TUANZ submission to MED regarding copyright fee

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › TUANZ submission to MED regarding copyright fee

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#101361 30-Apr-2012 12:13

TUANZ had sent their submission to MED regarding copyright fee and posted in their blog.

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#617473 30-Apr-2012 15:05

To quote Paul:

Since the film and television industries don’t seem to value their product at any more than $25 per item (presumably they see the cost of issuing a notice as being more than the value of the product they are protecting)...

Impeccable logic.

And also quite telling:

TUANZ also notes that despite the rhetoric (5) prior to the introduction of the new regime, not a single New Zealand artist’s content has been the subject of a notice. Either New Zealand content is not being ‘pirated’ or the rights holders have no interest in pursuing those who breach copyright regulations regarding locally-produced content.

Well done, TUANZ!

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#617480 30-Apr-2012 15:24

SaltyNZ: To quote Paul:

Since the film and television industries don’t seem to value their product at any more than $25 per item (presumably they see the cost of issuing a notice as being more than the value of the product they are protecting)...

Impeccable logic.

I assume you are being sarcastic here, since it is terrible logic.

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#617487 30-Apr-2012 15:48

NonprayingMantis:
I assume you are being sarcastic here, since it is terrible logic.

It isn't terrible logic at all. It's simple profit and loss. If it cost $10,000 a year to insure my $5,000 car then I wouldn't do it, would I? I do it because insurance is far cheaper than my car is worth to replace.

These people run businesses; they do (and only do) what makes a profit. If a single infringing download is guaranteed to cost you* the $29.95 of the content in question then it makes sense to spend $25, once, to stop it from happening again.**

This argument is even more compelling when you consider that the content industry insists that downloading costs them millions - per infringer. (Jammie Thomas, etc.) If that really is true, then surely $25 is a miniscule price to save millions, isn't it?

The only reason not to pay is if the content isn't actually worth $25 -- let alone $X million -- in the first place.

* But of course it isn't, always.
** And of course it won't, necessarily.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#617504 30-Apr-2012 16:28

SaltyNZ:
NonprayingMantis:
I assume you are being sarcastic here, since it is terrible logic.

It isn't terrible logic at all. It's simple profit and loss. If it cost $10,000 a year to insure my $5,000 car then I wouldn't do it, would I? I do it because insurance is far cheaper than my car is worth to replace.

ever heard of third party insurance? I know several people in the UK who's annual insurance premium is more than the value of their crummy 1990 fiesta car because they have to insure against the possibility of smashing into a porsche

These people run businesses; they do (and only do) what makes a profit. If a single infringing download is guaranteed to cost you* the $29.95 of the content in question then it makes sense to spend $25, once, to stop it from happening again.**

This argument is even more compelling when you consider that the content industry insists that downloading costs them millions - per infringer. (Jammie Thomas, etc.) If that really is true, then surely $25 is a miniscule price to save millions, isn't it?

The only reason not to pay is if the content isn't actually worth $25 -- let alone $X million -- in the first place.

* But of course it isn't, always.
** And of course it won't, necessarily.

one notice does not equal one fewer peice of content downloaded*

Here is why:

A single notice may be worth less than a single piece of content since the rights holder will need to send out hundreds of such notices at $25/notice before it gets it’s first ‘third strike’ – which is when actual punishment happens. Every other notice up to that point has no impact to the customer. So from that point of view it could be argued that in order to stop the future download of something, a rights holder will need to spend thousands of dollars up front. So if the content was worth $30, then each individual notice that wnet into stopping that download may be only worth a few cents

On the other hand, the first third strike notice, properly publicised, may stop dozens or hundreds of people from downloading GBs and GBs of content, so from that point of view a single third strike maybe worth tens of thousands or more in future earnings.

These two things push the value of the notice in differnet ways, and I make no claim as to which is the bigger, or how much they move by.

Taking those both together, we really have no idea what the value of a single infringement might be to the rights holders. It might be $2c, it might be $100
One thing we do know is that it bears almost no relation to the price of a piece of content. So trying to compare it to the price of a piece of content is very poor logic.

*I note that Paul has spoken out against this kind of shakey logic used by rights holders before where one download = one lost sale. Well if he wants to take the moral high ground he should avoid using the same sort of poor arguments himself.

lucky015

743 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#617512 30-Apr-2012 16:43

NonprayingMantis:
Taking those both together, we really have no idea what the value of a single infringement might be to the rights holders. It might be $2c, it might be $100
One thing we do know is that it bears almost no relation to the price of a piece of content. So trying to compare it to the price of a piece of content is very poor logic.

You are correct, it is very poor logic however this poor logic is the standard used by such rights holders, The same rights holders who are doing their very best to have it written into law.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#617517 30-Apr-2012 16:49

Goodie another copyright infringement discussion.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#617519 30-Apr-2012 16:57

lucky015:
NonprayingMantis:
Taking those both together, we really have no idea what the value of a single infringement might be to the rights holders. It might be $2c, it might be $100
One thing we do know is that it bears almost no relation to the price of a piece of content. So trying to compare it to the price of a piece of content is very poor logic.

You are correct, it is very poor logic however this poor logic is the standard used by such rights holders, The same rights holders who are doing their very best to have it written into law.

and that is exaclty why Paul should refrain from using that logic if he wants to complain about rights holders using it.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#617547 30-Apr-2012 18:03

Well, merely stating the FACTS didn't help. Unfortunately this isn't Toastmasters, and you get no points for being right. Perhaps it IS time to use their own poor logic against them.

Or to put it another way, how old YOU propose to do it?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.