What I just can't understand about cases like this is the ridiculous short sightedness of the corps behind it
this guy has essentially paved the way for them to make money in an entirely new way, has shown that it works, that there's a market for it and an eager audience, all they had to do was step in and make it work within their legal requirements and provide appropriate content and they could all be making cash money from their wares and his entrepreneurial endeavours.
But oh no, it's new, it's not how they're used to doing things, so send in the lawyers and fuck everybody involved up the arse as far as they can legally reach, after all since the internet started they've been losing money on declining sales and THIS must surely be the way forward!
Stupid fucking wankers.
(
..wil, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:39,
Reply)
Make money?
Even if they take this guy to the cleaners.
Wipe him out for all his assets.
Sell every organ in his body.
They still won't make back the cost of one of the films he was ripping off.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:41,
Reply)
Fuck me, who's given a laptop to Thatcher?
I wish I'd've charged you for your username now!
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:52,
Reply)
People don't take their films by putting them online anymore than they do by putting them on video tape, nobody ever truly owns music or films, this is bullshit,
(folks at home I mean)it's just a darned site more efficient way of 'loaning the tape' by putting it online, but they're saying there's an audience that don't care about the quality of what they're watching, most people do, and if they like what they see low qual they may also buy it in full qual, I know I do, everyone knows you can't trust the movie trailers for a measure of content, so in fact they may be losing revenue by closing such sites down.
Have they checked that? Has anyone asked that question and looked into it? I bet not!
What if they could start showing full length movies at a deliberately lower quality for that very purpose and see what that does for sales? Is it very much different to folks being lent a DVD off a mate then deciding you want to own it? Or seeing it on TV?
Or just dig up all their older content of the type you usually only see on lower grade cheap content TV channels and let him use that, stuff that isn't making any noticeable profit anymore, people could watch those when they wanted and discover a few old gems which could again motivate sales, people demanding an old film they've discovered to be re-released, and you could also use it as a conduit for your new trailers and such and take a share of the advertising profits, it's zero effort he's already got the basic structure working and it's been proven.
Or you could put the guy in jail, whichever's easier...
(
..wil, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:02,
Reply)
I read your orginal post as implying that film companies were trying to make a profit from prosicutions
looks like I was wrong, could you call off tabby?
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:11,
Reply)
he's totally ruined candle day for me.... *sulks*
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:20,
Reply)
My Thatcher comment still stands.
Feel free to flounce, Toryboy.
Though, I must admit to having a foot in your camp: creative people do deserve to get paid for their work & not be lambasted for not wanting it freeely distributed.
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:36,
Reply)
I could never dream of flouncing to your standard so it wouldn't be worth it.
Though I seem to have been jumped on round here for not crying about a little rich boy getting his fingers burned playing pirate for profit.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:38,
Reply)
^^This^^^
Oh so very much this!
Hollywood's business model is now officially outdated. People no longer flock to cinemas lioke they did in my youth and twenties. Technology is available to home users that cinemas would have killed for just ten years ago. I have an HD projector and screen in my own house - I have no need to go to the cinema any more even if it wasn't overpriced and inconvenient.
Hollywood can get behind the 'viewing from home via the internet' model - and sack their (pirate chasing) lawyers and their (region locking and staggered release) marketing executives in one fell swoop, thereby saving billions - or die.
Stark choice but people like netflix seem to be doing OK - if only hollywood would get with it we'd all see films as and when we liked, for a reasonable price, in the comfort of our own homes.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:23, Reply)
nope...
i live in the centre of london, super fast whizzy connection, and about 15 feet from the exchange (used to be fibre... but it was shit)
a buffering/or internet drop out mid film is unacceptable... we still need physical media or the ability to watch a completely downloaded film...
and what about my sister...loves films, lives rural...
the business model needs changing ill grant you... but remember not everyone has netflix/internet/hd projectors...
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:38, Reply)
Don't itunes do full downloads on their movies?
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:47,
Reply)
they do... but thats still a lot of internet
a lot of internet somepeople dont have... and i fancy watching a film... in 2 days its not really the same as the cinema or buying a dvd from your nearest town (goodluck with that)
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:59, Reply)
Then like me you still will want to buy a physical copy.
I only use steam because I can make my own discs under their DRM.
Sadly with HMV, game, and gamestation going down the swanny the option to buy a disc is getting harder.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:11,
Reply)
I wonder...
...If a film/TV show is supported by product placement, can the producers use illegal download figures to ask for more cash from the product placers?
"Dear Toyota. You paid $x for our 1,000,000 person audience to see your car in the latest episode of "House". We can now confirm that a further 200,000 people illegally downloaded/streamed this episode. Please find attached an invoice for $0.2x..."
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 12:54,
Reply)
I think Gabe Newell said it best when he said "
Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem".
"In general, we think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, 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 U.S. release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable. Most DRM solutions diminish the value of the product by either directly restricting a customers use or by creating uncertainty."
(
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:06,
Reply)
Gabe Newell who set up one of the best DRM solutions "steam"?
Netflix, iTunes, lovefilm all have digital download to name a few.
Not to mention many cable TV packagings include pay per few.
I like steam but I wouldn't suggest for a moment it's DRM free.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:18,
Reply)
I've been testing some of those
definitely a step in the right direction!
Quality is pretty darned poor for a fully paid up service tho, on most anyway, none seem to have quite got it right yet, but glad they're trying!
*edit* which I guess again proves my case a lil bit, if we aren't yet capable of putting films on online streaming commercially in a decent enough quality to be acceptable to the paying public, why are we suing the asses off those folks showing the dreadful quality stuff for free? If you can't yet provide a decent alternative that works, what sales are you protecting?
(
..wil, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:21,
Reply)
The quality should be ok as reports from netflex seem to be 1gb an hour.
thats 1080p quality levels.
of course you need to be able to handle that bandwidth on your side though.
I can get a 1.5gb UDK build downloaded in about 10 minutes but I have a good connection.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:28,
Reply)
It's not that, the problem is one of compression
they seem to have pretty nasty problems of colour and shade, detail, it's not even as good as DVD quality on Lovefilm, like watchin an old VHS tape that's been stabilised in post, not great!
Netflix is better, my mate has it, but it still has problems, particularly with frame rate, not bad tho!
(
..wil, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:33,
Reply)
My neighbout really needs to get a faster connection.
It takes me about 20mins to download a film over her wifi, the bitch.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:45, Reply)
must be all the bingo she is playing
(
fluffybunnykiller Is feasting on the clitoris of life, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 12:08,
Reply)
I didn't suggest it's DRM free.
He is directly competing with pirates - it's about as easy to download a game on a torrent site as it is to download from steam, yet somehow he makes money hand over fist. He provides a service and people give him their money.
There isn't a way to get this kind of service for films or tv shows yet, I have to use a fucking VPN if I want to watch shows on hulu or netflix.
(
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:25,
Reply)
That ^
Very much that, the big companies and their silly global restrictions and public relations disaster teams of lawyers REALLY need to have a rethink, time advances, markets change, audience demands and needs change, and when you're not making enough profits from your wares no more suing every damned alternate or new media capable of supporting your content is NOT the way forward! FFS.
(
..wil, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:19,
Reply)
Good point
see napster and then itunes... Cos they did really badly out of it didnt they.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:55, Reply)