Illegal Film Downloading Up 33% In the UK

moderators_are_w*nke writes "The BBC have picked up a report from 'internet intelligence' company Envisional showing illegal film downloading is up 33% in the UK since 2006. The solution is apparently for content providers to 'compete with piracy and get their content out there themselves as easily and as quickly and as cheaply as possible.'"

Comments

Will never happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The solution is apparently for content providers to 'compete with piracy and get their content out there themselves as easily and as quickly and as cheaply as possible'"

Will never happens, they live in the past, not in the future. Such a thing just isn't possible for them to even imagine.
I'm still dreaming of a service similar to Steam, for movies.

Re:Will never happen.

[ElectricTurtle]

Except that Steam is DRMed shit. If anything what is needed is a GOG or Amazon music or other DRM free thing for movies. If I buy something I don't want some random suit somewhere deciding I can't have it anymore and flipping a proverbial switch that invalidates my purchase.

Re:Will never happen.

[JMJimmy]

ala Sony with PS3 Linux.

Re:Will never happen.

[jojoba_oil]

While I agree with you that we should have more outfits like GOG.com, Steam is a lot better than some of the other DRM out there. It's incredibly easy to break, doesn't install false drivers, allows offline backup/restore and play of games, etc. And the good thing is that once you break it for one game, you've basically broken it for all the games. (The exception is the few games that also include other DRM.)

The only thing that I wish Steam would allow is transfer of games between accounts; gifting of a "used" copy of a game to a friend, for example... But they're more interested in capturing the money by restricting resale.

To be clear: DRM sucks, but when I have to choose a form of DRM in order to get a game, I choose Steam over the others.

Re:Will never happen.

[Dynedain]

Steam may be DRM, but they're incredibly smart in that they've made getting and playing content easier than BitTorrent and cracking. Time and time again, people have pointed out that this is the only way to compete with copyright violation, and the success of Steam is proof in the pudding.

Re:Will never happen.

[SimonTheSoundMan]

I'm still dreaming of a service similar to Steam, for movies.

Lovefilm and iTunes offer services what you are after.

Re:Will never happen.

[Tx]

Well, porn companies are doing this, you can buy DRM-free HD and DVD movie downloads...erm, so I'm told.

Re:Will never happen.

[ElectricTurtle]

*Buy* porn?! Ahahahahahaha!

Here's a tip that doesn't involve any torrents. Take any fetish you have, and put it into Google along with the term 'tube'. If you ever exhaust that supply, well, you might want to seek professional help.

Honestly I wonder how the porn industry makes any money anymore. It must all be off of people over the age of 35 who don't know how the internet works.

Re:Will never happen.

[Tx]

The exception is the few games that also include other DRM.

More and more seem to be ending up in this category recently, sadly.

Re:Will never happen.

[Moryath]

I was looking to get the major pack of Crysis in order to play Mechwarrior: Living Legends.

Then I saw the crapass DRM that floats around with Crysis, even via Steam.

Nope. Not going to infect my system.

Re:Will never happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

*Buy* movies?! Ahahahahahaha!

Here's a tip that doesn't involve any torrents. Take any plot you like, and put it into Google along with the term 'cinema'. If you ever exhaust that supply, well, you might want to seek professional help.

Honestly I wonder how the movie industry makes any money anymore. It must all be off of people over the age of 35 who don't know how the internet works.

Re:Will never happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

It must all be off of people over the age of 35 who don't know how the internet works.

Actually, we're the ones that shaped and followed the development of the internet from its start, you're just an end product.

Re:Will never happen.

[alanthenerd]

Not sure what you mean by "dynamically move my Steam install off my drive that's filling up" but it is very easy to move your steam folder to a different drive.
This explains how: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=7710-tdlc-0426

Re:Will never happen.

[ElectricTurtle]

That's cute, but you see Mr. AC, when you're going to watch something for 2+ hours, a lot of people prefer it not to look like pixelated trash. These people buy movies.

Now I can only speak for myself, but I think that porn a) isn't necessarily linear for most who grew up online and b) doesn't require the same degree of quality as it's usually a 30ish minute exercise anyway.

Re:Will never happen.

[_Sprocket_]

Will never happens, they live in the past, not in the future. Such a thing just isn't possible for them to even imagine.

Media companies always live in the past. There is always a business model that transforms the industry until it becomes outdated yet held on to even as it drags the industry down in to near collapse. Then someone finally adapts to reality by implementing a new business model and the survivors all jump ship. Reality often involves disruptive technology. You can see this in the history of Hollywood (studio system, television) and music (radio).

Of course - that history also shows a grudgingly slow adaptation to change. But change does eventually happen.

Re:Will never happen.

[ElectricTurtle]

But you see that is a lie. There are artists who draw erotic imagery for fun, and even though the best usually end up taking commissions, almost nobody starts at that level. Further, other people get off on exhibition and make and post recordings of their intercourse without (perceivable) cost (bandwidth costs are usually defrayed by ads, etc.).

You're also disregarding the market of secondary products, a lot a big name stars make money from selling physical items such as autographed things.

Re:Will never happen.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Steam may be DRM, but they're incredibly smart in that they've made getting and playing content easier than BitTorrent and cracking. Time and time again, people have pointed out that this is the only way to compete with copyright violation, and the success of Steam is proof in the pudding.

If you ever run across the headline "Steam shutting its doors", make a point to read the comments then.

Re:Will never happen.

[ElectricTurtle]

That might be a comforting idea to you in your advanced age, but actually, as a class, no. The over 35 crowd that actually developed the internet was vanishingly small. They were a minority in society even if they once were a majority of internet users and developers. It wasn't until Millennials and later that a whole generation became native internet users and developers, and that was actually a social tipping point that dragged the previous generations in where before they had shunned the minority of their contemporaries as 'geeks' and 'nerds'.

Re:Will never happen.

[compro01]

Yes, but that wipes out all local files of all the games you have and you need to redownload everything, which would be extremely annoying with a large library or a slow/capped connection.

A better method which I use is to move the folder and symlink to it.

Re:Will never happen.

[compro01]

wait, nevermind, I misread the instructions. Disregard.

Re:Will never happen.

[Fourier404]

I have never had a problem caused by the presence of DRM when I buy or play games on steam. If it's that unobtrusive, I don't see how it compares to being run over by a car.

Re:Will never happen.

[xaxa]

I have a fetish about duck and I search for duck tube and it found nothing of interest. I still have to commission my duck raping porn....

Here's a start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwjEeI2SmiU

(Black and white video of a duck's penis; it was a meme a while ago. Not at all shocking, could start an interesting office conversation.)

Re:Will never happen.

[ElectricTurtle]

I'm glad that your personal experience is the sum total by which the universe is judged. Never mind all the others who have had their Steam accounts locked or banned. They're not you so they don't exist or matter.

Re:Will never happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Steps to crack Steam games: 1. download crack-loader executable for Steam. 2. voila, all of your DRMed Steamworks games are now playable offline (and online for server-emulated games).

^ would become more widely-known than bittorrent itself.

Re:Will never happen.

[ceoyoyo]

The same way everyone else on the Internet makes money. You've noticed how many ads are on porn sites, right?

Re:Will never happen.

[TheRaven64]

LoveFilm has a very limited streaming selection, and even for DVDs it's typically possible to get the film from illegal sources months before the DVD release. I have things on my LoveFilm queue that have been in the 'awaiting release' category for over a year. It's like the media companies don't want my money...

Re:Will never happen.

[hedwards]

Steam is pretty much the worst offender out there. Most DRM doesn't allow for the possibility of losing an entire account worth of purchases all at once without the company going under. Valve OTOH doesn't seem to be too shy about taking an entire account worth of games away because of a declined CC or other snafu in the process.

On top of that the client itself is complete garbage severely impacting the experience by using a ridiculous amount of processing time. I've taken to setting the affinity of it and setting the priority to low when I launch it because otherwise games that run fine otherwise become a slide show.

Re:Will never happen.

[h4rr4r]

Netflix does not even list the Discworld "Going Postal" movie. I am debating if I should buy it from amazon.co.uk and play it on my region free player or if I should just download it since they clearly do not want my money.

Re:Will never happen.

[hedwards]

Probably folks that want more than 30 second clips and don't want to pirate. I remember talking to somebody in that industry a couple years back and the operators that know what they're doing are still making plenty of money.

They just tend to be more specialized these days than they used to be and a lot of sites actually focus on quality in a way that wasn't true in the past. Creating the shoots isn't really that difficult typically, especially for the ones that are done in doors, and consequently with a high volume it's not the tough to make a buck at it these days.

Re:Will never happen.

[ElectricTurtle]

I think there is a fundamental difference between old and new porn consumers. The old porn consumer is used to actual movies that are linear, that's what they expect and want and therefore the previews work as intended to bring them in. The new porn consumer has a short attention span typical of younger generations. Speaking for myself, as porn previews have gotten longer and longer and the tube sites have come online with many of the whole movies, I've actually found a lot of them to be... too long. I've gotten so used to moving through different people and ideas that watching a single scene the whole time is actually boring. I now actually generally avoid scenes longer than 10 min even if they are of interest to me so long as shorter ones are as/more interesting.

Re:Will never happen.

[DJLuc1d]

Whoa there killer. He said "I have never had a problem caused by..." He did not say "No one ever, in the entire history of human experience, ever, had had a problem caused by..."

Just take it as personal experience and try not to read into it so much.

Re:Will never happen.

[arose]

If it's that unobtrusive, I don't see how it compares to being run over by a car.

The comparison is between two cases of being run over by a car. At no point was a direct comparison made. Let's see how this works in math: 1:2::5465165120:10930330240, as in '1 is to 2 as 5465165120 is to 10930330240'. No more is he comparing Steam to being run over by a car then I'm comparing 2 to 10930330240. Analogies, how do they work?

Re:Will never happen.

[thatbloke83]

And you have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Will never happen.

[Bacon Bits]

I agree. I had quite a habit at one point of downloading games, but now that Steam exists the games are -- in general -- easier to get and use than the hoops you had to jump through for pirated games (which, at the time, were still less annoying that the hoops the retail games made you jump through). Steam is successful because they offer something better than a pirated game. They provide value, and therefore get my money. They also have specials around most major holidays that knock the socks off of anything else. 75% off major games isn't uncommon.

The only games on Steam that piss me off are those which still use GFWL or some other third party DRM in addition to Steam. I do not buy those games, but because there are enough games for me to play otherwise, I don't go pirate them either. Steam cured my penchant for piracy more than any draconian software scheme did. Carrot > stick.

Re:Will never happen.

[theArtificial]

I don't work for Valve, or enjoy hoops of DRM, nor do I think Steam is gods gift but wow, nevermind the majority of the people not having problems like you mention or being a jerks about it. It's unfortunate you're so grumpy about not playing "your" licensed game(s) however taking it out on someone who hasn't shared your personal experience is hypocritical. Your experience is an unfortunate minority and if there are rampant problems affecting everyone, then nobody would use it due to bad PR. For an example look at Ubisoft and their call home DRM crap. The fact is the system works pretty good otherwise Steam wouldn't be growing in popularity with nearly 4 million users on at peak time (and growing) with more publishers than ever. Nothing is perfect either which is why Steam and other companies also work with customers when there are issues.

Since you're playing games you may be running Windows, which features a number of managed technologies so lamenting DRM when one may be using something which features activation technology (among others) is interesting. If you're on a console there are DLC which are tied into an account - which may be pulled or banned if you don't use it properly - similar to Steam.

I've heard of users who are in the armed services getting locked out of their Steam account who travel frequently (the usage pattern may appear as a hacked account) which is something that customer service does handle - and frankly this is a protective feature. If you're gleening your info off of forums please keep in mind the loudest don't represent the majority. To sum up your opinion: "Your experience is invalid. Only my experience matters." pfft.

Re:Will never happen.

[jnpcl]

Even if Valve went under, they're not complete jackasses and would likely push a client update that removed the need to validate to their server.

I've tried to purchase a game with a card that got declined, and my account was not banned.

The email address on my steam account is on a domain that hasn't existed for over 6 years, account still works fine.

I do not have a great system, but I am able to play games just fine with Steam running. It does not consume what I would consider excessive resources.

Seems your experience with Steam has been pretty poor.. but I seriously doubt that you're anywhere near the Norm.

Re:Will never happen.

[theArtificial]

If you're a game studio who uses a publisher, you may need to meet a few of their requirements which require certain things like DRM. These game studios don't have to make a deal with these publishers. Often the decision comes may boil down to the lesser of the evils. EA also takes it a step further and requires you to register on their website to activate and use DLC (this hinders resale which may be their goal). Bleh.

Re:Will never happen.

[ElectricTurtle]

Nice assumptions, too bad they're all wrong. While I have used Steam (once, against principle, and not doing it again), I know of these truly negative experiences only second hand. That these impacted persons constitute a minority *does not* excuse the deficiency of the model. By you logic you could justify any mistreatment so long as most people weren't impacted and/or those impacts were kept quiet enough that people don't take them into consideration when they are deciding whether to use the service or not.

I use Windows to play games because I must, not because I prefer it, let alone support or condone MS's practices. I run Linux (Mint) for everything else.

And further, experiences that are normal effectively don't matter. Nobody worries about having a normal experience. There's nothing to fear from having a normal experience. However, it should be the abnormal, negative experiences that *are possible* that should worry people. The degree to which such experiences are negative, specifically losing access to everything you've paid for in some cases with no hope of appeal, and frequency with which these experiences happen, which I assure you is more than a handful. Just do a search for all the accounts of things like this happening on forums. That these accounts are not representative of a majority *in no way* invalidates them.

Re:Will never happen.

[suutar]

Netflix may not think there's enough demand to have picked it up yet, but I'm sure 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment would love the fraction of your money that amazon.co.uk will send them.

Re:Will never happen.

[i_b_don]

"The over 35 crowd that actually developed the internet was vanishingly small."

-- Yes, but ON SLASHDOT, the over 35 crowd that actually developed the internet is staggeringly large. What site do you think you're on???

d

Re:Will never happen.

[Rakarra]

(Black and white video of a duck's penis; it was a meme a while ago. Not at all shocking, could start an interesting office conversation.)

Yeah, probably with HR!

Re:Will never happen.

[sixsixtysix]

i'll purchase movies via download when they are:
1. 1080p or whatever the standard is at that time
2. drm-free.
3. all resale/lending rights that'd i get with the physical
4. in the format of my choosing, definitely not some non-standard web-based player.

on top of those, it has to be much cheaper than the physical copy. digital distribution is much cheap than the logistics involved in packaging & shipping to a retail outlet (and the running of said outlet). if the middle man gets cut out, so should that chunk of the price.
all and all, for a movie in the current system (drmed and not necessarily up to spec, locked to specific players/websites, non-resellable), i'd pay $1 for older stuff and $3 for new releases. if they gave me all asked for above, i'd go $5-7/$10-15. Same day as theaters, $20. anything else is ridiculous.

Re:Will never happen.

[perryizgr8]

there are plenty of hd rips of movies available.

Re:Will never happen.

[riT-k0MA]

Actually, I've moved my files before.
Backup your game files (a different folder on the new hdd is fine), reinstall steam to the new locaton, copy your game files to the new location, start up steam and for each game verify the integrity of the game cache.

Re:Will never happen.

[xaxa]

(Black and white video of a duck's penis; it was a meme a while ago. Not at all shocking, could start an interesting office conversation.)

Yeah, probably with HR!

Oh, quite possibly, for some people.

But the organisation I work for does (roughly) biological research, so it'd be OK. I think it was one of the placement students that sent that video round the office, but with a subject line like "look how duck penises have evolved -- crazy!"

Re:Will never happen.

[Sky Cry]

Don't fall prey to the perfect solution fallacy. Steam DRM is the step in the right direction, despite the fact that it's still DRM.

Re:Will never happen.

[h4rr4r]

It is not available in Region 1, which is why netflix does not have it. they have the other films that actually have Region 1 dvds.

If 20th Century Fox wanted my money they would make a region 1 dvd.

Common Sense!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about frikken time someone admitted that! I've been saying for years that I don't pirate stuff because it's free - I pirate stuff because it's the only way I can get the product that I want, without DRM and without archaic physical media, and that will actually work on my Linux HTPC.

Re:Common Sense!

[master_p]

And what makes sure that the form of distribution you ask for (basically, the plain files without any sort of protection) are not massively pirated?

Re:Common Sense!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is required to make sure that doesn't happen. The law gives the copyright holder exclusive rights of copying and distribution, and provides remedies for infringment.

Has anyone done anything to try to determine whether DRM-free files sell better or worse than ones with DRM?

Re:Common Sense!

[jedidiah]

Since DRM hasn't stopped anything in this regard then what does it matter really?

All DRM has done has made it impossible for the average Joe to fill his iTunes video collection with stuff he bought in the bargain bin at Walmart.

If I buy music on physical media, it is not a bother for me to pull it into iTunes or MCE or MythTV.

If I buy video that way, it is a considerable bother to do the same.

Re:Common Sense!

[f()rK()_Bomb]

o'rielly publishers dropped drm on their ebooks and sales spiked a huge amount. http://boingboing.net/2010/01/22/oreilly-drops-ebook.html

Re:Common Sense!

[master_p]

> Since DRM hasn't stopped anything in this regard then what does it matter really?

DRM has stopped the average Joe to pirate stuff. If it wasn't for DRM, sales would drop quite a lot.

best solution ever

[Anonymous Coward]

"The solution is apparently for content providers to 'compete with piracy and get their content out there themselves as easily and as quickly and as cheaply as possible'"
I agree. Let me rent it online right after it's theater run, instead of waiting 3 to 5 months to wait for the DVD release!
We all know the torrents are available immediately in some cases....some of us don't mind paying if we are given the chance!

Re:best solution ever

[jd2112]

"The solution is apparently for content providers to 'compete with piracy and get their content out there themselves as easily and as quickly and as cheaply as possible'" I agree. Let me rent it online right after it's theater run, instead of waiting 3 to 5 months to wait for the DVD release! We all know the torrents are available immediately in some cases....some of us don't mind paying if we are given the chance!

Baby steps here, there is no way that the movie companies would ever take that big of a leap of faith. I'd be happy if they would make movies available for streaming on Netflix at the same time they are available on disk.

Re:best solution ever

[Mister Whirly]

Considering it used to be 1-2 years after a movie was out in theaters that it was finally available to watch at home, I would say we are moving in the right direction. And I would rather wait to watch a DVDrip than some shaky, crappy, cam version of a movie. Those ruin the experience completely.

Re:best solution ever

[cdrguru]

Absolutely. Kill off all theater sales and movie theaters because they are old, dirty and outmoded. Why not just release the movie on DVD at the same time as in the theater?

You do understand the only thing keeping a lot of theaters going is the fact that if you want to see the movie this year you have to go to the theater? If you are willing to wait until next year, fine, it will be out on DVD.

Just like a losing strategy in Afganistan is telling the Taliban all they have to do is wait a little longer to take over, if people knew that one week after the main theater run was over they could get the DVD they would just wait patiently. Certainly in most places that would be the end of the movie theater.

Re:best solution ever

[jedidiah]

I can wait.

The only reason I ever go to a cinema is the expectation that the movie will deliver a different experience in a real movie house.

Otherwise I just wait for the DVD. If I forget about that movie by the time it gets to DVD/Netflix, I might lose track of it until it pops up on my PVR.

Very few movies rate much attention. Most don't benefit from the "cinema experience".

Re:best solution ever

[lolcutusofbong]

You do understand the only thing keeping a lot of theaters going is the fact that if you want to see the movie this year you have to go to the theater?

That sounds like a dying business model. Why should we support it?

Re:best solution ever

[hedwards]

Indeed, Netflix, Hulu and Youtube have greatly diminished any interest I have in pirating movies or TV shows. I gave up piracy years ago due to not wanting to encourage the sort of bad behavior that it was rationalizing. But there's still times when I regret it, like having to wait a few days to play DNF because the retailers around here didn't want to sell it on an abnormal day.

Also Steam being ubiquitous really dose make me wonder if it would be such a bad thing to crack the games that I've bought for personal use.

Re:best solution ever

[TheRaven64]

Do you have any idea how insane your argument is? If DVDs would cannibalise cinema profits, then that means the customers would rather watch the DVD than go to the cinema. That means that the studio's business model revolves around intentionally not giving customers what they want. A company that intentionally refuses to give its customers what they want has no business complaining about piracy - or anything else - costing them sales.

On the other hand, if people go to the cinema because they actually like going to the cinema, then early DVD releases wouldn't put them off.

I also suspect that you'd get quite a lot of sales from DVD stores in cinemas if you gave a refund of, say, 50% of the ticket price if you bought the DVD. Very few people ever go to see the same film in the cinema more than once, but I bet a lot of people would impulse purchase the DVD release of a film that they'd just seen if they liked it and the DVD was reasonably priced.

Re:best solution ever

[suutar]

Which is why I don't. I see movies in the theater if and only if I believe that being on a screen that big and speakers that loud is going to be a more enjoyable experience than my TV and surround sound at home... which basically means if the immersion is worth more than the convenience. Oddly enough, everything I've been to the theater for in the last year has been in the 'special effects blockbuster' genre...

'internet intelligence'?

[WrongSizeGlass]

I hate to break it to them, but there isn't much 'internet intelligence' out there ...

legal film uploading down 66% outside the UK

[smoothnorman]

errorbars! don't believe no made-up statistics without they also have made-up errorbars!

Re:legal film uploading down 66% outside the UK

[TheGratefulNet]

I went to an error-bar, once. ...but I left with the wrong woman.

Re:legal film uploading down 66% outside the UK

[dkleinsc]

...but I left with the wrong woman.

That wasn't a woman.

Re:legal film uploading down 66% outside the UK

[camperdave]

Hence the error.

Re:legal film uploading down 66% outside the UK

[Low Ranked Craig]

That was either an ID10T or a PEBCAK error.

Re:legal film uploading down 66% outside the UK

[TheRaven64]

PEBSAB, surely?

The solution

[supertrinko]

Brilliant solution, If it's easier to get it legally, most would prefer it to illegal methods.

Re:The solution

[brit74]

> Brilliant solution, If it's easier to get it legally, most would prefer it to illegal methods.
Or maybe not. When you look at the music business, and consider that there are DRM-free ways to get music through iTunes and Amazon, or unlimited streaming services like Rhapsody, but then consider that per-capita, inflation-adjusted music sales have fallen by 60-70% in the past 10 years, it suggests to me that legal services are not preferred to illegal ones. (People talk about iTunes likes it's some massive monster for digital music sales, but it's actually a pretty small fraction of all music sales.) Besides, isn't there a streaming-movie service already available through NetFlix? Amazon and YouTube have video on demand for TV shows and movies.

Re:The solution

[jedidiah]

10 years ago the industry tried to kill off the single and pushed whole album sales down everyone's throats.

Today, the fastest growing distribution method is the single and singles are cheap.

You also no longer have artificial demand created by format changes.

There are plenty of explanations for the numbers that don't require using piracy as a crutch.

Re:The solution

[OffaMyLawn]

NetFlix needs improvement. The delay between a movie hitting disk and being available for streaming (which I'm guessing has a lot to do with the content producers agreements) needs to go away.

I have purchased quite a bit of music off of iTunes personally, but it has been things like the Beatles ($149 for the whole collection? yeah, I can do that). Most new music isn't worth it to me anymore. I stopped pirating years ago, because I wanted to set an example to my kids that worthy content does deserve to be purchased.

Re:The solution

[ElectricTurtle]

It's a false dichotomization of the market though. It's not just legal vs. illegal, but commercial vs. free as well. Before the internet free music (aside from radio which hasn't gone anywhere) essentially didn't exist because of production and distribution costs. Now I have thousands of tracks of free-as-in-non-commercial music and more is produced all the time. This pressure along with others such as the elimination of false scarcity is driving the price of music to consumers down, and that generally means slimmer margins and less profit, per capita or otherwise. Piracy is a part of this decrease, but it is hardly the sum total.

Re:The solution

[CastrTroy]

The problem with iTunes and Amazon is that for the most part, buying an Album on iTunes still costs about the same as buying a physical CD. Maybe 10% cheaper. But then again, sometimes the physical CD is cheaper. This is why people aren't buying more stuff from iTunes and similar services. iTunes should probably be about a quarter for a single track, and about $3-$4 for an album, then you will see sales rise. With no physical product to move, there should be no reason it costs anywhere close to the same price as a CD. Make the price low enough so that people impulse buy, and don't even think about whether or not the song is worth it.

Re:The solution

[jedidiah]

There is some music that I have bought in multiple formats as those formats came along. CDs were introduced in the 80s and continued to become more predominant through out the 90s. Any sales statistics starting from the tail end of the 90s or 2000 include some of this artificial churn created by the transition between formats. There are a lot of recordings that I had on tape but never bothered with on CD and a lot of things I bought again.

Once those legacy purchases were done, the rest was a relative trickle.

I am sure that part of what the industry is suffering is the fact that a 30 year old recording on CD will last forever. New devices play files and files can stick around as long as you can copy them to new media. I have 15 year old e-books. Eventually, parts of my video library will be just as old and able to fit on a $50 thumb drive like my music collection can.

Re:The solution

[hedwards]

It could also be the fact that they've been releasing mostly crap for the last 20 years and that it's starting to catch up with them. Personally, I've been boycotting the RIAA for years now and I'm hardly the only one. I doubt that it's been significant enough to represent more than a small fraction of that number, but the ITMS and not having to pay for tracks you don't want is probably a significant factor.

Re:The solution

[brit74]

> "Notice he used "inflation adjusted" revenues. Blaming "piracy" when most of that "60-70% drop" is due to inflation. Pretty slimy if you ask me."
No, not using inflation-adjusted numbers is slimy (and I see it done by slimy pro-pirate websites all the time). Are you going to tell me that you'd be perfectly fine earning the exact same dollar amount in 1970 as you are today? Because you'd be a hole lot poorer today if you did.

> Of course the the numbers he used were pulled from his ass. Since he has shown his blatant dishonesty, we have no reason to believe his "60-70% drop" number in the first place."
Check out the chart of the per-capita, inflation-adjusted numbers in the second chart. On that basis, revenue has dropped from $71 per-capita in 1999 to $26 per capita in 2009.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2

Re:The solution

[TheRaven64]

There was a study a couple of years ago that recommended 5/track as the optimal price point for maximising revenue. It makes sense to me - most of the time I listen to Internet radio rather than to music I own, but if I could buy an album for under a dollar then I'd probably impulse purchase a couple of albums a week based on hearing one or two tracks that I like. If the rest of the album isn't that great, I've not lost much. If it is, great and I'll spend another few dollars on the rest of the band's music.

The same is probably true of other media. There is a charity shop around the corner from me that sells 3 books for £1. They have a reasonable selection, so I've bought books there every week since I moved. At 33p, I'll buy things that might not be great (and some that I wouldn't have bought normally have turned out to be really good), and I've even bought paper copies of things I can get through Gutenberg. If new books were £1, rather than £5, I'd buy vaguely interesting looking ones on impulse, rather than only buying ones that I'm pretty sure I'm going to enjoy.

Piracy=Market

[TenDollarMan]

Given that 1% of any population are criminals, the sheer size of the population of pirates tells you that the current business models are broken.

It must be true that there is a market between the current crazy prices for media, and nothing. I'd buy a "pirate bundle" off my ISP that lets me pirate my ass off, so that some royalties went the right way.

Re:Piracy=Market

[Aladrin]

Isn't that pretty much exactly what broke prohibition? People just refused to obey the law because it wasn't just. (And they wanted liquor.)

I keep waiting for the government to start seeing sense. I mean, it was only 200-some years ago that we threw off a tyrannical government that wasn't interested in representing us.

Re:Piracy=Market

[brit74]

Indeed. And let's look at the percentage of the population who breaks traffic laws. I'd bet it's a much higher percentage than the percentage of pirates. Clearly, we need to eliminate traffic laws.

Re:Piracy=Market

[brit74]

Okay, but that's a different argument than the "everybody's doing it, therefore it's time to change the laws" which was the point that I was responding to.

Re:Piracy=Market

[Fourier404]

It's a perfect analogy. "Just because a lot of people are breaking a law, doesn't necessarily mean the law must be changed." He's not saying it doesn't need to be changed, just that you can't use that fact that people break the law a lot as evidence that it's flawed. The reasons they're breaking the laws, the way the laws are enforced, and the severity of the punishments can all be looked at, as I'm sure they were with traffic laws, but the analogy definitely holds.

Waaay to expensive

[Rik Sweeney]

I completely agree that the cost of movies is getting stupid. I watched Transformers 3 last night (it's pretty crap, but the sequence in the city is amazing) and two tickets cost me 18GBP.

For the 2D version.

Fortunately I have Orange Wednesdays so I get two tickets for the price of one, 9GBP and then we split the cost, so 4.50GBP, which is a bit more reasonable and what it should have cost to start with (I'm in London BTW).

I think you should be able to stream the latest releases even while they're in the cinema. For some movies I'd stream them but others I'd go to the cinema to see them on as large a screen as possible.

Re:Waaay to expensive

[JMJimmy]

Honestly, if you've got a 42" or bigger at home or your own home projection it's infinitely better than going to the theatre. Besides the obvious of being able to pause to go to the bathroom and the like, every time I've gone to the theatre in the past few years some jackass has been talking, the picture quality has been horrible (about 1/3rd of the time it's out of focus because they hire minimum wage workers to run the projectors), a speaker is blown, there's crap on the screen (gummies, drinks, holes). Typically here it costs over CDN$50 for 2 people to go to the theatre if you want snacks/drink. It's just not worth it.

Re:Waaay to expensive

[OffaMyLawn]

I just had roughly the same experiences recently with Green Lantern. People in the theater would just not shut the fuck up, and the picture was ever so slightly out of focus, just enough to really bug me. Would much rather prefer watching movies at home.

Re:Waaay to expensive

[tripleevenfall]

If there's no profit from movie tickets there are no theaters, and thus no new movies.

Re:Waaay to expensive

[tripleevenfall]

Or, respectfully, it would cost half that much if you can sit for two hours without having to eat and drink.

Re:Waaay to expensive

[Rolgar]

Don't give them permission to continue to drive up prices. That is don't go. I've stopped going myself, but I have more important things to spend money on.

Set the money not spent on tickets aside for a number of months/years necessary to acquire a decent home theater setup. Get the movies free at the library or start a movie club with other like minded individuals. If enough people do it, eventually the theaters will push back on the movie makers to reduce ticket prices. But as long as the makers/producers make record box offices, and the theaters continue to overcharge for the concessions at the door, things will continue to get worse.

Re:Waaay to expensive

[kehren77]

Couldn't agree more. Why should I pay a premium to go see something at a theater when there is a 100% chance that some jackass is going to piss me off and ruin the movie for me?

I don't go to movies in the theater anymore because of that, not the cost. I'd rather wait and get the DVD or BluRay and watch it in the comfort of my home.

The movie industry needs to ditch the theater model and figure something else out. Of course they won't because they want to you spend $8 per ticket to see the movie and then 6 months later spend $20 to buy it. If they just did direct to disc or streaming options it would cut their revenues in half.

Re:Waaay to expensive

[JMJimmy]

$25 for 2 tickets or $22.99 for 16-18 hours of a TV show or up to 5 DVDs which any number of people could watch, repeatedly if desired, and can be lent to friends.

If theatres charged regular prices for their concessions it would probably be $10 instead of $25. A bag of popcorn that would last me a year costs $0.50 less than a small popcorn.

Re:Waaay to expensive

[arose]

"But I need to see Avatar in the theatre, it is the most important thing ever." And on the wheel turns.

Re:Waaay to expensive

[antdude]

Try going during morning hours even on weekends. Less people and cheaper. My local theater's 2D digital ticket price was six bucks on last Saturday's morning. :)

Re:Waaay to expensive

[tripleevenfall]

As I was saying, the real issue is, why can't people today go 2 hours without stuffing junk food down their gullets?

Re:Waaay to expensive

[JMJimmy]

It's not that people can't it's that people like to enjoy less healthy foods during entertainment periods. There are a few times I like to enjoy myself: Slickers ice cream on a hot summer day, fries and hot chocolate at the xmas parade, hot dog or nachos at a ball game, pop corn or Skittles and a big budget action, cotton candy at the fair, marshmallows/gorp and camping.... you know those pesky cultural norms or times of personal enjoyment.

You're implying that everyone eats junk food all the time and as a result it's some how ok to overcharge for those items because we're all fat slobs. I don't know about you but personally I eat very healthily day to day (vegetarian, no pre-made foods, etc) but probably about 10% of the time I want to eat some crap cause it tastes good and is part of the experience. Unless you're suggesting we all become orthorexic?

My Impatience

[improfane]

I torrent but I am not a pirate.

How is this possible?

I recently felt like watching DS9 so I started torrenting a season of it. After watching an episode I proceeded to buy four box sets online.

I went back to watching my torrented versions. How convenient they are!

When they arrived, I deleted all the episodes I watched and started watching the DVDs from the boxset on TV.

Not only do I have Babylon 5 and SG, I have almost completed my DS9 series. They were all collected in the same fashion. Streaming or torrents first and then proper purchases.

Why the fuck would I buy something before knowing what it is like first?

Re:My Impatience

[geminidomino]

Saying you've bought the product does not, under current law, make it all OK.

It does, however, invalidate every self-serving, self-righteous, and moralistic argument in support of said law.

Which, when you think about it, says a great deal about the law itself.

Re:My Impatience

[improfane]

If I could not have streamed or downloaded something in advance, I would never have bought it.

This might be why music and movie sales are up these days.

Re:My Impatience

[cheekyjohnson]

It does, however, invalidate every self-serving, self-righteous, and moralistic argument in support of said law.

It does? Well, I guess that would depend on who you ask (since not everyone has the same morals).

Re:My Impatience

[TheThiefMaster]

Torrenting almost always involves distributing pieces to a lot of other bit-torrent users. Each constitutes a copyright infringement, because you don't have distribution rights (aka copyright).

Even if you buy or own the thing you are bit-torrenting, it's still very much illegal if you don't own the copyright to that thing.

Re:My Impatience

[jedidiah]

Yes it does.

YOU PAID FOR IT.

ANY ethical argument then becomes completely null and void.

Sadly, due to how the industry tries to abuse it's paying customers it is actually much easier to participate in a torrent swarm than to create your own similar media files from the physical disks you already own. This is a practical issue caused by the industry's own paranoia and disrespect for the paying customer.

As someone who uses the more legitimate approach, I really can't fault anyone else for not wanting to bother with it.

Re:My Impatience

[jedidiah]

...which is all a side effect of the fact that the copyright owner wants to trample all over your personal property rights associated with the legitimate copy you bought from them.

Re:My Impatience

[camperdave]

Assuming, of course that you are not just leaching. It is possible to block the upload capabilities on most torrent clients.

Re:My Impatience

[cdrguru]

When I watch a movie or a TV episode I might watch it again in a few years if it was extremely good and memorable, but I would consider it a complete waste of my time to even consider watching most things more than once. Ever.

I am pretty sure that most people that aren't glued to a TV set watching endless reruns of Judge Judy to feel that way. I do know there are some people that can pretty much watch the same 40-minute TV episode of something three times in a row (or more) without finding it repetitous, but I think they are in the minority. For this reason, above all others, try-before-you-buy is pointless.

It is like a restaurant offering you a complete meal for free so you can see if you like today's selection. If you do, you are free to pay for another. That is pretty much a proven money-loser in the restaurant business. As it is in the entertainment business - once consumed most people don't feel the need to consume it again within the span of years.

OK, there are some fools out there that insist they are "supporting the artist" when in fact they are supporting the distribution channel. Today, with a seemingly endless set of over-35 folks that don't understand downloading, BitTorrent or anything else about the Internet Economy there are plenty of people buying CDs and DVDs at WalMart. Maybe they just have dial-up Internet access or just use computers at the library. But in the not too distant future these people will be gone and the distribution channel and artists won't be supported by anyone anymore. Certainly there are not enough people pretending to try-before-buying to keep the distribution systems going. And without massive distribution nobody is going to spend tens of millions to make a movie.

We are seeing the final act of mass distribution of entertainment. It has been a defining part of Western Culture. It will be sad when it goes, but plenty of people around the world will not be sorry to see it go. But it is going to pass on because the Internet Economy (only porn pays) doesn't leave room for it anymore.

Re:My Impatience

[TheThiefMaster]

Personal property right to share your bought copy with a few thousand torrenters? I didn't know there was such a right.

Re:My Impatience

[jedidiah]

Sharing with the swarm is a natural and obvious consequence of preventing the individual from using their personal property in an easy and convenient manner.

Re:My Impatience

[Cajun Hell]

I torrent but I am not a pirate.

You may not be a pirate, but you're a copyright infringer, so there is financial incentive for people to measure your type of behavior and to find you. No, not to stop you, but to get you to pay for a large settlement. If they can get you to buy the DVDs and also pay a few extra thousand for your "crime" that is a win/win for everyone.

(Well, almost everyone.)

Re:My Impatience

[hjf]

This kinda reminds me of the Harry Potter books. The Gryffindor sword was made by goblins, and it's stored in Hogwart's castle. Goblins, however, think it belongs to them, since it was made by them, and sold to Gryffindor (and only him), it should be returned to them after his death, and not passed on to anyone else.

Kinda like entertainment industry wants things to be, I guess.

Re:My Impatience

[elsurexiste]

Don't argue with him. Have you checked the username? TheThiefMaster This fella knows what he's talking about. ;)

Now, seriously, he's right. You got it all the way around: preventing distribution from other sources is the motivation; them trampling on your right to private copy is the side effect.

Re:My Impatience

[geminidomino]

Kinda like entertainment industry wants things to be, I guess.

Even that would be better if it was CONSISTENT.

Those asshats want it to be that way for anyone who buys their pap, but they want the rights to said pap to be passed down for generations...

Re:My Impatience

[improfane]

I think it's more that if you watch one episode from a television show, you know that you know if you like it or not. When you have bought the real thing, you don't watch the one you downloaded.

The price you pay for the boxset of a television series is for the convenience and without the adverts. You don't even have to watch them more than once for it it to be worthwhile. If you wanted to watch X hours of entertainment, that's the going rate and it's cheaper than the theater. I buy the boxset after it comes down in price, a few years after. I won't torrent unless I could afford the boxset to begin with. It's not like I am torrenting and then buying years and years later. I'm doing the same acts next to one another.

Re:My Impatience

[improfane]

It helps if you know that the show does not air in the UK and is a spinoff a series that I do like. Does that answer your question?

If it was on TV, how would it have been any different if it was recorded automatically by VHS? Someone just shared their VHS of that publicly broadcasted show (except not in the UK). Which I then watched then paid for.

Re:My Impatience

[geminidomino]

As someone who uses the more legitimate approach, I really can't fault anyone else for not wanting to bother with it.

Not to mention that, if they had their way, we wouldn't even be able to do that.

I'm still waiting to get my 14 hours of free time to rip my B5 DVDs...

Re:My Impatience

[Issarlk]

You paid for it on DVD boxes. Not for the convenient downloadable version.
YOU ARE A PIRATE. If you don't want to be, buy the season from iTunes.

Re:My Impatience

[nedlohs]

I torrent but I am not a pirate.

How is this possible?

Let me guess, it's all linux?

I recently felt like watching DS9 so I started torrenting a season of it. After watching an episode I proceeded to buy four box sets online.

Ah not linux. However, that's a very poor argument. You just claimed to torrent but your are not a pirate and your explanation of that is an example of how your pirated an episode of a TV series.

And no, it doesn't make a difference that you then bought it afterwards. The copyright holder has decided not to use torrents as a try-before-you-buy distribution model, which as the copyright holder is their right regardless of whether it makes economic sense or not.

Why the fuck would I buy something before knowing what it is like first?

Becuase that is the deal the copyright holder is offering you. If you don't like that deal then don't take it and don't watch the thing at all.

Re:My Impatience

[TheThiefMaster]

And your download rate gets almost completely destroyed as a result. Other peers/leachers try to find the peers/seeds they can get the highest download rate from, so will disconnect from you if you don't send them anything. Leaving you with any seeds there might be, which are usually overloaded.

Still, I said almost always.

Re:My Impatience

[improfane]

If this were true. Nothing would get sold.

Magazines
Radio
Television
Lending

Re:My Impatience

[brit74]

> "This might be why music and movie sales are up these days."
"Sales" as in discounted prices, or "sales" as in revenue?
Here's the revenue numbers. Be sure to check out the per-capita, inflation-adjusted chart - there's a 60% to 70% decline in the past 10 years.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2

The movie industry is also getting hit. Per-capita revenue at the US box office is down about 15% in the past 10 years, while DVD/Blue-Ray are down much bigger amounts. (I forget exactly what the number was, but I thought it's down something like 50% in the past 10 years.)

Re:My Impatience

[cheekyjohnson]

Just to make sure you understand: I agree with you. However, I merely meant that there is no absolute set of morals (as far as we know). So, despite the fact that you eventually paid for it, it would be possible for someone to believe that it was wrong to pirate it in the first place.

Re:My Impatience

[improfane]

I notice that the sources are from the RIAA.

They're known for falsifying published figures inside and outside of trials.

It holds very little weight. They have a vested interest to make it seem worse than it is. Provenance. If you search RIAA and misleading, you get lots of results.

Give me a university backed study, not backed by the RIAA and I might feel sympathy. In other news, the 20xxs are the year of the independent artist using the internet to distribute and market music and movies. Good news!

Re:My Impatience

[TheRaven64]

Your example was DS9, which I'm assuming is short for Star Trek Deep Space 9. This definitely was aired in the UK, on BBC2 at 6pm on Wednesdays as I recall. It's probably been repeated more recently, but I've not had a TV for a few years so I can't be certain.

Re:My Impatience

[improfane]

I had no idea. The only Star Trek shows I've seen on British TV was Enterprise on Channel Four, The Original Series on BBC and Voyager or The Next Generation on Sky1. They used to show The Next Generation on VirginOne but that channel no longer exists. Since I don't watch regular television anymore I've not kept track. (No cable or satellite anymore. Waste of money.)

Everyone used to speak of DS9 on the web so I downloaded it to see what it was like.

Re:My Impatience

[TheThiefMaster]

Thankyou :)

Re:My Impatience

[nedlohs]

I buy thing in the supermarket precisely because I've never tried them on occassions. I buy books I haven't read before. I buy tickets to movies I haven't seen before. I go to restaurants at which I've never eaten before. I buy video games I've never played or played a demo of before.

I'm pretty sure most magazines, radios, and television stations don't let you run your ad for free to see if you like their services. And most banks don't let you trial borrow $500,000 (though interest free periods on credit cards are common of course).

The free samples approach is a popular form of marketing, but you don't get to force others into marketing things using your prefered method. Well you do for the topic at hand via downloading it without their authorization - but it's pirating and pretending it isn't is just silly.

Re:My Impatience

[Bert64]

The problem with that, is that the torrent version is still a superior product... You are not constrained by physical media, you can download instantly without waiting for shipping, and there is no DRM or region restrictions on the torrents (tho the DRM on DVDs is thoroughly cracked, the user-hostile intent is there).

Re:My Impatience

[robot256]

The price you pay for the boxset of a television series is for the convenience and without the adverts.

This would be true if the DVDs were (a) convenient and (b) without ads. While boxsets do have less adverts than broadcast, movie DVDs have plenty of annoying trailers for things I don't want to watch, and neither make it convenient to watch on the device of your choice.

Re:My Impatience

[TheRaven64]

The Next Generation, DS9 and Voyager all aired on BBC2, as did repeats of the original series (they showed it first, and then did reruns fairly regularly through the '90s). Typically, Next Generation and later series ran on Sky shortly after the US release and then on the BBC a year later. Last time I owned a TV was a few years ago, but they were still repeating Next Generation fairly frequently. Apparently they renewed the rights to ToS and TNG in 2006 and still show them periodically.

Re:My Impatience

[Bert64]

As you pointed out, the industry tries to abuse its paying customers...

Bought a movie in standard definition, pay again if you want high def.
Bought a movie in high definition, pay again if you want a clearly inferior standard definition copy.
Bought a movie in one country and want to watch it in another, pay again.
Bought a movie on dvd and want to watch it on an alternative device (ipad etc), pay again.
Want to copy a movie you bought to a media server, so you have convenient access to it without swapping media, not allowed.
Want to copy your movie to a laptop so you can watch it on the go without the hassle of media, not allowed.
Want to make copies of a movie so your kids can play it and not risk damaging the original, not allowed.

If movies were available legitimately without DRM, i would buy the highest quality version i could find and then convert it to whichever format suits me at the time. But as it stands, only the pirates are currently providing me the features that i want.

Re:My Impatience

[improfane]

You don't flick through magazines? Read the first few pages of a book in a bookshop? Listen to a youtube video from a new album that has just been released? Does your wife sniff a perfume before buying it? You sound like you arguing that you should buy everything regardless how little you use it. That not owning the item completely should be illegal.

I think you've blown my original post out of proportion. I bought four boxsets (and two more since then because my example for a month ago). I only downloaded a handful of episodes from one season. After the first one finished, I purchased a helluva lot more than I took.

I won't buy a boxset of Desparate Housewives without seeing an episode first. Whether it's on television (I did not like it) or streaming or on YouTube doesn't matter.

I can't tell if you're intentionally not understanding (trolling) or really don't.

If you're telling me you bouught a magazine or book, impulsively, without reading a few pages and without being aware of it I don't believe you. When you go buy a carpet, you feel how it feels on your feet before you buy it.

If people could not find out what something was like, I guarantee there would be fewer sales for everything. If books and magazines were behind a glass counter, you can guarantee you would get fewer sales.

Re:My Impatience

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Sharing/using/lending your property with whomever you want is a basic property right stretching back to the dawn of human civilisation.

Copyright is effectively a restriction on this more basic right. Unfortunately, its restrictions now appear to be effectively unlimited in scope and duration.

Re:My Impatience

[CCarrot]

If books and magazines were behind a glass counter, you can guarantee you would get fewer sales.

Sorry, weren't you aware that you and every other brain dead consumer out there are supposed to snap up their product based on the pretty colours on the covers, the screaming headlines on the magazines and the flashy trailers for the movies?

Seriously, sometimes it feels like advertisers and the entertainment industry think we're all just trout in the pond.

Re:My Impatience

[cheekyjohnson]

Becuase that is the deal the copyright holder is offering you. If you don't like that deal then don't take it and don't watch the thing at all.

Alternatively, you could download it for free (like he did). That is also an option.

Re:My Impatience

[Grygus]

I don't understand your skepticism in this case. If you're right, and the music trade's health must now be measured in the sales of independent artists using the Internet, why would it be hard to believe that the RIAA has seen a significant decline? It seems perfectly consistent with your scenario. It may even be a necessary correlation.

Re:My Impatience

[AmiMoJo]

I'm sure we can continue to have high budget TV shows in the future, we just have to find a new source of funds for them. At the moment if you want to make a show like Stargate Universe you need to convince a TV channel to pony up $2m an episode with a minimum order of at least 10. Once you cut the TV channel out of the picture the producers have to find some other source of up-front money, the same way that most other businesses do.

Perhaps we will eventually get the costs down in the same way that we did with music.

Re:My Impatience

[nedlohs]

You don't flick through magazines? Read the first few pages of a book in a bookshop? Listen to a youtube video from a new album that has just been released? Does your wife sniff a perfume before buying it? You sound like you arguing that you should buy everything regardless how little you use it. That not owning the item completely should be illegal.

Aside from youtube (which may of may not in each case) those are things that the seller allows you to do as part of their marketing. Most places let you flip through the book or magazine, but don't let you take it home for the night or photocopy it for example. Some stores that sell perfume/companies that make perfume clearly think they'll make more sales if they eat the cost of samples.

However, if a particular store doesn't let you try something first that is there right. Not buying from them is fine, forcing them to do so is not.

I think you've blown my original post out of proportion. I bought four boxsets (and two more since then because my example for a month ago). I only downloaded a handful of episodes from one season. After the first one finished, I purchased a helluva lot more than I took.

I won't buy a boxset of Desparate Housewives without seeing an episode first. Whether it's on television (I did not like it) or streaming or on YouTube doesn't matter.

I can't tell if you're intentionally not understanding (trolling) or really don't.

I didn't say your were a huge pirate or pirated everything.

But your example arguing that you weren't a pirate was the action of pirating something.

It doesn't matter that you purchased more than you took. You still pirated something.

If you're telling me you bouught a magazine or book, impulsively, without reading a few pages and without being aware of it I don't believe you. When you go buy a carpet, you feel how it feels on your feet before you buy it.

I certainly have impulsively bought a book without reading a few pages. Because I liked the author and had all their other books. So sure I was aware of it before. I've bought a book because I read a review without ever even seeing the book. I've certainly paid for and watched a movie that I had never even heard the name of before walking into the cinema.

If people could not find out what something was like, I guarantee there would be fewer sales for everything. If books and magazines were behind a glass counter, you can guarantee you would get fewer sales.

Of course there would be fewer sales. But that isn't what you claimed. You claimed no sales, which is completely different.

And again, it doesn't matter. The copyright holder is allowed use suboptimal marketing. They are allowed to do something (or not do something) even though it will result in fewer sales. As an aside there are probably cases where is wouldn't result in fewer sales too - selling a book filled with blank paper will likely see more sales if you don't allow anyone to flip through it before buying, or a really bad movie, or a really bad video game, etc.

You worked around their choice in the case of the TV series mentioned, and I have no moral objection to you doing so. It is however called pirating (the argument about whether that's a reasonable term to use is also irrelevant to this duscussion) and claiming it isn't because you bought it later is silly.

Re:My Impatience

[nedlohs]

Obviously. Just don't claim is isn't pirating.

Consider the source.

[olsmeister]

Envisional entire business is based on helping companies find out when their stuff is being downloaded illegally. Of course their study will show that piracy is as exploding ... at about the same pace as what they're projecting for next quarter's profits.

Re:Consider the source.

[hedwards]

That's reasonable, they're making profits on the basis of piracy and so one would expect for their profits to increase at about the rate of an increase in piracy. It doesn't mean that the numbers are bad. But, given the industry that they're in, it wouldn't be surprising if the figures were on the high side.

Shocker?

[Tasha26]

I was listening to that report on the radio, some of the reasons to explain this were: - faster broadband - user friendlier download sites - people not finding it wrong to download illegal content But they didn't mention how jobless people are supposed to find the money for legit content?... My question is this: Is it ok to draw a parellel between stealing a loaf of bread from a baker and downloading a pirated movie or music file?

Re:Shocker?

[TenDollarMan]

Lets just say that a baker has 13 loaves of bread, and I steal one.

The baker now has only a conventional dozen, and will be angry because of that, as he is now only able to sell 12, not the original 13. Loss in potential profits of about 8%.

Imagine the bread is digital, and I copy one of those loaves.

The baker still has 13 loaves, and can still sell them. Repeatedly. His anger is now because his marketplace has diminished by one. Loss in potential profits of 0.000000001%

It is still wrong, from the baker's perspective, but it's less damaging.

Re:Shocker?

[JMJimmy]

My question is this: Is it ok to draw a parellel between stealing a loaf of bread from a baker and downloading a pirated movie or music file?

Sorry, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Re:Shocker?

[plunderscratch]

Provided you downloaded the movie in order to feed to your starving family I'm certain many judges would look leniently on such an offence and recommend a non-custodial sentence.

Re:Shocker?

[camperdave]

...people not finding it wrong to download illegal content

First of all, there is no way of knowing whether content is illegal or not. It may be legal in some areas and not legal in others.

My point of view: If it's on TV, I can get it for free. If I can get it for free, why not get it from a torrent site?

Re:Shocker?

[PlatyPaul]

You wouldn't steal a loaf of bread....

Re:Shocker?

[jedidiah]

Yeah, but I would replicate my own using a recipe from the web.

I have a number of these sorts of "knockoff" recipes.l

Re:Shocker?

[poliscipirate]

The baker has 13 digital loaves of bread and a market of 100 buyers.

The baker begins copying the loaves and distributing them to the market, reaching a pricing point that gets all 100 buyers to buy his loaves.

You copy one loaf of bread and use it for personal consumption. Impact on the baker's market is minimal.

You copy one loaf of bread from the baker, but then begin copying more for distribution. 25 buyers who would have bought a loaf of bread from the baker then copy your copied loaf of bread. Impact to the baker's market is substantial. Baker is forced to close down. Potential new bakers are scared away from the market due to the ease with which to copy loaves of bread. Famine ensues. Wives weep, children go hungry. Everyone dies.

But seriously, your story leaves a lot out of the equation.

Re:Shocker?

[Kjella]

The baker still has 13 loaves, and can still sell them. Repeatedly. His anger is now because his marketplace has diminished by one. Loss in potential profits of 0.000000001%

The difference is that if the average person seeds back to >1, that one loaf can feed everyone (beat that, Jesus). Theft is a manageable risk, if it was valuable enough your baker could look like a jeweler's store, there could be guards and vaults and alarms and cameras everywhere. At worst that one stolen loaf is one lost sale, at best one lost marginal cost. But once someone has figured out a way to make infinitely many loaves, there's no boundary on how many customers you lose so it's more like 0.000000001-100% of the market.

Re:Shocker?

[mjwx]

The baker still has 13 loaves, and can still sell them. Repeatedly. His anger is now misplaced because he believes his marketplace has diminished by one. In actual fact, the bakers market has now increased as more people know how fresh and tasty the bakers bread is.

TFTFY,

Its the same logic that is behind free samples, by sampling the product you may find you gain customers who would not have bought your product otherwise. This has been proven by multiple piracy studies, piracy increases, not decreases sales.

People, by and large will do the right thing when it comes to buying products. By the same token people will eventually realise that, if your product is not worth what you are asking for it, they will look for a cheaper alternative. So back to the bakers scenario;

Baker charges $25 per loaf. Customers drop off as they think $25 is unreasonable.

In response the baker forces the council to shut down all other bakeries, make home baking illegal and ban bread importing.

People still want bread but find the bakers prices unreasonable. So people resort to "copying" the bakers bread in response to the bakers high prices and artificial monopoly.

The baker then cries millions of dollars in losses due to 1000's of potential customers not eating his stale and reused bread.

In response all plates are installed with FRM (Food Rights Management) which prevents plates from holding pirated bread.

These measures prove unpopular and plates are quickly cracked. The baker forces the council to make this procedure illegal, despite this Greek weddings continue to gain popularity.

The Baker ensures all new plates are sold with HDCP (Human Digestive Content Protection) which can only accept the bakers bread.

Despite all these measures, bread piracy rates increase yet the baker does not seem to be going out of business.

Solution for TV shows:

[Justin1313]

Make Bit torrents of your shows complete with commercials, I would download that. And you can track how many downloads for ad revenue.

Re:Solution for TV shows:

[Damnshock]

Make Bit torrents of your shows complete with commercials, I would download that. And you can track how many downloads for ad revenue.

How would I love that!!!!

Re:Solution for TV shows:

[jedidiah]

Most people really can't be bothered.

Most people don't even bother with PVRs.

The industry is really paranoid over nothing. People are lazy and cheap. They are probably more lazy than they are cheap.

Anything that involves some sort of rube goldberg what-if scenario is badly divorced from reality.

And it's all coming down the same cable

[Rogerborg]

Dear Virgin Media. You (try to) charge me approximately £4-£5 for a 24 hour window of opportunity to stream a bunch of bits to the cable box over there. Or I can use the exact same cable to stream much the same bunch of bits to the network card and hard drive over here, and then I can decode them as many times as I like, indefinitely, at an extra cost of £0.

I'm not saying that I'd actually do either of these things, but you really aren't making it easy for me to pick the former.

Re:And it's all coming down the same cable

[Inda]

Dear VM,

Your lists of new films are a pain in arse. The wife flicks through your on-screen menus and picks one film after another.

If she asks me one more time "is such-and-such a film on The Pirate Bay?" I might have to give in and finally let her stream it herself.

Make it an impulse purchase, you clueless muppets.

Disrespectfully yours...

Re:Only 33% since 2006?

[DanTheStone]

It's only looking at the 5 most-downloaded in each category. My question is, why look only at the top 5? Comparing download counts of the top 5 most downloaded in each category hardly seems like an accurate general measurement.

Transformers

[improfane]

I had a similar experience but with the 3D version. It was 10 GBP plus 1GBP for the glasses! Rip off.

There are sequences in that film that are really good fun. Unfortunately there is a lot of bad acting and ridiculous pro-American propaganda.

The scene that left me gawping was when the voiceover said the Autobots agreed to help the US 'save humans from themselves'. The scene showed a nuclear power plant subtitled 'Illegal Nuclear Site' with Libya flags. Very offensive.

The irony is that the film is all about freedom and yet freedoms in America are being taken away everyday (Slashdot YROs etc) Plus America supresses the freedoms of other nations too, UK, Libya, Iraq, Vietnam, Guatemala and so on.

Other than that, the action is good fun but thoughtless. I found the prisoner scene with the Eeinstein robot particularly disturbing.

Re:Transformers

[H0p313ss]

Unfortunately there is a lot of bad acting and ridiculous pro-American propaganda.

In a Hollywood action film? I'm shocked! Shocked!!

Next thing you know there will be musical numbers with lots of dancing in Bollywood Films, will nothing stop this madness?

Re:Transformers

[Nadaka]

Wait... How are we suppressing the Libyans freedom at the moment? You have at least some argument for the others but last I checked we were providing at least a little support for the freedom of the Libyan people.

Re:Transformers

[Idimmu Xul]

The scene showed a nuclear power plant subtitled 'Illegal Nuclear Site' with Libya flags. Very offensive.

Why is this honestly offensive to anyone that isn't a whiny film critique?

Re:Transformers

[improfane]

This is offtopic but do I believe that we're in this war to support the rebels? It can't possibly be for something we want. It has happened once, it will happen again.

Re:Transformers

[improfane]

Read more.

Re:Transformers

[jedidiah]

The Arab League gave us an ingraved invitation and by golly we took them up on it.

Re:Transformers

[Nadaka]

It is also incorrect as far as Libya is concerned. The US does not have an oil interest in Lybia, their oil goes almost exclusively to Europe. Qaddafi has been a thorn in our side for decades, our selfish reason for intervening in Libya is removing him, and that just happens to promote the freedom of the Libyan people as well.

Libya has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and it is therefore plausible that a nuclear site used to develop nuclear weapons in Libya could be considered "illegal", it is hardly an exclusively American thing.

Re:Transformers

[improfane]

That begs two questions. Illegal to whom? The US? Who has the right to remove anyone outside our borders? Isn't that the opposite to freedom?

Re:Transformers

[Nadaka]

Illegal to the signatories of the treaty, including Libya itself. It is no more the opposite of freedom than honoring the lease on your apartment is.

You are not making a valid argument in this case.

Re:Transformers

[improfane]

Not everyone appreciates how much damage the US does to other cultures by starting wars, invading countries and generally interfering with other countries outside US jurisdiction. That America preaches freedom is deliciously ironic and even offensive at the same time. This is why it is offensive.

What treaty?

Re:Transformers

[hedwards]

The UK? Oh please, for one thing they did it first and for another thing the UK is a sovereign entity over which we have no control. As for Libya, we didn't start their civil war and we're hardly the only nation involved with supporting the rebels. At this point I don't even think we're properly considered a major factor as we don't have any boots on the ground.

Re:Transformers

[Nadaka]

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the one I already mentioned, the one that Libya signed, the one that makes it illegal for Libya to develop nuclear weapons.

Not everyone appreciates how much damage the US does to its own culture by violating our own constitution, degrading our own freedoms and oppressing our own people. It isn't "deliciously ironic", it is a damned tragedy that America isn't living up to its ideals.

I am an American patriot and I do not agree with what a lot of what my government does. What I find offensive is people making the wrong arguments against the US and doing so with glee.

Re:Transformers

[improfane]

A power station is not a nuclear weapon. Actions speak larger than words. That Iraq nuclear weapon thing? Weapons of massive destruction? That turned out to be a fabrication. I think America oversteps its bounds in foreign affairs. They used it as an excuse.

To believe creates Nuclear weapons requires a massive creative licence to me. We believe in the same things. The constitution is a sound corpus of principlia however it has been bastardized and is no longer followed by your government.

The topic was originally about Transformers and the portayal of Libya as bad guys. That's what I don't like. The nerve to use the word 'illegal' in 'illegal nuclear site' is ridiculous. If it said 'enemy', it wouldn't have been political. It's just American (government) hypocrisy.

All that said, I like America in general. I am on an American website afterall. You make some nice things that I couldn't enjoy without you. As you said, there are flaws and we (and you) are suffering because of it.

Re:Transformers

[ErikZ]

Well then who ran into Iraq and gassed it's citizens with weapons of mass destruction?

Oh yeah. Iraq did. They actually took credit for it.

It's amazing how no one has heard about this.

Look for the Halabja poison gas attack.

Re:Transformers

[Nadaka]

You obviously don't have a clue how nuclear weapons are made. You need to have an enriched fuel, you can extract the right isotope from natural uranium using cyclotrons or another mass filtering method or you can use a nuclear reactor to breed plutonium. So yes, a nuclear power station most certainly can be an illegal nuclear weapons manufacturing site.

We do not believe the same things. I have righteous conviction that America needs to shape up and live up to the greatness of our ideals. You laugh and giggle at the chance to berate America about things that are not even remotely correct.

And yes, illegal was perfectly valid, and much more correct than enemy. That scene was not an American hypocrisy. You are just wrong.

Re:Transformers

[improfane]

You were pleasant and up till now, a good online convesationalist. Now you're an ass.

You project your arrogance just like your country.

Good day to you sir.

Universal Pictures / Lovefilm dispute

[TheophileEscargot]

I wonder if the Universal Pictures / Lovefilm dispute has had an impact. Since November 2009 Universal Pictures have refused to make their movies available to most online DVD-rental services. So you want to see one of their movies you have to pirate it, buy it, or switch to Blockbuster.

Please give us a legal download service.

[What the Frag]

I live in Germany and I admire many BBC productions. The problem is, after many years of the industry 'fighting piracy', they are still missing the obvious.

Yes, I consider myself a "TV show pirate". Why am I pirating? Let's say I want to watch the newest Doctor Who. There are a few ways to watch it:

- legally: Visit UK: Expensive.
- legally: Buy a huge satellite dish and watch/record it. Expensive and complicated, not possible anywhere.
- legally: Wait month for DVD.
- legally: Wait 5 years for any TV station to pick the show up again and show it in Germany with bad synchronization.
- somewhat legally: watch it on BBCs iplayer via Proxy: Complicated to set up, often slow
- probably illegally: download it from Filehoster/Newsgroup: easiest and cheapest, also fast.

So why am I pirating: I'm always picking the fastest, most comfortable and maybe the cheapest way. But I would pay for it, as I would pay for a filehoster or newsgroup provider.

BBC and others: If you want me to stop piracy, please make a platform that
- is available everywhere where I have internet access
- that provides TV shows or movies to an affordable price, with original audio
- that provides TV shows in decent quality (720p), unencrypted
- that provides TV shows immediately after being screened.

I will be your customer.

Re:Please give us a legal download service.

[jedidiah]

BBC stuff is horrible when it comes to pricing. They are absolute dead last on my shopping list when it comes to content. There's just too much other cheaper stuff out there to get my attention. Now I have started watching some of their stuff on Netflix because it's there and it's cheap enough. If not for their prima donna pricing, I would have a lot more of their stuff (bought and paid for even).

Re:Please give us a legal download service.

[Evtim]

I don't know about shows, but the last Planet Earth DVDs were dirt cheap considering how much time, money and effort it took them to make it. I won't be surprised if they did not recover the investment on this one.

I meet with slight hostility every request to lend them for the purpose of copying, even to close friends. Everyone I know can afford the price for this masterpiece. The day I got them from UK Amazon I convinced 3 colleagues to order on the spot.

Re:Please give us a legal download service.

[jedidiah]

They are state supported public broadcasting. What "investment" did they ever need to pay off?

Disk sales should be entirely gravy. So should any licenses to their poor cousins in America.

Re:Please give us a legal download service.

[Finallyjoined!!!]

They are state supported public broadcasting.

Sorry you're mistaken, they are funded by a compulsory (if you watch broadcast TV) licence fee, which is in no way state supported.

people will go for $15-$20 PPV at home for movies

[Joe_Dragon]

people will go for $15-$20 PPV at home for movies at home same day as theater.

but $30 is to high.

Re:No, no, no!

[ceoyoyo]

Yup, there's been a marked decline in the amount of money Hollywood is making over the last decade and a half. They're really hurting now. Oh wait, no there hasn't: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/.

Envisional...

[Heed00]

It's not like this company has a vested interest in the numbers going up -- oh no of course not:

http://www.envisional.com/

Envisional’s business is built around unique, patented search technologies and a superb team of experienced analysts. We use this powerful combination to help corporations protect themselves and their customers from fraud, fakes, piracy and online brand abuse.

Horrible misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, people that is not the solution.

The solution is that our businesses are dying and the only solution is for the government to regulate with increasingly harsh copyright laws because without it the creators (some of whom are children, even!) will suffer a horrible, painful, tortured existence where their product is ripped off shamelessly by thousands of immoral pirates who are set on taking freedom away from artists.

Please, think of the children!

Better solution?

[mmcuh]

Maybe the solution is to just not care about it? Are the movie producers really gaining anything by chasing filesharers and buying parliamentarians? And aren't they still making loads of money, even with today's massive filesharing?

of course it is

[Nihn]

the new Harry Potter just came out, it will be back to normal about 2 months after the dvd is released, untill then it will be an "epidemic of piracy" for the film industry. FUN FACT: My downloading went down by %100 after I saw Avatar...that literally killed my faith in movies and the industry. I rather watch paint dry, the outcome isn't always obvious from the first 10 minutes and has a better plot than anything released in the past 10 years...in my opinion that is.

Why when suing is so much easier...

[madhatter256]

Why try and compete with piracy? How can the film industry compete with something that's free? Charge less? How much less can you get? Readily available?

Why work harder when you can easily sue many people and file them under "john/jane doe" lawsuits like here in the US and extort them out of thousands of dollars?

Movies don't make a profit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Movies don't make a profit. Ask Stan Lee.

Funny how they still make them, though.

Fingers Crossed For End of Stupid!

[Chardansearavitriol]

I wonder why they dont just try to patent photons and waves? Our patent system would almost definetly let them. Considering how greedy, stupid and completely out of touch distributors are, I fully anticipate them suing us for unauthorized electrochemical distribution of Caribbean Blue.

they don't live in the past

[Lead Butthead]

they know exactly how obsolete their business model is. however that isn't going to prevent them from milking it for everything it is worth. until they themselves concluded nothing more could be gain from it, they will persist. the politicians in their pockets will assist, irrespective of what the populace might think, or how loud the complains might be.

Going out on a very short limb

[ThatsNotPudding]

In the next decade, it will rapidly become impossible to 'buy' music or movies. You will only be able to buy access licenses (keyed to individual hashed hardware ala WGA) to watch a DRM stream. And the licenses will not be for lifetime access, but merely a yearly, monthly, or most likely per-view rental fee.

Every facet of the future is gonna suck.

Re:Going out on a very short limb

[jedidiah]

Buy your movies now before they put them back in the vault...

+...or not.

Right now, physical media offers a wider selection and lower prices. Electronic rentals still need to catch up in this area.

Re:Going out on a very short limb

[Grygus]

In the next decade, it will rapidly become impossible to 'buy' music or movies. You will only be able to buy access licenses (keyed to individual hashed hardware ala WGA) to watch a DRM stream. And the licenses will not be for lifetime access, but merely a yearly, monthly, or most likely per-view rental fee.

Every facet of the future is gonna suck.

If you stream it to me, then I can store it.

Even if this is attempted, it will be defeated in short order.

Columbia Record Club

[retroworks]

I own CDs because I had the habit of owning records. I came to own records because, in every Parade Magazine in the 1970s, the Columbia Record club offered an astounding 12 albums for one penny. You just had to join the club and agree to try/buy an album each month, and had the right to return the album if you were not completely satisfied. Of course, kids like me wound up paying more and buying a lot of music, and sometimes got an album we didn't like but didn't return (and there was a used record store for that). Anyway, my question is, why does the entertainment industry, of all industries, not understand the concept of offering people a better deal? Why didn't they think of Napster, as a record club, before Napster ever happened? Why didn't they INVENT torrents to sell their product? Lazy.

Obfuscated disk structure

[AliasMarlowe]

Sadly, due to how the industry tries to abuse it's paying customers it is actually much easier to participate in a torrent swarm than to create your own similar media files from the physical disks you already own. This is a practical issue caused by the industry's own paranoia and disrespect for the paying customer.

This is a bit of a peeve for me. When I buy a DVD or CD, it's generally ripped to our media server in fairly short order, and the disk is placed safely in a drawer. [Note for any lawyer-wannabe: format shifting your media is perfectly legal where I live.]

Unfortunately, some companies go to considerable lengths to obfuscate the structure of their DVD. The Teaching Company is one of the worst, and we've bought almost a hundred of their DVDs. Tricks range from a need to rely on the BUP instead of the IFO, to weird correspondence between titles and actual shows, and show order not at all linked to title or chapter order. With teeth gritted, I have ripped almost every DVD we've bought (exceptions are ones we won't watch again), so they're all on the server.

However, I often think it would be easier to torrent the damn things. Since format shifting is legal, making it so painful is a form of customer abuse - they're just pushing people to torrent stuff they already own. In addition to the potential legal consequences, this just increases the swarm size and facilitates others in the same swarm.

Re:Change the law, It ain't piracy, it's publicity

[lolcutusofbong]

Movie studios pay royalties to use copyrighted songs in their movies.

Depends on their honour

[DrYak]

If you ever run across the headline "Steam shutting its doors", make a point to read the comments then.

Valve has promised that, whenever something along this line happens, the last thing they'll do before shutting the servers down and folding, would be to remove / help removing the DRM. From the beginning they've promised to avoid the situation similar to Sony's "PSN is down, so no more games for you, not even single player"-situation.

Now, the key point is to see is if they're going to keep their promises a couple of decade from now.

This simple statement is not legally binding by itself (this is just a promise). Perhaps, there *IS* some legal work somewhere to back this promise. For example there might be a small print clause in the license signed by every company using Steam to publish games.
(it's not unheard of. The QT library had such a "Poison pill clause" when it got sold to Nokia - should Nokia abandon QT (or try to permanently close it), the last known version is automatically made available under a permissive license which should allow forking and re-licensing. This clause was much talked about in the wake of the Microsoft-Nokia agreement. Similar clauses might exist in Valve's License for Steam)

The other question is what will happen to Valve (or Steam) at it's end-of-life. If the company simply folds, they are more likely to carry their promises. If they get bought by some less caring company, the new boss might decide to carry on differently. (See Sun getting bought by Oracle. Sun has always played nice with everyone else. They mostly used their patent port folio as a defence mechanism in case of litigation. Oracle, OTOH, tries to monetize it by suing as much as possible).

The future will tell us, but the situation isn't exactly the same as with Sony or Microsoft.

Re:Depends on their honour

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If the company simply folds, they are more likely to carry their promises.

Eh I don't think they will. Not because I'm a know-it-all jerk, but because I want to make sure that when I buy a game from them, I have to feel the price is what I consider to be a six-month rental. In other words, I won't pay $60 for a game there, but I don't mind paying something like $20 for Portal if I know I'll play and probably beat it in the short term.

Don't treat the DRM promise as anything but marketing.

We are getting closer...

[Uhhhh oh ya!]

Its not our fault if Hollywood doesn't want to jump on, I will be happy to see their death.

There is almost no excuse why a tv show shouldn't be available almost instantly after it airs. I love Hulu and I am glad to sit through the few commercials if I am supporting the shows I like, but for the shows that take weeks to post their episodes or refuse to post them at all then if I miss it on tv I see no better option than to torrent it. Not to mention prices, sometimes I want to start a new series, but fat chance I'm going to pay $100+ for a series I'm not sure I will enjoy.

As for movies Netflix is improving but they aren't there yet with their watch instantly stuff. New movies take too long to become available and there are some movies that were barely known and have been out for years and still aren't up. RedBox is great for the price, and sometimes when me and my friends decide we want to watch a movie late at night when stores are closed grabbing a movie from one of these is faster than downloading it.

Hollywood could easily start their own online distribution, something like Netflix but instead you rent the movie for $1 for 24hr, it would cut my downloading in to a small fraction. Obviously RedBox has found a way to make a profit off low prices and Hulu and Netflix has shown the success of instant streaming. Torrents are appealing do to low cost and high availability, both could be easily beaten or at least competed by Hollywood if they were smart.

Illegal? Pirate? WTF?

[stenWolf]

A) It's not illegal to download. It's a copyright violation to distribute. Downloading is legal.
B) pirates rape and murder physical human being. As in actual violence against a person's body. Copyright infringement, OTOH, is, while financially hurting to some, as non-violent crime as they come.

Re:No, no, no!

[Heed00]

Funny how you cite critical thinking and hold it up as a value when you, yourself, open with an ad hominem and then follow up with another one. You've mounted no argument whatsoever and simply stomped your feet calling your interlocutor names -- by your own conditional statement you are unfit to live.

"Internet intelligence" ...

[Kittenman]

Uh-oh... we all know what that means...

Depends on license wording

[DrYak]

Don't treat the DRM promise as anything but marketing.

As I've written up-there, it all depends on the small print :

Perhaps, there *IS* some legal work somewhere to back this promise. For example there might be a small print clause in the license signed by every company using Steam to publish games.

*If* there is some legally binding clause in the licensing of steam service to game developers, the promise is rather serious.
*if* there is none, then as you say, it's only marketing.

Now the problem, is that we only see the *end-user* license (which would be none enforceable towards games). The only thing that would matter is if they have the necessary provision in the license to *developers*.

Re:Depends on license wording

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The trouble is, it doesn't really matter what legal agreements exist in theory. If the legal entity you had the agreement with ceases to exist, or goes into some kind of formal administration to wind it up, then what are you going to do if they don't comply, sue them for $0?

A more reliable and time-honoured approach in this sort of situation is to have a copy of what the buying party is supposed to get held in escrow by an independent third party, with that third party authorised to release the material if and only if the selling party shuts down. Without that level of independence, there's no way to ensure that anything useful happens in practice. As far as I'm aware, none of the major DRM-based download services have made such a provision.

Another obvious alternative is to just let people download DRM-free content anyway, on the grounds that if they're bothering to pay you rather than rip you off in the first place, most of them probably don't want to support lots of other people who didn't, and the die-hard rippers were going to find a copy anyway. Of course, it's easy to take this friendly approach in a thought experiment where finding out you're wrong doesn't cost you your livelihood...

Re:Ahh... the good ol' days.

[sgbett]

And the huge irony? I now spend more a month (every month, without fail) on usenet than I have ever or likely would ever spend on buying physical media. Before usenet, I just went without or listened to the radio (fwiw!) watched the TV.

I dont get what they studios are scared of? Its a constant revenue stream, the holy grail of business models, yet they seem blind to this concept. Baffling.

You know, if you sell stuff that people want, then you might find that people will be inclined to buy from you... but no they persist in trying to hawk those shiny, awkward, fragile and altogether inconvenient little disks. Or there is always the cinema, mind that overpriced popcorn doesn't stick in your throat eh... (though having said that there always ahs and always will be people who want the big screen experience - at least it has a USP)

They see "losing millions of dollars to piracy", I see "voting with feet" roll on "iTunes in the cloud" (or equivalent) for movies...

Luxury

[mjwx]

I completely agree that the cost of movies is getting stupid. I watched Transformers 3 last night (it's pretty crap, but the sequence in the city is amazing) and two tickets cost me 18GBP.

9 Pounds a ticket,

Sheer luxury,

That's only A$13.50, in Australia we pay A$18 or 12.13 pounds for a 2D ticket and cinema's are going out of business left right and centre not because of lack of customers but simply because they cant make money at A$18 a ticket with the royalties Hollywood charges. Customers are losing them money sometimes as ticket barely cover royalties let alone operating costs.

No wonder piracy is so high here in Oz, we cant afford to waste A$50 too often (2 tickets + A$2.20 booking fee with 1 drink and popcorn to share).

Common sense

[DrYak]

Another obvious alternative is to just let people download DRM-free content anyway, on the grounds that if they're bothering to pay you rather than rip you off in the first place, most of them probably don't want to support lots of other people who didn't, and the die-hard rippers were going to find a copy anyway. Of course, it's easy to take this friendly approach in a thought experiment where finding out you're wrong doesn't cost you your livelihood...

Well, this solution would rather rely on having "Common sense" which is sadly lacking among the companies which typically buy into DRM scams.

it's not what it used to be...

[Yorkshire Tyke]

I think people download films instead of going to the cinema, so why aren't people going to the cinema? Because 10 years ago it cost £3.50 and there were maybe 1 or 2 adverts before the film, now it costs £7.50 and you have to sit through 20-30 minutes of adverts. Plus it costs £5 in petrol just to get there and back! The solution is to stop ripping people off on ticket prices and making them sit through so much shit before the film comes on!