Grim Fandango

You both have mega cool portraits! That's my only excuse and I'm sticking to it!

Piracy is a very emotive subject, especially for creators of pirated content, and I have been involved in three industries now which have dealth with piracy in different ways: Music, Video Games and as a Youtube producer.
I feel because it is such an emotive subject, there is a lot of assumptions made and they can be incorrect, for example, every instance of piracy is a lost sale is a common attitude among publishers and studios in the video game industry, yet it is demonstratably false, and some studios report an increase in sales after a pirated version is released.
So this is my 2p, and the reason I created an account to stop lurking here: Piracy is a service problem.
Piracy was rampant in the music industry, it was and still is easy, the file sizes are small and nearly any album can be found and downloaded in 5 minutes flat. At first, the industry cracked down hard on the file sharers and site owners, however the legal system cannot keep pace with the internet and the vast majority of cases were dropped because digital evidence is notoriously expensive to collect, easy to manipulate and rarely is more than circumstantial. Besides which, for every site that gets taken down after a year of work, twenty more spring up, with more sophisticated defences against detection. Why then is the music industry, particularly the indie scene in rude health? Well, simply because it is easier to get digital music legally than it is illegally. People are definately willing to pay for music, and most people with the disposable income will pay for it if they can.
Now, lets look at the most pirated tv show of 2015 - Game of Thrones. Lets look at how convienient it is to obtain legally in the UK. You can of course buy a DVD set of season 5, watch it "live" on sky or buy a Now TV pass. The most expensive option by far is Sky, costing a minimum of £400, though admittedly, this gets you 2 seasons - 24 month bundle and you get to record it, watch on your tv etc. A DVD is the cheapest option, at £20 for the season, though you have to wait until you can buy it. The middle option is to buy a now TV pass each month that an episode is broadcast, costing £21, if you're smart and you get to watch it live. The problem is, people are already paying for a Netflix subscription, Amazon Prime, Spotify, have a library of steam games, have a library of DVD's, and quite often, they just want to be in the loop. They don't care about game of thrones as much as talking about game of thrones with their friends, so the £20 is not something they're willing to pay. So they don't because it's just not worth the money + hastle of waiting or figuring out Now TV. These are not people who will pay for GoT anyway. If you implimented a perfect piracy prevention system, they would not pay.
So the question is, if you can, as kaylee wishes, implement a perfect piracy protection system - which you never can - if it displays on a monitor, you can simply set up a dummy software monitor which "displays it" into a memory buffer and records it from there - but if you could and the budget made sense, they why wouldn't you? It's a service problem again. Yes, you may prevent piracy, but at what cost to your legitimate customers, the ones who gave you the full asking cost to watch your content. You make your product much worse for them, and that has proven time and time again to cost you customers. Gametrailers shut down this week, why, because of their insistance on using proprietry video player. The audience doesn't want to deal with "not as good as youtube", and so they just don't. They go elsewhere, even at the expense of missing out on that content. Kaylee, you could introduce some system with timed tokens and whatever, but all you would do is annoy people who gave you their money as halfway through watching your video, you get an error and they have to reload to start watching again, yet I promise you, the pirates who paid nothing, who stripped that system out of your video would be getting a better deal. You know what companies I will no longer buy from? Companies like EA, who's paying customers get a substandard product as a direct result of anti-piracy measures, when the pirates get the product the creaters intended.
I think you just have to accept the basic premise that piracy happens, it's a cost of doing business over the internet - the business 99% of small content creators wouldn't have if it weren't for the internet. It's worth considering that not every pirate is a lost sale, if the content isn't worth it to them, if they cannot afford your content, then they never were going to give you the money. That they get the content anyway is maybe worth making peace with, and focus your efforts on making better content that appeals to more people, so that the balance shifts, that it becomes worth the asking price for more people, and the evidence suggests that if you do that, more people will pay for your content.
Finally, it really is worth looking hard at the demographic of pirates. The research by Excipio shows that piracy is most common among the poorest, and youngest in their surveys - correlation is not causality, but can you so easily dismiss the idea that the $3 the Sundance Infographic tosses out as "only" when $2 is more than a days pay for half the worlds population - would you pay a day and a thirds pay for a movie? I wouldn't, because for me, that would, on a bad day be the equivilent of dropping £150. And yes, if you put the cost of access to your movie at £150, yes, I would pirate it.

You both have mega cool portraits! That's my only excuse and I'm sticking to it!

So... you spliced me and Zak together like Brundle Fly.
Well, I suppose I've had people do worse to me than that. LOLZ!

you're making an assumption about me... i'm not an advocate for or against piracy. i've only relayed my personal experiences with it. the day i discovered the torrents of my movie I had two thoughts. First was, "this is amazing!!!" and the second was, "shit! what if my distributor finds out?"  I see the good, i see the bad. I've declined an invitation from the MPAA to speak on indies' behalf because, like most things, i know the truth of this matter lies somewhere in the middle. you don't need to convince *me* of anything. i asked for citation so you would back up your posts. without it, it comes across as asserting "opinion as fact".

And don't forget that while it has the DOF of a 1.8, in light terms, it is illuminating like a 2.8 on a crop frame sensor - making the speed boosted 70-200 faster

Re: Streaming on your own website - if it can be displayed on a screen, it can be ripped, by using a software that masquerades as a screen, then records what it is "displaying". You will still have your movie pirated. Sorry.
It may be a nightmare, but just keep on top of the distribution, shut it down, dedicate a quarter of an hour as regularly as you can to searching and composing your boiler plate "remove this content from your service please" email and you will limit it as much as you ever can. Don't risk your sanity over it, you've got bigger problems, including:
Piracy is an easy scapegoat as to why your movie wasn't profitable. No-one has yet been able to prove a shred of economic damage as a result of piracy, and these consultation firms have been investigating the issue for decades. There IS solid data which supports the theory that people who view your content for free today pay more for the content you produce tomorrow. There is also solid evidence that the vast majority - over 99% of "download incidences" are non conversions i.e. this download is not a lost sale. They are other pirate bay type operations who want it on their service, they are the bots which trawl the internet logging god knows what, they are people who cannot afford your movie anyway and they are people who download it and never open the file.
I think people who are blaming piracy for their lack of profitability are, on the whole, looking to blame anything that was "done to them" to explain their lack of profitability, it's a lot more seductive than having to change how one approaches the commercial side of the business. People seem to have this over-romanticised idea of "the movie business" that never existed. It has always been cold and difficult for new talent, low budget productions and independants. People have always taken advantage of your hard work, taken it for free and put their name on it.
Nothing has changed, except that it's gotten easier and cheaper to make content, distribute it and earn from it. Sure, it's not all roses, but it's a hell of a lot easier than it was 30 years ago. So are they all paranoid conspiracy theories, no, there is always that guy, sat at his computer smug that he watched a movie for free, they exist. But honestly, was he ever going to pay for your film? There are always those in different economic circumstances who cannot afford the lowest price you could distribute your film to them for. Will half the world ever start paying the "low" $3, when they earn $2 a day, and need to pay rent, feed themselves, keep themselves healthy and bring up their kids first - will they ever pay you? But some people who download your movie do find themselves in better economic circumstances. And the evidence shows that they do then start paying for their entertainment that they used to get for free.
So the theories are correct, but the economic damage is pie in the sky - numbers they pulled out of their backsides, they don't know that if piracy didn't exist, they would have taken an extra $250k. They just ran some stupid algorithm that they think sounds reasonable - 10% of all downloads would have paid me because, despite non of the evidence pointing to that, I believe it is so.
And quite frankly, the people who have made themselves mentally ill, and driven themselves to the point of suicide have much bigger problems than bankrupsy - which people, especially self employed people in the lowest end of their industry go through every day and continue to lead rich and fulfilling lives. They deserve our sympathy, our help and support and all the good will of the community. I travelled to Japan to meet with a guy I only knew through the internet because when youtube deleted his account after three bogus copyright strikes, he said some really worrying things. He lost his livelyhood overnight, because someone content claimed Kevin McClouds music, and Google don't care. Guess what, he was really really sick - this was just the trigger. He got the help he needed and is doing OK now, people don't commit suicide, attempt it or even contemplate it unless they are seriously ill anyway and needed the help regardless, or are making a cry for help and attention. And they absolutely deserve our help, our attention and our good will. False platitudes don't help - playing along with their narrative that "the pirates did it to me" is just as damaging as playing along with a person with dementia's false beliefs, or agreeing that you can see something that a person with schizophrenia thinks is real. It may be the easy way to "help" them in the short term, but long term, their condition gets worse below the platitude.
And finally, if you punish your paying customers by dracconian measures to "lock it down", your paying customers get fed up with seeing the people who download it for free get a better product than they do. Reread every comment in this thread with this in mind: Piracy is a service issue. Look at Cinegain "People seem to prefer the convienience of pai services" - service issue, Silvertones "I subscribe to XBox music because" - service issue, sanveer - "people want quality" - service issue, the whole pornography debate, what drives the porn industry - free easily accessible porn.
I don't have the answers, but I don't want to see only the profitable movies be made. That's why I support content creators I admire through patreon, kickstarter et al. Not practical for indie movies, but it's evidence that other forms of entertianment have adapted and survived. Of the industries I am interested in, Boardgames - the biggest game in the world right now was a print and play (read as download for free) game. People pay to get nice cards. Computer games - the biggest games in the world right now are free to play. Youtube content - advert supported content, free to the user. What do you notice - the industries have pushed their content to the user and made it as accessible as possible. Take a look at the recent sim city vs a direct rival Cities Skylines. Simcity had dracconian anti piracy measures. Cities Skylines did not. Simcity was a disaster, directly as a result of it's DRM and a commercial flop for EA. Cities Skylines is one of the industries top sellers right now, continuing to take more money on a recent expansion. They are almost exactly the same game. As I said, I don't have the answers, but I sure know that "locking it down" is guarenteed to cost you income.

Piracy is a very emotive subject, especially for creators of pirated content, and I have been involved in three industries now which have dealth with piracy in different ways: Music, Video Games and as a Youtube producer.
I feel because it is such an emotive subject, there is a lot of assumptions made and they can be incorrect, for example, every instance of piracy is a lost sale is a common attitude among publishers and studios in the video game industry, yet it is demonstratably false, and some studios report an increase in sales after a pirated version is released.
So this is my 2p, and the reason I created an account to stop lurking here: Piracy is a service problem.
Piracy was rampant in the music industry, it was and still is easy, the file sizes are small and nearly any album can be found and downloaded in 5 minutes flat. At first, the industry cracked down hard on the file sharers and site owners, however the legal system cannot keep pace with the internet and the vast majority of cases were dropped because digital evidence is notoriously expensive to collect, easy to manipulate and rarely is more than circumstantial. Besides which, for every site that gets taken down after a year of work, twenty more spring up, with more sophisticated defences against detection. Why then is the music industry, particularly the indie scene in rude health? Well, simply because it is easier to get digital music legally than it is illegally. People are definately willing to pay for music, and most people with the disposable income will pay for it if they can.
Now, lets look at the most pirated tv show of 2015 - Game of Thrones. Lets look at how convienient it is to obtain legally in the UK. You can of course buy a DVD set of season 5, watch it "live" on sky or buy a Now TV pass. The most expensive option by far is Sky, costing a minimum of £400, though admittedly, this gets you 2 seasons - 24 month bundle and you get to record it, watch on your tv etc. A DVD is the cheapest option, at £20 for the season, though you have to wait until you can buy it. The middle option is to buy a now TV pass each month that an episode is broadcast, costing £21, if you're smart and you get to watch it live. The problem is, people are already paying for a Netflix subscription, Amazon Prime, Spotify, have a library of steam games, have a library of DVD's, and quite often, they just want to be in the loop. They don't care about game of thrones as much as talking about game of thrones with their friends, so the £20 is not something they're willing to pay. So they don't because it's just not worth the money + hastle of waiting or figuring out Now TV. These are not people who will pay for GoT anyway. If you implimented a perfect piracy prevention system, they would not pay.
So the question is, if you can, as kaylee wishes, implement a perfect piracy protection system - which you never can - if it displays on a monitor, you can simply set up a dummy software monitor which "displays it" into a memory buffer and records it from there - but if you could and the budget made sense, they why wouldn't you? It's a service problem again. Yes, you may prevent piracy, but at what cost to your legitimate customers, the ones who gave you the full asking cost to watch your content. You make your product much worse for them, and that has proven time and time again to cost you customers. Gametrailers shut down this week, why, because of their insistance on using proprietry video player. The audience doesn't want to deal with "not as good as youtube", and so they just don't. They go elsewhere, even at the expense of missing out on that content. Kaylee, you could introduce some system with timed tokens and whatever, but all you would do is annoy people who gave you their money as halfway through watching your video, you get an error and they have to reload to start watching again, yet I promise you, the pirates who paid nothing, who stripped that system out of your video would be getting a better deal. You know what companies I will no longer buy from? Companies like EA, who's paying customers get a substandard product as a direct result of anti-piracy measures, when the pirates get the product the creaters intended.
I think you just have to accept the basic premise that piracy happens, it's a cost of doing business over the internet - the business 99% of small content creators wouldn't have if it weren't for the internet. It's worth considering that not every pirate is a lost sale, if the content isn't worth it to them, if they cannot afford your content, then they never were going to give you the money. That they get the content anyway is maybe worth making peace with, and focus your efforts on making better content that appeals to more people, so that the balance shifts, that it becomes worth the asking price for more people, and the evidence suggests that if you do that, more people will pay for your content.
Finally, it really is worth looking hard at the demographic of pirates. The research by Excipio shows that piracy is most common among the poorest, and youngest in their surveys - correlation is not causality, but can you so easily dismiss the idea that the $3 the Sundance Infographic tosses out as "only" when $2 is more than a days pay for half the worlds population - would you pay a day and a thirds pay for a movie? I wouldn't, because for me, that would, on a bad day be the equivilent of dropping £150. And yes, if you put the cost of access to your movie at £150, yes, I would pirate it.

There is some for sure.  I wouldn't call it severe - this was the 85 1.2 II @ 2.8.  Closer to wide open it gets worse.
Just went back into Lightroom - I didn't even have the "remove chromatic aberration" box checked.  But IMO this lens is known to exhibit purple fringing badly.  It's not a defect that bothers me that much, so who cares.
I like lenses with character more than the sterile "sharp" image.  IQ and what is best is always subjective.

Pewdipie doesn't make his money from ad revinue, nor do many, if any successful youtubers - I define success as full time and paying the bills for someone not living with their parents. We make our money from promotional deals and brand associations. (And Jim Sterling from Patreon)I personally have stopped monitising my content because the money I earn from running ads is an absolute pitance in comparison. My non paid content is there specifically for audience retention, which gives me guarenteed eyes on my paid content, which directly relates to how much I can ask for.

Piracy is a very emotive subject, especially for creators of pirated content, and I have been involved in three industries now which have dealth with piracy in different ways: Music, Video Games and as a Youtube producer.
I feel because it is such an emotive subject, there is a lot of assumptions made and they can be incorrect, for example, every instance of piracy is a lost sale is a common attitude among publishers and studios in the video game industry, yet it is demonstratably false, and some studios report an increase in sales after a pirated version is released.
So this is my 2p, and the reason I created an account to stop lurking here: Piracy is a service problem.
Piracy was rampant in the music industry, it was and still is easy, the file sizes are small and nearly any album can be found and downloaded in 5 minutes flat. At first, the industry cracked down hard on the file sharers and site owners, however the legal system cannot keep pace with the internet and the vast majority of cases were dropped because digital evidence is notoriously expensive to collect, easy to manipulate and rarely is more than circumstantial. Besides which, for every site that gets taken down after a year of work, twenty more spring up, with more sophisticated defences against detection. Why then is the music industry, particularly the indie scene in rude health? Well, simply because it is easier to get digital music legally than it is illegally. People are definately willing to pay for music, and most people with the disposable income will pay for it if they can.
Now, lets look at the most pirated tv show of 2015 - Game of Thrones. Lets look at how convienient it is to obtain legally in the UK. You can of course buy a DVD set of season 5, watch it "live" on sky or buy a Now TV pass. The most expensive option by far is Sky, costing a minimum of £400, though admittedly, this gets you 2 seasons - 24 month bundle and you get to record it, watch on your tv etc. A DVD is the cheapest option, at £20 for the season, though you have to wait until you can buy it. The middle option is to buy a now TV pass each month that an episode is broadcast, costing £21, if you're smart and you get to watch it live. The problem is, people are already paying for a Netflix subscription, Amazon Prime, Spotify, have a library of steam games, have a library of DVD's, and quite often, they just want to be in the loop. They don't care about game of thrones as much as talking about game of thrones with their friends, so the £20 is not something they're willing to pay. So they don't because it's just not worth the money + hastle of waiting or figuring out Now TV. These are not people who will pay for GoT anyway. If you implimented a perfect piracy prevention system, they would not pay.
So the question is, if you can, as kaylee wishes, implement a perfect piracy protection system - which you never can - if it displays on a monitor, you can simply set up a dummy software monitor which "displays it" into a memory buffer and records it from there - but if you could and the budget made sense, they why wouldn't you? It's a service problem again. Yes, you may prevent piracy, but at what cost to your legitimate customers, the ones who gave you the full asking cost to watch your content. You make your product much worse for them, and that has proven time and time again to cost you customers. Gametrailers shut down this week, why, because of their insistance on using proprietry video player. The audience doesn't want to deal with "not as good as youtube", and so they just don't. They go elsewhere, even at the expense of missing out on that content. Kaylee, you could introduce some system with timed tokens and whatever, but all you would do is annoy people who gave you their money as halfway through watching your video, you get an error and they have to reload to start watching again, yet I promise you, the pirates who paid nothing, who stripped that system out of your video would be getting a better deal. You know what companies I will no longer buy from? Companies like EA, who's paying customers get a substandard product as a direct result of anti-piracy measures, when the pirates get the product the creaters intended.
I think you just have to accept the basic premise that piracy happens, it's a cost of doing business over the internet - the business 99% of small content creators wouldn't have if it weren't for the internet. It's worth considering that not every pirate is a lost sale, if the content isn't worth it to them, if they cannot afford your content, then they never were going to give you the money. That they get the content anyway is maybe worth making peace with, and focus your efforts on making better content that appeals to more people, so that the balance shifts, that it becomes worth the asking price for more people, and the evidence suggests that if you do that, more people will pay for your content.
Finally, it really is worth looking hard at the demographic of pirates. The research by Excipio shows that piracy is most common among the poorest, and youngest in their surveys - correlation is not causality, but can you so easily dismiss the idea that the $3 the Sundance Infographic tosses out as "only" when $2 is more than a days pay for half the worlds population - would you pay a day and a thirds pay for a movie? I wouldn't, because for me, that would, on a bad day be the equivilent of dropping £150. And yes, if you put the cost of access to your movie at £150, yes, I would pirate it.

A newscast is copyrighted content, nothing about it is public domain. In fact virtually nothing has entered the public domain in the U.S. in decades, you can thank the fuck-tards at Disney for that one because every 10 years when Mickeys copyright is about to expire they shovel truckloads of cash at lobbyists and get the copyright extended. 
Rant off. I just hate copyrights being extended in perpetuity for the sake of greed, that was never the intention of copyright protection.

I'm not so sure about this - there is a lot of development into this technology right now, HDMI to USB converters are key in live streaming setups used on twitch tv and the likes. Currently the gold standard is the XCAPTURE-1 USB 3.0 HD Capture Unit, and this is the only external card of acceptable quality for a professional. There are amateur units avaliable, but they have issues, such as the Avermedia Live Gamer Extreme, and the quality is barely acceptable.
Such a small unit, I would expect massive latency and significant signal degradation.

The information you need to give to get a sensible answer is the following:
What is the thing you want to quote - is it a non-descript paragraph from a lengthy tome or is it the first verse from a short poem - the amount of the work you want to use and it's promenance is very important. Even a single line from a long book can land you in trouble, especially if that line were something like: "The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed" - one of the most iconic lines in Stephen King's "The Gunslinger" series would be absolutely off limits, whereas "The man in black travels with your soul in his pocket" from the same book would almost certainly be fine. As for the amount, the publisher almost certainly gives it's own authors guidance on the amount of work they can use in their books, they would be fighting a losing battle if you get a hold of that information and stick to it yourself.
Is the thing you want to quote an unadorned fact - if yes, then go ahead, it's fine - "Humans live on the Planet Earth" for example, however "Humanity existed on the surface of the planet earth like termintes in their mound" is adorned with descriptive language and this is copyrightable - I made that up fyi, and yes, you have my permission to use it however you wish
The purpose and character of use, is this a for profit venture, is it educational or entertainment - if it's both then for this purpose, it counts as entertainment unless it's aimed at children, when entertainment is beneficial to the education.
The other thing to consider is how your work relates to the work you want to quote - if your work makes any part of that obselete, i.e. something of value given in that work is replaced in yours, you would not be able to do this - e.g. if I were to make a documentary on whales and I quoted a book by Richard Attenborough about sea life, if even a paragraph of that book contained information about whales, then my work would make that paragraph obselete, and I would be in trouble.
If you are very confident that you are on the "fair use" side of all these terms, and very far on the fair use side, then you should be fine - at least in the US
 
 

Piracy is a very emotive subject, especially for creators of pirated content, and I have been involved in three industries now which have dealth with piracy in different ways: Music, Video Games and as a Youtube producer.
I feel because it is such an emotive subject, there is a lot of assumptions made and they can be incorrect, for example, every instance of piracy is a lost sale is a common attitude among publishers and studios in the video game industry, yet it is demonstratably false, and some studios report an increase in sales after a pirated version is released.
So this is my 2p, and the reason I created an account to stop lurking here: Piracy is a service problem.
Piracy was rampant in the music industry, it was and still is easy, the file sizes are small and nearly any album can be found and downloaded in 5 minutes flat. At first, the industry cracked down hard on the file sharers and site owners, however the legal system cannot keep pace with the internet and the vast majority of cases were dropped because digital evidence is notoriously expensive to collect, easy to manipulate and rarely is more than circumstantial. Besides which, for every site that gets taken down after a year of work, twenty more spring up, with more sophisticated defences against detection. Why then is the music industry, particularly the indie scene in rude health? Well, simply because it is easier to get digital music legally than it is illegally. People are definately willing to pay for music, and most people with the disposable income will pay for it if they can.
Now, lets look at the most pirated tv show of 2015 - Game of Thrones. Lets look at how convienient it is to obtain legally in the UK. You can of course buy a DVD set of season 5, watch it "live" on sky or buy a Now TV pass. The most expensive option by far is Sky, costing a minimum of £400, though admittedly, this gets you 2 seasons - 24 month bundle and you get to record it, watch on your tv etc. A DVD is the cheapest option, at £20 for the season, though you have to wait until you can buy it. The middle option is to buy a now TV pass each month that an episode is broadcast, costing £21, if you're smart and you get to watch it live. The problem is, people are already paying for a Netflix subscription, Amazon Prime, Spotify, have a library of steam games, have a library of DVD's, and quite often, they just want to be in the loop. They don't care about game of thrones as much as talking about game of thrones with their friends, so the £20 is not something they're willing to pay. So they don't because it's just not worth the money + hastle of waiting or figuring out Now TV. These are not people who will pay for GoT anyway. If you implimented a perfect piracy prevention system, they would not pay.
So the question is, if you can, as kaylee wishes, implement a perfect piracy protection system - which you never can - if it displays on a monitor, you can simply set up a dummy software monitor which "displays it" into a memory buffer and records it from there - but if you could and the budget made sense, they why wouldn't you? It's a service problem again. Yes, you may prevent piracy, but at what cost to your legitimate customers, the ones who gave you the full asking cost to watch your content. You make your product much worse for them, and that has proven time and time again to cost you customers. Gametrailers shut down this week, why, because of their insistance on using proprietry video player. The audience doesn't want to deal with "not as good as youtube", and so they just don't. They go elsewhere, even at the expense of missing out on that content. Kaylee, you could introduce some system with timed tokens and whatever, but all you would do is annoy people who gave you their money as halfway through watching your video, you get an error and they have to reload to start watching again, yet I promise you, the pirates who paid nothing, who stripped that system out of your video would be getting a better deal. You know what companies I will no longer buy from? Companies like EA, who's paying customers get a substandard product as a direct result of anti-piracy measures, when the pirates get the product the creaters intended.
I think you just have to accept the basic premise that piracy happens, it's a cost of doing business over the internet - the business 99% of small content creators wouldn't have if it weren't for the internet. It's worth considering that not every pirate is a lost sale, if the content isn't worth it to them, if they cannot afford your content, then they never were going to give you the money. That they get the content anyway is maybe worth making peace with, and focus your efforts on making better content that appeals to more people, so that the balance shifts, that it becomes worth the asking price for more people, and the evidence suggests that if you do that, more people will pay for your content.
Finally, it really is worth looking hard at the demographic of pirates. The research by Excipio shows that piracy is most common among the poorest, and youngest in their surveys - correlation is not causality, but can you so easily dismiss the idea that the $3 the Sundance Infographic tosses out as "only" when $2 is more than a days pay for half the worlds population - would you pay a day and a thirds pay for a movie? I wouldn't, because for me, that would, on a bad day be the equivilent of dropping £150. And yes, if you put the cost of access to your movie at £150, yes, I would pirate it.

The publisher will say no, it's literally their job to try to get you to pay money, whether you legally have to or not.

I think it's also worth picking up on the language being used here :-
Theft or stealing is a legal term to describe the act of taking something with the intention to deliberately deprive the owner of it.
Piracy in criminal law is the act of violence or depredation on the high seas, in the air for private ends using aircraft or boats.
Piracy in criminal law is also the theft* of intellectual property
*See definition of theft above
Piracy in civil law is the act of distributing intellectual property without permission for personal gain**
** Legal speak for gained liquidisable assets
Filesharing is the act of distributing intellectual property without permission
 
When someone looks up your movie on their favourite piracy website and clicks download, then goes and watches it, they have neither deprived you of your movie, it still exists on your hard drive, so they have stolen nothing from you***, neither have they used a boat or aircraft with violence in the air or on the high seas. Nor have they profited from it. The worst they have done, if we are being correct about what they have actually done is shared your work without your permission - and even then, only if they used a torrent service. There is no criminal or civil issue with someone watching your movie who hasn't paid for it, even public broadcast law allows you to buy a DVD and let your wife watch it.
*** The money they had to pay you to otherwise access the content was never legally yours, so they couldn't have stolen it from you - if you feel like it's a fair argument, then the repercussions of a change in the interpretation of the theft law would extend to shops - I intended to buy that thing she bought, therefore she stole it from me and there would be pandermonium. The best you can do is prove so that a judge is more sure than not in court that the person would have paid for your content, then you can ask the court to order them to pay you that money. This is surprisingly hard, because you will find it very difficult to prove they even watched the film.
I just wanted to make sure people were aware of the correct terminology, because the filesharers are not really the problem, yet they get the blame and all the articles mentioned above talk about pirates, yet then go on to provide numbers for file sharers, I feel like this was what Zak was getting at in his article, the key is indentifying and preventing the pirates, not the filesharers, but he does then talk about number of downloads. As I said above, pirates exist because filesharers needs are not being met legitimately. Give them a path to get your content within their means legitimately and they will, and the pirates will lose their consumers, driving them into their next illigitimate scam.