Film Studios Seeking Complete Block of Newzbin2 in the UK

superglaze writes "Having got BT, one of the biggest ISPs in the UK, to block the Newzbin2 Usenet site, the Motion Picture Association is now trying to get the same result from all the other major service providers in the country. As this is likely to go through, it won't be long before most people in the UK will be unable to visit file-sharing sites at all, without using a proxy, VPN, or special client."

Comments

They can block all they want

[Anonymous Coward]

At the end of the day, they won't be surprised when the ticket sales for the utter crap that they call movies doesn't go up one bit. People who download movies usually cannot afford to go and see them, or refuse to pay the ridiculous prices to see them. Cinemas in the UK are a joke. 7 quid for a coke and popcorn. 8 quid to get in. Take a family of 4 to a cinema and you are out 60 quid ($90 ish). It's a joke. Just to sit there for 90 minutes and watch utter crap. Make cinema affordable for families again and piracy will go down very quickly.

Re:They can block all they want

[Dondoet]

That is assuming that it's families who are pirating films, which I don't really think is the case. Personally, I pirate films every now and then for the sake of ease. Going to the cinema is a large use of time (and money), which I'd prefer to spend on something at least marginally more productive. As you said, the prices at the cinema in the uk are quite ridiculous at the moment. I think a drop in prices would probably bring in more money than at the current state but probably wouldn't reduce piracy.

Re:They can block all they want

[agentgonzo]

When I can buy a DVD for the price of a cinema ticket + parking + snacks and when my living room is much nicer than the local cinema, it makes very little incentive to go to the cinema. The price of the DVD alone is less than two tickets excluding everything it means the only time I ever go to the cinema is when I tag along with my friends who want to see something. If I want to watch a film, I'll just wait for the DVD. Pirating it is easier and cheaper than getting the DVD so that has a large appeal apart from the bit where I have to poo in a policeman's helmet

Re:They can block all they want

[Bert64]

It's 8 quid if you happen to live outside london, it costs a lot more in london...

Add to that, the conditions... Of the cinemas i've been to over the years, most are smelly, dirty, poor climate control (either too hot or too cold), uncomfortable seats, seats too close together so you knock elbows etc etc...

I also never understood why they sell the noisiest possible food (crisps and popcorn) at cinemas, people munching away on this stuff is noisy and detracts from the movie!

Contrast that to cinemas in some asian countries, where they have to compete against a much higher level of piracy, the prices are not only much cheaper but the experience much better to boot.

Re:They can block all they want

[TheRaven64]

And renting the DVD is even cheaper. I pay less for an all-I-can-watch, 2 disks at home at once (becoming 3 next week for the same price) rental subscription as I'd pay for going to the cinema twice a month. I spent about £100 on my 5.1 speakers ten years ago, and about £150 on my projector four years ago. I can watch films on a comfy sofa with whatever food or drink I want and pause it when I want. If I want to watch a film with someone else, it costs the same amount, while going to the cinema will cost twice as much.

The studios delay the DVD releases because they will cannibalise cinema profits. They don't seem to understand that this means that, given the choice, people would rather watch the DVD than go to the cinema. In any sane business, this would mean that they'd release the DVD first, giving their customers what they want. Instead, they intentionally don't give customers what they want and then blame piracy for their profits being lower than they want.

Re:First file sharing

[TheRaven64]

The problem with child porn laws is that they are always badly defined. Child abuse is fairly easy to define. Pictures of child abuse make you an accessory (or an accessory after the fact) to child abuse, so no extra laws are required. Child porn laws have covered:

• Drawings of fictitious children in various settings (wanting got look at these may be a bit fucked up, but no children were harmed in the creation of them).
• A photograph of a naked child in the bath taken by its parents (use your favourite search engine to find this one).
• Pictures of consensual sex between people above the age of consent, create without the intent to distribute them.
• Pictures of adults who look like they are under the age of consent
• Pictures of children playing that someone thought might be arousing to someone else.

One of the cases the was on Slashdot a few weeks ago was a catholic priest. Some of the pictures he had were just photograph of (clothed) children with their crotches in the centre of the frame. These were counted as child porn (not to defend the individual in question - there was also evidence that he was molesting the children, but focussing on the pictures rather than the molestation seems wrong).

Re:This is good

[N0Man74]

Sorry, my points have all been spent.

You might want to pick up a newspaper sometime (if they still in print) because the world has changed a little bit in the last several decades.

There have been some recent developments that you might find interesting, such as the rise of "the internet", "smart phones", "i-things", "unemployment", and "economic uncertainty".

In reading, you might also learn that most of us don't have infinite incomes. Additionally, at the risk of offending some camps, all businesses can't continue to always increase profits for an infinite amount of time.

So the average person has less money to spend on entertainment and more places to spend it, then it seems pretty likely that certain "creative industries" can feel the pinch.

You are in the "creative industry", can't you be more creative than using piracy as a scapegoat?