If the server was password protected, how on earth did the copyright holders find out about its content? So either a) they illegally hacked into the server, or b) the server's owner made the login credentials public, which, if that's the case, it seems to nullify any argument about the content being private. The article seems to be lacking in a lot of details, so it's difficult to know for sure.
The product may be effectively free if it can be downloaded illegally, but it's the services and the quality that add value for the consumer that make it worth paying.
Illegal downloading, especially P2P, has inherent complexities involved that can make it more difficult to find the product in many cases. A user may have to search multiple torrent sites just to find a copy of reasonable quality with seeders, and then be reliant upon the seeders actually having sufficient bandwidth. This happens a lot, particularly with older items.
A reliable service that offers a guaranteed level of quality and availability for a reasonable price can quite easily compete with free.
The music industry really has started to address this issue now that it offers DRM free content through a wide range of services, although it still suffers from availability issues in many markets due to its overly complex licensing systems.
The film and television industry, on the other hand, is still failing miserably, caused in a large part by sticking to it's old media distribution channels for cinema and television, causing significant delays for availability in many countries, and locking their content down with DRM. That type of model has no chance of competing with free because, despite the slightly lower quality pirated versions, they're significantly better than either nothing or the DRM encumbered alternatives.
Seriously, the day that high definition, DRM free TV series and films become available legally, will be the day that I stop downloading them illegally and start paying. That's already happened with Music, so it's only a matter of time.
What? The guy chose not to eat a friggin' wafer. Who cares? How is that even remotely newsworthy? The fact that the clip received a DMCA takedown might be newsworthy if the clip really qualifies as fair dealing - I'm not so sura about that - but the clip itself would not otherwise be even remotely newsworthy.
Webcasters (and Radio stations) Should Pay for the Rights! (Though 25% is too much)
What's bizarre is that radio stations in the US don't have to pay royalties to artists. Yes, I've heard the claim that it helps to promote the artists, resulting in more sales. But look at it this way: Radio stations are using the music they play to attract listeners, and they make a profit from the advertising they sell and play along with it. Why should the radio stations be able to freely take someone elses work and profit from it, without paying for the rights?!
Consider TV broadcasters. They often buy TV shows from film studios. You could argue that by playing those TV shows, they're helping to promote more sales of DVDs, and thus broadcasters should be able to play any TV shows the like without paying for the rights.
Also, consider that many other countries have systems that require radio stations to pay for the rights. Australia, for instance, requires them to pay roughly 3% of gross revenues (it varies depending on the station's revenue).
So not only do I agree that webcasters should pay for the rights, radio stations should too.
However, I will admit that I think being required to pay 25% is grossly disproportionate, and that they should fight for a much fairer rate, somewhere around 3%.
It really doesn't make sense to me why radio broadcasters in the US are exempt from paying music licence fees for the content they play. Radio stations in other countries don't seem to be suffering significantly by being required to pay reasonable fees.
For example, here are Australia's licencing fees for broadcasters.
So before people start whinging about the prospect of stations being required to pay, how about analysing how the systems work in other countries first and realising that perhaps it's not such a disastrous idea after all, as long as it's a fair system.
In Australia, if the scanned price at the register is higher than the marked price, you're entitled to receive that item free, or, if you're buying more than one, the first item free and the remaining items at the lower price. This applies to all retailers that have signed up to the voluntary Scanning Code of Practice, which most major retailers have done. I'm not sure how this would apply to online retailers though, or what the rules are for retailers haven't signed the voluntary code of pracitce.
The telcos should should take some responsibility upon themselves to notify the user that their usage is attracting excessive fees, based on some more reasonable limit. So if a user suddenly gets a bill of around $100 in a relatively short period, the telco should immediately attempt to notify the user, at least by sending a simple SMS.
If the TV and film industries would follow the lead of the music industry, and release their films and TV shows for sale in a DRM free format, world wide (especially in Norway, where I happen to be living right now, and Australia, where I'm from originally), then consumers wouldn't be forced to use illegal methods to get the content they want. If the shows I watch were available, I would certainly pay for each and every one of them (including any shows I may have illegally downloaded in the past).
But as it is right now, the only way I can legally get movies is to buy Region 2 encoded DVDs, which won't play in the Region 4 DVD player I have in my Mac, or import them from Australia. So, the industry have created this problem for themselves by imposing such unnecessary restrictions.
On the post: Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up IP Addresses; Appeals Court Order
Password Protected?
On the post: Stephen Fry: Time For Politicians To Represent People's Interest On Copyright, Not Corporations
Re: Not competing with "free"
Illegal downloading, especially P2P, has inherent complexities involved that can make it more difficult to find the product in many cases. A user may have to search multiple torrent sites just to find a copy of reasonable quality with seeders, and then be reliant upon the seeders actually having sufficient bandwidth. This happens a lot, particularly with older items.
A reliable service that offers a guaranteed level of quality and availability for a reasonable price can quite easily compete with free.
The music industry really has started to address this issue now that it offers DRM free content through a wide range of services, although it still suffers from availability issues in many markets due to its overly complex licensing systems.
The film and television industry, on the other hand, is still failing miserably, caused in a large part by sticking to it's old media distribution channels for cinema and television, causing significant delays for availability in many countries, and locking their content down with DRM. That type of model has no chance of competing with free because, despite the slightly lower quality pirated versions, they're significantly better than either nothing or the DRM encumbered alternatives.
Seriously, the day that high definition, DRM free TV series and films become available legally, will be the day that I stop downloading them illegally and start paying. That's already happened with Music, so it's only a matter of time.
On the post: YouTube Takedown Again Being Used To Try To Block Newsworthy Content
Newsworthy?!
What? The guy chose not to eat a friggin' wafer. Who cares? How is that even remotely newsworthy? The fact that the clip received a DMCA takedown might be newsworthy if the clip really qualifies as fair dealing - I'm not so sura about that - but the clip itself would not otherwise be even remotely newsworthy.
On the post: Why Should Webcasters Pay 25% Of Revenue To Promote Musicians?
Webcasters (and Radio stations) Should Pay for the Rights! (Though 25% is too much)
Consider TV broadcasters. They often buy TV shows from film studios. You could argue that by playing those TV shows, they're helping to promote more sales of DVDs, and thus broadcasters should be able to play any TV shows the like without paying for the rights.
Also, consider that many other countries have systems that require radio stations to pay for the rights. Australia, for instance, requires them to pay roughly 3% of gross revenues (it varies depending on the station's revenue).
So not only do I agree that webcasters should pay for the rights, radio stations should too.
However, I will admit that I think being required to pay 25% is grossly disproportionate, and that they should fight for a much fairer rate, somewhere around 3%.
On the post: Congressman Buys Recording Industry Argument That Radio Is Piracy
For example, here are Australia's licencing fees for broadcasters.
http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/MusicConsumers/Findalicencetosuityourneeds/Broadcastmu siconradioortelevision.aspx
So before people start whinging about the prospect of stations being required to pay, how about analysing how the systems work in other countries first and realising that perhaps it's not such a disastrous idea after all, as long as it's a fair system.
On the post: Taiwan Regulators Tell Dell It Must Sell Mispriced Monitors At $15
Australia
On the post: Mythbusters' Adam Savage Discovers Insane Roaming Fees: $11,000 iPhone Bill For A Few Hours Surfing
Telco's Responsibility
On the post: Norwegian ISPs And Consumer Council Fight Back Against Entertainment Industry Threat Letters
DRM
But as it is right now, the only way I can legally get movies is to buy Region 2 encoded DVDs, which won't play in the Region 4 DVD player I have in my Mac, or import them from Australia. So, the industry have created this problem for themselves by imposing such unnecessary restrictions.
Next >>