Hollywood is about to repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the music industry(slate.com)
slate.com
Hollywood is about to repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the music industry
http://www.slate.com/id/2298871/pagenum/all/
69 comments
Then again, this is the internet we are talking about. There is not much stopping you from using technology to gain freedom.
Pandora blocks your IP address you say? Go look for a proxy in the US.
Hulu recognizes proxies you say? Use a VPN instead. That opens the door to every free offer in the US.
iTunes won't let you download from the US store you say? Go to Ebay and grab an American iTunes gift card.
Spotify requires a bank account in UK/Scandinavia you say? There are always virtual credit cards like Entropay (I call them credit card proxies). Well, Spotify won't take those. But Paypal does, and Spotify accepts Paypal.
You see, this is the internet. There are no countries or borders on the internet. The tools are all there. You just gotta use them.
Pandora blocks your IP address you say? Go look for a proxy in the US.
Hulu recognizes proxies you say? Use a VPN instead. That opens the door to every free offer in the US.
iTunes won't let you download from the US store you say? Go to Ebay and grab an American iTunes gift card.
Spotify requires a bank account in UK/Scandinavia you say? There are always virtual credit cards like Entropay (I call them credit card proxies). Well, Spotify won't take those. But Paypal does, and Spotify accepts Paypal.
You see, this is the internet. There are no countries or borders on the internet. The tools are all there. You just gotta use them.
Not the point. None of these solutions are easy or obvious to the casual consumer. Companies (and governments) should make legal distribution easy for consumers worldwide if they want to reduce illegal downloading.
And none of those, as noted by others, matter, because it's simply still easier to illegally download to acquire content.
You are completely missing the point. This IS the internet, as an honest paying customer you should not have to jump through those hoops in the first place.
Given that I'm from germany too I have to agree. If you want to watch movies and TV shows in their original language illegal sources are almost the only way to do that. I'd gladly pay for netflix or something similar, but i'm not allowed to.
And don't get me started on music streaming - when people talk about those lucky europeans with their Spotify accounts, we germans are still left out - thanks to the GEMA i guess.
And don't get me started on music streaming - when people talk about those lucky europeans with their Spotify accounts, we germans are still left out - thanks to the GEMA i guess.
I recently moved to Germany from Ireland, and I must say I find it extremely limited in terms of what you can and can watch - half of youtube is blocked!!
Seriously, frakk the frakking useless GEMA and frakk that youtube "sorry, not available in your country" screen. I am trying to see something on the internet for crying out loud!
If youtube would at least show that in the preview already. Or make it an option - filter automatically all videos from preview which you are not allowed to watch anyway.
At least in German you have lovefilms.com, which was acquired by Netflix some time ago. It's not available in Austria where I currently live.
Lovefilm was acquired by Amazon - and its selection is very poor. I don't expect to find really obscure stuff there but it's extremely lacking when it comes to feature and independent films.
Our german netflix clone is called Maxdome [0], but unfortunately Mono Moonlight lacks the DRM parts of Silverlight. So Linux users are locked out. It should work with Windows and Mac, though.
[0] http://www.maxdome.de/
[0] http://www.maxdome.de/
It sucks hard, though. Last time I checked, video quality was way worse than DVDs and prices were too high for rental. And of course everything is dubbed.
Fellow European here - I was going to say the same thing: I have practically no options of watching any current shows, a lot of FANTASTIC shows don't even make it over here and most of the German translations are abysmal in terms of being wrong and having horrible voices/voice acting, to say the least.
I don't feel bad for using tvtorrents - as far as I am concerned, I am just watching a TV show that has already been paid for by its target audience and stations in the States anyway and I got a copy; what's the big deal?
And movies: why are there still significantly different "launch dates" for the same movie all over the world? This is 2011.
And while we are at it with movies, my favorite pet peeve are the frakking movie theaters here... you pay outrageous prices just to get a seat, then you pay extra for 3d goggles, then they sit you through 20 minutes of commercials, then they switch on all of the frakking lights AGAIN and ask "Does anyone want to buy some ice cream???"... and of course there are always some assholes who want to buy a $1 popsicle with a $100 bill but first they take their sweet time deciding on what to get... then finally the light goes out... and there are more commercials. The whole experience is just begging to install a nice home theater and since one cannot (legally) watch current movies while they are in theaters.. pirating surely becomes an option.
Movie theaters and current movie distribution are a concept from the stone age when people could not afford to view them at home; they are a fossil in terms of modern technology and possibilities. Most people who go to see a movie could just as easily watch it at home without much less enjoyment or sound or visual quality.
I don't feel bad for using tvtorrents - as far as I am concerned, I am just watching a TV show that has already been paid for by its target audience and stations in the States anyway and I got a copy; what's the big deal?
And movies: why are there still significantly different "launch dates" for the same movie all over the world? This is 2011.
And while we are at it with movies, my favorite pet peeve are the frakking movie theaters here... you pay outrageous prices just to get a seat, then you pay extra for 3d goggles, then they sit you through 20 minutes of commercials, then they switch on all of the frakking lights AGAIN and ask "Does anyone want to buy some ice cream???"... and of course there are always some assholes who want to buy a $1 popsicle with a $100 bill but first they take their sweet time deciding on what to get... then finally the light goes out... and there are more commercials. The whole experience is just begging to install a nice home theater and since one cannot (legally) watch current movies while they are in theaters.. pirating surely becomes an option.
Movie theaters and current movie distribution are a concept from the stone age when people could not afford to view them at home; they are a fossil in terms of modern technology and possibilities. Most people who go to see a movie could just as easily watch it at home without much less enjoyment or sound or visual quality.
> Most people who go to see a movie could just as easily watch it at home without much less enjoyment or sound or visual quality.
Whether most people could enjoy the home experience as much is an interesting point of debate, but there's no question that the sound and visual quality are lower in >>99% of homes. Very few people have good surround-sound systems. Even fewer have truly large screens for viewing. I have a 50-inch TV at home, and I love it, but it doesn't compare to a 20-foot screen.
I think theaters will remain relevant for some time to come. Until the "ten-foot-experience" at home means a ten-foot screen, people will probably remain interested in seeing movies at the theater.
Whether most people could enjoy the home experience as much is an interesting point of debate, but there's no question that the sound and visual quality are lower in >>99% of homes. Very few people have good surround-sound systems. Even fewer have truly large screens for viewing. I have a 50-inch TV at home, and I love it, but it doesn't compare to a 20-foot screen.
I think theaters will remain relevant for some time to come. Until the "ten-foot-experience" at home means a ten-foot screen, people will probably remain interested in seeing movies at the theater.
Europe is not a 3rd world country, on the contrary, most people can easily afford huge TVs over here, including surround sound. In fact, huge televisions are often a marker of low-income families.
At home, we're never interrupted by stupid people talking or being late, we don't have to wait 20 minutes with ads, the movie can start at the time most convenient to us. So the effective quality is higher.
At home, we're never interrupted by stupid people talking or being late, we don't have to wait 20 minutes with ads, the movie can start at the time most convenient to us. So the effective quality is higher.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say Europe was a 3rd world country. Such a statement would be patently untrue, if only because Europe is not a country.
I also didn't say that people could not afford surround-sound. I said that most people do not have high-quality surround systems installed. Relatively few people have surround-sound systems, and those who do have fairly low-end ones. As for the "huge TVs", huge to most people is 50-60 inches. Huge for theaters is 90-feet (that's actually just standard Imax size).
I also didn't say that people could not afford surround-sound. I said that most people do not have high-quality surround systems installed. Relatively few people have surround-sound systems, and those who do have fairly low-end ones. As for the "huge TVs", huge to most people is 50-60 inches. Huge for theaters is 90-feet (that's actually just standard Imax size).
I have a 55 inch Samsung and it was considerably affordable. And even a 42 inch full HD can keep up with a 20 foot screen when you factor in the different distance you will be sitting from it. And 5.1 speakers or sound-bars do not cost a fortune anymore either. Neither do full HD beamers.
I never said anything about affordability. I don't know why you and silvestrov are trying to argue that point. The fact is that most people do not have high-quality surround-sound systems in their homes, nor do they have truly large screens. Even in the home, truly large screens involve projectors.
And no, 55-inch doesn't compare with the theater. 42-inch certainly doesn't, unless you're sitting two feet away from the screen. Modern theaters have very large screens, and even considering the seating distance they are still relatively much larger than a flat-screen TV a typical family might install. A decent theater will have screens large enough to completely or almost completely fill the field of vision someone sitting in the middle of the theater. You'd have to be about 3 or 4 feet away from a 55" TV for the same effect. (Or else the theater you're going to sucks.)
And no, 55-inch doesn't compare with the theater. 42-inch certainly doesn't, unless you're sitting two feet away from the screen. Modern theaters have very large screens, and even considering the seating distance they are still relatively much larger than a flat-screen TV a typical family might install. A decent theater will have screens large enough to completely or almost completely fill the field of vision someone sitting in the middle of the theater. You'd have to be about 3 or 4 feet away from a 55" TV for the same effect. (Or else the theater you're going to sucks.)
Can you please elaborate on the ice cream vending prior to the show of the movie?
An actual human solicits ice cream orders between the previews and the start of the movie?
An actual human solicits ice cream orders between the previews and the start of the movie?
They sell popcorn, candy, drinks and ice cream at quite a few regular counters in the lounge there. And, yes, in the theaters once you sit down, they turn off the lights, show you commercials, then they turn on ALL THE LIGHTS again and (usually) two humans with a basket nonchalantly waltz in with "Will noch jemand'n Eis" in German, "Anyone want some ice cream"?
Then of course there are always a couple of inconsiderate a-holes who want some ice cream but did not manage to buy it before... in a big theater room they are spread out nicely so sales-humans walk around with their ice cream and sell their stuff; typically the people buying either have no idea what they want so they go through the whole "what do you have" talk and/or they don't have small bills and pay with 50 or 100 bills and go through the "oh sorry I don't have change for that" talk.
And we are talking around US $20 per person per viewing for "Pirates of the Caribbean 4" for example; just for seeing the movie in half-asses 3D.
I swear to FSM: Should you ever read about a bloody massacre in a movie theater in Germany it was probably me. :9
Then of course there are always a couple of inconsiderate a-holes who want some ice cream but did not manage to buy it before... in a big theater room they are spread out nicely so sales-humans walk around with their ice cream and sell their stuff; typically the people buying either have no idea what they want so they go through the whole "what do you have" talk and/or they don't have small bills and pay with 50 or 100 bills and go through the "oh sorry I don't have change for that" talk.
And we are talking around US $20 per person per viewing for "Pirates of the Caribbean 4" for example; just for seeing the movie in half-asses 3D.
I swear to FSM: Should you ever read about a bloody massacre in a movie theater in Germany it was probably me. :9
The article ends with the author suggesting the studios get together and create a single source for digitial delivery to make it easy for the consumers. Well, it turns out the studios are doing that, it's called DECE and the first step is a suite of DRMs and a rights locker called Ultraviolet. Unfortunately, it's a huge consortium that will have tremendous trouble actually getting anything done. It's also primarily aimed at supporting digital purchases to supplement the ailing DVD market instead of just biting the bullet and recognizing that rental and subscription are what most consumers want. Still, it's a serious effort despite it's flaws, so it's not fair to say the industry isn't taking the changes of the market seriously.
A much more difficult problem is undoing the years and years of distribution rights deals and complex availability windows that plague any improvement in the market. These deals lock up content, creating exclusive windows for entrenched players and hamper true innovation. Unfortunately, solving the rights windows issue, which includes not only time but also geographic limits, is a much more difficult problem to solve with fewer incentives on incumbents to change. If they don't, the whole industry will suffer, but I don't see this issue being solved any time soon.
A much more difficult problem is undoing the years and years of distribution rights deals and complex availability windows that plague any improvement in the market. These deals lock up content, creating exclusive windows for entrenched players and hamper true innovation. Unfortunately, solving the rights windows issue, which includes not only time but also geographic limits, is a much more difficult problem to solve with fewer incentives on incumbents to change. If they don't, the whole industry will suffer, but I don't see this issue being solved any time soon.
I've not heard of it before, but this DECE thing is not going to create a single source for digital delivery to make it easy for consumers if it also involves a suite of DRMs and a rights locker (whatever that is). The two concepts seem entirely antithetical given that DRM inevitably makes things difficult for consumers.
Don't worry about DECE. I had access to draft technical documentation on it about .. oh .. early 2009.
I don't think it's breaking any NDA to discuss the overall aspects of the consortium's goals.
Basically what they are trying to do is produce a global network of secure digital content distribution servers. Under their model, all digital content retailers actually sell access to this single global commercial content delivery infrastructure.
However, it remains unclear to me under the proposed model: a) Who will pay for the servers b) Which devices will or will not be supported, and how media transcoding (to support differing device capabilities) will be handled c) Who the user complains to if they can't get access to the content they paid for d) What value retailers would add in such a scenario - indeed, how they would 'compete' with each other given very little control and thus capability for unique product offering
Like many dreamy consortia, I see this one as dead in the water. The technical problems are significant, and there is a general lack of impetus to actually get out there are solve the problems.
A DRM industry for plain media (consume only, non-interactive) that dreams of securing global distribution is, in my view, destined to self-flagellate until it is but a poor faded memory in the distant mists of time.
On the other hand, DRM can enable good consumer experience: I really like Steam, for example. I recently bought my first Mac and many of the games I'd purchased on PC instantly became available in my library. After just logging in, I could download them for the new platform and play away instantly... even though I'd changed countries and gaming platforms. This is what DRM should be doing: empowering people to mobility and choice through connected media. Steam just does so many things right: content discovery, supporting smaller and independent content developers, social elements.
I think the entire DRM industry should look up to Steam for a successful example of the future. Bottom line: THINK OF THE CUSTOMER.
I don't think it's breaking any NDA to discuss the overall aspects of the consortium's goals.
Basically what they are trying to do is produce a global network of secure digital content distribution servers. Under their model, all digital content retailers actually sell access to this single global commercial content delivery infrastructure.
However, it remains unclear to me under the proposed model: a) Who will pay for the servers b) Which devices will or will not be supported, and how media transcoding (to support differing device capabilities) will be handled c) Who the user complains to if they can't get access to the content they paid for d) What value retailers would add in such a scenario - indeed, how they would 'compete' with each other given very little control and thus capability for unique product offering
Like many dreamy consortia, I see this one as dead in the water. The technical problems are significant, and there is a general lack of impetus to actually get out there are solve the problems.
A DRM industry for plain media (consume only, non-interactive) that dreams of securing global distribution is, in my view, destined to self-flagellate until it is but a poor faded memory in the distant mists of time.
On the other hand, DRM can enable good consumer experience: I really like Steam, for example. I recently bought my first Mac and many of the games I'd purchased on PC instantly became available in my library. After just logging in, I could download them for the new platform and play away instantly... even though I'd changed countries and gaming platforms. This is what DRM should be doing: empowering people to mobility and choice through connected media. Steam just does so many things right: content discovery, supporting smaller and independent content developers, social elements.
I think the entire DRM industry should look up to Steam for a successful example of the future. Bottom line: THINK OF THE CUSTOMER.
Spot on post. I think the problem here is that big media sees its customers as a bunch of criminals who will only pay when forced to.
quote from the article:
...the music industry, when it began to feel the effects of the technological change coming, doubled down on stupid....
And the video industry is providing the sincerest form of flattery.
...the music industry, when it began to feel the effects of the technological change coming, doubled down on stupid....
And the video industry is providing the sincerest form of flattery.
This is why it's called "disruption." Basically there's a lot of mid-to-late career people whose (comfortable-to-extremely wealthy) lifestyles depend on ensuring that the status quo is maintained until after they retire.
Après moi, le déluge.
Après moi, le déluge.
I sympathize but this long-winded piece didn't add much new to the discussion.
tl;dr:
tl;dr:
The easiest and most convenient way to see the movies or
TV shows you want is to get them illegally.I think this was the more important bit:
Again, to belabor the obvious: The illegal version isn't just free. It's better.Exactly, as opposed to DRM'ed files, the open formats aren't "defective by design".
Even without DRM, pirated content is usually available when you want it, as soon as it's available, in more geographic areas (try buying digital content outside USA), it's available in more formats, the file you get will work on more devices, the file you get won't have ads, the file you get won't have copyright warnings. Even if the content cartel sold unDRMed files, they still wouldn't be as good.
Exactly! This isn't about format but about content.
A movie on DVD without the menus and warnings is still a movie on DVD, but better.
A movie on DVD without the menus and warnings is still a movie on DVD, but better.
There was a time when I used to rip my DVDs, for several reasons: 1) get rid of the warnings and menus and other crap. I just want the main feature; 2) preserve my investment, DVDs are the most fragile consumer media I've ever dealt with. If you have kids, one day they will set a DVD face down on the table and chances are good it will never play right again.
But now I just don't buy DVDs anymore. I watch some stuff on Netflix, and am happy to pay $8/month for that service. I've mostly opted out though. I just don't see the stuff coming out of Hollywood and the TV networks as really being worth my time, regardless of cost or delivery mechanisms.
But now I just don't buy DVDs anymore. I watch some stuff on Netflix, and am happy to pay $8/month for that service. I've mostly opted out though. I just don't see the stuff coming out of Hollywood and the TV networks as really being worth my time, regardless of cost or delivery mechanisms.
I'm sorry, but acting like torrenting is a superior user experience to Netflix is not credible. Sure pirating has its advantages, but it's no panacaea. For one thing, who wants to wait hours to download something before they can watch it? The disk space requirements are huge, and the quality and availability issues are problematic. Netflix may not have everything streaming, but they have a pretty good selection at your fingertips, and with DVD coverage you can fill in the gaps of most stuff that you really want to watch.
The problem is the "industry" is not monolithic, and if you think about Netflix cannibalizing $200/month cable subscriptions (for all premium channels) into $10/month streaming, you can see where some of the players are gonna drag their feet. It'd be great if big content could come together a create an amazing service for everyone, but they don't have the chops or the incentive.
The problem is the "industry" is not monolithic, and if you think about Netflix cannibalizing $200/month cable subscriptions (for all premium channels) into $10/month streaming, you can see where some of the players are gonna drag their feet. It'd be great if big content could come together a create an amazing service for everyone, but they don't have the chops or the incentive.
> who wants to wait hours to download something before they can watch it
I don't know how fast your internet is, but I can get an hour-long TV show in 720p in <10 minutes from torrents, and I'm paying $45/month for internet (in America).
> The disk space requirements are huge
Are they? 2 TB hard drives are now $70 a pop, and who says you have to save everything like a pack rat anyway?
> quality and availability issues are problematic
They've never been for me. There have always been plenty of seeds, and there has always been a high quality version that has been easy to find (usually because it has the most seeds & snatches). If anything, the quality is MUCH higher when torrenting than it is when streaming (legally or illegally).
I don't know how fast your internet is, but I can get an hour-long TV show in 720p in <10 minutes from torrents, and I'm paying $45/month for internet (in America).
> The disk space requirements are huge
Are they? 2 TB hard drives are now $70 a pop, and who says you have to save everything like a pack rat anyway?
> quality and availability issues are problematic
They've never been for me. There have always been plenty of seeds, and there has always been a high quality version that has been easy to find (usually because it has the most seeds & snatches). If anything, the quality is MUCH higher when torrenting than it is when streaming (legally or illegally).
> I don't know how fast your internet is, but I can get an hour-long TV show in 720p in <10 minutes from torrents, and I'm paying $45/month for internet (in America).
For a 2 megabit encoding that would effective DL speeds of 12 megabit, which is impressive. I've never gotten that consistently in the US. I pay $70/month from Comcast and if I start torrenting it doesn't sustain that, I'm not sure if it's throttled or what, or maybe the connection is saturated because I'm in an apartment in mountain view no doubt full of geeks.
> Are they? 2 TB hard drives are now $70 a pop, and who says you have to save everything like a pack rat anyway?
Normals don't buy HDs. The point is this shit can still fill up your HD really quick, which is just a hassle for non-geeks. That is why streaming is such a win for most people.
> They've never been for me. There have always been plenty of seeds, and there has always been a high quality version that has been easy to find (usually because it has the most seeds & snatches).
If you're not searching for the most popular or recent stuff then the quality degrades though. You need to have a variety of torrent trackers in your pocket. You have to have an intuitive filter to avoid the bullshit, and still sometimes you will get shitty encodings or something that's fucked up some way.
Seriously this is a geek hobby. Not necessarily computer geek, it's accessible enough for anyone to geek out on, but it's not a superior user experience to Netflix. The fact that you like the end result better doesn't make this any less true.
For a 2 megabit encoding that would effective DL speeds of 12 megabit, which is impressive. I've never gotten that consistently in the US. I pay $70/month from Comcast and if I start torrenting it doesn't sustain that, I'm not sure if it's throttled or what, or maybe the connection is saturated because I'm in an apartment in mountain view no doubt full of geeks.
> Are they? 2 TB hard drives are now $70 a pop, and who says you have to save everything like a pack rat anyway?
Normals don't buy HDs. The point is this shit can still fill up your HD really quick, which is just a hassle for non-geeks. That is why streaming is such a win for most people.
> They've never been for me. There have always been plenty of seeds, and there has always been a high quality version that has been easy to find (usually because it has the most seeds & snatches).
If you're not searching for the most popular or recent stuff then the quality degrades though. You need to have a variety of torrent trackers in your pocket. You have to have an intuitive filter to avoid the bullshit, and still sometimes you will get shitty encodings or something that's fucked up some way.
Seriously this is a geek hobby. Not necessarily computer geek, it's accessible enough for anyone to geek out on, but it's not a superior user experience to Netflix. The fact that you like the end result better doesn't make this any less true.
>There have always been plenty of seeds, and there has always been a high quality version that has been easy to find
This isn't the case for me. I watch mostly "foreign" films (i.e. films in a language I don't speak or understand). If the subtitles aren't included it can be a nightmare to find some (I won't watch dubbed movies). Sometimes you can't find any subtitles at all (I once had a movie sitting on my HD for over a year waiting for subtitles to show up for it), often when you do find them they're out of sync [1] or awful translations written by people who don't speak one (or both!) languages very well. Often whole chunks of the movie will be left out or have one word explanations.
So for me, the quality is not remotely better via torrents, that's just literally the only option for what I want to watch.
[1] Apparently different formats actually run at different speeds, causing the subtitles to drift if they were made for a different format. I didn't want to know about this and if the media industry had provided me some way of consuming this content I wouldn't have had to learn about it.
This isn't the case for me. I watch mostly "foreign" films (i.e. films in a language I don't speak or understand). If the subtitles aren't included it can be a nightmare to find some (I won't watch dubbed movies). Sometimes you can't find any subtitles at all (I once had a movie sitting on my HD for over a year waiting for subtitles to show up for it), often when you do find them they're out of sync [1] or awful translations written by people who don't speak one (or both!) languages very well. Often whole chunks of the movie will be left out or have one word explanations.
So for me, the quality is not remotely better via torrents, that's just literally the only option for what I want to watch.
[1] Apparently different formats actually run at different speeds, causing the subtitles to drift if they were made for a different format. I didn't want to know about this and if the media industry had provided me some way of consuming this content I wouldn't have had to learn about it.
You're an edge case, so I don't think your situation is particularly instructive when considering the industry as a whole.
But in case you didn't already know, you can obtain subtitles separately, from sites like Open Subtitles and Subscene, then sync them to your video. I use Subtitle Editor[0]. Although it's Linux only, I'm sure there's similar software for other OS's as well.
0: http://home.gna.org/subtitleeditor/
But in case you didn't already know, you can obtain subtitles separately, from sites like Open Subtitles and Subscene, then sync them to your video. I use Subtitle Editor[0]. Although it's Linux only, I'm sure there's similar software for other OS's as well.
0: http://home.gna.org/subtitleeditor/
I appreciate that I'm an edge case, but I'm not the only person who behaves this way.
As far as your other info, thanks for your help. I do, however, already know all this. Believe me.
Syncing to your video is a very hit and miss process. It's not a matter of just pointing the app at the two files and let it sort them out. What if the original version included more of the credits? It can be a huge pain. VLC makes it easier by letting me increase/decrease subtitle delay as it starts to drift out of sync.
As far as your other info, thanks for your help. I do, however, already know all this. Believe me.
Syncing to your video is a very hit and miss process. It's not a matter of just pointing the app at the two files and let it sort them out. What if the original version included more of the credits? It can be a huge pain. VLC makes it easier by letting me increase/decrease subtitle delay as it starts to drift out of sync.
Torrenting is an entirely superior experience to Netflix for all of us that don't live in the US. All I see on netflix.com is "Sorry, Netflix is not available in your country... yet" and an invitation to provide my e-mail address so they can tell me when it is. Meanwhile, thepiratebay.org is entirely available in my country right now. I fully get that this is not Netflix's fault, and agree that they're a great company doing all they can about the matter, but the fact remains that Netflix simply doesn't work for me or the vast majority of people I know.
Also... disk space requirements? Really? Hard drive space costs nearly nothing these days, I can't imagine that's a big problem.
Also... disk space requirements? Really? Hard drive space costs nearly nothing these days, I can't imagine that's a big problem.
I disagree. First of all, all the torrents of recent shows are very, very fast. Much faster than any streaming service in fact. Getting well over a meg per second is a common case.
For old episodes you do hold a point, although waiting a few hours or even half a day is generally still more convenient than not getting the episodes at all or waiting through countless FBI warnings.
Now then again, there is Netflix. Its not too bad. Its only available in the US, too.
For example, if i want to follow game of thrones, i can wait a year or two until its available in my country. For some other shows, they'll just never be shown in my country. Or I can pirate it and reduce the wait from a year to 10 minutes.
I'd gladly pay up to $100 a month for quality, ads free streaming to anything recent and I think i would be over paying it. But the offer just isnt even there, free, $1, $100, $1000, $10000 it doesn't matter, there is no true offer available.
What we have here are some streaming content provided by the cable/dsl operators or tv channels which comprises tv shows that are ~5 to 10 years old and movies that are 30 to 5 years old, and a slim catalog of them too, generally the crappiest.
So I pirate the stuff. I feel a little bad about it, but it's that or nothing, and I won't be ok with nothing.
I shall also mention that I would want to be able to stream the stuff on any device/system or optionally save it for offline view, although id settle with streaming only as well.
For old episodes you do hold a point, although waiting a few hours or even half a day is generally still more convenient than not getting the episodes at all or waiting through countless FBI warnings.
Now then again, there is Netflix. Its not too bad. Its only available in the US, too.
For example, if i want to follow game of thrones, i can wait a year or two until its available in my country. For some other shows, they'll just never be shown in my country. Or I can pirate it and reduce the wait from a year to 10 minutes.
I'd gladly pay up to $100 a month for quality, ads free streaming to anything recent and I think i would be over paying it. But the offer just isnt even there, free, $1, $100, $1000, $10000 it doesn't matter, there is no true offer available.
What we have here are some streaming content provided by the cable/dsl operators or tv channels which comprises tv shows that are ~5 to 10 years old and movies that are 30 to 5 years old, and a slim catalog of them too, generally the crappiest.
So I pirate the stuff. I feel a little bad about it, but it's that or nothing, and I won't be ok with nothing.
I shall also mention that I would want to be able to stream the stuff on any device/system or optionally save it for offline view, although id settle with streaming only as well.
> I disagree. First of all, all the torrents of recent shows are very, very fast. Much faster than any streaming service in fact. Getting well over a meg per second is a common case.
You can't beat the streaming latency though. You click play and 5 seconds later you are watching. As long as you have the minimum internet connection quality then streaming wins on UX.
You can't beat the streaming latency though. You click play and 5 seconds later you are watching. As long as you have the minimum internet connection quality then streaming wins on UX.
[deleted]
Disk space is incredibly cheap. Are you seriously discouting quality on downloading vs. streaming? Quality is the entire reason behind local media. ISP's simply don't provide consistent service for all customers. Streaming is not an option for vast media consuming throngs.
Torrenting isn't a superior user experience, it's a giant pain in the ass. Sharing files with friends, however, is the piracy experience for most people. Pretending torrent users end the file sharing line, is ridiculous.
Torrenting isn't a superior user experience, it's a giant pain in the ass. Sharing files with friends, however, is the piracy experience for most people. Pretending torrent users end the file sharing line, is ridiculous.
BitTorrent doesn't require you to be in the US to use it. There's one advantage...
For one thing, who wants to wait hours to download something before they can watch it?
There are clients that allow instant streaming. It makes little difference to a busy swarm.
the quality and availability issues are problematic.
Problematic to Hollywood because they are superior to what they produce?
There are clients that allow instant streaming. It makes little difference to a busy swarm.
the quality and availability issues are problematic.
Problematic to Hollywood because they are superior to what they produce?
I certainly identified with the spirit of the article and know that people are willing to pay money for legal access to digital content when it's easy and has the stuff people want. I'm one of them.
Since I signed up for Rhapsody about a year ago, my downloading of music illegally has plummeted. I trade the small amount of Downloader's Guilt for $10/mo and have access to (almost) everything I want to listen to. (And from wherever I want to listen to it: my computer, my phone, my home stereo.)
Before Rhapsody, I was downloading gigabytes of albums – I hadn't bought a CD in the new millenium (save those from smaller bands I wanted to personally supported). Now the music industry has me as a customer again, and monthly. Hollywood needs a Rhapsody to survive.
Since I signed up for Rhapsody about a year ago, my downloading of music illegally has plummeted. I trade the small amount of Downloader's Guilt for $10/mo and have access to (almost) everything I want to listen to. (And from wherever I want to listen to it: my computer, my phone, my home stereo.)
Before Rhapsody, I was downloading gigabytes of albums – I hadn't bought a CD in the new millenium (save those from smaller bands I wanted to personally supported). Now the music industry has me as a customer again, and monthly. Hollywood needs a Rhapsody to survive.
The usual problems sadly also apply to Rhapsody:
"Sorry, we are not able to offer Rhapsody Premier at this time. We are not able to offer Rhapsody Premier in Netherlands (substitute for just about any non-US country) at this time. For the latest music and entertainment offers in your country, click Current Offers. Click Cancel to end this session.
If you believe you've received this message in error, check to make sure your country and language settings are accurate. "
"Sorry, we are not able to offer Rhapsody Premier at this time. We are not able to offer Rhapsody Premier in Netherlands (substitute for just about any non-US country) at this time. For the latest music and entertainment offers in your country, click Current Offers. Click Cancel to end this session.
If you believe you've received this message in error, check to make sure your country and language settings are accurate. "
Indeed.
Don't look at torrents. Go look at many of the download services rapidshare.com, megaupload.com, etc. They all have one thing in common: they charge money.
This means that there is a segment of people out there who are willing to pay, but whoes needs are for one reason or another are not met under the current system.
If you want to grow the market try to capture them.
Don't look at torrents. Go look at many of the download services rapidshare.com, megaupload.com, etc. They all have one thing in common: they charge money.
This means that there is a segment of people out there who are willing to pay, but whoes needs are for one reason or another are not met under the current system.
If you want to grow the market try to capture them.
Of course, all these sites are charging for is taking away the inconvenience of the free download option. If you use JDownloader[0] and don't want to see something right away, you can use these sites just as well without paying them a single cent. The most significant exception are the other sites, such as HotFile, which use ReCAPTCHA, making JDownloader much less useful.
0: http://jdownloader.org/
0: http://jdownloader.org/
Yeah, so downloading torrents is still the easiest way to obtain selected works despite its complexity. He's right in that we'll just probably have to wait for a decade or so for things to get better, given the track record of the MAFIAA.
However, there should still be an explicit law that allows people to legally make free copies of content that isn't available for sale in any standard format. There's never enough supply as there's demand; there's always a niche that just isn't reasonably satisfied by commerce itself. A number of various collections or redistribution of minor series can thrive on the proverbial pirate bay because there are non-commercial incentives only to support them in the first place.
However, there should still be an explicit law that allows people to legally make free copies of content that isn't available for sale in any standard format. There's never enough supply as there's demand; there's always a niche that just isn't reasonably satisfied by commerce itself. A number of various collections or redistribution of minor series can thrive on the proverbial pirate bay because there are non-commercial incentives only to support them in the first place.
Yeah, but no. If I want to make a home or specialty video and give it away to a few folks but not sell it, that doesn't give you any kind of moral right to take it and give it to the world. And it certainly shouldn't give you the legal right. In your version of reality everything produced by anyone should be available to all comers and if you don't charge for it then they'll give it away for free? What about bloody confidential documents or video of my groundbreaking experiments? I think you need to rethink that. If someone genuinely doesn't want to sell you their film anymore well, then, bugger off.
Yeah, but no. If I want to make a home or specialty video and give it away to a few folks but not sell it, that doesn't give you any kind of moral right to take it and give it to the world.
I can't take it. If, however, one of those persons you shared your video with decides to share it with me (or the rest of the world), you can't do shit, to put it bluntly.
To explain it differently, there are two states some piece of media (be it movie, music, books or software) can be in: Private, and public (and to those savvy C++ programmers amongst us, no, there is no "protected" :) ). As long as it is private, indeed no one has a right to gain access to it. In your example, the video would still be private as long as no one you showed / gave it to decides to share it with other people (ie, the rest of the world).
Once someone decides to share it, it is no longer private. It's public. And just as much as no one has a right to demand access to something private, no one (not even you, as the original creator) has a right to stop people from sharing something if they had access to it, thus no longer making it private.
To put this in perspective for the music and movie industry, as well as software authors and writers: there is but one (very simple) way of controlling your creation: don't share it with anyone else. Either that, or publish it, accepting the consequences that come with that decision, one being that you cannot stop people from sharing your creation.
tl;dr: I can't demand access from you, but neither can you demand me to stop sharing once I have.
I can't take it. If, however, one of those persons you shared your video with decides to share it with me (or the rest of the world), you can't do shit, to put it bluntly.
To explain it differently, there are two states some piece of media (be it movie, music, books or software) can be in: Private, and public (and to those savvy C++ programmers amongst us, no, there is no "protected" :) ). As long as it is private, indeed no one has a right to gain access to it. In your example, the video would still be private as long as no one you showed / gave it to decides to share it with other people (ie, the rest of the world).
Once someone decides to share it, it is no longer private. It's public. And just as much as no one has a right to demand access to something private, no one (not even you, as the original creator) has a right to stop people from sharing something if they had access to it, thus no longer making it private.
To put this in perspective for the music and movie industry, as well as software authors and writers: there is but one (very simple) way of controlling your creation: don't share it with anyone else. Either that, or publish it, accepting the consequences that come with that decision, one being that you cannot stop people from sharing your creation.
tl;dr: I can't demand access from you, but neither can you demand me to stop sharing once I have.
I hope you're never interested in a job in commercial software - it's be very hard for many of these firms to stay in business if every disgruntled committer was legally clear to leak your whole source code base to the competition or the world.
So, it amounts to firms relying on laws for their business model? Or, more accurately, the artificial monopolies created by said laws? That's doing it wrong. If you cannot stay in business without these laws, you shouldn't be in business in the first place.
Oh, and no, I'm not in the least tiny bit interested in developing proprietary software. :)
Oh, and no, I'm not in the least tiny bit interested in developing proprietary software. :)
best of luck on your crusade.
Very true, but what it this law only applied to very openly sold works? Let's say for sake of argument only ones that had sold a million copies. Once it's put there it's out there and it's really a shame when thrice-transferred IP from a defunct company can't be bought any more.
My new DVR holds so few shows [...] It holds now about 20 shows, and a few movies, and is basically useless in that it fills up every few days ...
I think the author needs to stop watching so much TV.
Does anyone identify with this piece? It seems largely exaggerated to me. I watched the first 4 episodes of The Inbetweeners, season 3, on demand last night. I have FiOS, and even with its clunky menu navigation, it was easy to find and watch the shows. The alternate is. what, download a 1GB torrent? I don't see how that's easier.
If Hollywood wants to improve box office receipts, they could stop making so many sequels, movies from comic books, movies from TV shows, and 3D for the sake of 3D.
I think the author needs to stop watching so much TV.
Does anyone identify with this piece? It seems largely exaggerated to me. I watched the first 4 episodes of The Inbetweeners, season 3, on demand last night. I have FiOS, and even with its clunky menu navigation, it was easy to find and watch the shows. The alternate is. what, download a 1GB torrent? I don't see how that's easier.
If Hollywood wants to improve box office receipts, they could stop making so many sequels, movies from comic books, movies from TV shows, and 3D for the sake of 3D.
You shouldn't confuse "should" and "could". I only watch a handful of shows but I have no business judging the author for spending his time however the hell he wants. I'll likely make millions of dollars before he will, and that's entirely his prerogative.
It was long winded and pedantic, but he's making a solid point metaphorically: this shit is painful, and no mortal can or would navigate the morass of technical, legal and financial woes without wondering the exact same things.
I feel sorry for people that don't know how to move comfortably around tech, because the one thing you and I share in common that they don't have is a choice in how this goes down on a personal level.
It was long winded and pedantic, but he's making a solid point metaphorically: this shit is painful, and no mortal can or would navigate the morass of technical, legal and financial woes without wondering the exact same things.
I feel sorry for people that don't know how to move comfortably around tech, because the one thing you and I share in common that they don't have is a choice in how this goes down on a personal level.
I can identify. I don't watch that much TV, but my SO does, and the hard drive on our DVR is so small that if I queue something it can delete something of hers.
I have a Playstation 3 which I used for Netflix, and went through the same hassles during the PSN outage. Then it seemed like every time I went to watch a movie there was a new software update I had to have. On top of that, the repeated software updates seem to have introduced a bug where it has to resync the resolution with the TV every time I power it on or boot Netflix. I'm never buying a Sony product ever again.
Netflix streaming is a great product, but has limited selection. Again, it's not that I consume that much media, but that what I want to watch usually isn't available.
At the end of the day, I have a cable TV + internet subscription, as well as Netflix, and I just torrent everything. I have a server that runs deluge, and I just drop a torrent in a folder and a couple of hours later it's ready to watch.
I though the piece was spot on.
edit: Just thought I'd add that since the legal music stores have popped up (iTunes, Beatport, Amazon) I hardly pirate music anymore. I spend hundreds of dollars a year on music. This is why the premise of the article jives with my experience.
I have a Playstation 3 which I used for Netflix, and went through the same hassles during the PSN outage. Then it seemed like every time I went to watch a movie there was a new software update I had to have. On top of that, the repeated software updates seem to have introduced a bug where it has to resync the resolution with the TV every time I power it on or boot Netflix. I'm never buying a Sony product ever again.
Netflix streaming is a great product, but has limited selection. Again, it's not that I consume that much media, but that what I want to watch usually isn't available.
At the end of the day, I have a cable TV + internet subscription, as well as Netflix, and I just torrent everything. I have a server that runs deluge, and I just drop a torrent in a folder and a couple of hours later it's ready to watch.
I though the piece was spot on.
edit: Just thought I'd add that since the legal music stores have popped up (iTunes, Beatport, Amazon) I hardly pirate music anymore. I spend hundreds of dollars a year on music. This is why the premise of the article jives with my experience.
>If Hollywood wants to improve box office receipts, they could stop making so many sequels, movies from comic books, movies from TV shows, and 3D for the sake of 3D.
If they want to improve receipts, why should they stop making the movies that make the most money? You might not like sequels and comic books, but apparently most people do.
http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/newsStory.php?newsID=...
If they want to improve receipts, why should they stop making the movies that make the most money? You might not like sequels and comic books, but apparently most people do.
http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/newsStory.php?newsID=...
Best line in the article: "If the studios were smart they'd go to the mat and create a massive one-stop shop for TV and movies, find a price point they can live with and then set programmers loose to make the thing as easy to use and ubiquitous as possible."
Size matters.
I think as similar as these two industries are, the big deciding factor in this particular war is the size of files being downloaded. Video files are mammoth in comparison to music files and the Cable and Internet companies know this--there are obvious infrastructural problems in play, but the recent move by a number of ISP's to cap the data transfer capacity of its clients is a huge factor in this war on pirating--I mean where I live in Canada 1/2 of the major players have adopted this, with the 2nd committed to it but unsure of when it will be fully in place--so when that does happen I'll be forced into a cap of 100gb a month for the price I previously afforded with stiff penalties for going over--in this day and age 100gb, especially in terms of TV and movies is hardly anything. Couple that with my desire to play online games, surf the internet, stream on youtube etc and my fun time options are severely limited. If anything I think Hollywood lucked out on the fact that ISP's have hit a roadblock in terms of bandwidth and what they can afford to provide.
I think as similar as these two industries are, the big deciding factor in this particular war is the size of files being downloaded. Video files are mammoth in comparison to music files and the Cable and Internet companies know this--there are obvious infrastructural problems in play, but the recent move by a number of ISP's to cap the data transfer capacity of its clients is a huge factor in this war on pirating--I mean where I live in Canada 1/2 of the major players have adopted this, with the 2nd committed to it but unsure of when it will be fully in place--so when that does happen I'll be forced into a cap of 100gb a month for the price I previously afforded with stiff penalties for going over--in this day and age 100gb, especially in terms of TV and movies is hardly anything. Couple that with my desire to play online games, surf the internet, stream on youtube etc and my fun time options are severely limited. If anything I think Hollywood lucked out on the fact that ISP's have hit a roadblock in terms of bandwidth and what they can afford to provide.
How many terabytes would it take to store all the television shows and movies from the US in standard definition for the past 30 years? How about only the shows you and your family/friends want?
Storage prices will continue to drop. At some point in the near future it will be less expensive to have an entire collection of video stored locally, rather than try to create the infrastructure to stream across the country or globe.
Storage prices will continue to drop. At some point in the near future it will be less expensive to have an entire collection of video stored locally, rather than try to create the infrastructure to stream across the country or globe.
Oh yes. The whole movie industry needs to change. When a new movie comes out I want to see it that day, on my laptop/TV/home theatre in HD. If I am constrained to a single viewing for a period, fine.
I do not want to see it in a smelly, sticky, noisy public theatre.
Will this ever happen? Unlikely.
I do not want to see it in a smelly, sticky, noisy public theatre.
Will this ever happen? Unlikely.
In the golden days of media distribution (the 90s?) X amount if money was made. They will do anything to make X again and then after that anything to make more than X.
"about to"?
Give me a no-hassle-fair-price download service and I'll be fine paying for good movies. But right now I have not yet found a legal way of watching movies on my computer except waiting for the DVD's - and even those I don't really watch in a legal way as I'm using DeCSS to watch them on Linux.