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.
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.
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.
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
No, the point is to get a product you want for a price you'll pay.
If the official marketplace doesn't deliver, a black market forms.
Most people pirate movies and music to get it conveniently and inexpensively. According to the article some of these sites allow unlimited downloads for $5 a month. The Entertainment industry has these problems because they keep trying to charge the same amount they did when copying and distributing their products was expensive (relatively) and difficult.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If you are a subscriber to:
Sorny.com
UniblersalStudios.com
Fox.com
You are probably getting ripped off by the mob.
Right, because record breaking box office numbers and DVD sales aren't contributing at all to those who wrote, directed, produced and starred in said movie.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Now THAT is a movie I'd pay money to see.
-S
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.
Yeah... that would be Antigua, not Argentina.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
So, go ahead and buy from the MPAA. Do you really think that any of your money makes it to the people who wrote, directed and produced the content?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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!
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
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.
'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.
But the public needs to know that with such pirated convenience comes the risk of... problems with spyware contamination are even more common.
Spyware contamination like XCP? Sony Pictures is part of the MPAA, is it not? It looks to me like ANY RIAA/MPAA offering is just as dangerous whether you get it from the Russian Mafia or legally through the studios. In fact, the safest route is BitTorrent.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
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)
Your so-called "so-called piracy" is what other people call theft.
And they are incorrect. Call it copyright infringement.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
This is evidence that most of those who engage in piracy aren't looking for a freebie, but merely looking for a product at a fair price delivered in a format they want, to be played at a venue of their choosing. Its capitalism biting the MPAA right in its behind.
People now understand that pressing copy of a DVD could sell for $10 rather than $20-30 and still make a profit for the producer. People also know that extra digital copies can be made at virtually zero cost to the producer...yet the industry still insists on charging you $30 for that product.
People also understand that their is no longer a scarcity of these works of art. Why pay such a high price to watch a blockbuster movie when its plot line has been recycled in other films 13 times last summer?
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)
Or they could just think the site is legit. I am guilty of running one of these sites back in '05 (iptelev.com). I could remember the flood of DMCA notices I would get every week. Although, I had a credo: Any movie in theaters in the US, UK, AU, FR, SP, JP, or HK won't be in the library. Basically, if it's not on DVD, you won't find it at my site. A lot of my customers were users of other sites (SaltWaterChimp.com for example) that streamed television shows on the Shoutcast channels. I did try to broker a deal with individual studios to stream their content on a pay-per-view basis (and succeeded with Lionsgate), but most of the studios wanted too much and way too many restrictions (DRM, USA only, expirations, quality restrictions, minimum price, etc). I was only charging $5 & $7 for my stream and on-demand access respectfully, with about 300 customers sustained and about 20 new customers a month. After talks fell through, I decided it was too risky to continue the service and shut down all the servers, issuing refunds to customers that either just signed up, or were in the middle of that month. I had servers in the US, Canada, UK, France, and working on one in Asia.
The cost to run my services at the price I was asking for wouldn't have been sustainable if I had a full fledge staff. Plus, cloud computing like Amazon's EC2 didn't exist (or I wasn't aware), so I had to build my own network. I had a lot of fun doing it, but I wouldn't start the service again unless I had deals worked out before hand. Complying with so many DMCA notices was time consuming and annoying. Plus, as I've aged (I was barely 18), I've learned that my services were causing harm to those studios. Although most of my subscribers were a little technologically advance (they found the shoutcast tv streams), there were a few who genuinely thought the service was 100% legit and they weren't doing anything wrong.
I started the service because there weren't any services out there at the time that were providing recent DVD quality movies at a decent price and without the need to download a large file to your computer. Vudu had just started and MovieLink just sucked. I didn't know about venture capital or even much about business (I had just started college) to seek funding for my service.
To stay on topic, people who are buying these illegal services, often times don't know that they're illegal. Every on-demand movie provider except Hulu requires you to install some arcane software to collect data on you and to control the DRM, so installing additional software to view media seems normal.
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.
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.
How is babby formed? How girl get pragnant?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Having grown up overseas, in countries where the 'official' release was likely to never happen at all...
You seriously under-estimate the quality possible with a camcorder in movie theater. Sure, some were dim, unsteady, and with people walking in front of them. Others were absolutely pristine, and in full VHS quality. (DVDs weren't common yet. I assume they could get near-DVD quality these days if they want.) It was often hard to tell if a movie was legit or not.
(Of course, these were the movies rented from the movie rental store in the biggest mall downtown. So it wasn't like they were hiding what they were doing.)
'Sensible' is a curse word.
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.
There's no logical problem with those two ideas coexisting. One could easily argue that the MPAA paying the creators as a one-off isn't the problem, but the MPAA then turning around and demanding perpetual payments in the name of the creators, who will see next to nothing from these payments, is a problem.
That said, I happen to believe that copyright (and the income stream that arises from it) is a good thing, but that terms are exaggerated grossly beyond their usefulness. I can't think of a scalable model off the top of my head that would allow sensible compensation to all involved with the making of a film (sensible being defined as 'enough to cover costs and provide enough profit to encourage further work') from a single set of payments. About 15 years, however, (as it was originally, I believe) is a perfectly sensible time to cover those criteria without locking work away from the public. I also think that the major studios (and the MPAA as their representatives) wield far too much power compared to their usefulness, and that power is tied to their grip on the existing back catalogue of media and their assurances of excessively long copyright on future works.
Mod +1, Ironic
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
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.
...
Is copyright infringement somehow not as bad as theft?
Unquestionably.
Is it because theft is something that those gang-bangers do in the bad part of town (therefore "I'm not a thief like them") and copyright infringement an acceptable highbrow, victimless, "non-crime" ("I may have downloaded the .mp3, but the content creator still has the .mp3, so I didn't steal anything.")?
No, it's because theft takes something from another's possession and denies them use of it, while copyright infringement does not.
What's with the whole nonsensical hair splitting about theft or infringement?
Because they're two different things whose only real similarity is outcome. You might as well ask "what's with the whole nonsensical hair splitting about involuntary manslaughter or premeditated murder".
Why is there always some shill who has to "correct" the record, as if it matters?
Because it is an important distinction.
Is copyright infringement somehow not as bad as theft?
Yep. If you steal something you deprive the owner of the original. With copyright infringement the owner loses nothing. You wouldn't steal a car (I assume) but if you could make an exact duplicate for next to nothing and the owner gets to keep their car then most people would agree it's not as bad.
Is it because theft is something that those gang-bangers do in the bad part of town (therefore "I'm not a thief like them") and copyright infringement an acceptable highbrow, victimless, "non-crime" ("I may have downloaded the .mp3, but the content creator still has the .mp3, so I didn't steal anything.")?
Kind of. Not that people don't want to be associated with gang-bangers but that it IS less of a crime. If someone broke into your house and stole your TV you'd be pretty pissed off. If someone broke into your house and made an exact replica of your TV (a TV that they wouldn't have otherwise bought) and then left you'd probably just be wondering where the footprints on your carpet came from.
Piracy is also made to look much worse by the figures. There are people who "pirate" content they legitimately own. Some people buy a DVD and pirate a copy as well so that they can watch it, for example, on a Linux machine that they can't get DVDs to play on. Some people buy a computer game which won't run and have to pirate it to make it work. Also some people will pirate a movie that they wouldn't have otherwise watched (in which case the content provider didn't lose anything but did have one extra person watch their movie - a person who might tell their friends that it was good or might even go out and buy it). These numbers all get lumped together with the numbers of people that actually "steal" it.
What's with the whole nonsensical hair splitting about theft or infringement?
As I said above, it's an important distinction.
Regardless how you try to rationalize it away, you have illegally appropriated content to which you are not entitled, and have deprived the creator of payment and/or proper recognition, and you are a rat. Apparently folks here are OK being an infringing rat but get pretty defensive when they are called out as a thieving rat.
That's because they haven't stolen anything. Again, it's a subtle but important distinction. They may well have broken the law and they may be morally deficient but they haven't stolen anything. Also, true, it is against the law. What much of this discussion is about is not whether someone has broken the law but whether the law itself should be changed.
I have been here long enough to know about the Slashdot hive mind and the cognitive dissonance around this discussion. Lots of folks chanting freedom-this and fair-use-that, but they really just want their music, movies, and digital content free (as in beer).
Should just be a few minutes before this modded down to hell...
Yeah, free movies and music would be great but if it was all free no-one would get paid and eventually no-one would be able to afford to make new content (on a large scale, at least). What would be nice is if the big content providers used this technology rather than worked against it. They seem to think that because digital content can be copied easily, they shouldn't make it easy to get - they should lock it up in DRM instead. If they sold DRM-free .avi files it would obviously take the pirates no effort at all to post the video online. They (the providers) seem to think that the way around this is to lock the content down - they seem to think this will stop the pirates getting to it and sharing it. It doesn't. The DRM WILL be cracked. It WILL be
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!