What is Digg?104 Comments
- solidcube, on 07/20/2008, -1/+136There's a multibillion dollar theft problem all right. The MPAA is engaging in theft of American fair use rights, which are of uncalculable value.
Personally, I have no idea who would want to pirate 99% of the ***** released by Hollywood these days. - pbryan, on 07/20/2008, -2/+91I couldn't have said it better than Nagumo did in the Ars forum: "It's simple to me. As long as the MPAA strives to make legitimate viewing as difficult as possible, I'll keep going to my alternative sources that seem to strive to give me the easiest route possible to enjoy movies and television shows. It seems to me, if the MPAA actually tried to give consumers what they want, they wouldn't need to worry so about revenue. However, keep burning people with draconian DRM on physical media, keep screwing with the time shifting devices that have spurred people to watch more television and movies, and keep calling us thieves when we decide to rip legit purchased media in order to view it on the device of our choosing and we'll gladly tell you where you can shove your goods and just how far to shove them."
- DeffJeff, on 07/20/2008, -2/+69These people are complete D bags, I guess they would be against people freezing food so they could eat it later.
- btschul, on 07/21/2008, -1/+46It's so funny how they don't realize that they are the cause of the problem.
- martin308, on 07/20/2008, -1/+39redistribution of this frozen food, will cause untold damage to other 'downstream' markets!
- solidcube, on 07/21/2008, -0/+29Sir, don't put words into my mouth. You have no idea what I want.
When I was watching movies, I had Netflix. Netflix is a perfectly fine arrangement for me. I'm perfectly happy with paying however many bucks a month for 3 movies a week, more than I will likely ever watch. To me, that's an extremely generous arrangement and is much, much simpler than ***** around with torrents and all the associated *****. I'd rather just get my movies in the mail and pay their trivial fee.
I want to be able to own hardware that I buy. I want to be able to copy movies that I buy into different formats. It's really quite simple. These people are trying to tell you what you can do with your own hardware. That's ***** up.
You also seem to have a problem understanding sarcasm, so I will explain the "*****" comment. The primary reason for the decrease in box office has nothing to do with screeners and DVD rips. It has to do with the fact that the movies are EIGHT DOLLARS PER TICKET, and that they are mediocre, derivative trash targeted at the lowest possible common denominator. Most of the large-budget movies that come out these days are sequels to previous trashy flicks.
The MPAA is currently ***** us, and they want to ***** us even more, and they want to infringe upon your rights to use YOUR HARDWARE and YOUR MEDIA how YOU see fit.
If you don't have a problem with that, you're either stupid, ignorant or ***** in the head. - sgtcaboose, on 07/21/2008, -1/+27Dugg for best first comment ever.
- philodygmn, on 07/20/2008, -4/+23Then there's theft of artist fees in sharecropper contracts and an ecosystem of exploitation and lockdown, and the fact that songwriters make next to nothing... Yeah, there's calculable theft, too, allright >:-#
- solidcube, on 07/21/2008, -3/+21To get an idea of how expensive movies really are, consider the following.
Let's talk about the Ben Affleck movie Hollywoodland. I found this movie to be "meh." It had passable acting, and was rather effective at getting its point across. Considering how much I hate most hollywood entertainment, this is a good rating coming from me.
But I paid $16 dollars to see it. That's for myself and a girlfriend (the only reason I saw it at all). That's aside from the price of the concession food which is reasonable in comparison to a film.
Why? Because I paid that amount of money for two damn hours of mediocre entertainment. Compare that to a computer game, like, say, Neverwinter Nights or Dawn of War or Rise of Nations, games that cost ~$50 each and that I've spent hundreds of hours on each and still play, therefore will receive even more value out of. My guess is that I've played each of these games for 300 hours or more, roughly. Not everyone will receive this amount of mileage from games, but I bet a lot of people get even MORE mileage out of games than I do because I don't really play all that much compared to lots of people.
That's 900 hours of entertainment for $150. For 900 hours of AMAZING MOVIE ENTERTAINMENT in the theatres you would be paying $3600.
But that's not enough for them. Now they want to ***** us even more than that. How many movies come out that are even worth the time? They want us to pay and pay and pay every time a new format comes out. And on top of that, I'd bet anything that the quality of films is going to be deteriorating even further.
And then they're going to wonder why box office and DVD sales have dropped even further. Their answer? More explosions, more car chases. More *****. - Murrabbit, on 07/21/2008, -5/+22***** the RIAA! (see how I snuck that in in an MPAA article? I'm just that good).
- Hangly, on 07/21/2008, -0/+16Argh.
Multi-billion dollar PROJECTED problem.
Is it my imagination or is everything in the US ***** imaginary? The money is imaginary, what we produce is imaginary...
Just how the ***** is this system supposed to work, anyway? - RidesAPaleHorse, on 07/21/2008, -0/+15There is absolutely no need for this. What they want is to start showing pay-per-view, (At a higher price), before the DVD sales come out, but don't want to affect their DVD sales. There's no need for any restrictive, more restrictive DRM. They simply want this as an in-road to telling the FCC in a few years: Hey, we want to be able to sell these HiDef shows on DVD and BluRay, but these people all have them stored on their 2GB DVR hard drives. We need to enable Selectable Output Control on basic cable and broadcast to protect out income streams.
- kingatrock, on 07/21/2008, -1/+16dugg for "*****"
- scarwars, on 07/21/2008, -5/+19"But I kept asking them how MPAA's member studios planned to limit unauthorized copying without somehow inhibiting the recording capabilities of DVRs. Our nice talk started getting a little heated at that point. "I can't emphasize this enough," Oster finally exclaimed. "We've hit on this a number of times so you might sense some frustration in my voice. 'Recording'—take it off the table. Put it out of your mind. This has nothing to do with recording at all in any way."
"Ok. I guess I'm confused," I replied. "What is selectable output control about then?"
"It's in large part, first and foremost, about the fact that our industry has a multibillion-dollar theft problem, which is that billions and billions of dollar's worth of film content is stolen every year," Oster replied.
"How is it stolen? What's the mechanics of its being stolen?" I asked. "What happens?"
"It comes in many forms," Dean Garfield interjected. "It comes in camcording."
"Did you just say the word 'recording'?" I asked.
"No!" Oster intervened. "He said 'camcording'!"
"But isn't that just basically recording?" I begged.
"No!" Oster insisted. "What we want is to offer consumers high-definition content earlier than they can today. That's what we want to do! We want our studios to have the flexibility to put in place business models that allow them to offer high definition content on demand to the home, earlier than they do now. Period! Full stop!""
some people,, - TheImaginator, on 07/21/2008, -0/+14You reading this MPAA?
Bollocks to you.
I won't buy any full price DVD's, and I won't pay subscriptions for your secure movie channels and I won't buy your approved set top boxes to watch them on.
I'll buy DVD's on promotional offer if I feel like it, and I'll watch movies for free on free to view digital television; and if I want to, I'll record them onto blank DVD's, just like when I used to record movies from anlalogue TV onto video cassettes.
I might even lend them to friends and family, or make copies for them.
Up yours you twisted corporate *****. - darienphoenix, on 07/21/2008, -1/+14People pirate them because they sure as ***** aren't worth spending money on.
- mCanada, on 07/21/2008, -2/+14In other news the MPAA will be sending former child star and all round tough guy Scott Baio to install masterlock padlocks on your VCR during showings of "The Karate Kid 2".
- Hangly, on 07/21/2008, -0/+12In case you think martin's joking, he isn't. The interstate commerce clause has been invoked to prevent people from gardening on their own land.
- maxgoedjen, on 07/21/2008, -1/+13Did this sentence: "Moreover, in order to do any of that, we would have to go back to the FCC [he laughed here] and so the opportunity to have something new and exciting shouldn't be a cause for concern. It should be a cause for celebration!" remind anyone else of 1984?
- digitalpencil, on 07/21/2008, -0/+11This reminds me of when they tried to convince people that using their VCRs for recording movies was illegal..
Moreover, how exactly do they hope SOC would work? I mean, somewhere along the chain, the stream is getting converted to visual data you can copy, even if you have to run it through a DAC first.. - bubba9999, on 07/21/2008, -0/+11I see this as another step towards a purely digital pay per view distribution. Rather than "owning" a DVD (or any other piece of media with content on it), you'll have to pay $5 a view whenever you want to see a film.
Piracy is a problem for the studios, no doubt, but their numbers are constantly (and proven to be) overstated and embellished to make it look like more of a problem than it is. My guess is that 90% of everyone else out there does the right thing, and laws like this only hurt people who want to use the content in what was traditionally allowed under "Fair Use" - for personal use.
For a real world current example, I can't even record an episode of the Daily Show on my Tivo and transfer it off to my computer to convert to a format that is suitable to view on my phone. This should be allowable under Fair Use - it's for my personal use only. However, our good friends at Viacom would rather make me pay another $4 to do this (by downloading an "acceptable" format from iTunes) and have coerced the cable company into implementing the broadcast flag to block this. - RidesAPaleHorse, on 07/21/2008, -1/+11Hmm, short, but too rude to be a worthy troll. Next time, try to make it sound like you actually think this is a good idea.
I give you a 5.4. You can do better. I have faith in you. - inactive, on 07/21/2008, -0/+10people pay monthly subscriptions for DVR units, and now they are being crippled? we need a class action suit here. whatever happened to the VHS rulings of the 80s?
- eviltandem, on 07/21/2008, -0/+10I love how the example of theft is camcorders in theaters...
So putting DRM on TV broadcasts will affect camcorders how? Then it gets better as he explains how this is all about "enabling" them to do things they can already do, but choose not to.
Putting DRM on it doesn't enable them to do anything, it disables us from being able to do things. That's it. Spin it all you want... - Murrabbit, on 07/21/2008, -1/+10Corporations always want us to be happy that they are screwing us in the ass. It makes them happy, after all, they're filthy ***** rich, so why can't we just quit complaining?
- Hangly, on 07/21/2008, -0/+8fecal ordinance
- pigfister, on 07/21/2008, -0/+8you realise that they are almost one in the same bunch of *****.
The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX. - bradleyland, on 07/21/2008, -0/+8Dear MPAA,
We have decided to decline your offer for "early release" content in exchange for SOC. We have already sourced an "alternative vendor" whose supply is plentiful and is useful on a greater number of platforms. Unfortunately, your service offerings aren't competitive in the current environment (your own term).
Having said that, we would encourage you to go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and return with a counter offer. We are not beyond re-fostering our once strong relationship, but feel that it is not in our best interest to continue doing business at this time.
Please partake in due diligence before returning to the table, however. There seems to be a trend developing here, and it is a waste of everyones' time. I hope my candor won't be misinterpreted. It is your actions that have brought negotiations to this point, and yours that can bring it back from the dead. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
We the people
PS - Please, let's not lose sight of who is the buyer here. You are fighting for our dollar, not the other way around. - apothekari, on 07/21/2008, -1/+9What it comes down to in a VERY real sense is after 30 years of a home video market these jackasses want to somehow go back to a view by the "2 bits a gander" model pioneered at the very advent of motion picture films.
I suppose every time I SEE the content I am REQUIRED to pay a fee?
Never mind there's a constant stream of ads and ad placements.
Bottom Line is this: free over-the-air TV is almost gone following the VCR and yet somehow the things we have been doing for 30+ years are now supposed to make me a criminal.
Well ***** you ***** and the horse you rode in on!
Open source is the way of the future whether or not you jackasses realize it or not - nurriz, on 07/21/2008, -0/+7Powerdugg!
- frankengeek, on 07/21/2008, -0/+7Well put
- blackmesa, on 07/21/2008, -0/+7No matter what the MPAA does, we'll still come up with a way around it that costs a fraction of a fraction of what it cost them to employ. Their multimillion dollar protection schemes are ultimately crushed by 15 year old computer enthusiasts who then distribute the patch/workaround for free. I figure the MPAA must enjoy having their ass handed to them over and over again.
- rossisdead, on 07/21/2008, -0/+7solid: Your point was valid until you pulled out the one example of a sequel that was really ***** good.
- paulvq, on 07/21/2008, -4/+10Leave Batman out of this.
- amigabill, on 07/21/2008, -0/+6So they want to be able to turn off analog HD outputs to our displays. Uhm, Why would I want to "watch" a movie in HD when MPAA disconnect my projector from my HD Tivo (aka my HD cable box)? How is it a fair trade to get a movie broadcasted earlier when I'm not allowed to even watch it? What's the freakin point? (My connection to my HD projector is analog component) Is there even such thing as an analog component "tuner" card to capture and pirate said movie? If my Tivo ain't allowed to, uh, R-word it, how can I see it if I'm not home? Since Tivo buffers everything it displays, How can I see anything at all? I'm not going to listen to a movie while I stare at the empty black screen from my projector telling me there's no input signal. Really, how will this MPAA scheme benefit me at all?
- phoomp, on 07/21/2008, -0/+6It'll be software.
As for cracking that software, consider this: the entertainment industry is extremely close to getting the Canadian government to make cracking digital locks and possessing the tools for doing so crimes punishable by $20,000 (not a fine, but money to the plaintiff) per infraction. From there, they'll start working on getting similar legislation into other countries.
Of course, how are they going to know what you're doing in the privacy of your own home? Through ACTA, the entertainment industry wants ISPs to monitor and report on customer behavior. I've no doubt that they'll want ISPs to report on whomever downloads DVDShrink, Handbrake, etc. They'll initiate a suit against you for possessing digital lock circumvention software, and then they'll be able to see what you've used the software to circumvent. - DforSpiD, on 07/21/2008, -1/+7It's when the profits outweigh the morals that we get this type of issue...
- bbqsalad, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6I stopped buying music, movies and watching tv years ago. It has been really nice not having to worry about things like this. These companys can complain till they are blue in their faces because I simply dont care about their products. They can go bankrupt and stop making movies for all I care. Please do. We owe these companys NOTHING. They are bltantly over-priced while forcing advertisments down the consumers throat. If you dont like these company, stop paying them your hard earned dollars. I dont understand it, people act like they HAVE to buy things, like you owe them something for some strange reason. They NEED you to survive. Its like all the people bitching about Rogers iphone contracts.. YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE. YOU CAN SURVIVE JUST AS WELL WITHOUT THESE THINGS. Its ignorant ***** consurmers like this who have turned most things as we know it into a greedy circle jerk. These companys should be begging for your business. Today the customer is ALWAYS wrong. Disconnect yourself from it for a while and you will see how much nicer it is.
- UnleashX, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6The problem with piracy .. is that they aren't making enough movies people feel are worth buying. The solution isn't to spend millions of dollars on blocking this and encoding that ... it's to MAKE BETTER MOVIES!
- CosmicJustice, on 07/21/2008, -0/+5Yeah well nothing pisses me off more than paying 20 bucks for a movie then getting it home and being FORCED to watch a warning about how I better not be stealing this movie I'm trying to watch, that I OWN, on a DVD player THAT I OWN!
- HonoredMule, on 07/21/2008, -0/+5Get the pirated version and that will be cut out. ;)
- eviltandem, on 07/21/2008, -0/+5One would think Apple virtually owning music distribution would have taught them all a lesson... but apparently not.
Once you start DRM then the product stops mattering. All the money is then in controlling the release of content, not in creating anything... - rupertmorris, on 07/21/2008, -0/+5World: "MPAA a Douchebag Problem"
- Abomonog, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6It is things like this that has caused me to turn to the torrents for my movies and TV shows.
- Apocrypha, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4"multibillion-dollar theft problem"
I really wish these asses would come up with some credible proof of these numbers they like to toss around. But they can't because it's all lies. - norman619, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4My god you are simple. They tried this same thing with the VCR back in the 70's and 80's when it became popular and were shot down by the courts. A DVR is the same damn thing. They don't have a legal leg to stand on. Any good lawyer can blow holes in this very old argument they are trying to make.
FTA:
"Okay. I guess I'm confused," I replied. "What is selectable output control about then?"
"It's in large part, first and foremost, about the fact that our industry has a multibillion-dollar theft problem, which is that billions and billions of dollars worth of film content is stolen every year," Oster replied.
"How is it stolen? What's the mechanics of its being stolen?" I asked. "What happens?"
"It comes in many forms," Dean Garfield interjected. "It comes in camcording."
"Did you just say the word 'recording'?" I asked.
"No!" Oster intervened. "He said 'camcording'!"
"But isn't that just basically recording?" I begged.
"No!" Oster insisted. "What we want is to offer consumers high-definition content earlier than they can today. That's what we want to do! We want our studios to have the flexibility to put in place business models that allow them to offer high definition content on demand to the home, earlier than they do now. Period! Full stop!"
This is pretty telling. These guys are talking out of their asses. They simply don't want people to have the right to record they have been enjoying ever since the VCR came out and the courts ruled on fair use. They want the power to rape the consumer at home the same way they rape movie goers. Less people go to the movies today due to the hefty price tag to see the craptacular films they have been releasing for many years now. - LiquidShield, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4@Solidcube
Can I get an Amen.
Just remember you're talking to one of the Sheeple. They like to fallow what others tell them to do. They thinks its perfectly ok for someone to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own stuff. That's perfectly ok if they want to fallow and be mindless. They don't get that we have been file sharing for a very long time. It's just that they equate files sharing as digital files only. They don't take into consideration that when they let little billy barrow their favorite book to read. Little billy isn't compensating the writer or the publisher for his chance to read that book. When they let little Suzy barrow that movie that they bought. Did little Suzy compensate the file crew, the director, the actors, the production team, the studio, etc.. for her chance to watch that movie??? I don't happen to think so. All this is no different from me or you buying a movie, or a cd and sharing it with other people. In both scenarios little johnny is sharing with both little billy, and Suzy. In the end that's ok, because it's not digital works. - LiquidShield, on 07/21/2008, -2/+6Solidcube welcome to the Republic of the Divided States of America or is it welcome to the fascist State of America (waves hands as if dismissing a thought) I can never really tell any more it's all blurring together... People like Locojones that populate the race that I call the Sheeple. People that don't understand that man has been "File Sharing" for ever. Fallow with what ever they are being told. They think that file sharing has just come about during the creation of computers, and networking. What about the books that they let people barrow. Does the writer or the publisher get some type of compensation for that book when jonny lets billy barrow it. Does billy pay his 30-40$ for that book so he can have the right to read it??? Sadly people don't deem that file sharing. What it really boils down to is that someone some where isn't making enough money or no money at all.
I completely agree with you a 100%. It's not right for someone to tell you what you can, and cannot do with the stuff that you buy. If we wanted that kind of treatment we let our country become a communist nation. That would be like someone telling me that I can't jack off while watching porn. I bought the damn movie, and that's what it was intended for so guess what I'm gunna do it.
The problem with all this is that Laws are 10 years behind the technology that we use everyone knows this fact. If they don't then they should go back to what ever hole they crawled out of, and stay there. We have people trying to pass laws that limit the capabilities of the technology that we have today, and the only way we are going to get rid of this type of activity is when we get people from our generation(s) into that office or seat that actually know what people are talking about. You know as well as all the others it's just another way for corporate bigwigs to try, and keep them selves making money. Seriously when they do put a put a movie on TV or the movie channels (HBO, Showtime, Skinamax) the movie has already been out long enough for them to make a substantial amount of money at 30-40$ a high-def movie. That's just America ALONE. That doesn't include all the other countries we ship movies off to. Yes I agree a lot of the movies put out now are just horrible, but once in a while there is a gem amongst the *****. When that gem sparkles and shines I pay my money for it, because at that point I deem it worthy to spend my money. To tell me that since I pay a monthly fee for my cable or satellite service, and paid money for a digital receiver for high-def which has a DVR that allows me to watch TV shows when I have time to watch them. I don't think anyone should have the right to tell me what I can, and cannot do with something that I paid for. To me once you pay for something it BECOMES YOURS. When I start to rent my equipment from the cable company or the Satellite company then they can tell me what I can do with it.
Like you said just to go to the movies it's eight dollars a ticket. Hell last time I went to the movies (last Friday) it cost me fourteen dollars for a ticket and pop. That's a little outrageous. It doesn't help that our country is going down the ***** like that titanic. It looks like our soon to be ex-fearless leader (November elections) really isn't doing anything to help. Yeah granted he did the "Stimulus Checks", but seriously what in the ***** is 300$ going to do for the economy. This country needs to figure out a way to get on the ball with the economy and bring to a comparable standing with Europe. Hell they are 2 to 1 exchange rate with the US. We get two US dollars for everyone of theirs. - HonoredMule, on 07/21/2008, -1/+5I don't get the whole "can't wait" mentality. Theaters are a total ripoff, so I don't go to them. Sure it means I wait 6 months to see good movies. But while I'm pining away for movie X that won't be on DVD for 6 months, I'm enjoying movie W that you saw in theaters 6 months ago. I ultimately get the same amount of entertainment at the same rate of consumption. As an added bonus, my decisions are less influenced by advertising blitzes, and I miss every over-hyped flop that gets called out post-theater-release.
- alricsca, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4For all of those people who read what they are trying to do and do no think it is so bad. You need to understand a few things. The power to block these ports once enabled could be extended. People would not have the right to choose not to have the early view feature and thus have an unrestricted DVR because they can use other licenses they control for things like HDMI to force compliance. Related to this and most importantly the right to limit DVRs like this would allow them to restrict who is allowed to make DVRs and what features they provide even further. This last issue is most important.
Already with HDMI and HDCP they force DVR developers to implement several copy control features not mandated by the FCC and have virtually eliminated open source DVR development. This is critical to understand because their control of the key licenses for the technologies this would use means they would have the right to approve what devices are allowed to use it and thus it gives them a tool to force DVR development to a limited sub set of companies and to add further restrictions not covered by the FCC. The companies are glad to go along with this because they get the right to build the DVRs and the rules squash many of their competitors. This creates monopolies and gives the MPAA a massive level of control far beyond what the FCC might otherwise intend. This has been their favored method lately. Soon no matter what fair use rights we might have no equipment will be able to legally provide the features to allow us to exercise them. This is the trap they are trying to create. -
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is