The MPAA Narrative About Piracy Flips To Danger From Pirate Sites Now That It Has Lost The Moral Argument
from the that-won't-work dept
For years, years, the MPAA's public fight against piracy has chiefly consisted of a moral argument against it. Proclamations of the end of movies, the downtrodden future of filmmakers, and claims about piracy being equatable to outright theft were the tools of a Hollywood lobbier that itself exhibited the most underhanded sort of tactics in its attempts to get the internet to stop being the internet. It seems facile to state that this moral argument failed to find any purchase with the public, as filesharing went mainstream anyway. The reasons for this should be rather obvious: the arguments the MPAA made and the dooms it foresaw for itself and its industry were provably false. File sharing and piracy are a thing, yet movies still make gobs of money, allowing the MPAA to pay its executives the sort of handsome sums reserved for successful agencies. Still, Hollywood kept to its talking points. Piracy is wrong. Morally wrong.
But it seems that even the MPAA is ready to concede that it has fully lost this argument with the public. The latest from those that worked for the MPAA appears to be that it now wants to switch narratives from a moral argument to one of public danger.
The MPAA's former VP of Worldwide Internet Enforcement says that the industry narrative on piracy is no longer based on trying to get people to act ethically. Hemanshu Nigam says the discussion today is based around the dangers that pirate sites can pose to those who visit them. Few listened before, will they listen now?
Hemanshu Nigam is a former federal prosecutor, ex-Chief Security Officer for News Corp and Fox Interactive Media, and former VP Worldwide Internet Enforcement at the MPAA. In an interview with Deadline this week, he spoke about alleged links between pirate sites and malware distributors. He also indicated that warning people about the dangers of pirate sites has become Hollywood’s latest anti-piracy strategy.
“The industry narrative has changed. When I was at the MPAA, we would tell people that stealing content is wrong and young people would say, yeah, whatever, you guys make a lot of money, too bad,” he told the publication. “It has gone from an ethical discussion to a dangerous one. Now, your parents’ bank account can be raided, your teenage daughter can be spied on in her bedroom and extorted with the footage, or your computer can be locked up along with everything in it and held for ransom.”
Now, while Nigam works for the DCA (Digital Citizens Alliance), and the DCA is in part funded by the MPAA, it's worth carefully examining his and the MPAA's stance here to see whether this tactic will be any more effective than the previous moral argument. I think it's likely to fail, for several reasons. The first, as the TorrentFreak post points out, is that those that pirate content are consumers in the business sense. They are a form of customer for the sites that offer this sort of pirated content and they have all the same whims and wills of any paying customer. In other words, a site that lures the public in with pirated content for the purpose of deploying malware to them isn't going to keep its traffic for long.
In the Deadline piece, however, Nigam alleges that hackers have previously reached out to pirate websites offering $200 to $5000 per day “depending on the size of the pirate website” to have the site infect users with malware. If true, that’s a serious situation and people who would ordinarily use ‘pirate’ sites would definitely appreciate the details. For example, to which sites did hackers make this offer and, crucially, which sites turned down the offer and which ones accepted?
It's important to remember that pirates are just another type of consumer and they would boycott sites in a heartbeat if they discovered they'd been paid to infect them with malware. But, as usual, the claims are extremely light in detail. Instead, there's simply a blanket warning to stay away from all unauthorized sites, which isn't particularly helpful.
These sorts of blanket statements to stamp out piracy generally have the ring of a scare tactic for these reasons. Still, scare tactics can certainly work. Will this one? Again, I think not, due to a point we made earlier: file sharing is now mainstream. How many readers of Nigam's interview will be able to easily say that the doom he's warning them of hasn't happened to them as they've engaged in file sharing? The number is going to be quite large, it stands to reason. Rather than the scare tactic working, then, this will come off more like a Reefer Madness for piracy, an analogy everyone from TorrentFreak to the author of the Deadline interview seems to be making. If that happens, the DCA and MPAA take yet another hit to their credibility. There is even evidence that the public generally isn't listening to this latest argument of danger and those that are, are not particularly impressed.
Earlier this year the DCA launched a video campaign, enrolling 15 attorney generals to publish their own anti-piracy PSAs on YouTube. Thus far, interest has been minimal, to say the least. At the time of writing the 15 PSAs have 3,986 views in total, with 2,441 of those contributed by a single video contributed by Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel. Despite the relative success, even that got slammed with 2 upvotes and 127 downvotes.
A few of the other videos have a couple of hundred views each but more than half have less than 70. Perhaps most worryingly for the DCA, apart from the Schimel PSA, none have any upvotes at all, only down. It’s unclear who the viewers were but it seems reasonable to conclude they weren’t entertained.
Not a great start for this narrative shift, to be sure. The public is steadily becoming more educated on the dangers of malware and viruses, as well as the proper security strategies for their electronic devices. Because of that, vague doomsayers warning of the digital apocalypse stemming from file sharing sites that have only become more popular aren't likely to find a great deal of fertile ground for their efforts.
On a related note, is all of this really easier and more effective than simply coming up with better ways to make money in the digital economy?
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine if they stopped paying the MPAA to tell them the fairytale... its NEVER come true. They keep fighting reality, sure they can put the genie back into the bottle. How stupid are they to keep thinking something is magically going to chance the public view of them?
They have been hostile to the people willing to pay them, and are shocked people don't like being treated worse than dirt. They are so terrified of things changing they refuse to adapt because the sky might fall. They can list 1000 bad things they expect to happen, 500 of them came to pass only after they engaged in behavior that drove paying customers to other options.
The job is to sell us content.
The job is not to demand that we only use the approved player, at the approved time, in the approved place, with only the authorized number of viewers, with the authorized snacks.
They waste millions on sure fire ways to stop the pirates, but not a single cent in making sure consumers can access the content they want to pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, we're talking about organizations have misled the courts about what they were doing to track down "pirates", have consistently lied to consumers about things like backing up the content they've purchased, and have gleefully attempted to abuse consumers at every point they could (how many of you wanted to avoid the preview adverts at the start of your DVDs only to find that Hollywood did all it could to make sure you couldn't?), etc. And yet the public couldn't see past all that to see how righteous the argument they've been making really IS?! How unenlightened of the hoi polloi!
Yeah, so absent honeypot sites attempting to make Hollywood's point I doubt anything has changed with the MPAA's new tack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just make it easier to get legally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just make it easier to get legally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just make it easier to get legally
Want to get paid? Do something that actually spends your TIME, like a live show. You work an hour you get paid an hour. Not like today where some people work a few days on a production and then they expect to be paid forever in eternity by anyone and every time they experience said production.
You are a movie producer, cannot do live shows? How is that our problem? Why should we the people, society in general, give up our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, anonymity, privacy, copying and sharing so said producer can have his/her way with profit?
The more hours you work, the more you get paid, really that simple. The others schemes are just rentist and speculative, parasitic, unfair and generate huge inequalities in society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just make it easier to get legally
Few are interested in live shows. The current system where money is spent based on demand, is better.
Nonsense. Education, experience and talent all count, and should be factored in.
And even then, demand and one's choices should override that. I recently had dinner with an old friend who is now highly educated and deep in tuition debt - for something with no demand whatsoever. He's now a security guard for an arena loading dock. I wouldn't call it unfair.
For family-owned business even nepotism is valid - as providing a better future for one's kids is a driving factor for the owner to put in the hard work and take the risks getting started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no one cares about actors and muscians
danger? what danger....only virus i ever got in past 15 years happened froma game trainer for a single player game....
now that windows ten no thanks
now there streaming , no thanks
now there laws , no thanks
now they cry what? DANGER? ya cause everyone has gone dark on htem and they cant figure out why no one buying crap they put out
KEYWORD CRAP...and i refuse to support people whom would sue the disabled , the poor , and they are the danger...to freedom and innovation and cultures future
THE MPAA IS A CULTURAL TERRORIST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me see if I follow...
As an industry, movies do not make "gobs of money"; even the most profitable content machines, like Disney, have good years and bad years, and occasionally completely awful years that get studio execs fired.
I don't think the movie industry "lost" the moral argument (at least as to the legitimacy of piracy) so much as a segment of the populace chose to completely ignore because they wanted free stuff.
I won't argue that Hollywood/MPAA have completely clean hands, or that they didn't do some foot-shooting, and I won't deny that many of the tactics they have used to fight piracy have been awful by any measure, but I don't see any inherent flaws in the idea that content piracy is a bad thing, and people shouldn't do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me see if I follow...
Their old, and new narrative on piracy makes much more sense when looked at as a tactic to try and gain control over the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
I am curious how being located in California magically allowed the side-stepping of patent law, which is federal (and Edison certainly had enough money to file federal lawsuits.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
Multiple ways, actually. First, the federal judges in California were known to be less sympathetic on patent law. Second, because this was the time of Edison, traveling wasn't as easy as it is today, making enforcement of the patents lengthy and expensive just from a travel standpoint. Third, that last bit is important because Edison's monopoly organization on film making, the MPPC, was about to lose its patents (due to time) and its business (due to the antitrust investigations against it), and couldn't therefore go traipsing around the country to enforce it's bullshit monopoly....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
It's also worth mentioning that Edison is the grandfather of movie piracy.
The 1902 French silent film A Trip to the Moon (Le Voyage dans la Lune) was pioneering and influential and an internationally popular success. Edison fraudulently obtained a copy, duplicated it many times over, and started showing it in theatres all over America. With the original credits removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
He still had to contact them. The phone wasn't invented yet (I don't think), leaving only telegraph as a means of communication. And you had to pay for each word.
That leaves the issue as to how he'd pay them. He'd have to hire someone to make sure the money got to the right place, ride a train over to California (a process that could take days), and talk to the lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
There would also be a delay for a copy of the patent to be produced, then mailed across the country by train.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me see if I follow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite.
In Disney's case, this would be carried out by Buena Vista Entertainment (Disney's distribution arm) over-billing a movie-specific subsidiary (say, an account held by Touchstone) for marketing services or DVD sales.
But since BVE and Touchstone are both under the Disney Studios umbrella, it's a wash as far as Disney Studios go, even if it might cook the books farther down the org chart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
Satan personally provides Disney with the best lawyers a child actor’s soul can buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
I was simply responding to the assertion that "even the most profitable content machines, like Disney, have good years and bad years, and occasionally completely awful years that get studio execs fired."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let me see if I follow...
Now, about hollywood accounting ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough strawmen to fill several fields
Paraphrasing here: "Since piracy has not actually driven Hollywood bankrupt, it's not financially harmful, and they don't deserve that money anyway."
No. Just... no.
People are pointing out that for years the AA's and hollywood have been crying about how copyright infringement was such an insane threat that it would destroy the industry, all the while time and time and time again bringing in record profits, such that people simply stopped taking them seriously when they claimed that copyright infringement was this huge issue and a problem and continued on with what they likely feel is a harmless activity, making copies of stuff.
You can only say the world is ending if X doesn't go away, only to have the world not end despite the fact that X is still there so many times before people stop listening to you.
As an industry, movies do not make "gobs of money"; even the most profitable content machines, like Disney, have good years and bad years, and occasionally completely awful years that get studio execs fired.
[Citation needed], see links above for counter-examples.
I don't think the movie industry "lost" the moral argument (at least as to the legitimacy of piracy) so much as a segment of the populace chose to completely ignore because they wanted free stuff.
Because that particular strawman never gets old...
Study, after study, after study have shown that those dastardly 'pirates' tend to buy more than non-pirates.
They don't 'want free stuff', they are perfectly willing to buy, what they don't want to do is jump through a bunch of hoops, be treated like crap, pay unreasonable prices all to get a product that's demonstrably worse than the free version. Offer a service that's easy to use, convenient and at a fair price and you'll have people throwing money at you even if they could have gotten the content for free.
I won't argue that Hollywood/MPAA have completely clean hands, or that they didn't do some foot-shooting, and I won't deny that many of the tactics they have used to fight piracy have been awful by any measure, but I don't see any inherent flaws in the idea that content piracy is a bad thing, and people shouldn't do it.
Which is something most people here won't disagree with in general(despite repeated lies by certain individuals stating otherwise), the point being made is that it's going to happen regardless, so it's much better to either ignore it, try to make it work for you, or take it as an indication that a particular market is being underserved and fix that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. You don't follow. Allow me to elaborate.
We pay for the same damned thing repeatedly. 100+ years of copyright. Our entire culture is locked behind a paywall.
The only people wanting free stuff are the distributors, and they have gotten enough free stuff for any ten lifetimes.
The reason entertainment is hard to make money from? IT'S CHILD'S PLAY! Playing football is not work. Singing and dancing is not work. Playing pretend in front of a camera is not work.
I am not saying such things need to be stifled, but creating laws to threaten people's lives if they make copies of people doing such things is fascism, and acting like people are going to STOP PLAYING PRETEND IN FRONT OF A CAMERA *GASP* if we don't have copyright is just ... gaggingly pathetic.
Either find a way to work daily singing and dancing and playing pretend, or sing and dance and play pretend as a HOBBY, like everyone else does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me see if I follow...
If I made a police report that I was being robbed blind, yet lived an extravagant lifestyle, I would lose my credibility. The MPAA is not magically immune to this scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me see if I follow...
As a basic concept, that's fine. But, it the way the industry deals with it and refuses to own up to a very simply reality (no matter what they do, piracy has always happened, and always will).
If you start with bullshit about every download being a lost sales, start suing your own customers, refuse to service customer demand, make it more difficult and expensive for people to buy your product, etc. you have lost the high ground on all sides.
"As an industry, movies do not make "gobs of money""
Google "Hollywood accounting" and start learning why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me see if I follow...
It is hard for a thief to make a convincing argument against stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me see if I follow...
More like because there is no evidence or even any reasonable indication of it having any negative impact whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me see if I follow...
That is simply not true. If that was true we would see less companies, less production houses, less TV channels, less movies produced, less of everything, which simply is NOT the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me see if I follow...
"As an industry, movies do not make "gobs of money"..."
Nice little twist of words there; was it intentional? Individual movies may not make huge profits but the movie industry sure as hell does. The whole industry model is to rip off as many people as possible to make as much money as possible. They have zero moral high ground, so defending them with moral arguments is a waste of time and effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The MPAA's argument against piracy is now identical my argument against turning my adblocker off when a site demands it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Lost the moral battle", eh?
To Techdirt, there's NOTHING worse than morality.
This is simply recognizing that "millenials" don't care about ANY morality. MPAA is shifting tactics in response to worsening moral environment. You should commend them for seeing reality.
However, courts are slow to change, and then much worse is that "both" sides in "politics" like police action, so expect to see more vigorous copyright enforcement such as actually kicking in doors. You all say that's coming soon. -- But now I've said it, you contrarians may reverse.
The drop in morality will affect you who giggle now: by time you retire and think deserve to live in ease, millenials born today will steal your property and life so casually as you steal movies and music now. You'll be old SOON, assuming don't over-dose or die of cirrhosis first, a burden to and dependent upon younger people. You won't be able to rely even on your own offspring. -- "Help, I've fallen and can't get up!" -- Millenials will use their phones to grab video, LAUGHING. -- THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRING, KIDS. -- And why should they help you? That's only old-fashioned "morality", while they might get a few bucks from Youtube if you die funnily enough. Maybe a few kicks will get you thrashing for better entertainment. Survival of the fittest, but most of you entertainment addicts are already among the fattest.
Oh, and you'll be a drain on corporate profits too, so they'll dump you any way can. -- Even better, come up with legal ways to profit from your death. Wal-Mart already insures geezer door greeters hoping they'll die.
Your future from the vanishing of "morality" and the increase of corporatized police state is bleak, kids. So enjoy stealing while you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh? -- Not until The Law is no more.
Techdirt will apparently cheat any way can. Without warning. Can't find any of these rules -- especially not regarding comment content -- except by experiment, and it's sometimes random too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh? -- Not until The Law is no more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
"millenials born today will steal your property and life so casually as you steal movies and music now."
citations needed - of course
Seems you have an issue with the younger generation, perhaps you should seek professional help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
Hint: people born today don't fit in that category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced, if the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 BC (attributed)
Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyranize their teachers.
- Socrates
An Assyrian clay tablet dating to around 2800 B.C. bears the inscription: “Our Earth is degenerate in these later days; there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book and the end of the world is evidently approaching.”
- Smithsonian.com
Just how old are you, to remember that "old-fashioned morality?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
Before the millennials there was Generation X, the generation that lived off of mixtapes and recorded songs taken off free-to-air radio. They were the millennials of their time, and they had to suffer the same "music consumed in the way we don't like is morally evil" spiel. Not only did they largely ignore these warnings, they haven't suddenly become a generation of thieves.
out_of_the_blue is talking out of his second mouth, as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
"All these dope smoking hippies have no morals or scruples with all their loud rock n roll and free love crap. The world is going go to hell in a hand basket, just you wait and see."
I'm still waiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
"All these dope smoking hippies have no morals or scruples..."
Now they run the MPAA, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
Stupid fat fingers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thous Shalt Not Lie
Copying is not theft. The entire PURPOSE of copyright is to control communication as an end around to laws that began to emerge against overt censorship. Just my opinion? Fine. Surely it is just your opinion then that doing something yourself is the exact same thing as taking something right out of someone's HOUSE and keeping it for yourself.
I can think of little that qualifies as a more overt and stupid lie.
If an artist wants to make a living, they need to work daily doing that art. If it is acting, they need to act daily. If it is singing, they need to sing daily. That is what work is like. It is a daily grind. It is what we all are supposed to do. Work.
"In the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread, and thorns and thistles shall the ground bear for thee."
Pardon my crap paraphrase skills.
What on God's green EARTH makes you think singers and dancers and artists deserve anything better? How in the WORLD do you get to a moral argument threatening VIOLENCE against people for making COPIES for themselves rather than paying you extortionist's rates to do it for us?
You may well just burn in hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thous Shalt Not Lie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thous Shalt Not Lie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thous Shalt Not Lie
who is the supremacist? We don't care what happens or what is going on "in the US". We are not USA, we don't have their laws, we don't want their laws, we don't need their laws, we don't abide by their laws, we have our own laws.
He is not judging anyone. You are the one who thinks that someone just for making a beat or a (mainly CGI) movie is entitled to money from every one. Talk about entitlement and supremacists you ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thous Shalt Not Lie
Tell me again the difference between you and an asshole?
What makes you think you can judge what people say, you supremacist? You are an asshole, you supremacist. They should work every day, you supremacist, because otherwise you are a hypocrite, you supremacist. Keep talking, you speak for a lot of assholes on this site. Bury yourself in your supremacy. Go ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
No seriously grandpa, be careful with your blood pressure, no need yelling so much at the clouds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
Saying all millenials are like this or all old people is like that is STUPID, and just a generalization that contributes nothing to any discussion. What is old people anyway? What age? What physical characteristics? What fitness level? What mental structure? What moral? What set of beliefs?
All just utter crap.
There is no such thing as generations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHEN IN HELL??
Cut personnel from the bottom up..
Cut hours so we dont pay Extra taxes, medical, and soforth..
Managers that get 40 hours a week pay $1 more then min wage, and work them 60 hours in Christmas season..
WE cut the lower employees, NOW lets cut bookkeepers and the paper work..FIRE OFFICE WORKERS..
Place people onCALL..and dont pay them, for sitting around WAITING for a phone call. and NEED to be at work in 30 minutes.
HIRE specific people, Female, With children, NO SPOUSE..They cant Strike, they cant Quit, and feed the kids or keep a home..
LET THE STATE HOUSE AND FEED THEM...we dont have to attitude and paychecks..
PS. this started in the 80's.. They CUT 1/3 in 4 years..
ONLY people that get PAID GOOD money are the Local distribution truckers..$14 per hour, and 60+ hours and over time IF NEEDED(holidays SUCK, and make you rich)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHEN IN HELL??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WHEN IN HELL??
Both industries kept certain people ON CONTRACT and never raised how much they were Given.
EVEn after they became Stars.. under contract from 5-10 years, there was NO renegotiation.. NO profit sharing NOTHING.
NOW the price of a movie..and MOVIE profit.
Movies are MONEY.. HOLD the movies to be RENTED/LEASED and returned, and you can Cover up any profit, in USE/handling/shipping expenses..and anything else you want to add to it..
Companies have been Swapping products back and forth for SOOO LONG..insted of paying money, they Give a movie and ALL its rights..and you can Price it at ANYTHING...because there is no END on copyright.
TELL me the story of PUBLIC DOMAIN.,..and I will show you an ALMOST empty space.
For all the movies CREATED..you might find 10% out in the wild.. OTHERS have been COLLECTED, but small groups and persons..NEVER to be seen again..OR RUINED and never had the Original material/FILM updated... LOST..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WHEN IN HELL??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Switch from Moral argument to Convenience argument
Pirated movie: Insert disk, push play, enjoy moie.
Purchased movie: Insert disk, push play.
FBI warning
Homeland Security warning
Other warning
Unskippable ad for a movie released three years ago
Unskippable ad for a movie released five years ago
More warnings
More unskippable ads
Finally the movie starts, and you have already finished your popcorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Switch from Moral argument to Convenience argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Switch from Moral argument to Convenience argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Switch from Moral argument to Convenience argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Switch from Moral argument to Convenience argument
...you...haven't seen a movie in awhile, have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Switch from Moral argument to Convenience argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Switch from Moral argument to Convenience argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Switch from Moral argument to Convenience argument
- the $16 hard earned USD you actually had to let go
- no copying, no sharing, no remixing, no reutilizing
- geoblocks
- device locks
- most money DOES NOT go to authors
- many more but I am lazy now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Late in the cassette and CD era there was usually one only song per album worth paying for. The rest was filler. iTunes fixed that. Netflix became the video equivalent, at least in the US, but...
It seems the cable companies and movie studios are trying to destroy streaming video by forcing it into the "single hit plus filler" model.
Here in Canada the last year of the Colbert Report was moved to an expensive specialty channel with nothing worthwhile to offer. CBS's new Star Trek series will only on a CBS streaming service in the US, and only on a specialty channel in Canada. Etc. Etc. To buy any song you have to pay for an album full of filler.
And we know how that turned out with music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the new narrative will fall flat simply because people have already been exposed to the reality that one of the biggest sources of malware is legitimate web sites that host advertising. That's why the use of ad-blockers is on the rise. All people will do is shrug at the DCA and go "That's different from every other web site out there how again?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creedence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Creedence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's parse this out:
If he says so, I guess.
Perhaps he's referring to the legal fees associated with fending off companies like Malibu Media?
Facilitated, perhaps, by Sony's next generation DRM-turned-Malware?
By the US Government in their role as a de facto enforcement arm of the MPAA? Does the MPAA really want to use Kim Dotcom as a poster child?
He's right. Those are all serious threats....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ultimate irony...
a) You can download 25 songs/second
b) You can download an episode of your favorite show in under a minute.
I am suuuuure that the MPAA/RIAA is totally fine with that kind of advertisement, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think the MPAA has "lost" a moral war. Rather, I think they realize that they have reached a stalemate position on it, where certain groups will always think piracy is acceptable and they won't change their minds. Also, with personal piracy (aka, torrents) on the wain, the question has shifted to streaming, streaming boxes, and streaming sites.
Torrent Freak will always say that anything other than 100% anti-piracy means they gave up. It's just not supported by reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you cannot convince them with a moral angle, perhaps one that highlights the risks in downloading / streaming from random places might work on some. That doesn't mean the moral angle isn't there, just that it's reached a certain point where it's no longer moving forward.
I saw recently on Twitter someone posting about how millenials and hipsters have pretty much buggered everything cool up. Downloading appears to be another one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you don't think they've lost, based on what Nigam has said, what indication do you have that the stand isn't being left behind as they've moved onto the malware scare? The latest malware, password leaks etc. aren't originating from "pirate" sites. If that's the angle they're expecting to gain ground with the whole Internet is at risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If you cannot convince them with a moral angle, perhaps one that highlights the risks in downloading / streaming from random places might work on some."
...and when people realise that there's little risk if you exercise some common sense security measures? Do they still try to play games, or do they finally fill the gaps between what people are paying for and the additional features the pirates give them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is, it took them 15 years after the fact to realise this and wasted a lot of money and goodwill on counterproductive solutions that would never work.
It's great that they're finally coming around to reality, they just need to look at the half-assed solutions they're still offering and improve them. For example - you know why those streaming sites are more popular than torrents now? Convenience. You know why people pay for Netflix? Convenience. You know why piracy still exists? It's more convenient for people to got to a single streaming source and find what they want rather than maintain multiple subscriptions and try and work out which title is on which service.
The main issue is the same one as it ever was - when pirates offer a better service than the legal options, people use them. They will pay for a decent legal option, but they will still pirate when that legal option fails them. The industry needs to stop failing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think so.
If nobody had stood up, where would we be?
Can you imagine a world of just Napster, no itunes, no spotify, no nothing? Somepared to where it all started, the moral message has certainly had a profound effect (both positive and negative) on the concept of downloading pirated material.
Where do you think we would be without them taking a stand? What do you think would have happened if the MPAA and artists just bent over and took it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody "stood up". The recording industry fought directly against digital music being a marketplace at all. They then fought tooth and nail against Apple offering the iTunes store, they fought against anyone offering DRM-free music, they fought against devices being capable of storing large amounts of music, they fought against streaming services. They refused time and time again to service the demand being made by customers. This is why things like Napster were popular - they serviced the demand that the industry refused to offer legally. People wouldn't have used Napster at all if Spotify had been there already, and the industry keeps trying to screw Spotify over right now.
The one and only thing that has made a real difference is nothing to do with the "morality". It's down to whether acceptable legal options are available. Piracy rates go down whenever the industry does this.
"What do you think would have happened if the MPAA and artists just bent over and took it?"
What do you think would have happened if they just gave customer what they wanted instead of spending millions fighting to avoid having to do so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A lot of money would have been made instead of left on the table. We can't have it, we must act idiotically. - MAFIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FIXED.
"certain groups will always think piracy is acceptable and they won't change their minds"
Well, that is exactly what losing a moral war means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hopefully too, you ripped the videos to watch later in VLC, giving no views to them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhh no
FTFY
"...enrolling 15 attorney generals to publish" (SIC - attorneys general)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhh no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not The Onion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's important to remember that pirates are just another type of consumer and they would boycott sites in a heartbeat if they discovered they'd been paid to infect them with malware. But, as usual, the claims are extremely light in detail. Instead, there's simply a blanket warning to stay away from all unauthorized sites, which isn't particularly helpful."
I can't hear you over the sound of my Virtual Machine snapshots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]