1 bill, any movie I want, right in my house. That is what I want.
That sounds great. I'd sign up for that.
Figure out how to do that, and "piracy", for the most part, goes away.
I seriously doubt that. I hope I'm wrong. And even if we had this wonderful one-stop-shop, I'm sure Mike and the pirates would be whining about something. Probably the price.
Not everybody has the same tastes in films as you do, nor do they live in the same country, so just because your needs are met does not mean that other peoples needs are met by just a few services, or that any of the services available to them carry the films they would like to watch.
True enough. But this report is about the US market, so that's what we've been talking about. And no one here has actually shown that they'd need to sign up for 34 different services to see the content they want. They just assume the worst and complain about it.
The point is that I have to pay an subscription to all 34 grocery stores websites so that I can get the product.
You guys are assuming you'd have to have accounts at all 34 services to see the content you want. I have accounts at Netflix, Amazon, M-GO, and iTunes, and they have all the content I want.
I get that you guys need to blame others for your conscious decision to pirate, but this victim-blaming is getting pretty silly. No matter what they do, you guys will complain.
And this right here is your problem. You've had upteen people do exactly that. It is bogus and misleading to say something is "widely available" when it isn't on the most popular (and likely biggest) service used by the majority of the people.
Yeah, they're available, just not widely. That is bogus and misleading.
The report says they're "widely available" and then it defines exactly what that means and tells us what percentage of movies are available on the different kinds of services. And then you guys claim that it's "bogus and misleading"? I don't see it. I get that you would define "widely available" differently, but that doesn't mean they were "bogus and misleading" when they were completely upfront about what they meant by that.
You're an idiot.
And my posts here are being reported as abusive and trollish. Sigh. I know you guys can't stand dissenting points of view, but the amount of abuse you all regularly dish out is just terrible.
I'd like to suggest a grocery store analogy. If a product is available in only one of 34 local groceries, I would not call that product "widely available". Which is why setting the bar so low is disingenuous; "widely available" almost suggests that you're more likely to find it than not find it at any store.
Do all 34 grocery stores have websites that instantly deliver the goods to your house?
One third of that... so about $220 per month? So let me see - I live in South Africa and there are 11 Rand to the Dollar, so that puts your monthly entertainment cost at effectively R 2,420. Nice. There are families living on less than that per month over here.
So you think that it's reasonable for people elsewhere in the world (and less moneyed than yourself) to pay that for legitimate content? Personally I can see where the piracy comes from then. Nobody over here would pay that much for "TV and series" per month. And I'm certainly far from living on the bread line.
Idiot!
My point was that I pay that much and I get way more movies and shows than I can possibly ever watch. It's a luxury item that I can afford. I wasn't always so fortunate, and I'm sure there are many people less fortunate than me.
There is also the problem of guessing which service a movie is on this week, like when its is pulled from streaming services and put on cable.
This site is pretty good: http://wheretowatch.org/ I think they can (and will) do better. Things are moving in the "right" direction, IMO. Just give it time.
This is why I say you're being obtuse. You don't even acknowledge that there's more than one facet to the issue of media being "widely available."
I think it's obtuse to demand that "widely available" = "available on Netflix." I'm still waiting for someone to point to even one single sentence in the report that is "bogus and misleading." The report is very upfront about which services it includes and what percentage of the titles are available on each.
Is setting up an account with each and every one of these providers significantly more hoops than setting one up at Netflix or iTunes?
Amazon Instant Video CinemaNow Google Play iTunes MGO Playstation Store Redbox Instant Sony Entertainment Network Walmart Vudu Xbox Live Marketplace Blockbuster Crackle Crunchyroll Popcornflix Hulu Plus Netflix Warner Archive Instant AT&T U-verse Screenpack Comcast Xfinity Streampix Verizon Redbox Instant
I'm guessing it's not even possible to sign up for all of the last three, and for many people not even one of them.
I have at least an order of magnitude more accounts online than that. You should see my password sheet. (Yes, I still use analog for that!)
They're making it so I have to shop at multiple stores just to find the movies I want to see. Imagine wanting to see the latest blockbuster movie, and having to figure out if it was being sold at Walmart, or Target, or Best Buy, or Barnes and Noble, and having to do this for every single movie.
From what I've heard, they're working on getting things more centralized. You have to understand that Blockbuster can stock whatever it wants because of first-sale, while streaming requires complex licensing negotiations. I applaud the industry for the changes it's made already. Give it time.
Again, as others have said, the problem is that this then means that to get as close as possible to legal access to most movies, you'd have to pay for MULTIPLE services. So are you really suggesting that people should pay for the 34 different services here? Do you honestly think the vast majority of people can afford that?
Only a few of the services listed are subscription services, such as Netflix. Many, like iTunes, require users to purchase each title individually. It's not like someone has to have 34 Netflix subscriptions, if that's what you're implying. I see no problem with going to different services to get different content. I go to different stores to buy different things. I don't freak out when the grocery store doesn't stock blades for my table saw. I get that a one-stop-shop would be nicer. That's one reason I like my Roku box. I can watch Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon, etc. with one piece of hardware. Things are getting better, and they're moving in the direction that you guys all want. I just don't get the constant whining. And I especially don't get the victim-blaming.
You seem to just have a problem with the phrase "tertiary liability," even though you seem to agree with the concept. You just disagree with the judge's use of Robertson's term for it. That's just semantics.
I don't agree with the concept generally, and especially I don't agree with it here. The point of calling it "tertiary" liability is to make it seem even more remote than secondary liability. Mike already thinks secondary liability is too remote, and the implication is that this is even more remote than that. It's not. Robertson was the corporation. The actions of the corporation were his own actions. Secondary liability is helping someone else to infringe. "Tertiary" liability is helping someone else who helps someone else to infringe. But Robertson didn't help someone else who helped someone else to infringe. The actions of the corporation were his own actions. It's just secondary liability. He, acting through corporate form, helped someone else to infringe.
"Accordingly, this Court reiterates its earlier conclusion that a ?tertiary? liability claim is cognizable. And Plaintiffs? established that claim at trial. Accordingly, Robertson?s motion for judgment as a matter of law on this claim is denied."
Hence Mike's statement, "Unfortunately, the judge says this is fine, arguing that while the judge in the Napster case rejected such a theory, the judge in the Limewire case accepted it, and thus "tertiary liability" is a perfectly reasonable thing."
I did read it. And I looked up the cites mentioned. The judge put quotes around the word "tertiary" for a reason. He was quoting Robertson's characterization of the liability. Robertson cited the Napster ruling, which did say there is such thing as "tertiary" liability (though without citing any sources as precedent for that strange claim), only to have the judge distinguish it. The judge then cited the Limewire case, where the defendant was held personally liable for the torts of the corporation that he ran:
It is well established that “[a]ll persons and corporations who participate in, exercise control over or benefit from an infringement are jointly and severally liable as copyright infringers.” Musical Prods., Inc. v. Roma's Record Corp., No. 05–CV–5903, 2007 WL 750319, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7.2007) (quoting Sygma Photo News, Inc. v. High Soc'y Magazine, Inc., 778 F.2d 89, 92 (2d Cir.1985)). “[A]n individual, including a corporate officer, who has the ability to supervise infringing activity and has a financial interest in that activity, or who personally participates in that activity is personally liable for infringement.” Stumm v. Drive Entertainment *438 Inc., 2002 WL 5589, *5 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (emphasis added); see also Aram, Inc. v. Laurey, No. 05 Civ. 8380, 2006 WL 510527, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2006). These principles apply equally to claims of direct infringement and claims based on secondary liability. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Wings Digital Corp., 218 F.Supp.2d 280, 284–85 (E.D.N.Y.2002) (finding that CEO of defendant corporation could be individually liable for contributory and vicarious infringement committed by corporation).
Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC, 784 F. Supp. 2d 398, 437-38 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
There is no tertiary liability test because there is no tertiary liability. The issue is whether Robertson is personally liable for what he did while running his corporation. He is. And that was determined by (1) applying secondary liability, and (2) determining whether he could hide behind the corporate veil.
The MPAA is claiming that if it can be found out there in commercial land somewhere that it is available. What is totally being ignored here is the hoops you are expected to jump through to access that film or material.
Is setting up an account at Netflix significantly more "hoops" than setting up one at iTunes?
Nor am I willing to search all over the net to find it. It is either available or it isn't where I go. That is what widely available means.
Do you have trouble navigating from techdirt.com for Mike's content to wsj.com for their content? Different content is available on different sites. This is how the internet works.
While that may be technically true, by choosing to make them available only on the online equivalent of the library basement between the hours of 4:55 pm and 5:00 pm, they are being misleading.
But it's not equivalent to a library basement that's only open for five minutes. Netflix is just as available as Hulu. Just because you prefer one service, that doesn't mean the other service is somehow less available.
It is misleading to imply that a movie is "widely available" when it is, in fact, not.
If 80% of top movies can't be found on the most popular (legal) streaming service in the country, there's a big problem.
Here's what the report says: "This report found that the most popular and critically acclaimed films are widely available to anyone who has access to the Internet through dozens of Online VOD digital distribution services."
Anyone who wants to sign up and pay (the horror!) can do so. That's "widely available" in my book. Saying that only the movies on Netflix are "widely available" makes little sense to me. Yes, it's a popular service, but I don't see how other services which are less popular are any less "available." A URL is a URL. If you can access one, you can access another.
The cost of the "big list of 34 services" is how much? I can't tell you for sure, but that's not "AVAILABLE" to the average person (or "reasonably available") which makes the claim (that availability isn't a factor) in this study "bogus and misleading" about the affect availability has on piracy.
Where in the report does it make any claims about the relationship between availability and piracy?
Nice, someone being obtuse about the MPAA being obtuse.
Can you point to the "bogus and misleading" information in the report? Did not the report say what was available on streaming services such as Netflix and what was not? I'm waiting for someone to show me the exact claim in the report that is "bogus and misleading." It's easy to say I'm being obtuse. It's quite another thing to actually present evidence that backs up the claim. Mike hasn't presented that evidence. Can you?
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re:
That sounds great. I'd sign up for that.
Figure out how to do that, and "piracy", for the most part, goes away.
I seriously doubt that. I hope I'm wrong. And even if we had this wonderful one-stop-shop, I'm sure Mike and the pirates would be whining about something. Probably the price.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True enough. But this report is about the US market, so that's what we've been talking about. And no one here has actually shown that they'd need to sign up for 34 different services to see the content they want. They just assume the worst and complain about it.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys are assuming you'd have to have accounts at all 34 services to see the content you want. I have accounts at Netflix, Amazon, M-GO, and iTunes, and they have all the content I want.
I get that you guys need to blame others for your conscious decision to pirate, but this victim-blaming is getting pretty silly. No matter what they do, you guys will complain.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, they're available, just not widely. That is bogus and misleading.
The report says they're "widely available" and then it defines exactly what that means and tells us what percentage of movies are available on the different kinds of services. And then you guys claim that it's "bogus and misleading"? I don't see it. I get that you would define "widely available" differently, but that doesn't mean they were "bogus and misleading" when they were completely upfront about what they meant by that.
You're an idiot.
And my posts here are being reported as abusive and trollish. Sigh. I know you guys can't stand dissenting points of view, but the amount of abuse you all regularly dish out is just terrible.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do all 34 grocery stores have websites that instantly deliver the goods to your house?
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you think that it's reasonable for people elsewhere in the world (and less moneyed than yourself) to pay that for legitimate content? Personally I can see where the piracy comes from then. Nobody over here would pay that much for "TV and series" per month. And I'm certainly far from living on the bread line.
Idiot!
My point was that I pay that much and I get way more movies and shows than I can possibly ever watch. It's a luxury item that I can afford. I wasn't always so fortunate, and I'm sure there are many people less fortunate than me.
On the post: Judge Adjusts MP3Tunes Ruling, Blasts Everyone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same rule for corporate officer liability applies to all corporations, big and small. I'm not sure what your point is.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This site is pretty good: http://wheretowatch.org/ I think they can (and will) do better. Things are moving in the "right" direction, IMO. Just give it time.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's obtuse to demand that "widely available" = "available on Netflix." I'm still waiting for someone to point to even one single sentence in the report that is "bogus and misleading." The report is very upfront about which services it includes and what percentage of the titles are available on each.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
$680 per month or $8160 per year.
Guess you need to be MPAA member to afford your own availability.
I watch all the movies and TV shows I could possibly ever want (and do so legally) for one-third that much. Your math is off.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amazon Instant Video
CinemaNow
Google Play
iTunes
MGO
Playstation Store
Redbox Instant
Sony Entertainment Network
Walmart Vudu
Xbox Live
Marketplace
Blockbuster
Crackle
Crunchyroll
Popcornflix
Hulu Plus
Netflix
Warner Archive Instant
AT&T U-verse Screenpack
Comcast Xfinity Streampix
Verizon Redbox Instant
I'm guessing it's not even possible to sign up for all of the last three, and for many people not even one of them.
I have at least an order of magnitude more accounts online than that. You should see my password sheet. (Yes, I still use analog for that!)
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From what I've heard, they're working on getting things more centralized. You have to understand that Blockbuster can stock whatever it wants because of first-sale, while streaming requires complex licensing negotiations. I applaud the industry for the changes it's made already. Give it time.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only a few of the services listed are subscription services, such as Netflix. Many, like iTunes, require users to purchase each title individually. It's not like someone has to have 34 Netflix subscriptions, if that's what you're implying. I see no problem with going to different services to get different content. I go to different stores to buy different things. I don't freak out when the grocery store doesn't stock blades for my table saw. I get that a one-stop-shop would be nicer. That's one reason I like my Roku box. I can watch Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon, etc. with one piece of hardware. Things are getting better, and they're moving in the direction that you guys all want. I just don't get the constant whining. And I especially don't get the victim-blaming.
On the post: Judge Adjusts MP3Tunes Ruling, Blasts Everyone
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't agree with the concept generally, and especially I don't agree with it here. The point of calling it "tertiary" liability is to make it seem even more remote than secondary liability. Mike already thinks secondary liability is too remote, and the implication is that this is even more remote than that. It's not. Robertson was the corporation. The actions of the corporation were his own actions. Secondary liability is helping someone else to infringe. "Tertiary" liability is helping someone else who helps someone else to infringe. But Robertson didn't help someone else who helped someone else to infringe. The actions of the corporation were his own actions. It's just secondary liability. He, acting through corporate form, helped someone else to infringe.
On the post: Judge Adjusts MP3Tunes Ruling, Blasts Everyone
Re: Re:
Page 8:
"Accordingly, this Court reiterates its earlier conclusion that a ?tertiary? liability claim is cognizable. And Plaintiffs? established that claim at trial. Accordingly, Robertson?s motion for judgment as a matter of law on this claim is denied."
Hence Mike's statement, "Unfortunately, the judge says this is fine, arguing that while the judge in the Napster case rejected such a theory, the judge in the Limewire case accepted it, and thus "tertiary liability" is a perfectly reasonable thing."
I did read it. And I looked up the cites mentioned. The judge put quotes around the word "tertiary" for a reason. He was quoting Robertson's characterization of the liability. Robertson cited the Napster ruling, which did say there is such thing as "tertiary" liability (though without citing any sources as precedent for that strange claim), only to have the judge distinguish it. The judge then cited the Limewire case, where the defendant was held personally liable for the torts of the corporation that he ran:Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC, 784 F. Supp. 2d 398, 437-38 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
There is no tertiary liability test because there is no tertiary liability. The issue is whether Robertson is personally liable for what he did while running his corporation. He is. And that was determined by (1) applying secondary liability, and (2) determining whether he could hide behind the corporate veil.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re:
Is setting up an account at Netflix significantly more "hoops" than setting up one at iTunes?
Nor am I willing to search all over the net to find it. It is either available or it isn't where I go. That is what widely available means.
Do you have trouble navigating from techdirt.com for Mike's content to wsj.com for their content? Different content is available on different sites. This is how the internet works.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it's not equivalent to a library basement that's only open for five minutes. Netflix is just as available as Hulu. Just because you prefer one service, that doesn't mean the other service is somehow less available.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If 80% of top movies can't be found on the most popular (legal) streaming service in the country, there's a big problem.
Here's what the report says: "This report found that the most popular and critically acclaimed films are widely available to anyone who has access to the Internet through dozens of Online VOD digital distribution services."
Anyone who wants to sign up and pay (the horror!) can do so. That's "widely available" in my book. Saying that only the movies on Netflix are "widely available" makes little sense to me. Yes, it's a popular service, but I don't see how other services which are less popular are any less "available." A URL is a URL. If you can access one, you can access another.
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where in the report does it make any claims about the relationship between availability and piracy?
On the post: MPAA Tries To Ignore The Fact That The Study It Paid For Reveals Very Few Top Films Are Available On Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you point to the "bogus and misleading" information in the report? Did not the report say what was available on streaming services such as Netflix and what was not? I'm waiting for someone to show me the exact claim in the report that is "bogus and misleading." It's easy to say I'm being obtuse. It's quite another thing to actually present evidence that backs up the claim. Mike hasn't presented that evidence. Can you?
Next >>