Slashdot Mirror
Interview with MPAA Chief Dan Glickman
farmerbuzz writes "USAToday has an interview with Dan Glickman (Jack Valenti's replacement as the CEO of the MPAA) where he announces that the MPAA will begin suing movie downloaders. An interesting point brought up in the interview: 'At the time the RIAA announced its lawsuits, it said music sales had fallen 25% over a three-year period. The MPAA is in a much different situation. Box office receipts aren't down at all -- 2003's figures were $9.5 billion, the second biggest in history.'"
I find it odd that people cite the MPAA figures for lost revenue. These figures assume that all of this media would have been purchased had they not been "stolen." IANAAccountant but I think that their figures could be reduced by a factor of a hundred to get closer to the actual losses.
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard disk?
A: Some people who were sued raised hell. But by and large, if you look at the big picture, it was important to make the point that this cannot be free. Piracy has a tremendous negative impact on consumers.
No, the movie industry has had a tremendous negative impact on itself. Expensive movies that fail turn into expensive losses. STOP MAKING SHITTY FUCKING MOVIES that cost 100+ million dollars. Believe me, I don't feel sorry for the MPAA when they have to shell out millions to big name actors to get them to act in a movie that sucks.
In fact, if anything, piracy has had a great impact on consumers. The MPAA has been forced to push movies out quickly to consumers at low costs. Walmart has some great titles for under $8. Target routinely has newer releases for under $15 and some under $10 on sale.
A: My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000. A few days after the film was released, a member of my staff found it being sold as a DVD just a few blocks from our offices. I called my son to give him the bad news, and he told me this is happening to all the current films. And then he said, "And what are you going to do about it, Dad?"
Is this quote supposed to make me feel bad? That the head of the MPAA is fighting for the rights of his son who is a producer? I don't. In fact, it turns me off more than anything.
A: I have very good teachers here. I think of myself as having adequate knowledge, but the principles are easy to understand. We have to embrace new technologies, but also enforce the law.
Perhaps you should learn to embrace the wants and needs of the consumers and be less worried about pissing everyone off.
Will we totally obliterate piracy? No. But we have to make it as difficult as possible.
Suing people won't make downloading "difficult". Perhaps a bit riskier for those people in the US who happen to do so.
Regardless, I'm assuming they'll have to go to the ISPs individually with a court order for ID rather than the sweeping lawsuits the RIAA used?
Trolling is a art,
Just out of curiosity...
CD sales went down, but how about concert revenue?
Movie box office went up, but how about DVD/VHS sales?
Sue this MPAA!
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Since they are now going to be suing their customers, i will no longer be purchasing any of their films.
I'm about ready to cancel my cable TV as well..
Will my dropping off their cutomer roles hurt them? No.. but enough others follow me..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Profits are up as a result of raising movie ticket prices to make up for losses due to piracy...
So stopping piracy will bring movie prices below $12/show right? Riiiiiiiight???
When it costs as much to see the movie in the theater as you can OWN the DVD for later on, it's a wonder they still make money at all.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Off-topic, really, but the original headline to this story (as seen by subscribers) was "MPAA to Begin Suing Movie Downloaders". That looked like a dupe from Wednesday's story, Movie Industry to sue File Sharers. I'm sure I wasn't the only subscriber to submit a "Dupe!" warning, and the headline got changed.
Y'all who enjoy lambasting the editors over dupe articles, chew on this for a while, alright?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
I found the real explanation here, nestled between paragraphs...
"We know there are losses. We believe we're losing $3.5 billion yearly."
...
"My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000."
Hmmmm. Ever considered that part of that mysterious 3.5 billion dollars might have gone into making this stinker?
In any case, Mr. Glickman does a wonderful job of not answering the question at all, and by pulling a random number out of the air.
The RIAA hasn't lost 25% of their sales.
Sales of singles went down significantly.
But...
Its mostly because they stopped selling singles.
Some of you buy into the crap that these people spout. I think its a joke, and those of buying into these lies should be ashamed of yourselves.
Right
Music sounds the same from an MP3 as it does from a CD. However, I enjoy movies ALOT better on a HUGE projector screen than on my 17" monitor. :-)
Can all fish swim?
It comes across more like genital tugging. When I see heads of organisations like this attempting to paint their business opeations as something the head dude feels morally compelled to do because his child asked him I immediately switch to total cynic mode and am immediately sure there is another agenda.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
My sister wås bitten by å møøse ønce...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
"A: My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000. A few days after the film was released, a member of my staff found it being sold as a DVD just a few blocks from our offices. I called my son to give him the bad news, and he told me this is happening to all the current films. And then he said, "And what are you going to do about it, Dad?" Translation: Awww I'm rich beyond silly. I was the executive producer for a shitty movie that nobdoy wanted to see. Daddy make the bad pirates go away.
2% rule here.
It's called a comparison. The RIAA has sued file sharers. The MPAA is going to sue file sharers. The RIAA was in the position of having lost revenue. The MPAA is doing it more out of principle, as their revenue has not fallen.
Looking at the two different organizations, one can see that the imperitives behind doing this are likely different, though the motivation is still a fat stack of $$'s.
Several points.
A) In the past few years, Cable TV, view-on-demand, pay-per-view, TiVo and gang have proliferated. Massively. That means that single-viewing of movies became cheaper. Meaning that people can finally see CatWoman for a dollar before blowing $25 on the DVD. Thus, triage has gotten tougher, and crappy movies can't sell DVDs on title alone, anymore, in quantities they used to.
B) Suing downloaders has nothing to do with lost revenue. Lawsuits are, in the modern world, more frequently made to acquire profits than to compensate for losses. SCO would've NEVER generated income based on its alleged properties on the scale of some of companies whom it is suing. It is far easier, and cheaper in the terms of production expenses, to sue someone than to turn out a new product.
C) Suing downloaders, most likely, doesn't have 'making profit' as a primary goal. Most students and high schoolers can't pay tens of thousands of dollars of damages. No. Goal is Shock and Awe assault on offenders. Smack a hundred of them with lawsuits, and others would back off. At least in theory.
In the end, it all comes down to the fact modern movie costs are overblown. If an actor gets paid several mil. dollars for half a year of half-assed work, and you have several of those actors to pay, then add to that a million other overblown expense issues... Holywood really needs some budget lessons.
'...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
There's been many studies that showed the file sharing has not decreased (and I would agree with that). There's also studies showing that CD sales have continued to plummet.
So, you may ask, if the monte carlo lawsuit method isn't slowing piracy then why would the MPAA take up the same fight?
The answer is simple. The goal isn't to curb piracy, that won't help anyone. If the CDs being released now are really bad then stopping piracy isn't going to fix that.
Piracy is simply an income source. A few years ago the RIAA had to find, sign, and rape bands, then spend a fair amount of money to advertise and publish the bands. This was lots of work for a moderate income. Lawsuits are much easier. Simply write a program to log into a file sharing network, write down IPs, and have the printer send out extortion letters as fast as it can.
One person, with a pair of laserjet printers and an internet connection, can generate a few thousand dollars per extortion letter printed.
Hold on a second....
Sorry about that delay, I had to fold the paper that just came out of the printer and put it in the envelope. I just made $2000 by threatening some 13 year old kid.
What? You say this will make me look bad? You say that people will become alienated and refuse to buy CDs? I couldn't care less. I, as the RIAA, make far more money mailing out random lawsuits that I do pushing pop CDs.
The lawsuits won't stop piracy, but nobody wants piracy to stop. If piracy were suddenly brought to a halt then the RIAA would have no income from CDs AND no income from lawsuits. Piracy is what keeps the RIAA in business now.
It's what keeps the RIAA in business, it's what keeps SCO in business, and it's worked for years. The MPAA isn't hurting, not in the area of sales. What they see is an additional income source that they can tap into.
If *YOU* want to become rich, simply start an organization called "anti-piracy group". Contact a few dozen big software manufacturers and get them to sign a contract. "If you let my organization sue file sharers on your behalf, I'll settle out of court and give you half."
You won't stop piracy, but you'll be filthy rich really quick. It's a good income for the software companies so they may be eager to sign up!
Q: To follow up on that, piracy has even negatively affected your family, correct?
:)
A: My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000. A few days after the film was released, a member of my staff found it being sold as a DVD just a few blocks from our offices. I called my son to give him the bad news, and he told me this is happening to all the current films. And then he said, "And what are you going to do about it, Dad?"
Why didn't dad do something about it being such a crappy movie? I wasted a whole day's worth of bandwidth for it.
Different case. Different issues.
1 is a case of public safety.
2 is a case of a debatable civil issue.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Before Dan Glickman started working for the MPAA, he was at the institute of politics at Harvard's Kennedy School of Gov't. My wife and a classmate did a independent study with him about funding school lunches. She said the he was honest, excited, and insightful - one of the nicest "professors" she had ever worked with.
This has been mentioned before, but while Sec. of Agriculture under Clinton, he was the catalyst in a civil rights cleanup in the department. He had little support from anybody on this (including Clinton, most people would say). He just thought it was the right thing to do. I think that's pretty amazing these days.
People may hate the MPAA (for good reason), but it's better to have somebody like Glickman at their helm than Valenti.
What are you talking about? Copyright infringement doesn't have to involve money, making illegal copies, or redistributing copywritten material, without permission, is illegal. Doesn't matter if you make a profit, the rules are the rules.
The fact that the RIAA and MPAA are now going after the people breaking copyright law instead of writing legislation aimed at crippling technology and suing service providers is a good thing.
Now, of course there are still some stupid hybrid technological/legal measures they're pushing like 5C encryption and the broadcast flag. But if unlawful uses of file sharing/copying/archiving diminish due to fear of individual suits, then legitimate fair use will become a significant part of what is being prevented by these measures and they'll hopefully stop or be forced to stop them. Hopefully.
-Ryan C.
BTW, are these the same people who are forcing 30 minutes of commercials before movies?
Just a note to that, its the theaters themselves that add the commercials beforehand. The large theaters by me all have commercials, but if I go to one of the smaller(ie. Non-chain) theaters, I'm am greated by a blank screen and a radio playing right up until the previews start.
A: My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000. A few days after the film was released, a member of my staff found it being sold as a DVD just a few blocks from our offices. I called my son to give him the bad news, and he told me this is happening to all the current films. And then he said, "And what are you going to do about it, Dad?"
I can't believe he's actually proud to bring that up. I just can't believe it. It's almost as perverted as the fact that Dubya can call on Jeb or his Dadda to get him whatever he wants.
Man, America is going down the pipes in fifth gear, and nobody's doing anything about it.
<RANT> All you pacifist liberals/lefties/intellos/geeks who like to shit on Micheal Moore because you think it's more intellectual to be able to shit on your own camp (ref. Team America, World Police)... you'd better get off your starbucks drinking asses and get something done, and fast...
I grew up in several countries and continents through my life. Namely, Canada, Turkey and France. I clearly remember in my younger years how the US was in fact something of an ideal. An actual land of the free. You may not realize it but this is changing fast. It actually boggles my mind that such a deep cultural change could sweep the globe so fast.
</RANT>
PS. FUCK KARMA!
I don't think that most people who download movies are watching them on a computer any more. With a $100 DVD Burner, $0.25 blank DVD, plus free (and awesome) DVD Shrink, you've got yourself a shiny new DVD movie.
I don't respond to AC's.
Society is really messed up when corruption amongst lawmakers is treated as casually as both interviewer and interviewee did here.
Did the interviewer make up the bit about Republicans claiming an entitlement to certain jobs based on their control of Congress, or is their support for this?
This is a far more serious issue than movie piracy.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
there are all sorts of ways to beat the system.
always mosh clockwise
Distributing other peoples works without thier permission is indeed against the law and has been for a couple hundred years. The only difference that selling makes is that it then becomes a criminal offense instead of just a civil one.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I believe their strategy works, although maybe just for a percentage of file sharers. I know someone who stopped using P2P entirely once the lawsuits came out. Sure, even if you're statistically not likely to get sued, why risk it?
If you're just downloading for fun, to hear a couple of songs or watch some movies, then why not just spend 20 bucks and get it legitimately?
For me, being on a university network is wonderful for downloading--but I don't try to abuse it. If I want something really bad, then buying it is usually what I'll do. For those passing interests (maybe I'll watch some silly comedy movie) I'll get it online and feel stupid for even bothering to download it.
In the end, how fun is it to watch the video/listen to the track--and compare that to how much trouble you might have if only 1% of people who saw it got a threatening letter...and if 1% of those people actually got sued, but had to waste weeks of their time and thousands of dollars, then is it really worth it?
I think it's about time some people get sued. They are the ones clearly breaking the law--nobody is trying to shut down bittorrent per se. If the music industry doesn't like people downloading their movies, they should forcefully "remind" us of it--and then act on their threat. That is the most powerful deterrent I can imagine.
...those of us who simply don't like theaters? music is very different because you're listening to it (generally) under the same circumstances as you would if you had bought a CD. but for most movies, if you want to see them when they come out, you have to go to the theater, pay too much money, and tolerate a head in front of you, kicking feet and fidgety knees behind you. not to mention a fellow moviegoer who might enjoy announcing plot points. and my all time least favorite, applause. being in the theater for a movie is rarely an enjoyable experience, and i'd much rather watch a movie as soon as it's available in the comfort of my own home, without waiting for it on DVD. why does there have to be a waiting period for watching something in an environment that isn't annoying?
I'm going to state this up front. I'm kind of an asshole when it comes to things like this. But please, hear me out and I think you might find we have more in common than you believe.
The biggest problem with videos of movies that come out on theater is that they are in Cam quality on IRC. I download these religiously. I don't think I have a god-given right to them, but I download them like no tomorrow. If caught, oh well, it was fun while it lasted and the MPAA can enjoy suing me. They can "make an example" out of me. If someone can get away with using lawsuits to ask for outrageous amounts of money in damages, then I don't particularly see a future for myself, anyway. All I see right now is dodging one litigous situation after another.
Anyway, I steal because I just can't justify spending 7 dollars per ticket plus five dollars popcorn and pop for myself and a date. And yet, I'm suppose to court all these lovely young ladies that are gold diggers too. (Told you I was an asshole, stay with me, here)
I went to see Return of the King, and I think that will be the last one. Forget the crappy quality of the Cam versions, I enjoy the other little things, like:
1) Popcorn and pop cost whatever I spend on them at the grocery store. Usually about 50 cents a can and package.
2) I have as much room as I want, either on the couch or leaning back in a computer chair. I can even change my clothes while watching the movie.
3) I can pause the movie when I have to take a crap. Or to go jerk off.
4) I can answer my cell phone and say, "What's up?" without being booed and hissed to the foyer. Same goes with farting, people won't get offended and tell those pimply-faced teens to ask me to leave.
No, I don't answer my cell phone during movies (I have it on vibrate, I'm not a total asshole) but it sure is nice to hit pause and then answer it right there. Can you imagine if they gave people remotes so they could pause the movie while they used the crapper, got a drink of water, made out, or breast-fed the baby? Return of the King would have been 3 days long, not 3 hours.
For what it is worth, it's not the MPAA that is the problem, it's the damned theaters. They have to start introducing some things that I can't purchase for my home and use that to try to get me to go there.
Here's some ideas:
1) Private rooms or twenty-person rooms with a large screen TV instead of a projector.
2) A table I can put food, Goobers, or a UMP on.
3) Theater massages - This can include vibrating chairs
4) Headphones. These serve two purposes: first, I don't have to hear the little brats screaming/whining/crying; and second, the abducter that is stealing the screaming/whining/crying brat will actually get away before the mom notices her kid is gone, so the kid will grow up in a god-fearing Mormon/Candian home, far away from me.
5) Naked chicks. The theater girls aren't always that ugly and fat, why not pay the good ones more to give us a brief synopsis on the movie while in the nude?
6) Hell, maybe if they even started providing gas for my big olde SUV I'd start going.
Yeah and every movie I watch on regular TV means I will never purchase the DVD and every song I listen to on the radio means I will never purchase the CD and every book I read in the library is one less book I will buy.
I think it's only a matter of time before McDonalds starts suing people who distribute recipes online.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Stop saying people are "stealing" when they copy movies and other stuff against the law, when they are obviously committing an act of murder against the rights of the owners, and murder of creativity.
Copyright infringement is murder, and should be penalized accordingly!
with the money you earned, you can purchase some DVD's, rip 'em and give some Divx to your friend the pirate.
Yee haw!!! Creating your own lawsuits er... market.
Isn't that sweet? O:)
I wonder if they also include lost sales due to people boycotting them because they hate litigious bastards.
Personally, I've just extended my RIAA and BSA boycott to include the MPAA, and unlike music, which I never bought before, I used to occasionally go to the movies (last one I saw was Farenheit 9/11). And Hades will freeze over before I buy any MPAA media.
I'm glad you put "property" in quotes, but the example you then go on to give still shows a lack of understanding. In order to even try to argue for the **AA's side, you cannot ever equate real property with intellectual property. That deserved some bold text because it is the #1 trap people fall into when debating this issue.
The reason your Ferrari example can't be used as an analogy is because a Ferrari is an example of real property. It's something that has a reproduction cost. To give a proper analogy, how would you feel if Joe paid the $2,000 for paint, steel, and aluminium and built himself a Ferrari? Would you still call him a thief? Could Ferrari still claim a loss as a result, and would you sympathise bad for them if they did?
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
If the movies are so bad why are people stealing them ...?
... and the portions are tiny!"
"The food here is terrible
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
Well, here's my advice to the RIAA/MPAA in regards to how they _should_ act.
First on the list of steps toward prevention is; "Remove the temptation." Fair prices, convenient licensing, fair use, etc etc. If a movie or an album is priced appropriately, it will lessen piracy. Although I believe the "I'm pirating it 'cause it's too expensive" excuse is overused.
Second, "Don't play dirty pool.", it only weakens your case in the consumer's eye. There's comercials comparing piracy to theft of material goods. There is a very distinct difference, and while it's technically stealing, it's simply not the same. There's "statistics" saying that there are huge losses where none exist. (This article even has a glaring hole, where Glickman states "there are losses" when presented with the fact that the sales have never been higher) And, my favorite, a comercial I often see at the movies, where a poor helpless stunt man is pleading with people not to steal movies, 'cause he blows himself up for us. (Runner up is the kid who steals a chocolate bar then says "But dad, you steal cable") I think it's sick really.
Third, don't try to "Put the genie back in the bottle". Law suits like the CSS fiasco are rediculous. It's broken, you should have spent more time developing something useful. Mp3s exist, don't fight them, use them. Hard drives are bigger, DVD burners are cheap, audio CDs are easily copied.... DEAL! You can't go back, don't cry over spilt milk... yadda yadda... The sooner you move on, the less money you fritter away (apparently you're all starving remember) and the sooner you can concentrate on adapting instead of fighting the inevitable.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
Q: Let's move to politics for a moment. As a lifelong Democrat, your appointment to the MPAA was criticized by several Republicans who said they felt a member of their party should have gotten the nod, since Republicans were in control of Congress. And there have been some reports that Congress withheld its support on some recent MPAA-supported bills in response.
Benito Mussolini, inventor of Fascism, once said that it could more properly be called Corporatism, since it is the merging of government and corporations.
Read the above quote again, folks. We live in The United Coporations of America - a fascist country.
This space available.
Why bother debunking everything a bunch of sue-happy Nazis want people to believe? Doesn't that get tedious? I don't see anyone going so far to debunk the KKK's 'logic' or anything like that. Isn't it easier to just accept that these people are bunch of mindless tyrannic bastards like the aforementioned groups?
Honestly, it's like telling a schizophrenic person his pencil isn't talking.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Okay there is a big difference here. The RIAA distributes music while the MPAA distributes movies.
I'm glad I just stated the obvious but I did it for a good point. The extended time it takes to watch a movie then to listen to a CD changes the effect of the product. You don't go around watching Chapter 3 & 5 of Kill Bill Vol. 1 and then watch a little Chapter 6 out of Cube. When this is easy to do with music, because one song is not directly connected to the other. With movies your going to watch the whole thing.
I find downloading movies is more like renting them, if I like the movie, I will most likely buy it. Mainly for the subtitles, great sound, dvd extras, and overall quality. Music isn't getting any better weather you get the CD or the mp3s of it. You can always download the cover and anything else that comes with the CD. You can do this with DVD's too but most don't. Most likely you will find a divx rip of the movie, with no subtitles (or enlish if the movie is in another language) with no dvd extras, no DD 7.1 surround sound option, a set quality and view port. The Divx copies are extremely limited.
People that download these movies for the sake of watching the movie wouldn't buy the movie anyways, they would probably rent it. Which as we know doesn't take away money from the MPAA, it takes away money from the rental business. Also there is a slim chance that people wouldn't even rent the movie. Generally the only thing I will do with a downloaded movie is watch it once to find out if i will be purchasing a good product that i will enjoy having. Sure, you could say that I am still doing this illegally, but this is helping the movie business because I have bought dvd's now that I wouldn't have imagined wanting to buy before.
I do disagree with what people are doing when it comes to pirating movies before they have came out in theaters, this can take away from theater sales because there are quite a few people that don't care if they see it in the theater or not, how ever this seems to be happening in every data business these days, weather it is music, movies, games, or software, on any platform and through any medium, it is a bit of a madness, but shame of the MPAA and the RIAA for trying to make a point by sueing random people that may be benifiting their company. You do not slap the hand that feeds you, eventually your going to end up starving!
redvsblue.com
::BANG!::
Sarge: Did you just shoot yourself in the foot?
Simmons: Yeah I do that sometimes now..
It's perfectly reasonable to argue that that type of piracy does represent lost sales, and I for one think it's entirely legitimate to go after the people peddling those sorts of things. Too bad he goes on with Now THAT just makes him sound like a media-whore-sue-everything-that-moves twit; it's a shame, he had a good thing going. Well, except that he shouldn't be allowed to breed - I wouldn't d/l Mr. 3000 if you paid me $9 to.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Careful, now. Not too close.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
(Runner up is the kid who steals a chocolate bar then says "But dad, you steal cable")
If only they went a tad farther...
Angered father retorts.
"Now I steal your life!!!" *STAB* *STAB* *STAB*
Announcer: "Obviously stealing cable leads to lesser offenses, buy cable or we'll take your candy bar!"
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Losing money? How's this for loss: "About 250 executives from Hollywood studios and home-electronics companies gathered at the Bellagio in Las Vegas earlier this year to toast their soaring fortunes, thanks to the phenomenal success of the digital video disc. Major studios sold a stunning $9.4 billion worth of DVDs to retailers last year, proof that DVDs now bring in a majority--52 percent in 2003--of Hollywood's revenue." (Newsweek July 5, 04)
So isn't THAT a hoot. These are same maroons who fought videotape under the premise that it would RUIN Hollywood (sorry, there are more than enough folks making crappy movies to do that already). But VHS opened up a multibillion dollar business expansion for them. DVD only speeds up their revenue machine. And now they're fighting DVD tooth & nail (i.e. buried 321 Studios, r.i.p., etc.) and continue to beat on every other possible means of DVD fair use.
"I tried to sleep my way to the top, but my alarm clock always wakes me right up" - TMBG
I don't have a DVD player. I don't have a CD player. I don't have a VCR. I don't even have a television set. This is actually the honest truth.
And I consider hard media dead. Dead, I tell you. All my entertainment is enjoyed on a large computer screen. I would have gotten a projector if I had a bigger apartment, I am sure I'll never own a television set or any of it's related devices ever again.
So what is the movie industries alternative for me? Nothing. This is the alternative I want:
I buy a one months free rental card from a major TV station or producer, or from some movie corporation. The one months pass gives me the right to view all and anything from that particular corporation. The corporation should make all their shows available in high quality easily-distributed divx files. Not only does this make customers satisfied, but it allows people to distribute the files and advertise them freely. Movie vendors could also make two versions available: One available for everybody with advertisements and one without. Those who would pay for a non-advertisement copy would do that, those who do not want to pay will not do that regardless.
I'm sure I am not alone in being willing to pay for the copyrighted files available on the net. I would very much like to clarify that it is the divx versions available on the net I am willing to pay for. I am not willing to pay for any streaming service, any service with a closed file format, any format that requires a special player and so forth. The movie industry tends to want control, restricting the customers freedom to use the product to the point where he simply will not buy. He will get a free hi-qualify copy that is USABLE instead. 'I would pay for a streaming service or a dvd if it gave me the right to download the xvid version,' someone told me a while ago.
Now, how would the movie industry end piracy anyway? THIS IS NOT A REALISTIC option. They can not do that. They can, however, MOVE the piracy. They can move it from BitTorrent to Freenet. Then what? There is already freenet and there is not a thing anyone or any corporation, no matter how big or small, can do about it. BitTorrent sites can be closed by Napster was closed.
The public demand for soft-versions (not on hard media) of entertainment is what is making BitTorrent use up to 85% of the outgoing bandwidth at Universities because they industry itself does not provide any realistic meet for the demand.
So what is wrong with hard media? First, it is very unpractical. It takes up space. It involves finding the hard media and inserting it into some device. Download the file and it's already playable from the device, without finding anything. Any computer, xbox and other funny device today can store one movie, and that is all the space needed. Movies are so widely available today anyway there is no need to store it, most people now tend to just download and play music and movies a few times before they delete it. People used to burn these things back in the last century, today it's quicker to download a music album off the net when you want to listen to it than to find the CD you bought of the album 20 years ago.
The environmental issue: There is not a single scientific paper published the last 25 years that contradicts a 6 th wave of mass extinctions (We have had 5 throughout history, the dinosaurs got hit by the second) within the next two hundred years due to the human species over-harvesting, destroying of natural habitats and pollution. We are cutting down ten times more trees than the world naturally produces, we are harvesting 25% to 50% of all plant material produced by the earth in any single year. We need to stop producing garbage. CDs, DVDs and video tapes are unneeded garbage, things we produce not for survival but to entertain ourselves. And for no good reason at all. Electronic distribution eliminates the whole harmful production of these hard-media items.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Your real problem is that you cannot see beyond the power of the moment, to the balance of the future. Sadly your hatred blinds you to the truth, and you see fit to live your days in the paranoid shell you have crafted for yourself.
It might be true. I can see right now, in these days of despair, that my biggest weakness is my extreme aversion for the American 'Freedom' and Glory. Now a much less rational me would have been very upset that Bush was re-elected. But a more relaxed me sees this as the perfect opportunity to finally remove the monopole that has been formed since the fall of the Soviet Union.
I will not get into details about that, but I tell you something you should watch out for yourself: while I may be assertive and very loud in what I'm saying... even fanatically emotional about it, I never pretend to know "The Truth" as you seem to think you have. My hatred blindes [me] to your truth... Not the truth!
I will also not get into that one too long: my last point is more about this thread. I think you should look at places like Europe and places like the Arab countries for what I am talking about. France is far more on the socialist end of the spectrum than the states. And yet, they have achieved through that socialist bureaucracy something that America desperatly needs right now: there is no chance for families to control things in France. The system is run by a system... a system of bureaucracy and rules. At first you might think that's bad and wrong. But they aren't doing bad at all for the size of their country. The level of research being done in French and German labs is very impressive. Their level of life is very high. Without comparing them to the US, I would say they are doing very well for themselves (so let's not go ahead and dismiss my point here simply by saying "yeah well socialism sucks anyways").
On a contrasted view, the arab countries, especially the oil producing ones are basically run by big families, Sheiks and their myriad cousins.
There's (fierce) commercial competition in France, despite the less capitalist point of view they have... I don't see that kind of 'freedom' around the arab countries.
Answer me now: which one would you rather gravitate towards? Families running the show, or a loose system.
Because as much as we talk about Big Brother running the show in the States, in my opinion, the show is being run more and more by Little Brother and his cousins.
PS. I live in Canada. If you must know.