It's not Piracy they're against, it's distribution for Independents they fear!

[Michael Olsen]

I agree - I think access is a key issue.

For instance, lets say that I missed a television special that you really wanted to watch. Lets say it was produced by a major studio who has the obvious capacity to distribute it in many forms. But they haven't announced any intent, even after the airing, to do so. And there are no future air dates for the next three months (at least).

Yet there it is, in three parts, on YouTube.

What do you do? Do you just say "Well, I guess I'll wait around until they decide to release it...if they ever do." Or do you just watch it instantly on YouTube?

And now, the bigger question - what if that YouTube stream was actually owned by the content manufacturer and required a one-time $1.99 payment to watch the 1 hour episode in YouTube 1080p? Would you pay it? Or how about a $2.99 DRM-free digital download? Would you pay for that? I sure wish I could.

--

Dear major studios and distribution companies:

Please let me watch your films. I want to pay a reasonable price for them. I want to watch the movies as many times as I want on whatever devices I own after I've purchased it. And I want to be able to download them - legally - from you, the distributor. I sincerely feel that if you did this, piracy rates would drop because "Pirates of Convenience" who are willing to pay would now have an easy, reliable, safe, and legal avenue to purchase your products.

Thanks.

 

[Thor Melsted]

I agree - I think access is a key issue.

For instance, lets say that I missed a television special that you really wanted to watch. Lets say it was produced by a major studio who has the obvious capacity to distribute it in many forms. But they haven't announced any intent, even after the airing, to do so. And there are no future air dates for the next three months (at least).

Yet there it is, in three parts, on YouTube.

What do you do? Do you just say "Well, I guess I'll wait around until they decide to release it...if they ever do." Or do you just watch it instantly on YouTube?

And now, the bigger question - what if that YouTube stream was actually owned by the content manufacturer and required a one-time $1.99 payment to watch the 1 hour episode in YouTube 1080p? Would you pay it? Or how about a $2.99 DRM-free digital download? Would you pay for that? I sure wish I could.

--

Dear major studios and distribution companies:

Please let me watch your films. I want to pay a reasonable price for them. I want to watch the movies as many times as I want on whatever devices I own after I've purchased it. And I want to be able to download them - legally - from you, the distributor. I sincerely feel that if you did this, piracy rates would drop because "Pirates of Convenience" who are willing to pay would now have an easy, reliable, safe, and legal avenue to purchase your products.

Thanks.

A big +111 on this.

Access is the key - as proven by how in the wake of Napster, while the RIAA was still focusing on lawsuits, iTunes became the world's largest seller of music.

 

[António Fagundes]

Funny thing about this is that way back when I used to tape movies from TV onto my VHS tapes and collect all my favorite films. or when I used to record my favorite songs from the radio and make my awesome mix tapes. Like me, every other kid did the same, and it was never, ever an 'illegal' activity, although we were actually infringing copyright laws.

Today, we all do the same thing, but use the internet instead of TV or radio, and we are thieves, stealing from honest, hard working people, and bringing the entertainment industry down....

Ridiculous.

 

[AndrewThomas]

Why don't you buy the things you like?

 

[António Fagundes]

Why don't you buy the things you like?

What makes you think I don't?

What happens is that there's a whole new parallel ecosystem working against the establishment. Its called internet. Like the old radio days, you could tape (now download) whatever songs you liked. Or VHS movies off the telly. Its no different now. So I ask; what's the big fuss? If distribution companies want in on it, they have to do what other websites are doing, stream high def films, instead of free, they can charge a sensible sum, and everyone will join in. Its a win win situation.

No need to go Al Capone on us!

Just sayin'

 

[Patrick OMara]

"Funny thing about this is that way back when I used to tape movies from TV onto my VHS tapes and collect all my favorite films."

But there is a limit to how many you can make because it'd cost you some $$ to buy the tapes. Clearly you can't afford to purchasee 60,000 tapes and give it to everyone that crosses your path. On the internet something can be copied and distributed at thousandths of the cost to yourself. That's not a sustainable system if an artist is trying to make a living from it. To the people that say that the industry doesn't provide a good enough system, well how do you beat absolutly free instant download? lol. People will always go for the free route.


The people that download movies and say "It's not lost money cause I wouldn't have paid anyways" drive me nuts. They indulge in the content, that's the whole point of entertainment. They sit there and watch a 2 hour movie, and for some reason if they didn't like the movie cause it didn't give them some type of euphoria and then cooked them breakfast in the morning, they don't think it deserves the money. Yet they watched it.. then they watch transformers 2 and 3. They'll pay $50/month for internet, $$$ for new computer hardware, $30/month for cable tv and their $600 iPhone and $40/month for phone service, they'll pay 10cents a txt msg. yet they won't buy a damn mp3 or movie because "IT GOES TO THE EVIL CORPS, AND I DIDN'T LIKE IT ANYWAYS, NOBODY GETS HURT, IT'S NOT STEALING" yet they download more of it and load it on the iPhone etc.. etc...endless cycle. for years and years..

All I see is a lot of people making whatever excuse they can to not have to pay. We are in a generation with a bunch of lazy unappreciative people that want content delivered to them over the internet the millisecond it's released and pumped directly into their brain, so they can start up another coca-cola cheesies bag intravenously ... and if it's delayed or doesn't meet their intellectual expectations.. then damn, it should be theirs for free and somebody should suffer...Cause ya know, a saturday morning cartoon to movie adaptation should actually be challenging the freudian concepts of the human "condition" instead of being just an action movie.


Part 2

I am anti to all the crap that goes on by big labels and organizations like mpaa, riaa, cria, socan. You might be confused because of what I said above, but let me explain.

I have my music available for free download. I like the idea of open source, GNU, BSD, and Creative Commons. It's my choice to make as an artist. I give permission for my music to anyone on YouTube even if they monetize from it. I donate to wikipedia and blender. But again, that's my choice. I see that as a solution to providing a more open world to content.

If other artists (or labels) want to go through another form of distribution that's more restrictive, then that's their choice and people should respect that. If some company wants to screw up Transformers, then let them, they made billions, it's business, it's always been business, it's their choice.

I am with Andrew +1 and people should (man up, woman-it up) and pay for the things they like and indulge in. I pay for all my music, movies, and software cause I appreciate the hard work that goes into everything. Yes, there will always companies that want more money and have horrible practices, big deal, it's just like M Most says... it's business and as I say, there's a lot of more open alternatives out there. That's what we should be pushing for, and popularizing.

If you don't like it Big Biz, go for indy creative common people trying to spark something better, an open and free world. Every minute you are watching or listening to content from them is a minute you aren't from the evil corps shrill.


Anwyays, It's a tricky subject akin to religious talks or mac/pc flame wars. I am going to leave now before something explodes. hah

 

[Scott Crawley]

But those copies were of pretty poor quality, and of a limited number. Today's digital copies can be exact duplicates that can go everywhere. This is not the same thing at all.

Funny thing about this is that way back when I used to tape movies from TV onto my VHS tapes and collect all my favorite films. or when I used to record my favorite songs from the radio and make my awesome mix tapes. Like me, every other kid did the same, and it was never, ever an 'illegal' activity, although we were actually infringing copyright laws.

Today, we all do the same thing, but use the internet instead of TV or radio, and we are thieves, stealing from honest, hard working people, and bringing the entertainment industry down....

Ridiculous.

 

[Tom Lowe]

If this devolves into another food fight over "piracy," the thread will be closed. Keep it civil and watch your tone.

 

[M Most]

For instance, lets say that I missed a television special that you really wanted to watch. Lets say it was produced by a major studio who has the obvious capacity to distribute it in many forms. But they haven't announced any intent, even after the airing, to do so. And there are no future air dates for the next three months (at least).

Yet there it is, in three parts, on YouTube.

What do you do? Do you just say "Well, I guess I'll wait around until they decide to release it...if they ever do." Or do you just watch it instantly on YouTube?

And now, the bigger question - what if that YouTube stream was actually owned by the content manufacturer and required a one-time $1.99 payment to watch the 1 hour episode in YouTube 1080p? Would you pay it? Or how about a $2.99 DRM-free digital download? Would you pay for that? I sure wish I could.

It sounds like you're complaining about something that's already been solved. Or are you not aware of things like Hulu (for TV shows), ABC, Fox, CBS and NBC websites (for TV shows again), Netflix (for seasons that have already aired), and iTunes (for just about everything almost immediately after it airs)? If you're willing to pay for the content, there's very little you could possibly want that's not already on iTunes.

Please let me watch your films. I want to pay a reasonable price for them. I want to watch the movies as many times as I want on whatever devices I own after I've purchased it. And I want to be able to download them - legally - from you, the distributor. I sincerely feel that if you did this, piracy rates would drop because "Pirates of Convenience" who are willing to pay would now have an easy, reliable, safe, and legal avenue to purchase your products.

Thanks.

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here. What you're talking about is already a non-issue, even if it isn't exactly on your terms.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Both SOPA and PIPA have been indefinitely postponed. (Is that what you meant?)

SOPA has been indefinitely postponed. PIPA is a separate act and gets the official hearing in congress (takes the floor) on the 24th - tuesday. It's expected to meet the same fate as SOPA...

 

[Patrick OMara]

Also seems ACTA could be causing a ruckus too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=citzRjwk-sQ

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Just stumbled upon an interesting quote from Valve's Gabe Newell:

"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem... If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."

I don't think this is idle speculation either, he is clearly basing his views on the performance of Steam, which accounts for a majority of PC gaming sales in North America.

 

[Michael Olsen]

It sounds like you're complaining about something that's already been solved.

Solved to a great extent, yes, and I'm glad that it has. I made good use of most of those resources. I even use a few you didn't list (Playstation Network's own store, as an example.) But unfortunately, not everything goes up on those networks - far from it. My example is from recent experience and that content was not available anywhere. Not on any of the options you listed, not on any additional offerings I know of. Google searches and some serious time spent browsing for other sources underlined the fact - it aired once and there doesn't appear to be any legal forthcoming distribution of any kind. It was, however, in several places on YouTube.

Is this unavailability of perhaps niche content the reason most people pirate? Surely not. Does it account for some piracy? Yes, it does. Could it be easily solved? I think so. As you said - the channels are already there.

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here. What you're talking about is already a non-issue, even if it isn't exactly on your terms.

I'm saying that there are still some significant hurdles to be overcome in terms of digital content delivery to make it as easy to purchase and as easy to use as pirated material can be. I think Gabe Newell's quote underscores some of these ideas above.

A single example is the licensing that goes on with some distribution networks - there were a number of shows that I greatly enjoyed on Hulu. But I realized, one day at the gym, that some were "Not licensed for mobile playback". Erm. What? The pirated download of that same episode would have been available wherever I wanted to watch it.

--

I understand that this could easily be taken as whining. "Why isn't anything ever made on the internet for download! I want my entertainment! etc." And I guess, to an extent, it is because I miss out on things on wanted to watch. I dont have to miss out - but I don't like stealing, so I'm trapped.

This is a place where the content provider is missing out on sales, legal viewers are missing out on the product, and the pirates win.

 

[Tom Lowe]

For my first film, due out in a couple of months, we will be offering 480p, 1080p, 2560 and 4K direct downloads, free of DRM, at a relatively low price, with very fast and secure downloads. To me, that is the future.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

Francis Ford Coppola said it pretty well I think -

In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you’d be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties.

We've all grown up with the idea that you can make a whole lot of money from creating art, but that hasn't always been true, and may not always be true... Although a lot of people have called people who download content 'self-entitled', perhaps we're actually being self-entitled for expecting what we do...

We're actually pretty lucky to have had it so good for so long. There are still going to be ways to make money from cinema, but I think a large part of the problem is people not accepting that the old business models aren't working and just expecting they can do the same thing and expect payment.

 

[Sergio Perez]

For my first film, due out in a couple of months, we will be offering 480p, 1080p, 2560 and 4K direct downloads, free of DRM, at a relatively low price, with very fast and secure downloads. To me, that is the future.

And by doing that, sir, I will happily give you my money. ( and will buy a blu-ray of it if you include the higher resolution as well as making of an extras in a separate disc on the same pack)

 

[Subhadip Sen]

For my first film, due out in a couple of months, we will be offering 480p, 1080p, 2560 and 4K direct downloads, free of DRM, at a relatively low price, with very fast and secure downloads. To me, that is the future.

Great news regarding the 4K download! I agree, Louis CK followed pretty much the same model (DRM-free download at a low price) and he ended up making more money than he would through conventional channels - and made it easier for consumers along the way. Of course, there's value to a physical package, but as long as there are options everyone is satisfied.

 

[Craig Parkes]

In some territories the carving up of rightsnis certainky not a small issue. New Zealand onky has 4 million people, so it's definitely a small territory. As such the value of a sale to New Zealand is comparatively low in terms of TV, and our physical isolation means we generally have crappy broadband for streaming, and evem then we are regularly geo locked out of contemt by the big media companies due to existing deals with terrestrial and satellite cable platforms who don't want internet startups eating their lunch and devaluing their existing monopolies and infrastucture investments.

It's certainly not just piracy that big media is threatened by, it's also that they may face the same sorts of issues Kodak did. When their corner stone technologies are made redundant by the technological revolution, and everything is all internet all the time, they will be writing down a LOT of infrastructure.

I can see them using bills like SOPA as ways to delay that. Investment firms have already stated that investment in digital platforms would crash if SOPA had been passed. Meanwhile, the founder of Mega Upload has been arrested and has his property seized in New Zealand under existing laws.

If he gets jail time or extradition to the US, then one would think that will become a deterrent for that sort of piracy, and also that perhaps a bill such as SOPA with that much power behind it is maybe a little less necessary to stop the evils of piracy and was designed to also have the chilling effect on digital content delivery startups that investment advisors foresaw.

So I live in a country where I still have to wait months to legally acquire content via physical media, with often no legal alternative option for streaming or digital purchase. Yet on day and date international film releases due to our position by the date line we are sometimes the first to play major blockbusters (even when they had to be physically shipped as film prints all the way across the pacific ocean)...

This indicates that the lack of willingness to embrace digital distribution by the major players is because they want to control the distribution just as much as they want to protect the content. They don't want to give up worldwide rights to their content to individual web companies, even if those web companies have superior distribution technologies to foreign territories via the internet, because they are protecting their own distribution channels in those territories.

Which is fair enough when they own all the content that they are trying to protect, but where proposed laws like SOPA and others that follow it will continue to raise the ire of internet users is when it's clear the laws could be used to create collatarel damage to internet distribution companies simply to prolong the life span of major media companies existing infrastructure, as well as curb piracy.

With that large an infrastructure at stake, who would trust them NOT to create collatarel damge to protect it? i know if I was in their boat I would do whatever I could to ensure my cable networks and expensive satellite systems and physical distribution channels were kept going as long as possible to ring returns out of the high up front costs.

Tom Lowe, to distribute your film at all those resolutions, how much have you had to pay for infrastructure? I imagine you infrastructure investment is negligible becuase it will have been amortized across all the cost of all the data distributed across the internet.

The huge irony of this whole thing, is of course, that piracy due to the protection of existing distribution models has been one of the great causes in the upsurge of data usage that has caused the cost of distribution on the internet to be so low (that and user generated content). The delayed time spent protecting their old infrastructure has given the internet infrastructure amble time to surpass them in terms of reach, immediacy and quality in many cases, and this is the biggest problem they know face I think.

 

[Evan Starkey]

Ok i take back some of what i said about not trusting trailers TimeScapes is a stunning exception.

 

[Tom Wardrop]

I hate the oil companies but I don't siphon gas from other people's cars.

The classic analogy that pirating digital goods is akin to stealing physical property is flawed at best. When you download a movie, you're not taking anything from anyone else, except the potential of a sale - which itself is a potential gain - not a potential loss. There's a big difference.

When people talk about digital piracy, morals end up being what people end up arguing on. Choosing whether you pirate a movie or not rarely comes down to the potential legal consequences, but rather ones own morals. It normally comes down to whether you think the content producer is worthy of your money, and whether you personally think it is wrong to pirate, or otherwise break the law - among any number of other things. Breaking the law could be considered morally wrong, but so can many of the acts of these corporations who operate within the law. Automatically implying that breaking the law is morally worse than the actions carried about by some of these corporations, is unfair, as an example. Laws are rigid. They don't adapt to context. Laws are not understanding or empathetic. Keeping in mind that laws exist for the sake of maintaining order in a social and economic systems, I don't believe there's any risk of breaking the foundations of our social and economic structure by making the digital media industry less lucrative. Breaking the law isn't wrong in any absolute terms, only relatively, and it's of my opinion that relative to current circumstance, pirating a movie isn't any worse morally than making and producing cigarettes - I can use that as an argument.

So when you say pirating movies is wrong, it's still only a matter of opinion. Even whether taking the life of another person is right or wrong is a matter of opinion, despite it seeming that it's absolutely wrong. Is it wrong to kill someone if they undoubtedly threaten the lives of many more? Even that depends on who the people are that this person threatens to kill. It's all a matter of context, circumstance and of course opinion, and that's really the only point I wish to make in this post.