Billiard torrent?

BassMasterK said:
What profession can you name where a person sets a certain bar for income and then works the rest of the year for free? Your right, everyone does want to be a millionaire, that is the american way and that is what fuels creativity among the masses.

You can say people use torrents to review a product and some do, but the vast majority of the people I know find convenient ways to not end up paying for something that they already illegally got for free.

And you totally didn't understand my last paragraph. The Beatles weren't so rich they didn't feel the need to tour. Their albums became so sonically large and intricate that they couldn't logistally actually play them live up on stage. I like your attempt at demonizing them as hurting their faithful fans in an effort to validate the theft of other people's copywritten material, but in this case your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...

They don't set bars, so those who can't afford it, get it anyway possible. My example was more focus on artist, you go double platinum and you grinning from cheek to cheek so why not give the rest to the public? Yeah you went double platinum and everyone getting paid and for sure you going to drop another album 6 months are so later so why not? That's why people take from torrents and the price for albums, pool videos etc are too much to begin with, the price is set to make them millionaires not simply make a good profit. It's all for the money and we know that and that's why kazaa was created LOL i think.

Anyway... I'm done talking about this really. I bought a couple of pool videos and some was very disappointing in every word. Thanks to torrent sites, people can do there own review and then purchase.

EDIT: when I say give to the public i'm talking about downloading not from retail stores. some people will still buy from retail stores because they want the box cover, dvd if included etc. so it's a win win LOL
 
Last edited:
JusticeNJ said:
http://www.accu-stats.com/Qstore/Qstore.cgi?CMD=011&PROD=1170624753

Is that it? I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to help.
Click to expand...

Yes, that looks like it. He has three videos, the 9-ball video, the clock system, and "how do I win from here?". It's the first one.

As for the person who thinks musicians should be limited on how much profit they can make, why is it limited to musicians? If someone invents a non-copyable item and becomes a millionaire, do you mandate they have to give away all future profits? Sounds like communism...

Like I said in my previous post, I understand many people will decide what they choose to buy or download privately, but anyone who publicly tries to justify it with such weak examples and "hey they're rich enough already" type arguments... comes across as a fool, to me.
 
To BassMasterK.... facts are out, people who download as a personal review do actually buy the product ;)

here is the link if the post was too long.... http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/20203.cfm


Illegal downloaders stlil buying more music than most

3 November 2009 5:09 by Rich "vurbal" Fiscus | 1 comment
Illegal downloaders stlil buying more music than most The results of a new study conducted by Demos, a London-based public policy think tank, once again affirm that the people who download the most music spend more than average buying music legally.

Demos talked to 1,008 UK residents between the ages of 16 and 50. Each respondent was asked about their use of both legal and illegal means to obtain music. Their conclusions match those of other studies conducted in the past.

Of those who said they download from P2P or other unauthorized sources, the number who buy "a lot more" music is almost exactly the same as those who buy "a lot less," at 10% and 11% respectively. Nearly half of illegal downloaders (47%) said it doesn't affect how much music they buy.

That should be the most important fact for record labels, because compared to the population as a whole those unauthorized downloaders buy a lot.

Although the percentage who also buy CDs was almost identical among illegal downloaders and the entire group surveyed, the average amount of money spent was considerably higher - £77 for unauthorized downloaders compared to £51 for all respondents.

In other words most people aren't downloading illegally because they don't want to pay. They do it because they love music.

Study results also indicate that most people would stop downloading illegally if there were a possibility of getting kicked off the internet for a month. For labels this must seem like a great argument for implementing Lord Mandelson's controversial three strikes plan, but is it really?

The problem with that reasoning is it doesn't address what should be the main focus of any business; how to make more money. That is, after all, what businesses are supposed to be doing.

Disconnecting file sharers from the internet doesn't just cut them off from illegal downloads. It also blocks them from reaching the legal download sites labels increasingly rely on for revenue.

If you make it harder for your customers to spend money on your product common sense says some of them will give that money to the competition. And make no mistake there's more competition for entertainment now than ever before.

If it were your business, how much money would you spend to get laws which send your customers away?

Permalink to this article | Topics: Lawsuits & Legislation MP3 & Digital Audio Online music services

to shinobi.... since im here and i posted when i said i wasn't i'll just answer.
The point was, if the music was for the people as 99.99% of them claims, then why the high price for an album, single track and a dang ringtone? and im not saying don't make a profit from your hard work/creativity because that's your income for yourself/family. $500,000 a year is rich money and with that income the price of music can be affordable by the broke public but when something is over price and people can't afford it then "the people" create an alternative way of getting it. For example, say itune store have a bug and the songs are on sale for 10 cents, i can guarantee that there server would get overload from all the web traffic during that short amount bug time. a product become affordable, people buys it.
 
To Bezerk, your "facts" do not mean anything. First off, saying that people that illegally download music actually buy music is like saying that people who steal groceries "actually buy groceries!". Well that is no suprise, of course there are. This does not make the theft okay.

Your "article of proof" has all sorts of problems. The sample size is rediculously small. In addition you are relying on people to tell the truth, which can not be proven. Believe me, the RIAA has people smarter than you or I addressing this issue and if they thought for one second that illegal downloads were helping them, they would offer up all music as free downloads. I know people in school who have bought a few tunes, but the vast majority of their mp3 player has stolen music on it. I know another guy who straight up told me that he and most of his friends download all their music from torrent sites because "they can't afford it". There has become a sense of entitlement when it comes to digital media that if one doesn't "think" they can afford it, it should be free. Yet most of the same people don't have that attitude about any other product.

You also seem to have misconceptions that the musicians that are making this music are all rich. You even mentioned something about a double-platinum album. Take a look at how many artists are hitting double platinum. It isn't very many. Record sales are at an all time low and illegal downloading is at an all time high...coincidence? This is forcing the labels to only go with "sure hits" where they will see a return on their investment which in general means crappier music for us. My friend was signed by Capital. He and his bandmates all thought they had it made. They were $400k in the hole just on the recording. Agent gets 15%. Manager gets 15%. Producer has points on the album. Lead engineer has a point on the album. Everyone has their hands in their pocket and they don't see a dime until they have made $400,001. They got about $1 an album, a very common deal. They were shopped, single didn't hit and they were shelved. That is the reality for most musicians. You want to hear something before buying it? Fine. Listen to the radio. Visit the bands website. Visit their MySpace Page. Hell, even Amazon lets you hear 30 second clips of almost every artist they stock. Just because you want to hear something doesn't mean you get the right to decide how you get to hear it.

I have had this argument several times on several forums and I have yet to lose it. I don't want to take the time and energy to do it again, it rarely has any major effect. But let me ask you this:

Let's say your friend tells you about some new game of pool. Would you ever consider sneaking on a table and stealing $10 worth of table time from your local pool hall to find out if you like the game? After all, the tables are already there. It isn't costing the owner anything if you do it. And if you like it, maybe you will pay him money to actually play it more! I'm guessing the answer is no. And why? Because you would get caught. This is where we see where people's real moral compass lies. What do you do when there is no risk of getting caught.

Like others have said, wear your badge with pride. Do what you want to do. But trying to justify illegal downloads makes you look silly.
 
BassMasterK said:
saying that people that illegally download music actually buy music is like saying that people who steal groceries "actually buy groceries!".
Click to expand...

That made me chuckle. Nicely put!

You made some great points, but sadly the people who are in denial will not listen. Hell, I'd be surprised if they even bother to read what you wrote. Simply put, they just don't care.

Thanks for the back up. Rep to you.
 
If your downloading a match to watch or a game who cares???...you say the "artist" isn't getting paid, well, what about the people who are actually shooting the games? If I pay for this they still don't get a dime, just the guy who shot the film. Isn't he "stealing" from the actual artist, the guy at the table playing the match? He's making a profit from all the hard work that guy did to get to where he is at. Shame on all you hypocritical video producers!
 
D-Rock said:
If your downloading a match to watch or a game who cares???...you say the "artist" isn't getting paid, well, what about the people who are actually shooting the games? If I pay for this they still don't get a dime, just the guy who shot the film. Isn't he "stealing" from the actual artist, the guy at the table playing the match? He's making a profit from all the hard work that guy did to get to where he is at. Shame on all you hypocritical video producers!
Click to expand...

Companies like Accu-stats and TAR pay the players either up front or royalties based on sales. Not to mention they pay for video equipment and time to make the match that you somehow feel you deserve to watch for free using your own backwards justification. Where is their motivation to keep buying equipment, keep filming events, keep paying players for future events if people think like you do?

Not only are you wrong, but the way you confidently present the information like you know it (when in fact you are 100% wrong) should embarrass you.

Incidentally, nobody is saying the players are getting rich off the video sales but neither are the producers. Pool is what it is. Gotta start somewhere.

Once again I just cannot see the logic in attacking the producers. Where do these people come from?
 
Last edited:
shinobi said:
Companies like Accu-stats and TAR pay the players either up front or royalties based on sales. Not to mention they pay for video equipment and time to make the match that you somehow feel you deserve to watch for free using your own backwards justification. Where is their motivation to keep buying equipment, keep filming events, keep paying players for future events if people think like you do?

Not only are you wrong, but the way you confidently present the information like you know it (when in fact you are 100% wrong) should embarrass you.

Incidentally, nobody is saying the players are getting rich off the video sales but neither are the producers. Pool is what it is. Gotta start somewhere.

This post just shows your complete lack of knowledge. No players get paid "royalties" for their matches being sold. The money does not come from the sales of the video's, it comes from companies paying for the advertising time. Advertising is what runs this business, not dvd sales. The companies don't care how the advertising gets out there, as long as it does. That pays for the camera's, lights, etc. I can understand small fees to cover the actual dvd and shipping cost's, but at some of the astonishing prices of these things its no wonder people would rather download them.

Once again I just cannot see the logic in attacking the producers. Where do these people come from?
Click to expand...

Your post shows your complete lack of knowledge on who gets paid and who pays for what....

1. Players do NOT get royalties from their matches.
2. Sponsors who pay for advertising is how these people get paid.

Advertisers don't care if you buy the dvd, or download the torrent, just as long as you see the advertising. They are the ones who are writing the checks that make this happen. Its their money that pays for the camera, lights, etc, and if you try to tell me you do this for a living and i'm wrong then perhaps you should get out of the business or at least go back to school and learn where the money is at. It is NOT in retail sales, that makes up such a small percentage of the whole pie.
 
D-Rock said:
Your post shows your complete lack of knowledge on who gets paid and who pays for what....

1. Players do NOT get royalties from their matches.
2. Sponsors who pay for advertising is how these people get paid.

Advertisers don't care if you buy the dvd, or download the torrent, just as long as you see the advertising. They are the ones who are writing the checks that make this happen. Its their money that pays for the camera, lights, etc, and if you try to tell me you do this for a living and i'm wrong then perhaps you should get out of the business or at least go back to school and learn where the money is at. It is NOT in retail sales, that makes up such a small percentage of the whole pie.
Click to expand...

Umm, again you are WRONG. TAR does give royalties to the players from the sales of the DVD's. So is there anything else you'd like to comment on that you have no knowledge of? As for going back to school, I've got an MBA, how about you?
 
D-Rock said:
Your post shows your complete lack of knowledge on who gets paid and who pays for what....

1. Players do NOT get royalties from their matches.
2. Sponsors who pay for advertising is how these people get paid.

Advertisers don't care if you buy the dvd, or download the torrent, just as long as you see the advertising. They are the ones who are writing the checks that make this happen. Its their money that pays for the camera, lights, etc, and if you try to tell me you do this for a living and i'm wrong then perhaps you should get out of the business or at least go back to school and learn where the money is at. It is NOT in retail sales, that makes up such a small percentage of the whole pie.
Click to expand...

You use the words "complete lack of knowledge" even though you continue to post erroneous information...

You've heard now first hand from TAR and Nathan that they do pay the players (including royalties). There have also been confirmations on AZBilliards in the past, from players who received royalty checks from Accu-Stats.

Here's just one example (there are others)
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=136947

As for the advertisers/sponsors, again I remind you this is pool we're talking about here. Not the NFL. How much money do you think there is in pool? Have you not seen the thread after thread after thread after thread of people worrying about the lack of $$ and sponsorship in pool? All the failed ventures? Who's getting rich producing pool videos?

Nobody needs to go back to school, you just need to get back to reality, and probably should retract your ridiculous statements and complaints about "hypocritical video producers".

Or you could just keep shoving your foot further into your mouth...

Your Fred Flinstone avatar suits you. Ignorant, yet confident (when wrong) and stubborn as they come.
 
shinobi said:
You use the words "complete lack of knowledge" even though you continue to post erroneous information...

You've heard now first hand from TAR and Nathan that they do pay the players (including royalties). There have also been confirmations on AZBilliards in the past, from players who received royalty checks from Accu-Stats.
Click to expand...

Shinobi, just need to correct your above statement. I am not a spokesman for TAR. Although I've worked with them and am an avid fan of TAR and friends with Justin and Nasty, they are the ones who created and run the comapny. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that players have been paid royalties for the sales of their DVD's.
 
1. Players do NOT get royalties from their matches.
Click to expand...
Pro players who are being filmed for the purpose of the eventual outcome of making DVD's for profit are just like actors. There are contracts that have to agreed upon. So, you're going to tell a pro that he/she are going to be recorded. DVD's will be sold and they're going to get diddly for it. Thats funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top