Microsoft Funded Startup Aims to Kill BitTorrent Traffic(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
Microsoft Funded Startup Aims to Kill BitTorrent Traffic
http://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-funded-startup-aims-to-kill-bittorrent-traffic-120513/
137 comments
This is a vast oversimplification of the problem. Sharing is not always piracy. People tend to recognize sharing on a small scale (of movies, books, music, etc.) as on balance a good thing, and overall functionally promotional for the artists and makers who are having their work shared. The truth is that the same mechanism exists even on a larger, less personal scale. Unfortunately, the debate has been so polluted by vitriol and misrepresentation that this gets labelled as "piracy" and "theft".
Yes, there are some people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying for it. But this is not "a corner", it is not the norm for people who "pirate" or "share". The average person who downloads movies off of bit torrent is someone who does so as part of a larger set of media consuming behaviors which includes paying for cable, buying movies on disc, and seeing movies in theaters. Also, current evidence tends to lead toward the conclusion that engaging in "piracy" on balance results in more support for artists, not less.
On the whole I very much agree with Jonathan Coulton's stance on piracy (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/), make good stuff and make it easy to buy it. I've never seen a case where that has failed to reward the artists.
Yes, there are some people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying for it. But this is not "a corner", it is not the norm for people who "pirate" or "share". The average person who downloads movies off of bit torrent is someone who does so as part of a larger set of media consuming behaviors which includes paying for cable, buying movies on disc, and seeing movies in theaters. Also, current evidence tends to lead toward the conclusion that engaging in "piracy" on balance results in more support for artists, not less.
On the whole I very much agree with Jonathan Coulton's stance on piracy (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/), make good stuff and make it easy to buy it. I've never seen a case where that has failed to reward the artists.
> Sharing is not always piracy.
Didn't say it was. Actually I didn't use the word "piracy" at all (except in reference to the content industry and their perception of what "piracy" is). You're preaching the party line without reading what I've written.
For example, I have no problem with someone using BitTorrent to download something they already bought once, but that they can't use on a new device because of unreasonable DRM. I only have a problem with people who are not paying creators at all, or justify a large amount of copying because of a small/moderate amount of legitimate purchases.
I also agree that a limited amount of free sharing between friends is totally reasonable.
Didn't say it was. Actually I didn't use the word "piracy" at all (except in reference to the content industry and their perception of what "piracy" is). You're preaching the party line without reading what I've written.
For example, I have no problem with someone using BitTorrent to download something they already bought once, but that they can't use on a new device because of unreasonable DRM. I only have a problem with people who are not paying creators at all, or justify a large amount of copying because of a small/moderate amount of legitimate purchases.
I also agree that a limited amount of free sharing between friends is totally reasonable.
I read exactly what you wrote. You used a characterization of media sharing as "piracy", as "people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything". As I said, this is an incorrect and vastly oversimplified view of the issue.
It's not just about heavy handed law enforcement, or about the excesses of DRM, it's also about sharing. If we eliminate sharing (of music, movies, books, etc.) from the world in an effort to fight "piracy" we will have made a grave mistake. Indeed, I think the rampant levels of impersonal sharing we see today with things like bittorrent are probably better for content creators than more traditional levels enabled by libraries and friends and restricted by physical media forms.
The important point I'm trying to make here is that the idea that everyone who reads a book, watches a movie, or listens to a song needs to have engaged in some economic transaction prior to doing so (through either direct purchase or subjection to advertising) is a wholly wrong and dangerous notion. We can, and do, live in a world where content creators are rewarded bountifully for the work and yet unregulated sharing runs wild and free.
It's not just about heavy handed law enforcement, or about the excesses of DRM, it's also about sharing. If we eliminate sharing (of music, movies, books, etc.) from the world in an effort to fight "piracy" we will have made a grave mistake. Indeed, I think the rampant levels of impersonal sharing we see today with things like bittorrent are probably better for content creators than more traditional levels enabled by libraries and friends and restricted by physical media forms.
The important point I'm trying to make here is that the idea that everyone who reads a book, watches a movie, or listens to a song needs to have engaged in some economic transaction prior to doing so (through either direct purchase or subjection to advertising) is a wholly wrong and dangerous notion. We can, and do, live in a world where content creators are rewarded bountifully for the work and yet unregulated sharing runs wild and free.
> You used a characterization of media sharing as "piracy", as "people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything".
I meant exactly what I said: I am against "people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything." I didn't say this includes everyone who downloads things over BitTorrent (and I don't believe that it does). I didn't say this includes everyone who sends their friends songs sometimes (and I don't believe that it does). You made this association, not me.
It does include people who say things like "I just discovered BitTorrent, which is great because now I don't have to pay for movies any more." Which as I mentioned in another comment, includes someone I met in real life just yesterday.
> The important point I'm trying to make here is that the idea that everyone who reads a book, watches a movie, or listens to a song needs to have engaged in some economic transaction prior to doing so (through either direct purchase or subjection to advertising) is a wholly wrong and dangerous notion.
Well if we're talking in extremes, it is an equally wrong and dangerous notion that the compensation of creative people should be solely dependent on charity, with no recourse against freeloaders. What do you think would happen to the movie industry if the ticket booth at theaters were replaced with an offering plate?
I meant exactly what I said: I am against "people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything." I didn't say this includes everyone who downloads things over BitTorrent (and I don't believe that it does). I didn't say this includes everyone who sends their friends songs sometimes (and I don't believe that it does). You made this association, not me.
It does include people who say things like "I just discovered BitTorrent, which is great because now I don't have to pay for movies any more." Which as I mentioned in another comment, includes someone I met in real life just yesterday.
> The important point I'm trying to make here is that the idea that everyone who reads a book, watches a movie, or listens to a song needs to have engaged in some economic transaction prior to doing so (through either direct purchase or subjection to advertising) is a wholly wrong and dangerous notion.
Well if we're talking in extremes, it is an equally wrong and dangerous notion that the compensation of creative people should be solely dependent on charity, with no recourse against freeloaders. What do you think would happen to the movie industry if the ticket booth at theaters were replaced with an offering plate?
In the other corner are people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything
They're probably less than you think. Many "pirates" pay, and in fact pay more than the average person.
some of these are wishful thinking ("they can make money in other ways")
In the UK, and despite the lower income from album sales, the total income for artists has grown: http://www.hypebot.com/.a/6a00d83451b36c69e2012875f077e8970c...
Likewise, despite whining about piracy, the MPAA has had five years of record profits from 2005 to 2010.
Maybe it's not so wishful thinking?
They're probably less than you think. Many "pirates" pay, and in fact pay more than the average person.
some of these are wishful thinking ("they can make money in other ways")
In the UK, and despite the lower income from album sales, the total income for artists has grown: http://www.hypebot.com/.a/6a00d83451b36c69e2012875f077e8970c...
Likewise, despite whining about piracy, the MPAA has had five years of record profits from 2005 to 2010.
Maybe it's not so wishful thinking?
> They're probably less than you think.
What evidence do you have for this? Every time I want to believe this is true, I meet someone (IRL) who says something completely blatant like "I just discovered BitTorrent, which is great because now I don't have to pay for movies any more.". (that is a direct quote from someone I met yesterday). Anecdotes aren't data, but where's your non-anecdotal data?
What evidence do you have for this? Every time I want to believe this is true, I meet someone (IRL) who says something completely blatant like "I just discovered BitTorrent, which is great because now I don't have to pay for movies any more.". (that is a direct quote from someone I met yesterday). Anecdotes aren't data, but where's your non-anecdotal data?
Study by the Canadian Intellectual Property Policy group:
Study by the BI Norwegian School of Management:
However, our analysis of the Canadian P2P file-sharing subpopulation
suggests that there is a strong positive relationship between P2P
file-sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually
engaged in it, P2P file-sharing increases CD purchasing.
Study by the BI Norwegian School of Management:
Researchers found that those who downloaded "free" music – whether
from lawful or seedy sources – were also 10 times more likely to pay
for music. This would make music pirates the industry's largest
audience for digital sales.
Wisely, the study did not rely on music pirates' honesty. Researchers
asked music buyers to prove that they had proof of purchase.
Thanks, the first link is great and has a lot of data. It seems to conclude causation when only correlation was observed, but even so it seems to support the idea that there aren't a lot of true freeloaders out there.
Isn't the iTunes Store a valid example? Its users have demonstrated that they'll pay per song instead of buying the entire album. Apparently that's what the consumer wants.
Secondly, there is actually a media business on the internet that's flourishing with a pure online model: porn. You can get it for free everywhere, yet people keep paying for it (also online) .
Secondly, there is actually a media business on the internet that's flourishing with a pure online model: porn. You can get it for free everywhere, yet people keep paying for it (also online) .
In the other corner are people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything.
I don't feel entitled to anything and I never stole anything from the creators. If they wish to stop producing new stuff, that's fine with me. I have thousand of other ways to enjoy myself, some of which is forgotten public domain content.
It's nice to feel moral outrage about people who "felt entitled", but it doesn't make you money.
The good guys are: people who will pay a reasonable fee or watch a small/reasonable amount of advertising to consume the content they like,
I want convenience and I gladly do pay for said convenience. The problem is the lack of convenient options and lot of missing titles.
I don't feel entitled to anything and I never stole anything from the creators. If they wish to stop producing new stuff, that's fine with me. I have thousand of other ways to enjoy myself, some of which is forgotten public domain content.
It's nice to feel moral outrage about people who "felt entitled", but it doesn't make you money.
The good guys are: people who will pay a reasonable fee or watch a small/reasonable amount of advertising to consume the content they like,
I want convenience and I gladly do pay for said convenience. The problem is the lack of convenient options and lot of missing titles.
I've built a company a few years ago which competed with these guys in their previous market - bittorrent optimization for ISPs. We've built the product (sort of a bittorrent cache) and achieved some positive results on a few production installs but never hit the real mark. The optimization we provided for ISPs wasn't worth for them the cost of the service we were considering minimally acceptable. The 'long tail' was really longer than we anticipated and this long tail spoiled our cache.
But we've developed the 'carrier grade bittorrent client', i.e. hundreds of thousand connections, tens of thousand downloads, millions of files. Erlang + C. Hack value was something to be proud of.
The next attempt would be to convert it to this - spoil the downloads and charge the copyright owners. We discussed this many times within the company but finally decided to wind it down. I believe breaking the protocols is beyond the line and we're too old school to cross this line. I wouldn't have been hesitated to, like, chasing individual violators, given the proof of violation, or identifying child porn distributors or something along these lines, but not breaking the internets.
I talked to this guy once, btw. They were quite behind us in terms of technology and I don't think they progressed much. Well, I'd like to think :-)
Can you share some technical details/details of your conversations with this guy please?
I don't think it's ethical. I clearly identified myself as a competitor and we were ahead of them technology wise so he had an incentive to talk to me and I shared a lot of our implementation details (not to give enough leverage, but enough to support an interesting conversation between hackers). I return he told me quite a lot about their implementation, but I don't think it's OK to share. I don't expect him to share what I told him as well. The dialogue was clearly off the record.
If I may ask, what was the name of your company / product? Is it still alive? I must say I'm highly intrigued by the idea of carrier-grade BitTorrent.
It's on ice. Not alive, not dead either. I'm chasing another opportunity now, but keep this one still in mind. I guess my email should be visible in the profile, feel free to contact me.
I'm less interested in the politics and more in the technical details. They seem to be keeping their secret sauce a secret. The best I could find in a brief search is this quote from the article:
We used a number of servers to make a connection to each and every p2p client that distributed this film. Then Pirate Pay sent specific traffic to confuse these clients about the real I.P. addresses of other clients and to make them disconnect from each other.
My guess: the software connects to seeds and floods them with peer-exchange messages containing fake peers. (Essentially it's a DoS attack.) If that's the trick, then disabling PEX would leave a seeder immune.
We used a number of servers to make a connection to each and every p2p client that distributed this film. Then Pirate Pay sent specific traffic to confuse these clients about the real I.P. addresses of other clients and to make them disconnect from each other.
My guess: the software connects to seeds and floods them with peer-exchange messages containing fake peers. (Essentially it's a DoS attack.) If that's the trick, then disabling PEX would leave a seeder immune.
Alternatively, the client could keep PEX and just wait for confirmation from other peers that the IPs are valid. Flooding then becomes linearly more difficult with the size of the swarm. If BitTorrent goes for something like the majority vote in Bitcoin, the effort would be exponential in the size of the swarm, making it relatively infeasible.
Further, the swarm could start maintaining a blacklist and throw out the flooders.
Bitcoin is a good start in this direction, hopefully the algorithms will trickle down to more common technologies like BitTorrent.
Further, the swarm could start maintaining a blacklist and throw out the flooders.
Bitcoin is a good start in this direction, hopefully the algorithms will trickle down to more common technologies like BitTorrent.
How is this possibly legal? Interfering with someone else's computer system without permission is criminal (!) behavior pretty much everywhere.
But as the article states, the head of Microsoft Russia likes it! Both Microsoft and Russia are known for probity, respect for the law, and supporting the little guy. And when you combine the two, it should be double the respect for democracy. I'm sure it must be legal.
>>Interfering with someone else's computer system without permission is criminal
Not when you ask for waiver, and put such a clause in 'Terms and Conditions', People go ahead and click on 'I agree' anyway.
Not when you ask for waiver, and put such a clause in 'Terms and Conditions', People go ahead and click on 'I agree' anyway.
Couldn't they stamp RST packets with the IP addresses of other file sharers? That would reset the connections with those nodes.
I think that would be illegal, as in the type of illegal that is much more serious than piracy.
> It was able to stop BitTorrent traffic if needed, which made the developers realize that they might have built the holy anti-piracy grail.
That's flawed reasoning.
Suppose their technology killed BitTorrent over night. Will it stop piracy? Of course not - we have a myriad of other technologies adept at transferring data from one host to another.
Calling some protocol specific denial of service exploit the 'anti-piracy holy grail' seems out of touch to me.
That's flawed reasoning.
Suppose their technology killed BitTorrent over night. Will it stop piracy? Of course not - we have a myriad of other technologies adept at transferring data from one host to another.
Calling some protocol specific denial of service exploit the 'anti-piracy holy grail' seems out of touch to me.
There's no way to stop piracy, everyone knows this. The key is too slow it down and make it more troublesome. Just like there's no such thing as a safe that can't be broken into, that's not the point of anti-piracy measures.
Piracy is a problem because it requires minimal effort and is far too easy these days, often easier than obtaining the content legitimately. If the copyright holders could just occasionally shutdown whatever the most popular site is at the time, and force people to smaller sites. Far less people would be pirating.
The crux of the problem is that it is incredibly easy to pirate things, and even a token/whack-a-mole effort would dissuade most people.
Look at web-advertising. If browsers came pre-installed with adblock google would have to find a new business model. But such a small thing like not making it the default, has huge effects. Similarly having to find a new public website every month to download things is going to dissuade a big percentage of people.
Piracy is a problem because it requires minimal effort and is far too easy these days, often easier than obtaining the content legitimately. If the copyright holders could just occasionally shutdown whatever the most popular site is at the time, and force people to smaller sites. Far less people would be pirating.
The crux of the problem is that it is incredibly easy to pirate things, and even a token/whack-a-mole effort would dissuade most people.
Look at web-advertising. If browsers came pre-installed with adblock google would have to find a new business model. But such a small thing like not making it the default, has huge effects. Similarly having to find a new public website every month to download things is going to dissuade a big percentage of people.
I find it hugely amusing how people still make out piracy as the problem.
It isn't. It never was. The problem is the insistence of an industry on their business model in face of a technology that made them obsolete. Their continued, stubborn refusal to accept reality. Their audaciousness to demand that this very technology be regulated to fit their business model again (which is both technically impossible as well as undesirable on a scale of "impediment to the entirety of mankind").
Piracy - or, how it actually should be called, Free (as in Speech) sharing of art, culture and technology - is probably mankind's biggest achievement. And here we are, arguing over an irrelevant industry that thinks it's entitled to a working business model for all eternity, and happens to excel at loudly crying at the shoulders of politicians and lie like a whole regiment of troopers.
We should embrace free and unlimited sharing of what amounts to a non-scarce resource, instead of buckling down to the prolonged sissy fit of a child that doesn't get what it wants anymore. It makes no fucking sense, both economically as well as logically, to limit something that is infinitely available.
I'm positive we'll be past this farce in about a decade, with the pirates ultimately emerging as the victors, because it's impossible to halt progress forever, even for the copyright industry. The more they entrench themselves in their vain fight, the more satisfying it will be to see them crash down.
It isn't. It never was. The problem is the insistence of an industry on their business model in face of a technology that made them obsolete. Their continued, stubborn refusal to accept reality. Their audaciousness to demand that this very technology be regulated to fit their business model again (which is both technically impossible as well as undesirable on a scale of "impediment to the entirety of mankind").
Piracy - or, how it actually should be called, Free (as in Speech) sharing of art, culture and technology - is probably mankind's biggest achievement. And here we are, arguing over an irrelevant industry that thinks it's entitled to a working business model for all eternity, and happens to excel at loudly crying at the shoulders of politicians and lie like a whole regiment of troopers.
We should embrace free and unlimited sharing of what amounts to a non-scarce resource, instead of buckling down to the prolonged sissy fit of a child that doesn't get what it wants anymore. It makes no fucking sense, both economically as well as logically, to limit something that is infinitely available.
I'm positive we'll be past this farce in about a decade, with the pirates ultimately emerging as the victors, because it's impossible to halt progress forever, even for the copyright industry. The more they entrench themselves in their vain fight, the more satisfying it will be to see them crash down.
Tell me slowpoke about the great wonders of Ubuntu and Gimp and every other crappy open source clone of proprietary software.
Just because a product is made of bits instead of atoms doesn't mean the product didn't cost capital to create and require revenue to continue being created.
"I'm positive we'll be past this farce in about a decade" Sure right after we figure out a better system than capitalism for digital goods and get everyone to agree to it.
I find it hugely amusing how people still don't understand basic economics and "cause and effect" on a macro scale.
Just because a product is made of bits instead of atoms doesn't mean the product didn't cost capital to create and require revenue to continue being created.
"I'm positive we'll be past this farce in about a decade" Sure right after we figure out a better system than capitalism for digital goods and get everyone to agree to it.
I find it hugely amusing how people still don't understand basic economics and "cause and effect" on a macro scale.
>Tell me slowpoke about the great wonders of Ubuntu and Gimp and every other crappy open source clone of proprietary software.
I don't feel obliged to answer this. Please keep your flame-bait to yourself.
>Just because a product is made of bits instead of atoms doesn't mean the product didn't cost capital to create and require revenue to continue being created.
You're conflating creation with distribution, in addition to a basic sweat of the brow fallacy. Just because you worked doesn't mean you are entitled to payment - else I will hereby demand you to pay me forty two fantastillion dollars for reading my comment, because that's what I value my work done here. See where this is going?
I still don't see how it's in any way reasonable to create artificial monopolies over a good that isn't scarce. Business models come and go with technological progress, and I do not think the copyright industry is the first to be entitled to an exception to the detriment of the rest of mankind.
>Sure right after we figure out a better system than capitalism for digital goods and get everyone to agree to it.
Yep. Such as the emerging service-based information society. :)
I don't feel obliged to answer this. Please keep your flame-bait to yourself.
>Just because a product is made of bits instead of atoms doesn't mean the product didn't cost capital to create and require revenue to continue being created.
You're conflating creation with distribution, in addition to a basic sweat of the brow fallacy. Just because you worked doesn't mean you are entitled to payment - else I will hereby demand you to pay me forty two fantastillion dollars for reading my comment, because that's what I value my work done here. See where this is going?
I still don't see how it's in any way reasonable to create artificial monopolies over a good that isn't scarce. Business models come and go with technological progress, and I do not think the copyright industry is the first to be entitled to an exception to the detriment of the rest of mankind.
>Sure right after we figure out a better system than capitalism for digital goods and get everyone to agree to it.
Yep. Such as the emerging service-based information society. :)
>That's flawed reasoning.
You don't say.
>Suppose their technology killed BitTorrent over night. Will it stop piracy? Of course not - we have a myriad of other technologies adept at transferring data from one host to another.
Yes, but it would be a very significant setback. Already the raids on DDL sites have had a large impact on the availability and easy access to pirated material. For example, they made 5 years worth of DDL links unreachable in one night.
In the end, you don't have to kill piracy --you just have to make it inconvenient enough, and most of the people will give up.
You don't say.
>Suppose their technology killed BitTorrent over night. Will it stop piracy? Of course not - we have a myriad of other technologies adept at transferring data from one host to another.
Yes, but it would be a very significant setback. Already the raids on DDL sites have had a large impact on the availability and easy access to pirated material. For example, they made 5 years worth of DDL links unreachable in one night.
In the end, you don't have to kill piracy --you just have to make it inconvenient enough, and most of the people will give up.
you just have to make it inconvenient enough, and most of the people will give up.
Let's verify that claim, shall we?
1. Fact: For the past 10 years the content industry has been doing everything in their power to make file-sharing as inconvenient as possible.
2. Result: http://disruptive-music.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/201...
I'll tell you where your (and their) mistake is. Instead of trying to make "illegal" sharing inconvenient, the focus should be on making "legal" consumption convenient.
When the content is available immediately, everywhere, at good quality, for a reasonable price, then most people have no reason to consider other channels.
The content industry has only themselves to blame for not providing that. Case in point: I'd like to watch avengers, on my flatscreen at home, asap. Chances are PirateBay will make that happen before iTunes, even though I would happily pay $10 for it, if they'd let me.
Let's verify that claim, shall we?
1. Fact: For the past 10 years the content industry has been doing everything in their power to make file-sharing as inconvenient as possible.
2. Result: http://disruptive-music.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/201...
I'll tell you where your (and their) mistake is. Instead of trying to make "illegal" sharing inconvenient, the focus should be on making "legal" consumption convenient.
When the content is available immediately, everywhere, at good quality, for a reasonable price, then most people have no reason to consider other channels.
The content industry has only themselves to blame for not providing that. Case in point: I'd like to watch avengers, on my flatscreen at home, asap. Chances are PirateBay will make that happen before iTunes, even though I would happily pay $10 for it, if they'd let me.
"everything in their power to make file-sharing as inconvenient as possible" != a lot
Their power is very limited, so really all they've been doing is nipping around the edges. Their goal is to expand that power technologically and legally in order to both stop piracy and make absolutely no concessions to consumer convenience, maintaining maximum flexibility in their choices when bringing sights and sounds to market.
All profits being held equal, the studios would prefer to charge $100 million a ticket and have you watch it in a closet in some LA office. The industry creates films that it doesn't care if anybody sees, and creates music that it doesn't care if anybody hears. That's the problem, and that's why we're surrounded by crap.
I'll tell you what kind of convenience I want: if I watch a movie that turns out to be deceptively marketed garbage, I don't want to have paid any more than those two hours of my life for the chance. I also want an easily streamlined, audited, and publicly supported way for me to support the artists that I want to encourage to create more things that I want to see. I don't want to be marketed to, I want to be asked, and I want honest recommendations from people who know my tastes enough to think I may like something.
I don't want glorified distributors being able to hold both the artists and the consumers over the barrel to move a product that doesn't even need to be distributed any more. I don't want my culture to be a patchwork of ownership, like the land became. If I hear a song, I can sing a song.
So, basically, I wouldn't happily pay $10 for The Avengers on my television, and at best that would be a partial solution for the industry IMO.
Their power is very limited, so really all they've been doing is nipping around the edges. Their goal is to expand that power technologically and legally in order to both stop piracy and make absolutely no concessions to consumer convenience, maintaining maximum flexibility in their choices when bringing sights and sounds to market.
All profits being held equal, the studios would prefer to charge $100 million a ticket and have you watch it in a closet in some LA office. The industry creates films that it doesn't care if anybody sees, and creates music that it doesn't care if anybody hears. That's the problem, and that's why we're surrounded by crap.
I'll tell you what kind of convenience I want: if I watch a movie that turns out to be deceptively marketed garbage, I don't want to have paid any more than those two hours of my life for the chance. I also want an easily streamlined, audited, and publicly supported way for me to support the artists that I want to encourage to create more things that I want to see. I don't want to be marketed to, I want to be asked, and I want honest recommendations from people who know my tastes enough to think I may like something.
I don't want glorified distributors being able to hold both the artists and the consumers over the barrel to move a product that doesn't even need to be distributed any more. I don't want my culture to be a patchwork of ownership, like the land became. If I hear a song, I can sing a song.
So, basically, I wouldn't happily pay $10 for The Avengers on my television, and at best that would be a partial solution for the industry IMO.
You seem to have a confused message. On the one hand you are arguing that it is futile trying to stop file sharing by linking to dropping music sales. But then you argue that they simply need to make legal consumption convenient: Music is superbly convenient to legally purchase online, with instant gratification.
What you're really demonstrating is that a lot of people simply like things for free. Hopping on the soap box and pontificating how it is everyone else's fault is a ruse that we've seen since the early days of piracy. It is always someone else's fault, and it's always some natural right to have everything for nothing.
What you're really demonstrating is that a lot of people simply like things for free. Hopping on the soap box and pontificating how it is everyone else's fault is a ruse that we've seen since the early days of piracy. It is always someone else's fault, and it's always some natural right to have everything for nothing.
Music is superbly convenient to legally purchase online, with instant gratification.
That is a very recent invention with spotify and the ilk - and even they still have ways to go.
iTunes may seem superficially convenient, but in reality it is only convenient when you already know what you want. Discovery is non-existent, and that's what many people want. And: It is way too expensive. (There, I said it!)
You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph, but: Reality is that people value movies higher than music. $10 for a film is reasonable to most people. $10 for (most) albums is not. $10/month flat for all music is then again in their comfort zone, as demonstrated by spotify et al.
You can now either take the stance of the music industry; i.e. cry, complain and spend all your money on trying to turn back time to the golden 80s - where consumers had little choice other than pay whatever you asked.
Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy.
That is a very recent invention with spotify and the ilk - and even they still have ways to go.
iTunes may seem superficially convenient, but in reality it is only convenient when you already know what you want. Discovery is non-existent, and that's what many people want. And: It is way too expensive. (There, I said it!)
You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph, but: Reality is that people value movies higher than music. $10 for a film is reasonable to most people. $10 for (most) albums is not. $10/month flat for all music is then again in their comfort zone, as demonstrated by spotify et al.
You can now either take the stance of the music industry; i.e. cry, complain and spend all your money on trying to turn back time to the golden 80s - where consumers had little choice other than pay whatever you asked.
Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy.
It is way too expensive
It's hard to compete with $0, which is the price that thieves are willing to pay.
You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph
I'm not in the music industry. I'm not in the movie industry. I would benefit, financially, from piracy by simply engaging in it myself. But, you know, I don't because I can't justify it. I find the arguments that do completely transparent and selfish.
I honestly find these piracy excusing arguments sad for society as a whole: It is the tragedy of the commons, everyone taking a dump in the well simply because they can, making laughable arguments why what they're doing is justified ("If only there was a toilet every 10 feet and someone wiped my arse for me..."). It's hearing a teenager justify why they litter (it's the city's fault and McDonald's fault and their parent's fault and...).
Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy.
Yachts....another adorable excuse for theft.
It's hard to compete with $0, which is the price that thieves are willing to pay.
You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph
I'm not in the music industry. I'm not in the movie industry. I would benefit, financially, from piracy by simply engaging in it myself. But, you know, I don't because I can't justify it. I find the arguments that do completely transparent and selfish.
I honestly find these piracy excusing arguments sad for society as a whole: It is the tragedy of the commons, everyone taking a dump in the well simply because they can, making laughable arguments why what they're doing is justified ("If only there was a toilet every 10 feet and someone wiped my arse for me..."). It's hearing a teenager justify why they litter (it's the city's fault and McDonald's fault and their parent's fault and...).
Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy.
Yachts....another adorable excuse for theft.
Well, Russia watches Game of Thrones and we couldn't if not for pirates.
This makes me un-sad for society as whole. We become richer from piracy than we could be without.
Martin sells much more books in Russia right now than he would without the TV series, and HBO aren't losing money because they don't want our money anyway.
This makes me un-sad for society as whole. We become richer from piracy than we could be without.
Martin sells much more books in Russia right now than he would without the TV series, and HBO aren't losing money because they don't want our money anyway.
The essentials of life -- life, liberty, the Game of Thrones without delay.
Even if I accepted that argument, it has perilously little validity for the majority of participants in English language piracy discussions.
Even if I accepted that argument, it has perilously little validity for the majority of participants in English language piracy discussions.
You say that as if there's a godgiven right for distributors to make money from art that others create, and for said distributors to decide when a given market is allowed to have access to it.
You also seem to assume nobody wants to pay for anything that they can get for free.
Neither is true. People want to support their artists, they just want different infrastructure than what is available today.
Personally I have bought multiple physical books on amazon after reading the pirated ebook. I didn't even bother to unbox them after they arrived. It would have been easier for me if the books had been available on amazon as ebooks in first place.
Likewise, when I hear a song that I like (e.g. on youtube or soundcloud) then often I'd spontaneously tip the artist $1, or $5, or just $0.10 - if only I could.
This all may sound foreign to you, but I promise you this is where we are heading. The new platforms emerge as we speak, and slowly replace the old cruft. Evolution at work; your choice is to either adapt or die, it really is as simple as that.
You also seem to assume nobody wants to pay for anything that they can get for free.
Neither is true. People want to support their artists, they just want different infrastructure than what is available today.
Personally I have bought multiple physical books on amazon after reading the pirated ebook. I didn't even bother to unbox them after they arrived. It would have been easier for me if the books had been available on amazon as ebooks in first place.
Likewise, when I hear a song that I like (e.g. on youtube or soundcloud) then often I'd spontaneously tip the artist $1, or $5, or just $0.10 - if only I could.
This all may sound foreign to you, but I promise you this is where we are heading. The new platforms emerge as we speak, and slowly replace the old cruft. Evolution at work; your choice is to either adapt or die, it really is as simple as that.
>You say that as if there's a godgiven right for distributors to make money from art that others create, and for said distributors to decide when a given market is allowed to have access to it.
No, it's not a god given right. It's a right given to them by the artists. You know, those "other's that create".
No, it's not a god given right. It's a right given to them by the artists. You know, those "other's that create".
The majority of artists seems to be very happy with the emerging distribution methods. You know, the 99% that didn't get a major deal in the past or that have been strangled by buy-out contracts and "less than fair" revenue shares.
If you have other data then I'd be curious to see it. My impression is that complaints only ever originate from mainstream artists, major labels or lobby-groups.
I have yet to see a small band or indy speak up against the demise of the major labels.
If you have other data then I'd be curious to see it. My impression is that complaints only ever originate from mainstream artists, major labels or lobby-groups.
I have yet to see a small band or indy speak up against the demise of the major labels.
Wow, you really are pulling out all the best for this discussion.
"The majority of artists seems to be very happy with the emerging distribution methods."
So why are we even talking about piracy? Clearly these people are pursuing alternative distribution models, relying upon concerts or whatever, etc. Therefore the torrents are full of legally allowed sharing.
That's right, right? Surely it must be.
Of course that's not reality at all. This bullshit Robin Hood act is yet another adorable piracy defense technique.
"The majority of artists seems to be very happy with the emerging distribution methods."
So why are we even talking about piracy? Clearly these people are pursuing alternative distribution models, relying upon concerts or whatever, etc. Therefore the torrents are full of legally allowed sharing.
That's right, right? Surely it must be.
Of course that's not reality at all. This bullshit Robin Hood act is yet another adorable piracy defense technique.
I don't know if you really have a consistent argument here. If the infringed content is so trivial, if it provides zero cultural value at all, why is there a social benefit to legally protecting it? If there is a cultural value, at what point does preventing a group of people from benefiting from the culture become antisocial? Do you think that the current limits are exactly right (and thus, you would oppose an extension to copyright term)?
It's not a question of essentials. It is a question of are we becoming a better society by pirating Game of Thrones? Yes we do.
So you are going to disregard me just like HBO already did. Why should not I?
So you are going to disregard me just like HBO already did. Why should not I?
Downvoted for flamebait, by erroneously calling people thieves.
By the way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira...
By the way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira...
Downvoted for flamebait, by erroneously calling people thieves.
Oh right...piracy isn't theft, right? Physical goods and all. Groan.
There are a world of studies available for consideration. When you see the same study (by the reputable Norwegian School of Business, no less) referenced over, and over, and over again, it is kind of telling.
Oh right...piracy isn't theft, right? Physical goods and all. Groan.
There are a world of studies available for consideration. When you see the same study (by the reputable Norwegian School of Business, no less) referenced over, and over, and over again, it is kind of telling.
It's telling in that nobody pays to show what the industry doesn't want to see.
Oh right...piracy isn't theft, right? Physical goods and all. Groan.
Well, piracy is. "Piracy" isn't, just like rape or murder isn't theft. Good or bad, it's not theft.
Oh right...piracy isn't theft, right? Physical goods and all. Groan.
Well, piracy is. "Piracy" isn't, just like rape or murder isn't theft. Good or bad, it's not theft.
The problem is the basis of the defense of piracy is that it is trivial to copy. Lots of the things are trivial to copy, like your private data.
You don't need to defend free transmission of information. Freedom is the default state. It's the people who want to restrict freedom who have to make their case. And in my opinion their arguments, under the current context, are not strong enough.
Arguments against the copying of private information are.
Arguments against the copying of private information are.
[deleted]
"people simply like things for free"
Maybe those things, objectively, no longer worth as much as they used to twenty years ago?
You can make things free, too, with e.g. ad-supported streaming.
You can make things free, too, with e.g. ad-supported streaming.
it's always some natural right to have everything for nothing
No. It's my natural right to accept what people are voluntarily sharing with me, and to share what I've bought.
No. It's my natural right to accept what people are voluntarily sharing with me, and to share what I've bought.
and to share what I've bought.
Horseshit. It is your right to refuse to purchase things that include sharing clauses you don't like.
The level of discourse on any discussion involving piracy is the bottom of the septic tank, full of some of the most irrationally, short-term entitled nitwits imaginable.
Horseshit. It is your right to refuse to purchase things that include sharing clauses you don't like.
The level of discourse on any discussion involving piracy is the bottom of the septic tank, full of some of the most irrationally, short-term entitled nitwits imaginable.
Abusive terms in contracts can be disregarded. For example, where I live any term saying I have less than two years of warranty in any device I buy can be ignored.
Why do you think seller has rights to force fine print on buyer? Hint: in most jurisdictions on most goods, they can't and trying to do so make them liable.
It isn't fine print.
There are countless indy bands and indy film makers who welcome sharing of their product. Why not stick to that?
There are countless indy bands and indy film makers who welcome sharing of their product. Why not stick to that?
> and most of the people will give up.
And start doing what? Buying all the stuff they were just hoarding because it was "free" and they never were able to afford in the first place? I don't think so. If the effort to get stuff increases above the value of the stuff, they'll simply wait until somebody solves the problem and decreases the effort, so the stuff becomes "free" again.
And start doing what? Buying all the stuff they were just hoarding because it was "free" and they never were able to afford in the first place? I don't think so. If the effort to get stuff increases above the value of the stuff, they'll simply wait until somebody solves the problem and decreases the effort, so the stuff becomes "free" again.
Why make piracy inconvenient ? Why not make legal purchases more convenient instead ?
Why make piracy inconvenient
Anything that slows down the reward. Anything that adds uncertainty (trojans, viruses -- I honestly believe that those who pirate executables are generally imbeciles, though it's humorous hearing them try to cast their desperate hopes with realities -- the possibility of a lawsuit appearing).
Why not make legal purchases more convenient instead ?
Like Steam? Origin? iTunes? Amazon? It isn't an either situation, and never has been.
Anything that slows down the reward. Anything that adds uncertainty (trojans, viruses -- I honestly believe that those who pirate executables are generally imbeciles, though it's humorous hearing them try to cast their desperate hopes with realities -- the possibility of a lawsuit appearing).
Why not make legal purchases more convenient instead ?
Like Steam? Origin? iTunes? Amazon? It isn't an either situation, and never has been.
I'm well aware of that example of extraordinary entitlement (I pay for HBO and streamed both seasons to today legally and with immediate gratification. Justifiers always need to add layers to their excuses though). Further it's a convenient argument that many pirates use when the situation merits it -- how many of those people demanding easy purchases of DRM free music on Slashdot back in the day actually gave up on pirating once it was readily available? Instead they found the next argument to justify theft.
"how many of those people demanding easy purchases of DRM free music on Slashdot back in the day actually gave up on pirating once it was readily available?"
Numbers say, a lot of them did.
Paid digital downloads are growing and legal video streaming rivals bittorrent.
Can you prove that somebody who demanded drm-free mp3s later found the next argument? Do you have some kind of examples, some kind of proof, or are you behaving the same way your opponents do: never quit bitching as your wishes getting fulfilled one by one?
Numbers say, a lot of them did.
Paid digital downloads are growing and legal video streaming rivals bittorrent.
Can you prove that somebody who demanded drm-free mp3s later found the next argument? Do you have some kind of examples, some kind of proof, or are you behaving the same way your opponents do: never quit bitching as your wishes getting fulfilled one by one?
Numbers say, a lot of them did.
Numbers say the exact opposite: Digital sales have barely touched lost physical media sales. Lots of people who previously purchased their music of course buy it digitally now, no surprise there.
It is the robustness of the argument that demonstrates the legitimacy of the argument. Most pro-piracy spiels are tissue-thin, and only go undemolished because so many others like the comforting notion that what they're doing is somehow good. You see that sort of invented reality even on sites like HN because piracy discussions have a unhealthy draw for those who rely upon easy piracy (this particular topic has no interest for most readers, but for people who rely upon torrents it is a very crucial topic for them to try to spin a reality in)
Numbers say the exact opposite: Digital sales have barely touched lost physical media sales. Lots of people who previously purchased their music of course buy it digitally now, no surprise there.
It is the robustness of the argument that demonstrates the legitimacy of the argument. Most pro-piracy spiels are tissue-thin, and only go undemolished because so many others like the comforting notion that what they're doing is somehow good. You see that sort of invented reality even on sites like HN because piracy discussions have a unhealthy draw for those who rely upon easy piracy (this particular topic has no interest for most readers, but for people who rely upon torrents it is a very crucial topic for them to try to spin a reality in)
Digital sales have barely touched lost physical media sales.
Then perhaps the digital offerings are not good enough yet?
It is the robustness of the argument [...]
It is also the ratio of polemics to facts.
Your arguments might be better received if you you backed your opinion with a proposal for a solution instead of paragraphs of undirected ranting against the "evil, immoral pirates".
We all understand by now that you insist on reality being unfair.
So, how do you sell fish to the coast city?
Attempting to block the citizen's access to the ocean is demonstrably not working very well.
My proposal is to make our fish cheaper and have it delivered to your door. So convenient that almost nobody bothers to walk to the beach and catch their own anymore. We are not there yet, not even close. I also propose to take the expensive truck-drivers out of the equation, because nowadays we can magically beam our fish to your doorstep at zero cost.
What is yours? Nuke the ocean from orbit to keep the truck-drivers employed?
Then perhaps the digital offerings are not good enough yet?
It is the robustness of the argument [...]
It is also the ratio of polemics to facts.
Your arguments might be better received if you you backed your opinion with a proposal for a solution instead of paragraphs of undirected ranting against the "evil, immoral pirates".
We all understand by now that you insist on reality being unfair.
So, how do you sell fish to the coast city?
Attempting to block the citizen's access to the ocean is demonstrably not working very well.
My proposal is to make our fish cheaper and have it delivered to your door. So convenient that almost nobody bothers to walk to the beach and catch their own anymore. We are not there yet, not even close. I also propose to take the expensive truck-drivers out of the equation, because nowadays we can magically beam our fish to your doorstep at zero cost.
What is yours? Nuke the ocean from orbit to keep the truck-drivers employed?
"Digital sales have barely touched lost physical media sales"
Why do they feel entitled for the same amount of money regardless?
What makes them think they'll get the same money even if there would not be a single pirate? People experience less new music, people need even less mainstream music, other entertainment ate the pie. Games, TV shows, they all steal from the same pool.
Why do they feel entitled for the same amount of money regardless?
What makes them think they'll get the same money even if there would not be a single pirate? People experience less new music, people need even less mainstream music, other entertainment ate the pie. Games, TV shows, they all steal from the same pool.
I'm not against that, of course.
But if both are equally convenient, then the zero cost (piracy) will probably win.
So the big media also have to make piracy inconvenient.
Changing their methods to be more convenient also take huge amounts of money and time. One example: worldwide, simultaneous distribution of a movie, probably needs tons of contracts with resellers, local networks, etc renegotiated. Plus changes in accounting, etc -- whereas fighting piracy just takes some lobbying money, a few crappy DRM add-ons, and lame FBI warning videos...
But if both are equally convenient, then the zero cost (piracy) will probably win.
So the big media also have to make piracy inconvenient.
Changing their methods to be more convenient also take huge amounts of money and time. One example: worldwide, simultaneous distribution of a movie, probably needs tons of contracts with resellers, local networks, etc renegotiated. Plus changes in accounting, etc -- whereas fighting piracy just takes some lobbying money, a few crappy DRM add-ons, and lame FBI warning videos...
Plus: piracy will always be more convenient, because even with everything else being exactly the same, you have the paying step at the end in commercial site, whereas you just download away on the piracy site.
It is not true, Apple proved otherwise.
Apple proved what exactly? That's far from equal.
I din't dispute that music purchases can be made EASY. Or that current piracy methods are or can be hard.
What I said is --and it's mere logic, it cannot be disproven--, that piracy will always have the option to be ONE STEP EASIER, i.e omit the paying step.
People say that you don't have to fight piracy, just make buying easier. And I say that if you don't fight piracy and just let it be, then at best you get, say:
a) a piracy service b) a commercial service
Since we "don't fight piracy", nothing prevents the piracy service to offer whatever the commercial service does, from streaming to high quality lose-less files, to a great UI, to being totally free and even without ads.
But the commercial service must always have the buying step (enter credit card details etc), plus all the legal and logistical necessities.
I din't dispute that music purchases can be made EASY. Or that current piracy methods are or can be hard.
What I said is --and it's mere logic, it cannot be disproven--, that piracy will always have the option to be ONE STEP EASIER, i.e omit the paying step.
People say that you don't have to fight piracy, just make buying easier. And I say that if you don't fight piracy and just let it be, then at best you get, say:
a) a piracy service b) a commercial service
Since we "don't fight piracy", nothing prevents the piracy service to offer whatever the commercial service does, from streaming to high quality lose-less files, to a great UI, to being totally free and even without ads.
But the commercial service must always have the buying step (enter credit card details etc), plus all the legal and logistical necessities.
They can offer better service because they a) have incentive to do so (pirates - not really, good enough works for them), and b) they can haz cooperation from the makers of the content.
Google learns, so the amount of links from Megaupload or pages with Megaupload links in the search results is almost zero by now.
And this guys are probably going to become the center of DDOS attacks and legal conflicts, making their business model even less profitable.
And this guys are probably going to become the center of DDOS attacks and legal conflicts, making their business model even less profitable.
A Google search for [“Vysotsky. Thanks to God, I’m alive”] returns 13 hits, all about this start-up.
Searching for [“Vysotsky" Thanks to God, I’m alive] returns some more hits about the film, including some Youtube copy-vios.
Searching for ["Vysotsky" amazon] returns a bunch of out-of-stock items.
Sony - I want to pay for this. I want to give you my money. I want to buy this film. I want to buy many films, especially if they're not mindless blockbusters. You need to learn how to make search engines work and you need to make the official site have some kind of link to sales.
Searching for [“Vysotsky" Thanks to God, I’m alive] returns some more hits about the film, including some Youtube copy-vios.
Searching for ["Vysotsky" amazon] returns a bunch of out-of-stock items.
Sony - I want to pay for this. I want to give you my money. I want to buy this film. I want to buy many films, especially if they're not mindless blockbusters. You need to learn how to make search engines work and you need to make the official site have some kind of link to sales.
The first hit in bing for “Vysotsky. Thanks to God, I’m alive" is a link to http://www.visotsky-film.ru/ which seems relevant. Its probably google personalizing your search result to exclude a russian film
Worth wondering whether films that they protect using anti-pirating measures might take a hit on sales. Difficult to test, because if a film's likely to be successful, people are likely to find ways to pirate it successfully.
In fact your main problem would not be the copyright protection, rather than that you will have hard time finding subtitles or translation for it.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=высоцкий.+спасибо+что+живой
> I want to buy this film.
No, you don't. It is of a very little interest to anyone outside of a Russian demographic circle.
> I want to buy this film.
No, you don't. It is of a very little interest to anyone outside of a Russian demographic circle.
"44,845 transfers" were 'successfully stopped', according to this article, at a cost of anywhere between $12-50k.
Assuming $50k, that would put it at a cost of approx $1.10 per 'stopped' transfer. With the caveat that they've no idea if the 'stopped' transfers just resumed later on. That seems like wasted money.
Now, it'd be interesting to see what they could do to get nearly fifty thousand extra sales at a similar or proportionate expense.
Assuming $50k, that would put it at a cost of approx $1.10 per 'stopped' transfer. With the caveat that they've no idea if the 'stopped' transfers just resumed later on. That seems like wasted money.
Now, it'd be interesting to see what they could do to get nearly fifty thousand extra sales at a similar or proportionate expense.
This is what I don't understand about the anti-piracy interest group. Piracy is simply competition. These prevention tactics tell me, the consumer, that this company believes it cannot compete on any level with the ease and availability of pirating content. If they stop all pirating everywhere, will it force me to buy content through their (less than amazing services)? Maybe a little. Is it possible to stop all pirating everywhere? I doubt it.
In other words, where is the "piracy killer" service that is so awesome, I give someone my money and stop pirating? Hulu? Load of crap. Netflix? It's okay, I guess. Steam? Ok, so there's one.
In other words, where is the "piracy killer" service that is so awesome, I give someone my money and stop pirating? Hulu? Load of crap. Netflix? It's okay, I guess. Steam? Ok, so there's one.
> These prevention tactics tell me, the consumer, that this company believes it cannot compete on any level with the ease and availability of pirating content
of course they can't! Piracy has one major value to people that engage in piracy: it allows people to acquire content without abiding by the acquisition policy set out by the content distributors. It's "competition" in the same way that it's "competition" when 1 athlete in an Olympic running event is taking steroids and has jet boots on. You can't treat piracy as fair competition.
Most people don't pirate out of a "It's too difficult for me to buy this song via itunes", they pirate because they don't want to spend money. Content distributors can't compete with that, even with services like Netflix and Hulu people still pirate because they don't like adverts. If they are unwilling to pay and unwilling to view adverts what other options are there besides just giving away content for free? People that pirate (in general) want content without compromising on the way they want it, while piracy exists these people will continue to pirate.
of course they can't! Piracy has one major value to people that engage in piracy: it allows people to acquire content without abiding by the acquisition policy set out by the content distributors. It's "competition" in the same way that it's "competition" when 1 athlete in an Olympic running event is taking steroids and has jet boots on. You can't treat piracy as fair competition.
Most people don't pirate out of a "It's too difficult for me to buy this song via itunes", they pirate because they don't want to spend money. Content distributors can't compete with that, even with services like Netflix and Hulu people still pirate because they don't like adverts. If they are unwilling to pay and unwilling to view adverts what other options are there besides just giving away content for free? People that pirate (in general) want content without compromising on the way they want it, while piracy exists these people will continue to pirate.
'Fair'? That seems an invalid concept here. What is 'fairness', assuming a strict copyright system? -- it is a race with the qualifying runner, but where no others are allowed to run! That is a strange notion of fairness.
But 'fairness' is just a diversion: these copyright trade monopolies are supposed to prevent competition (of distribution), that is their point. That is how they increase one kind of revenue and so supposedly increase production.
When non rights-holders are copying/distributing it is competition de facto -- according only to the basic rules of physics. And it can therefore be an important signal: because what is basically physically possible is what the economy should really be aiming for. If people can distribute informational goods themselves better than the authorised channels, those channels are clearly underachieving according to the real baseline measure.
But 'fairness' is just a diversion: these copyright trade monopolies are supposed to prevent competition (of distribution), that is their point. That is how they increase one kind of revenue and so supposedly increase production.
When non rights-holders are copying/distributing it is competition de facto -- according only to the basic rules of physics. And it can therefore be an important signal: because what is basically physically possible is what the economy should really be aiming for. If people can distribute informational goods themselves better than the authorised channels, those channels are clearly underachieving according to the real baseline measure.
Fair is when the people that own content control that content. It's not a difficult concept.
How so? I would see it as a lot fairer if we'd all follow a liberal approach:
Die Gedanken sind frei.
I can't force you to give me things.
But neither can you stop me from sharing them.
Die Gedanken sind frei.
"Your right ends where another's right begins."
It's 'fair' for you to have control over your content, as much as it's 'fair' for me to have control over how I can share, remix and improve and the content I bought.
When your right conflicts with my right, then I don't it's fair for you to make it illegal for me to improve and share the content created by your grandparent 90 years ago.
Short version, the world is not as simply black or white as you'd like to believe.
It's 'fair' for you to have control over your content, as much as it's 'fair' for me to have control over how I can share, remix and improve and the content I bought.
When your right conflicts with my right, then I don't it's fair for you to make it illegal for me to improve and share the content created by your grandparent 90 years ago.
Short version, the world is not as simply black or white as you'd like to believe.
"Most people don't pirate out of a "It's too difficult for me to buy this song via itunes", they pirate because they don't want to spend money"
Therefore, ad-supported streaming services exist.
The only reason why ad-supported streaming services aren't the king is because they can't stream every content. That lands us back on availability problem. Copyright holders can not figure it out.
Therefore, ad-supported streaming services exist.
The only reason why ad-supported streaming services aren't the king is because they can't stream every content. That lands us back on availability problem. Copyright holders can not figure it out.
That's a nice cutesy view, but it's wrong. Lots of people refuse to use advert supported streaming services because they don't want to stream and they hate adverts. Content owners can't win. Just check reddit sometime, it's depressing how demanding people are.
Nobody is saying that there is one true model and all the others are wrong. That's kind of the point actually -- people turn to piracy for all different reasons. Some because they don't want to pay (so offer ad supported streaming), some because they don't like unskippable ads (so offer pay-to-download services with no ads), some because of availability (so make sure everything is available on both the ad supported streaming and pay-to-download services), etc.
Complaining that customers are demanding is just sour grapes. Customers are always demanding; welcome to capitalism. You either provide what the market wants, or somebody else does.
Complaining that customers are demanding is just sour grapes. Customers are always demanding; welcome to capitalism. You either provide what the market wants, or somebody else does.
> Complaining that customers are demanding is just sour grapes. Customers are always demanding; welcome to capitalism. You either provide what the market wants, or somebody else does.
That's the entire damn problem with piracy. Nobody else is providing them with "what the market wants", someone else is TAKING another businesses product and then distributing it themselves.
I mean sure, if people wanted to watch the latest episode of Game of Thrones but couldn't because it wasn't available to them (or they were unhappy with the terms) and someone else then said "I have a series like Game of Thrones and it's free!" THAT would be "somebody else" providing what the market want, but it isn't.
comparing physical and digital products is never 100% accurate, so forgive me for this, but if a Ferrari dealership charges $100,000 for a car and someone steals one and offers it for free, that isn't "someone else providing what the market wants", it isn't capitalism... it's someone stealing.
That's the entire damn problem with piracy. Nobody else is providing them with "what the market wants", someone else is TAKING another businesses product and then distributing it themselves.
I mean sure, if people wanted to watch the latest episode of Game of Thrones but couldn't because it wasn't available to them (or they were unhappy with the terms) and someone else then said "I have a series like Game of Thrones and it's free!" THAT would be "somebody else" providing what the market want, but it isn't.
comparing physical and digital products is never 100% accurate, so forgive me for this, but if a Ferrari dealership charges $100,000 for a car and someone steals one and offers it for free, that isn't "someone else providing what the market wants", it isn't capitalism... it's someone stealing.
>I mean sure, if people wanted to watch the latest episode of Game of Thrones but couldn't because it wasn't available to them (or they were unhappy with the terms) and someone else then said "I have a series like Game of Thrones and it's free!" THAT would be "somebody else" providing what the market want, but it isn't.
Here's what I'm saying: If HBO is offering Game of Thrones on HBO.com to anyone willing to pay $10 (or whatever) for it, and The Pirate Bay is offering it for $0, probably some people are still going to go to The Pirate Bay and get it for $0 instead of paying $10 for it. And that sucks; it would be nice if we could wave a magic wand and make it stop without impacting millions of innocent people, but we can't.
However, if you go to HBO.com and there is no reasonable way for you to insert cash and watch video, far more people are going to end up at The Pirate Bay than would if the show was available on the official website. And that is something we can easily do something about. So isn't it better to adopt the solutions that actually reduce the problem than to sit around complaining how unfair it is while unnecessarily losing a bunch of would-be customers?
Here's what I'm saying: If HBO is offering Game of Thrones on HBO.com to anyone willing to pay $10 (or whatever) for it, and The Pirate Bay is offering it for $0, probably some people are still going to go to The Pirate Bay and get it for $0 instead of paying $10 for it. And that sucks; it would be nice if we could wave a magic wand and make it stop without impacting millions of innocent people, but we can't.
However, if you go to HBO.com and there is no reasonable way for you to insert cash and watch video, far more people are going to end up at The Pirate Bay than would if the show was available on the official website. And that is something we can easily do something about. So isn't it better to adopt the solutions that actually reduce the problem than to sit around complaining how unfair it is while unnecessarily losing a bunch of would-be customers?
But what if someone buys a Ferrari for 80,000$ in another country, drives it thru the border and sells it to you for 90,000$?
You know, they (official distributor of Ferrari) consider it piracy too, and they sue that guy for trademark infringement.
Therefore, we are not going to buy your argument.
What if you want some product from USA, and you live on one of countries USA chooses to BULLY for no apparent reason (think Cuba), and you buy the product somewhere and smuggle it home? Is it morally wrong? I will say it isn't.
Therefore, we are not going to buy your argument.
Therefore, we are not going to buy your argument.
What if you want some product from USA, and you live on one of countries USA chooses to BULLY for no apparent reason (think Cuba), and you buy the product somewhere and smuggle it home? Is it morally wrong? I will say it isn't.
Therefore, we are not going to buy your argument.
You're missing the entire point of the Ferrari argument. If you bought a Ferrari and the agreement with your purchase said "You must not resell this car" then morally you would be wrong re-selling it, because you were told not to. If you don't agree with the clause that says you can't resell it then you shouldn't buy it.
Please tell me you are joking.
The law is not a moral authority, and attempting to presenting it as such is one of the most disingenuous fallacies in existence.
Something is never wrong because it's against the law. Ideally, something is against the law because it is wrong, but that's not always the case.
When I buy a physical good, such as a Ferrari, there's nobody who can tell me what the fuck I can do with it. For all the seller cares I could drive it repeatedly against the nearest wall, then set it on fire. Same goes for selling it. I do not see myself obliged to answer to any authority on what I can do with my property.
The law is not a moral authority, and attempting to presenting it as such is one of the most disingenuous fallacies in existence.
Something is never wrong because it's against the law. Ideally, something is against the law because it is wrong, but that's not always the case.
When I buy a physical good, such as a Ferrari, there's nobody who can tell me what the fuck I can do with it. For all the seller cares I could drive it repeatedly against the nearest wall, then set it on fire. Same goes for selling it. I do not see myself obliged to answer to any authority on what I can do with my property.
The basic law says I can sell a property of mine; and it says it is illegal to sell me things while demanding to not to resell those.
The problem is, copyright law says I have no rights and copyright holders have any rights they want to impose over me. Sorry guys, it's not a good offer.
The problem is, copyright law says I have no rights and copyright holders have any rights they want to impose over me. Sorry guys, it's not a good offer.
Content owners may not be able to 'win' against piracy, as there's no way it can be feasibly eradicated, but it's not at all impossible to at least try and lessen the impact of it on the business.
Such ingenuity is incompatible with the entrenched industry's old-school way of thinking, though. They want it their way, how it's always been.
The consumer is moving at a much faster pace, willing to consume content in different and often more convenient ways. They use the internet, which is global, and want to consume content that is still arbitrarily restricted to national boundaries. This is a demand that has yet to be legitimately satisfied, and thus naturally, the consumer becomes demanding.
Unfortunately, the industry is determined to defend itself from a changing world, instead of embracing it. DRM, unskippable piracy warnings, local content restrictions, etc. are all manifestations of such a practice, and all of which actively punish the legitimate customer.
The internet, and everything it has enabled, is still pretty new. In some ways, this resistance to change isn't surprising, and it's easy to be a commentator on the sidelines. It'd be better to reflect on it with the benefit of hindsight.
Such ingenuity is incompatible with the entrenched industry's old-school way of thinking, though. They want it their way, how it's always been.
The consumer is moving at a much faster pace, willing to consume content in different and often more convenient ways. They use the internet, which is global, and want to consume content that is still arbitrarily restricted to national boundaries. This is a demand that has yet to be legitimately satisfied, and thus naturally, the consumer becomes demanding.
Unfortunately, the industry is determined to defend itself from a changing world, instead of embracing it. DRM, unskippable piracy warnings, local content restrictions, etc. are all manifestations of such a practice, and all of which actively punish the legitimate customer.
The internet, and everything it has enabled, is still pretty new. In some ways, this resistance to change isn't surprising, and it's easy to be a commentator on the sidelines. It'd be better to reflect on it with the benefit of hindsight.
If they hate adverts they would not use common bittorrent sites because they are ridden with terrible, annoying ads. Pirates are ad supported too!
Streaming is what people actually want half of the time. It's convenient. But the whole talk is baseless as long as streaming services can't make the same offering pirates do.
Streaming is what people actually want half of the time. It's convenient. But the whole talk is baseless as long as streaming services can't make the same offering pirates do.
Well, noone who wants to be paid for their work can compete against piracy.
That's just not true. People who want to be paid for their work need to let go of the idea of selling copies and embrace the idea of servicing their media to the public. Every amount of friction between the consumer and the content is at play -- quality, morality, reliability, legality, and so on.
Region locking your content, pumping it with unskippable ads and legal threats, releasing it arbitrarily in certain countries... are all practices which serve to alienate the consumer. These are pervasive in the content industry, and you couldn't honestly say they're even trying to compete with piracy with such stubbornness.
Region locking your content, pumping it with unskippable ads and legal threats, releasing it arbitrarily in certain countries... are all practices which serve to alienate the consumer. These are pervasive in the content industry, and you couldn't honestly say they're even trying to compete with piracy with such stubbornness.
The idea that you should "compete" with pirates is absurd logic that is a product cognitive dissonance. I'm all for improving the quality of service that companies provide, but at the end of the day content is content, and must be paid for by consumers or advertisers or you would see a _drastic_ drop in the quantity and quality of content produced.
If you defend a site like the pirate bay's right to enable the distribution of pirate content, then you are also defending their right to upgrade their service and make it just as good as Steam or Netflix or whatever... all things being equal, you can't compete with free.(the content industry understands this which is why they fight for measures that make piracy less convenient and constantly reminds you that piracy is "wrong".).
If you defend a site like the pirate bay's right to enable the distribution of pirate content, then you are also defending their right to upgrade their service and make it just as good as Steam or Netflix or whatever... all things being equal, you can't compete with free.(the content industry understands this which is why they fight for measures that make piracy less convenient and constantly reminds you that piracy is "wrong".).
Competing with piracy is not exclusively about providing a cheaper service, but about providing a more valuable service. I don't understand why you think competing with piracy would be some tacit approval of commercial exploitation of piracy -- which is where the law should draw the line (for as long as practical). This hole in your logic underlies your entire retort.
For instance:
> but at the end of the day content is content, and must be paid for by consumers or advertisers or you would see a _drastic_ drop in the quantity and quality of content produced.
Why do you assume providing a better service to your customers means handing out content for free? If pirates can provide a better service for free, why are you providing a worse service at all? If anything, you should be giving people their money's worth or better. This is my point: they are doing _nothing_ to drive customers away from piracy. I'm not even talking about lowering costs.
In light of this, I found it hilarious for you to say:
> (the content industry understands this which is why they fight for measures that make piracy less convenient and constantly reminds you that piracy is "wrong".).
It is interesting that in your list of content industry "responses" you forgot to mention the things they do to make legitimately purchasing/enjoying their content less convenient. On the contrary, they have done little to make piracy less convenient. We're talking about stuff that has no effect on their profit margins or business model, that they do anyway.
In that sense and context is where we state "compete", so no, it is not born out of cognitive dissonance. Replace that with desperation and you might be closer. In the end, competing with piracy as a service is only part of the battle. Alternative models for subsidizing content production will have to be embraced eventually, but I'll leave those discussions for a rainy day.
For instance:
> but at the end of the day content is content, and must be paid for by consumers or advertisers or you would see a _drastic_ drop in the quantity and quality of content produced.
Why do you assume providing a better service to your customers means handing out content for free? If pirates can provide a better service for free, why are you providing a worse service at all? If anything, you should be giving people their money's worth or better. This is my point: they are doing _nothing_ to drive customers away from piracy. I'm not even talking about lowering costs.
In light of this, I found it hilarious for you to say:
> (the content industry understands this which is why they fight for measures that make piracy less convenient and constantly reminds you that piracy is "wrong".).
It is interesting that in your list of content industry "responses" you forgot to mention the things they do to make legitimately purchasing/enjoying their content less convenient. On the contrary, they have done little to make piracy less convenient. We're talking about stuff that has no effect on their profit margins or business model, that they do anyway.
In that sense and context is where we state "compete", so no, it is not born out of cognitive dissonance. Replace that with desperation and you might be closer. In the end, competing with piracy as a service is only part of the battle. Alternative models for subsidizing content production will have to be embraced eventually, but I'll leave those discussions for a rainy day.
I think "competing with piracy" is pretty stupid phrase that legitimizes piracy. I could care less if people pirate(for whatever reason), but they shouldn't pretend that it's ethical. Or that trying to curb piracy is a bad thing.
The big content industry maximizes profit, not consumer surplus. When the profit equation changes, you better believe their practices will change. Is it ethical to maximize profit? Probably not, but that doesn't make piracy OK either. The vast majority of the things they do are mildly annoying at best.
Truthfully it's not the piracy that bothers me, just the hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance that I see all the time when piracy is discussed online. You want to pirate photoshop? Go ahead, nobody cares, don't pretend that adobe has greatly wronged you so it's only fair that you use photoshop for free though.
The big content industry maximizes profit, not consumer surplus. When the profit equation changes, you better believe their practices will change. Is it ethical to maximize profit? Probably not, but that doesn't make piracy OK either. The vast majority of the things they do are mildly annoying at best.
Truthfully it's not the piracy that bothers me, just the hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance that I see all the time when piracy is discussed online. You want to pirate photoshop? Go ahead, nobody cares, don't pretend that adobe has greatly wronged you so it's only fair that you use photoshop for free though.
"Competing with piracy" is not a phrase that legitimizes it, it's one that acknowledges it (and the technological changes that surround it). Looking at it through cynical eyes is not very constructive.
I don't think I've ever heard it said before Gabe Newell either, and he stands to lose a lot from piracy and not much to gain pandering to entitled brats.
I don't think I've ever heard it said before Gabe Newell either, and he stands to lose a lot from piracy and not much to gain pandering to entitled brats.
What if we acknowledge this point but aren't afraid of consequences?
Music quality fell sharp before the internet piracy; TV series quality stand high; movies are mixed bag but you have more luck with non-mainstream.
I don't see how it would all suddently collapse and I'm willing to risk.
If I'm reading this correctly the software attacks ordinary peoples PCs to prevent them seeding a specific file (by spoofing other peoples IPs?). Anybody want to guess how many laws they could potentially be breaking in Europe and the US?
In Russia they're breaking the laws too.
I wasn't suggesting Russia didn't have laws against cyber crime. I'm just not familiar with them. It'll be interesting what the legal ramifications will be be if this service gets more traction and customers.
Sounds like network traffic intefering to me. Which is illegal at least in Finland.
Interestingly, if this would be widely deployed, it would probably result in adaptations to the BitTorrent protocol being developed to counteract this technique. Just look at the history of Distributed Hash Tables and Magnet links. Ironically, rather than stopping people from pirating content, they are actually spending money to make BitTorrent more resilient. While this will surely come in handy when SkyNet finally takes over, I'm sure the money would indeed be better spent on more competitive products and services.
I wonder how would this "wonderful" technology would perform in private torrent networks. Also I think it would be relatively easy to build protection against this kind of an attack also I wonder if doing this is legal in the first place...
These studios should spend their money on competing with torrent networks rather than always trying to destroy them.
Just create a descent media streaming service that makes accessing content easier and faster and most people will probably ditch torrent. To me my time is worth a lot, when I hunt down a movie on the internet it takes my time away and by extension my money(time = money) if the media companies would help me out with this, and offer a service where I could get anything in no time, I would gladly pay them for the time they saved me.
These studios should spend their money on competing with torrent networks rather than always trying to destroy them.
Just create a descent media streaming service that makes accessing content easier and faster and most people will probably ditch torrent. To me my time is worth a lot, when I hunt down a movie on the internet it takes my time away and by extension my money(time = money) if the media companies would help me out with this, and offer a service where I could get anything in no time, I would gladly pay them for the time they saved me.
It is old news, and the technology revolves around extracting extra money from IP holders while disrupting a small number of transfers on selected files.
Consider skipping.
Consider skipping.
Given how Russian internet is structured it may actually work. I mean the small number might become not so small. You can relatively easy (given the appropriate administrative support) break the download for 1M people at once (a whole city) from a single server.
The upside of this is that you can easily get 20-30Mbit for $20-30/mo from 3-4 competing ISPs in a relatively large city.
The upside of this is that you can easily get 20-30Mbit for $20-30/mo from 3-4 competing ISPs in a relatively large city.
It would not because users will immediately switch to ipv6, vpns, encryption, private trackers, other protocols.
Sites that actually provide competitive service (like ivi.ru) pose much larger threat to piracy.
Sites that actually provide competitive service (like ivi.ru) pose much larger threat to piracy.
All these sites (like IVI and the likes) share the same, very limited, library of content. It is like 10% of Netflix/Hulu, or even less. But potentially sure, I agree.
Of course they would never gather a decent library of rarer, older or foreign content. Just torrent that, nobody cares.
Also, given administrative support you can simply cap the outgoing traffic to one tenth of incoming. Nobody can seed efficiently any more, so the whole experience becomes suboptimal.
this will cap everything else, HTTP uploads, Dropboxes of all kinds, etc.
Since when does "administrative support" care about those things? :)
Hardly the holy grail they're talking about. The fatal flaw is as soon as you close you one door, the pirates are already looking for 10 other ways to get around your technology.
Case in point? Look at how many times they've tried to shut down Pirate Bay. They just keep re-tooling and continue on.
Case in point? Look at how many times they've tried to shut down Pirate Bay. They just keep re-tooling and continue on.
How is this not a computer crime?
I was thinking the same. How is this not a blatant violation of CFAA 1030(a)(5)?:
(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#a_5
(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#a_5
Based on the description of the product, it sounds like it performs man in the middle attacks on BitTorrent trackers or an attack on the Peer Exchange feature of some clients. I am willing to bet that either TLS-enabled trackers or disabling PEX would be all that are needed to get around this.
Now if only there was an easy way for me to all but kill BT on my own LAN, so my roommates stop using up all my upstream bandwidth, and so I don't start getting nastygrams from my ISP because of them once they start doing that in July. As a network admin, BT sucks!
Back a few years ago when I was the net admin for our small company, my boss asked me how to set up his home network so that his daughter could not access games or chat or whatever kids do that parents don't approve of.
My answer to him is the same advice I offer to you: don't try to use technology to solve a social problem. In his case, I know for certain that his daughter has a lot more free time to think of ways to circumvent the restriction, and he has less time to think of, and then implement, new firewalls.
I don't know your situation, but I would be willing to bet a compassionate plea to only torrent during off-peak hours, or to set the upstream throttle on their client would go a lot further than trying to "kill BT".
Of course, having said all of that, controlling bandwidth usage is a slightly different use case than trying to prevent certain content from entering/exiting the network. If you are having a problem with one peer using too many resources, I would think IP throttling would solve that problem (presuming the softer social strategies didn't pan out).
My answer to him is the same advice I offer to you: don't try to use technology to solve a social problem. In his case, I know for certain that his daughter has a lot more free time to think of ways to circumvent the restriction, and he has less time to think of, and then implement, new firewalls.
I don't know your situation, but I would be willing to bet a compassionate plea to only torrent during off-peak hours, or to set the upstream throttle on their client would go a lot further than trying to "kill BT".
Of course, having said all of that, controlling bandwidth usage is a slightly different use case than trying to prevent certain content from entering/exiting the network. If you are having a problem with one peer using too many resources, I would think IP throttling would solve that problem (presuming the softer social strategies didn't pan out).
The main problem is they can't be bothered to figure out how newsgroups work, or pay a little money for the privilege of using a less network-intensive protocol with better performance. BitTorrent is just a drain on the network, and makes things like gaming impractical no matter how much you throttle it (though it certainly helps a lot). And people often leave it running for long periods out of civic duty.
IP throttling isn't specific enough. I don't need to throttle an HTTP download that's going to be done in a few minutes. I just want BT to die on my network, at least when I want the resources free for other use.
/rant
IP throttling isn't specific enough. I don't need to throttle an HTTP download that's going to be done in a few minutes. I just want BT to die on my network, at least when I want the resources free for other use.
/rant
Even if I couldn't download movies, I wouldn't buy blu-rays and I would continue watching movies in theaters only in some festivals like Berlinale or HIFF. Same losses for the industry. Money well spent.
Microsoft "investing" $100,000 is like you giving $1 (insert small denomination currency of your choice) to a beggar. They're not stupid. They know there is a relatively short expiration on this technology, so they probably reason they can make it difficult enough for maybe 500 people to pirate copies of Windows and Office that they'll buy them.
They may not even think that, and this is the old Microsoft strategy of structuring a contract in such a way that they now secretly own all of your technology.
They may not even think that, and this is the old Microsoft strategy of structuring a contract in such a way that they now secretly own all of your technology.
[deleted]
If I were trying to break a torrent, I'd put thousands of peers in the swarm and share bad data.
I'm all for the culture spammers getting better at busting p2p, so p2p gets better and subverting the culture spammers.
I'm all for the culture spammers getting better at busting p2p, so p2p gets better and subverting the culture spammers.
Sending bad data won't prevent anything either, It will merely slow down the peers by wasting bandwidth.
Torrents by nature work against bad data being received by hash checking each chunk of data. (You can't trust anyone on the internet). Most clients would simply block each "bad" peer after several bad chunks.
Torrents by nature work against bad data being received by hash checking each chunk of data. (You can't trust anyone on the internet). Most clients would simply block each "bad" peer after several bad chunks.
[deleted]
It's another whack-a-mole job.
People will just tunnel a new internet through the old one based on peer trust and this is instantly no longer an issue.
People will just tunnel a new internet through the old one based on peer trust and this is instantly no longer an issue.
$100,000 of seed funding. I wonder what share of the company they gave up for this. Heavily funded anti-piracy agencies are almost guaranteed to make this a good investment.
smarter mousetrap, smarter mouse. it's pirate pay vs. the internet. man, I would not want to be them.
This behaviour will push file sharing further into anonymised and encrypted networks, which will push down the statistics of files shared online as they are based on what can be measured.
So the upshot will be that visible torrents will fall, allowing the company to claim success, even while they are making it harder for the people who are paying them to have any clue about the actual situation on the ground.
If there wasn't a slew of technologies waiting in the wings as drop in replacements, this kind of approach would have some success, but there is, so it probably wont.
So the upshot will be that visible torrents will fall, allowing the company to claim success, even while they are making it harder for the people who are paying them to have any clue about the actual situation on the ground.
If there wasn't a slew of technologies waiting in the wings as drop in replacements, this kind of approach would have some success, but there is, so it probably wont.
In one corner of the ring we have the content industry which seems to care far more about chasing pirates than with making life nice for the people who will actually pay them. Customers who play by the rules are "rewarded" with region coding, DRM, and lots of arbitrary restrictions.
In the other corner are people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything. When confronted with with the moral/economic questionability of this approach, they have an extensive set of indignant rationalizations prepared; some of these are true but irrelevant to helping content creators get paid ("record companies are dinosaurs"), some of these are wishful thinking ("they can make money in other ways"), all of these are fronts for the fact that they just like getting things for free.
In another corner are governments and law enforcement which are gung-ho about legislating against piracy and prosecuting it, without understanding or properly considering the ramifications (see SOPA).
The good guys are: people who will pay a reasonable fee or watch a small/reasonable amount of advertising to consume the content they like, content creators who release their stuff in a convenient way without requiring an absurd amount of control, tech companies that are providing media services that strike a balance between creators and consumers (DRM-free Amazon, Google Play, Apple iTunes is getting better but is still pretty locked down).
May the good guys eventually win.