Aussie pirate stung for AU$190,000

Re: ISP filtering. I love it when media companies treat their customers with blanket assumption that they're all criminals. It makes it far less of a burden upon the conscience of those who do download when they know that's the general assumption. The reality is that those companies and organisations (RIAA, MPAA etc) are just making those who do have a conscience look foolish for abiding by the law.

I've had numerous rants about the insurance industry and their idiotic schemes before (wtf at charging a higher premium for a supercharged V6 Monaro over the more powerful, more expensive NA V8 model, just because the word supercharger appears??), but you can't really compare it to piracy. The insurance system is based of risk assessment (ever met an actuary? Fascinating people ), but what we're seeing with piracy is archaic laws, coupled with archaic politicians being told what to do by powerful executives of large media companies who wouldn't know progressive marketing strategies if they were handed to them (which they are constantly, but these executives are so damn old, stubborn and ignorant that they refuse to consider anything even remotely new).

Not to mention that age and sex are proven to be significant indicators of risk in insurance claims. Unless you've got evidence that shows race has something to do with it, how is that even a valid example? What you said is borderline racist.

To whoever it was that said piracy doesn't cost the industry: that's wrong. Granted the way that the media companies calculate is ridiculous, but there is always going to be an element of lost revenue there. Sure there's those people who claim they never would have purchased it in the first place, but there's always going to be those who pirate it in place of buying it.

That said, there's a lot to be said for piracy/free access to media as a positive impact upon sales and revenue. Not so much for the games industry, but particularly in television and music, it can act as a means of spreading the reach of the material beyond the 'legal' distribution channels. I know of plenty of friends who download stacks of music and then go and see those bands in concert, and that's where the band is really making their money. Similarly, I've downloaded music before of artists that don't get any radio play. Without being able to hear the music beforehand I'd never pay $20-30 for a CD, but if I'm able to hear it beforehand, and I like it, then I most certainly will. Best example with that is Opeth, my #1 band that I now have 9 CDs for, have seen in concert and purchased a tour shirt. That's several hundred dollars that I never would have spent had I not engaged in a little less than legal activity.

And now I'm rambling.

Jibbs, you're being just as ignorant toward reading/comprehending posts as you're suggesting I was. My point is that, yes granted it was posed as a hypothetical, the fact that you'd raise that is (and again, I chose my words carefully) borderline racist. It was a totally irrelevant example to the argument, and even the point you were making has a tenuous link to the thread topic, so it's hard to construe it as anything but unnecessary.

Yargh back to discussing piracy maties.

*sigh* First of all, gender is taken into account, so I don't know why you're saying it isn't. Secondly, is it not obvious that the reason age is a relevant variable to motor vehicle incident risk is due to, at the very least, the inexperience, hormones (speaking particularly of males in their late teens) and their predisposition to risk taking behaviour? These are significant factors that can be easily differentiated by a measurement of age. As you and I well know, race couldn't provide such equivalent differentiation which is why it isn't used as a measure of insurance, so why would you bring it up as an obviously irrelevant example?

And again, what does this all have to do with piracy? I understand that you were suggesting they're covering all their customers with harsh blanket assumptions, but I dispute that it's the same as what a lot of the media companies are doing. In the case of the insurance industry (as much as I can't stand those companies, as a 20 year old male who wishes to purchase and insure a twin turbo) it is to an extent justified. The insurance industry deal with potential, so they have to make assumptions. Media industries deal in tangibles and don't need to make such assumptions.

I come to these forums to discuss things. I don't care whether you agree with me or not, but I like to have a debate about these things as they interest me considerably. Jibbs brought it up, I've known him for awhile through these forums and I know he's one of the few posters here who can sustain an argument and support what they're saying.

You aren't discussing things, and are posting nothing more than spam, so STFU or GTFO.