Slashdot Mirror
Live from Iran, Film88
MemFun writes "The now defunct Movie88.com has became Film88.com. These are the guys that are streaming a ton of movies for $1 a piece (but not allowing you to save the movie). Of course, to avoid all the Tinsel Town Club baddies (mpaa) from shutting them down, they are now based in Iran of all places. We just finished watching the free Harry Potter movie they are offering. Question: Does this make me a criminal? I really like the selection of movies they have and stream or not, it's still pretty cool to have the ability to watch some those movies that are never on TV any more."
Jeeze, no wonder they can only charge a dollar, do you know how many movies are illegal in Iran?
And the lag must be atrocious, I mean, what are they running the site off of, a T1? Come on guys...
I still can't get over the iran part...
Linux is dead.
LU
I believe it's illegal for U.S. persons to conduct *any* business with Iran, so how do they expect to get paid? "Europeans only?"
I know I should just look, but I'm too lazy. Do they run digitally copied versions of the movies? Or do they do analog-only version and have certain "playtimes"? I'd guess digital of some sort...
That's a whole lot of bandwidth if that's the case though, ouch. If you figure regular TV is 640x480, and you're trying to spit out 20-25FPS at 10-15k per image? Youch.
I'll have to check it out and give it a try.. Theres some newer movies recently released I'd like to take a look at.
With Mozilla on Linux, film88 didnt detect my RealPlayer plugin. I have to find a way to bypass their JavaScript...
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
We just finished watching the free Harry Potter movie they are offering. Question: Does this make me a criminal?
<SARCASM>
I just robbed this bank and killed this girl. Does this make me a criminal?
</SARCASM>
Seriously, aren't you asking that question a little late? If its what you want to do, may as well do it until you're satisfied. What's the point of stopping in the middle for a change-of-heart?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I can't help but wonder, will this service be available in Iran itself? How many of the movies offered online are illegal to watch in Iran (for promoting "sex," "immorality," and being "anti-Islamic?") Will local religious fundementalists shut down the service before the MPAA can?
Notice how the author says "We just finished watching the free Harry Potter movie they are offering"
/.'ed soon.
Then he submits the story.
Smart guy...it'll be
I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
ianal, but:
You are not in violation of copyright. You may be in violation of a law which makes it unlawful to knowingly conspire to commit copyright violation by the Iranians. The Iranians are not in violation of copyright if they aquired the films in Iran, as Iran afact does not respect American copyright.
Fundamentally, it's up to the provider of the materials to verify that they have the proper licensing, not the consumer. However, if you definitively know that the provider does not have the appropriate permissions, this may not apply.
As always, IANALAIHWAMcB*
(*Although I Have Watched Ally McBeal)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
you should only support the site if it funnels any money made to nicaraguan rebels to help fight the good fight.
It's a pity that Film88.com's going to get my money instead of the MPAA.
"Derp de derp."
I would agree with you, except that the MPAA's not providing a similar service! I want to view movies on the web for a reduced price. They won't give me that because they assume I'm a criminal. So not only are they not responding to consumer demand, they're insulting me in the process.
Come to think of it, I think intertainer.tv might be supported by the MPAA. Not sure, though. It's easy to overlook it when you have Senator Disney trying to pass heavy handed legislation to put a stop to it.
"Derp de derp."
But isn't it interesting, that in their FAQ they murmur about trying to make alliances with content owners, in order to compensate them for the business they transact?
Also, I'm not 100% sure that Iran is a signatory to the international copyright laws anyway. So what exactly the MPAA could do is unclear...
How are they any different then blockbuster? You can't copy these movies and you arent suposed to copy the ones from blockbuster - and I would wager more people have access to VCRs and blockbusters then computers with net connections to do this.
They obviously bought the movie and now they rent it out
What did I miss? Oh, its digital so its evil
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Does this make me a criminal?
No, but their use of your credit card #'s might make you look like one.
-Sean
Put the site up on slashdot and *BOOM* we take it down.
Just because you haven't been provided with a service doesn't give you the right to illegially obtain it through other means. I'd write more but that's pretty much my entire point.
Whatever method you used, look for the MPAA to try to interfere with it, or get the government to do the interfering.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
have you seen those TV commercials about buying drugs "helps kill judges" because you are funding terrorists? These commercials forget to mention that:
cpeterso
Hey dudes,
There's a site called http://www.intertainer.tv where you can watch movies and TV shows. The prices are higher, but they've been around since last Oct or Nov. I've used them a couple of times and they're not too bad.
I think the price for movies is a bit high, but I'm willing to support this site. I'd like to prove to the industries involved that I'll pay for content I'm interested in.
It's worth a gander if you're remotely interested in this stuff. You can find out if it'll suit you or not before you pay anything. (They have previews for movies etc, all for free.)
"Derp de derp."
There a a big difference between the philosophies of the software libre movement and the philosophies of people who copy files without the copyright holder's authorization.
Software libre is not about this. Yeah, RMS rants about how it would be nice if copyrights did not exist, but I don't think he would want to be in such a world. I do not think I would want to be in such a world myself. There is content out there that down right takes a lot of money to create. Movies. Music that uses an orchestra or session players. Video games. Content that would not exist in a world without copyrights.
Now, one of the things I love about the internet is that there is a lot of really great content out there which the copyright owners freely shares. mp3.com has a lot of really talented bands giving their music away (it's a shame that mp3.com is a borderline spamhaus; if you give them your email address, even when emailing a band to say you like their music, you end up on mp3.com's spam list). The whole software libre thing is about giving away some excellent software. Many authors are giving away their books. Free home-made movies. And so on.
There is enough free content out there that, dare I say, I do not think anyone needs to download copyrighted content without authorization to have a compelling internet existance. So it puzzles me that Slashdot continually links to "file sharing" programs and to pirates who share content without authorization.
I completely agree that the RIAA and the MPAA have always been overzealous about copyrights. The HRAA was an abomination; it killed the consumer DAT. As an electronic musician in the early 1990s that had to spend $1200 instead of $300-$600 for a digital tape deck because of the RIAA's actions, I am no friend of their copyright overzealousness.
However, the path of civil disobediance is not to copy movies en masse so that people can view movies without paying for them. Such self serving actions do not look very good in the harsh light of the courtroom; I think such activities contribute to the large number of lost court cases which are trying to fight the abomination called the DMCA.
If you wish to fight the DMCA and the even more evil children of the DMCA, it is important to make a clear stand that we are against this because the law is wrong, not because it gets in the way of having our pirated content fix.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Thats not exactly correct. Iran just has a hypocritical government which is perfectly willing to tell its citizens one thing and then sell out to some corporation for money. Thats not at all like the system we have in the US!
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
Film88 offers new movies at 1 dollar a piece for streaming.
MPAA and its cronies have a fit. Huddle together to see whats the best they could do. Disagree on forcing Bush to send a SAM in to the heart of Iran
Jack Valenti registers on Slashdot with a new nick "MemFun", posts the story on Slashdot
Sits back and waits till Film88 gets slashdotted in to oblivion.
Laughs, walks away holding the hand of a 20 something.
Rapid Nirvana
When are you going to understand that these poeple do not have the RIGHT to distribute movies without licensing them from the film industry? You people talk about YOUR rights being taken away and violated, what about the rights of the film and music industries? You have heard of that little piece of paper entitled the US COnstitution? It gives content creators five basic rights concerning their works of art, distribution being one of them. When a site like Napster or Film88 provides the same content without licensing the right to do so they are taking away the rights of the content creators. I hope the MPAA shuts this site down.
...Now that Iraq is off the hook.
; )
-b
The MPAA is bad. I'd wager most of the technology-literate world has figured that out by now. They're moneygrubbing monopolists, no doubt about it.
The current system of copyright and distribution is broken - no doubt about it.
But when you steal something, you're still stealing it. No amount of arguments about how the Iranians don't subscribe to international patent law, or about the fact that Film88 bought the movies and are just renting them, will change that.
So through some miracle of legal justification, you may in fact not be breaking the law. That's for the courts (or politics) to decide. You're buying from a thief. That might not make you a thief by legal definition, but what does it make you by moral definition?
Oh, wait. I forgot. We're all geeks here, so the only moral imperatives are: 1) information wants to be free, and 2) anyone trying to impede my freedom in any way is evil.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"Just because you haven't been provided with a service doesn't give you the right to illegially obtain it through other means."
In the same vein, just because the internet could be used for piracy, doesn't mean you have the right to call me a crook and try to take my rights away.
At this point, it's a question of mroality vs. legality. Am I right? Probably not. Do have a conscience about it? I used to until they tried to turn my computer into a set-top box.
Frankly, I have 0 sympathy for an industry that thinks it should take my rights away when I don't agree with it's ancient business model anymore.
"Derp de derp."
How are they preventing you from saving it?
As you mentioned, they're doing streaming HTTP, which Real won't save, and they have some very good techs who have made it as difficult as possible to connect with a non-Real client.. (I'm sure it's possible, but I gave up on that route)
it wouldn't be that hard to record the stream on a network level. As I understand it, you can rig squid to cache realplayer
Yes, this would work, but it would be kind of like using a sledgehammer to swat a mosquito..
A better solution is epoxy, which I used on Movie88 with great success.
So what?
If you could look past the "I deserve to get it for free" aspect that everyone here always trumpets, maybe you should ask yourself why you would support a country that condones terror. Way to look past the source, idiots. What if YOUR dollar went to buy a ticket for a terrorist.
C'mon. You might not have ethics for copyrights, but how about some ethics for human rights, at least.
Actually, you're wrong. But that's okay. You're also a coward.
Put aside your lame "intellectual property" bias for two seconds, and you'll realize that the viewer in this case committed no crime. Copyright law restricts the transmission of works, not the reception thereof. You might argue, in this case, that the viewer is making an unauthorized duplication, but if the bits are streamed then no duplication is made... this is essentially a broadcast. If I set up a radio station and play only infringing materials over the air, the listeners are not guilty of a crime.
I do not have a signature
"Swiss Bank Account"
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
First, I don't understand why the distinction between stealing and copyright infringement is so important to the slashdot herd. The bottom line is that they are freeloading criminals. Second, here are some definitions of "steal" that may be interesting:
I'd say that by this definition, copyright infringement does amount to stealing. I'd say that all three of these definitions apply -- (b) may be debatable, but (a) and (c) clearly apply.
"I'd like to have a car for under $1000, and since this is not offered, I should be able to steal one, right?"
If it cost a car manufacture $100 total, including labor and all that jazz, how would you feel about them trying to sell it to you for $20,000? The MPAA could easily provide Film88's service, but they won't for incredibly petty reasons.
You guys are seriously misinterpreting me here. Im not saying 'break the law when you disagree', Im saying "Hey look, I'm paying money to watch a movie on the web. Too bad the people who made the movie aren't getting that money when they could be." That's a little different than saying "Well I'm going to download movies from Kazaa for free instead."
"Derp de derp."
Hmmm, what about that Egyptian cleric who the BSA convinced to announce software piracy is the 'worst kind of crime?' I wonder what he'd say about this.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Many authors are giving away their books. Free home-made movies.
In all seriousness, are there any actual movie makers who are legitimately giving away their movies in watchable form (e.g. DivX)?
I would definitely take the time to download these, if I thought I could support a fledgeling industry. Do you know of any, though?
What if YOUR dollar went to buy a ticket for a terrorist.
t m for more info) Or some other way?
You mean the way all that US tax money given to Afghanistan over the years may have gone to terrrorists? (see http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.h
I do not have a signature
The thing that's amusing about the existence of this site is that it points out the tremendous idiocy of the MPAA. That is to say, that despite all of their efforts to shut down things like this, they pop up anyhow. They just show up in another jurisdiction and suddenly all the dumb laws and flawed technical protections are totally worthless.
If instead they were offering this service, right now, the operation in Iran would exist, and the MPAA would be making this money. I'm not going to sit here and suggest for a moment that this is somehow morally right, or justifiable. But I think all of this does make the point that the MPAA should stop trying to hold back the ocean with their legal brooms and start providing the services people want.
If they don't, somebody else will.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The reason they are different than Blockbuster is that Blockbuster is paying a premium price for those videos so that they can rent out (I'm not sure if it's a flat price up front or a per-use royalty, but they are definitely paying extra). This is the same reason that you cannot buy a bunch of videos yourself and legally rent them out. Right or wrong, that is the way the law is written, so until they have royalty contracts in place with the distributors, they are breaking (U.S.) law. If you do not like the law, write lots of letters to your congress persons and encourage all of your friends to do the same (NOTE: if you are not over 18, don't bother. You will be ignored. If you are over 18, you will probably be ignored anyway, but at least you did your duty as a Citizen).
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Just out of curiosity, do you consider the fact that BMW makes expensive cars a slap to the face of the poor?
*Sigh* I think in the effort for everybody to prove me wrong (funny how Slashdot works like that), what I'm saying's being twisted.
I'm not complaining about the cost of DVD's. I own quite a few DVD's actually. That's not my complaint at all. Nope. 0. Zilch.
There are movies I'd prefer to rent. Renting, though, can be a hassle. This is especially true since I'm a pedestrian and don't want to walk 20 minutes 1 way to Blockbuster. I'd rather rent over the internet. My willingness to pay $1 as opposed to downloading the movie for free on Kazaa proves that my intentions are good. Heck, I today pay more than that, I'm a subscriber to www.intertainer.tv. (I think they're legit with the MPAA, btw... not sure tho.)
You can say I'm 'rationalizing theft' all you want, the truth of the matter is that I'm a consumer willing to spend money to meet my needs. Do business with me if you want my money.
"Derp de derp."
so what your saying is, the US Constitution should apply to all countries?
btw, the US Constitution gives congress the power to allow for copyrights for reasonable time, if it should chose to do so.
Other rights are not granted bt the constitution. The constitution is a means to protect the inaliably rights of the people. In short, with or with out the constitution, you have the right to expouse you views, however, without the constitution, you have no right to copyrights, at all.
What if IRAN wanted to shut down a US server because it violated one of there laws?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Funny, I can't see where I advised people to download movies for free. Never mind that I already answered this question in this thread!
I don't understand how all of you can be against the MPAA for not providing these services, but when anybody does suddenly you're willing to defend the MPAA just to prove people wrong. The worst part is that my words are getting twisted around.
If you think I'm not making sense, then ask for clarification instead of simply assuming that I'm some evil jackass who won't pay for anything.
"Derp de derp."
NTSC has 525 scanlines. Not sure of the width though....
Thievery is when you take something from someone and they don't have it anymore, since you stole it. This is clearly morally and legally wrong. The taking of information is a much more grey area though. If I download Eminem's latest CD, rather than buy it at the store, is it stealing? Maybe--Eminem is out (a potential) $15. What if I download his CD, and can honestly say I wouldn't buy it, even if it wasn't on p2p? Well, in that case, he lost nothing and gained a listener. What if I've got $15 to spend and I pirate 3 different CDs, and buy the one I like the best? How about after hearing those CDs, I decide I just have to own 2 of them, and I scrounge up $30?
It's not a clear cut moral issue. What it really comes down to is this: are the labels and movie studios losing money due to piracy? All available evidence points to the notion that they're profiting from it. So far, that is. I figure the *AAs are working so hard to prevent piracy out of a (reasonable) fear that it will get out of hand and later on they will lose a lot of money from it. But until I see any evidence that piracy hurts the content distributers, I'll "pirate" with a clear conscience. And even after that, I'll buy from the musician-owned labels first.
I expect that Film88 buys DVDs, rips them, then streams them. So they have stolen nothing. What they are doing is circumventing the MPAA's business model, which may or may not be morally wrong, but it falls quite outside of "theft." We need new terms and new legislation to appropriately deal with this sort of thing.
c-hack.com |
Taco didn't see any such movie (from Film88) because the italicized and quoted text is what the story submitter wrote, not the /. editor.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Nobody's calling you a crook until you break legality and morality. People using this service are breaking both.
It's not a question of legality versus morality; if it were, doing the right thing would be illegal. In this case, though, doing the wrong thing is what's illegal.
I do agree that the industry here is trying to take your rights away. But this site has nothing to do with that effort, nor any other; it's simply some moneygrubbers violating copyright for profit.
-Billy
Congratulations, you are begging the question!
People want to pay for watching movies online with something like Film88. The problem is that the MPAA does not want the money.
No, the MPAA would rather sell you a DVD for $20 that you will watch twice than to let you watch a streamed film from Film88 for $1.
Sorry, I just find little reason for moral outrage of "piracy" of material the copyright holders refuse to sell in the first place. Certainly no financial loss is incurring; hell they don't even want the money.
The copyright holders are selling the films on DVD, VHS, and per-viewing in movie theaters. Did you ever consider that the motion picture studios have a relationship with theater owners, Best Buy, and Walmart (among thousands of others) and that they may not want to stream movies to your house?
All of that aside, you don't own the copyright to the movies. It's not your place to decide how they are distributed. If a director decides that streaming video does not do justice to his work, then he has a right to put a clause in his contract prohibiting its distribution via streaming video. If a studio wants to keep a film out of distribution so that they can build up demand for the upcoming DVD, that's their choice. It's not yours.
"In the same vein, just because the internet could be used for piracy, doesn't mean you have the right to call me a crook and try to take my rights away."
It's not a question of could be used. It is being used for piracy.
And last time I checked neither you nor anyone else has the right to steal. So no one is taking your "rights" away.
The parent post is entirely correct. If you want a service someone is not currently providing with their property, start your own service and negotiate the use of their property. This is like saying, hey I want a cab ride to the airport and the cab driver will not drive that far out of his area, screw him I'll just take his cab and use it anyway. But of course I'll leave him money for gas (as if that makes everything OK).
They're different from Blockbuster because Blockbuster pays more than the ~$20 retail price for a VHS tape or DVD in exchange for permission from the copyright holders (usually MPAA studios) to rent out movies (well, and for early availibility too). Film88 is more like pay-per-view than Blockbuster, but again, the PPV channel has paid for permission to broadcast the movie.
It's the permission that's the key here; simply buying a copy of a movie does not give one the right to make more copies or give public viewings (however you want to interpret streaming video), as the FBI warning at the front clearly states.
Iran is not a signatory country to the Berne Convention or Copyright Treaties so it would be tough to go after a company based there. However, those treaties do allow the copyright owners to enforce their copyright in the signatory countries, so a customer could be prosecuted under the laws of the country where they live. So for those of us in the USA, read that FBI warning a little more closely.
Some disclaimers: IANAL. I also don't think that copyright holders should be allowed to pre-emptively prosecute or otherwise limit the rights of anyone who 'might' infringe, so please don't read any more into my comment than I put there, even if it appears to go against the Slashdot flow.
Just my 2 rials,
Paul
Actually, I think you're right...I remember listening to Clark Howard awhile back, and some woman had bought a necklace that turned out to be junk from some place in the Carribean. She paid with her credit card, and then found out she had no legal recourse to contest the charges. IANAL, but apparently that 60 day period you have to challenge a charge made on your card is only valid in the USA, but most credit card companies will extend it to you even if you're outside the States, just as a courtesy. I'm not sure about what happens if you're in the US, and charge something over the phone or Internet with a company operating outside the US.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I just wanted to thank yuo for being more tactful than everybody else, it's appreciated. :)
I see what you're saying, but I'm a bit clouded by the anger I have at the MPAA for trying to suffocate what appears to be a good business model. Know what I mean?
Thanks, I see things differently now.
"Derp de derp."
Perhaps the 14.9% APR comes from the few thousand (or should I say few million) in fraud.
This is just crap. Ever hear of Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven? They're these old dead guys who used to write some tunes. A lot of them, in fact. They even got paid for it. And they didn't have copyrights.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
The difference between Blockbuster and this place is that Blockbuster got permission from the intellectual property owners for the tapes they rent.
The better comparison would be between the jewelry shop on 51st and 5th vs the guy on the corner in Times Square selling jewelry. One is clearly legal, whereas the other isn't.
"It's not a question of could be used. It is being used for piracy."
:P
The reason that the piracy exists is because there's a new market available, and nobody's satisfying market demand. Film88's trying to prove that's the case, the idea being that if they make enough money on it, the MPAA may say "hmm.. maybe we should license our content for this type of delivery."
(I haven't ruled out the possibility that Film88's just scamming to make a quick buck, but I have a hard time imagining somebody doing that would be willing to move their business to Iran, heh.)
P.S. Yes, Im aware that my grammar is horrible.
"Derp de derp."
Video shops are NOT required, by law, to pay more for a movie. The First Sale Doctrine gives them the right to rent any movie they acquire legally, whether or not Hollywood likes it. (The First Sale Doctrine is related to preserving a little concept known as private property.)
Video shops are required by market pressure to provide movies in timely fashion. Studios take advantage of this to charge more for "rental" tapes or to push for revenue-sharing agreements (like Detroit wanting a cut of each car rental). (With an artificial legal monopoly on each film, a studio can get away with setting artifically high prices and delaying general availability, to maximize monopoly rent.)
Once a tape hits the "sell-through" market, any video store that hasn't signed a restrictive agreement with the studios is free to pick it up at the normal retail price, and rent the tape all that it pleases.
Actually blockbuster gets alot of it's films at cost, as they now have profit-sharing plans with the Studios.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Actually, USA have put Iran on their list because they support:
- Hezbollah
- Hamas
- other palestinians groups deemed as 'terrorists' by USA
Now...
Hezbollah only launches attacks on israeli soldiers on occupied land, this can hardly be described as terrorist acts. They don't attack israeli civilians, except when Israel attacks lebanese civilians(like they did at Canaa, killing 100 civilians in a UN camp, and the investigation found that Israel perfectly knew what it was doing)
Hamas,... have some really horrible actions on their hands, but they are not more horrible than what the state of Israel is doing to the palestinian population since 30 years(namely: human rights violation, deportation, united nations resolutions violations, geneva conventions violations, legalization of torture, houses destruction, Sabra and Chatila massacres,...)
Killing people with a human bomb, or shooting at them with an F16, Apache helicopter or Merkava tank gives the same result.
So the notion of 'terrorism' is not the same for everybody. The european union does not consider these groups as being terrorist groups, Israel consider every palestinian to be a terrorist who must be killed, USA considers every arab group who's opposed to his friend Israel to be a terrorist group.
The reality is that the US government is nothing but a bunch of hypocrits who don't care at all about justice, freedom and all these word they spit out all the day long on TV, it's just political play. Otherwise, they would avoid talking with Ariel Sharon, who has been found to be responsible for the Sabra and Chatila massacres(>1000 palestinians civilians deads) by a comission of his OWN country.
Here's a chunk of code to detect stuff. This is from 'detect.php' which is what gets called when u click on the '100' or '300' button for "select your bandwidth". detect.php gets called as:
// Detect plugin for Netscape
// checking plugin
/. netizen beats me to it.
/detect.php?speed=300 << if you clicked the '300' button.
var RealPlayerG2=false;
var real=false;
function navPlugins() {
var plugs = navigator.plugins;
for (var i=0; i < navigator.plugins.length; i++) {
if (plugs[i].name.indexOf("Real") != -1) real=true;
}
}
function openClip() {
var newloc="real_err.php";
if (nav || opera) navPlugins()
else if (ie && mac) ieMacPlugins()
else if (ie && RealPlayerG2) real = true;
if (real) {
newloc="playfree.php";
}
document.location = newloc;
}
<BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" marginwidth=0 marginheight=0
onLoad="openClip()">
The BODY onLoad event calls openClip() which does the checks (I snipped the IE check code for brevity). Then if the checks found Real, then it should open 'playfree.php'. But i can't seem to get playfree.php to do much. I'll hack some more, unless another
Hack The Planet!
I told FlashGet to download through Muffin, a Java-based HTTP proxy. Set Muffin to rewrite the user-agent string as "RMA/1.0 (compatible; RealMedia)" and you should be good to go. Set RealPlayer to use Muffin as an HTTP proxy so you can get the URL to feed to FlashGet.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Actually they probably pay a percentage of the rental price / or xx cents per rental as a royalty - otherwise they'd be breaking the law too. The premium price for new movies is just another way for the industry to skim a little more off of the rental stores.
I didn't realize this site would be so shitty with Linux users, and I apologize for recommending it.
I had a hint that this'd be a problem, I think I remember that MS was pushing this site. I was vaguely aware that they use Media Player, but it didn't occur to me that they'd lock it to only Windows users.
Again, I apologize for not being a little more sensitive to the Slashdot audience..
"Derp de derp."
I think your point is this. Downloading the file off of the internet is *NOT* stealing because it doesn't cause someone else a lack. I'm still undecided about whether or not it's right or wrong, but it's definitly not wrong the same way theft is wrong.
Not an original argument so I'll post my own words (originally from January of this year.)
m )
They may not have had legal copyrights, but they had methods to protect their music.
Before copyright there were other ways to protect work. Mozart had a patron, Baroness von Waldstätten, who underwrote his needs so that he could spend the day doing whatever he wanted.
Because Mozart's patron allowed his music to be freely performed does not mean that it was always that way. Kings and princes always had court composers and they jealously guarded their music.
Handel's patron (George I, the first of the Hanoverian kings) jealously guarded "water music."
Please remember at the time you couldn't "copy" music unless you could sit in the audience with a quill pen and follow along! Actually Mozart could do this, but not many others.
It was easy to protect music back then and hard to steal it. Don't think people wouldn't have if they could. The technology didn't exist.
Jump ahead to the 1890's where the rampant bootleging of sheet music was a huge business (please refer to http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/mann.ht
From the above article a reference to Sullivan of Gilbert and Sullivan fame:
"The irate Sullivan filed lawsuit after lawsuit in U.S. courts, but only dented the trade. To prevent the pirating of The Pirates of Penzance, he long refused to publish the score; bouncers prowled every show to stop music thieves from writing down the melodies."
Let's face it, in U.S. society you are not going to do much with out being paid for it. So change the law, but until then buy what you use, or move to Canada where it is apparently legal now. (Yes, I know the original author lives there, I'm speaking to everyone else.)
Society values artistic works and society (Through the govenment) grants the creators a limited license to profit from their works in order to better society. That's the theory anyway. Maybe it's gotten out of hand, but the "music and information want to be free" approach doesn't really motivate humans to create great things.
Even throughout history people like Mozart have been motivated by "compensation" to produce new creative works.
Having people enjoy what you do is great, but even if they enjoy it how do you make a living if you can't sell it? If you sell one song to a company for a million dollars and that company sells two million copies of the song for one dollar each that is motivation for you to write more songs and for the company to buy more from you. If the company buys the same song and only sells one thousand copies at one dollar each, but later discovers two million copies have been made for free they are motivated to only pay you five hundred dollars for your next song, or to ask society to grant them a limited right to distribute your song, and the protection from counterfeits of your song.
So somebody loses. Either you no longer can make a living writing songs and you find other work, or the company lays off staff because they don't need a big distribution network anymore to deliver one thousand copies of a new song.
While you seem to have "higher ideals" about what is right and wrong it doesn't play in reality. Your carpenter analogy is flawed because I can't easily duplicate the house with little or no effort. If I could then you better believe the carpenter would want $5 for every night you spend in your new house because a new house would only be worth a few thousand dollars! There would also be much fewer carpenters who could make a living building houses (sort of like few musicians who can fully support themselves only selling songs.)
While IP has always been created through time it has always been protected by rule, religion, or force. People didn't share fire - they stole it from each other. The Egyptians didn't give their knowledge of mummification away to anyone that asked. The Library of Alexandria (aka "The Kings Library") wasn't a place you or I could lend a book from. Knowledge really was power. Ptolemy III paid the sum of fifteen talents of silver (a vast amount) to be allowed to copy the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.
So while the ancient scholars and composers may not have had our modern day protection of copyright, please don't confuse that with no protection at all.
What about the rights the content creators have? You do realize they have rights that are being taken away by sites like Film88 don't you? Even if we went to the original 14/14 year copyright terms, sites like this and applications like Napster are in gross violation of copyright law because they make current works available for download, not works available in the public domain. I don't care how many semantics games you play with the definition of theft, you are breaking the law, even if it were reverted to the original "reasonable" terms.
If it wasn't for the interpretation of the 14th Ammendment that made corporations into people, governments (meaning federal, state, or local) could enact laws that favored the local small-time mom-and-pop dealers.
:)
Fight corporate personhood! Save the hobbiest dealers!
The enemies of Democracy are
Often by controlling, as a cartel, the means of distribution. Movie studios in the US used to own the movie theaters. You still see signs of this, e.g. the old Paramount theater in downtown Seattle.
This was found to be an illegal monopoly in what, the 40's? 60's? And they had to be split up.
It's entirely possible.
Additionally, copyrights are a monopoly on the ability to publish a movie, during the term, and liable to some exceptions. That it's legal doesn't make it less of a monopoly; ATT was a legal monopoly for a long time too. (or it would've been broken up a hundred years ago)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
"What about the rights the content creators have? You do realize they have rights that are being taken away by sites like Film88 don't you? "
Are their rights being taken away? Sure. By Film88? That's questionable.
Let's use the Napster example you mentioned: What if a band says 'we want to release on the net?', the RIAA says 'tough nuts. We won't put music on the web because we think people will steal it.'.
That attitude didn't slow demand for MP3s. Somebody was bound to provide it, and that somebody was Napster. If the RIAA had gotten there first, they could have used the music rights they acquired to open a new market. Instead they sued it out of existence. I don't blame Napster for that, I blame the RIAA. They screwed up the on-line music business, and it won't be long before the artists who create the content are hurt by that.
As for Film88, yes they are infringing on the content producer's rights. However, the MPAA, through fighting this new market they have open to them, is trying to infringe on my rights. Remember fair use? Remember the DMCA? Think about it.
In short, Film88 will probaby lose on the legality front when it comes to violating the rights of the content holders. But the real damage is being done by the MPAA for not responding to market demand.
"Derp de derp."
The Mercedes I'd like to drive costs $50,000. I'm not prepared to pay that, so paying this guy I know $100 to steal one is justified.
Of course, he won't steal it from a person, he'll nick it from the factory, so nobody really loses out, and Mercedes-Benz have insurance. If their security isn't good enough to stop my stooge from stealing it, then that's their problem, not mine.
Hmm, that stands up, morally and legally.
Maybe on your world, not a world I'd like to share with you.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
That's exactly the same as saying, "My intentions are good, because I bought my DVD from the local market for $1.
Do business with me if you want my money didn't make Al Capone legitimate for selling alcohol during the Prohibition, nor did it legitimise his paying customers.
If it's illegal, it's illegal.
And there are bigger issues in the world than your "right" to watch the latest movies for $1. Heard of Kashmir? No, probably not.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
"(anything below 1.5Mbps looks like trash) "
I disagree. I watch 330kbit video all the time. It's fine. A little bit more clarity would be okay, but the movie or TV show comes across just fine. It's a little worse than VHS, but if they give it to me for say $2-3 and I can watch it for 3 days, then for most movies it sure beats going to the rental store.
"Derp de derp."
NanoGator is suggesting that becuase he paid somebody for the service, he's morally in the right, particularly because the service isn't available from the 'correct' vendor.
Actually, paying the $1 means he is recieving stolen goods. That's no better than downloading the movie for free from somewhere else. Could be morally worse, because the thief is being funded..
Don't confuse 'fair use' issues (how it's used once it's been purchased in one format) with a complaint about the preferred format not being available. That's entirely the business of the owner of the material.
"And there are bigger issues in the world than your "right" to watch the latest movies for $1. Heard of Kashmir? No, probably not. "
LOL!! You're trying really desperately to make me sound petty, arent you? This begs the question: If you're so enlightened about world events (and yes, Im well aware of Kashmir), then how come you're here arguing with me about something I didn't say?
Better yet, what am I supposed to do? Unless you know of some way I can prevent Pakistan and India from entering into a nuclear war, then my only options are to continue living my life, or sit here like Shaggy and Scooby with my knees knocking together in fear.
I think it's amusing when jackasses try to sound like they're more concerned about the world than I am, only to reveal how truely petty they really are.
"Derp de derp."
Actually the RIAA as a group doesn't have any say how music is released. It't up to the labels themselves to determine how best to release music. So far the internet has shown to be a place where copyrights aren't respected and people will swap music without regard for the law. These people aren't hurting the labels, they're hurting the musicians. Are labels contracts fair? Questionable. If musicians like Courtney Love are so concerned, perhaps they should invest in their own labels and promote artists as they see fit. There's nothing the RIAA and their member companies can do about it. This is how one proves the internet is a viable market, not by violating copyright laws.
As for fair use and the DMCA, Film88 is not providing material through a manner compliant with fair use exemptions nor have they violated the DMCA. I don't see any reason to bring these up except to raise the spectre of "big corporation = bad, small internet starutp = good, uggh". That's not an argument, it's an opinion.
However, I won't disagree that the internet could be a legitimate market for music but it's up to the content creators to provide the distribution of the content. If startups like Napster want to exist, they need to negotiate with the content owners to license the work and provide a reasonable business model customers will flock to. Napster and Film88.com have gone about this backwards and have created a business model based on illegal behavior. Not only that but they are holding the content creators hostage by saying, "we'll keep giving away your work unless you play by our rules." According to US and International law this is illegal because copyrights protect the work.
"Perhaps the standard movie studios that belong to the MPAA could afford to stream their movies for whatever price. However, that would mean that if I make an independent film and I show it in some small college theater, that I have to provide it via streaming. Would that be fair to me? No"
Lol! As if the MPAA gives a rats ass about Indies.
"Just because you provide one method for delivering your product, doesn't mean you MUST provide it for any other method of delivery"
I didn't say that. I never said that. I said there is market demand for it. It's in such demand that people are willing to perform illegal acts to satisfy it. Yet the MPAA's response is to say "nope, you'll steal it.", and then they tried to take away our PC's.
"Derp de derp."
"This tripe gets modded to "insightful?" -- That's likely becuse the moderator understood what I was saying. I'm reasonably sure you didn't.
This isn't a matter of pricing. (How many times have i said that now?) It's a matter of availability, or 'supply meeting demand' as you said.
Your metaphor is way off base, let me correct it for you: Imagine if your burger joint said "We will not sell fries because people will poop on the lawn after eating them."
Your response would be "WTF? People aren't going to poop on the lawn after eating them! There's no proof of that! They'll use the toilet! I want my fries, dammit!"
"Derp de derp."
It's called 'not listening'. That's a wonderful response to a statement I didn't make.
"Derp de derp."
I think you make good points. I don't agree with all of them, but I appreciate your tact. There are people in this thread who are mutating my original post into 'waaaah! I dont want to pay for stuff! Give it to me for $1!. It was refreshing to hear a well thought out rebuttal. Thank you. :)
Not only that but they are holding the content creators hostage by saying, "we'll keep giving away your work unless you play by our rules."
This may be true in some cases, but the major problem is that the MPAA isn't allowing anybody to license the content. (If somebody knows better, please correct me. I'm going to be up front and tell you that what I just said is a half-informed statement.)
If a TV station says 'We want to play Star Wars', then they can negotiate a deal to license Star Wars to air legally. I don't think the MPAA has a generic license for this, simply for their fear of what'll happen when their content's on the web. (Although I think there are exceptions, like intertainer.tv for example...)
In this case, it is the companies who want to fill this demand that are being held hostage. What alternative to they have? There are a few, but none of them are very good.
"Derp de derp."
Ah, yes, the same brand of nuclear hyperbole that brought us "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" (Jack Valenti, head drone of the MPAA). I've learned to be suspicious when someone's argument seems to depend on conflating the action in question with some horrible, nasty action, all out of proportion. I worry when people make their point by insisting on emotionally-charged words with only dubious links (if any) to the topic at hand.
But then again, what do you expect from an industry that believes "copying a piece of intellectual output with the approval of a copyright holder" is precisely the same as "rape and pillage on the high seas"?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Umm... it's not necessarily coming from IRAN...
(this is harry potter...)
Proto Local Address Foreign Address State
TCP fred:2174 customer.redbus.trueserver.nl:http ESTABLISHED
I have no data either but one has to ask, what kind of offers are being made? Are they reasonable? Are they legitimate? Have the business plans been well thought out or is it more dot.com hype? My guess is it's more hype than not and once this material is in a digital form and distributed on the web the MPAA member companies stand to lose a substantial amount of money unless they cover themselves through the licensing contracts (for instance, they make piracy a problem of the dot.com has to deal with, the studio gets their fees regardless.)
An interesting note... Arab Muslims and Persian (Iranian) Muslims follow different sects of Islam. They are akin to the Protestant and Catholic sects of Christianity. They don't get along all that great, from what I hear, at least when it comes to religion... much in the way Catholics and Protestants have a distaste for each other. (I know some 7th-Day Adventists that don't even consider Catholics Christian, but that's somewhat extreme). I believe that Arabs are primarily Sunni and that Persians, and many other kinds of non-Arab Muslims, are mostly Shi'a.
The problem with Iran is that it is run by an extremist religious government, just like Afghanistan was with the Taliban. Most Arab nations, such as Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, are 90% Muslim, but the clergy does not hold absolute political power, as they do in Iran. One thing they ingrain into our minds here in the US is the importance of the seperation of Church and State. I think we grow up knowing that it is important, without necessarily understanding why. When you see what a Church-run-State does to a country (under the Shah, Iran was a much nicer place to live), I think it makes a lot more sense.
I think religious governments do tend to be extremist, and extremist governments are dangrerous, which is why we fear Iran right now. I know several Persians, and I don't know any of them that wanted the Ayatollah Khomeni's revolution, and they certainly don't like the current religious regime. It's just important to seperate the religion and people of a country from the government.
-If
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
Ummm, first sale rights (which are being eroded) still give me the right so
1) buy a video from the store for $15
2) lend said video for $5 to a friend overnight, providing I dont retain any copys of said video
3) get said video back off friend, lend to another friend for $5
4) after doing this 20 times, sell video for $5.
If my friend copies the video I lend them, they are infringing on copyright - not me.
This is no different, providing the content provider has at least 1 copy of the video for each copy they are streaming.
They can sell it cheaper then blockbuster because:
1) They rent the movie for 90 minutes. Then they can rent it again. A 90 minute movie can be let upto 16 times a day, providing the times its let out are right (note this doesnt mean they can let 16 copys of the movie out at once for each copy they own)
2) They dont have as many monkeys behind the counter trying to upsell you popcorn
3) No high street costs
4) No tapes going missing
5) Minimal overheads
Only major expenses are
1) Streaming servers
2) Bandwidth
I agreee that this site may not have a copy of the movie for each copy it streams out at once, but it doesnt mean the principal is wrong.
Even though it is OT. :)
It'd be nice if people could recognize fringe thinking and radical groups as distinct from the main body of the people in a given area. This kind of muddy thinking could have everyone thinking that anyone from Arkansas in inbred, anyone from the Midwest is some sort of pseudo-skinhead militia nut, or that anyone from the American South must believe in Slavery. Or that all Canadians are polite.
The truth is: Generalizations suck. They are automatically problematic when used to describe humans. And when you start treating everyone who has the same facial geometry and skin tone the same (shades of the bad old days long, we had hoped, gone by), you automatically start tossing out the baby with the bathwater, the bad with the good. You do a disservice to a lot of innocent, hard working folks and at the same time you probably focus on one threat vector or problem group and in so doing make it more liely you'll miss others.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
Film88 isn't deprived of their copy when they stream it to a customer.
Assuming they own 10 copys of "harry potter". Someone strams a copy.
1 copy (of the 10 copys they own) of harry potter gets put in a box and sent to the customer
Software database updated (update videos set available = 9 where title = harry potter)
2 hours later the box returns from the customer
video gets put back on shelf.
If 10 copys are streamed in the 2 hour gap, then (select videos.available where title = harry potter) would be 0, and the website wouldnt allow streaming.
While the video is in said box, it is on the way to the customer. Doesnt matter if it reahes the customer before it is returned. They dont have rights to said video ()you pay your $1, you have the video for that 2 hours, no one else can touch it. You keep it in that box same as you could rent a blockbuster video and kee it in a safety deposit box at the train station next door).
The better comparison would be between the jewelry shop on 51st and 5th vs the guy on the corner in Times Square selling jewelry. One is clearly legal, whereas the other isn't.
So now I need permission from the original maker of my watch to sell it on ebay? What a load of rubbish!
The reason the 5th street corner seller is breaking the law iss because he is running a buisness without paying the apropiate rates, keeping the appropiate books, and most importantly using the public highway as his shop window.
(not to mention the watches are probably stolen anyway
This site just adds more fuel to the fire for their freedom-sucking legislative endevours. "See!! See!! - look at the piracy that runs rampant if you don't let us have draconian control over all content! See?!"
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
You are not a "thief" or a "pirate" perhaps, but you are still morally wrong. It is their movie, to be distributed and sold as they please, at the price they want
I see your point when it relates to any artist alive today, or any label who bought the rights to an artist's work and needs to make a return on their investment (even if they screw the artist out of all their royalties in the process), but what if the people who invested time and/or money into the creation of the work are all long gone? For instance, I would love to set up a site where people could download mp3s of old blues tunes. These songs are hard to find, and much of the time you have to buy a whole CD to get the one song you want to hear. This can get very expensive. Now, the original artists are all long dead and for the most part have no kin to speak of. The original record companies who pressed the 78s so long ago are for the most part long gone bust, and sold their rights for a song to whatever major labels own them today. This is maybe the first pure american music, and most of it's not getting heard, in the name of power, control and money. What's more, musicians all over the world are unable to hear many songs that would inspire them to make more music of their own. The way I see it, it's immoral not to spread these recordings to as many people as possible.
c-hack.com |
Madona's Like a Virgin.
I'm not sure what they have in common either. Arn't you glad the big five music publishers can make lots of money off the works of both? If there were no copyrights in their present form, and people were not so damn greedy, I might be able to download a nice recording of both instead of being forced to endure endless cycles of the latter.
You must be smoking some powerful stuff if you think Mozart, Bach, Beetoven or Vivaldi would mind if the Girl Scouts of America sang their tunes. Yet the RIAA sued the Girls Scouts for singing "America the Beautiful" around the capfire. The RIAA won. Hmmm, it seems to be a matter of intent that makes the difference between that world and this one. Ever knew a piper that told other pipers that they could not play his tunes? Yet that's what the RIAA would have you believe. The RIAA's use of technology is perverse. You would think that we would all have more for less now that publishing is so cheap. Instead we have less and less for more and more.
There's only one thing I can agree with about this thread. Popular music should not be duplicated.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
First off, it's "a lot".
Secondly, did you ever think about what you are saying? "Profit sharing" is the same damn thing as royalties.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
"I'd like to have a car for under $1000, and since this is not offered, I should be able to steal one, right?"
"I'd like to have a car for under 1000 $, and as this isn't offered, I should be able to take my remote replicator (which doesn't hurt the replicated object.. in fact, the replicated object doesn't even notice) and copy yours."
you can have whatever philosophy you want, however are you waying its illegal for me to sel my TV 2nd hand?
If the people selling in nearby towns were saying (or implying) they were official Krispy Kreme resalers, then that might be using a trade mark wrongly, and reducing the qualiy of the brand. Fair enough.
Doesnt stop them from seling them though, as long as they are clear they are not official representatives of krispy kreme
IANAL
"I'd like to have a car for under 1000 $, and as this isn't offered, I should be able to take my remote replicator (which doesn't hurt the replicated object.. in fact, the replicated object doesn't even notice) and copy yours."
*SNORT* damn dude I almost had to wipe Diet Coke off my screen after reading that, heh. Do you think the United Federation of Planets had to deal with that issue? Heh. (It might explain why there's no money in the 24th Century...)
"Derp de derp."
I didn't say that was my philsophy. I said it was a prevailing philosophy, it's one I don't agree with.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I don't care if you have "0 sympathy" for anyone. The fact remains that you are breaking the law. Period. End of story. That makes you, under any definition I've seen of the word, a criminal. If you feel you have some moral authority to be a criminial, you can go on believing that and doing whatever the hell you want to do. Be my guest. However, don't be suprised if the companies whos legal rights you're infriging upon with your crime do their best to protect those rights. Kill or be killed, and you're an idiot if you believe the MPAA will or should just lie down and take it. It's their right and priviledge to fight like a mad dog for whatever they want, same as you.
Just don't try and spin your attitude toward this as some kind of passive resistance crap for the good of us all. It's very plain to me, and to the rest of the people reading this, that your motives in this matter are purely out of base self interest. You want your movies for cheap and if they aren't provided that way, by the gods you're going to make your own way to them. Learn a bit of self control. How about getting up the courage to actually not see whatever blockbuster movie the studios you hate so much are putting out. That hurts them far more in the end than you pirating. Sacrifice. It's a part of life.
Of course, neither those idiots like you, nor the MPAA appear to be familliar with the concept, so we're going to have to struggle with the karma your greed saddles all of us with. Thanks a bunch, pal.
No, you're a consumer, rationalizing violation of international copyright agreements, because you want this service so bad.
You're rationalizing that because you want it enough, and they won't give it to you, breaking the law is OK. All you care about is whether someone can give you the goods, legally or not. That's a rationalization if I ever heard one.
Unlike conventional radio, the receiving individual is personally transmitting a request for the infringing material. Something ought to be wrong with that. Also, with all this legal vs. moral talk, we have to remember that technically this isn't illegal, the company in question found a loophole in the system.
he'll nick it from the factory, so nobody really loses out, and Mercedes-Benz have insurance
Insurance rates are just loss rates spread out over large groups. In the physical world, there is still a loss that is not necessarily present with information. Otherwise libaries would have been outlawed long ago for freely giving out valuable copyrighted information.
Nice try, though.
So you're okay with the DMCA then? How about the SSSCA?
I think it's funny that you'll blast me for supporting a business model. (No, I'm not supporting piracy, even though you're trying to twist my meanings to sound like I am.) Yet you seem to blindly support an industry that got the DMCA passed (our rights eroded away), along with the SSSCA (the rights to free-computing, gone.).
You want me to say that paying Film88.com $1 for a movie is illegal? Okay, paying Film88.com for a movie is illegal. Is it wrong? I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
I want you to understand, though, that my story'd be a bit different if the MPAA respected the internet as a delivery device. If the MPAA had a site that did was Film88.com does, but charged $3 for the movies, then I'd be mad as hell at Film88 for what they're doing.
You're trying to make it sound like I'm some uncaring pirate who thinks everything should be free. That's not the case at all. I simply want a legal service like Film88. When that happens, I'll support it. Until then, the only thing that was preventing me from using Film88 was respect for the movie industry. They lost that when they tried to pass the SSSCA.
I don't really care if you think that I'm a criminal or not. (To be clear, I have given no money to Film88.com. Like I'm giving my cc # to a server in Iran, heh.) If that's what the law says, fine! But I don't see how you'd expect anybody to support an industry that tried to take their rights away simply to support an outdated business model.
I am not the threat. YOU are the threat for blindly siding with the organization that supports our government by paying millions of dollars to senators in order to get their way.
"Derp de derp."
Upstream from it:
NetGeo Results:
VERSION=1.0
TARGET: 213.29.62.1
NAME: SAFINEH
NUMBER: 213.29.62.0 - 213.29.63.255
CITY: TEHRAN
STATE: TEHRAN (province)
COUNTRY: IR
LAT: 35.67
LONG: 51.43
LAT_LONG_GRAN: City
Well at least all of Iran wasn't slashdotted! :^)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
This article has it all. "MPAA/RIAA bad," check. "Cheap movies good," check. Oh, and of course, since the MPAA/RIAA are doing something distasteful, it's okay for everyone else to throw their scruples out the window.
I don't like the MPAA/RIAA, either. But I'd much rather give them my $5 than see a red cent line the pockets of the Iranian government. As unsavory as the entertainment business can be, at least they only pretend to blow people up.
So yeah, you're a criminal--happy?
If you want cheap movies, go to the damned matinee.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
If they allowed you to save the files, I would be rooting for Film88 all the way. But by imposing copy restrictions on material that they don't even have rights to in the first place, these guys seem sorta like a renegade quasi-meta-RIAA. [I tried to work "crypto-fascist" into that but couldn't quite swing it. Dang.]
...They rent the movie for 90 minutes. Then they can rent it again. A 90 minute movie can be let upto 16 times a day, providing the times its let out are right (note this doesnt mean they can let 16 copys of the movie out at once for each copy they own)...
...I agreee that this site may not have a copy of the movie for each copy it streams out at once, but it doesnt mean the principal is wrong.
Actually, assuming that the rest of your logic about video rentals is right, you might not really have to assume that the site has a copy for each stream.
As long as they aren't sending out the same bit of data at the same time for each copy they own, then your logic still holds up (although the analogy to the physical example is slightly more abstract). It would be as though the customer was renting, then using, then returning every second of movie they watch as they watch it - therefore making it immediately available to the next user to rent.
Furthermore, by buffering the stream correctly (slightly in advance of the user watching it) and maybe treating the user's cache similarly to the "time shifting" effect of VCR's, you could probably "rent" a *very* large number of movies simultaneously to multiple users without ever actually sending any of them the same bit at the same time. It should actually be pretty straightforward to calculate this number, based on the quality of the movie, the available bandwidth, the number of users, the distribution of starting times, and perhaps some adjustments for network, buffering, and caching delays.
Like perfect copies without degradation, this is obviously another difference between the traditional and networked/digital mediums that changes all the old rules (or put a different way, this is why the MPAA etc. wants the old rules to apply differently for this new medium).
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
...that Internet distrobution Supports Terrorism and that all file-sharing protocols and open source software should be banned from the US so they can go on ripping us off.
Oh well they don't make anythign I'd buy anyways, I buy all my music legitimately from bangintunes.com anyways...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
I'm not sure how valid time shifting a rented video would be, as there is no need to time shift.
Either way its a good, legal, buisness plan IMO, however IANAL so you'd have to ask one (preferably a good one). Even if you need to have a $15 video for each stream, you have earnt the video back after 20 plays (assuming bandwidth and maintenence costs of 50p per movie), and it doesnt degrade. You could have a massive library, selling the old videos that you have for a little above bandwidth cost, and blockbusters for more to cover the cost of the video.
The only problem would be if you were not allowed to transfer formats for commercial gain. Not sure if you can or not.
Is it hard to ship the DVD's around? Do you have to get a special box or anything?
That was my big concern...
"Derp de derp."
However, I don't believe it's moral to redistribute in-print records, because doing so increases the probability that their status will change to "out of print", unless you can provide better accesibility to the work than the record companies.
I'm not sure how valid time shifting a rented video would be, as there is no need to time shift.
Just thinking out loud really but I thought that it might come into play in a scenario where you're renting out and then immediately reusing each individual "bit" rather than renting out and locking up one video stream at a time for the entire 2 hours. Since there would be some buffering on the user's end I would categorize that cached user copy as sort of micro time shifting so the supplier could go on to immediately re-rent out that same "bit" without knowing for sure if the first user has actually finished viewing it yet.
That's probably stretching things a bit, but IMO I agree with you that, at the very least, renting out a dedicated stream of a movie that I own should be as legal as renting out a video that I own. I just think that you can take this further to rent out smaller portions of the movie at a time to increase your capacity. Especially in this case, without using a time shifting analogy the MPAA etc. could argue that the seller does not know whether the user has actually finished viewing the buffered segment to free it up for the next user.
I hope that makes sense. Man, I should get to sleep.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
So you're okay with the DMCA then? How about the SSSCA?
I am against both the DMCA and the SSSCA. However, not supporting them doesn't mean that the former isn't a law, and if the latter passes it will be a law, and breaking the law is a crime. I've called my Senators and Representatives and registered my objections to the SSSCA, and I've given what support I can to those who are trying to get the DMCA repealed. What of actual usefulness have you done to try and get the laws changed/vetoed? Whining and breaking the laws don't count. I do not watch commercial television. I have been to two films in the past year, Spiderman and Attack of the Clones being neither of the films. I buy my DVDs and CDs used. The MPAA gets a fraction of a fraction of airtime with me.
I think it's funny that you'll blast me for supporting a business model. (No, I'm not supporting piracy, even though you're trying to twist my meanings to sound like I am.) Yet you seem to blindly support an industry that got the DMCA passed (our rights eroded away), along with the SSSCA (the rights to free-computing, gone.).
I'm not twisting your words. Do you seriously believe that Film88.com legally licensed the source material for their streams from the studios which own the films? Calling a spade a spade isn't supporting anyone. If the SSSCA passes, the digital economy will not exist for me. I will not buy any electronics (save small things like clocks, which the SSSCA restrictions will not hamper) or consume any media that my current hardware will not support. I won't buy anything new. And I'm OK with that. If the MPAA wants to shoot the US economy in the foot, that's their problem, not mine. I can get along just fine without any of this useless crap. I'm so sorry that you can't.
I want you to understand, though, that my story'd be a bit different if the MPAA respected the internet as a delivery device. If the MPAA had a site that did was Film88.com does, but charged $3 for the movies, then I'd be mad as hell at Film88 for what they're doing.
It is within the MPAA membership's legal rights to never ever release any of their content for distribution on the Internet. That's what copyright law is for. It give content owners control over distribution for a certain period of time. It's the same law that gives the GPL force. If one person loses those rights, everyone does, including you, if you ever deigned to create anything. They have decided that they do not want their films streamed over the Internet, publicly. Film88.com is ignoring the MPAA membership's rights under international copyright law. Iran may not be a signatory to that treaty, but I doubt it. More likely that they have much more lax enforcement, and an incentive to look the other way.
Why should the MPAA respect the Internet as your annointed content delivery system when you have no respect for them? Respect doesn't mean you like someone.
You're trying to make it sound like I'm some uncaring pirate who thinks everything should be free. That's not the case at all. I simply want a legal service like Film88. When that happens, I'll support it. Until then, the only thing that was preventing me from using Film88 was respect for the movie industry. They lost that when they tried to pass the SSSCA.
So start a legal service like Film88.com. Negotiate deals with the studios. Oh, right, you don't respect them. Well, see my previous comments as to why they don't care about you if you don't care about them. All's fair in love and war, eh?
You're an uncaring, greedy pirate who has delusions that you're Robin hood, when really you're just a spoiled brat, who wants everything the way you want it. Of course, anyone who doesn't immediately agree that yes, you should have everything exactly the way you want is your enemy. I feel sorry for your "friends".
I don't really care if you think that I'm a criminal or not. (To be clear, I have given no money to Film88.com. Like I'm giving my cc # to a server in Iran, heh.) If that's what the law says, fine! But I don't see how you'd expect anybody to support an industry that tried to take their rights away simply to support an outdated business model.
So why did you waste your time with the last five paragraphs if all you were going to do was agree with me. I DON'T support the MPAA and its ilk. However, not supporting doesn't mean supporting infringement of their rights. I greatly and fervently support that those rights be heavily reduced, but until that happens, they are their rights, and if you infringe them, you're a criminal. I'm a criminal. I've broken copyright law more times than I can remember. However, I'm neither ashamed of it, nor proud of it, nor in denial of the reality of the law.
I am not the threat. YOU are the threat for blindly siding with the organization that supports our government by paying millions of dollars to senators in order to get their way.
You, sir, are the threat, though mostly to yourself. I suggest you open your own blinded eyes and clear away some of your own prejudices and mistakes before you go on a crusade.
"You're not supporting a "business model." You're supporting piracy because its cheaper for you"
Actually, Morpheus/Kazaa/P2P is the cheapest, plus I get to keep the video.
"Derp de derp."
Just how gullible are /. readers? For Christ's sake, you see a link that mentions Iran and it's suddenly a bunch of terrorists trying to undermine the good old US of A and how, sniff, if this carries on there just won't be any more apple pie from our good patriotic RIAA and MPAA in the future. This notwithstanding the fact that the company in question is a Taiwanese company and that the same group of "intelligent people" had been critisizing the RIAA and the MPAA up and down the line ofr anything they did in the US.
So who exactly, are the racist uneducated morons here?
O_O!
:))
Man, if they had said that on the brochure that I half read (Heh yah i know... im lazy), I woulda started ages ago!
Dude, thanks!
*looking now*
"Derp de derp."
"You're an uncaring, greedy pirate who has delusions that you're Robin hood, when really you're just a spoiled brat, who wants everything the way you want it. Of course, anyone who doesn't immediately agree that yes, you should have everything exactly the way you want is your enemy. I feel sorry for your "friends"."
Oh grow up. I can't believe you resorted to name calling, heh.
"Derp de derp."
There is content out there that down right takes a lot of money to create. Movies.
Movies. For free. An animated movie takes about 10 hours per minute to make using Macromedia Flash software (based on the time cost of making Irrational Exuberance). Now we've reduced the cost of producing a film by an order of magnitude or more without reducing its ability to tell a story.
Music that uses an orchestra or session players.
I understand that for sound recordings. But it should be cheaper to compose (at least some genres of) music in a tracker. I'll forgive you this time because many people confuse the copyright on a musical work with the copyright of a particular recording of that work.
Video games.
It doesn't cost very much to develop a Game Boy Advance game. The costs of GBA games lie largely in replication, marketing, and promotion. (Join gbadev@yahoogroups.com and read the last week of discussion to see why.)
Content that would not exist in a world without copyrights.
Some areas of the world without strong copyright protection have a thriving motion picture industry. Know how? Product placement is one way.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Stealing isn't right, irregardless of whatever tertiary issues you care to bring up.
If a composer has been dead for sixty-eight years, and you record his music, from whom are you stealing vt. Taking and carrying away, feloniously; taking without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, stealing the personal goods of another.
Much of the problem here (specifically in relation to the works of George Gershwin and other 1920s composers) relates to excessive copyright duration.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sure it is... as long as the author/creator of the information says it's ok to share.
What if the author/creator is dead?
Now what if a playwright states "This play may be performed only by people with 99% or more African blood, even in areas where no African people live. All whites on the stage will be arrested. Oh, and my estate has a perpetual copyright on this play, so even 200 years after I die, my estate will still get 90% of the box office." Is that fair?
Will I retire or break 10K?
If there is one there will be the other. It is the basis of free enterprise although the MPAA and the RIAA have yet to recognise this fact or act acordingly.
The width of a scan line is unspecified. For as long as you respect the 4-to-3 ratio, you can have as many "pixels" as you want. What determines the "end of line" is a set width of black image at the end of the scan line.
This black line is the reason why a "black" image on TV is never quite black--not to confuse the scan line marker.
interestingly, this black end-of-line marker is what's removed for pay TV channels. The decoder knows a sequence of cycling colors that substitutes the black marker, and filters it out. More elaborate "encoding" method also involves inverting the image, and sometimes, dynamic marker updates based on info stored via the audio channel.
There's a small misunderstanding here. You don't need the Swiss bank account, Fim88 does. Your deposits go to Switzerland, which is not on the State Department's list.
Virg
Copyright in the United States and the European Union no longer expires.
Your statement is either incorrect, or a lie. Since you posted a link, it seems that you are informed and that you were trying deliberately to misrepresent the facts. On the other hand, since the link you posted is also full of misinformation, it's possible that you might just be ignorant. This question is between you and your god.
Copyright in the United States works like this: works owned by an individual remain the exclusive property of that individual for his or her lifetime, then the property of that individual's estate for seventy years. After that term, the copyright expires, and the ownership of the works reverts to the public domain.
Works owned by a corporations have a different term, because corporations don't have lifespans. A work owned by a corporation remains that corporation's property for ninety-five years before reverting to the public domain.
The laws governing EU member nations are similar.
It is a bald-faced lie to say that copyright no longer expires. Many uninformed reactionaries have written that copyright is now perpetual, because Congress can extend it any time they want. This has always been true, within the limits set forth by the Constitution. It doesn't mean that copyright is meaningless, or that it doesn't expire.
If you don't like this situation, run for office. Or at least try to persuade people in a calm and reasonable fashion. But to use lies in an attempt to manipulate your audience is evil and wrong, no matter how you look at it.
Streaming movies may not be legal. The MPAA would have you think that it is not. But in the end, it's just somebody interpreting fair use to mean that they can "rent" the movie by streaming it over the net--instead of physically sending the DVD, which in my opinion is 100% okay, they simply send you the data. It's cheaper for them to do it this way, and as such they can do it for $1/viewing. That's the important part. Let me restate it:
It's cheaper to stream video over the 'net than it is to have it available for rent via blockbuster. As such, the cost to rent the DVD in this manner is less.
The MPAA doesn't want efficient, they want profit. There's no money to be made by increasing efficiency if you have a monopoly. This is why they don't offer services like this. But if renting a DVD is legal, so should this be. It's easier to copy a DVD than it is to record a realvideo stream, so the piracy angle is a crock. This is a highly efficient distribution method, and the MPAA is cracking down because they're threatened that their profits are going to go away as a result of the increased efficiency.
Stealing implies that this method of rental is illegal, which it may be, but shoud not be. Why is this any different than renting the DVD? These own a DVD, and they allow you to watch it for a fee. Rent. Period.
Synergy is your friend
"i'd really like a Boxster, but i think Porsche charges too much for one..."
If I had said 'movies cost too much!', that'd be a relevant response. Oh well.
"Derp de derp."
I'm not looking for moral credibility! People think I'm trying to be Robin Hood or some stupid shit like that, it's not like that at all.
I am looking for understanding. I'm sending a message to the MPAA:
"I want this service, and if you hadn't called me a criminal I'd be waiting for this service from you. Too bad your accusation is costing YOU money."
If you guys think I'm wrong, fine. The worst case scenario is that it causes the MPAA to provide a competitive service. Given the chance, I'd pay more for legal content. However, 'given the chance...' is the operative phrase here.
"Derp de derp."
Not entirely. The Eldred case is going to be argued before the Supreme Court this fall. If successful, the Court will rule that Congress may NOT extend copyrights in certain ways.
You're correct, Congress' power is subject to the Constitution, but that very document may be found to mean that Congress cannot extend it any time they want.
The previous poster did use strong language, but I think that it's easy enough to understand his position as not being intended to be an accurate restatement of the law, but an argument about policy.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The previous poster did use strong language, but I think that it's easy enough to understand his position as not being intended to be an accurate restatement of the law, but an argument about policy.
I think you're giving the poster too much credit. When one says, "Copyrights do not expire," that's an unambiguous statement of fact. In this case, it's a statement that's completely and utterly false.
Worse was posting that link to a web page that is so full of vitriol and bile as to be practically useless in any meaningful discussion. Making rude comments about Disney is amusing and all that, but it's not constructive.
Some rhetoric has no place in serious discussions of policy, I think. Exaggeration for effect is one, and I think that's what this poster was doing. If we're going to have a serious conversation about copyright policy, then let's keep it serious.
And just so you know, I'm well aware of the irony of trying to have a serious discussion of policy on Slashdot. Oh, well.
You're thinking of the old iRaq's, which were always ill-tempered and slow. The new HP iRan's have plenty of bandwidth, and are now more USer friendly than ever!
works owned by an individual remain the exclusive property of that individual for his or her lifetime, then the property of that individual's estate for seventy years.
How much are you willing to insure me for that this number "seventy" will not increase further within the next fifty years?
After that term, the copyright expires
This means that for virtually all works, anybody who has ever seen the work commercially exploited will not live to produce anything from that work.
Many uninformed reactionaries have written that copyright is now perpetual, because Congress can extend it any time they want. This has always been true, within the limits set forth by the Constitution.
What limits? The "for limited Times" language of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 8, has been declared moot by a District Court unless Eldred wins a Supreme Court battle.
It doesn't mean that copyright is meaningless, or that it doesn't expire.
But if Congress has the power to do everything short of explicitly stating that "Resolved, that it is the policy of the Congress of the United States to enact a 20-year copyright term extension act on every 20-year anniversary of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act," then what is the substantive limit on Congress's power to make copyright perpetual in practice?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Vendors only pay if they have non fraudulent transactions to make up for the difference.
In general, the vendor has already received money from the CC co by the time fraud is reported. Since the CC company would have to spend a whole bunch of time and money trying to get the money back (probably unsuccessfully) they let them have the money. But then they dont pay them for the next X$ worth of transactions that come through.
So if I get $1k of fraud on my card, the CC company eats that $1k, until the vendor gets another $1k worth of transactions, which the CC company pockets, and then the slate is wiped clean.
In this case, if the majority of transactions are fraudulent, the CC company just eats it, and turns off the charge priviledges of that vendor.
"What kind of fuckhead quotes himself in his sig?
:)
I scoff at your unjustified arrogance."
Lol!! I find it amusing that you just jumped to the conclusion that I was being arrogant. You'd think that if I were being arrogant that I'd say something a little more profound than "Don't nitpick my details!" to the Slashdot crowd.
There's a very good reason I quoted myself in my sig. If you're curious, I'll tell you why. But since you're an AC, I doubt you're reading this anyway.
Thanks for the good laugh, though.
"Derp de derp."
In your inane attempt to prove the obvious, you have ignored the crux of my argument.
Alot of video rental stores pay $75+ for a video which includes the royalties. Blockbuster only pays cost (for arguments sake, let us say $2.50) and then shares a percentage of the profits of the rentals. If the video only rents once, then they pay an overall lower cost. Which is possibly more the rule than the exception.
Obviously these arrangements are quite different I chose the phrase "profit sharing" to emphasize the difference, that being plainly obvious to people, who do, in fact, ipse segundo, THINK.
Maybe I've got a case of "coersivity"? Maybe you have attempted the following:
It was this: he made a tube of reed sharp at one end, and catching a dog in the street, or wherever it might be, he with his foot held one of its legs fast, and with his hand lifted up the other, and as best he could fixed the tube where, by blowing, he made the dog as round as a ball; then holding it in this position, he gave it a couple of slaps on the belly, and let it go, saying to the bystanders (and there were always plenty of them): "Do your worships think, now, that it is an easy thing to blow up a dog?"
Don Quixote Strikes Again!
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
"They have such poor reading comprehension and conversational skills that there is really not any point or benefit in trying to convince them of anything anyway."
I think this one nailed it. One guy in particular started off making a decent point and ended up trying to start a name calling contest with me heh.
Thanks for the nicer reply heh. *was sick of getting flamed*
"Derp de derp."