Slashdot Mirror
For-Profit, Illegal Movie Download Sites Threaten MPAA
vossman77 writes that BitTorrent is no longer the MPAA's enemy number one. They are now more concerned about illicit, for-profit movie download sites. This reader adds, "Just a thought, but maybe if the studios offered a low-cost, for-profit, legitimate download site without DRM, they could receive the profits at the expense of the cyberlockers." "Movie fans downloading free pirated films are no longer Hollywood's worst nightmare, but that's only because of a newer menace: cheap, and equally illegal, subscription services. Foreign, often mob-run, businesses aggregate illegally obtained movies into 'cyberlockers.' Cyberlocker-based businesses operate from Russia, Ukraine, Colombia, Germany, Switzerland, and elsewhere. ... Hollywood movies are made available via illegal for-profit sites within days of theatrical release, while the advent of global releasing now allows the proliferation of individual titles into an array of language dubs within the first month of a theatrical debut. ... When movies are released on DVD and Blu-ray disc, the sites upgrade the quality of video offered from camcorded images to pristine digital copies. 'Sometimes these sites look better than the legitimate sites,' Huntsberry said. 'That's the irony.'"
I wonder, are sites like MegaVideo part of that list? I have a friend who told me about that they canceled their tv subscription and bought a MegaVideo subscription instead since they can watch even more and when they want. Wonder which sites are most likely to be a part of this list?
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
Torrents higher quality and are better than legal downloads and are more useful since they don't have DRM.
Weed is better than alcohol because it doesn't leave you hung over.
Amphetamine is better than caffine because it takes much less to keep you awake and focus. And it's better to take speed as needed than every single day as it is usually prescribed.
The bottom line: the best things in life are illegal.
as simple as that. i would like to see mpaa, riaa take on russia.
Read radical news here
While both illegal, I think most people would agree that selling copyrighted stuff you don't have the rights to is worse. In that case it actually is a little closer to stealing because they are taking money from people who pay for the movie that might otherwise have payed for a legitimate copy.
It used to be the **AA vs Jammie, now it looks like the **AA vs the Mafia. Fighting somebody their own size, playing by their same rules, is probably something they won't enjoy.
isn't the point of piracy to NOT pay for it?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
this sounds interesting.
tell me more.
illegal sites "for profit" sites will always have an advantage of lower price compared to whatever MPAA is ready to give up in markup in their hypothetical "legal" sites.
That and zillion of "free with ads that are not in the video itself" sites.
That does not mean though that MPAA should not do those sites, because those "legit" sites have an advantage of their users not having their asses randomly fried.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This is what Hollywood should really be worried about. People downloading movies and music likely would never have bought those media if they hadn't had access to free versions of them. But these mob-run pay-sites are funneling money from customers to their illegal operations. Unfortunately the RIAA and MPAA seem to be more interested in punishing normal people than actual criminals.
rofl, yeah right. That wont save you if you get caught even if it is coming from Argentina cause the IP doesn't belong to the US but to the individual groups.
In college, a friend of mine had found AllOfMP3.com and diligently purchased hundreds of dollars worth of songs. When albums are ~ ten cents and legit, why not? He had assumed that because technology was so wonderful, someone had finally figured out how to eliminate all the middle men in the process of making digital music. So I investigated and showed him where the servers he downloaded from were located (Russia and Germany) and then pointed out how their local laws allow them to do this without rewarding the artists in anyway. He stopped using it but, like the article said, claimed it was worth the extra money to get the real thing with correct track labels and a perceived level of legitimacy. Like, he saw himself as not at fault legally ... the seller is the one who should get punished.
Sure opened my eyes to the problem of global and local laws surrounding copyright that over reaching blankets like ACTA have tried to address. Basically people see file sharers being sued but they don't see these users being sued. So you get on newsbin or something where a service takes a small fee from you and basically makes itself the target for the lawsuit. You aren't buying a license for the media, you're buying insurance in case the RIAA/MPAA come down on the service you're using. If they do, you lose only the fractions of the cost you put in and the site owner takes the fall. That's raw capitalism for you!
My work here is dung.
In Soviet Russia, the government takes on the RIAA and MPAA!
Which is more or less what the article is saying, for a sufficiently cynical view of corruption and the current political situation over there...
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
Because mobs are never smart enough to profit from the Internet?
If you are a subscriber to:
Sorny.com
UniblersalStudios.com
Fox.com
You are probably getting ripped off by the mob.
Now THAT is a movie I'd pay money to see.
-S
They might for DVD quality, but then there's no incentive to get the movie early, since the DVD-quality copy isn't going to be available until months later.
Now, if the movie is DVD quality and "released within days" of theatrical release, then Hollywood has their own problem they need to sort out. It's not the "pirates" getting the new movie out there.
Someone on the inside is letting the DVD-quality copy out early. But then, we already knew that, didn't we?
People who are willing to pay money for an illegal download would obviously pay at least something for a legal download. Some people probably believe these are genuine sites.
Now, I'm pretty neutral about people downloading movies for free. I don't think it does a lot of harm although the sense of entitlement a lot of downloaders have irritates me. These guys on the other hand, are directly profiting from someone else's work. Sure, the MPAA could compete pretty well if they dind't have to make the damn films in the first place.
This is exactly the sort of thing copyright law was intended to prevent. It's a system that has worked reasonably well for quite some time. I'm surprised there's so much sympathy for criminals.
Every month I see some twit post an ad in the computers-and-tech section of my local Craigslist branch, advertising a disk drive or Flash media pre-loaded with hundreds or thousands of movies or MP3s, and in every instance the asking price is far more than the value of the media itself. Those people, too, are profiting from it; whether they are vacationing members of one of these shady foreign cartels I can't say.
Yeah... that would be Antigua, not Argentina.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
I do remember something about the US screwing over some small country recently so WIPO issued sanctions saying that they wouldn't be expected to enforce US copyright law in that country for a period of time. Essentially they have the approval of the international community to pirate whatever they want from the US and they don't have to pay licensing. It wasn't Argentina though.
when the criminals can give you better customer service then the legit manufacturer/vendor. If the MPAA/RIAA always bitch about how every download is a lost sale image how much they would be racking in if a new movie was available for $2-5 for digital download. You would be stupid to download it illegally when you can get a brand new release for the price of a coffee. Oh lost the file in a crash oh well its only $2 to download it again. At that point I wouldn't even bother hitting the the pawn shops few days after new releases to get them for $3 when I can save time by buying it at home and let it download. Now give the user tons of payment options even pre paid cards for people who can't set up paypal or credit cards and you're brought your business int the 21st century. Its amazing what you can achieve when you work for the customer.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Back when I used to play games online, one of the best pieces of advice I ever got was "If someone plays a dirty trick on you, don't get mad, remember it and use it on someone else the next time!". Like TFA says: If they offered an inexpensive, legal, DRM-free service, they'd put the pirates out of business.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Effective propaganda is plausible, not necessarily true and always emotional. Is there a reason why "mob-run" is mentioned in the context of movie downloads? If movie downloads are OK, should we still do something about them if the mob profits from them? If movie downloads are not OK, will we refrain from doing something if the mob is not involved? No and no. The allegation is purely there to create emotional aversion. It's propaganda.
My uncle has a VERY large collection of movies he gets from one of those places. For whatever fee it is he pays per month he can get up to 10 a month and then a fee for everyone after that. They are fairly decent quality (cost more for the HD versions). He thinks it is legal since he is paying for it, the website is professional looking, and the cost/access rules are what he expects for a legit company.
Indeed, he was lamenting to me a few weeks ago about not being able to find a blue-ray player that also plays his DIVX's. He commented that as easy as it is to get them off the internet and as fast as they come out he didn't understand why all the players just didn't mostly move to that format. I, once again, explained that it was illegal and few companies are going to be going about making your illegal downloads work easier. He looked blankly at me and said "Oh" - it was about the 50'th time I've tried to explain it. It is amusing that he refuses any of the ones I download for free but will happily pay someone else for the same thing so "He knows he is legal". If something were to happen and he end up ripped off (I suspect that if they are getting ready to be shut down many would be all over some credit fraud) or something happen and him go to court he would be one of the ones perputally confused that such a nice company dd it too him. I suspect that letters would be written to movie studios and no amount of being told "It is *illegal*" will ever sink in to most.
Really, with as many people that *do* use them the MPAA ought to just bite the bullet and enter that market - were it legal I woud most likely pay the fee (I'm not about to give someplace pirating anything credit card or bank account numbers even if I were willing to pay for something I could get for free). My uncle (and those others I know that use these services) still go to the movies just as often, the MPAA is just missing out on the profit he is sending to an operation in another country that may or may not be legal there.
For myself *this* is the type of piracy they ought to go after. I have no sympathy whatsoever for selling copyrighted information that you do not have permission to do.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
... that they start putting contracts on each other, then in the end the world would be a better place without them both.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You guys have to stop expecting free media! Sheesh. Have you ever watched a movie's entire credits? Its like a small city put that together. Cheap and DRM free is not going to happen if that small city is going to eat and dress their children. Media pirates are not Robin Hoods. Robin Hood only stole which was *wrongly* taken. All these people who make want is a liveable wage. Not eevry one involved is a mega star or executive.
The economy needs money to be exchanged, to flow. As long as you refuse to pay for the media you consume, the economy will suffer.
I think the keyword here is "service". No more "seed plz, fuckers", no more hunting for best quality, all in one place and perhaps other good stuff.
'Sometimes these sites look better than the legitimate sites,' Huntsberry said. 'That's the irony.'
He’s so close to an epiphany that it’s almost painful.
Everything about them is better. Except, perhaps, the quality of the picture, but personally I won’t tolerate a really terrible picture anyway. I’ll just wait.
The lack of DRM is better. The lack of involuntary filler content (previews and menus and such) is better. The convenience of being able to fairly quickly get any full-length feature film and watch it in the privacy of your home is better. The price, of course, can’t be beat. And apparently in some cases the websites even look better than their legal counterparts. Admittedly, being illegal is worse, but only if you get caught.
To beat piracy, they’re going to have to make the legal offering better. That’s all there is to it. Apple was very successful with iTunes (well, once they got beyond the notion that 1 song from an 8-song album should cost 1/8 as much as the album). It appears that a lot of people think iTunes is better than illegally downloading.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Antigua/Barbuda
http://games.slashdot.org/story/07/12/27/1514235/WTO-Awards-Caribbean-Country-Right-to-Ignore-US-Copyright
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but copies of high quality DRM-free movies are already available on every file sharing site. It's not as if the MPAA offering the same would change anything with regards to that. But it would offer them a way to get a slice of the potential profits here, from the people who pirate just because they think $20 is too much for a film, or the ones who want to watch a film now and don't want to wait or whatever.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
The article is hosted at movies.yahoo.com, and in turn their source is the CEO of Paramount. Is there any reason to believe that these are used nearly as widely as either claim?
This just seems like PR to try to influence people to view those involved in illegal downloading as serious criminals.
Let me simplify it, irony is "the opposite of what you expect". An ironic situation (as this one is) is one where you would expect the legitimate content publishers to be the ones creating convincing, effective distribution methods but it is instead those that steal the content that produce the most compelling distribution methods.
That's what irony means. Get over it.
Who would give their credit card number to a site of questionable legality? I suppose you could give a one time use CC number, but wouldn't you be in constant worry that the site might forget to pay off its local officials, get raided, and have said local officials sell all the records to the MPAA/RIAA?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
So, you think making things quicker and easier for the pirates will get the MPAA a slice of the profits? I don't think so, and more importantly, the MPAA doesn't think so.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
So, what the pirates do is download the DRM-free copy and then "share" it as being the DRM-free copy from the service.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
who owns the most judges and politicians ...
As these sites do not look questionable, why wouldn't they?
I mean, come on, it is not like the site is named "Illegal-movie-copies.com" nor does the "about us" page say "Proud subsidiary of the Russian mob."
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
This reader adds, "Just a thought, but maybe if the studios offered a low-cost, for-profit, legitimate download site without DRM, they could receive the profits at the expense of the cyberlockers."
Does anyone else feel the same way about such business model suggestions? "They know best because they're n that position" certainly isn't foolproof logic, but they definitely spend a lot more time and money and have a more realistic understanding of what impact pricing and distribution methods will have on revenue than know-nothings that always seem to recommend business practices that are in their best interest.
Whale
Every consumer always picks the lowest cost, that's what they call the "market". The studios business model concerns greed, that's all. A successful movie recovers the investment in the first week at the theaters, everything after that is profit.
The problem with the studios is called "Hollywood accounting". Since so much of their costs is services, paid to companies in the same cartel, they can juggle the accounts in order to pay less to artists and outside investors.
Excellent point. How many people verify that Amazon.com has the rights to sell the movie downloads they do?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
"That's right. I am wishing death upon those that dare pursue a career with the MPAA or RIAA. About the only people lower than you are the kiddie porn peddlers."
The two vocations are not mutually exclusive.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Besides, people STILL fall for 409 scams. You don't think they would fall for this when they fall for something that has been beaten to death in the media?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
OTOH, the illegal sites are less likely to rootkit your computer than the legal ones!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Irony is actually quite complex and has been the subject of a long conversation lasting for millennia. Since your "get over it" is annoying and knowledge seems to cause you pain, I'll continue. There are numerous forms of irony: classical, rhetorical, romantic, tragic, cosmic, verbal, dramatic, and poetic. Rhetorical irony, according to Cicero and Quintillian, can be further subdivided into eleven categories, including--esp. notable on this occasion--sarcasm and mycterism (sneering). I suppose whether or not this is "stuff that matters" depends upon your perspective. But, whether it matters to you or not, it still is. And it matters to others. Just change the channel if you don't like what's on.
It was the WTO doing the screwing not WIPO. The country is Antigua and it was about online gambling and a serious lack of knowledge on how the US government structure works.
And the ruling is only to the effect that the US can't create embargoes or trade sanctions against them because of pirating activity. It doesn't absolve them from individual lawsuits from the owners of the copyrighted materials as those treaties and protections from them are separate and complete by another organization altogether (WIPO as you already suggested). A company or person in Antigua can pirate something, then be arrested and criminally charged if they enter the US or any territory the US controls. Civil lawsuits can also be pursued against them if their pirating happens or extends to any US jurisdiction including other WIPO member states due to provisions in the wtc and wppt treaties.
Wow, you must be a lot of fun at parties. Are you Lewis Carroll's ghost? You make a convincing opium addict, I will give you that.
that they start putting contracts on each other
At least the Mafia honors such contracts, unlike the MAFIAA.
Look at this from a game theoretical perspective (yeah, I'm one of those). The MPAA moves first and they can either sell the movie in a cheap and convenient format or not. If they do not, they get no profit from it and then the pirates get the option to put the movie on file sharing sites or not. We have proven that they will by the fact that this is the state we're in. Now, say the MPAA does sell the movie in a cheap and convenient format online. They start making money from this (I know I'd certainly purchase cheap, high-quality, DRM-free movies if the MPAA let me). The pirates then, again, put the movie on file sharing sites, doing exactly what they're doing now.
So, the MPAA, knowing how the pirates will move, have two options. They can continue not selling cheap, convenient movies and make 0 profit or they can start selling them and start making some non-zero profit. The rest of the game doesn't change a smidge.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
You could have just said "the dictionary is wrong" if that's what you were getting at. What are you getting at? I've heard homeless people give more convincing arguments.
Now, reverse your perspective and try again.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Just for discussion purposes.. does anyone know any urls of said websites?
You were modded "flamebait" because your post was just plain wrong in every sense of the word "wrong".
Copies of which would end up on every file sharing site within minutes
Just like any CD.
thus destroying the market for said DRM-less downloads.
DRM helps nobody. Learn how the internet works, for god's sake, and stop drinking RIAA koolaid. All DRM does is inconvinience people who buy legally and give the pirates a better product. If someone is going to pay for DRMless downloads they're going to pay for it, and if they're going to download from bittorrent they're going to download from bittorrent and there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it.
Free Martian Whores!
I really don't see what you're getting at at all....
Do you want me to look at the pirates' side of the game? It doesn't change, regardless of how the MPAA plays.
Do you want me to look at the pirates as first movers? That doesn't make any sense.
Do you want me to try to minimise profits for the MPAA? That doesn't make sense in terms of them wanting to do well, but it at least would make sense for why they are continuing on as they are.
Do you want me to look at the MPAA seeing eliminating piracy as better than making profits? The game presented here still remains unchanged as far as the pirates are concerned, though the MPAA's new strategy is to stop creating anything.
So, to be blunt, what the hell do you mean?
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
you would expect the legitimate content publishers to be the ones... but it is instead those that steal the content that produce the most compelling distribution methods
Forget irony, clearly you are not very familiar with organized crime.
Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
Just a thought, but maybe if the studios offered a low-cost, for-profit, legitimate download site without DRM, they could receive the profits at the expense of the cyberlockers
Nope. The illegitimate sites can always undercut the studios, as they don't have the expense of actually making the movies.
..Is where i personally draw the line. They should be taken out if they are truly profiting off piracy. And no, i don't mean making a buck or 2 on the side with some ad revenue on a torrent page, but true profit by selling the stuff.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Babby is formed through software exchange.
That sounds like a spurious argument. If I already know up front that I'll never see XYZ copyrighted work in the public domain anyway, what earthly reason could I have for waiting 14~28 years?
If (waiting == not waiting), don't wait.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I didn't know about these kinds of service. If they don't charge much I'd consider subscribing. I have a nice TV and 20 Mbps to put to good use.
The fact that this has been slashdotted could mean extra revenue for these pay-per-download sites. Funny how the RIAA ends up shooting themselves in the foot. I wonder how many current users didn't know about The Pirate Bay before the RIAA or one of it's representatives started talking about it. Each time they try to fight some download service, they end up getting them free publicity. Funny stupid grunts.
I use a prepaid credit card for all my online business. I don#t do much online shopping, so the higher fee does not bug me.
Everyone can leech my number for what i care - they have to catch the 5 minutes where there is actually money on it.
You're right about consumers will pick the lowest cost product. Cost isn't always measured in money though.
For me, I haven't bought a DVD in many, many years. I simply don't want the plastic disk. Everything I watch comes from either cable TV, RedBox, Netflix or PS3 movie rental. All cost more money than torrenting, but to me are a better value (mostly because it is less hassle).
What I can't figure out is why the movie studios don't set up their own NetFlix. Undercut them and stream at higher quality. There's obviously a market for people who want to watch movies but don't want to pay for expensive DVDs. They have ceded this market entirely to legit companies like NetFlix and the illegal companies the article talks about. It doesn't make any sense. Cut out all the middlemen and keep that money in-house!
who cares what business model a distributor wants, when there already is a distribution model: the internet, that can deliver anything, to anywhere, for free
i'm certain that if i wanted to sell bottled water for $5.00 next to a free natural spring, i might be angry that people were choosing free over spending $5.00. and i might try to sabotage or block access to the spring, if i assumed it was written in the constitution or the bible to profit forever, because at one time i was the only water supplier around
the internet has rendered distributors obsolete. the laws under which they protected their business before the internet, are simply unenforceable. there is a reason why they call it disruptive technology. the gun did away with feudal system, the printing press did away with monarchies, and the atom bomb did away with world wars. now, the internet has put media distributors out of business. its a done deal. deal with it
you will note, of course, that television, then the vcr, then the internet, were supposed to destroy the movie business, and none of it has. a movie called avatar just made a bazillion dollars... ALL INSIDE A MOVIE THEATRE
perhaps movie makers need to get used to the fact that a movie theatre is the only place they will be able to make money on their product in the future. as if that is somehow a path to poverty, as avatar demonstrates. crocodile tears
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
are full of shit. The people that are profiting off their work is the natural first choice to go after. Instead they go after individuals to destroy and try and make ridiculous amounts of money off of and waves in the media. BULLSHIT. They are all greedy cowards or mindless idiots in suits. either way....
Every consumer always picks the lowest cost, that's what they call the "market".
Every consumer always picks the best value, that's what they call the "market".
Always choosing the lowest cost would mean there is no high-end market and everyone shops at Wal-Mart.
If RIAA and MPAA or whoever can charge me for every blank DVD and CD I purchase without proof that I have downloaded anything illegally why are we so upset with the mobsters. My musician friend says he has never seen a cent of what I have paid for my blank media.
Its funny, but I am being forced to look in the direction of some of these sites. I have been downloading movies and tv shows from iTunes because it was too easy. Now my wife would like to watch some of these on our TV, but guess what? I cant! Not without spending another $260 for apple TV. Not because my DVD player wont handle digital media... Our home movies play just fine from a thumb drive. But the stuff I have paid for wont! So my solution, download it from somewhere else.
Sorry I have no sympathy for the MPAA and its DRM. Create a business model that is affordable and competitive with the crimials, and the criminals will go somewhere else and I will continue to buy legit.
Single mothers, poor college students, and elderly gentlemen are not proper targets. People ACTUALLY making money off piracy are the right targets, and they have no moral leg to stand on.
Consumers choose the lowest cost for things they perceive of as equal value. However a higher cost could be charged for something that they perceive as having a higher value. The studios could get higher prices, though probably not a lot, because of the following extras that a download from them would have over one from some Russian site:
1. It is a legal copy and they are not paying criminals
2. Much more likely to actually get the file they expect
3. Much less likely to get some nasty computer virus
4. Legit site could let you download and view the instant something is released
The problem is that the pinheads at the studios just cannot imagine making the files available without DRM. This means that the illegal site has a greater perceived value because the files do not have DRM. So not only are they lower in cost, they are also greater perceived value!
Remove the DRM and there will be a level playing field, and the studios could then try to leverage some of the other perceived value of using their site into higher prices than the pirates are charging.
The title sounded to me like the pirating sites (from Russia) were physically threatening the RIAA executives or something.
Oh well, maybe in time...
The RIAA took on Russia to get allofmp3.com closed, which was an online bulk-purchase site for music files - in mp3, ogg, wav and others. You were charged for the size of the file, but you could have it any way you wanted it, and in near real-time.
It was so superior to iTunes that it had to be stopped, and so they used the US government as proxy, by buying the right congresscritters to "convince" Russia that it was in their economic interest to shut the site down, which was done.
The operators of allofmp3.com were subsequently found by Russian courts to have been operating fully legally under Russian law.
Do you really think the oligarchs will do differently with this, with a media-friendly Democrat majority running the show?
want to fight the pirates? fix it like this: .iso or i will get it elsewhere. and none of this, back in the vault, lucas-disney lameness. and speaking of lucas, for someone who is all about the hi-tech movie magic, why is star wars always the last shit to come out on new formats?
1. no artificial scarcity. if you want to pervert the system and place physical roles on intangible goods (unauthorized copying is theft), then price your wares to your nearly unlimited supply, which, unfortunately is nowhere near as much as you think it is.
2. relating to #1. nothing goes out of print...ever. sell me the fucking
3. if you want to play in the global, digital world, everything should be licensed globally. no more bullshit, regional markets. stop the arbitrary bullshit. internet == one big market. that would truly level the playing field.
4. revert back to the original 14+14 copyrights. or hell, because this IS a global thing, make a global copyright. so we don't have dumb shit, like Popeye becoming public domain nearly everywhere except a few places.
probably more, but this is a good start.
...
They don't even need to remove DRM to start actually making money in the movie buying market. What they need to do is restructure the logic of how the DRM works so that copying content has no effect ... other than reducing their download demands.
Basically, how it would work is that the content is encrypted, as expected. Let the encrypted content be copied and traded freely. Sell playback certificates that are bound to a specific decoding device (NOT software). This device ultimately should be a monitor with a means added in (either over the HDMI connection, or via a separate USB connection) to pass the encrypted (and compressed) audio/video stream, along with a certificate that only that monitor can decrypt which has the decryption key for the content.
Software (and it can be open source, too, since nothing special needs to be done here) would get the public key of the monitor and pass it along to the movie seller. Once payment is made, they sign it and send it back. As part of that is the decryption key, encrypted by that monitor's public key (if determined to be valid). The details happens inside the software for people that aren't programmers (a browser or plugin could do it).
There are more details to keep it secure, but it doesn't need to require more software than what can be incorporated into the browser, or other alternatives. It can be done in open source (by a programmer than can understand those details, or use a toolkit that is likely to emerge for it). This would work because it isn't the software that decrypts anything; the monitor would do that. Alternatives to the monitor doing that are other devices like video cards or DVD players with a USB port which will enforce the HDCP requirement.
FYI ... I hate DRM as much as any geek. But I also know, and acknowledge, that it is possible, when doing it right and doing it carefully ... and (most important) doing it without an arrogant corporate attitude of forcing everyone to use some specific software that will do spamming ... to actually make a form of DRM actually work, and even with BSD and Linux.
The real problem, of course, is that the MPAA members are either just to incompetent (I don't expect a CEO to understand these crypt details, but they should be able to get technical advisors that can figure it out ... incompetence thus being unwilling to pay a geek to do it) or too arrogant (they really want to do something else besides just selling a movie to everyone in the world ... selling a right to play the movie, that is). So it will never happen. The "DRM wars" will go on for a couple more decades until the MPAA itself goes out of existance because most of its members have folded because they failed to follow the market.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Does this mean that Hulu is some kind of ongoing criminal enterprise? How can you tell? They don't have any MPAA seal of approval or anything like that.
Rabits f**k all day! That's why they don't get lunch!
When you first hear about it, it sounds nice. But once you have to do it all day, every day, it gets tiresome.
That is why I reincarnated as a geek: zero sex!
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
So what law was broken by downloading?
The vendor may not have had the right to copy, sell the copy, or make it available. Is the downloader engaged in any of these activities? If not, she is in the clear. She doesn't even have to destroy the files if she is found to have purchased them from an unauthorized party. The law is clear -- a damage multiplier is applied to the person who infringes the copyright.
Remember, downloading is just downloading. It is not "piracy", "theft", or any other such thing. Where I live, about the only thing that would be illegal to download is child porn.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
"Just a thought, but maybe if the studios offered a low-cost, for-profit, legitimate download site without DRM, they could receive the profits at the expense of the cyberlockers."
Try Roku. Buy the box and watch Netflix and Amazon movies and videos for the price of a Netflix subscription.
No need to save them, watch whenever you want, as much as you want.
Or, are you just B.S.ing?
I don't need to explain how DRM reduces piracy because I never said DRM *would* reduce piracy. I said Cheap and DRM-free media is not going to happen if you guys keep pirating. Speaking out against DRM in this thread is idiocy.
Not one person who responded to my initial comment has admitted that pirating is illegal and wrong. Instead all of you have illogically attacked DRM as some kind of problem when it is a response to the problem of piracy. DRM is not the issue at hand and you clowns don't understand that.
Whether or not an individual is a pirate is irrelevant. As long as you, and the Slashdot community, continue to advocate pirating media you are essentially pirates, yourselves. You are part of the problem, not the solution. As long as the problem of piracy continues, those who create and distribute media will cling to DRM concepts. THus, you are the reason DRM exists.
I never said DRM will feed families and cloth children. You guys are incapable of reading comprehensively. The farce of your comment rated as "insightful" is a joke and evidence of the Kangaroo Court mentality of the piracy advocating Slashdot community. DRM exist because you pirate media via the Internet and for no other reason.
I wanted to watch (not own) Pineapple Express tonight. Still in the process of passing through my entitled free downloader, I looked for the movie on the legitimate sites first. It wasn't available to stream on Netflix, nor on Hulu. So I checked out Amazon and they had the movie...for $12 (to "own"). But I don't want to own, I want to rent.
If Redbox can rent hard copy versions of movies for $1/night, why can't I stream a movie for a couple of bucks? I want to support the content creators, but not when I have the sneaking suspicion I'm getting ripped off in the process.
try 'a plane full of riaa/mpaa executives and lawyers'.
Read radical news here
Alright, I'm sold. Links please!
I would actually argue the opposite: piracy exists because of DRM.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
You should meet up with this user or this user!
Free Martian Whores!
What do you have against homeless people? Are they instantaneously ignorant?
Just a thought, but maybe if the studios are losing so much to piracy, perhaps they should consider offering a low-cost, at-no-profit, legitimate download site without DRM, they could stem the loss of profits to the cyberlockers and lessen their own hemorrhaging to more manageable levels.
Or just, I don't know, realize that the cost of enforcing these everlengthened copyrights spreads them too thin and that they should perhaps consider releasing some works to the public domain earlier instead of lifetime-times-two.
As re-reported on 60 Minutes last weekend, dead celebrities have enough ways to continue to make a profit without reaping eternal royalties from their earlier works.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
So all the illegal downloaders work for the movie studios and were wronged by them?
It's called unclean hands. If a movie studio has acted in bad faith with respect to obtaining the rights to underlying works, how much standing does the studio have to enforce the exclusive rights in its derivative work?