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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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 forgot: Hookers are better than wives because you only have to pay when you get laid.
'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
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.
Your so-called "so-called piracy" is what other people call theft.
And they are incorrect. Call it copyright infringement.
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
Cheap and DRM free is not going to happen if that small city is going to eat and dress their children
I'm not sure I want to be paying them if they plan on using it to eat their children!! ;)
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.
that they start putting contracts on each other
At least the Mafia honors such contracts, unlike the MAFIAA.
Cheap and DRM free is not going to happen if that small city is going to eat and dress their children.
DRM isn't going to keep those children from going hungry and naked. DRM did nothing to keep these cyberlockers from being set up. DRM isn't keeping movies off of any of the P2P networks. Nobody who pirates a film is affected by DRM because pirates distribute DRM-free versions of the media.
DRM isn't about preventing pirates from getting media for free. It's already proven to be an abysmal failure at that. It's about controlling what honest people can do with the media after they've purchased it.
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.
you mean like Hulu?
Hulu is broken - it does not work in most of the world. If it did, there would probably be fewer of the illegal download sites.
The illegal download sites probably try to work fine just about everywhere. Maybe China's Great Firewall can block them, but might not bother (perhaps just the politically undesirable movies).
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Actually, with hookers you often end up paying every time you pee.
... and then they built the supercollider.