MPAA Points To Its Roster Of Crappy Online Services And Asks What We're Complaining About
from the nice-try dept
In response to Jimmy Wales reiterating the fact that Hollywood's own failings online are a major cause of infringement, the MPAA has hit back by saying: that's crazy! After all, the studios do Hulu and Netflix, so how can anyone complain?Wales had used everyone's favorite example these days: the difficulty in finding a legitimate way to pay for Game of Thrones online...
Wales also argued that the entertainment industry needs to continue adjusting its business model so it offers people the content they want. Citing a personal example, Wales noted how he can’t watch HBO’s “Game of Thrones” series at home in London even though he’s willing to pay for it.A smart and consumer-focused MPAA might note that they're trying their best but they realize there are still gaps and they hope to continue to improve. But, you know, that's not how the MPAA rolls. Instead, they send out spokesperson Kate Bedingfield -- who just recently joined the MPAA from the White House -- to insist that Wales was crazy for suggesting they need to make more efforts to please customers. You see, in the mind of the MPAA, as long as they've done something, they've clearly done enough.
“I think that he media industry needs to say, 'Look, why don’t we sell people what they want to buy,’ and I think that will take care a huge proportion of the problem,” he said.
“Our studios are constantly partnering and innovating new ways for audiences to watch the movies and TV shows they love: Hulu, HBO Go, Vudu, Crackle, UltraViolet, Epix, MUBI – and that just barely scratches the surface,” said Kate Bedingfield, a spokeswoman at the MPAA. “There are more legitimate avenues available today to watch movies and TV shows online than ever before, and our studios are continuing to innovate every day to bring audiences even more options.”In other words, don't actually address what Wales said. Don't respond to his specific complaint. Insist that because you're doing something, even if it doesn't solve the problem he noted, you're clearly doing enough... and then revert back to talking point numero uno: oh, poor us, we're harmed! So harmed. Harmed into our best years ever at the box office... (oh wait, they leave that last part out).
“At the end of the day, stealing shows and movies out of convenience still harms the people who work hard to make them,” Bedingfield added.
Seriously, the MPAA needs to hire communications people who actually deal with consumers, rather than politically-focused ones. They seem to have absolutely zero sense of how to respond to the public on anything without making themselves look worse. The last two decades of RIAA/MPAA communications have been a long-term case study in exactly how to do everything wrong.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: game of thrones, hollywood, jimmy wales, piracy, ultraviolet
Companies: hbo, hulu, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Problem
That would solve the problem, but the problem isn't piracy, the problem is a lack of legitimate options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
I am not ready to hoist the Jolly Roger yet, but I will say, the industry is making it more and more likely that I will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Problem
If the industry doesn't allow you to be a paying customer, there is no way that you can do them harm. There are simply no sales to lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
And about selling an MP3 or digital movie... I'll agree that if you destroy the copy you had once you've transferred ownership, there should be no limitation. But who's going to do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Problem
The consent of the property owner is the first consideration. Stealing/copying somebody's idea is not done with the consent of the patent owner/holder - and people copy patented tools, formulas, etc. all the time btw, it's a natural part of doing business unless both sides have big bucks. Copying a shared digital file is always done with the consent of the property owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Problem
100 percent of file-sharing involves consenting adults using their own property to send personal communications to each other, which we have a right to do even if we didn't author that communication. Piracy is what lawyers call "the tragedy of the commons." If everybody uses the common resource and nobody pays for it, inevitably there will be no more resource.
The truth of why content needs to be paid for is so obvious, such an easy, explainable sell, that there has to be an ulterior motive for incorrectly describing sharing as "stealing" or even "piracy."
My tinfoil theory is the the big corps that bought into media distributors in the 1980s-1990s want to use "piracy" as a trojan horse to abolish private property rights and establish a legal, "moral" right to profit. I don't think this issue really has anything to do with digital content distribution - I think the MPAA, RIAA etc. are essentially puppets for the investors that own their members.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
Your impersonation of a rabid and mindless shill is spot-on and you managed to hit all of the hysterical talking points.
Kudos for the claims that "rights" are being infringed instead of the truthful and boring terms like "Monopoly Privilege", making it easier to get up in arms to protect Rights, Freedom and Apple Pie instead of Monopoly, Restriction and Record Profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
Distributors: We don't want your stinking money.
-------------------
Distributors: We aren't making as much money as we think we should be making.
Politicians: How about we pass laws effectively tax people but give you the proceeds.
Distributors: That's not enough.
Politicians: Well what do you want?
Distributors: We're spending a fortune trying to enforce copyright against the vast bulk of the global population.
Politicians: Ah, so that's why you're making less money.
Distributors: Well strictly speaking no, but if you're willing to believe that against all evidence, then why not.
Politicians: How about we take over the vast bulk of those costs that you are currently wasting on ineffective recourse to the law to fix a problem that isn't actually affecting you?
Distributors: Well, that's something but we still get the feeling that you're not really trying.
------------------------------------------------
Consumers: WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
As for your vitriolic against Mike, might I suggest it is a classic case of shooting the messenger because you don't like the message?
Finally since this about power may I suggest that entertainment industry switch from being control freaks to little blue pills for their hard ons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Problem
In simple terms when an online music store say that 1M single have been sold in the EU, and the US labels only paid the artist $50,000 USD. The artist in question will wonder where the other $450,000 USD they are owed went.
Basically, the labels can not go online with out destroying themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Problem
If all sales were online they would not be able to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Problem
Given that, however; I think what is going on here is we are debating whether to call "VI" six or half a dozen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
Or Cutler Beckett getting 'Hoist the Colours' sung... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Problem
That would solve the problem, but the problem isn't piracy, the problem is a lack of legitimate options."
If you honestly think that is the problem, then you are entirely out of touch. It might be what some people say as their excuse for piracy, but the reality is that they just wanted:
1) The product sooner
2) The product cheaper
3) The product in a country it isn't sold in
... and so on. Basically, there is no respect for content providers at all.
It's not a question of being easier, it's a question of having an alternative that doesn't have to follow any business models, doesn't have to show a profit, doesn't have to pay for itself.
It's nutty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
If someone wants the product sooner than the content provider has decided to allow them to buy it, that person doesn't have any legitimate options. Respecting the content providers would mean waiting until whoever makes release decisions decides that they want to make money off of DVD sales. If someone gets something before its producer decides to sell it, it's the producer's fault that they didn't buy it.
If someone just wants a product cheaper, okay. There's a lot of things I don't buy because they're too expensive. It's a perfectly reasonable decision by the producer, but they have no right to complain when the people who aren't willing to spend that much money on their product don't. If they want the people who want it cheaper to buy it, they can lower the price, and if they think they're okay without those people buying it, they can keep the price the same. The situation and solution are the same regardless of whether piracy is involved or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Problem
Supply and Demand
What these companies fail to understand is the supply bit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
It's nutty.
But it's the way things are - take it or leave it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
Also, the ones out of touch, more often than not, end up being the content producers and people like you. People are literally trying to give you their money and you're basically saying, "Fuck off. I don't want it." Or, "I'll take your money when I'm good and ready to want to take your money, so deal with it!"
In this day and age, you can literally share anything at any given moment within a matter of seconds. This negates "the product sooner" bit. There is literally no logical reason for delays. Once the product is out there, it's out there. If you refuse to sell it and are keeping to the "windowed releases" thing, you're screwing yourself and your customers over. There is no reason for windowing releases anymore. None whatsoever.
"The product cheaper." On this point, I don't know. It makes sense. If it cost pennies to distribute the content digitally once it's created, there's no reason to demand people give you $30 for a digital copy. Especially given the fact that nowadays most people want content digitally. A blu-ray cost $30 (with a digital copy or a dvd included). People aren't going to pay outrageous fees for digital content. Why you have a problem with this I completely understand, but from an economical standpoint it makes sense. Of course people want to pay as little as is necessary for stuff. Are you fucking stupid or something?
"The product in a country it isn't sold in." This one is the stupidest of your points. YOU REFUSE TO SELL A PRODUCT TO A PARTICULAR COUNTRY. For whatever moronic reason (which I'm sure you have plenty of). Then you have the gall to be pissed that people in this country who know about your product still want it and will find an alternative way acquire it. WTF?! You aren't selling it. Period. No room for debate on that point. So why the fuck do you care how they acquire it? You obviously don't want them to have it. So you can't bitch that they got it anyway. I mean you can, but it makes no sense, especially when you're the one saying "I don't want your money, fuck off".
Also, if there's no respect for content providers at all as you postulate, why is that? Could it be the vast overreaching and broad laws they've advocated and tried to push through various governments? Could it be the mass lawsuits targeting their clients? Could it be the yearly attempts to expand copyright lengths to further keep things out of the public domain, while at the same time stealing from said public domain?
I mean if you act like a dick, you can't be shocked when people no longer treat you with respect. Or, well, you can, but it shouldn't come as a shock. You want respect, earn it. Keep overreaching, keep criminalizing and treating everyone as potential criminals, and you'll see how they'll reply in turn. (Hint: They won't want to be your best pal and give you their money. Nor will they want to show you the utmost respect.)
The only thing nutty is your comments so far. As in, how the fuck can this nutter write any of this without realizing he sounds like an entitled jerk and is making claims with no reasonable logic to back them up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
1) The product sooner
2) The product cheaper
3) The product in a country it isn't sold in
Providing stuff I want in a matter that is afforable, and easily available sounds like a great way to get my money. Why doesn't someone try doing that instead of whinging?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
1) The product sooner
2) The product cheaper
3) The product in a country it isn't sold in"
Yes. That is a partial list. Point out which one isn't a business model problem.
1) We want to hold back the product until we want to release it --Business model problem. Why are they adding artificial delays and guaranteeing that the only option is piracy?
2) No brainer. Price it at what the market will support. Of course, in almost all cases you can't even buy it all. Where can I buy a digital copy of "Batman Begins" to use in my XBMC? Business model problem.
3) Regional releases are completely under their control. They are clinging to the model where they could control where media is released. Business model problem.
Like I said, you only made a partial list. I would add the option to buy movies and tv shows that I could use in any device I want to. They are the ones deciding *not* to provide what people want, and then whining and complaining about how people are using other sources. They deserve to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
1) The product sooner
2) The product cheaper
3) The product in a country it isn't sold in
"
I'm reasonably sure that you're being sarcastic, if so Kudos to you.
Otherwise, most business people would jump at a market where people wanted a product so bad they want it "sooner", where an approaching zero marginal cost per product will make it really easy to meet the consumer desire for the product to be cheaper and don't even get me started on the business potential of a completely untapped market, especially when the cost of delivery would be identical and again, near zero, to that of the current crowded markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Problem
1) The product sooner
2) The product cheaper
3) The product in a country it isn't sold in
Why not offer:
1) The product sooner
2) The product cheaper
3) The product in a country it isn't sold in
That's so crazy it just might work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smoke and mirrors
They also stop Redbox and Netflix from getting new DVD releases for 28 days, is that innovative?
Also, Viacom just yesterday pulled their online shows in a dispute with a DirectTV Is that innovative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smoke and mirrors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Smoke and mirrors
The movie or TV season is from two seasons ago. Movies (with the few exceptions like Thor) are at least 2 years or older. You can mostly find the cruddy sequels to classics like Home Alone and Home Alone 2 (yes Home Alone 3 sucks, but it is the only one available). Then to top it all off, there is a limit as to how many shows are actually on Netflix streaming service. It's a good service as a content provider, but the content "owners" have a chokehold on it.
Ultraviolet is a pain in the ass to set up and you only keep the digital backup version you already own for 48 hours of streaming only. The setup to get it going makes it look like a god-damn phishing scam.
I love Netflix especially since my 4th Gen IPod Touch's 326dpi screen makes it look crisp. I enjoy the content on it, but the studios could do a whole hell of a lot better to improve things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smoke and mirrors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smoke and mirrors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's rather amusing that the industry's response to a comment stating that Jimmy Wales can't watch Game Of Thrones in London consists of a list of services which mostly can't be used in the UK (only MUBI, Crackle and Netflix are available there from that list, and none of them feature GoT). I won't count Ultraviolet because that's a bullshit DRM system, not an innovative platform.
Why, it's almost as though these morons won't listen to what customers are actually saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comic sums up the situation nicely
Maybe this is at a level she can understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This comic sums up the situation nicely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Laws banning region locked content (why can't I watch my favorite shows in Europe from the US?)
-Laws banning refusing to sell the same content to people in parts of the world (if you can get on the Internet to order it then you can play a DVD it they send, or watch it online)
Music/Hollywood groups aren't the only short sighted groups that lobby against their own best interests of course. Look at the Natural Gas industry, and how they continue to be secretive about the chemicals they pump into the ground when Fracking while still claiming it's 100% safe, because they don't want extra regulations making it more expensive to drill, and they claim the chemicals they use are a trade secret. The result of their secrecy and lobbying against safety studies/regulations on Fracking? Their entire business is beginning to get effectively outlawed in more and more places out of fear of fracking polluting the water supply & harming the environment, great long term planning huh? Big short term profits in exchange for what innovative new technology made your business so profitable being outlawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FACT #001.....MPAA are full of shit
Took the words out of my mouth.
We really need a campaign to push those facts. It amazes me that there is a huge amount of people that don't know them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FACT #001.....MPAA are full of shit
The recording industry at least has dropping sales they can point to in the midst of their whining (even though much of the drop likely has nothing to do with piracy). Hollywood are just whining that they might only make $11 billion instead of $12 billion at this year's box office and sell as many plastic discs, which hardly inspires sympathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FACT #001.....MPAA are full of shit
Not that you would want to actually understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FACT #001.....MPAA are full of shit
Oh I understand, not least that your argument always comes from having made your mind up and rejecting any counter-argument outright. try discussing these things occasionally, you'd be surprised at what you learn.
Admissions are up this year over the last couple of years, by all accounts. I fully expect this to be a very good year for ticket sales, and so far the average ticket cost is actually slightly *down* from last year (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/). We're only in mid-July, with several of the expected biggest hits yet to come, and the number of tickets sold is nearly 60% of last year's total - this is not the form of an industry in trouble.
Feel free to come back if I'm wrong about this - I have no problem admitting if I'm wrong, and if the figures on that page on Jan 1st 2013 show a downturn in attendance, we can discuss why. Also, if you have a similar breakdown of figures for the international market - much more lucrative now than in the past - I'd be interested to see them. Ditto real figures for DVD & other secondary market sales. Otherwise, you're only considering one small part of the overall market, which is pretty poor.
Either way, what you seem to be trying to say is that because Hollywood have managed to make more money than ever before by raising prices, this is a bad thing because less customers are paying the higher amount. I don't see why this is a problem when looking at grosses, especially as many of the people no longer paying for cinema tickets will still be paying for the movies via secondary markets. If less people are buying tickets, but you're making more money, why is this a problem, especially when digital projection & other cost saving measures are reducing the overheads required?
Feel free to continue an honest debate if you're capable of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FACT #001.....MPAA are full of shit
I used to go to *a lot* of movies. Now they are much too expensive. Hollywood decided they want *huge* opening weekends, and so they killed the long term hit with their pricing scheme. Business model problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FACT #001.....MPAA are full of shit
The movie industry has reduced the absolute number of ticket sales by increasing prices significantly.
The genius of that policy is that even though they are still in profit they can somehow convince the slow of thinking that reduced overall ticket sales due to increased ticket prices is somehow something to do with copyright infringement in any other sense than driving it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FACT #001.....MPAA are full of shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We cool now paul ?
Cinema trips have became more valuable.
Worthless copies are falling towards their real value.
My sympathy is dissipated to causes that deserve it.
http://i.imgur.com/sz4II.gif
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There goes Pirate Mike. Always, always, always blaming the companies who are doing nothing wrong for the decision of others to violate their rights. Why don't you ever lay the blame squarely where it belongs? The blame, Pirate Mike, belongs with the pirates who willingly choose to violate other people's rights. Where's your outrage at these pirates? LOL! There's no outrage. Mike Masnick LOVES piracy. Absolutely thinks it's the greatest thing in the world. Loves it so much that he blames the pirates' victims for the pirates' own wrongdoing.
Talk about idiotic, pirate apologies. Pirate Mike takes the cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where can I find Gargoyles DVDs?
Or Gummi Bears?
Perhaps The Mighty Ducks TV series?
Baywatch? Sailor Moon? Flash live action? Louis and Clark, the New Adventures of Superman?
How about a legal online source for those shows so that I can buy, view and download them?
You wanna know what the saddest thing about distribution of entertainment is?
The only industry that does it right is the anime industry.
I mean, Funimation practically released subs of One Piece episodes within a week of their airing in Japan.
What makes it sad is that the Anime industry here in America (and in other countries) is a VERY tiny portion of the entertainment industry, and yet they do such a good job that you do NOT hear about anime piracy (Manga yes, but that's a different story) very often. And I only pirate anime if 1: I'm not sure if it's good and I wanna find out (Mahou Shoujo Lyrical Nanoha, which I later bought both English seasons), 2: too expensive (I'm STILL not paying 50 bucks for a 13 episode season of Haruhi, damnit!) or 3: Can't get it (Shin Mazinger, why won't you come over?!)
Heck, Crunchyroll used to be a big piracy haven for Anime, now it's legit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What I'm really looking for is Early Edition Seasons 3 and 4. Or Martial Law (w/Sammo Hung). Those were good seasons/series.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, you get points for mentioning both OP and Gargoyles, neither of which have enjoyed an easy road to "take my money, please!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He thinks it's an insult....facepalm.jpg
www.pirateparty.org.uk
Where is the anti-pirate-party website ?
People would be proud to join that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know you try to troll, but your trolling skill is terrible and consists almost entirely on ad-homenim attacks. Also you by default assume following the rules is good and that piracy is bad. I bet you'd of bitched out the guys that threw tea in Boston Harbor in protest of the stamp act.
Pirates are people that steal physical goods to resell for profit, and are a problem. But we're not talking about pirates, we're talking about copyright infringement.
That cake you always seem to be posting about... It's a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Pirates" transform, for example, broadcast shows into downloadable shows. They then take this newly-created material and allow it to be downloaded freely on the internet.
Now, if the people holding the government-granted monopolies created their own transformative works, and allowed people to purchase them, then I'd be all for condemning the pirates. They wouldn't be adding anything to the system in that case.
At the moment, though, "pirates" are stepping up to the plate and providing a wanted service which the "rightsholders" are not. Until the rightsholders take action to provide that service, I don't even see that what those pirates are doing is morally wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps he read some of your comments and saw the dark, pathetic place to which that outrage leads a person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? You really believe that? That these companies are doing nothing wrong?
SOPA, PIPA, Hollywood Accounting, just to name a few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course the trolls never acknowledge this. They somehow think that stupidity should be forgiven in reality, while the truth is that reality is extremely harsh to idiots. Why everyone else should throw money at and be outraged for the sake of a clearly not-dying industry is completely illogical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Match Game
Connect the Title to the place you'd go you view it.
Psych-----------------Netflix
Terminator----------Amazon Streaming
Family Guy-----------Hulu
The Daily Show------HBO Go
All in the family------Vudu
Game of Thrones----Crackle
Shrek 3------------------UltraViolet
The Office--------------Epix
Batman Begins---------Mubi
Arrested Development----Torrent
It should not be this hard to figure out how to watch that you want to see. And I'm not subscribing to 10 different services even if I can figure it out. That's the barrier that Studios need to break down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Match Game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Match Game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Match Game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slowly but surely, obscurity will be a problem for them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slowly but surely, obscurity will be a problem for them
I only have a HD LCD TV so I need something that will hook up via HDMI or component.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slowly but surely, obscurity will be a problem for them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slowly but surely, obscurity will be a problem for them
You can quite easily get HD local stations over the airwaves now, which is an interesting change from ta few years as analog TV was getting worse and worse due to (I presume) increased interference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slowly but surely, obscurity will be a problem for them
1. there are decent antennas which will give you a BETTER HD picture than the crappy digital signal through cable/sat, i'm seriously considering those simply for that reason alone...
'good' ones i saw start about 50-60 bucks, and depending on how handy you are, not too much trouble to install...
(go to tvfool.com, and they have all kinds of good advice on using OTA HD antenna, etc; as well as a program which will tell you what is/isn't available in your EXACT location...)
2. yes, as previous posters mentioned, netflix sux big time... selection has gone to shit... *LOVE* the *IDEA* of the service (and may pick up the amazon prime crap), but the selection is close to useless...
*used* to subscribe (the price 'increase' didn't mean anything to me, we ONLY did online streaming, don't give a shit about getting DVD's through the mail), but when they started pulling all sorts of content due to Big Media bullying, we dumped them...
too bad...
3. of course, the elephant in the room is: WE HAVE NO CHOICE for our ISP; in our so-called 'free market' 'capitalist' system, ALL THE FUCKERS collude with -apparently 'legal'- 'non-compete' agreements: I CAN'T GET A 'COMPETITOR' to our SHITTY DSL service, NO MATTER WHAT...
we went over 6 months with 3mb/sec service running about 1/10th to 1/20th of that speed; of course, the ISP didn't give a shit, and lied to us the whole time we complained...
(oh, AND -ON THEIR OWN- *said* the would compensate us in some fashion, never did, then we called back, and they gave us a whopping $25 off our bill for 6 months+ of crap service; when we called about *that*, they said we had NEVER CONTACTED them over the slow service: LYING SCUMBAG MOTHER FUCKERS: we called nearly weekly, 'chatted' online a handful of times, and all we got were lies and bullshit...)
3. getting to the point Big Media makes using their products so expensive and onerous, i'm about ready to simply throw the teevee out the window... screw those useless bastards...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slowly but surely, obscurity will be a problem for them
This isn't the first time I've heard this question, and it makes me a little sad. Nothing personal at all, TTB, I'm making a larger observation.
The thing that makes me sad is that we have reached a point where there are people who actually don't know how to get TV unless it comes out of a cable. Watching TV without paying a cable company is becoming one of those arcane arts like how to work a dial telephone or how to play a phonograph record.
It wasn't terribly long ago that everyone knew how to hook up an antenna for OTA broadcasts and hooking up cable TV was the arcane art. God, I'm old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slowly but surely, obscurity will be a problem for them
so maybe there's money to be made to hook up people with an antennae? Heck, you could "rent" them the $50 worth of equipment for $10 a month and it would still be cheaper than cable so people would pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slowly but surely, obscurity will be a problem for them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not going to happen. Everyone they hire is going to be politically-focused, because everyone they hire is going to be an ex-politician (who just happened to support the MPAA's legislation, totally a coincidence guys, honest).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they send out spokesperson Kate Bedingfield -- who just recently joined the MPAA from the White House
It got me to thinking. Maybe what we need is for any high-level Federal position (elected officials, cabinet-level appointees, agency heads, and any other Federally appointed individuals) to sign what amounts to a non-compete contract, that states they will not be allowed to work for or take money from any industry for 5 years after leaving their government position. I mean the industry does it all the time, and when you hold one of those high-level positions you are essentially working for the people of the United States and all industries would technically fall under competition.
Not realistic but still a good thought in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Far too often the bills they introduce, and the laws they try and get passed help their future employers at the cost of the rest of the economy in general, and if intentionally sabotaging the economy in exchange for a cushy future job isn't already counted as treason, it bloody well should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No matter what laws you pass, no matter what police force you raise, no matter how many success stories you publish, no matter how many times you cry foul, no matter how much you kick and scream, piracy will exist to make up for your shortcomings.
You could pass a law enabling public execution of pirates and people will still continue to pirate.
As long as you keep trying to treat the symptoms, the problem will continue and spread.
This is not a war you can win by passing laws or demonizing pirates. The sooner you shut up and realize this, the sooner you will have the biggest impact on piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remember the article a few weeks back about the music pirates in North Korea? Those guys ARE risking death, to listen to free music (free as in beer and libre)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are we still having this debate?
If you have a product that you can sell an infinite number of times with each sale costing you a nominal amount and each successive sale costing you less and less to produce the product the normal business person would work as hard as they can to sell as many as possible. Even going to the point of cutting the price below what they normally would charge for it.
Why would they do that?
Because they smart enough to know that they will never run out of product. So the more they sell the more they will make. They are also smart enough to know that not every potential customer is going to buy at the higher price. Consumers do not have infinitely deep wallets. So consumers have to decide where their money is going to get the most value. As the price comes down the perceived value that the consumer feels they are getting for their money goes up.
That is what it comes down to. Value.
I will also give a personal example. My wife and I may rent 1 movie a month from our big name TV service provider because it cost us around $6.00 to $7.00 just for the one movie. And that is usually only when neither of us feel like running to the Redbox a half mile away.
But we rent 10-12 movies a month from the Redbox. We even rent movies we don't know or have not heard about (gotten a few really bad movies that way) because we know the worst case is we are out $1.29 if it sucks and we don't finish it.
With our TV provider because of the cost it HAS to be a movie we both know is going to be good and worth the 6-7 bucks.
Perceived value is everything. So the TV provider gets $6-7 a month from us. Redbox gets $12.90-15.48 from us. So the choice for us is this, get one we might like or get 5 that are more chancy. We think we get more VALUE for our money by taking the Redbox route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are we still having this debate?
The content industries believe that to maintain the value of their product they need to keep artificial restrictions and artificial high prices on their product.
In other words they fail to see the value in selling more to get more. The think that they will get more by selling at a higher price when all that does is limit the number of customers who match their thoughts about perceived value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why are we still having this debate?
Perhaps the thinking here is that
1) Its a much loved movie
2) There is only a finite number of discs
3) Because of high (perceived) demand for this movie, price must therefore be high.
Except...that completely ignores the internet and the fact I can get the movie for free right now if I want. Why should I shell out �20 for a single disc? What do I get out of it, other than a feeling of being completely ripped off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are we still having this debate?
Yeah but the tv provider only had to pay for one movie and served you from a central resource directly.
Redbox had to pay to buy 10-12 physical items, which they have to not lose or damage, which they had to transport to the location you rented it from and then only receive a total of $1.29 for your rental.
You have a totally valid point, but what unfortunately it highlights that the cable provider and/or just the studio (depending on the deal between the two) made a heck of a lot more money with their offering than redbox made from theirs, and at less risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why are we still having this debate?
Redbox had to pay to buy 10-12 physical items, which they have to not lose or damage, which they had to transport to the location you rented it from and then only receive a total of $1.29 for your rental."
But I, as Joe Consumer,
DON'T
GIVE
A
SHIT
about who makes what or how much it costs to serve ME. I only care about MY COST to watch/enjoy/consume something, and if it even available AT ALL (hello, Gargoyles cartoon!)
Until you, them, and everyone else in the content industry gets a SINGLE FUCKING CLUE about this, don't come bitching to me if I choose not to buy something, or complain about where I get it from.
Also see Cynic at #34 above, he hits the nail directly on the head about this entire issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why are we still having this debate?
Why wouldn't they want that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@1
they want to get paid for it....
if we use ther old model and remove distribution
its like pennies a album
if you remove need a theatres and cable and satellite
well what do those cost to build and operate?
ya right eh?
then you get technology so good that you could create an animated actor or musician and then just add sound you create overlaying it and why do i need hollywood at all?
GO ahead make copyright for ever and ever.....
im already moving to a create my own entertainment with the idea that ill give it out freely with a donate button for the rich whom want to brag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aththe end of the day
At the end of the day ripping people off for stuff you get paid for over and over and over and over for ever and then
using all that technology so you dont even need actors hardly constitutes hard work....
no industry gets paid what an actor does for a day of supposed work
then to get money afterwards and labels as well....
na your the ones stealing from society
commericals were supposed to pay for stuff and the 10$ ticket price was supposed to pay for it
you just want more and more
well society has had enough and now your gonna see the results of your actions in the future.
if your innovating where is all the good sci fi shows?
NONE ZERO ZILCH....
the sci fi network had to change to syfy and now its more like the dinosaur/wwe network
continuum is just how corporations see themselves as running the world and anyone even democracy people are just terrorists...i so want the bitch in that show to get offed...DIE YOU ANTI DEMOCRATIC BITCH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aththe end of the day
Really?
As someone on the left, I see it as a rather heavy handed diatribe against the corporations, with "our heroine" week by week realising how awful, underhanded and amoral the corporate run culture she's come from really is.
It's like Dylan Moran in Monster talking about people telling him about the latest in moronic idiocy from GW Bush, as if it was possible for us to think less of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Continue to disappoint
Why does the industry care where I watch something, especially if I am watching advertising with a paid service like Hulu Plus.
The industry practices definitely make the more savvy internet user use "other" methods for obtaining the content they want to watch but cannot get thru any legimate method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Continue to disappoint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, the MPAA included "HBO Go" in the list of services in its statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Currently, HBO GO is provided by HBO to persons who have HBO subscriptions with certain companies, and HBO is working to add other companies to the list. Of course, each of these require contracts between those companies and HBO, and doubtless those companies are trying to negotiate such contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The MPAA chose to respond.
So if it's an irrelevant connection, the MPAA are the ones making it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out of curiosity, what was Bedingfield's job at the white house? it must obviously have been real important to the entertainment industries to give her a job with them now she's left the other side of politics. or could she just be a 'friend' of Dodd or someone else equally as important?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember the days of placing a tape into a player and it instantly played the movie?
Now consumers don't even have that choice in their physically purchased product.
But you know, there's a silver lining here: Eventually, Hollywood will have literally closed off every technical avenue at their disposal so no one, buyers or not, can watch the content.
Why should we stop them from self-destructing again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm...no? That never happened. Every single VHS or DVD I got before the days of broadband had unskippable ads and anti-piracy warnings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Erm, no. VHS had warnings, but they sure as hell were skippable...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mine: fast forwarding for 3 minutes while you watch the ads...
Yours: ...warnings...
Sure, the warnings only lasted between 5 & 10 seconds of that. Still far too long imho.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...Since when was anything on a VHS unskippable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The hell it didn't.
I remember when VHS movies didn't even have the FBI logo.
But I confess: I'm old. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulu:
Wikipedia quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulu
HBO Go:
Quote:
Source: www.hbogo.com
Not available in the U.K.
Vudu:
Only available in the US.
Owned by Walmart.
UltraViolet:
Authentication scheme, not a delivery of media or services.
Wikipedia quote:
Epix:
Owned by Viacom (via Paramount Pictures), Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Lionsgate.
Wikipedia quote:
Only available in the US.
EpixHD quote:
Quote from MUBI:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's see if an analogy will help.
Imagine I'm running a store.
Now sure, I could make the products I sell available to everyone who wants to buy from my store.
But I have discovered, that if I use a system of staggered availability I can make more, especially as I can target promotional materials at the different groups.
So for example, I can promote a sale on some top quality luxury products for white male business people one week before moving on to a different category, say the upwardly mobile Asians then onto black people, pimps and drug dealers (The PC brigade won't lets us say the N word "Ne'erdowells" I show no fear) before hitting up the Wetbacks.
It can help with the kudos attached to the item for sale if there is a group that's completely excluded, say snail eating freedom hating French people.
Obviously each successive group has less money to spend on Rolexes and we have a duty to maximise profits.
There would be nothing unreasonable about this in the physical world so why the heck don't people understand the advantage of staggered release windows in the digital world of infinite supply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obviously the good people who make ridiculous overpriced status symbols for those with fragile egos would never be racist in any way whatsoever, nor would the associate themselves with anyone who was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The crappy analogy you described would almost certainly be illegal if you were to block one race from buying instead of another. There's no problem in *marketing* to different people at different times, but it's idiocy to actually block people from buying just because it's inconvenient to your marketing strategy.
The reason people don't "understand" is because it's failing, and the fools in the industry don't understand that it's this very strategy that drives many to piracy in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But as box office records are being broken
and sales of everything pretty much across the board other than CD are up, what we're not getting is that it's working just fine for them.
They just want to make it work even better, from their point of view.
That means, government takes over a lot of the costs of copyright enforcement, passes legislation to bypass those pesky courts that occasionally ask for proof of wrongdoing or at least harm of some kind, perhaps mandating some kind of tax on ISPs or blank media etc.
Why wouldn't these ridiculous amoral people pursue the line they are currently pursuing, it saves them money and makes them money and gives them a cause they can rail against.
You know, a bit like, the US and Arabs or the old South African apartheid government and people of colour, or any other idiocy you can think of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But don't come back with righteous indignation about the problems that the chosen plan causes or worsens. That's part of the deal you chose.
And, most importantly, don't bribe and pressure legislators into altering laws that cause great damage to innocent people and society in an attempt to mitigate those problems.
If the problems that come with a business plan are unbearably egregious, then the business plan is flawed and a different approach is required -- no matter how "reasonable" that plan may be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And, most importantly, don't bribe and pressure legislators into altering laws that cause great damage to innocent people and society in an attempt to mitigate those problems."
Why shouldn't they, if the legislators are can be bribed or will succumb to pressure to legislate to support my business model why on earth would I do anything else.
More importantly, in a democracy, if people cared then the people who passed such legislation would never get elected again, so the fact is democracy has spoken.
Copyright can and therefore should be extended in both reach and time, government funded agencies can and therefore should do the job of policing to prevent people infringing copyright whether they benefit from doing so or not.
Don't think that corporations have no regard for the costs being put onto the taxpayers either, court cases cost a lot of money and as you will have noticed the corporations are going to great lengths to reduce the costs by getting legislation passed that will bypass the court system completely.
The internet may be different than the real world, but only in so far as legislation that would be unthinkable in the real world is not only considered but actively pursued by governments. Whereas they went to a lot of effort to put an end to the kind of business model where people could decide not to sell anything to any of them black folks.
But the real problem isn't the corporations or the politicians, it's the electorate who refuse to bring consequences to bear on elected representatives who work against the best interests of their electorates.
Hold up a mirror people, that person you see there, that's why this insane IP century is going the way it's going and unless you do something about it, it won't get any better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If things keep going the way they are, you'll see that and more. Next time OWS happens, it wont be passive hipsters and dead heads, its going to be working class and lower white collar people dragging shitbags onto the streets and beating them to death. LOL at legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bloodbath
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tell you what, I got a better idea: I'm not going to consume anything they push out. I've been spending more money on videogames, and only the few I'm interested in. They won't be getting money from me, and if they want to push out more laws that insinuate I must be a pirate so they can take my money that they don't deserve, they'll have a huge wave of backlash coming their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would agree with your argument if there were actually alternatives to vote for. But there aren't. "Vote the bastards out" accomplishes nothing when you only have a pool of bastards to replace them with.
Also, the problem isn't only corrupt politicians. It's a corrupt political system. A completely honest politician cannot accomplish a thing in Washington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulu: Only available in the US, thus keeping the resource(s) scarce.
MPAA: Geniuses who can only try to spin any argument against them into propaganda to try to save face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strangely enough, I too want movie "piracy" to end
So for the love of all that's good and decent, please stop sharing movie files online. The only way we're going to kill Hollywood dead as the dinosaur is to give it what its tiny little dinosaur brain wants -- strangling control of its own rotten products.
Good riddance to these repulsive half-wits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although most of the comments were lambasting a few of the commenters for not addressing the question.
Too bad, it looked like a good discussion was going there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, but...pirates
Basically all I ever get is that companies don't want my money because of piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, but...pirates
Their attitude to Mike is similar - they attack him personally for being a pirate and for supporting piracy, even though I've never seen any proof of either of these. The simplest explanation is that they seem to think that pointing out problems is the same as causing them. No wonder this argument never goes anywhere, with them making and defending the same mistakes over and over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice that no Top 10 now stays on the charts beyond a few weeks. It points to them having damaged people wanting their goods and it is showing up in the lack of longevity for those same goods.
I personally have no trouble with this. The sooner they go bankrupt, the better off the nation will be. All this pushing for ever increasing penalties has not worked any better than the same solution applied to the Drug Wars has. It's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words, you will watch the shows that we will let you watch when we feel like it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've never understood ...
I've never understood why, if the org really believe this, they were willing to tolerate their members willfully not selling product wherever, whenever and however.
If downloading without paying is stealing, then refusing to sell something is by that same logic also stealing. In both cases you're denying money to a creator from a potential sale.
If you refuse to sell to someone that's money out of my pocket, same as if they consume and refuse to buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Chinese Solution
Very possibly, the Chinese are the biggest shoppers in the world. Put them in a store with an armload of cash and they'll go wild but, if they can't find a genuine Prada bag they'll quickly snatch up a fake and when it comes to they'll eagerly buy stuff but if they can't get Spiderman, Batman, True Lies or Game of Thrones because the studios won't release it in the PRC, they'll gladly steal it and their excuse is
"The big companies don't give me what I want then I take it!" We're just relearning to do this in the West and the big media companies are soon going to learn that, like the Chinese, we want to see or listen to what we want to, when we want to at a price that we want to pay. If they don't then like the Chinese I'm not adverse to taking it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulu, what, what, what and what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Out of convenience? Well it looks like thats the only part they managed to get close to correct, but more often its the *ONLY* alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our politicians are so bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A cultural problem
tired of being screwed by the banks? Don't use their products. If 25% of us would stop using debit and credit cards for one week, I guarantee you would have the banking industries full attention. Take a break, read a book from the library. Save your money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A cultural problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]