If the MPAA kills off cyberlockers, Bittorrent will just surpass it. And since the judges have figured out that lawyers are forum shopping, I doubt the revenue streams the movie makers imagine will come from vilifying customers like they do.
"Mike, they took in almost half a million dollars worth of ill gotten gains from this criminal enterprise."
... What? The ad payments were ~ $20 to $30. Unless the Feds have some secret info they aren't sharing, it's kind of hard to say where the money came from. It could be a job they worked on the side, or it could be merged with the 8 other places seized, since Ninjathis was added to the complaint against Ninjavideo about a year ago. So unless you have something new from the indictment, how do you explain 18 payments equating to $500,000 mixed between only the admins?
"This is quite possibly one of the clearest examples of where criminal copyright infringement comes in."
Yeah, a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement when they had merely links like TVShack or Roja. This is a great starter case.
"How about an Education Education about Education in Education? So lawmakers and visitors can be educated about Education and how that differ's from propaganda."
In this situation, you can't. They were sent specifically to harry the protestors. I don't know the exact tactics brought on by the protest, but if it's being "sourced" to the white shirts as That Anonymous Coward claims, then this is what we know:
"Don't you think dismissing someone as a troll is sort of the easy way out?"
I believe it bears repeating:
"So let's not feed the cowardly troll. The points are there, and the anonymous coward cannot bring out anything more."
Meanwhile, I have some heart medication, 1000 laps, 200 Hail Maries, and a rubbing of my ears while saying "woosa!" to attend to in order to calm myself in front of the trolls.
"It would be a horrible precedent for something like Rojo to be able to hide behind the first amendment, while the site is clearly dedicated to supporting illegal activities."
... No it would not. You haven't explained clearly why Roja is a site dedicated to illegal activites, merely attacked the poster. A live stream of a futbol match doesn't hurt someone. So what exactly is Roja's "crime"? Even the government has stated that Roja is not guilty of any crimes, but their site is utilized to commit them? How does that follow?
" Would we tolerate a chat board that told people who was out of town, what their address is, which window to break in, provided them an inventory of the house and hooked them up with fences to take the merchandise? "
"Each of those items alone might be some sort of free speech, but it is clearly supporting criminal activity (aiding and abetting). Should the first amendment trump it?"
Oh by all means. Since the government doesn't like Justin.tv, Youtube, Rapidshare, Megaupload, Google Music, OCRemix, and the myriad of other portals because someone, somewhere is uploading "illegal" (hint: let's say unauthorized from now on) material that a copyright holder doesn't like.
I guess the statutory clause of copyright trumps the natural rights of the people it's supposed to protect doesn't it?
"Would you extend that to any crime of "conspiracy to commit", where anyone who did the planning and set up the crime would be free to go, because their discussions are "free speech"?"
Please define conspiracy. Not only have people sat here and called the likes of me and a few other regulars conspiracy theorists when appropriate to try to dismiss our claims, but I truly believe the conspiracy laws are beyond vague when dealing with the US government.
I'm currently checking up on "conspiracies" as defined by US law. So please, by all means... How is Roja a conspiracy when no one had heard of it (in the US) until the domain seizure?
" Just explain *how* PROTECT IP is going to be able to stop sharing when sharing is going to be so easy?"
I think that is the question that no maximalist can truly answer.
The fact is, no matter how many reports show it, no matter how much the info tells people that the economics of piracy are simple, the fact is, the battle continues.
I just hope that in the future, when copyright and patents are not barriers to entry as they are now, when we have a security force not in the hands of the government, when we have an easy to access wiki that explains the rights of people to government, and a police force that knows how to uphold the constitution than being bullies with badges...
The world will be that much better off because the technology will assist people in making money, not used to prevent more methods of innovating.
"Paul, when will you learn that the costs of a movie isn't in the replication, but in the production. Avatar didn't cost 300 million to make DVD copies, it cost that to develop them technology and produce the movie. The cost of storage isn't an issue (and pretty hasn't been for a long time). When you can get DVD movies replicated in retail cases with 3 color label insert and color printing on the disc for way less than $1 a piece (in even smaller quantities) you know that the cost of producing the product alone isn't the big end of it."
As a side note, cloud computing is very likely to get hit with many copyright challenges in the future, and just like file locker sites like Hotfile, are likely to get reamed.
Translation: Hollywood is going to try to bully Amazon, Google and a few other places while precedents such as mp3tunes keeps them tied up in what the law can do. That's good to know.
" The number of people who subscribe to pirate sites or download or stream from ad supported sites will certainly decrease if credit cards can't be used."
Highly doubtful. More people will use their cards and begin to "launder" the money to places that they want to spend it.
I would say that Bitcoins might increase in value along with Flattr usage while Visa and Mastercard, if followed through, would decrease in usage.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
"One example: Rosetta Stone. It costs $800 in the US. One option for software is to use cheaper (MUCH CHEAPER) alternatives for it. Another option is piracy.
Or a third option is to simply do without. Why is that not a consideration?"
I never said that wasn't an option. But look at this. If a legal option isn't available in an area, people find alternatives. Whether they're legal or pirated goods, that's still potential income. If you put up barriers to how your product is consumed people will go to piracy. I'm saying it again and again, but you aren't understanding. Yes, people could do without. No question. But guess what, the pirate is offering a better product than the authorized version. Which do you think people will go to?
"I think it is. If a merchant overprices his good, the result should be that people either do without or substitute. Not steal it."
And yet again, copying a DVD is not stealing it from a retail store. Dowling v United States displays the exact reasoning for why it is not. There is no enriched benefit of a CD/DVD being taken at time of possible purchase. So there's copyright infringement, a civil trial to prove it and damages, then there's stealing. Stealing := copyright infringement.
"Didn't know that. But that's a troubling indication of state of mind. That tells me that there recognition that this is stealing but it's OK because it's stealing from a foreigner, not a countryman. "
As I said, it happens. I'm not here to condone their actions, but the report goes into exactly what we're discussing. If anything else, the first 70 pages is the best to read in regards to the high prices of goods, the ineffectiveness of copyright enforcement, and finding better ways to deal with a global market without laws such as PIPA or treaties like the ACTA.
"What I think you fail to see is that piracy itself impedes development of new distribution models. Ninjavideo was charging a subscription fee of $25/month for access to content. "
First, NV didn't. There's nothing in the indictment that indicates they paid a subscription fee for higher access to movies. They had donators and they had different name tags, but people came to NV for the videos.
Just as they did ICEfilms, TVShack, or any other place that streamed movies and TV shows no longer accessible at convenient times for consumers.
"If I want to enter that market how do I compete if I want to do it lawfully and pay the license fee while Ninjavideo does not. It's pretty likely that I'd have to charge a lot more than $25 to offer the same service. So why would anyone use my service?"
Go in. But understand the market you're in. Hulu could have been a great service. But it's controlled by people that don't want it to succeed because in their thinking, it means the end of them. Hulu plays by all the rules and customers leave out of frustration. I personally HATE how they have the shorter ads. I'd prefer two ads near the beginning and end, watch my show with no hassle and move on.
But then, when they started to take away old episodes, I found somewhere else to watch my programming. Bear in mind, I'm a child of the 80s. I have a high nostalgia factor for things like MacGuyver, Pac-Man, and Fat Albert along with a few more recent shows like Burn Notice and can't watch it when I want to on USA. It's convenient for me when I have a place to go for older shows along with newer ones. This has nothing to do with what Hulu offers nor USA, who can make money on the ads from others.
But there are other things I can actually buy only from the main website. The DVDs for one. The T-Shirts and style of Michael Weston (There's no way in hell I'm doing a mullet like McG...) can be bought only on USA's channels.
Basically, if you want to compete, do so. Do one better than the pirates can and offer more services than they do. Make it easier and more convenient for people to come to your site and you shouldn't worry about what a pirate does.
Valve has learned this lesson.
Netflix is faltering on it.
Hulu lost it.
On the post: House Version Of PROTECT IP To Cover Cyberlockers Too
Re:
On the post: One Ninjavideo Defendant Pleads Guilty; Expect Him To Testify Against The Others
Re:
... What? The ad payments were ~ $20 to $30. Unless the Feds have some secret info they aren't sharing, it's kind of hard to say where the money came from. It could be a job they worked on the side, or it could be merged with the 8 other places seized, since Ninjathis was added to the complaint against Ninjavideo about a year ago. So unless you have something new from the indictment, how do you explain 18 payments equating to $500,000 mixed between only the admins?
"This is quite possibly one of the clearest examples of where criminal copyright infringement comes in."
Yeah, a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement when they had merely links like TVShack or Roja. This is a great starter case.
On the post: House Version Of PROTECT IP To Cover Cyberlockers Too
Re: This will not be abused
On the post: Senate Lets Copyright Lobby Set Up Shop In Senate Building During PROTECT IP Debate
Re: A Plan to Remove Money from Politics
Problems with First to Post
Alternative voting explained
Gerrymandering Explained
Of course, there is more coming out, but it's great to look at what some of the problems with our electing officials in the US are.
On the post: DirecTV Admits Almost No One Wants To Pay $30 To Watch A Movie At Home
Re: Why studios use theater results...
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re:
"The people that have been with the protest since the beginning have been recording the police and their responses with no provocation whatsoever"
On the post: Senate Lets Copyright Lobby Set Up Shop In Senate Building During PROTECT IP Debate
Re: Education
Yo Dawg, I herd you like Education....
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re: Why..
They are deputies and higher ups
Highly doubtful if it's Lieutenants doing the actual dirty work, since they are the ones that oversee an entire operation.
Other than that, TAC has a better write up on this. But avoiding the cops? Won't happen.
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re: Rich kid Mike
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re: Re: Police are scum
On the post: John William Nelson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe it bears repeating:
"So let's not feed the cowardly troll. The points are there, and the anonymous coward cannot bring out anything more."
Meanwhile, I have some heart medication, 1000 laps, 200 Hail Maries, and a rubbing of my ears while saying "woosa!" to attend to in order to calm myself in front of the trolls.
Thanks JWN!
On the post: The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
USA has all of the episodes on their site.
The bad news is: Going to somewhere like TVShack is a crime since you aren't supposed to look at it from third party sites. Go figure.
On the post: John William Nelson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It should be mentioned that the real world analogy of the government seizing ink presses went to trial before the government could seize anything.
On the post: John William Nelson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... No it would not. You haven't explained clearly why Roja is a site dedicated to illegal activites, merely attacked the poster. A live stream of a futbol match doesn't hurt someone. So what exactly is Roja's "crime"? Even the government has stated that Roja is not guilty of any crimes, but their site is utilized to commit them? How does that follow?
" Would we tolerate a chat board that told people who was out of town, what their address is, which window to break in, provided them an inventory of the house and hooked them up with fences to take the merchandise? "
I guess Facebook should be implicated in burglary
"Each of those items alone might be some sort of free speech, but it is clearly supporting criminal activity (aiding and abetting). Should the first amendment trump it?"
Oh by all means. Since the government doesn't like Justin.tv, Youtube, Rapidshare, Megaupload, Google Music, OCRemix, and the myriad of other portals because someone, somewhere is uploading "illegal" (hint: let's say unauthorized from now on) material that a copyright holder doesn't like.
I guess the statutory clause of copyright trumps the natural rights of the people it's supposed to protect doesn't it?
"Would you extend that to any crime of "conspiracy to commit", where anyone who did the planning and set up the crime would be free to go, because their discussions are "free speech"?"
Please define conspiracy. Not only have people sat here and called the likes of me and a few other regulars conspiracy theorists when appropriate to try to dismiss our claims, but I truly believe the conspiracy laws are beyond vague when dealing with the US government.
I'm currently checking up on "conspiracies" as defined by US law. So please, by all means... How is Roja a conspiracy when no one had heard of it (in the US) until the domain seizure?
On the post: Can The US Chamber Of Commerce Lobby For PROTECT IP Without Being So Blatantly Intellectually Dishonest?
I don't have much hope here...
I think that is the question that no maximalist can truly answer.
The fact is, no matter how many reports show it, no matter how much the info tells people that the economics of piracy are simple, the fact is, the battle continues.
I just hope that in the future, when copyright and patents are not barriers to entry as they are now, when we have a security force not in the hands of the government, when we have an easy to access wiki that explains the rights of people to government, and a police force that knows how to uphold the constitution than being bullies with badges...
The world will be that much better off because the technology will assist people in making money, not used to prevent more methods of innovating.
On the post: Can The US Chamber Of Commerce Lobby For PROTECT IP Without Being So Blatantly Intellectually Dishonest?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...
They can if they have to.
On the post: Can The US Chamber Of Commerce Lobby For PROTECT IP Without Being So Blatantly Intellectually Dishonest?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...
And yet... Avatar was the most pirated movie of 2009 and still made over a billion dollars. This isn't counting all of the money that lead to an increase to IMAX. So let's put this out there one time:
The problem here is in the distribution models of the industry. If someone finds it more convenient to find movies on a cyber locker, or torrent site, then Hollywood does not know how they want their movies. The "pirate" is making a statement usually. If there were a quick release to DVD while a movie was playing, I'm sure that Hollywood could continue to make money. Sadly, they don't. It's their loss.
"If you only look there, you will always thing "free is better", but it never addresses the huge up front costs to create the stuff to start with."
Because Free entertainment from actors wanting to make a living on free is a bad thing... Or the fact that people are paying for content is sadly missed on you. *sigh*
As a side note, cloud computing is very likely to get hit with many copyright challenges in the future, and just like file locker sites like Hotfile, are likely to get reamed.
Translation: Hollywood is going to try to bully Amazon, Google and a few other places while precedents such as mp3tunes keeps them tied up in what the law can do. That's good to know.
On the post: Conan O'Brien Has The Inside Scoop On More Netflix Changes
Re:
Meanwhile piracy would increase by a rate of 10% per minute...
On the post: Can The US Chamber Of Commerce Lobby For PROTECT IP Without Being So Blatantly Intellectually Dishonest?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Oily FUD Monger...
Highly doubtful. More people will use their cards and begin to "launder" the money to places that they want to spend it.
I would say that Bitcoins might increase in value along with Flattr usage while Visa and Mastercard, if followed through, would decrease in usage.
On the post: The Democratization Of Culture: PressPausePlay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for you, Mike
Or a third option is to simply do without. Why is that not a consideration?"
I never said that wasn't an option. But look at this. If a legal option isn't available in an area, people find alternatives. Whether they're legal or pirated goods, that's still potential income. If you put up barriers to how your product is consumed people will go to piracy. I'm saying it again and again, but you aren't understanding. Yes, people could do without. No question. But guess what, the pirate is offering a better product than the authorized version. Which do you think people will go to?
"I think it is. If a merchant overprices his good, the result should be that people either do without or substitute. Not steal it."
And yet again, copying a DVD is not stealing it from a retail store. Dowling v United States displays the exact reasoning for why it is not. There is no enriched benefit of a CD/DVD being taken at time of possible purchase. So there's copyright infringement, a civil trial to prove it and damages, then there's stealing. Stealing := copyright infringement.
"Didn't know that. But that's a troubling indication of state of mind. That tells me that there recognition that this is stealing but it's OK because it's stealing from a foreigner, not a countryman. "
As I said, it happens. I'm not here to condone their actions, but the report goes into exactly what we're discussing. If anything else, the first 70 pages is the best to read in regards to the high prices of goods, the ineffectiveness of copyright enforcement, and finding better ways to deal with a global market without laws such as PIPA or treaties like the ACTA.
"What I think you fail to see is that piracy itself impedes development of new distribution models. Ninjavideo was charging a subscription fee of $25/month for access to content. "
First, NV didn't. There's nothing in the indictment that indicates they paid a subscription fee for higher access to movies. They had donators and they had different name tags, but people came to NV for the videos.
Just as they did ICEfilms, TVShack, or any other place that streamed movies and TV shows no longer accessible at convenient times for consumers.
"If I want to enter that market how do I compete if I want to do it lawfully and pay the license fee while Ninjavideo does not. It's pretty likely that I'd have to charge a lot more than $25 to offer the same service. So why would anyone use my service?"
Go in. But understand the market you're in. Hulu could have been a great service. But it's controlled by people that don't want it to succeed because in their thinking, it means the end of them. Hulu plays by all the rules and customers leave out of frustration. I personally HATE how they have the shorter ads. I'd prefer two ads near the beginning and end, watch my show with no hassle and move on.
But then, when they started to take away old episodes, I found somewhere else to watch my programming. Bear in mind, I'm a child of the 80s. I have a high nostalgia factor for things like MacGuyver, Pac-Man, and Fat Albert along with a few more recent shows like Burn Notice and can't watch it when I want to on USA. It's convenient for me when I have a place to go for older shows along with newer ones. This has nothing to do with what Hulu offers nor USA, who can make money on the ads from others.
But there are other things I can actually buy only from the main website. The DVDs for one. The T-Shirts and style of Michael Weston (There's no way in hell I'm doing a mullet like McG...) can be bought only on USA's channels.
Basically, if you want to compete, do so. Do one better than the pirates can and offer more services than they do. Make it easier and more convenient for people to come to your site and you shouldn't worry about what a pirate does.
Valve has learned this lesson.
Netflix is faltering on it.
Hulu lost it.
Next >>