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

[Evan Starkey]

(Pssst!... is that code for new releases? If so, I'll take a dozen.)

hehehe..... i dont know what your talking about :wink5:

 

[Tom Wardrop]

The founder of Valve Software and consequently the Steam distribution service for games, Gabe Newell, has a surprisingly insightful stance on the topic of piracy. Piracy, he says, is most often a service problem, more so than a pricing problem. If I can start downloading a full blu-ray quality movie (30GB file) within 30 seconds at any given moment, with no conditions-of-use attached, then what do you think I'm going to do given that the best alternative is to go the local video rental and rent a blu-ray, for which I need a blu-ray player, and which I need to return to the shop the day after.

As far as I know, there's no means of legally obtaining blu-ray quality movies online (not talking just "HD", bit-rate matters). In fact, I believe that even if buying physical blu-ray discs, it is illegal to rip it onto your computer - never mind the extra effort. So you could say, within the law, it's impossible to store and watch a blu-ray quality movie from your hard-drive, and that even if it was legal, doing so would add considerable inconvenience.

I know people who subscribe to about 5 or 6 premium file hosting services (e.g. rapidshare) at roughly $50 a month total, simply because of the convenience provided by these services for obtaining such things as movies. It's not like the movies are being downloaded for free. They're paying for a premium service. The only problem is that the premium service is provided by these 3rd party file hosts, which is of course where all the profits go. If the major distribution companies could provide a better service (which would honestly not be very hard), say $5 for a blu-ray quality movie which you could use however you wanted (i.e no DRM or other such crap), then there'd be no reason to continue using the file hosting services to obtain the movies illegally.

It's for the same reason that I buy all my games on Steam. The games are well-priced, convenient to obtain, convenient to update, they're all in one spot, I don't have to re-install them all every time I re-install windows, I can download and play them from any computer, I've get integration with the Steam community, etc. I use to pirate a large percentage of my games, now I never do. If a game's too expensive, then I'd rather wait 6 months for the price to drop so I can obtain it via Steam, rather than download it illegally.

It's just so idiotic to be fighting something that could instead be leveraged to potentially increase return on investment. Instead of holding on to old business models and fighting a losing battle with an uncompassionate brute-force mentality, why not see if you can turn an enemy into foe. If these corporations weren't so arrogant to assume that consumers only pirate because they're tight-ass law breakers, then they'd see quite clearly why consumers are ACTUALLY pirating.

As a closing note, what do you assume will happen if indeed piracy kills off a large portion of the movie industry. Do you think those truly passionate about making movies (most of you) would just stop? No, of course not. At worst, it means trilogies like Transformers used solely as profit turners will no longer be made. While the number of movies released would likely go down, because all of the crappy profit turners are no longer being made, the relative quality would probably go up. Those independent film makers in it for the passion rather than the profit, would also probably benefit from the added exposure.

 

[Elmer Tenkink]

@Tom Wardrop

That makes total sense! And again could be a sustainable business model.
A download site (system) where you can pay as you go or a subscription let's say 30$ per month for 6 movies a month.
Not rental but buy the movie and watch it as many times you want.
It could be even more profitable then what we have now.

 

[M Most]

If that's the case Martin, and it sure looks like so, then how did the Motion Picture industry thrive before the all home video appeared? Ticket sales, right? Now, if this 'new' home video business helped make the industry stronger and healthier, then that's fine, it really is, but if the world is pushing it to a whole new direction, then what do you think should be done? Use police force to control it or come up with a new business model? History tells us, time and time again, that industries have to adapt, just like Red is forcing Kodak to adapt... You don't want a group of regulators to come up now and decide what should be shot on Red or Kodak do you?

The studios, like any sustaining business, have long since found ways to adapt as things have changed. When television came around, they came up with wide screen projection, multichannel sound, and 3D to keep consumers coming to theaters. Prior to the advent of home video, they released many more pictures per year than they do now, and there were fewer theaters to show them in. Young people and people born after personal computers were invented don't have a monopoly on the notion of "new business models," they have been a staple of capitalist society since the beginning. There is always some new aspect to a consumer society, be it radio, television, air travel, telephones, computers, or the Internet. Businesses adapt. They always have. They always will. Even the motion picture business.

 

[Elmer Tenkink]

The studios, like any sustaining business, have long since found ways to adapt as things have changed. When television came around, they came up with wide screen projection, multichannel sound, and 3D to keep consumers coming to theaters. Prior to the advent of home video, they released many more pictures per year than they do now, and there were fewer theaters to show them in. Young people and people born after personal computers were invented don't have a monopoly on the notion of "new business models," they have been a staple of capitalist society since the beginning. There is always some new aspect to a consumer society, be it radio, television, air travel, telephones, computers, or the Internet. Businesses adapt. They always have. They always will. Even the motion picture business.

At the technical innovation I think you right.
But there has been very little innovation in business models or funding entertainment.
Also if the studios came up with more original contend they could have earn more.
Miss management at studios is mostly the biggest loss (ex. MGM)
I don't think there is a wrong or right, it's a free market (as I hope it is).
But the studios shouldn't be surprised if others will find different ways, and create sustainable solutions.

 

[Scott Crawley]

At the technical innovation I think you right.
But there has been very little innovation in business models or funding entertainment.

I'm not sure I get your point. Business isn't really interested in developing new models because it is expensive and extremely disruptive. It is generally more profitable to react and adapt to new models as they come to the fore, and do so only when absolutely necessary.

New models evolve naturally with culture, mood and technology in general. They are a side effect of progress, and not typically a goal in and of themselves.

To the second part: If there is one thing we are less comfortable with than changing business models it is "innovative" funding. Too much of that tends to end with prosecution. ;-)

 

[Elmer Tenkink]

I'm not sure I get your point. Business isn't really interested in developing new models because it is expensive and extremely disruptive. It is generally more profitable to react and adapt to new models as they come to the fore, and do so only when absolutely necessary.

New models evolve naturally with culture, mood and technology in general. They are a side effect of progress, and not typically a goal in and of themselves.

To the second part: If there is one thing we are less comfortable with than changing business models it is "innovative" funding. Too much of that tends to end with prosecution. ;-)

Sorry I didn't explain it more clearer I kinda agree with you but:
I mean that if the entertainment industry need to censor internet (or other channels) to be profitable.
There is something wrong and that may result in different strategy and even new business models if necessary.
I know that the entertainment industry is old and sure they have seen hypes come and go.

On your explanation of innovative funding, I sadly have to agree :-(
Most end up as marketing hypes or scams and haven't seen anything sustainable, but i am open for new ideas.

 

[Brandon H]

Sure companies and individuals have a right to pursue damages and protect their IP. BUT The real heart of the issue here is media companies cannot figure out a way to monetize their products online, because they are fearful, and don't want to risk their content being undervalued or stolen. So instead of fighting their battles in the marketplace, innovating new products that consumers WANT to pay for, they'd rather fight to keep the old ways in the court room and in congress.

Innovate or die!

 

[Tom Lowe]

Good post, Tom Wardrop.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

As far as I know, there's no means of legally obtaining blu-ray quality movies online (not talking just "HD", bit-rate matters). In fact, I believe that even if buying physical blu-ray discs, it is illegal to rip it onto your computer - never mind the extra effort. So you could say, within the law, it's impossible to store and watch a blu-ray quality movie from your hard-drive, and that even if it was legal, doing so would add considerable inconvenience.

I think it's illegal in the US (because it requires circumventing the encryption which is illegal under the DMCA) but I'm not so sure about Australia. It was illegal to even rip CDs up to just a few years ago, but I think that that was amended so now making a copy of a work you have a license to for private, personal use is legal.

 

[Tom Wardrop]

Yeah, Australian law probably is different in that regard.

On a slightly unrelated topic, I really love how the internet and computers highlight so clearly the flaws of our current economic system. It makes it increasingly difficult to put a price on everything, which is something I really like. It can force one to re-evaluate why they do what they do. It would be wonderful if more people were motivated to do things for reasons other than economic. If there's one thing that's declined in recent times, it's quality of products and services, and I'd take a shot at saying it's because business is motivated by profit more than ever. As an example, my mum bought a new toaster the other day. It's made by one of the old respected consumer brands - a brand that's been making toasters for probably half a century - yet the toaster makes a terrible buzz, it toasts unevenly, it's rickety, etc. 50 years of toaster evolution and this is the best they can do? It's clear that R&D and has gone not into making a better toaster, but has rather been invested in finding ever cheaper ways of making a toaster.

RED is in the minority of companies who are actually producing quality products, and it's for the simple reason that the person behind RED, Jim, is doing it out of passion, rather than for the sake of building a financial portfolio. Jim more or less is scratching his own itch, as he did with Oakley. It's amazing that he hasn't seemed to have lost focus on why he does what he does. I mean, how uninspiring were the efforts of Sony, Panasonic, Canon, etc, before RED came along. It was depressing.

 

[Scott Crawley]

It would be wonderful if more people were motivated to do things for reasons other than economic. If there's one thing that's declined in recent times, it's quality of products and services, and I'd take a shot at saying it's because business is motivated by profit more than ever. As an example, my mum bought a new toaster the other day. It's made by one of the old respected consumer brands - a brand that's been making toasters for probably half a century - yet the toaster makes a terrible buzz, it toasts unevenly, it's rickety, etc. 50 years of toaster evolution and this is the best they can do? It's clear that R&D and has gone not into making a better toaster, but has rather been invested in finding ever cheaper ways of making a toaster.

On a pragmatic note; I suppose that after 50 years of making toasters it must be pretty freakin' difficult to remain passionate about the work. ;-)


Will Farrell's next role:

He's the guy who makes up those dreadful motivational posters... No it's not a team of writers, but one guy. He's an idiot savant, and he's a motivational God. He gets hired to come in and motivate the toasted toaster people. The Antagonist is played by Adam Sandler.

In the climax both Farrell and Sandler have to beat the snot out of Tony Robbins in order for the company to survive. It'll be an instant classic.

Roll with the pitch:

Adam Sandler plays the lead, the toaster foreman is an old curmudgeon. Offer it to Jerry Stiller. The real protagonist could go to Gervais or Izzard who run a competing toaster company.

Pitch it to Disney as a father and son; Ben and Jerry Stiller.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Yeah, Australian law probably is different in that regard.

On a slightly unrelated topic, I really love how the internet and computers highlight so clearly the flaws of our current economic system. It makes it increasingly difficult to put a price on everything, which is something I really like. It can force one to re-evaluate why they do what they do. It would be wonderful if more people were motivated to do things for reasons other than economic.

Fuck that. I'll do what I do for purely non-economic reasons when those who appreciate my work all band together and buy me groceries or pay my rent or something.

 

[Andrew M.]

So why not to block only non commonwealth countries websites that are out of reach of US judicial system. Why to have so general regulations.
US and commonwealth countries businesses are easy to enforce or go after without general blackout of the sites. I can only imagine all this filtering and cost to the taxpayer to maintain such system.

Whoever proposed this legislation didn’t do its homework on technology and the logistics to enforce this legislation. We have enough of costly ineffective regulations that cost more to enforce than the damage itself. Maybe people asking for these regulations will bear the cost of enforcing it first?

What about that?

Half of my taxes are going towards protecting someone else's business in this country, I am getting sick and tired of this.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

I'm going to weigh in here as a guy who comes from a hacker (sensu stricto) background.

I have... difficulty... with an industry where a senior executive (Jamie Kellner, Time Warner) could say, in utmost seriousness and with a straight face, that skipping commercials on a recording - watching the show but not watching the commercials - was theft:

"Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming."

Oh and let's throw Jack Valenti into the mix... during the Betamax case he told Congress: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

Enough said?

The DMCA showed some of the unintended (well, perhaps not really unintended...) consequences of such legislation. Six years old but still worth a thoughtful read:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/death-by-dmca/1

Anyone who doesn't believe the legislation being considered at present can't or won't be misused, or used in ways that were never anticipated or intended, is a deluded fool.

Mike

 

[Tom Wardrop]

Fuck that. I'll do what I do for purely non-economic reasons when those who appreciate my work all band together and buy me groceries or pay my rent or something.

What I said doesn't imply you work for nothing. It's about doing what we do with a certain level of quality. I'm a web developer by profession (develop intranet web applications), and I'm really passionate about my job. I can never just rock up to work and do something in a way that goes against my passion for developing high quality web applications, as I'm not someone who's easily motivated by money. I can't just pump-out a web application in a week, as there's no way I can meet my own quality standards in that time. I get asked all the time to do mundane web development jobs outside of work, even for healthy amounts of money, but I decline every time unless I'm genuinely interested in the project. Though most of the time, I prefer to do more meaningful personal projects for myself at home. Projects that won't make me any money, but which I do out of enjoyment.

Of course, if I'm having trouble putting food on the table or it's really affecting my quality of life, then it becomes a case of working for the money. But I can't understand how well-off people (anyone who has financial security or low expenses; I fall into the later) can be motivated to work solely for economic gain, with no concern for the quality of the products or services they provide - that pretty much applies to at least 90% of corporations. That's more or less what my point was touching on. If these organisations were to shift their focus from maintaining constant growth, to delivering the highest quality product or service they can, then the world would be a better place for it. If this was indeed the motivation behind movie studios, and they really wanted as many people as possible to see their movies, then you could probably safely say we'd already be able to buy and watch blu-ray quality movies online for $3 or $4. Instead they seem to be set on increasing profits indefinitely which to me seems somewhat crazy.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I have Bluray copies of my favorite movies, but I also have 1080p rips of all of them, which I've downloaded from torrents. But I never, ever watch my Blu-rays. I only play my rips. I use my computer to drive a 1080p signal to my big-screen plasma. It's so much easier to fire up a rip, than it is to drag out a Blu-ray and sit through five minutes of FBI warnings and other bullshit. I have five Blu-ray copies "Art of Flight" at my house right now. But what do I watch?.... a 10GB 1080p rip. To me, discs are yesterday's news. I haven't watched a disc in years.. only rips from the internet.

 

[Petr Dvorak]

"Cui bono?"

That is what I ask at first ... and then I start to thinking about all that mess.

 

[António Fagundes]

I have Bluray copies of my favorite movies, but I also have 1080p rips of all of them, which I've downloaded from torrents. But I never, ever watch my Blu-rays. I only play my rips. I use my computer to drive a 1080p signal to my big-screen plasma. It's so much easier to fire up a rip, than it is to drag out a Blu-ray and sit through five minutes of FBI warnings and other bullshit. I have five Blu-ray copies "Art of Flight" at my house right now. But what do I watch?.... a 10GB 1080p rip. To me, discs are yesterday's news. I haven't watched a disc in years.. only rips from the internet.

That's exactly my point and I agree completely. Also, I firmly believe that if WB, Universal or any other movie company starts streaming for download, clean, ad-free 10BG 1080p films online for a reasonable price, it would be a success. But no, unfortunately the marketing industry resists change, and they rather increase costs from tax payers money to fight the impossible war.

I download torrents not to fight some stupid copyright war, but because its so much more convenient, hassle free, and just plain simple. I'd be happy to pay for them, but at the moment the industry doesn't give me any other choice. I also own lots of Blu Rays, but I haven't watched them in more than a year. Isn't that ridiculous, and a waste of money, from my perspective, as a customer?

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Yes, SOPA and PIPA suck but piracy is a real issue and it should be addressed. SOPA and PIPA are like trying to fix your termite problem with a shotgun. The fact of the matter is, torrenting movies, music and games off the web is illegal. It does not matter if it is easy to access or convenient. You are getting something for nothing. What the industry needs is an affordable way to distribute high quality content on the web. I can see a future in $5 1080p files, no special features just a bare bones movie file that you can stream to all your devices. I agree that physical copies suck and I hope that the industry realizes that they need to combat piracy but providing a legal alternative. Think Steam for movies. $25 new release blu rays is not sustainable.

I can understand why people torrent movies but it is still wrong. There is no such thing as a free lunch and it doesn't matter if you think that the studios are run by a bunch or greedy pigs intent on telling you what to do on the internet. I hate the oil companies but I don't siphon gas from other people's cars. People who think that all web media should be free to access are living in a fantasy world. I have paid to see movies and listen to music my whole life and I will continue to do so. If you want to see movies online for free, be prepared to watch ads every ten minutes or so.