What is Digg?29 Comments
- abbathdoom, on 11/10/2009, -0/+32Hollywood, Give me a Hulu/iPlayer style website where I can watch your movies online for free with ad breaks, or with no adverts for a monthly fee. Then kindly the shut the ***** up about piracy.
When they finally get around to implementing that they will kill piracy over night, and probably find they make more money than they have ever done showing movies on TV anyway. I'd probably waste months of my life just watching endless movies, I've not watched a film on TV for years. - MacBookForMe, on 11/10/2009, -3/+28Dugg for that amazing Absolut thumbnail...
- kawa90, on 11/11/2009, -0/+24***** DRM !!!
- Slydevil01, on 11/11/2009, -0/+18Essentially, the BBC needs to remember that it is a public service. Anything they produce, or do, should be in benefit of us - not the film industry.
- wilf_brim, on 11/11/2009, -0/+17Note to the content creators:
We will not break every bit of video kit that we have in order to try and maintain your obsolete business model. Get over it. - s73v3r, on 11/11/2009, -0/+15Its actually the MPAA, and its actually in Britain, but I like where you're going with this.
- Arkz, on 11/11/2009, -0/+12DRM does one thing, hurt the consumer, it never stopped piracy and it never will, it will simply cause more problems for paying customers, hdcp for one thing, kicking early hdtv adopters in the bollocks with a steel capped boot!
- lorddazzer, on 11/11/2009, -0/+12Noone's saying that artists shouldn't get paid.
What they need to realise is
- DRM has been around for ages, and that has not stopped pirates.
- DRM has affected regular consumers who paid for a product.
Thus, what happens?
- Consumers lose out, because they're paying for an inferior, crippled product.
- They stop paying for something that is crippled, since they can get a non-crippled product for FREE by "illegal" downloading
- Music industry loses out, complains that piracy is the problem, increase DRM efforts.
- More Consumers get screwed over.
At the end of the day, pirates win.
DRM will never work. - s73v3r, on 11/11/2009, -0/+11As do I. But I also support my right to rip a DVD so I can put it on an iPod, or on my laptop for watching while on a flight. DRM tries to rob me of that right, and when I do exercise that right, it makes me a criminal (in the US, anyways).
- Treshnell, on 11/11/2009, -0/+9Even if it started like that, it would just end up like cable tv where you pay to watch commercials.
- shutaro, on 11/10/2009, -1/+9***** THE RIAA!
- InactiveUser, on 11/11/2009, -0/+7Say for example I was the PM....just by chance...
If the film industry threatened me with "pulling the plug on content" I would ban them from distributing any content at all until they learn to shut the ***** up. That must be over 1 billion a year in the UK.
So 2 can play at the dummy spit game... - wilf_brim, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6@Frogger:
You have a point, but time and time again we have learned one thing. DRM only (and I mean only) bothers those who follow the law. It doesn't stop the people who don't follow the rules one little bit. - javaroast, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6There is nothing to fear from DRM..... unless you are trying to use your legally purchased product as you see fit. I for one support the rights of the consumer to get get what they paid for without arbitrary and impractical restrictions.
- NeoTechni, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6Apparently the MPAA forgot they were trying to entertain us, instead of just making money off us.
- ElSnuggles, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5To add to Wilf's comment -
The more you try to restrict your audience from using your content as they want, the more you raise a generation who considers your products lacking value. You can add no encryption, restriction, or locking mechanism that is so powerful that an army of dedicated hackers cannot break.
And ok, one more thing while I'm rambling - Innocent until proven guilty. Lay off the "3 strikes" idiotic idea until you are willing to take every one you accuse to court and prove your accusations before a jury of their peers. - mithrasinvictus, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5Braking is for vehicles, not the law.
And i'd love to pay the artists, but that does not mean I will put up with anything the MPAA demands. I also resent being treated like a criminal when i try to watch the content I've bought from them. - AmnesiacJack, on 11/11/2009, -1/+5rAmen!
- Yage2006, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3Yes there is nothing to fear from DRM because it will NEVER be an obstacle to those who do not want it they will obtain superior versions of the files without the DRM.
The music industry finally realized this.
Now its the video content providers turn.
IF the free version is better no drm restrictions why even bother with the legit one.
I would for example by video from itunes if what they offered was not DRM's and locked to only certain players.
Seeing as I can't I have a hundred other options. - kopiwrite, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3***** THE RIAA!
- kramer733, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2drm guy: YOU GUYS TOOK MY JEOB!
- pigfister, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2***** sony and their DRM & anti consumer onslaught on customers.
securom, xcp rootkit, bd+, ARccOS and the rest are sony. broadcast flag main backer sony, one of the main backers behind the ACTA treaty and was also behind DMCA you guessed it, sony. - InactiveUser, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2MPAA RIAA We don't want to do anything that could jeopardize our 1970's business model.
Delivery when we choose.
Distribution through only those that can afford us and those that we like (because they gave us lots of money)
LP's only - none of this single *****.
New format every 10 years so people have to repurchase their ***** all over again. 33 - 45 - 75 RPM then LP - EP - CD
Video - Film monopoly with distribution monopoly through a cinema Duopoly with independents unable to afford us. Then VHS then DVD then Blue Ray....
It costs (in AU)
$35 for a CD
$35 for DVD
$22 for the movies but the coke will cost you $10
Now who the fark does the BBC think it is broadcasting higher quality films than Blue Ray? Huh? Who thought you could get away with that? Silly BBC! /s
***** em! - InactiveUser, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2Its entertaining. Especially when new DRM is out for the cracking..
Last time it was a 15 year old...
I lol'd for 3 weeks... - pigfister, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1s73v3r the mpaa is a trade body name for the same group of global corporation *****.
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the corporate globalists from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, PRS, IFPI, ASCAP, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
====================================================================
If Sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/14132 - akpanga, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1Linux users get Livestation on your box http://www.ghabuntu.com/2009/09/livestation-watch- ... and Windows user should juust go to Livestation.com download and install. No worry whatsoever.
- Atomic1fire, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1I think it ultimately depends on consumer needs/wants
if someone likes making backups, or wants to put the media they perchased on multiple formats for their own use (such as for a game console, or mp3 player, or both) and perchasing the same works multiple times may not be economical,
I think the best way to to combat piracy is to encourage perchases, and make said purchases easier to use freely, I personally don't buy a lot of music, I usually just stream it in the background when I'm bored (off any music site or social network with a music feature), because its easier and takes up little to no filespace, but I do watch hulu, and when I had ad blocking, If I had a whitelist at the time, hulu was on it. - lilstubthumb, on 11/11/2009, -3/+1@Frogger:
You sir, are a dumb ass. DRM only encourages piracy. - Frogger4Truth, on 11/11/2009, -18/+2there is nothing to fear about DRM's... unless you're braking the law.
I, for one, support the rights of artists to get paid for their hard work.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is