Sorry to disagree with you, again,
Feel free. I like an intelligent debate.
but large corporations don't hold a candle to religion when it comes to dirty, filthy, major harmful episodes, but thats a whole different kettle of fish.
Actually, I think i could agree with that - but it'd be a close race. Religion has been ruining us for millenia, but corporatism has industrialized it.
And I shouldn't desire to be profitable in my business? are you high? However, I would not condone any activity that is illegal and/or immoral to achieve that profitability, all I ask is a fair / competitive playing field, "competing" against illegal file sharing / downloading or however you want to package it up is bloody difficult.
Of course you should desire to be profitable: but that is not my point.
My point is that copyright - and IP law in general - is badly broken and it is massively profiting a mighty few at the expense of the many. The argument that it supports innovation is becoming weaker and weaker every year as yet more and more corporations sue innovators on the vaugest of grounds due to patent infringement or etc etc. I think we would be better off without it; or at the very least a much more even and intelligent re-write.
As far as competing with 'free': yes, it is very difficult. But it can be done - look at all these idiots buying water in bottles.................
Watching a film is often a social activity. Maybe you should consider the film rental as the minor aspect, and value-add other items. Maybe also do a deal: so many new-releases for a set fee per week.
It doesn't have to be cheaper than free: it just has to be more convenient.
As for the business being victim of technology, you have almost simply agreed with me in regards to the impact that illegal file sharing has at a local level, forget large corporations etc, its the mom and dad businesses that suffer long before big corporate america (bringing me back to one of the original points I made, it is far easier to justify actions against a large faceless corporation than to accept that the impacts are much more local).
That is the fault of progress, not the pirates. There were a lot of similar complaints from Theater owners when VHS tapes came out. Would you now give up your business so everyone went back to the film theater?
If things were where they SHOULD be now, you would own a web site that streamed content locally to subscribers for a set fee per month.
What would your business be like if you didn't have to replace scratched disks? Didn't have to rent a commercial building? Didn't lose business because there was a rush on a certain film? Could rent out to anyone in the country?
What if it was easier to sell a copy for $1 than deal with DRM? Royalties going to the studio...
You might not like pirates, you might think (unsubstantiated) that you lose sales - but you should level your largest complaints on the corporates who deny you the opportunity to compete properly.
If it was a case where there was a large scale legal means of d/loading movies, music, games & other software, and we were merely defeated by another legitimate business, then so be it, happens all the time, but that is not the current issue.
Oh, but there is - in America anyway. Several of them.
We are denied.
I can accept that there are many corporates out there that have done some pretty reprehensible things in the past to turn a profit, sweat shops in south east asia, mexico etc not to mention big tobacco and big oil and their influence over the last 50+ years, even the drivel that Hollywood and the music industry spews out at an alarming rate is outrageous at times and almost criminal (Justin Bieber anyone?).
I think they use piracy as an excuse for a lack of competitiveness.
Years ago, VHS tapes were easy to copy. We did not have all this hoop-la and law changes back then. Why?
Because it's not about someone watching a film for free. It's about maintaining a failed business model and corruption.
Why compete when you can buy a politician and change the law?