I have a warning to you, we’re committed to putting you out of business.

[Munky]

Another way to track this is to keep track of who is purchasing the gear designed to duplicate CD and DVD Disks. Maybe they should make the hardware like that a controlled item. I know a smart person could build their own duplication machine, but it is a lot easier to just buy some hardware that is already set up.

So just make it illegal to purchase the duplicators without some kind of permit or license????

Are you seriously suggesting this? Maybe next you'd like us to bend over while the government scratches our asses with a laser from a space satellite?

 

[drebo]

The problem with that line of thinking is that while movie sales are languishing, theater attendance is still fairly robust.

I'm not so sure that's a problem so much as a symptom. Going to see a movie in a theater is a social activity that is so much more than just watching a movie in the same way that going to a concert is more than just listening to a CD. Concert attendance isn't down, either.

You don't purchase a movie because you want to watch it once. You may, however, go to the theater with friends or an S.O. to see a movie once because it was hyped. You purchase a movie because you want to watch it several times and because you like the novelty of owning that particular movie. I enjoyed watching Knocked Up in the theater with my then girlfriend because it was a slightly raunchy and funny movie and we had a nice "date". I would not, however, consider that movie to be one I would want to own.

So, I don't think attendance at social events is indicative of a problem with the theory that interest in modern popular music is what's causing the decline in revenue for the MPAA and RIAA.

 

[drebo]

Money is a necessary but not sufficient thing for good products to get made.

I largely agree with the products having a lot of crap - I often say almost all good music was made from 1966 to 1980 with some exceptions - but these are different issues.

Nothing is stopping the next great band from making an album - but piracy can prevent a great band who would otherwise do so.

The answer to 'crap' isn't piracy. Piracy doesn't solve the issue.

So even while I haven't bought a CD in years and almost all DVD's I buy are of old movies, I'm protecting the system that is needed for good new products to get made.

Your post is a bit like saying, allow shoplifting, because the issue this would cause stores to close isn't a problem since you don't like what they sell.

Maybe you don't, but you aren't going to get better stores by allowing shoplifting.

As I stated before, I am not defending piracy. I don't engage in it.

I simply don't subscribe to the idea that the SOLE REASON the MPAA and RIAA are seeing revenue drops is 12 year olds downloading movies and songs. Those 12 year olds aren't going to be buying the movies and albums they're downloading, so there is no revenue lost.

The people who ARE contributing to some degree of revenue dip are the ones selling physical bootleg copies. These people are stearing people who are interested in spending money to own a particular album or movie away from buying the legitimate ones. These types of people also have absolutely nothing to do with the Internet.

My argument is that this "war" has nothing to do with the actual problem (even though it is a LOT less significant than the industry makes it out to be) and has everything to do with the government wanting to reach its tendrils deeper into the internet.

 

[shortylickens]

Not quite understanding the purpose of this. Do we not already have laws on the books to deal with copyright infringement and piracy?????

Well, as a general rule I am not anti-democrat. I'm anti-stupid and anti-communist, but not anti-democrat.
Having said that, it often seems theres nothing democrats love more than failing to enforce current laws and passing new ones to get themselves attention and moral victories.
Granted, republicans do it too, but with democrats and especially Obama, it seems they really cant do anything without a new enemy to blame and a new set of laws to attack it. If Americans lose freedoms, so much the better.

 

[Craig234]

As I stated before, I am not defending piracy. I don't engage in it.

I simply don't subscribe to the idea that the SOLE REASON the MPAA and RIAA are seeing revenue drops is 12 year olds downloading movies and songs. Those 12 year olds aren't going to be buying the movies and albums they're downloading, so there is no revenue lost.

The people who ARE contributing to some degree of revenue dip are the ones selling physical bootleg copies. These people are stearing people who are interested in spending money to own a particular album or movie away from buying the legitimate ones. These types of people also have absolutely nothing to do with the Internet.

My argument is that this "war" has nothing to do with the actual problem (even though it is a LOT less significant than the industry makes it out to be) and has everything to do with the government wanting to reach its tendrils deeper into the internet.

You're arguing against something I didn't say. You barely seem to have glanced at what i said.

As for what 'the problem is', asi I said there is increasing risk.

Your pointing out what's happening now is like the buggy whip industry saying when there are 1,000 cars in the US, 'don't worry, those cars are a hassle and most people still use horses'.

If you wait until the problem is worse, how are you going to fix it? A little late then.

 

[drebo]

You're arguing against something I didn't say. You barely seem to have glanced at what i said.

As for what 'the problem is', asi I said there is increasing risk.

Your pointing out what's happening now is like the buggy whip industry saying when there are 1,000 cars in the US, 'don't worry, those cars are a hassle and most people still use horses'.

If you wait until the problem is worse, how are you going to fix it? A little late then.

I'm arguing that there ISN'T a problem significant enough to warrant government intervention, and there never will be.

Who makes money off record sales? Sure as shit not the artists. Why do you think we've been seeing more and more artists releasing their music online for free? Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) has been doing this for years now, and many people are coming. Services like iTunes encourage bands to bypass large production outfits while releasing their music.

The times of big record companies are over. With the Internet the way it is, self promotion and self publishing are easier than ever and mostly as successful. This trend was present long before peer-to-peer networks and bittorrent were mainstream.

Again, this entire "initiative" is nothing more than the government trying to get its paws where they don't belong. Whether you said it or it was said in the OP, there isn't an "epidemic" of piracy. Actual revenues lost to piracy (bootleggers) is but a fraction of a percent of total revenues of the music and movie industries and mostly happens overseas.

 

[marincounty]

Well, as a general rule I am not anti-democrat. I'm anti-stupid and anti-communist, but not anti-democrat.
Having said that, it often seems theres nothing democrats love more than failing to enforce current laws and passing new ones to get themselves attention and moral victories.
Granted, republicans do it too, but with democrats and especially Obama, it seems they really cant do anything without a new enemy to blame and a new set of laws to attack it. If Americans lose freedoms, so much the better.

Flag burning amendment anyone? Illegal wiretapping and email reading? Please shut up.

 

[Craig234]

I'm arguing that there ISN'T a problem significant enough to warrant government intervention, and there never will be.

We disagree. Digital reproduction poses a threat unique in human history for culture (be that what it is).

Who makes money off record sales? Sure as shit not the artists.

You confuse 'not enough' with 'zero'.

But problems with the industry are not solved by piracy.

Why do you think we've been seeing more and more artists releasing their music online for free? Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) has been doing this for years now, and many people are coming. Services like iTunes encourage bands to bypass large production outfits while releasing their music.

Good, fix the business issues, but piracy is not the answer.

The times of big record companies are over. With the Internet the way it is, self promotion and self publishing are easier than ever and mostly as successful. This trend was present long before peer-to-peer networks and bittorrent were mainstream.

Again, this entire "initiative" is nothing more than the government trying to get its paws where they don't belong. Whether you said it or it was said in the OP, there isn't an "epidemic" of piracy. Actual revenues lost to piracy (bootleggers) is but a fraction of a percent of total revenues of the music and movie industries and mostly happens overseas.

You still didn't read what I wrote. See the buggy whip analogy again.

 

[Darwin333]

The problem with that line of thinking is that while movie sales are languishing, theater attendance is still fairly robust.

I don't think that is a fair comparison. Theaters sell an "experience" that the average person can not get at home. The big screen, the extremely high end audio, the social atmosphere, etc.. are all added value on top of just the movie. I have went to see movies I knew I wouldn't like for various reasons and I bet almost everyone here can say the same. OTOH, I have never purchased a movie I knew beforehand I would not like.

IMO, the industries have brought this upon themselves. That isn't an excuse but it is a reason and it is almost amusing watching them try to go backwards instead of embracing what people want and making a fortune doing it. Keep in mind, this is the very same industry that was against video tapes because people would be able to record TV and would cost them a fortune in lost revenue. What happened instead? Instead of losing revenue they made untold sums of money off of it.

Consumers simply do not want to purchase a CD for $15 that has 2 songs they want to hear and 13 songs they dislike. They also don't want to be told that after they purchase that CD that they can't rip the 2 songs they like off of it and make their own CD of just songs they like. Consumers are tired of paying for the same content multiple times. They purchased the VHS tapes, then they purchased the DVDs, then they where told they could not make backups of their legally purchased movies in case the rather fragile DVD was damaged and when the courts finally told them they could the industry made sure you still couldn't do it legally. For the longest time it was a serious hassle to backup copies of the Disney DVDs I bought for my kids (almost foregone conclusion they will get damaged). It would have been much easier to simply pirate the movie with a few clicks of a mouse. The industry wants to force you to buy the same content multiple times and has fought technology that we all love to try and achieve that goal.

What was the industries response? Did they provide the customer with the product and delivery method they wanted? No, they did something much worse, they punished the people that were legally purchasing their products while having absolutely no effect on the bad guys. A guy at work pirated a game that he OWNED because the DRM degraded the "quality" of the product. He wasn't warned beforehand that the DRM would degrade the gameplay and he couldn't return the game after he found out. I know another guy who hadn't purchased a song since napster until Amazons DRM free music store opened up. He hasn't pirated a song since, not that I agree with what he did but the industry had a golden opportunity to cut off piracy in its infancy by making it easier to purchase the music than pirate it. Instead they did just the opposite, they made it harder to purchase and enjoy content. At one point they made a case that we couldn't put songs we had purchased onto MP3 players, they argued against TIVO, they argued against VHS, they wanted a tax on all blank media, etc...

They are still engaging in the exact same tactics. People want, and are willing to pay for, truly on demand media over the internet. Unfortunately the same people that profit from your expensive cable bill also provide your internet service so they will (and are) fighting change again. Change that I would argue will ultimately lead to more profits for the industry.

While none of that gives anyone the right to steal, IMO the damage done to the industry has been mostly self inflicted. It has definately had an impact on my spending, while I am not as stead fast as I would like to be (I still buy the kids their movies), I refuse to purchase anything for myself that has overly abusive DRM and so do a lot of other people I know. Granted, most of us don't pirate it but it does bring up an argument that the industry has lost significant revenue from THEIR actions as well as the actions of thieves. History has shown that trying to take more of the paying customers "rights" (for lack of a better word) away only leads to a further decline in revenue as it pisses more people off AND it does absolutely nothing to even slow the pirates down. Something is terribly wrong with your business model when the people that steal your product enjoy it more than the people that paid for it.

I guess the point to all of my rambling is, IMO, the industry has caused more harm to the people who actually make the content (actual authors, artists, performers, etc..) than the pirates have.

 

[JSt0rm]

I know a lot fo you guys pirate media...

I also know it comes down to convenience mostly.

The industry will give you streaming on demand media and some of the infrastructure is in place but some of the media outlets (cable companies) dont like this so there needs to be a shake down at some point.

Now if you want to download hd for free and keep a copy forever then this wont work. The movie industry takes a huge amount of man power to make these things that entertain you and if you find $0 dollar value in that item then it won't be here forever.

There are a lot of people who aren't working right now in this industry and its really a shame. Lots of talent with nothing to do...

 

[Darwin333]

You still didn't read what I wrote. See the buggy whip analogy again.

The MPAA, RIAA, etc... are the buggy whip industry though. Should the government have prevented progress, eroded rights, or otherwise given advantages in order to try and save the buggy whip industry?

It doesn't matter what they do though. The genie is out of the bottle and it isn't going back in. The only people that are really hurt in this game are the paying customers and the artists.

I would never have thought you would be one to protect entities that can (or at least could have been) considered monopolies that have done more harm to the artists and the paying consumer than any pirate ever has. These entities you defend care not one bit for "fairness" they have historically raped artists and consumers and want nothing more than the ability to continue to do so.

Here is one for you to ponder (I don't know the answer myself), would todays artists have the realistic ability to not do business with those entities had it not been for piracy? Pretend Napster never happened and piracy never went mainstream, do you really think digital distribution would be where it is today, giving artists the freedom to tell big businesses like the RIAA to get bent?

Again, I am in no way defending theft. I am simply pointing out the other side to the story which is the industry has never been the "good guys" and they have in fact tried to restrict YOUR rights and technological advancement. They failed to adapt, not out of ignorance, but because of greed. They are their own worst enemy and I personally don't feel sorry for them one bit.

 

[Zebo]

Good luck fools. Playing cat and mouse with Pirates vs. bureaucrats will be like playing 1 move chess on a 5 move board. Always 4 steps behind the curve.

 

[Zebo]

I know a lot fo you guys pirate media...

I also know it comes down to convenience mostly.

The industry will give you streaming on demand media and some of the infrastructure is in place but some of the media outlets (cable companies) dont like this so there needs to be a shake down at some point.

Now if you want to download hd for free and keep a copy forever then this wont work. The movie industry takes a huge amount of man power to make these things that entertain you and if you find $0 dollar value in that item then it won't be here forever.

There are a lot of people who aren't working right now in this industry and its really a shame. Lots of talent with nothing to do...

I don't pirate shit but it's hard to make a case these people are hurting getting 20 million for 8 weeks work. Let me know when they're under slave ship contracts like Bogart for 10 movies a year to same studio with studio first option before being allowed to leave.

 

[drebo]

You still didn't read what I wrote. See the buggy whip analogy again.

But this is the entire point: As Darwin stated above, it's up to the industry to adapt. It's not the government's responsibility to implement policy that protects an aging industry too greedy or too stupid to modify its business policies to be current with the times and what their consumers want.

Especially when that policy is being based upon false assumptions and recommendations...such as the idea that piracy is an epidemic that is killing the industry.

 

[JSt0rm]

I don't pirate shit but it's hard to make a case these people are hurting getting 20 million for 8 weeks work. Let me know when they're under slave ship contracts like Bogart for 10 movies a year to same studio with studio first option before being allowed to leave.

Hmmm? I'm talking about the people that actually make the movies The ones that do lighting or color or audio post...

They earn $1500 to $3000 per week sometimes a bit more but they are middle class for sure.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think that is a fair comparison. Theaters sell an "experience" that the average person can not get at home. The big screen, the extremely high end audio, the social atmosphere, etc.. are all added value on top of just the movie. I have went to see movies I knew I wouldn't like for various reasons and I bet almost everyone here can say the same. OTOH, I have never purchased a movie I knew beforehand I would not like.

IMO, the industries have brought this upon themselves. That isn't an excuse but it is a reason and it is almost amusing watching them try to go backwards instead of embracing what people want and making a fortune doing it. Keep in mind, this is the very same industry that was against video tapes because people would be able to record TV and would cost them a fortune in lost revenue. What happened instead? Instead of losing revenue they made untold sums of money off of it.

Consumers simply do not want to purchase a CD for $15 that has 2 songs they want to hear and 13 songs they dislike. They also don't want to be told that after they purchase that CD that they can't rip the 2 songs they like off of it and make their own CD of just songs they like. Consumers are tired of paying for the same content multiple times. They purchased the VHS tapes, then they purchased the DVDs, then they where told they could not make backups of their legally purchased movies in case the rather fragile DVD was damaged and when the courts finally told them they could the industry made sure you still couldn't do it legally. For the longest time it was a serious hassle to backup copies of the Disney DVDs I bought for my kids (almost foregone conclusion they will get damaged). It would have been much easier to simply pirate the movie with a few clicks of a mouse. The industry wants to force you to buy the same content multiple times and has fought technology that we all love to try and achieve that goal.

What was the industries response? Did they provide the customer with the product and delivery method they wanted? No, they did something much worse, they punished the people that were legally purchasing their products while having absolutely no effect on the bad guys. A guy at work pirated a game that he OWNED because the DRM degraded the "quality" of the product. He wasn't warned beforehand that the DRM would degrade the gameplay and he couldn't return the game after he found out. I know another guy who hadn't purchased a song since napster until Amazons DRM free music store opened up. He hasn't pirated a song since, not that I agree with what he did but the industry had a golden opportunity to cut off piracy in its infancy by making it easier to purchase the music than pirate it. Instead they did just the opposite, they made it harder to purchase and enjoy content. At one point they made a case that we couldn't put songs we had purchased onto MP3 players, they argued against TIVO, they argued against VHS, they wanted a tax on all blank media, etc...

They are still engaging in the exact same tactics. People want, and are willing to pay for, truly on demand media over the internet. Unfortunately the same people that profit from your expensive cable bill also provide your internet service so they will (and are) fighting change again. Change that I would argue will ultimately lead to more profits for the industry.

While none of that gives anyone the right to steal, IMO the damage done to the industry has been mostly self inflicted. It has definately had an impact on my spending, while I am not as stead fast as I would like to be (I still buy the kids their movies), I refuse to purchase anything for myself that has overly abusive DRM and so do a lot of other people I know. Granted, most of us don't pirate it but it does bring up an argument that the industry has lost significant revenue from THEIR actions as well as the actions of thieves. History has shown that trying to take more of the paying customers "rights" (for lack of a better word) away only leads to a further decline in revenue as it pisses more people off AND it does absolutely nothing to even slow the pirates down. Something is terribly wrong with your business model when the people that steal your product enjoy it more than the people that paid for it.

I guess the point to all of my rambling is, IMO, the industry has caused more harm to the people who actually make the content (actual authors, artists, performers, etc..) than the pirates have.

That was actually my point; Drebo agrees with you. Certainly the point is debatable, but in today's world one can easily purchase one or two songs from an album for a quite nominal fee. Never done it myself, I own no iPods or such and regularly rip my CDs to my computer - and would happily defend that in court.

I too have purchased the same Grateful Dead albums on 8-track, then cassette, then CD. I don't have a good answer for that, as it seems to me that either we buy the physical product (in which case we should be able to legally copy it and even distribute it) or we buy the IP itself (in which case we should be able to put it in whatever format we can best enjoy personally at the moment. But I do think piracy (by which I mean copying or downloading something for which we never paid) is morally wrong and dangerous to our new found desire to substitute IP creation for manufacturing. In the case of buying albums on 8-track, then again on cassette and again on CD, in each case I received a better quality copy of the album, so I felt justified in paying again. I would also have felt justified in burning my 8-tracks and cassettes to CD, as I had already paid for that album in that quality. I would not feel justified in burning myself a copy of a friend's CD because I own the cassette, because I had never paid for that IP in that quality. But I agree that reasonable minds can differ on where one's rights end when one has paid for the IP.

However everyone should be able to agree that people in the business of making money from other's IP, whether the people that sell counterfeit CDs or DVDs or those who host stolen IP and sell advertising, need to be busted.

 

[Craig234]

The MPAA, RIAA, etc... are the buggy whip industry though.

No, they're not, in the analogy I made - you missed the point of it.

Should the government have prevented progress, eroded rights, or otherwise given advantages in order to try and save the buggy whip industry?

I'm not talking about doing that. I'm talking about protecting the payment for the providers of our cultural products.

Not the government giving any special 'protections' for the industry other than protection from piracy, since the digital reproduction is a unique threat to these industries.

You can't copy a new car and steal it. You can a movie.

It doesn't matter what they do though. The genie is out of the bottle and it isn't going back in. The only people that are really hurt in this game are the paying customers and the artists.

The game hurting customers and artists I'm talking about is piracy. As I said - but you did not seem to read - there are all kinds of 'industry issues' I'm not talking about here.

It's fine to look at solutions for those, piracy is not a solution.

I would never have thought you would be one to protect entities that can (or at least could have been) considered monopolies that have done more harm to the artists and the paying consumer than any pirate ever has. These entities you defend care not one bit for "fairness" they have historically raped artists and consumers and want nothing more than the ability to continue to do so.

You are filled with hyperbole here. The industries can be terrible, but where is the 'free market' to solve this? If the recording studios are horrible, why isn't a better one started?

I'm protecting the system here, so that it can be fixed and provide products, from the threat of the massive destruction from piracy.

Back when the government decided AT&T had a monopoly on phone service, they didn't pass a law that all calls were now free and destroy any phone business so no one had a phone.

I'm not 'defending these companies' as you said, other than defending any company good or bad from piracy that threatens the availability of products or fixing things.

Yes, you can have a 'new alternate business model', but it's like a grocery store moving to an 'ok to steal' model - the availability of groceries is going to suffer.

Here is one for you to ponder (I don't know the answer myself), would todays artists have the realistic ability to not do business with those entities had it not been for piracy? Pretend Napster never happened and piracy never went mainstream, do you really think digital distribution would be where it is today, giving artists the freedom to tell big businesses like the RIAA to get bent?

No reason it wouldn't develop - the same motives, resources etc. can do it.

Again, I am in no way defending theft. I am simply pointing out the other side to the story which is the industry has never been the "good guys" and they have in fact tried to restrict YOUR rights and technological advancement. They failed to adapt, not out of ignorance, but because of greed. They are their own worst enemy and I personally don't feel sorry for them one bit.

Except you're implying I called them 'good guys' when I specifically said otherwise.

The thing is with you not defending theft, how do we practically prevent the threat of massive piracy as technology makes it easier and easier?

 

[shortylickens]

Flag burning amendment anyone? Illegal wiretapping and email reading? Please shut up.

NO U!!!

 

[BudAshes]

he has to say this shit.

 

[drebo]

However everyone should be able to agree that people in the business of making money from other's IP, whether the people that sell counterfeit CDs or DVDs or those who host stolen IP and sell advertising, need to be busted.

I agree with this and have never said otherwise.

My assertion is that the effects of such are tiny to the point of insignificance, despite them being grossly overexaggerated, and in no way do they warrant national policy from the White House. Laws already exist to prosecute people who illegally make money off of other peoples' IP. Use those laws to lock those people up.

But don't try to assert that the revenue decreases of the RIAA and the MPAA are because of people downloading things they never had any intention of buying.

On another note: record companies VEHEMENTLY opposed services like iTunes at first because they undermine the MASSIVE proffits that record companies got from selling $20 CDs. iTunes-like services give consumers the option of only buying songs they like, so record companies can't as easily cover the cost of production of songs that suck. iTunes-like services also give bands the capability to self-promote and self-distribute their music, cutting out the RIAA entirely. The record industry needs to come to terms with the fact that they mostly aren't needed anymore and adjust their business model as such.

 

[drebo]

No, they're not, in the analogy I made - you missed the point of it.

Then the analogy you made is wrong by default.

The RIAA and the MPAA are old tech and they refuse to adapt. Generally, a business that refuses to adapt to changing market trends goes bankrupt. Here's hoping that our government isn't so corrupt as to help them stifle progress in the entertainment industry.

 

[Zorba]

I'm of the opinion that the "product line" of the motion picture and recording industries are the primary reason for declining revenue over the last 10 years...not 12 year old kids downloading Metallica songs.

The quality of music and movies created by mainstream movie studios and recording artists (those represented by the MPAA and the RIAA) has been declining steadily.

Besides the fact that movies and music has gone downhill, there is mush more entertainment competition nowadays. Such as video games, jet skies, etc

 

[Craig234]

Then the analogy you made is wrong by default.

The RIAA and the MPAA are old tech and they refuse to adapt. Generally, a business that refuses to adapt to changing market trends goes bankrupt. Here's hoping that our government isn't so corrupt as to help them stifle progress in the entertainment industry.

Craig234: "Analogy: Bad tv is like Roman circuses - keep the people happy and distracted from paying attention to the leaders."

Drebo: "Then the RIAA is a circus, a bunch of clowns."

Craig234: "No, that's not what the analogy is about."

Drebo: "Then it's wrong if it's not about what I say."

Uh, no.

I made a point. You are making an unrelated point. My analogy is not for your point. It is for my point.

Not being about your point doesn't make it "wrong".

 

[drebo]

Idiot, you quoted me in your post about your analogy. How is it NOT about my point?

Regardless, if you improperly identify the players in your analogy, your analogy cannot be correct.

Let's disect it:

Your pointing out what's happening now is like the buggy whip industry saying when there are 1,000 cars in the US, 'don't worry, those cars are a hassle and most people still use horses'.

Your assertion is that I am like the buggy whip industry in saying that because piracy isn't a problem NOW that it might not become a problem in years to come. That analogy is not correct because it reverses the roles as they are applicable to reality: my point of view (and the Internet) is like the idea of cars...they were buggy and mostly useless at first, but soon became incredibly useful; whereas the RIAA is like the horse-drawn carridge makers thinking that there's no possible way these useless, unreliable 4-wheeled machines are going to threaten their business model.

The premise of your analogy is backwards, and therefore the analogy doesn't work.

 

[Craig234]

Idiot

Irony of the week award, and the end of my reading of your post and you in this thread.

Assuming you said something still not getting the analogy, I'll spell it out in tiny letters, not for your benefit really since that's pretty clearly not something you are going to get, but for the record to be clear.

I made a point about the difference between the current piracy level/impact - all you can talk about - and the threat it poses as technology continues to develop making it easier.

That analogy used people who made the same mistake in the early days of cars, saying 'not many cars have been sold it's no big deal', by looking only at the level at the moment of car sales.

The analogy was for pointing out that they did not appreciate the threat as the car market/technology developed, as you do not as digital duplication technology continues to get better/cheaper/more widespread/etc.

That was the purpose of the analogy for my point, and you can try to make your own, which I won't be reading.