A Casino Was Hacked Thanks To The Internet Of Broken Things & A Fish Tank Thermometer

Bad News For 'Privacy Shield': As Expected, EU's Top Court Will Examine Legality Of Sending Personal Data To US

MPAA Apparently Silently Shut Down Its Legal Movies Search Engine

from the we-hardly-knew-ye dept

Mon, Apr 16th 2018 3:27pm — Timothy Geigner

In 2015, with much fanfare, the MPAA released its own search engine of sorts as WhereToWatch.com. The idea behind the site was to combat the argument that people pirate films because there are too few legal alternatives. The MPAA built the site to show where those legal alternatives do in fact exist. Left unaddressed, of course, were questions about how useful and convenient those alternatives were, how users had to navigate through a myriad of restrictive policies for those legal alternatives, and how terrible Hollywood must be in promoting its legal alternatives if the only thing needed to stop all this piracy was an MPAA search engine.

On top of that, WhereToWatch served as something of an excuse for many draconian polices the MPAA was pushing for all along. By being able to point to the search engine as "proof" that all kinds of legal alternatives to piracy were readily available, the MPAA argued that policies such as "notice and staydown" as well as site-blocking were legitimate pursuits. Somewhat predictably and with a heaving helping of irony, WhereToWatch received multiple DMCA takedown notices for its search results, demonstrating how perilous DMCA takedowns have become.

And now comes the news that the MPAA actually shuttered the site months ago.

The MPAA pulled the plug on the service a few months ago. And where the mainstream media covered its launch in detail, the shutdown received zero mentions. So why did the site fold? According to MPAA Vice President of Corporate Communications, Chris Ortman, it was no longer needed as there are many similar search engines out there.

“Given the many search options commercially available today, which can be found on the MPAA website, WheretoWatch.com was discontinued at the conclusion of 2017,” Ortman informs TF. “There are more than 140 lawful online platforms in the United States for accessing film and television content, and more than 460 around the world,” he adds.

That is all absolutely true today, though it was also true three years ago when the site was launched. The simple fact of the matter is that the site did little to serve any real public customer base. Yes, legal alternatives to piracy exist. Everyone knows that, just as they know that there are far too many hoops and restrictions around which to jump that have nothing to do with price. The MPAA and its client organizations have long asserted strict control over their product to the contrary of public demand. That is, and has always been, the problem.

On top of all that, the MPAA showed its no better at promoting its site than it was at promoting the legal alternatives to pirating movies.

Perhaps the lack of interest from the U.S. public played a role as well. The site never really took off and according to traffic estimates from SimilarWeb and Alexa, most of the visitors came from Iran, where the site was unusable due to a geo-block.

Look, the basis for this effort was a good one: promote legit movie-watching to customers currently pirating. That's laudable. But Hollywood is in the business of convincing the public to do so every bit as much as the public is obligated to buy Hollywood's products. It's not enough to build a search engine to the current unwanted offerings and call it a day.

You have to actully innovate.

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: culture, movies, piracy, search engine, streaming, what to watch
Companies: mpaa

158 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Apr 2018 @ 3:39pm

“I…in…inno…nope, don’t know that word at all.” — the average MPAA executive, probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2018 @ 4:54pm
  
  Re:
  Inno... cent of pirafringement?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capt ICE Enforcer, 16 Apr 2018 @ 3:54pm

Not good
Great. Now I need to find a pirate site to show me where all the legal content is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personanongrata, 16 Apr 2018 @ 4:02pm

Innovation is Optional
You have to actully innovate.

Au contraire, MPAA can continue to hire lobbyists to shape the "law" in the industries favor while using the states security agencies (eg FBI, DHS) and courts to investigate industry related violations of the "law" at tax-payer expense.

MPAA can also retain swarms of attorneys to harass/intimidate/litigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- typo, 16 Apr 2018 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: Innovation is Optional
  actully -> actually
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2018 @ 4:25pm

WhereToWatch received multiple DMCA takedown notices for its search results

You mean that the worlds copyright maximalists could not avoid linking to infringing material, despite their claims it is easy to recognize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Apr 2018 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re:
  If anything, that factoid proves how easily the DMCA takedown process can be abused.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2018 @ 5:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    function checkDMCA (file){
    If isFileAMovie(file)==true {
    return "INFRINGEMENT!"
    };
    else {
    return isFileAMusic(file);
    };
    }
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2018 @ 5:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ugh, why does it *always* seem that my browser stealth-logouts me (Toom1275) whenever I think my comment is better than usual?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Toom1275 (profile), 16 Apr 2018 @ 5:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (identity confirmation)
        Because on the semirare occasion my commemt wins a funny, I like it to have the proper name attached.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Toom1275 (profile), 16 Apr 2018 @ 5:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I also claim "pirafringement" as mine too."
        (sorry for the bluesque self-replies. I should really stop commenting with one hand while eating dinner with the other.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 4:52am
        
        ==true ?
        No awards to anyone who explicitly compares a boolean against "true" or "false".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Toom1275 (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 6:25am
        
        Re: ==true ?
        Fair enough. That's what I get for distracted posting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: ==true ?
        function checkDMCA (file){
        return isFileAMovie(file) || isFileAMusic(file);
        }
        
        FTFY
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: ==true ?
        function checkDMCA (file){
        return isFileAFile(file);
        }
        
        Think you forgot to include the standard **AA technique of "Scream infringement no matter what until someone explicitly proves it isn't"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 10:39am
        
        Ah, the Internet.
        The only place where a block of code written as a response to an article about the movie/entertainment industry's legal opinions is corrected for having the wrong syntax.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 16 Apr 2018 @ 10:47pm
  
  Re:
  More likely it was legitimate content flagged by a crap infringement 'detection' system used to automatically generate DMCA notices.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 3:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    If recognizing infringement was as easy as they claim, the algorithms would not be crap.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 6:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > If recognizing infringement was as easy as they claim
      
      It's very easy. The process is just designed to be performed manually, so that humans can do it, but technology has significant problems with it.
      
      The real process is as follows:
      1) split the copyrighted work to parts
      2) evaluate each part, who is the author, how much effort was spent in creating it, and whether the publisher has a permission
      3) divide all the efforts to get 3 numbers: author's own work, licensed work, copyright infringement
      4) you're done.
      
      Now which one of the steps is difficult for your automated system?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Toom1275 (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 6:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The process is so "easy" that you, naturally, just managed to fail hard at it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 6:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "split the copyrighted work to parts"
        
        Define "parts". Direction? Performance? Design? How are you evaluating how ovies that take thousands of people to create be split up?
        
        "evaluate each part, who is the author, how much effort was spent in creating it, and whether the publisher has a permission"
        
        OK. Where does the information come from? Who ensures it's accurate? Why should "effort" be a factor? How do you evaluated how much effort each person put in, anyway?
        
        "divide all the efforts to get 3 numbers: author's own work, licensed work, copyright infringement"
        
        Who is the "author" of a movie? How do you account for co-production deals, distribution deals, and other complicated shenanigans the industry does to deliberately hide profits?
        
        As ever, methinks reality is a little more complicated than you realise it to be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Define "parts".
        
        Any division is ok, as long as the division contains _all_ of the work to be evaluated. Another important aspect is that each part should be small enough that the rest of the evaluation can be performed on it.
        
        > Where does the information come from? Who ensures it's accurate?
        
        Well, you can examine the actual work. If it looks like ripoff from star wars, maybe the random guy from holland wasn't the original author.
        
        The process does not need to be 100% accurate, you anyway reduce the evaluation to 3 numbers, and that always removes some details. But those numbers can give you a hint whether the work came from pirate group or original author. Large amount of licensed or copyright infringement work is always bad sign.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        Well, you can examine the actual work. If it looks like ripoff from star wars,
        
        That assumes the person doing the examination is familiar with all the works under copyright. You are also ignoring two works that are derivatives of the same public domain work.
        
        The process does not need to be 100% accurate,
        
        When 3 strikes can close a YouTube account and remove somebodies ability to earn a living, the system really ought to be 100 percent accurate. That is one of the huge problems with the DMCA, it favors corporations over individuals.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > > The process does not need to be 100% accurate,
        
        > When 3 strikes can close a YouTube account and remove somebodies ability to earn a living, the system really ought to be 100 percent accurate.
        
        Nope. It's just problem in youtube's system. If they can't make living in youtube, they just switch to another system. Youtube isn't the only game in town. Putting all your eggs to same basket is known to be dangerous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >Nope. It's just problem in youtube's system.
        
        Nope, it can happen on any site, and having content taken down always damages the creator, and if there is repeat offender policy that close accounts the site will be sued into oblivion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Nope, it can happen on any site, and having content taken down always damages the creator,
        
        this is why I have my own web page. But even that has the same problem, if it turns out to have too much copyright infringements in it, i need to remove part of my own work from the site to feel safe. This is a good feature of copyrights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "this is why I have my own web page"
        
        Hosted on your own infrastructure? I somehow doubt it,
        
        "But even that has the same problem, if it turns out to have too much copyright infringements in it, i need to remove part of my own work from the site to feel safe"
        
        Assuming your site is not shut down entirely due to the complaints against it, or you're not facing other legal action for ripping off someone else's work, sure.
        
        So, what you're saying is that every artist needs to operate their own distribution platform, and that will be somehow better? Please...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        this is why I have my own web page
        
        So you claim, but you never link to it, so what are you afraid off?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > > this is why I have my own web page
        
        > So you claim, but you never link to it, so what are you afraid off?
        
        This is why techdirt requires everyone to provide url to homepage. It's available in almost every message I type to techdirt. (not all, since it's manual work, and typing the same url every time gets boring)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "This is why techdirt requires everyone to provide url to homepage."
        
        They don't, it an optional field. Also, your chosen handle is so short that it's easy to miss you put something there.
        
        "(not all, since it's manual work, and typing the same url every time gets boring)"
        
        Copy/paste and form filling features in your browser are things that exist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 9:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Copy/paste and form filling features in your browser are things that exist.
        
        I reject copy/paste, since it doesnt have good reputation in copyright circles.
        
        Filling form features are somehow disabled in techdirt, even though it works fine in every other site.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        _I reject copy/paste, since it doesnt have good reputation in copyright circles._
        
        Funnily enough, a copyright lawyer once claimed he had the right to copy and paste his own legal documents.
        
        He's now awaiting a lawsuit for scamming people with his copyright lawsuits. So... kinda a point for you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I reject copy/paste, since it doesnt have good reputation in copyright circles."
        
        Neither does the internet, you might wish to leave it to the people who understand it.
        
        But, seriously, you're going to reject fundamental and highly useful tools because some corporation is paranoid that people might misuse it? That's a special kind of worship.
        
        "Filling form features are somehow disabled in techdirt"
        
        Works fine in my browser. As does the login feature to enable you to log in automatically to an account.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 2:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > > I reject copy/paste, since it doesnt have good reputation in copyright circles."
        
        > Neither does the internet, you might wish to leave it to the people who understand it.
        
        Internet can be handled by splitting it to different services, and each of the services can be evaluated separately. Their copyright status depends on how widely the service is being misused for illegal copyright problems. There is as wide scale for different players, providers and services, so the evaluations will find hidden problems.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 2:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Their copyright status depends on how widely the service is being misused for illegal copyright problems"
        
        So, presumably, the web and any transfer protocol related to it should be disabled?
        
        Yeah, you might want to leave it to the rest of us. Your obsession with bowing down to the whims of those who worship copyright would only make life poorer for everyone else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 2:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > So, presumably, the web and any transfer protocol related to it should be disabled?
        
        Web always had problems with getting copy-paste properly implemented. Their copy-paste in view-source dialog in browsers allowed unlimited copyright infringements of the javascript source code. This illegal practise made web the most popular platform among (web) developers.
        
        Transfer protocols are completely different matter. Downloading always had bad reputation, and web handled the problem by limiting the scope of the infringements in their popular browser software. But transfer protocols are leaving it open for future software developers to understand the issues and build suitable services which respect copyright's limitations. Thus transfer protocols are dangerous area, since necessary safeguards against unlimited copyright infringement are not being implemented inside the protocols. Instead they rely on topmost layer to do the decisions in appropriate way, and user interface developers are struggling to understand the subtleties of DISPLAY limitation in copyright circles.
        
        While there are currently plentiful of legal services, some already illegal services has been implemented by people who have limited knowledge of copyrights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 3:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        But transfer protocols are leaving it open for future software developers to understand the issues and build suitable services which respect copyright's limitations.
        
        Respecting copyright is not a technology problem, but rather an people problem, therefore it is not possible to build respect for copyright into software.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 3:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > > build suitable services which respect copyright's limitations.
        
        > therefore it is not possible to build respect for copyright into software.
        
        This isn't true. Unfortunately it requires experts to untangle the different opposing views of different players. There are many issues to consider when building technological limitations that follow copyrights.
        
        But declaring it impossible is not the right solution. Browsers obviously managed to implement working solution for the download problem, but their copy-paste solution wasn't as stellar.
        
        But every software developer needs to consider these problems while implementing end-user-facing software.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 5:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have a simple question for you, if the copyright of anything you created is challenged, how are you going to prove that it is your own creation?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 3:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "web handled the problem by limiting the scope of the infringements in their popular browser software"
        
        WTAF is this meant to be? Do you actually think this bears any relationship to reality?
        
        For someone who claims to be a coder, you really don't understand how things work. No wonder your site is such a failure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 4:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > No wonder your site is such a failure.
        
        You saw it for 2 minutes and now it's already being declared failure. Guess spending 5 years for it's development wasnt worthwhile, and I should instead fly to bahamas for some holiday. Maybe the wind will change it's direction after I disappear and stop supporting your (future) gadgets.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 4:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When the first thing a visitor thinks after the page is loaded is 'what the f* is this site about' the site has failed, and they are usually gone within seconds. It should not be up to the visitor to try and find and follow page links that give that infomation, but rather the sites designer should make sure that the purpose of the site is obvious at a glance, and that navigation is fairly obvious, and not just a line of small print.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 4:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > site is such a failure
        
        There's additional info in this point. You've now reached the status which we always suspected, but couldn't confirm. All MPAA's efforts to create working web site for displaying movies would be completely useless activity because the market is already flooded with tons of pirate sites, with pirate copies substituting the legal alternatives. This means that the market opportunity is already gone.
        
        After this, complaining that MPAA can't get their web site popular is not worth the effort, since the marketplace is flooded with pirate copies of the same content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 5:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "This means that the market opportunity is already gone."
        
        No, it really doesn't. Which is one of the reasons why the MPAA is being criticised for both creating a marketplace where it's hard to find legal content, and a website that was useless at allowing them to do so.
        
        "After this, complaining that MPAA can't get their web site popular is not worth the effort, since the marketplace is flooded with pirate copies of the same content."
        
        Yet, the same MPAA have announced record revenues, and there exist many sites which competently do what the MPAA site claimed to be doing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 5:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Which is one of the reasons why the MPAA is being criticised for both creating a marketplace where it's hard to find legal content, and a website that was useless at allowing them to do so.
        
        Yes, but market opportunity disappears when new players to the marketplace will be immediately rejected without any proper evaluation of the merits of the new development. After spending 5 years for development, companies who develop these solutions ought to get a better response than simply "it's already a failure".
        
        I just used my own site as example of how this rejection happens. Now you've all seen it, and you now have the information why it's not worth developing any more solutions in this area.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 5:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Yes, but market opportunity disappears when new players to the marketplace will be immediately rejected without any proper evaluation of the merits of the new development."
        
        So, why then, have newer players been so much more successful than the MPAA? It wasn't a new development that was rejected, it was a half-assed attempt at a patch job.
        
        "I just used my own site as example of how this rejection happens. "
        
        From what I've seen, your site is a mess that casual visitors won't even understand the purpose of, and that has been advertised using the most expensive and least effective tools available to the audience least likely to want it.
        
        So, yeah, there is some parallel between you and the MPAA site, but I don't think it's what you imagine it to be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 5:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > so, why then, have newer players been so much more successful than the MPAA?
        
        MPAA has been providing dvd's and cd's for long time and they have significant buffers for absorbing failures. They're focusing on their core competences, which are creating movies. The distribution platforms outside theather/tv/radio is reasonably new development, and predictions are that the success of the new entrants is short-lived.
        
        Google made significant mistake in one important technology choice. They implemented video support for chrome web browser. This is fucking paradise for movie pirates, when they can make a web page in 2 minutes and get their pirated movie files visible to any of their friends.
        
        Because this is absolutely clear that it goes completely against hollywood's interest, we decided to move to MPAA's and RIAA's side on the issue, and trying to compete in the less successful side of the equation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 6:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        Google made significant mistake in one important technology choice. They implemented video support for chrome web browser.
        
        So are you saying that individuals should not be able to set up a website to host their own video content.
        
        The thing with all technology is that it an be used for legal or illegal purposes, and the technology has no reliable way of making a distinction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 6:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > the technology has no reliable way of making a distinction.
        
        This was already proven false earlier. There's significant solutions available in this area, if you just know how to look for them. Googling is enough to find how to implement this kind of tests to your software. The tests are pretty good, for example the web site I mentioned, has implemented domain restriction for URL's around user's homepage, in such way that spreading content items all over the planet will be flagged copyright infringement.
        
        > individuals should not be able to set up a website to host their own video content.
        
        Individuals didnt want to create their own content at all. This was proven by the "rejection" above, where the meshpage.org web site and the _tool_ needed to create content was simply rejected without proper evaluation. This tooling is designed for end users, so normal users who are serious about creating their own content have no problems using it. But the market opportunity for creating your own content has already be absorbed by pirate operators.
        
        > The thing with all technology is that it an be used for legal or illegal purposes,
        
        Yes, but since we're at this side now, we can just assume that the new entrants will be rejected in the marketplace without evaluating the merits of the technology.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 6:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        Individuals didnt want to create their own content at all.
        
        Try telling that to YouTube, as there is more legal user generated content being posted there in an hour or less, that Hollywood and the TV people can generate in a decade. Some of it is niche, so of it good, some of it bad, but users are generating lots of content for lots of differing reasons.
        
        You failure to gain traction with your product is of your own making, you site fails to inform or sell it.
        
        >But the market opportunity for creating your own content has already be absorbed by pirate operators.
        
        There are plenty of creators making a living using the Likes of YouTube and Patreon, they have discovered that what sell is not the content they created in the past, but their ability to produce new content in the future. Their back catalog show what they are capable of, but they are paid to create new content based on that demonstration, and that ability cannot be pirated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 6:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Try telling that to YouTube, as there is more legal user generated content being posted there in an hour or less,
        
        thats the current situation. But as mentioned above, the success of new entrants is short-lived. In the future, people just stop creating new content. This future is where our technology aims to attack. While it can be used to create youtube videos in the early days, its eventual aim is to replace youtube completely with technology that is more aligned with hollywood's interests.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "the success of new entrants is short-lived"
        
        According to who? There's people who are still making a living and have been there since before YouTube were bought by Google. There are movie producers in every year of history who failed after their first attempt and never worked again.
        
        Your rambling nonsense is really not in line with reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 7:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > You failure to gain traction with your product is of your own making, you site fails to inform or sell it.
        
        are you saying that hollywood-compatible youtube is not a good business plan? To me, it just sounds like easy money...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And here you are, bitching about how you advertised it on all of two buses, and nobody's even so much as batted an eyelid for your effort. (You poor fucking baby, I might add.) And that's how we got your spiel about how it's pointless to create anything at all because nobody will notice.
        
        By your own admissions your plan is a failure. Nice going.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > By your own admissions your plan is a failure. Nice going.
        
        At least I'm owner of some (virtual) property; we've heard already long ago that owners are the ones who will eventually get all the money. Now I can myself be part of that group, which gets his income from selling virtual items. No longer is it needed to jelously look into other people's properties about how much they're getting money from their ownership, but I can try that luxurious life myself. It's probably needed to build necessary safeguards to my technology, to prepare for the situation when you lower level entities will be fighting for your lacking ownership rights. So I'm a rightsowner now, and can do anything I want with the property.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 7:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        to prepare for the situation when you lower level entities will be fighting for your lacking ownership rights
        
        Oh, that much is already going on. We don't own anything we buy because you rightsholders will have a cow if we dare to back any of our CDs or software up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 19 Apr 2018 @ 12:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > We don't own anything we buy because you rightsholders will have a cow
        
        I'll be waiting for my mansion to appear. Aaah this luxurious life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 3:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, you can't even quote right! Or you don't understand slang. This is hardly inspiring confidence that you have a product worth pirating, never mind shelling out money for.
        
        But if it was that valuable why would you only spread the information on two vehicles?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "we've heard already long ago that owners are the ones who will eventually get all the money"
        
        Who told you that lol
        
        The property you own has a value set by the market, and currently that value is $0. You are therefore entitled to a 0% share of the money when it magically appears.
        
        "So I'm a rightsowner now, and can do anything I want with the property."
        
        Yes, and like a property owner who owns a shop that nobody ever visits you're getting what your actions and abilities are worth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > The property you own has a value set by the market, and currently that value is $0.
        
        This is actually much better situation than the previous status where I didn't own anything.
        
        Market forces can be unpredictable and in the long term, those will succeed who can create the best value for the end users.
        
        At least now it's possible to receive some money, if people start noticing the property to be valuable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 3:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You keep spouting on and on expecting your stuff to be magically valuable. It'd make the user experience so much better if your plans didn't include insulting everyone who doesn't agree with your plan to sue children and senior citizens.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "They implemented video support for chrome web browser. This is fucking paradise for movie pirates, when they can make a web page in 2 minutes and get their pirated movie files visible to any of their friends."
        
        What the actual fuck are you blathering on about? Are you honestly saying that piracy began with Chrome, or that no other browser does these things?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > > This is fucking paradise for movie pirates,
        
        > Are you honestly saying that piracy began with Chrome, or that no other browser does these things?
        
        Chrome is the market leader and there are different rules that market leaders need to follow. The rules are much stricter for the top of the product pyramids. The leaders need to set the tone for the rest of the market, and if the leader is saying that piracy is somehow acceptable, then there's huge chance that the rest of the market will be following the herd.
        
        Real problem is that google is struggling to meet the demand. While keeping few servers up and running to deliver chrome web browser to the world isn't significant burden, every time they get more downloads of their browser, the rules that they're imposing to the world is getting stronger and stronger. Soon even google can't handle their own rules.
        
        This strengtening of the rules when your product gets more popular is highly unpredictable and significant mistakes have been made when the changes are coming as a surprise. This is why companies need to be ahead of the curve and predict market behaviours very accurately. This will ensure their success in the long term. Stock market obviously helps predicting the future behaviour of large masses of people.
        
        Short term profits are different matter, they're more dependent on individual memes going around in the blogosphere. It changes like a wind vane changing it's direction when the wind direction is changing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Chrome is the market leader"
        
        Now, yes. It didn't exist until years after YouTube started. So, your argument is ignorant nonsense, as usual. They also have plenty of competition.
        
        "Real problem is that google is struggling to meet the demand."
        
        I'd love you to cite your source for that information.
        
        "Stock market obviously helps predicting the future behaviour of large masses of people."
        
        Wow, so you're as ignorant of finance as you are copyright and the internet? Good job!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 10:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is why companies need to be ahead of the curve and predict market behaviours very accurately
        
        But apparently you can't expect accuracy from programmers or the MPAA, so which is it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 5:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You saw it for 2 minutes and now it's already being declared failure."
        
        I'm only going by the words of the guy who's been complaining about low traffic levels after having done a disastrous marketing campaign that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know wouldn't work.
        
        If it's not a failure, stop telling me how much you've failed to drive traffic there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Any division is ok, as long as the division contains _all_ of the work to be evaluated."
        
        Well, that's nonsense by definition. How does a movie that contains hundreds or thousands of shots be reduced to a sample that has the work of everybody involved in it?
        
        "If it looks like ripoff from star wars, maybe the random guy from holland wasn't the original author. "
        
        Indeed. But the vast majority of things are not that obvious. Also, you seem to be extraordinarily confused, as usual. What you're talking about is plagiarism, not infringement of the original work.
        
        "The process does not need to be 100% accurate"
        
        It absolutely does, otherwise you are by definition not paying some artists.
        
        "you anyway reduce the evaluation to 3 numbers"
        
        No, you really can't simplify it that much.
        
        "But those numbers can give you a hint whether the work came from pirate group or original author"
        
        How? Viacom couldn't even keep track of which videos they explicitly authorised YouTube to use in their ongoing court case. How does a 3rd party do this?
        
        You're either talking about something completely different to everyone else here, or you're simplified things so much in your head that's addressing a nonsensical fantasy.Try the real world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > How? Viacom couldn't even keep track of which videos they explicitly authorised YouTube to use in their ongoing court case. How does a 3rd party do this?
        
        Huh, why would viacom be responsible of evaluating someone elses platform? Youtube did tons of copyright infringement under disguise of DCMA safe harbor and now everyone blames viacom for not being able to track every instance of their work appearing in some random web site in the world. Why is youtube's web site important enough that viacom should spend any effort on it, if not for the copyright infringements that youtube did?
        
        If they are required to evaluate youtube's web site for infringements, why can't they do the same to my awesome homepage? I could also require them 100% accuracy in evaluating my homepage.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How to miss the point, Viacom complained about works that they themselves put up on YouTube, and which were therefore by definition not infringing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Viacom complained about works that they themselves put up on YouTube, and which were therefore by definition not infringing.
        
        Well, youtube cannot demand _every_ complaint to be 100% accurate, if they let their users to report abuses of the system. Viacom might be more trusted partner which has higher level access, but youtube cannot still require them to be 100% accurate. It's youtube's own problem to keep their web page free of illegal practises, and noone elses. If outsiders come and give youtube inaccurate information, it's then youtube's responsibility to improve the accuracy enough to make reasonable decisions.
        
        While handling large systems are more difficult than small systems, they always have option to reject part of the flow of the videos, if they cannot handle the volume with sufficient detail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Well, youtube cannot demand _every_ complaint to be 100% accurate"
        
        So, you want people to be sued despite not having been doing anything wrong because, "oh well these things happen"?
        
        Thinking like that is exactly why section 230 exists. These people wanted a free pay day because Google made more money, not actual reparations for infringement.
        
        " If outsiders come and give youtube inaccurate information, it's then youtube's responsibility to improve the accuracy enough to make reasonable decisions."
        
        Where, exactly, do they get this accurate information from, since the content providers don't know themselves?
        
        Once again, nonsense, that only makes sense if you oversimplify things beyond any realistic description.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Where, exactly, do they get this accurate information from,
        
        I'm sure youtube has tons of people handling this issue, since they can service such large area of the world. They should be _generating_ this accurate information inside their company. I.e. if their company is actually doing something useful, they have employees that handle issues like this.
        
        It's completely idiotic to pass around information/products/input from outsiders without improving the quality of the work. Are their employees not doing anything?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        I'm sure youtube has tons of people handling this issue,
        
        But without a working crystal ball, how are they meant to determine what is under copyright, and who holds the copyright. Note the latter makes the difference between an infringing file and a legal file.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > > I'm sure youtube has tons of people handling this issue,
        
        > But without a working crystal ball
        
        Their crystal ball is just broken or they refuse to use it. Maybe fix that next.
        
        > how are they meant to determine what is under copyright
        
        I already provided the algorithm that works fine in the beginning of this thread.
        
        > and who holds the copyright.
        
        They just need to look at the (C) notices that are available in every work to find the author name. Assuming your authors didn't mark their names as "hilarious joker", then you can usually trust the information in the copyright notices since it's illegal to remove or change the information without permission.
        
        > Note the latter makes the difference between an infringing file and a legal file.
        
        it's just problem with youtube's system if they don't collect the (C) information about every video. Web platform clearly gives ways to collect that information.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Their crystal ball is just broken or they refuse to use it."
        
        Like I thought - magic. You have no actual solution, just complaints that others aren't making miracles.
        
        "I already provided the algorithm that works fine in the beginning of this thread."
        
        No, your provided a laughably over-simplified idea of how things should work that does not mesh with reality, nor with the fact the YouTube don't have the information to process in the first place. If they don't supply the content, and they shouldn't be trusting outside sources, where is this mystical knowledge going to come from?
        
        "They just need to look at the (C) notices that are available in every work to find the author name."
        
        ...and if that's not present? Or the person who put it there is lying about who created the work? Or they reside in a country with different rules that don't require any such thing for copyright to be applicable?
        
        "Web platform clearly gives ways to collect that information"
        
        No, it really, really doesn't .
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But without a working crystal ball, how are they meant to determine what is under copyright, and who holds the copyright. Note the latter makes the difference between an infringing file and a legal file.
        
        It is one of the factors, you've also got to consider that pesky 'fair use' thing as well, which can allow those that aren't the copyright owner to upload a work and not have it be infringing, and context like that can be tricky to determine, certainly not something you could trust to a filter.
        
        Or you could have a situation where the one who uploads something isn't the copyright owner, and the upload wouldn't be covered under fair use, but still have it be non-infringing thanks to them having permission to post it from the copyright owner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "They should be _generating_ this accurate information"
        
        By the process of magic, I presume? If the people who own the content don't know, how will they? Plus, so what if YpuTube can do this? Virtually every other platform that might compete will not. So, at best, you're just demanded that YouTube has an insurmountable lead against any competition.
        
        The only solution is for copyright to be streamlined so that this nonsense stops, and the only way to do that is if the people who hold the copyrights play ball. Which hasn't happens so far because this silliness is too profitable thus far.
        
        "Are their employees not doing anything?"
        
        Plenty. Including lobbying to try and change the idiotic system you demand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 12:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > So, you want people to be sued despite not having been doing anything wrong because, "oh well these things happen"?
        
        Generating accurate information is more burdensome than you expect. We've seen people burned out simply because they've had requirement to generate accurate information for some products for longer time. Programmers (like us) are experts at generating accurate information for computers to process, and there was requirement of no errors for over 17 years timespan, when every error in the end product got multiplied by 10 million times before next chance of fixing it.
        
        Requiring 100% accuracy is not a requirement that can be done without 1) paying salary to the person 2) for extreamly good reasons like errors causing tons of damage.
        
        This is why demands for more accuracy is not going to fly too well. People keep demanding more and more accuracy, when they have no experience what it takes to actually create it from scratch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When it come to copyright ownership, it is not a problem of generating accurate data, but rather of providing it. 100% accuracy therefore requires corporate copyright holder to make that infomation available, and they are extremely reluctant to do that, but over eager to use the DMCA to their advantage.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you're not going to supply accuracy, don't expect others to add it in for you.
        
        If a farm supplies a restaurant with manure, don't expect cordon bleu cuisine out of it. It's not happening.
        
        And your side is already being paid regularly under the expectation of accuracy. Making yourself sound like some underprivileged mook is pathetic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 11:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > If a farm supplies a restaurant with manure, don't expect cordon bleu cuisine out of it. It's not happening.
        
        Youtube still sells it to the world as if it were delicious video-sharing site which has no problems whatsoever, even though rightsowners are suing them every 2nd day.
        
        If the original content came from rightsowners, why would we "pay" youtube to deliver it to the world? According to you, the manure doesn't magically turn into something wonderful, but still youtube gets credit for rightsowner's work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sells? Last I checked, I haven't paid YouTube a cent.
        
        YouTube doesn't get credit for shit. The music Vevo puts on there doesn't suddenly stop being Ariana Grande or Charlie Puth's work. Your attempts at semantics are sad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Wanderer (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 6:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In some contexts, "sell" can be a synonym for "pitch", as in "pitch the sale of", as in "advertise". I'm guessing that this usage was intended to be in that sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Huh, why would viacom be responsible of evaluating someone elses platform? "
        
        Because when Viacom sued them for copyright infringement, it turned out they had given express permission for some of the works named.
        
        "If they are required to evaluate youtube's web site for infringements, why can't they do the same to my awesome homepage? "
        
        How about the better option - fix the entire system so that people don't have to be trawling through every site on the internet to know if they're infringing or not? Works both ways - you're safe if you inadvertently infringed, while people can be sure that they didn't infringe on you (although for your sake I hope it's not writing or logical thinking that represents your day job).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 9:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Giving all our posts a funny vote as I can only assume this level of obliviousness to reality is deliberate trolling. Well played.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But without a working crystal ball, how are they meant to determine what is under copyright, and who holds the copyright. Note the latter makes the difference between an infringing file and a legal file.
        
        It is one of the factors, you've also got to consider that pesky 'fair use' thing as well, which can allow those that aren't the copyright owner to upload a work and not have it be infringing.
        
        Or you could have a situation where the one who uploads something isn't the copyright owner, and the upload wouldn't be covered under fair use, but still have it be non-infringing thanks to them having permission to post it from the copyright owner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 4:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Crap, replied to the wrong post. The response that was meant for your comment was as follows:
        
        Giving all our posts a funny vote as I can only assume this level of obliviousness to reality is deliberate trolling. Well played.
        
        It is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2018 @ 4:32pm

Buying Hollywood's products

But Hollywood is in the business of convincing the public to do so every bit as much as the public is obligated to buy Hollywood's products

Can the public buy Hollywood's products, in non-physical form, through any of those 461 sites? I.e., receive it in a form that will survive the vicissitudes of the seller—remember "PlaysForSure"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:34am
  
  Re: Buying Hollywood's products
  Good point. What you're USUALLY "buying" is an access code for a custom site that allows you to view the movie through a custom app using heavily DRMed streams. The access can be revoked at any time, the site can vanish without a trace, and the DRM can be altered at will. You aren't really "buying" anything at all.
  
  Now if the price is right, you could call it a rental. Then it's just a matter of how reliable the site is along with how easy the app is to use. Very often, the site is flaky and the app buggy, so it's still not worth it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2018 @ 5:03pm

So, what is MPAA's illegal movies site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mononymous Tim (profile), 16 Apr 2018 @ 7:05pm

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actual User, 16 Apr 2018 @ 8:34pm

I attempted to use it a few times
I attempted to use it a few times, but what I found was that even if the show was on netflix or hulu it wouldn't tell you, or if it did it was hidden behind another click or two. What it did tell you was where you could PAY for that movie.

TLDR
This was an advertising site that didn't actually do what it said it did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mhajicek (profile), 16 Apr 2018 @ 8:39pm
  
  Re: I attempted to use it a few times
  When Tron Legacy was released to theaters I tried and failed to find a legal source for the original Tron, which my wife and kid had never seen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 16 Apr 2018 @ 9:31pm

I searched for a bunch of stuff that was never released on DVD or even home video. Unsurprisingly the site couldn't find a source for any of it. Had a bit more luck on pirate sites. Go figure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 12:09am

"“There are more than 140 lawful online platforms in the United States for accessing film and television content, and more than 460 around the world,” he adds."

That's really, really NOT a good thing, unless there's some major level of crossover between services. When you start adding exclusive content into the mix, that still encourages piracy because there's no way anyone can subscribe to all services. They'll sub to a couple, then pirate what's left over. The fundamental problem is the fragmentation of services and where the content is available. Boasting about how *high* that number is misses the point.

Anyway, all that's happening here is the typical routine - MPAA fails at addressing customer needs, offers a half-assed solution that nobody really likes and then claim victory when others have stepped in to offer decent service. From what I've seen, it was a terrible site that didn't work half as well as things like JustWatch.

So, now they're pretending that their failure is still a win, despite having utterly failed in their mission, done nothing to stem piracy and will do nothing to address the fundamental issues that made any such site necessary to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 5:14am
  
  Re:
  It would be good to have plenty of alternatives if everybody had equal access to everything and the quality of service determined winners and losers. I'm off to get some unicorn hair and fairy powder to make my potion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 5:12am

Here, have this list of legal alternatives. The ones that aren't ridiculously overpriced by themselves are bundled with services such as cable TV. The ones that are cheaper (but not necessarily reasonably priced) and not bundled require installation of borderline malware things on your computer and selling your soul to Lucifer and making love with a polar bear. Or they are blocked in your region.

Yeah, great way to stop piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 5:59am

Large sites are evil
Where does the requirement come from that every site worth their salt must have millions of items available? That's really what is wrong with system.

I mean, I can easily build a site that has 100 items in it - it just takes few years to get the (digital) products ready, but end users avoid the site because it doesnt have 2 million items available in the catalog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 6:26am
  
  Re: Large sites are evil
  "Where does the requirement come from that every site worth their salt must have millions of items available? "
  
  There's nothing of the sort. In fact, one of the sites I subscribe to (MUBI) has only 30 titles available for streaming on any given day. The value there comes from curation and discovery.
  
  The problem is - why should people use your site instead of the ones with millions of items available? There's plenty of ways to do this, but when you have hundreds of competitors people need a way to find you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 6:38am
  
  Re: Large sites are evil
  
  I mean, I can easily build a site that has 100 items in it
  
  What's stopping you then?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:58am
    
    Re: Re: Large sites are evil
    > > I mean, I can easily build a site that has 100 items in it
    
    > What's stopping you then?
    
    nothing. I already did that and it's available for end users to consume. Now where are all those end users who are screaming for more content?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
      "Now where are all those end users who are screaming for more content?"
      
      If the content there is as good as your writing here, they went to somewhere with better quality stuff.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > > "Now where are all those end users who are screaming for more content?"
        
        > If the content there is as good as your writing here, they went to somewhere with better quality stuff.
        
        and they did this evaluation without seeing my content? All the web server log files are only showing small numbers of visitors, so I don't really understand how their evaluation algorithm can do proper job without even looking at my content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        "and they did this evaluation without seeing my content"
        
        Well, they'd have to find it first. Putting content up doesn't guarantee an audience, you have to advertise and otherwise find the audience to get them there. Doubly so if you refuse to use the platforms people are already using and expect them to try something that nobody's ever heard of.
        
        "I don't really understand how their evaluation algorithm can do proper job without even looking at my content."
        
        Whose algorithm? Are you talking about bots now, or don't you understand the different between them and human beings?
        
        There's a huge internet out there, and you have to find your audience. You'll not get it by looking at your server logs wondering why nobody's there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 9:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > Whose algorithm? Are you talking about bots now, or don't you understand the different between them and human beings?
        
        Hmm, this might be dangerous question, but I don't really want to talk about it much further.
        
        There's significant problems with humans turning to robots who just follow orders from the management.
        
        Happily situation is being corrected all over the globe, with biggest problem-places being disintegrated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        So, you don't know the difference? Wow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 9:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        I had a quick look at your site, and the design sucks big time. First glance it is just a collection of thumbnails of psychedelic images, and unless people look carefully at the small plain text at the top of the page, they have no clue what it is about, and even if they find that, they have little clue as to what you are offering.
        
        You problem is most likely to be obscurity, as without people promoting your site, you visitor number will remain low. You fail to capture peoples interest on the home page, and so they will not mention you site to friends.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > as without people promoting your site, you visitor number will remain low.
        
        I already adverticed it in local busses, since they have tv screens in busses for adverticements. It was shown for 2 weeks before xmas in there to check if there's any interest in such products.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 9:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        Two weeks, that would not even get an F for effort. It takes sustained effort over months, if not a year or more to start to get the attention needed for a successful product.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 10:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > Two weeks, that would not even get an F for effort.
        
        Well, adverticements are pretty expensive. Even the 2 weeks costed like 1500 euros, without a single dime returned from the investment. But it was only a test, since I didn't even have any way to get my money back. But with the low numbers of visitors, getting the 1500 euros back is more tricky than expected.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        There are the big sites like Facebook where people with similar interest gather, and someone with social skills can quietly and successfully promote their products there for free. Indeed they are the main ways of building up a business these days.
        
        But then you seem to hate large sites, and so are avoiding the places where your audience is congregating, and if you are not there, then you are nowhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 10:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > There are the big sites like Facebook where people with similar interest gather,
        
        We'll see what happens when local companies get interested in marketing the product.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        I count 7 post referencing an alleged site without a link so far. Again I'm going to assume this is purely trolling, 'cos no-one is that bad at "adverticing" [sic]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        I took a look at the landing page of his site, 4 occurrence of his name above for a link, and it is as I described it](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/09482039613/mpaa-apparently-silently-shut-down-legal- movies-search-engine.shtml?threaded=false#c878). It would take more effort than I am prepared to put in to figure out what is on offer. I suspect his advertising is as good as his comments, a nice windmill for a bit of tilting practice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 17 Apr 2018 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > I suspect his advertising is as good as his comments, a nice windmill for a bit of tilting practice.
        
        I obviously buy the adverticements from outside vendor in my local area.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        Guys, I don't have a problem if we feed trolls who actually believe what they state, but tp is literally just yanking our chain.
        
        https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180409/15222139597/malibu-media-picks-fight-with-wrong-de fendant-now-facing-abuse-process-allegations.shtml#c743
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 12:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        Having seen his site, its lack of design elements is in line with his opinions on copyright. The claim to be trolling may be trolling, but the site is consistent with someone who will not use the works of others, even those made available for free, unless absolutely necessary, like operating systems and HTML.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 2:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > the site is consistent with someone who will not use the works of others, even those made available for free, unless absolutely necessary,
        
        Free stuff always have some strings attached. Maybe the work
        was done by slaves, or paid their taxes to ireland, or their
        mansions were on sale for years without anyone interested in
        the property. Anyway, the value of free is being overestimated by many people, and it's a bubble which will
        burst at some point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 2:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        He says, using a free website based on free software and free network protocols, presumably using a free web browser.
        
        If you're so opposed to free, go somewhere you have to pay to make your idiotic assertions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 3:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > He says, using a free website based on free software and free network protocols, presumably using a free web browser.
        
        Guess we need more of your tax dollars, since selling actual products is outdated, and now everyone will need to rely on subsidies coming from the government.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 3:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        Only in your world. The rest of the world seem pretty profitable when they have products people wish to buy.
        
        But, your hypocrisy is noted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 3:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        You obviously do not Understand the free software/hardware ecosystem. It generates a synergy that expands the power and ability of individuals and companies, like Prusa Research and Red Hat to quote two. Both of those companies contribute to the software and design communities of which they are parts, have no secret designs or software, have a lot of of competitors that use their designs and software, and are still thriving.
        
        Makerbot was open source, but when bought by Stratasys it went closed source and downhill.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        "outside vendor in my local area"
        
        But, why? How would that attract any real business compared to using the existing online communities that you can use for free?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        "Even the 2 weeks costed like 1500 euros, without a single dime returned from the investment"
        
        Because you chose a very expensive venue with little reach toward any audience who would be interested in your product. Why do that rather than go where your likely audience would be, for very little money?
        
        You're failing because you really don't know what you're doing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 18 Apr 2018 @ 5:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        What PaulT said. Aim at your audience. If it's for coders, where can coders be found?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 18 Apr 2018 @ 5:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        tp, WHO are you aiming at? Busses might not be the best way to promote a gaming code website.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        "It was shown for 2 weeks before xmas in there to check if there's any interest in such products."
        
        Erm, if true, you really don't know what you're doing. Even a cursory glance at the site makes it obvious that it's not something that would interest the mainstream audiences that such ads would be targeted to. Plus, there's no local limitation to the reach of your "product", so why would you only target a very small local area where you have no need to have an offline presence?
        
        You should be targeting ads to sites where people who are interested in what your site does, maybe going to relevant forums and encouraging discussion on it and how it can be improved. Bus adverts and barely visible links on sites where you display how you don't know what you're doing are going to cut it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 2:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > plus, there's no local limitation to the reach of your "product", so why would you only target a very small local area where you have no need to have an offline presence?
        
        There's no reason to advertise it to wider public, if our neighbours cannot find a reason to use the site. Local area is like testing ground for checking whether the concept works at all. After development phase has run out, it's still unknown if the service is still needed. The plans for the development were already available in 1980's, so progress in the tech development might have made the service unnecessary. But we wouldn't know until there is working platform where the ideas can be explored and the service offered to different markets.
        
        3d printing seems to be the primary area of interest for these technologies, but there can be more niche areas that find such tech useful; it was originally designed for children or teenagers, but market research is needed to evaluate the full scope of the possibilities available.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2018 @ 2:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        "Local area is like testing ground for checking whether the concept works at all."
        
        Only if you live in a place where people require the service. If you're setting up a bakery, sure test it out in your local area before setting up franchises elsewhere. A purely online service? Ridiculous. Yo only limit yourself to the random collection of people you are in physical proximity to, and communication beyond that is the very reason this medium exists.
        
        Let me put it this way - you're using a site accessed from all over the world to argue that your website should only be advertised on buses to people sitting near you. That's plainly ridiculous.
        
        "3d printing seems to be the primary area of interest for these technologies, but there can be more niche areas that find such tech useful"
        
        Do any of the people who would be interested in such things live in your local area?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 4:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        I would suggest that the first thing needed is a redesign of the site so that someone reaching the landing page can see what it is about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 18 Apr 2018 @ 5:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        Agreed. Put some of the information from the About page on the Home page. If people can't tell at a glance what a website is for and what it's about, they click off.
        
        Look at mine. Can you tell what it is from the Home page? Whether you are interested in my ravings is not the point; can you tell what the site is and what it is for at a glance? http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/
        
        That is what you need to do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        _and they did this evaluation without seeing my content?_
        
        I don't need to see your content. I already know you're a tool not worthy of further funding.
        
        I choose to avoid your poor excuse for content. It's not pirating, but it sure as hell doesn't earn you a penny. That's what you get for being, in your own words, "a professional troll".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 18 Apr 2018 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > > _and they did this evaluation without seeing my content?_
        
        > I don't need to see your content. I already know you're a tool not worthy of further funding.
        
        So what exactly is your evaluation doing? You took my face image from facebook and decided based on the photo that any service that I can create is not worthy? Is this evaluation thing you're selling actually doing something useful operations?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        There have been several criticisms of your site, and you approach to garnering interest, suggesting what needs to be done to improve you chances of success. All that has come from you is woe is me, nobody is interested in what I am doing, and that alone is enough to poison the well of any support that you might have garnered here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 7:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        I don't even know you have a Facebook page. Your behavior on this site tells me all I need to know, you're the sort of asshole who thinks suing children to protect your virtual bottom line should be commended, instead of criticized. That sufficiently disgusts me to avoid your product, not that it's difficult if all you did was advertise it on two buses. In a country I don't even live in. Oh no, that's probably piracy in your book! Want to call the MPAA on me?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 19 Apr 2018 @ 12:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > you're the sort of asshole who thinks suing children to protect your virtual bottom line should be commended,
        
        This is why I spent my life creating these entertainment stuff for the children, so that I can backstab them and sue the bastards? Oh right, maybe there's two kinds of children, those who actually read the fine print, and those who didn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        "This is why I spent my life creating these entertainment stuff for the children, so that I can backstab them and sue the bastards? "
        
        Why not? That;'s what your heroes at the MPAA do.
        
        Also, your site is devoid of entertainment value, but arguing with your nonsense here is kind of entertaining. Thanks for giving it to us for free!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > > "This is why I spent my life creating these entertainment stuff for the children, so that I can backstab them and sue the bastards? "
        
        > Why not? That;'s what your heroes at the MPAA do.
        
        Well, guess it's like reverse lottery. Some people win big when MPAA notices their existence in completely wrong side of the galaxy.
        
        > Also, your site is devoid of entertainment value, but arguing with your nonsense here is kind of entertaining.
        
        I didn't expect so low amount of effort to be such useful practise. I bet spending years writing these products will be alot more profitable.
        
        > Thanks for giving it to us for free!
        
        Free always has strings attached. Now you have been programmed to buy my product when the money gathering operation can be ramped up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        Now you have been programmed to buy my product when the money gathering operation can be ramped up.
        
        Sure, go ahead and wait for the money to start rolling in. I'm sure the people who saw your two buses are falling over themselves to fund your next litigation campaign.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 19 Apr 2018 @ 3:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > falling over themselves to fund your next litigation campaign.
        
        Guess we'll have our next slogan as "We don't need to sue you bastards, if you actually buy our product."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 3:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        Everyone else will keep the same slogan they're always used - "if your product isn't worth anything, you don't get anything".
        
        I know it's hard to accept that you put in a lot of work but still failed, but that's what happens to most businesses in the first year. Trying to force people to buy your product even if they don't want it is not the answer to that painful truth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 3:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        "Now you have been programmed to buy my product "
        
        You spelt "avoid" wrong. You're actually *reducing* your potential market with your arguments here, all while deluding yourself that you're owed something.
        
        You are a truly impressive specimen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 19 Apr 2018 @ 3:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > You are a truly impressive
        
        This is because our methods are significantly more powerful than anyone on the planet. Our side of the galaxy is plotting to overthrow the government, nsa, fbi and the establishments all around the globe. This is because we're actually outside of the planet, controlling every aspect of our environment to our own advantage. This happens via burdensome network of measurementpoints which can provide real-time data on what is happening in some blue and green planet, somewhere near a star called the sun. Our yellow press articles gives so accurate information that we can predict anything happening in the world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 3:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        So, do you actually have a psychological condition, or do you just playact when you have an audience?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 9:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        And this is why I'm not interested in your site or your product - to view, or buy, or pirate, or know it exists. I don't need any further insight to realize you're peddling the finest horseshit. And knowing how rightsholders are you'll probably sue me if I tried to do anything aside from eating it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 19 Apr 2018 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > And knowing how rightsholders are you'll probably sue me if I tried to do anything aside from eating it.
        
        Well, it obviously depends on how long it takes before my mansion is in the pipeline. If it takes too long time before it appears, obviously some people will need to be sued. Rightsowners are waiting for their compensation and if the system doesnt deliver what was promised, then some drastic actions are needed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2018 @ 6:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        Thanks for confirming what antipiracy stands for: if somebody feels he's not filthy rich enough he's entitled to sue anyone and everyone until he's satisfied regardless of relevance.
        
        And you think we're supposed to fund this sort of self-centered behavior. Fuck that noise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 20 Apr 2018 @ 2:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        > what antipiracy stands for: if somebody feels he's not filthy rich enough he's entitled to sue anyone and everyone
        
        The situation is worse than you think. After my product has been availble for 5 years now, I haven't even received the plans how they are plotting to create my mansion. I don't believe the mansion is possible without first creating workable plans how to do it.
        
        I've provided all the means necessary to build the plans using computer software, but the system seems to have delays after delays and their first milestone is not yet working. Soon there's no other option than to sue the bastards.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2018 @ 11:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        Here's an option.
        
        Move to Nigeria and be a full-time 419 scammer. You've already got plenty of practice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        "You took my face image from facebook and decided based on the photo that any service that I can create is not worthy? "
        
        Nobody cares what you look like. We're only evaluating you on your actions here and the poor quality work you linked to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 19 Apr 2018 @ 2:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil
        Not to mention your poor website design; web design is not about providing a pretty landing page.
        
        Design without purpose is decoration - Jeffrey Zeldman.
        
        Web design is about providing your intended audience with an easy-to-navigate at-a-glance view of what the site is for. If you put what they want where they can find it they'll keep coming back.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 7:12am
  
  Re: Large sites are evil
  The advantage of large sites is not just the number of items available, but also the network effects, and the social networking that goes on in a large site like YouTube that allow it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 6:05am

they are obviously running out of money so by shutting down their legal offering, they are forcing people back on to the less than legal options so that more court wins can be given and more money made in fines from those who then lose everything, including their families, and in some cases, their lives! all over a fucking movie that is only 'make believe' and that the world can live without!! nothing entertainment wise is so important that it MUST exist! only those making money from these industries regard everything they do as earth-shatteringly indispensable!! and that includes the bastards in government, law enforcement and the courts who are accepting bribes, just to keep these industries alive!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfie0827 (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 8:51am

"And now comes the news that the MPAA actually shuttered the site months ago."

So useful no one noticed it gone until the one user who tried it back at the beginning went back a month ago to see if it had improved and saw it was gone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 9:17am

A good start

"There are more than 140 lawful online platforms in the United States for accessing film and television content, and more than 460 around the world,”

Wow! And you only need to subscribe to 713 of them to be able to access all the lawful content!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jinxed (profile), 17 Apr 2018 @ 9:29am

I found a link to this site last year through an article talking about how horrible it was. I wanted to try it for myself.

Putting in any movie released within a year (but older than 6 months): 0 results found

I also put in well known older movies, such as "Die Hard": 0 results found

Then I put in "Transmorphers", a direct-to-confused-consumer movie: 7 results found, with Netflix being #1

The website may have been designed to help people find legal alternatives.

Instead, it showed them few, if any, options actually existed.

It's no wonder the MPAA took it down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2018 @ 11:56am

I'm starting a campaign to get tim geigner removed from Techdirt. The reason? read on...

He used MPAA and Innovate in the same sentence. Thats basically like putting a billion tons of matter and antimatter into a sandwich.

Tim, You could have killed us all*

* this was sarcasm btw for the froth-at-the-mouth weirdoes that often come to techdirt just to make stuff up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2018 @ 1:10pm

MPAA silently pretending their lobbying aka bribing works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]

A Casino Was Hacked Thanks To The Internet Of Broken Things & A Fish Tank Thermometer

Bad News For 'Privacy Shield': As Expected, EU's Top Court Will Examine Legality Of Sending Personal Data To US

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Friday
19:39	Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)

MPAA Apparently Silently Shut Down Its Legal Movies Search Engine

from the we-hardly-knew-ye dept

Reader Comments

Re:

Not good

Innovation is Optional

Re: Innovation is Optional

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

==true ?

Re: ==true ?

Re: Re: ==true ?

Re: Re: Re: ==true ?

Ah, the Internet.

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: