Slashdot Mirror
Digital Watchdogs Widen Anti-Piracy War
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is covering a new focus by companies like Warner Bros. on consumer attitudes towards media consumption. The last few years have seen media companies concentrating on pirated materials sold in marketplaces and downloaded online. Increasingly, the expectation of content for free is what is worrying these same companies. 'Missteps made today could have grave consequences for the future, particularly when it comes to consumers' willingness to pay for movies and television shows online ... Warner and other entertainment companies are moving cautiously ahead, but their interests are divided. All want to share their content online with consumers but are, at the same time, imposing constraints that risk alienating a younger, Web-oriented audience.'"
Customers would like the media they purchase to be free of encumbrances.
.... the only thing they want to supply free seems to be rootkits.
Content providers
If that's the attitude the content providers take... I say, let us have stage plays again, and ban all recording devices during performances... let's see what market size we're talking about for such 'content'.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Better to die free than to live in chains.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When a large population of your consumers has been driven away by mediocre content and increasingly predatory legal action perhaps this issue should not be one's sole focus.
In a more general sense, of course content providers should be paid. Its even more of an issue with movies which take vast amounts more capital to create and market than a typical music album. The question is that if a) Radio has made it for 100 years on a free content delivery system, and b) Television has done much the same, why can't a movie distribution plan also be worked out?
Doubly perplexing to me is why there is any form of resistance to broadcasting television shows online. Update your advertisement payment systems for heaven's sake. Its a huge market that they are trying to quash. I don't think anyone reasonable is saying there shouldn't be advertisements in free content.
Off the top of my head I could say a two-tiered approach working for online video content. Tier 1 would be like broadcast television without the FCC censorship issues (at least if you're in the US). Free, with commercials to offset the cost. Tier 2 would be for those who are willing to spend either a subscription fee (per show, per network, per episode, whatever) or a one-time fee to watch the program with no commercials.
If you allow downloads, digitally watermark them so you can trace where they came from.
You are NEVER going to stop determined people from cracking your drm and infringing on your copyright. But most people just want to watch their favorite content, in the time and method they choose, and would prefer a sane and legal method of doing so.
I know I would. Sign me up.
The key problem the industry has is that DRM devaluates the product.
When I buy a piece of hardware (computer related or not), I have an advantage over stealing it. I have warranty, I have access to discounts, I get free or cheap spare parts, I may even get additional goodies, coupons or trade-in options, if there is a flaw I can return the product and so on. All that and more is no option if I buy it off the van in a shady alley or steal it outright.
With content, it is exactly the other way 'round: Stealing it increases its value. There is no region code, no mandatory previews to watch, no annoying FBI warning, no copy restriction, in the case of software, no need to keep the CD at hand and insert it when you want to play or a dongle to plug in (and render that port unusable 'cause whatever else you might want to plug in won't work), no unwanted spyware installed with your content, no restriction drivers that interfere with other software or even harm your hardware, nothing of the ever increasing pests that clog the movies and software of today.
It's not (just) that stealing content is cheaper. The main problem is that the stolen content is actually more valuable than the bought one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think you mean "Missteps made ten years ago". It's a little late to be worrying about people expecting movies and TV shows online to be free.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
I certainly don't want to live ina world where mass piracy has eliminated commercial entertainment and we have to rely on home-made movies dont by people in their spare time.
I get where you're coming from - but I think even in a world where mass piracy predominated, there would still be craploads of commercial entertainment.
Business models will change, but the entertainment industry will continue to thrive, LOTR-like movies will continue to be made.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Maybe movies wouldn't cost so much to make if they didn't have to pay "famous" actors tens of thousands of dollars for showing thier overexpoed faces on camera for 90 seconds.
Call the new situation an attempt at a "Market correction." The movies are no longer worth to the customer what they once were, so maybe those overpaid crybabies will be replaced by someone who doesn't expect to make the GDP of a small country for 6 months of work.
This was never a serious problem before the web, people knew that movies cost millions, they bought tickets and went to see them. If you have a whole generation growing up thats used to taking those movies for nothing, you are describing the death of an industry...
The reason it costs millions to produce movies is because, until the web came around, the producers had basically a monopoly cartel over a captive audience AND Distribution channel COMBINED. The producers and distributors traditionally made lots more money than the artists.
When every other business adapts to changing technology, why can't the content providers do likewise? Why should ALL internet users.. including on corporate networks.. be subject to this ridiculous persecution just because someone suspects them of stealing their so-called IP?
Adapt or perish... please don't advocate screwing the PC industry and the Tech industry to protect the seedier elements of the so-called Media industry.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
They're essentially claiming that most of their audience don't know that it costs money to produce movies, or music, or software-- that people will come to "expect" such content for free.
It's not because it costs money that you have to pay for it. Do you expect to pay for your Yahoo! Mail account, your Google searches or your MSN conversations? No? It's not brought to you at no cost tho, they have developers to pay, sysadmins, thousands of servers, marketing departments, and much more, but you still don't have to pay a thing.
Why couldn't it be the same for mmmh.. TV shows? Oh wait, that's already the way it's always been on TV! Now why do they want you to pay a couple of dollars on each episode of their show you download on iTunes? Cause they can! Why distribute yourself your content on internet for free with some commercials in the middle to get your money on as you do with TV when you can get the viewers to pay what they normally don't pay for?
You just got troll'd!
The problem is not that people wouldn't want to pay for their movies. I sure as hell would. But I am not going to buy a DVD that forces me to jump through hoops before letting me watch what I paid for. IF I may watch what I shelled out my dough for 'cause the region code doesn't fit or the DVD has some copy protection scheme that my DVD player doesn't like.
And since studios don't make DVDs the way I want them, I don't buy them. Simple as that. If a product does not match my requirements, I don't buy it. It's my money and I put it where I want it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They are freaking hell from the fact that they will have to sell "content" for lower prices than the hellishly inflated ones they used to :
Digital distribution cuts costs to phenomenonally ridiculously low rates per "piece" of content.
One would think they would adjust their distribution system and prices accordingly, and adapt to the new amenities.
But they dont want to do this. They want to sell stuff from the prices of the previous decades, where the final price was justly high due to the costs involved in production of the medium carrying the content and distribution of it.
Hence, they will pocked the 200-400% rate profits per piece sold - old prices, minus the new pathetic cost of distribution.
This is what they are concerned about. Its not about "piracy" or "content distribution" (heh), "protecting rights" or "intellectual property"
Its totally about being allowed to screw the public en grande, or not.
One would think that they would have understood that piracy is going to go on as long as they try to screw people over. But apparently they did not.
Then piracy will continue.
Read radical news here
Well people are dumb enough to believe that piracy is damaging profits http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/106698/technology-boos ts-movie-industry-box-office-sales.html - and will soon destroy the industry, unless drastic measures are taken to prevent it.
In the UK decades ago they said that 'home taping of radio shows is killing music' and actually got the government to change the law to outlaw taping radio shows. It didn't stop the practice and music is not dead.
The music and film industry has always complained about piracy and yet they go from strength to strength.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
I wouldn't shell out for a movie or software, but I would make donations to people who write OSS.
Somehow the people who don't want to grab all the money seem more deserving.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
It's definitely silly to trust the goldfish medium. We need to consult someone who speaks directly to the gods. To the whitehouse!
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Some of the greatest achievements of film, like most of the work of Ingmar Bergman and other auteurs, was done on small budgets with state subsidies or private patronage. Profit by the masses going to the film was not a necessary result for the film to be seen as a success.
Well, if you think that "a good movie" means a film with poor acting and more attention paid to flashy special effects and Hollywood tropes than meaning or atmosphere, I guess the future may suck for you, but I'm sure films that stand the test of time will continue to be paid.
You're exactly right - TV is ALREADY free. Perhaps the cable culture of the US is a little different, but in other parts of the world, the latest TV shows are ALL FREE ALL THE TIME over the air, even in digital. The latest series of Lost in Australia is only about 6 weeks behind the US and it is FREE for everyone.
Why would anyone want to pay to download TV shows? There are certainly some reasons - convenience, being up-to-date (not even 6 weeks behind), having it to watch more than once, having it to watch at your own leisure.
BUT the 'TV is free' culture is already highly ingrained in my mind. I would find it hard to justify paying for content unless it was DRM-free, high quality and affordable (even $2/ep is not affordable).
Do I think it costs nothing to make music or TV? No - but if I already get TV for free, music on the radio for free, radio music over the internet (no ads) for free (except for ISP costs) I am not in a position to want to suddenly START forking out huge sums of money to enjoy the wide variety that I already enjoy.
A reprise of a Slashdot comment I made two years ago:
Prior to 1980, it was expected that when you went to a movie you might not be able to ever see it again. And it was expected that your records would get more and more scratchy and skippy with age, and maybe even break.
Not me. My teenage years were in the 1980's, where I was able to purchase -- legally -- "perfect" quality CDs and high quality (for NTSC, anyway) LaserDiscs, both free of copy protection. Both CDs and LaserDiscs were touted to last a lifetime, and even though that's not true, the lack of copy protection enabled lifetime chain copying to preserve the recording for personal use.
I grew up accustomed to, after hearing or seeing something I liked, purchasing it, and playing it back at any time for one of two purposes: a) reflecting upon its content, b) recalling the time and place where I originally heard or saw the recording, for the purposes of sentimentality.
I've said it many times, and almost always get modded down, but I'll say it again. I consider it a form of mind control for a publisher to present something for my consumption, and then be able to at a later date forbid me from reviewing that material in the time, place, and manner of my choosing.
As I said, I believe this attitude of mine is due in part to my Gen X demographic. Baby boomers and older -- those presumably running XXAA -- grew up not expecting reviewing capability. Baby boomlets grew up expecting stuff for free via P2P. Gen X'ers are in the position of expecting lifetime reviewing capability, and expecting to pay a reasonable one-time fee for it.
But demographically, there aren't as many Gen X'ers as baby boomers and baby boomlets. And no one seems to care that books after 1924 are rotting away. So DRM and short memories it will be from now on.
Come on, all those bullshit promises? Yeah right! If I'm really considering suicide, the possible prospect of a magical sky-daddy who's gonna keep me alive forever in a perfect place, is so ludicrous that I doubt it would convince me to put the razor down.
Blar.
It's a great story, isn't it? I love how carefully the analogy maps onto the expecations and experience of a music listener:
The fish is the listener.
The bowl is -- I think -- The established media powers. The fish cannot get out of it without risking its life.
The water is the filthy sludge that the bowl (see above) has immersed the fish in.
Youtube is the air, in which the fish cannot live.
The analogy breaks down on this point: the listener is actually not a fish, and can live just fine in the air.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
These exchanges always go the same way: someone in the industry (an executive, a production person, an artist) says "Without these high royalty rates, I couldn't make the living I make today!" This is true, but utterly beside the point. The question is, would art and music and writing still be produced if we abandoned the centralized, monopolistic distribution mechanism that DRM and modern copyright law currently enforce? The answer is obviously "yes". And artists would still make a living, just as they always have (since copyright royalties play no significant part in the economic lives of most artists anyway, with the exception of a few stars). Giant publishing conglomerates would make a lot less money from royalties, but that's not society's problem. After all it is not the job of government to enable one particular business model at the expense of other business models.
Spread the word: http://www.questioncopyright.org/
http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel
"Mortimer took the leap to freedom," she said. "He said, 'I'm free, but I'm dead,' " said Ms. Antonellis.
So Ms. Antonellis, do you remember the movie "Finding Nemo"? Are you suggesting that Nemo was Free in that small fish tank? Is this the type of artificial Freedom that you advocate we "consumers" should all be happy with?
I love this analogy because it shows that the MPAA wants to convince us to stay in the fish tank when we were born in the Ocean.
A movie 'starring' George Clooney is going to make (at least) $50m more than a movie 'starring' Steve Buscemi.
Has this ever actually been put to the test. i.e. the same movie being made with both "stars" and "unknowns"? It also depends on the type of movie "stunt doubles" may have to do a lot of difficult acting for very little recognition. As well as there being various situations where you may never see the actual actor...
Two words for you: "Johnny Mnemonic"