen rad u proizvod i sada čeka da mu tržište kompenzuje isti kupovinom jedinica robe od kojih on dobija deliće. I onaj ko je dizajnirao formulu praška za pranje veša ali i onaj ko je na traci radio da ga spakuje u vreću i ubaci u kamion. Svi oni kao i muzičar zavise od distribuirane prodaje a jedino njemu treba da ne priznajemo pravo na to prihodovanje zato što je njegov proizvod lako kopirati? To postaje praksa ali se opet postavlja pitanje pravičnosti.

pa je li pravično da, ako već potežeš krumpire ili aute, onaj tko je uložio svoj rad u proizvodnju krumpira ili auta, može prodati svoj proizvod samo JEDNOM, a ovaj koji je uložio svoj rad u glazbu odradio to jednom, pa mu je umnoženo u desetine tisuća i sada on taj proizvod prodaje BEZBROJ puta ako treba?
ha, ni to onda nije pravično

Hm, pa ne mogu da se složim, to je priroda robe. Kao kada bi rekli da pozorište može da naplaćuje samo prvu predstavu a svaku sledeću ne jer je "već viđena". Roba de fakto pronalazi način da dođe do potrošača i dobije cenu kada za njom postoji potražnja. Problem sa ovim slučajem o kome pričamo je što potražnja postoji ali je nađen zgodan način da se izbegne kompenzacija. Dakle, ja mislim da pričamo o načinima da omogućimo pravičnu kompenzaciju.

dalje odlaziš u nebuloze, pa to ne bih komentirao.
i tebi je jasno da su razlike  između skidanja glazbe i uzimanja zbiljske stvari očite. a obojici nam je jasno da je pitanje polemično. da se raspravljati.
u svakom slučaju, nemam nikakav problem da skinem glazbu s neta. čak to preferiram, u svijetu kakav jest. to je pravednije.

što se tiče tvog prijedloga da društvo osmisli način; slažem se. samo sam ja za to da se ne uzima porez građanima, nego da se kompenzira iz kapitala, tj. industrije koja uzima ogromne profite na čitavom tom svijetu zabave.

Industrija se i porezuje i većina izvođača se i kompenzuje direktno iz kapitala - dakle pare od potrošača ne idu direktno autoru nego preko kapitaliste koji je omogućio da autorova ideja postane tržišno kurentna roba. Ali tu je opet ugovor narušen ako se krajnji produkt ne prodaje pošto ga svi konzumiraju besplatno.

[Alex]

Ne znam zašto bi neko uopšte konzumirao proizvod slabijeg kvaliteta kad mu je po istoj, "nabavnoj", ceni dostupan proizvod dobrog kvaliteta? Ako su mi i dobar i loš Helboj besplatni, zašto bih čitao lošeg Helboja?

Konzumira se ono što ima glasniju reklamu, iza čega stoji  veći uloženi novac, što je šarenije i "bučnije". Nečem suptilnijem treba duže vreme da dopre do većeg broja ljudi. Ne prepoznaju svi kvalitet lako i brzo, ni kad je unikatan, a kamoli ako ima hiljadu kopija.

Nestanak autorskih prava bi u mnogim oblastima doveo do nestanka kvaliteta, a do haosa u svim.

[mac]

Zašto bi neko uopšte reklamirao nešto kad ne poseduje vlasništvo nad tim nečim?

[Gwydion]

zuašto bi iko i radio bilo šta na kvalitetan način ako od toga neće imati adekvatnu satisfakciju? Recimo u vidu para koje je svojim radom i zaslužio?

[mac]

Nemam sve odgovore, ali mislim da se može sazdati društvo na principu da se informacija ne može prisvojiti. Mislim da se nadoknada može napraviti. Napraviš novu informaciju, ljudi ti priznaju da je vredno, dobiješ pare od države za to što si napravio. Neko upotrebi tvoju informaciju na nov način, ljudi ti priznaju uticaj na informaciju koji nisi napravio, dobiješ nadoknadu za uticaj.

[Gwydion]

Hajde ovako ... imam neke tekstove i knjige koje mislim da prevedem. Pošto nemam vremena ako neko ko ne misli da autorska prava treba da postoje te knjige prevede i nek mi da prevode. Ja vam neću dati ni cvonjka, da li može tako?

[mac]

Uostalom, ako odlučimo da je sloboda informacija najvažnija od svega, onda ne žalimo za nekakvim hipotetičkim superkvalitetnim delima koja bi postojala u društvu u kome je informacija nečije vlasništvo. Takvog društva se gnušamo, i nema tog remek dela koje bi nas privolelo na gubitak slobode informacija.

Gwydion, ne možeš u našem društvu da primenjuješ sistem iz drugog društva. Ne ide to. Pokušali su sa komunizmom u sred jakog kapitalizma, i ništa.

Uzgred, ljudi masovno prevode titlove za filmove, i za to ne dobijaju bog zna kakvu kompenzaciju.

[Gwydion]

Ja ponudio jer m itrebaju prevodi. Ko misli da se rad ne plaća meni dobrodošao...

[mac]

A ko to misli? Ja ne.

[Franz Xaver von Baader]

Hm, pa ne mogu da se složim, to je priroda robe. Kao kada bi rekli da pozorište može da naplaćuje samo prvu predstavu a svaku sledeću ne jer je "već viđena". Roba de fakto pronalazi način da dođe do potrošača i dobije cenu kada za njom postoji potražnja. Problem sa ovim slučajem o kome pričamo je što potražnja postoji ali je nađen zgodan način da se izbegne kompenzacija. Dakle, ja mislim da pričamo o načinima da omogućimo pravičnu kompenzaciju.

gle meho, više uopće nije jasno sa čim se ne slažeš. oko čega se mi sporimo zapravo?
ne skidamo li svi glazbu s neta, uključivši tebe?
dakle, ti skidaš s neta i smatraš da to nije pravedno.
ja skidam i smatram da je to pravedno.
je li ovo naš spor ili što?

kažeš, priroda robe. pa da, i ujedno je priroda robe koju radi glazbenik da se može lako umnožiti i skinuti s neta, recimo. dakle, sve je tu poznato, njemu, nama, svima.
oko kompenzacije se ne slažem, jer je on  na ovaj ili onaj način - kompenziran. kada to ne bi bio slučaj, ta bi djelatnost nestala. međutim, upravo obratno: poplava glazbenika, filmova, svega. očito postoje načini kompenzacije.

ali tek ovo što sad radiš, svađaš na "robu", e tek tu promašuješ sa moralkom i pravičnošću.
evo što ti govoriš: ajmo vršiti razmjenu, ali tako da sva moralnost, pravednost bude na strani prodavača.
tu leži temeljni nesporazum svijeta.
ako smo došli do toga da glazbenik radi zato da bi prodao, dakle njegov se rad promatra kao roba, onda tu važi igra koju igraju obje strane: prodavač nastoji izvući korist od kupca, ali i obratno: kupac od prodavača.
jednostavno rečeno, ako mi on želi nešto prodati, znači da želi nešto od mene, želi moj novac, ukratko i pod navodnicima, želi me preći, nadigrati, zeznuti.
okej, to je u redu gledano s njegove strane, ali neću ja gledati njegovu stranu nego svoju: želim i ja njega nadigrati.
on bi da njegovu robu uzmem po njegovim uvjetima, a ja bi po svojim.
dakle, ako pričamo o robi i razmjeni, onda je skidanje s neta način da kupac izigra prodavača. u svijetu omeđenom horizontom robe, to je posve okej. nije "nepravedno", uzevši u obzir da me je on inicijalno htio 'prevariti', htio mi prodati robu.
u jednom širem smislu, onaj tko trguje, istovremeno je 'prevarant'.

[Franz Xaver von Baader]

zuašto bi iko i radio bilo šta na kvalitetan način ako od toga neće imati adekvatnu satisfakciju? Recimo u vidu para koje je svojim radom i zaslužio?

ništa on nije "zaslužio"
nitko od nas ništa ne zaslužuje (od koga? tko nam treba davati nešto?), svi smo ispraznost nad ispraznošću
nego, onako kako se izboriš

a zašto netko radi nešto, bilo što, daaaaleko premašuje okvire tog robno-novčanog načina gledanja na svijet
nastaju li kvalitetna djela zato jer to netko plaća ili iz nekih nedokučivih unutrašnjih svijetova čovjeka?

[Meho Krljic]

Hm, pa ne mogu da se složim, to je priroda robe. Kao kada bi rekli da pozorište može da naplaćuje samo prvu predstavu a svaku sledeću ne jer je "već viđena". Roba de fakto pronalazi način da dođe do potrošača i dobije cenu kada za njom postoji potražnja. Problem sa ovim slučajem o kome pričamo je što potražnja postoji ali je nađen zgodan način da se izbegne kompenzacija. Dakle, ja mislim da pričamo o načinima da omogućimo pravičnu kompenzaciju.

gle meho, više uopće nije jasno sa čim se ne slažeš. oko čega se mi sporimo zapravo?
ne skidamo li svi glazbu s neta, uključivši tebe?
dakle, ti skidaš s neta i smatraš da to nije pravedno.
ja skidam i smatram da je to pravedno.
je li ovo naš spor ili što?

kažeš, priroda robe. pa da, i ujedno je priroda robe koju radi glazbenik da se može lako umnožiti i skinuti s neta, recimo. dakle, sve je tu poznato, njemu, nama, svima.
oko kompenzacije se ne slažem, jer je on  na ovaj ili onaj način - kompenziran. kada to ne bi bio slučaj, ta bi djelatnost nestala. međutim, upravo obratno: poplava glazbenika, filmova, svega. očito postoje načini kompenzacije.

Pa, ne mislim da imamo neki veliki spor - ja samo razmišljam o tome da ljudi treba da budu kompenzovani za svoj rad i pokušavam da iznađem najudobniji način a ti tvrdiš da su već kompenzovani i da ne treba da nas bude briga ako nisu jer smo ispali pametniji.

I ja svakako ne tvrdim da trenutna praksa piratovanja ubija industriju. Ali ubija pojedince, to svakako.

ali tek ovo što sad radiš, svađaš na "robu", e tek tu promašuješ sa moralkom i pravičnošću.
evo što ti govoriš: ajmo vršiti razmjenu, ali tako da sva moralnost, pravednost bude na strani prodavača.
tu leži temeljni nesporazum svijeta.
ako smo došli do toga da glazbenik radi zato da bi prodao, dakle njegov se rad promatra kao roba, onda tu važi igra koju igraju obje strane: prodavač nastoji izvući korist od kupca, ali i obratno: kupac od prodavača.
jednostavno rečeno, ako mi on želi nešto prodati, znači da želi nešto od mene, želi moj novac, ukratko i pod navodnicima, želi me preći, nadigrati, zeznuti.
okej, to je u redu gledano s njegove strane, ali neću ja gledati njegovu stranu nego svoju: želim i ja njega nadigrati.
on bi da njegovu robu uzmem po njegovim uvjetima, a ja bi po svojim.
dakle, ako pričamo o robi i razmjeni, onda je skidanje s neta način da kupac izigra prodavača. u svijetu omeđenom horizontom robe, to je posve okej. nije "nepravedno", uzevši u obzir da me je on inicijalno htio 'prevariti', htio mi prodati robu.
u jednom širem smislu, onaj tko trguje, istovremeno je 'prevarant'.

Sa ovim mi je teško da se složim. Naravno da je nadigravanje u temelju tržišta i tržišne razmene. Ali kada jedna strana zapravo istupi iz razmene, to nije više nadigravanje nego izlazak iz igre.

[Franz Xaver von Baader]

a ti tvrdiš da su već kompenzovani i da ne treba da nas bude briga ako nisu jer smo ispali pametniji.

+

Sa ovim mi je teško da se složim. Naravno da je nadigravanje u temelju tržišta i tržišne razmene. Ali kada jedna strana zapravo istupi iz razmene, to nije više nadigravanje nego izlazak iz igre.

da, da, ali pogledajmo zašto ja tako kažem (mislim, tako brutalno kako si ti sveo)

ta upravo zato jer je realni svijet oko mene takav da oni jesu kompenzirani!!!

KADA bi situacija bila takva da ti ljudi gladuju ili ne znam što, onda bih se zabrinuo. ovako ne. mislim, ne mogu se brinuti za Maidene što neće dobiti još nešto novčića povrh, kada su oni već sada prilično snabdjeveni. oni su se snašli i uspjeli.
da, sad ti kažeš pojedince. moguće, ali što se tu može? netko nije uspio, što ću mu ja. neću si otrgnuti glavu zbog toga.

možemo biti surovi pa reći: da je vrijedio, uspio bi.

ili pak biti obazrivi pa tražiti uzroke njegovog neuspjeha.

ne znam, čine mi se izlišnim tvoja nastojanja "pokušavam da iznađem najudobniji način" kad je već sam svijet stvorio najbolji način. ova piraterija zapravo nije ništa novo, to je oduvijek, stvaratelji i oponašatelji, prodavači i kupci, snalaženje na obje strane. sada je to samo podignuto na masovniju razinu - ali pogodi što! i proizvodnja je podignuta na masovniju razinu.

pazi, pogledajmo stvar sa šireg gledišta: količina sredstava koja netko odvaja za ove ili one potrebe je, u biti, ista. hoću reći, ako nisam uzeo cd, za taj novac sam uzeo knjigu recimo. da sam uzeo cd, ne bih knjigu. drugim riječima, 'oštetio' bih onoga koji je svoj rad uložio u stvaranje/prodaju knjige. dakle, ovaj je na dobitku, onaj na gubitku. u nekoj drugoj situaciji, bilo bi obratno.
sa općeg gledišta zapravo je svejedno kome dajem, logika cirkulacije nije narušena. naravno, konkretnom pojedincu malo znači to opće gledište ako je satran okolnostima, ali tako je to.

[Meho Krljic]

Ovo su sve OK argumenti. Moja briga je pre svega vezana za ljude koje poznajem, dakle, ne za Maidene koji ionako najviše zarađuju od koncerata, već za male umetnike koji sami rade i sami sebe izdaju. Neki od njih imaju mogućnosti da zarade i od žive svirke, neki ne, dok neki imaju mogućnost da se kače na donacije i dotacije, ali to svakako nije moja preferirana verzija kompenzacije jer je ona sumnjiviji regulator kvaliteta od tržišta. Ako stvorimo kulturu koja kaže da je okej ne kompenzovati nikoga koga ne "moramo", ovi ljudi najviše stradaju a oni prave, ako pričamo o muzici (ali možemo i o igrama) najinteresantnije stvari. Ja nisam neki idealista koji misli da sve njih treba da plaća država ili kakvi dobrotvorni fondovi, mislim da je okej da oni ulaze u nadmetanje na tržištu jer je konkurencija dobar regulator, no problem je kada publika zaobilazi tržište i ukida baš te najpustolovnije autore. Samo zato što može.

[Franz Xaver von Baader]

da, ali pitanje je imaju li ti "mali umjetnici" što tražiti na tržištu ili ne?
ako imaju, tržište postoji i sada. tu im je, pa se mogu izboriti.
i sam znaš, da ma koliko nešto bilo kvalitetno, ne mora značiti da je i komercijalno. možda oni ne mogu svojom glazbom doći do publike, sve i da daju besplatno.
nisam siguran da je njihov problem skidanje s neta.

to im je samo još jedna dodana prepreka na dugoj trkaćkoj stazi.

[Meho Krljic]

Za mnoge od njih to jeste problem. Eminemu nije toliko važno da li je prodao pet ili šest miliona CDova, ali malom muzičaru mnogo znači da li je prodao 500 ili 50 komada. Većina nezavisnih pank etiketa je prestala da radi CDove i vratila se na vinil. Iako je to tržišta značajno manje i i samo podložno pirateriji, oni su dovoljno mali da tu imaju neku računicu. To je jedan od načina, naravno.

[Джон Рейнольдс]

Većina nezavisnih pank etiketa je prestala da radi CDove i vratila se na vinil.

Веће етикете углавном раде и једно и друго, с тим да постоје фазони типа - бонус песма на плочи. Или се издају неке синглице са песмама које се не могу наћи другде и томе слично. Мени су скињаре ту занимљиве јер они раде у тоталној илегали, нема продаје по продавницама. Неки бендови инсистирају да повремено издају само винил - дакле, никакав диск не постоји, све се ради мејл-ордер, свака плоча има свој број и тако то. Е, али они су затворена група, па кад им се појави пират који почне да зарађује паре на томе, јави се локалној екипи ко је race traitor, ови га поломе и - решена пиратерија! 

[Perin]

Pirate Bay Founders’ Prison Sentences Final, Supreme Court Appeal Rejected!

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founders-prison-sentences-final-supreme-court-appeal-rejected-120201/

[Meho Krljic]

Fašizam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Lord Kufer]

Očigledno, na tržište se čovek ne može osloniti 

[Melkor]

[Perin]

Jel' se meni čini, il' je rikn'o i RAPIDSHARE?

[Ghoul]

radio je do pre 15 minuta! 

[Perin]

Pa, meni je sve linkove koje sam imao u Jdownloaderu kategorisao kao ILEGAL.

[Alexdelarge]

radi! nemoj da širiš defetizam!

[Lord Kufer]

Promenili su org u se

http://thepiratebay.se/legal.php

Premestili servere u Švecku.

[niko]

Pa, meni je sve linkove koje sam imao u Jdownloaderu kategorisao kao ILEGAL.

..i meni isto!

[Cody]

pobudali J s vremena na vreme, no ako nece J, oce Cryptload 

[Tex Murphy]

FRD не прави проблеме, провјерено.

[Meho Krljic]

Repidšer radi normalno.
 
Nego, inteligentan tekst na Forbesovom sajtu:
 
 You Will Never Kill Piracy, and Piracy Will Never Kill You 

Now that the SOPA and PIPA fights have died down, and Hollywood prepares their next salvo against internet freedom with ACTA and PCIP, it’s worth pausing to consider how the war on piracy could actually be won.
It can’t, is the short answer, and one these companies do not want to hear as they put their fingers in their ears and start yelling. As technology continues to evolve, the battle between pirates and copyright holders is going to escalate, and pirates are always, always going to be one step ahead. To be clear, this is in no way meant to be a “pro-piracy” piece, it is merely attempting to show the inescapable realities of piracy that media companies refuse to acknowledge.
What’s clear is that legislation is not the answer. Piracy is already illegal in the US, and most places around the world, yet it persists underground, but more often in plain sight. Short of passing a law that allows the actual blacklisting of websites like China and Iran, there is no legislative solution.  That’s what SOPA and PIPA were attempting to do, but it so obviously trampled on the First Amendment, it was laughed out of existence as the entire internet protested it. The only other thing you could get the internet to agree on was if they tried to institute a ban on cat pictures.
So, what to do? Go the other direction. Realize piracy is a service problem. Right now, from the browser window in which I’m writing this article, it is possible to download and start watching a movie for free in a few swift clicks.
(This is all purely theoretical of course)
1. Move mouse to click on Pirate Bay bookmark
2. Type in “The Hangover 2″ (awful movie, but a new release for the sake of the example)
3. Click on result with highest seeds
4. Click download torrent
5. Auto open uTorrent
6. Wait ten minutes to download
7. Play movie, own it forever

 
It’s not moral, it’s not right, but it’s there and it’s easy and there’s no one to stop you from doing it, and never will be. If after ten years and millions of dollars in legal fees they finally manage to kill the Pirate Bay, there are hundreds of other torrent sites that exist, and more will spring up. If they ban torrents altogether, the internet will invent something new.
Piracy is not raiding and plundering Best Buys and FYEs, smashing the windows and running out with the loot. It’s like being placed in a store full of every DVD in existence. There are no employees, no security guards, and when you take a copy of movie, another one materializes in its place, so you’re not actually taking anything. If you were in such a store, you’d only have your base moral convictions to keep you from cloning every movie in sight. And anyone who knows how to get to this store isn’t going to let their conscience stop them, especially when there is no tangible “loss” to even feel bad about.
It’s not a physical product that’s being taken. There’s nothing going missing, which is generally the hallmark of any good theft. The movie and music industries’ claim that each download is a lost sale is absurd. I might take every movie in that fictional store if I was able to, but would I have spent $3 million to legally buy every single DVD? No, I’d probably have picked my two favorite movies and gone home. So yes, there are losses, but they are miniscule compared to what the companies actually claim they’re losing.
  This does not translate to 60 lost DVD sales (and not my collection, FYI). The seven step, ten minute download process (which will be about ten seconds when US internet speeds catch up with the rest of the world) is the real enemy the studios should be trying to tackle. Right now, the industry is still stuck in the past, and is crawling oh-so-slowly into the future. They still believe people are going to want to buy DVDs or Blu-rays in five years, and that a movie ticket is well worth $15. Netflix is the closest thing they have to an advocate, but the studios are trying to drive them out of business as they see them as a threat, not a solution. It’s mind boggling.
The primary problem movie studios have to realize is that everything they charge for is massively overpriced. The fact that movie ticket prices keep going up is astonishing. How can they possibly think charging $10-15 per ticket for a new feature is going to increase the amount of people coming to theaters rather than renting the movie later or downloading it online for free? Rather than lower prices, they double down, saying that gimmicks like 3D and IMAX are worth adding another $5 to your ticket.
They have failed to realize that people want things to be easy. Physically going to the movies is hard enough without paying way too much for the privilege. Going to a store and buying a DVD instead of renting or downloading is generally an impractical thing to do unless you A) really love a particular movie or B) are an avid film buff or collector.
I saw an image on reddit the other day that had a concept for an online movie distribution tool that would be the movie industry’s greatest ally if they were to even consider it. Here it is:

More or less, it’s Steam (the online PC  game distribution client) for movies. It allows you to rent or download your favorite films with ease, build a library and watch cross devices and share with your friends. The service would effectively allow you to beat the seven step piracy process easily.
1. Open “Movie Steam”
2. Search for The Hangover 2
3. Click button to rent for $2 for 24 hours
4. Play movie.
 
They win by three steps! And as an added bonus, you no longer have to feel guilty for doing something illegal.
To some degree, this is what Netflix streaming is, though you don’t have the ability to actually own the movies you want, and there’s a very limited selection. In terms of buying new films, studios are so far behind the times it’s laughable. Most often they want you to buy the $30 Blu-ray so you can get the “Ultraviolet” copy as well that plays on a few digital devices. Please, how about I’ll give you $10 for the new Harry Potter, and I’ll watch it whenever and wherever I want? This is a negotiation where at any time, your customer could just go download the damn movie for free, and they’re doing you a favor by even considering picking it up legally. And you have the nerve to think it’s on YOUR terms? That’s not how negotiation works. It may not be right, but it’s reality, and they have to face it.
Yet movie companies threaten to put Netflix out of business by charging them huge amounts of money to have access to their content. Netflix is in the forefront of the war on piracy, and the studios don’t even seem to understand it. It’s incredible.
  Not your enemy, not your slave. “Movie Steam” would have its share of practical problems. It would be hard to get companies to agree to all use one service, and I sure as hell wouldn’t want “Sony Steam,” “Universal Steam,” and “Paramount Steam” all cluttering up my computer. It would also be hard for companies to agree to set prices this low, when they’re used to charging $15-30 for physical products. It would be almost impossible for them to not agree to some sort of ridiculous DRM, and god forbid if you ever wanted to share a movie with a friend.
It would also effectively kill off services like Netflix and Redbox (and of course finally put Blockbuster out of its misery) as well as hurt every retail store that sells DVDs. You could argue however, that DVDs will be gone completely within the decade, and retailers are going to have to brace themselves for that anyway. There’s always the crowd that circles around me when I bring this up to say “but people will always want physical media,” but there is just no possible way this is the case in 20, 10 or even maybe even five more years.
But with a distribution service like this, at least they’d be trying. At least they’d be going in the right direction. Trying to pass laws that stifle the freedom of the internet and piss off the entire population of a country is a terrible, terrible route to go. The millions of dollars they spent lobbying trying to get bills like SOPA and PIPA passed could have gone into R&D for new distribution arms like the one above.
And here’s something no one has stopped to consider: Maybe making movies is too damn expensive. Or rather, far more expensive than it needs to be.
After SOPA and PIPA, Hollywood now looks like a dinosaur, and as out of touch as someone trying to kill the radio or home video cassettes. Venture capital firms are actually now actively looking to fund companies with the aim of dismantling the industry, as the current model of movie making seems outdated. The internet is producing a talented crop of filmmakers working on shoestring budgets, hungry to get themselves noticed.
Perhaps A-list actors do not need multi-multi-million dollar salaries when there are thousands of hardworking amateurs trying to get noticed. Perhaps not every graphic novel and board game needs $100M or $200M thrown at it in order to become a feature film when there are hundreds of creative, original screenplays that get tossed in the trash. Perhaps you don’t need to spend an additional $100M marketing a movie when everyone is fast-forwarding through commercials and has AdBlock on their browsers.
  Would we really be worse off if no one spent $200M to make this? The industry is crawling toward these sorts of realizations, and they’re suffering for it. Yes, it’s true that nothing will ever kill piracy. But it’s equally true that nothing will ever kill the movie, music or video game industries either. Projects with bloated budgets and massively overpaid talent might start to fade away, but that can only be a good thing creatively for all the industries. To threaten us with the idea that pop culture is going to disappear entirely because of piracy is just moronic.
I believe in paying money for products that earn it. I do not believe in a pricing and distribution model that still thinks it’s 1998. And I really don’t believe in censoring the internet so that studio and label executives can add a few more millions onto their already enormous money pile.
Treat your customers with respect , and they’ll do the same to you. And that is how you fight piracy.
 

[scallop]

Ja ću da citiram samo komad rečenice, da se vidi ko će da plati.


There are no employees

[shrike]

Poznati javni tracker Btjunkie prestao s radom

http://btjunkie.org/goodbye.html?do=upload

[Meho Krljic]

Comedian Louis C.K. confronts piracy head on with digital experiment  

It’s pretty safe to say that the one group of people that seem to be both overlooked and at the same time the vulnerable in the “war on piracy” are comedians. These entertainers need to create original content in order to stay relevant, and that content is a product of weeks of research and creative writing. When a comic takes the stage, what you are watching is the combined effort weeks of research, memorization, and delivery. If that person is lucky the work on that particular set will be usable for few months of live tours, and then possibly a DVD release.
I follow more than a few comics across the various social networks, and every once in a while I see a burst of frustration when someone records their work on the first night of a new set and immediately uploads it to YouTube. Not only does it expose the performance to the rest of the world, but it does so in the quality of the average cell phone being held at a night club. When the one hour comedy set finally does get released to DVD, the production company releases it for $20 due to the expenses, like those that go in to securing the content to minimize further piracy. The end result of those security efforts can be seen on most piracy websites only hours after a DVD has been released, and now the comedy set is free to anyone who knows how to get it.
It’s a tough scenario to be put in, and there’s not any real solution so long as you plan to continue releasing content in teh traditional means. If you really want to combat piracy, make the content just as easy to get, and don’t include any of the digital rights management nonsense. At least, that’s what the pirates say is necessary to keep most people from doing the deed. It’s a fairly significant gamble, but comedian Louis C.K. stepped up to call the bluff.
In an extended note earlier this week Louis C.K. described his intent to release a comedy set that he had only just recorded, that had never been released on DVD. For $5, you would be able to stream the show two times, and download it three times. The show was made available in HD or SD (based on user preference), and the file was completely free of any digital rights management (DRM). The show would either sell or it would be quickly uploaded to every piracy site in the world and nobody would pay for it.
This was a fairly significant gamble for Louis C.K., but one that sent a clear message calling out those who continue to justify piracy by saying that it is easier to get online in the format of their choosing. The second part of this gamble is testing exactly how much profit can be made from online sales versus DVD sales. This set, Live at the Beacon Theater, isn’t available in stores. The only place you can buy this comedy set is from his website, and there is no option to purchase a DVD.

It did not take long for Louis C.K. to see results.  In a new statement he released only four days later, C.K. explains that the video he sold cost him about $170,000 to make. The cost of making this video was largely offset by the tickets sold at the two sets he did at the Beacon, but for all intents and purposes he paid for the video to be produces out of his pocket. He further explains that the content in this show was exclusive, he had never used any of it in previous sets, or on his TV series.
He continued to explain that he spent an additional $32,000 on having the website built to handle the load of customers downloading the movie or streaming it. Every effort was made to make the buying and watching experience as simple as possible. Not counting his time editing the video and testing the site, this gamble was already costing him over $200,000. Within 12 hours of the site going live on December 10th, over 50,000 copies had been sold, allowing him to break even on the costs so far. Under 72 hours later, the site had seen over 130,000 purchases.
He noticed that this was still less than he would have made from a deal with a distribution company but this method helps the fans by giving them a more usable, more available file. Louis C.K. clearly feels that this was already a success, and more sales are coming in every minute. One thought from his statement that stuck with me was “You never have to join anything, and you never have to hear from us again.”
The experiment was successful, but it remains to be seen whether or not this will have any actual impact on the industry. Even if more comedians take the same route as Louis C.K., there’s no real incentive for this to be implemented anywhere else. As he said, if he had left all of this to a production company he’d have made more money, spent less time, and wouldn’t have had to think about it twice. The content would have been pirated, and the circle would have continued.
This was a significant proof of concept, in my opinion, that the process of releasing content without all of the mess in between can work, but it’s not likely to change how things work anytime soon.
 

[Meho Krljic]

I posle praktičnog primera, još malo teoretisanja na istu temu:
 
 The Grand Unified Theory On The Economics Of Free 

Ok. I'll be the first to admit that I've taken the long way around in going through my series of posts exploring the economics of goods when scarcity is removed. What I had thought would be a series of 5 or 6 posts, turned into something much longer -- but each week people came up with new questions or discussions or objections, and so I tried to spend some time digging down on various pieces of the economics at hand. However, what I haven't done is tie it all together in one single spot. In the last couple of weeks there's been tremendous confusion among people from Scott Adams to CNN to various others that have made it abundantly clear that the one thing I've failed to do is put the whole concept together in a single place. That's resulted in people being confused about what I'm actually saying -- where they only pick up a tiny piece of the argument or confuse it with the arguments made by others. So, while I still think it was important to go through the details, now is as good a time as any to pull the whole theory together (with some links back to the previous articles in the series).

First off, and this is key, none of what I put forth is about defending unauthorized downloads. I don't download unauthorized content (never have) and I certainly don't suggest you do either. You may very well end up in a lawsuit and you may very well end up having to pay a lot of money. It's just not a good idea. This whole series is from the other perspective -- from that of the content creator and hopefully explaining why they should encourage people to get their content for free. That's because of two important, but simple points:

• If done correctly, you can increase your market-size greatly.
• If you don't, someone else will do it correctly, and your existing business model will be in serious trouble

If that first point is explained clearly, then hopefully the second point becomes self-evident. However, many people immediately ask, how is it possible that giving away a product can guarantee that you've increased your market size? The first thing to understand is that we're never suggesting people just give away content and then hope and pray that some secondary market will grant them money. Giving stuff away for free needs to be part of a complete business model that recognizes the economic realities. We'll get to more details on that in a second.

From a high-level perspective, though, the reason that giving non-scarce products away for free will increase your market size goes back to the same Thomas Jefferson quote that we kicked the series off with:
 >If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

What Jefferson noted is the wonderful feature of a non-scarce, or infinite, good that it is effectively a free resource. Once created, it costs nothing to give to someone else, and you still retain the original. In fact, economists have finally realized that this is the very key to economic growth and progress. The infinite resource known as an "idea" that improves what was already there is what increases the size of a market. Or, putting it another way, that infinite resource of a new idea makes an existing scarce resource more valuable. It's easy to understand that when it's an idea applied to, say, a machine making it more productive -- but it also applies to any infinite resource appropriately bundled with any scarce resource.

The way it works is actually quite easy and fits in with the same basic economics that's always been in place. Knocking down the barriers of artificial scarcity opens up tremendous new opportunities -- just as knocking down the artificial scarcity known as "protectionism" helps to grow markets by creating new opportunities. In this case, those new opportunities have only increased in number as we've gone digital, making more content infinite in nature. Where some people have trouble is that those new opportunities may be in different places than the existing opportunities -- and those new opportunities may not all be capturable by the creator of the content. Indeed, there will be some externalities created by the free flow of an infinite resource. However, the total amount that any content creator can capture is still much larger than it was before. It's one of those cases where getting 20% of a huge pie is much better than getting 90% of a tiny pie.

You just start by redefining the market based on the benefits of what you're providing, rather than the specific product you're selling. If you're focused on selling the benefits, then discovering a better way to sell those benefits is seen as a good thing, rather than a threat. You then break down the different components that make up those benefits that you're selling -- and you begin to recognize that every bundle of goods and services that make up the benefit you're selling has components that are scare as well as components that are infinite. In fact, if you look closely enough, you realize that any scarce product you buy actually has infinite components while any infinite good you see also tends to have scarce components.

Once you've broken out the components, however, recognizing that the infinite components are what make the scarce components more valuable at no extra cost, you set those free. Not only do you set those free, you have every incentive to create more of them, and encourage more people to get them. You break them into easily accessible bites. You syndicate them. You hand them out. You make them easy to share and embed and distribute and promote. And, yet, all the while, you know exactly what scarce resources those non-scarce goods are tied to, and you're ready to sell those scarce resources, recognizing that the more people who are consuming the infinite goods, the more valuable your scarce resource is.

So, the simple bulletpoint version:
 

• Redefine the market based on the benefits
• Break the benefits down into scarce and infinite components.
• Set the infinite components free, syndicate them, make them easy to get -- all to increase the value of the scarce components
• Charge for the scarce components that are tied to infinite components

You can apply this to almost any market (though, in some it's more complex than others). Since this post is already way too long, we'll just take an easy example of the recording industry:
 

• Redefine the market: The benefit is musical enjoyment
• Break the benefits down (not a complete list...): Infinite components: the music itself. Scarce components: access to the musicians, concert tickets, merchandise, creation of new songs, CDs, private concerts, backstage passes, time, anyone's attention, etc. etc. etc.
• Set the infinite components free: Put them on websites, file sharing networks, BitTorrent, social network sites wherever you can, while promoting the free songs and getting more publicity for the band itself -- all of which increases the value for the final step
• Charge for the scarce components: Concert tickets are more valuable. Access to the band is more valuable. Getting the band to write a special song (sponsorship?) is more valuable. Merchandise is more valuable.

What the band has done in this case is use the infinite good to increase the value of everything else they have to offer. They've increased their marketsize by recognizing how they can use the infinite goods as a free promotional resource and made the value of the overall ecosystem around them more valuable. Rather than playing small shows in tiny clubs that don't pay very well, they get to play large venues with bigger covers. It's certainly true that there are some externalities -- where some people will enjoy the music for free without ever taking part in paying for the scarce components. But, when done right, you've increased your market so much that it more than covers the difference. Compare this solution to that of a band that sticks to the old way: they are then limited in the audience that will hear them -- especially as more and more bands give their music away for free. Fewer people will be interested in going to their concerts or buying their merchandise or joining their fan clubs -- when the benefits are so much greater for following other artists that actually give their music away for free. The end result really is a much bigger market with much greater benefit by expanding the market by using infinite goods to make the scarce goods more valuable.

So there you have it. After many months, one single summary of the economics of "free" and how it can be used to anyone's advantage. It's not about defending unauthorized downloads. It's not even about getting rid of copyright -- just recognizing that copyright holders can actually be better off ignoring their own copyrights. It's very much about showing the key trends that are impacting all infinite goods -- and pointing out a clear path to benefiting from it (while making life more difficult on those who refuse to give up their old business models). And we're giving it to you all... for free. So, enjoy.


 

If you're looking to catch up on the posts in the series, I've listed them out below:


 

• Economics Of Abundance Getting Some Well Deserved Attention
  
• The Importance Of Zero In Destroying The Scarcity Myth Of Economics
  
• The Economics Of Abundance Is Not A Moral Issue
  
• A Lack Of Scarcity Has (Almost) Nothing To Do With Piracy
  
• A Lack Of Scarcity Feeds The Long Tail By Increasing The Pie
  
• Why The Lack Of Scarcity In Economics Is Getting More Important Now
  
• History Repeats Itself: How The RIAA Is Like 17th Century French Button-Makers
  
• Infinity Is Your Friend In Economics
  
• Step One To Embracing A Lack Of Scarcity: Recognize What Market You're Really In
  
• Why I Hope The RIAA Succeeds
  
• Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period
  
• Perhaps It's Not The Entertainment Industry's Business Model That's Outdated
  
• An Economic Explanation For Why DRM Cannot Open Up New Business Model Opportunities
  
• Recognizing That Just About Any Product Is A Bundle Of Scarce And Non-Scarce Goods
  
• Scarcity Isn't As Scarce As You Might Think
  

 

[mac]

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

Čovek je objasnio!

Amerikanci nemaju pojma koliko su srećni sa svojim državotvoriteljima.

[Father Jape]

Poznati javni tracker Btjunkie prestao s radom

http://btjunkie.org/goodbye.html?do=upload

 

[Mark]

BTJUNKIE
2005-2012
RIP

[zakk]

Ima drugih

[Tex Murphy]

ПајретБеј и ИСОХант се и даље одлично држе, а изгледа и да се ФајлСерв зомбификовао!

[Tex Murphy]

На РапидШеру су примијећени фришко постављени неки фајлови са покојних хостера.

[Agota]

BTJUNKIE
2005-2012
RIP

to nije dobro 
najgore ce mi  pasti  za serijski program kad se navucem na nesto pa jedva cekam da izadje nova  epizoda .
 samo  da mi ne diraju isoHunt

[tomat]

ПајретБеј и ИСОХант се и даље одлично држе, а изгледа и да се ФајлСерв зомбификовао!

i wupload se polako vraća.

[Meho Krljic]

Paolo Koeljo se stavio na stranu pirata. To je valjda ta vrela, latinoamerička revolucionarna krvca:
 
 Koeljo podržava internet pirateriju

Izvor: B92
Jedan od najtiražnijih svetskih pisaca Paulo Koeljo stao je na stranu web sajta Pirate Bay, protiv kojeg američka filmska i muzička industrija vodi višegodišnju borbu za zabranu, rečima ,,što više ljudi 'skine' knjigu, to bolje".
 
Koeljo se pridružio programu na sajtu Pirate Bay, u kojem poziva sve čitaoce da skinu njegov opus besplatno. Čim je Koeljo na ovaj način podržao internet pirateriju, čitaoci i posetioci Pirate Bay sajta su ga prozvali vizionarom i uzorom za čovečanstvo.

Koeljo je nešto ranije na svom blogu kritikovao američke predloge antipiratskih zakona rekavši da su oni loši, kako za internet generaciju , tako i za same autore.

,,Šta ja mislim o tome? Kao autor, trebalo bi da branim intelektualno vlasništvo , ali ja to ne želim. Pirati celog sveta ujedinite se i piratizujte sve što sam ikada napisao!”, rekao je Koeljo.

On smatra da su vremena kada je svaka ideja imala svojeg vlasnika zauvek prošla. Kako on navodi, svi pisci recikliraju četiri teme: ljubav između dvoje ljudi, ljubavni trougao, borba za moć i priča o putovanju. Svi pisci žele da se čita ono što su napisali, bilo da je reč o članku u novinama, blogu, pamfletu ili grafitu na zidu.

,, Neki ljudi će reći: vi ste dovoljno bogati, pa možete sebi dopustiti da se vaše knjige distribuiraju besplatno. Istina je. Ja sam bogat. Ali, da li me je želja za bogatstvom potaknula da pišem? Ne. Porodica i učitelji su mi rekli kako nema budućnosti u pisanju. Počeo sam da pišem i nastavljam s pisanjem jer me ono ispunjava, daje smisao mojem životu. Da se sve vrti oko novca odavno bih prestao da pišem, bar bih se na taj način poštedeo redovno negativnih recenzija“, objašnjava on.

Danas, kako Koeljo piše, putem stranice "Pirate Coelho" daje linkove na sve svoje knjige koje se nalaze na internetu. I pored toga, prodaja njegovih knjiga i dalje raste - skoro 140 miliona prodatih primeraka širom sveta.

Ipak, Vrhovni sud Švedske odlučio je da neće razmatrati žalbe osnivača sajta Pirate Bay na zatvorske i novčane kazne koje im je izrekao Apelacioni sud pre godinu dana. Tada je sud osudio Fredrika Neija, Petera Sundea i Karla Lundstroma na po deset, osam i četiri meseci zatvora i naložio im da zajedno plate kaznu od 6,7 miliona dolara.
 

[sinisa123]

šok http://btjunkie.org/goodbye.html

[smrklja]

Ma ajde za bt nego braća rusi mi ne rade (rutacker.org) imal ko kakvu informaciju ?