What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
97 Comments
- chris480, on 04/26/2009, -8/+54IM SO ANGRY. Im going to download a movie.
- mtg101, on 04/25/2009, -3/+46The BBC itself, of course, has an awful lot of content it wants to monetize.
- MRAS, on 04/25/2009, -9/+45I am starting to be really ashamed of the BBC these days
- sheetrock, on 04/26/2009, -1/+35Shouldn't the BBC hold itself to a higher standard than Torrentfreak? At least with the latter, they're not being funded by license payers and they're not presenting themselves as an unbiased party.
- supermanly, on 04/26/2009, -3/+30***** THE MPAA
- RetepNamenots, on 04/26/2009, -0/+18The BBC isn't run by the Government at all - it is a public corporation....
- QuackMasterDan, on 04/26/2009, -0/+16No human is completely free from bias, while striving to be as free from bias as possible is encouraged, it is not reasonable to expect every story from a news organization to be perfectly neutral. Overall the BBC performs quite well in discussing both sides of many issues, though in this case it is clear the station has been influenced by one-sided media industry opinions.
It is also difficult for international news organizations to find advocates of file-sharing that are also highly respected, as nice as it may be to hear the opinions of a TorrentFreak writer, the websites title alone illuminates its inherent bias. On one hand you have a multi-billion dollar industry (which is heavily biased of course) but is well established with a long history in the topic discussed, versus relatively new and small movements favorable towards Bittorrent. - sheetrock, on 04/26/2009, -0/+14It might allow it to keep the costs down for taxpayers by creating another revenue stream from sales of past material, as well as charging those of us in the rest of the world for the content.
- Chooxo, on 04/26/2009, -0/+13The segment names its sources. The interviewees and their job titles are displayed. So it's not like they're trying to trick you - you can see what the interviewee's interests are.
And it does make sense to show the opinions of industry people. And that's all the segment is: "this study says this, this guy says that".
As for the "fine piece of irony," that "It seems it’s only ok to profit from piracy, if you’re making a film about it," what a stupid point. You could be against anything (war, gangs, rape, etc.) and profit from a film about it. I don't see the problem, there. - inactive, on 04/26/2009, -3/+14It's not government owned. Seriously now TorrentFreak, you just lost your credibility. Or any you still had.
- TheAuditor, on 04/26/2009, -0/+10It's more of a question of spending British taxpyer money to make a service available globally. The cost incurred would be huge, and since they are not for profit, utterly pointless.
- sarchosis, on 04/26/2009, -0/+10The problem with the MPAA (and the RIAA/IFPI as well), is that they're too ***** stupid to realize that they're making the "piracy problem" worse. What they don't understand is that cheaper is often better. Remember how iPhone developers and Steam have found that price cuts dramatically increased sales? Well that's usually worth it when what you're selling can be reproduced infinitely at virtually no cost. But do they drop sales? No, they hike them up instead, then blame the loss in revenue on piracy. Instead of thinking "hey, lets get those lost customers back" they think "hey, let's charge our remaining customers more". It's not that they can't fight free, it's that what they offer doesn't present even the slightest competition.
Imagine if you could download full 1080p movies for $15, available in a variety of formats, no DRM, can be viewed on any device, can be redownloaded an unlimited number of times at no cost, and can be burned to disc an unlimited number of times as well. Who the ***** wouldn't take that deal? Instead, you get a disc or download that you're only allowed to play on devices approved by the film industry, and if you disobey you're labelled either a pirate or thief. And do these limitations help prevent piracy? Not in the slightest. - legom7, on 04/26/2009, -3/+13On the other hand, it's not taking away profits because if I couldn't see it for free, I wouldn't see it. I pirate AND pay. If I know I'll like it (wall-e) I'll pay. If I don't know (matrix 3) I'll pirate. If it was surprisingly good (kung fu panda) I pay (the DVD) AFTER I pirate (theatrical release).
- SupremeLeaders, on 04/26/2009, -16/+26Torrentfreak?.
Talk about fair and balanced...NOT. - Minters, on 04/26/2009, -0/+10Problem is, theyre not actually government owned, or even run by the Government. They are still a private organisation. Sure, there is Government oversight due to the TV license, but theyre not run by the Government.
- sneaker98, on 04/26/2009, -3/+11Here's what I don't get.
So, the BBC is government run. That means they must tell both sides of each and every story? Would we not have a problem with this if it aired on a private network like, say Fox, or NBC? And if so, why are private networks magically exempt from these non-bias requirements?
Look, this is a documentary, not the 6 o'clock news!
TorrentFreak is making a mistake here - the problem is the documentary itself, not the station that aired it. - stotty, on 04/26/2009, -0/+8@MightyUpsetter. I get what you're saying, but maybe the model needs a shift. Yesterday I went to purchase clothes, I got to the store, picked the items I liked and then went to the fitting rooms to try them on and judge how I liked each item or not. I then disregarded those items I didn't like and purchased the ones I did. Same goes for when I purchased a car a year ago. I drove around in various cars without paying for them before deciding on the one I liked enough to purchase.
- dandonia, on 04/26/2009, -1/+9The BBC are a good organization, they are just on the other side of this debate. Would you hate your best friend if he disagreed with you on 1 topic?
I think the trouble with a segment like that is if 25% of the population are downloading content (a conservative number me thinks), they are saying a quarter of the population are associated with terrorism which is just laughable. What more if 1 in 4 people are pirates, that means everybody knows someone that is related to terrorism, which means everyone is guilty of not reporting the terrorist and their actions.
Nobody wants to see Wolverine in ***** quality with no CGI but everyone wants to see it as soon as possible. So why not sell it world wide on the internet the day it's finished or at least within a week of the cinema release. People would still go to the cinema's to watch it because people like going to the cinema but a lot of those that would have pirated it, would probably have paid £5 to download it in HD. Granted there will always be people that download it illegally after all some can't afford to pay for it, others don't want to pay for a bad experience and some just want stuff for free but at least that way they would make a lot of money off of those willing to pay. - r3zonance, on 04/26/2009, -1/+8"I am starting to be really ashamed of the BBC these days"
Why? They are still one of, if not the best broadcasters in the world. - r3zonance, on 04/26/2009, -1/+7It's going to be a good 90% about "getting f[r]ee *****".
- sneaker98, on 04/26/2009, -0/+6Your conclusion doesn't make any sense - BBC is a broadcasting company, and not simply a news station. And this was a documentary, not the evening news.
I'd have a problem with this if it was government propaganda on a government broadcasting station, but it's not. I heard nothing about this documentary telling citizens that some upcoming law is good for them and the film industry and thus must be passed, or some other form of government mishandling. This documentary appeared to be saying that the film industry says piracy as bad, which is just a point of view - one we may not agree with, but it's still a point of view.
I've already stated my problem. Why is it that we're holding private broadcasters, who have just as much prevalence as public ones, to a different, less demanding standard? - r3zonance, on 04/26/2009, -0/+6"How? They dont run on BBC and the money comes from TV Tax. Also ***** the BBC to for not letting the world in on the iPlayer."
The content shown on the BBC is "commissioned" by the BBC. It is made/produced by a third-party. That BBC (for purposes of iPlayer and TV) receives a license to show the content for the UK.
They duty first and foremost is the UK license payers. Why should the US be able to watch it when they haven't paid for it?
That my friend, is what "BBC Worldwide" is for, note the Worldwide. This basically takes care of anything other than iPlayer and the real-time TV. - turnuon, on 04/26/2009, -0/+6If its purely about the dissatisfaction of the current law or the social situation, boycott the entertainment entirely. It would be more believable if some one doesn't pirate anything and still want to help proposing a new copyright law since there would be no conflict of interest.
- blackopsfreak06, on 04/26/2009, -2/+8The injustice! Making us pay money for their product! Everything should be free, that way you all could be happy! Of course, then no one would have jobs and so no one would have any incentive to do anything, like, say, produce food or energy or...movies.
I wish the film industry would start dropping their prices or allowing us to download their films as long as we look at some commercials or something, but if everyone who watched Quantum of Solace in theaters or on DVD did what pirates do, there never would be another Bond film. So think about that.Some of you guys have the strongest sense of entitlement I've ever seen. - ohreilly, on 04/26/2009, -0/+6That would be one channel of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
They have five TV channels, tons of radio stations, etc. - FeargusMcDuff, on 04/26/2009, -1/+7I watched the program when it came out, he has a legitimate viewpoint held by those that love cinema, I'm pretty sure we hold free speech over free files on the internets.
- ohreilly, on 04/26/2009, -0/+6The BBC is not paid for by general taxation, it is paid for by those who choose to receive broadcast television with their reception equipment. The only Government-funded part of the BBC is the World Service, which receives a grant-in-aid from the Foreign Office.
It is also not considered part of the Government, it is separate from legally, editorially and financially. Having the ability to own its copyright also allows it to exploit it both at home and abroad, so those of us who live in the UK can have cheaper licence fees. - ohreilly, on 04/26/2009, -0/+6prophetpimp:
The BBC are one of the state broadcasters of the UK, so obviously they are going to limit the content they create to the UK (and in the case of live TV, licence fee payers. not the "tv tax").
Another arm of the BBC exists to make a profit from creations that the licence fee has paid for, the profit from which subsidises the licence fee and makes it a little cheaper for those of us who live in the UK. Indeed, a few TV channels in the UK are part-owned by this arm and show advertising and edited Top Gear.
The BBC is hardly going to let you have access to the iPlayer when they can make more money by creating a TV channel and putting it on pay TV. Certainly not an advert-free iPlayer like licence-fee payers get.
Just because you can't get it in the format you want, is no justification for getting it illegally. At least the BBC don't go all MPAA and try and hunt down those who share its programmes illegally. - EnforcerErik, on 04/26/2009, -0/+5A video clip of BBC linked to from TorrentFreak. How can this be bias. They show the whole clip. It is in context.
- Walwyn, on 04/26/2009, -2/+7Loose £500m due to copyright theft,
*****.
If I don't illegally download that movie; I ent gonna buy it either - dsmx, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4Did you know that pirates are cheap bastards who only pay for something if they think it's worth the price? Therefore there are only 2 ways of getting them to buy something you either let them pirate it and let them decide if it's worth the price or you make it's so insanely cheap it's hard to justify not buying it. For example the orange box is 6 quid on steam this weekend how could you not buy it at that price?
- ryan83189, on 04/26/2009, -9/+13If you don't pay for something people don't make money on it. I await somebody justifying their piracy with statistics on movie grosses increasing over the the years as defacto proof that piracy makes money in their loony world. Do me a favor and quit trying to justify your cheapness as some kind of crusade to improve the movie industry.
- jjintheuk, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4Fair point. But the BBC is an organisation funded by the public - they should be unbiased, and who a balance view which will please everyone (as much as they can).
Torrentfreak is biased, but does look at both sides of the story in a lot of cases, obviously siding with torrenters, as that is the audience they are aiming at. For example, if you like the Ferrari F1 team you will not go onto the McLaren site in search of good messages and facts and support for Ferrari. However if you watch the F1 TV program, which is incidentally broadcast by the BBC this year (oops just realised) you want a fairly balanced view of everything. - ohreilly, on 04/26/2009, -2/+6Already have one. Part of it is to comment on spelling, grammar and punctuation.
- j035u5, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4I like how flippantly they suggest that piracy and file-sharing funds terrorism. How much money to terrorist groups need to buy the ingredients of a bomb? Wouldn't it just be easier to get a job? By associating the unpopular fight against online file-sharing with the equally unpopular war on terror it just makes the whole thing seem ridiculous.
Also 500 million? Where did you pluck that figure from? They must know that people who download movies wouldn't have paid for them anyway?
And how they seem to think that people who sell pirated dvds must be super rich because of the profit margins. I would venture a guess that these people sell on average 1 dvd a day at about 70p, minus the cost of fuel, the original ticket if it was filmed or the electricity to download it and you're probably down to 50p. - WhiteRaven, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4Free speech exempts private people from obligations to be "fair". How can you not know that?
- sheetrock, on 04/26/2009, -8/+12That's just not true. I give a ***** because I'm tired of a system that allows a tiny group of people to exploit talent, push copyright terms to infinity, unreasonably restrict what I can do with what I buy, screw with my computing and internet experience, and ruin competitive innovation. If the media can't find one or more notable opposing voices on any of these topics (some examples: Courtney Love, Steve Albini, Lawrence Lessig, Richard Stallman, the EFF, Jon Johansen, Internet Radio operators or the RealDVD folks) they're simply not trying.
The last several years haven't made me a pirate, but I buy as little as I can of non-independent movies and music unless they're used. - wikinerd, on 04/26/2009, -1/+5...'cept this time it's "blatantly biased"?
... and only presenting one side of the story? (for example, choice of interviewees?) - diggymow, on 04/26/2009, -2/+6Seriously? Then explain why people care more about copyright law than major famines or genocide? Seriously with all the ***** going on in the world if your cause is 'greedy media agents' then your priorities are pretty ***** up. People want ***** for free. That's cool, if you think media and music should be free you are free to make your own and distribute it for free. Don't steal ***** that the artists want you to pay for.
- jjintheuk, on 04/26/2009, -1/+5Go ***** yourself Aleman, I bet you're torrenting your free hentai right now.
There isn't anything wrong with sharing, as long as once in a while you pay for stuff. It is good to share, then when you like something you won't mind paying for it. E.g. You want to watch a movie, but arent sure if its any good.
1. Watch an 700mb rip of a movie
You may decide to delete it, keep it, burn it. If it was really good you'll tell your friends who also may do the same thing or buy it. You may continue to step 2 if you were a fan of the film
2. Buy it on Blu-Ray for quality, or buy it on DVD
You might want to buy it on Blu-Ray for a better experience, or DVD for a slightly better experience (than the original download that may not be fully up to scratch), or simply to support the movie makers in the hope they'll make another similar film.
3. Watch the sequel at the cinema
You may go to the cinema to watch the sequel if you think it might be good, you may also attract other people to go,bringing more $$$ to the industry.
AND / OR
3. / 4. You may buy a film with a similar cast and crew (I mean like writers, directors or same group of actors). Which also brings in $$$ to the people involved in the movie industry. E.g. 40 year old virgin / Superbad / Pineapple Express
When you decide not to
I bet the computer industry love the pirates with all the extra storage being bought, better spec computers and blank media amongst other things. Think about them Hollywood, and you Daniel Craig, think about your poor co workers while you're wiping your ass with a few mil.
The minority
For the pirate downloaders that want to pay for absolutely nothing, even if they enjoy a lot of the content - I do not agree with that, but I bet there arent many people like that, only the minority harcore that are obseses I reckon. - Matthews255, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4Oh dear. the BBC is not government run. Its paid for by television licenses which need to be paid for if you own a television signal (digital/analogue) recieving set. I believe if you rip out the tuner somehow and just have the pure screen you still need a license :S
the BBC shows a side of the story, it cant really go out and say "But, films are too much money, and people dont want to pay for it so the go out and download it". I dont agree with them saying that it will kill jobs completly! It wont. I dont know if anyone has checked a films budget with the box office takings???? The thing usually pays for itself in about a week. - jjintheuk, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, no such thing as BBC DVDs then? They make no money do they prophet pimp - you complete idiot. Plus they run BBC America which they must get some sort of money from, then sell content over there too. My god
- OPR8R, on 04/26/2009, -1/+5It amazes me they're aloud to operate in the way they do.
- Jascol, on 04/26/2009, -0/+3Why should Americans get access to the Iplayer when the American TV sites won't let users outside of the US use their services either. It works both ways mate.
- jjintheuk, on 04/26/2009, -0/+3You dont understand that the station that aired are the people that fund the TV program, and hire everyone on it, with the BBC representatives inviting people onto the show.
If you havent seen the show before, its a short weekly movie review show. I think it occasionally has film industry news stories on it like this one. - SirFragsMore, on 04/26/2009, -1/+4They missed the point... 3d? /sigh
- Walwyn, on 04/26/2009, -1/+4The Best things in life are Free
- sarchosis, on 04/26/2009, -4/+7You're a ***** idiot if you think it's only about "getting fee *****"
- stack3r, on 04/26/2009, -0/+3To be honest, The internet could be unplugged tomorrow, and people who wanted free "*****" would still get it. So, no, not worried about it.
Trying to force a marketing change is wanted, and of course screwing fat cat media *****. :) - GlenAWalker, on 04/26/2009, -0/+3ZOMG downloading movies contributes to organized crime and violence all around the world?!?! ***** ass.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is