"Seriously, what the hell are these governments up to? Seems to me you'd have to be pretty afraid of something to mandate surveilence on the scale of what's going on in Europe these days, and last time I checked the climate wasn't right for a revolution (not enough poverty!)."
"Yeah. I'm sick and tired of the motion picture industry, which PRODUCES AND DISTRIBUTES ALL THE FILMS YOU WANT TO WATCH..." "I bet you still think you have a right to download movies since the MPAA won't cater to your every whim. "
Still? I never said that. My original post was meant to be "Too bad the MPAA isn't providing the service I'm happy to pay for". Heh if I thought downloading movies for free was proper, I wouldn't have made that post at all. It'd have been like "Luckily I can download movies for free on Kazaa", or something like that.
BTW, you really should control your anger. There was no call for you to try to insult me. If you disagree, fine, but be civil. Anybody else would have just slung mud right back atcha.
Oh man. Im sorry dude, I wasn't aware of 'Regional Availability'. Pity they didn't let me know that up front, I probably wouldn't have subscribed. *Sick of borders with relation to movies.*
I think you make good points. I don't agree with all of them, but I appreciate your tact. There are people in this thread who are mutating my original post into 'waaaah! I dont want to pay for stuff! Give it to me for $1!. It was refreshing to hear a well thought out rebuttal. Thank you.:)
Not only that but they are holding the content creators hostage by saying, "we'll keep giving away your work unless you play by our rules."
This may be true in some cases, but the major problem is that the MPAA isn't allowing anybody to license the content. (If somebody knows better, please correct me. I'm going to be up front and tell you that what I just said is a half-informed statement.)
If a TV station says 'We want to play Star Wars', then they can negotiate a deal to license Star Wars to air legally. I don't think the MPAA has a generic license for this, simply for their fear of what'll happen when their content's on the web. (Although I think there are exceptions, like intertainer.tv for example...)
In this case, it is the companies who want to fill this demand that are being held hostage. What alternative to they have? There are a few, but none of them are very good.
"This tripe gets modded to "insightful?" -- That's likely becuse the moderator understood what I was saying. I'm reasonably sure you didn't.
This isn't a matter of pricing. (How many times have i said that now?) It's a matter of availability, or 'supply meeting demand' as you said.
Your metaphor is way off base, let me correct it for you: Imagine if your burger joint said "We will not sell fries because people will poop on the lawn after eating them."
Your response would be "WTF? People aren't going to poop on the lawn after eating them! There's no proof of that! They'll use the toilet! I want my fries, dammit!"
"NanoGator is suggesting that becuase he paid somebody for the service, he's morally in the right, particularly because the service isn't available from the 'correct' vendor... Actually, paying the $1 means he is recieving stolen goods. That's no better than downloading the movie for free from somewhere else"
I never said I was legally correct or that Film88 was legit, either. The reason I'm for this is because it looks like they can't be stopped by the MPAA. If their model works, then the MPAA will have to take notice, and hopefully they'll provide a legitimate web site.
Yah, I'm really the bad guy here because I'm willing to pay for content that's not being provided, even though lots of people want it.
"Perhaps the standard movie studios that belong to the MPAA could afford to stream their movies for whatever price. However, that would mean that if I make an independent film and I show it in some small college theater, that I have to provide it via streaming. Would that be fair to me? No"
Lol! As if the MPAA gives a rats ass about Indies.
"Just because you provide one method for delivering your product, doesn't mean you MUST provide it for any other method of delivery"
I didn't say that. I never said that. I said there is market demand for it. It's in such demand that people are willing to perform illegal acts to satisfy it. Yet the MPAA's response is to say "nope, you'll steal it.", and then they tried to take away our PC's.
"And there are bigger issues in the world than your "right" to watch the latest movies for $1. Heard of Kashmir? No, probably not. "
LOL!! You're trying really desperately to make me sound petty, arent you? This begs the question: If you're so enlightened about world events (and yes, Im well aware of Kashmir), then how come you're here arguing with me about something I didn't say?
Better yet, what am I supposed to do? Unless you know of some way I can prevent Pakistan and India from entering into a nuclear war, then my only options are to continue living my life, or sit here like Shaggy and Scooby with my knees knocking together in fear.
I think it's amusing when jackasses try to sound like they're more concerned about the world than I am, only to reveal how truely petty they really are.
I disagree. I watch 330kbit video all the time. It's fine. A little bit more clarity would be okay, but the movie or TV show comes across just fine. It's a little worse than VHS, but if they give it to me for say $2-3 and I can watch it for 3 days, then for most movies it sure beats going to the rental store.
"What about the rights the content creators have? You do realize they have rights that are being taken away by sites like Film88 don't you? "
Are their rights being taken away? Sure. By Film88? That's questionable.
Let's use the Napster example you mentioned: What if a band says 'we want to release on the net?', the RIAA says 'tough nuts. We won't put music on the web because we think people will steal it.'.
That attitude didn't slow demand for MP3s. Somebody was bound to provide it, and that somebody was Napster. If the RIAA had gotten there first, they could have used the music rights they acquired to open a new market. Instead they sued it out of existence. I don't blame Napster for that, I blame the RIAA. They screwed up the on-line music business, and it won't be long before the artists who create the content are hurt by that.
As for Film88, yes they are infringing on the content producer's rights. However, the MPAA, through fighting this new market they have open to them, is trying to infringe on my rights. Remember fair use? Remember the DMCA? Think about it.
In short, Film88 will probaby lose on the legality front when it comes to violating the rights of the content holders. But the real damage is being done by the MPAA for not responding to market demand.
A few months ago, I was thinking about that. I dropped the idea (not for an interesting reason), but now that you bring it up again I think I'm going to reconsider it.
I didn't realize this site would be so shitty with Linux users, and I apologize for recommending it.
I had a hint that this'd be a problem, I think I remember that MS was pushing this site. I was vaguely aware that they use Media Player, but it didn't occur to me that they'd lock it to only Windows users.
Again, I apologize for not being a little more sensitive to the Slashdot audience..
Age of Empires runs just fine on my P2 300 laptop. It is that strenuous of game, heh.
My highschool had 486-33's at a time where Pentium chips were just starting to come out. Unfortunately, I graduated the year after so I'm not sure how up to date they are. I do know, though, that the guy running that department was keen on giving students the best possible hardware he could afford, even if it meant he had to build and maintain the machines himself.
Sadly, though, his attitude was that games were 'a waste of time'. He'd kick you out of class if he caught you playing a game. He was so close to the machines that he didn't want anything going on that could potentially break them down. I doubt he'd allow a lan party.
"It's not a question of could be used. It is being used for piracy."
The reason that the piracy exists is because there's a new market available, and nobody's satisfying market demand. Film88's trying to prove that's the case, the idea being that if they make enough money on it, the MPAA may say "hmm.. maybe we should license our content for this type of delivery."
(I haven't ruled out the possibility that Film88's just scamming to make a quick buck, but I have a hard time imagining somebody doing that would be willing to move their business to Iran, heh.)
I just wanted to thank yuo for being more tactful than everybody else, it's appreciated.:)
I see what you're saying, but I'm a bit clouded by the anger I have at the MPAA for trying to suffocate what appears to be a good business model. Know what I mean?
Funny, I can't see where I advised people to download movies for free. Never mind that I already answered this question in this thread!
I don't understand how all of you can be against the MPAA for not providing these services, but when anybody does suddenly you're willing to defend the MPAA just to prove people wrong. The worst part is that my words are getting twisted around.
If you think I'm not making sense, then ask for clarification instead of simply assuming that I'm some evil jackass who won't pay for anything.
*Sigh* I think in the effort for everybody to prove me wrong (funny how Slashdot works like that), what I'm saying's being twisted.
I'm not complaining about the cost of DVD's. I own quite a few DVD's actually. That's not my complaint at all. Nope. 0. Zilch.
There are movies I'd prefer to rent. Renting, though, can be a hassle. This is especially true since I'm a pedestrian and don't want to walk 20 minutes 1 way to Blockbuster. I'd rather rent over the internet. My willingness to pay $1 as opposed to downloading the movie for free on Kazaa proves that my intentions are good. Heck, I today pay more than that, I'm a subscriber to www.intertainer.tv. (I think they're legit with the MPAA, btw... not sure tho.)
You can say I'm 'rationalizing theft' all you want, the truth of the matter is that I'm a consumer willing to spend money to meet my needs. Do business with me if you want my money.
"I'd like to have a car for under $1000, and since this is not offered, I should be able to steal one, right?"
If it cost a car manufacture $100 total, including labor and all that jazz, how would you feel about them trying to sell it to you for $20,000? The MPAA could easily provide Film88's service, but they won't for incredibly petty reasons.
You guys are seriously misinterpreting me here. Im not saying 'break the law when you disagree', Im saying "Hey look, I'm paying money to watch a movie on the web. Too bad the people who made the movie aren't getting that money when they could be." That's a little different than saying "Well I'm going to download movies from Kazaa for free instead."
It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of the MPAA simply deciding they don't want to provide a service for us. They can legally make movies available, there are lots of drugs out there that cannot be sold without a prescription.
"Dude. You can't stream analog over the Internet. The Internet transmits *bits*...."
I think what he meant was have the movie of DVD, and route the output of the DVD player (analog) to a capture card in the PC. Then, stream the analog signal (comrpessed in real time and sent out digitally on the internet...) in a 'live broadcast' kind of way, as opposed to storing the encoded version on the PC and playing that on demand.
The reason to do that is that it requires less server power, if my understanding is correct. (Bandwidth would still be rather high, though...)
"Just because you haven't been provided with a service doesn't give you the right to illegially obtain it through other means."
In the same vein, just because the internet could be used for piracy, doesn't mean you have the right to call me a crook and try to take my rights away.
At this point, it's a question of mroality vs. legality. Am I right? Probably not. Do have a conscience about it? I used to until they tried to turn my computer into a set-top box.
Frankly, I have 0 sympathy for an industry that thinks it should take my rights away when I don't agree with it's ancient business model anymore.
There's a site called http://www.intertainer.tv where you can watch movies and TV shows. The prices are higher, but they've been around since last Oct or Nov. I've used them a couple of times and they're not too bad.
I think the price for movies is a bit high, but I'm willing to support this site. I'd like to prove to the industries involved that I'll pay for content I'm interested in.
It's worth a gander if you're remotely interested in this stuff. You can find out if it'll suit you or not before you pay anything. (They have previews for movies etc, all for free.)
I would agree with you, except that the MPAA's not providing a similar service! I want to view movies on the web for a reduced price. They won't give me that because they assume I'm a criminal. So not only are they not responding to consumer demand, they're insulting me in the process.
Come to think of it, I think intertainer.tv might be supported by the MPAA. Not sure, though. It's easy to overlook it when you have Senator Disney trying to pass heavy handed legislation to put a stop to it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Seriously, what the hell are these governments up to? Seems to me you'd have to be pretty afraid of something to mandate surveilence on the scale of what's going on in Europe these days, and last time I checked the climate wasn't right for a revolution (not enough poverty!)."
Terrorism?
heh ooooooooooookay.
"Yeah. I'm sick and tired of the motion picture industry, which PRODUCES AND DISTRIBUTES ALL THE FILMS YOU WANT TO WATCH..." "I bet you still think you have a right to download movies since the MPAA won't cater to your every whim. "
Still? I never said that. My original post was meant to be "Too bad the MPAA isn't providing the service I'm happy to pay for". Heh if I thought downloading movies for free was proper, I wouldn't have made that post at all. It'd have been like "Luckily I can download movies for free on Kazaa", or something like that.
BTW, you really should control your anger. There was no call for you to try to insult me. If you disagree, fine, but be civil. Anybody else would have just slung mud right back atcha.
O_o
Oh man. Im sorry dude, I wasn't aware of 'Regional Availability'. Pity they didn't let me know that up front, I probably wouldn't have subscribed. *Sick of borders with relation to movies.*
I think you make good points. I don't agree with all of them, but I appreciate your tact. There are people in this thread who are mutating my original post into 'waaaah! I dont want to pay for stuff! Give it to me for $1!. It was refreshing to hear a well thought out rebuttal. Thank you. :)
Not only that but they are holding the content creators hostage by saying, "we'll keep giving away your work unless you play by our rules."
This may be true in some cases, but the major problem is that the MPAA isn't allowing anybody to license the content. (If somebody knows better, please correct me. I'm going to be up front and tell you that what I just said is a half-informed statement.)
If a TV station says 'We want to play Star Wars', then they can negotiate a deal to license Star Wars to air legally. I don't think the MPAA has a generic license for this, simply for their fear of what'll happen when their content's on the web. (Although I think there are exceptions, like intertainer.tv for example...)
In this case, it is the companies who want to fill this demand that are being held hostage. What alternative to they have? There are a few, but none of them are very good.
It's called 'not listening'. That's a wonderful response to a statement I didn't make.
"This tripe gets modded to "insightful?" -- That's likely becuse the moderator understood what I was saying. I'm reasonably sure you didn't.
This isn't a matter of pricing. (How many times have i said that now?) It's a matter of availability, or 'supply meeting demand' as you said.
Your metaphor is way off base, let me correct it for you: Imagine if your burger joint said "We will not sell fries because people will poop on the lawn after eating them."
Your response would be "WTF? People aren't going to poop on the lawn after eating them! There's no proof of that! They'll use the toilet! I want my fries, dammit!"
"NanoGator is suggesting that becuase he paid somebody for the service, he's morally in the right, particularly because the service isn't available from the 'correct' vendor... Actually, paying the $1 means he is recieving stolen goods. That's no better than downloading the movie for free from somewhere else"
I never said I was legally correct or that Film88 was legit, either. The reason I'm for this is because it looks like they can't be stopped by the MPAA. If their model works, then the MPAA will have to take notice, and hopefully they'll provide a legitimate web site.
Yah, I'm really the bad guy here because I'm willing to pay for content that's not being provided, even though lots of people want it.
"Perhaps the standard movie studios that belong to the MPAA could afford to stream their movies for whatever price. However, that would mean that if I make an independent film and I show it in some small college theater, that I have to provide it via streaming. Would that be fair to me? No"
Lol! As if the MPAA gives a rats ass about Indies.
"Just because you provide one method for delivering your product, doesn't mean you MUST provide it for any other method of delivery"
I didn't say that. I never said that. I said there is market demand for it. It's in such demand that people are willing to perform illegal acts to satisfy it. Yet the MPAA's response is to say "nope, you'll steal it.", and then they tried to take away our PC's.
"And there are bigger issues in the world than your "right" to watch the latest movies for $1. Heard of Kashmir? No, probably not. "
LOL!! You're trying really desperately to make me sound petty, arent you? This begs the question: If you're so enlightened about world events (and yes, Im well aware of Kashmir), then how come you're here arguing with me about something I didn't say?
Better yet, what am I supposed to do? Unless you know of some way I can prevent Pakistan and India from entering into a nuclear war, then my only options are to continue living my life, or sit here like Shaggy and Scooby with my knees knocking together in fear.
I think it's amusing when jackasses try to sound like they're more concerned about the world than I am, only to reveal how truely petty they really are.
"(anything below 1.5Mbps looks like trash) "
I disagree. I watch 330kbit video all the time. It's fine. A little bit more clarity would be okay, but the movie or TV show comes across just fine. It's a little worse than VHS, but if they give it to me for say $2-3 and I can watch it for 3 days, then for most movies it sure beats going to the rental store.
"What about the rights the content creators have? You do realize they have rights that are being taken away by sites like Film88 don't you? "
Are their rights being taken away? Sure. By Film88? That's questionable.
Let's use the Napster example you mentioned: What if a band says 'we want to release on the net?', the RIAA says 'tough nuts. We won't put music on the web because we think people will steal it.'.
That attitude didn't slow demand for MP3s. Somebody was bound to provide it, and that somebody was Napster. If the RIAA had gotten there first, they could have used the music rights they acquired to open a new market. Instead they sued it out of existence. I don't blame Napster for that, I blame the RIAA. They screwed up the on-line music business, and it won't be long before the artists who create the content are hurt by that.
As for Film88, yes they are infringing on the content producer's rights. However, the MPAA, through fighting this new market they have open to them, is trying to infringe on my rights. Remember fair use? Remember the DMCA? Think about it.
In short, Film88 will probaby lose on the legality front when it comes to violating the rights of the content holders. But the real damage is being done by the MPAA for not responding to market demand.
A few months ago, I was thinking about that. I dropped the idea (not for an interesting reason), but now that you bring it up again I think I'm going to reconsider it.
:)
Thanks!
I didn't realize this site would be so shitty with Linux users, and I apologize for recommending it.
I had a hint that this'd be a problem, I think I remember that MS was pushing this site. I was vaguely aware that they use Media Player, but it didn't occur to me that they'd lock it to only Windows users.
Again, I apologize for not being a little more sensitive to the Slashdot audience..
Age of Empires runs just fine on my P2 300 laptop. It is that strenuous of game, heh.
My highschool had 486-33's at a time where Pentium chips were just starting to come out. Unfortunately, I graduated the year after so I'm not sure how up to date they are. I do know, though, that the guy running that department was keen on giving students the best possible hardware he could afford, even if it meant he had to build and maintain the machines himself.
Sadly, though, his attitude was that games were 'a waste of time'. He'd kick you out of class if he caught you playing a game. He was so close to the machines that he didn't want anything going on that could potentially break them down. I doubt he'd allow a lan party.
"It's not a question of could be used. It is being used for piracy."
:P
The reason that the piracy exists is because there's a new market available, and nobody's satisfying market demand. Film88's trying to prove that's the case, the idea being that if they make enough money on it, the MPAA may say "hmm.. maybe we should license our content for this type of delivery."
(I haven't ruled out the possibility that Film88's just scamming to make a quick buck, but I have a hard time imagining somebody doing that would be willing to move their business to Iran, heh.)
P.S. Yes, Im aware that my grammar is horrible.
I just wanted to thank yuo for being more tactful than everybody else, it's appreciated. :)
I see what you're saying, but I'm a bit clouded by the anger I have at the MPAA for trying to suffocate what appears to be a good business model. Know what I mean?
Thanks, I see things differently now.
Funny, I can't see where I advised people to download movies for free. Never mind that I already answered this question in this thread!
I don't understand how all of you can be against the MPAA for not providing these services, but when anybody does suddenly you're willing to defend the MPAA just to prove people wrong. The worst part is that my words are getting twisted around.
If you think I'm not making sense, then ask for clarification instead of simply assuming that I'm some evil jackass who won't pay for anything.
*Sigh* I think in the effort for everybody to prove me wrong (funny how Slashdot works like that), what I'm saying's being twisted.
I'm not complaining about the cost of DVD's. I own quite a few DVD's actually. That's not my complaint at all. Nope. 0. Zilch.
There are movies I'd prefer to rent. Renting, though, can be a hassle. This is especially true since I'm a pedestrian and don't want to walk 20 minutes 1 way to Blockbuster. I'd rather rent over the internet. My willingness to pay $1 as opposed to downloading the movie for free on Kazaa proves that my intentions are good. Heck, I today pay more than that, I'm a subscriber to www.intertainer.tv. (I think they're legit with the MPAA, btw... not sure tho.)
You can say I'm 'rationalizing theft' all you want, the truth of the matter is that I'm a consumer willing to spend money to meet my needs. Do business with me if you want my money.
"I'd like to have a car for under $1000, and since this is not offered, I should be able to steal one, right?"
If it cost a car manufacture $100 total, including labor and all that jazz, how would you feel about them trying to sell it to you for $20,000? The MPAA could easily provide Film88's service, but they won't for incredibly petty reasons.
You guys are seriously misinterpreting me here. Im not saying 'break the law when you disagree', Im saying "Hey look, I'm paying money to watch a movie on the web. Too bad the people who made the movie aren't getting that money when they could be." That's a little different than saying "Well I'm going to download movies from Kazaa for free instead."
Yah, that'll give them incentive to respond to consumer demand.
It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of the MPAA simply deciding they don't want to provide a service for us. They can legally make movies available, there are lots of drugs out there that cannot be sold without a prescription.
Not exactly apples to apples, is it?
"Dude. You can't stream analog over the Internet. The Internet transmits *bits*...."
I think what he meant was have the movie of DVD, and route the output of the DVD player (analog) to a capture card in the PC. Then, stream the analog signal (comrpessed in real time and sent out digitally on the internet...) in a 'live broadcast' kind of way, as opposed to storing the encoded version on the PC and playing that on demand.
The reason to do that is that it requires less server power, if my understanding is correct. (Bandwidth would still be rather high, though...)
Lots of low quality porn sites do that. Heh.
"Just because you haven't been provided with a service doesn't give you the right to illegially obtain it through other means."
In the same vein, just because the internet could be used for piracy, doesn't mean you have the right to call me a crook and try to take my rights away.
At this point, it's a question of mroality vs. legality. Am I right? Probably not. Do have a conscience about it? I used to until they tried to turn my computer into a set-top box.
Frankly, I have 0 sympathy for an industry that thinks it should take my rights away when I don't agree with it's ancient business model anymore.
Hey dudes,
There's a site called http://www.intertainer.tv where you can watch movies and TV shows. The prices are higher, but they've been around since last Oct or Nov. I've used them a couple of times and they're not too bad.
I think the price for movies is a bit high, but I'm willing to support this site. I'd like to prove to the industries involved that I'll pay for content I'm interested in.
It's worth a gander if you're remotely interested in this stuff. You can find out if it'll suit you or not before you pay anything. (They have previews for movies etc, all for free.)
I would agree with you, except that the MPAA's not providing a similar service! I want to view movies on the web for a reduced price. They won't give me that because they assume I'm a criminal. So not only are they not responding to consumer demand, they're insulting me in the process.
Come to think of it, I think intertainer.tv might be supported by the MPAA. Not sure, though. It's easy to overlook it when you have Senator Disney trying to pass heavy handed legislation to put a stop to it.