Popular Post MK-2 Posted July 28, 2011 Popular Post Posted July 28, 2011 I know this may be another strongly argued for/against topic but to me it's absolute rubbish. BT will be blocking access to the newzbin website in an attempt to stop pirate movies. How I see it, piracy DOESN'T fund criminal gangs. The movie is recorded and uploaded to the internet for 90% of the world to download. It isn't tagged with "For gangs only". Any man and his dog can get access to usenet and download a film. Just because a criminal gang download it, burn it to DVD and try selling it does not make the actual piracy a cause. If said gang were to steal some DVDs from a shop and sell them on the market, that is exactly the same thing, they still have the movie for sale and will still be profiting from the sale. Also, as newzbin does not host any of the files, it is in essence a search engine. If I were to type into google "how to make a bomb" and one link gave me a PDF download, is Google at fault for giving me that link? In the same instance if I were to go on to newzbin and type "harry potter movie" and got a link to download it, surely that is the same thing (if piracy and intent to cause destruction are both illegal) I think what annoys me more is the national filtering level, BT have decided that all of their customers need banning from this site, so what if another site pops up that while not strictly illegal it annoys some high court judge. let's ban it nationally. It is in the same sense that o2 has now started filtering all of its mobile web access and ask for credit card details to prove i am over 18 before i can even view sites like gambling sites. their argument is that the phone could be used by under 18s so the filter is on. my argument is that i pay them £x every month and have provided my date of birth, they know my age, why should i have to authorise it with them. if i decide to give my phone to a 10 year old and they view pornography on it, on my head be it. why should o2 take the stance that the country needs nannying? could i as easily argue that i will not pay them my monthly fee as i have worries that my money could be funding some terrorist group, so until i see evidence they are not funding terrorists i will not pay? can't wait until most of the uk get sites blocked by "UK NetNanny" or something similar! sorry, rant over and I know I kind of veered off a bit with the O2 example, but it all does irk me a bit, and as one comedian once said about the dvd "you wouldnt steal a purse" advert......dont tell me what i wouldn't do! hopefully this discussion won't deteriorate into a "i download illegal stuff and its awsome/i think piracy is like rape" sort of argument, hopefully it can stay on track! 7
RabbieBurns Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 tl;dr just buy or rent your movies and stop downloading them.
maniac Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 BT don't have a choise, there's a court order in place which requires them to do it which came out of an injunction brought about by the Motion Picture Association. It's a demonstration of the failure of the music and film industry to move with the times, this is a battle they will simply never win. The copyright laws throughout the whole world are essentually un-enforceable as they stand, the ease at which you can download material is rediculous, even my friends 9yr old can search for torrents and knows how to download them. Some drastic changes are needed and I personally think the whole idea of selling recorded material for a profit is an outdated concept that doesn't fit in with the modern way society consumes these products and that model needs to be revised and the laws surrounding it also need to be revised. As for the censorship of the site, we all know that within weeks something new will pop up to replace it owned and run by a different company which will require a new injunction to stop and the whole process starts all over again, complete waste of time. They need to embrace the technology and the will of the masses and find a way of working with them instead of battling against it all the time. 1
Flakes Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 lol, i agree with MK-2 on this, mainly because if there is no challenge to this there is no telling where companies will draw the line, first it will be usenet then it will block all our xxx sites then eventually before we know it we will have a system like the chinese great wall...
arwen Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 In my veiw 'the powers that be' are trying to take control of something that was not made to be controlled. I think it is wrong that they are being allowed to even try. To me it is simmilar to controlling who you get to interact with when you are out for a walk... You are not quite sure who you will meet on it, but you make up your own mind if you want to talk to them or not. You dont have a nanny on your shoulder to tell you off for talking to a stranger. It should be the same for the internet. People are already loosing the ablitly to think for themselves, no need to hasten it further! 1
synaesthesia Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 It won't make a jot of difference, it's a tiny part of the whole piracy problem. IMO they shouldn't be going round blocking access to these sort of sites, they should sort out the biggest problems - cinema costs and inconveniences, release DVD's being more full of rubbish than the film itself, most of which you can't skip and they might actually make an impact. Besides which, studies have long been done which show very clearly that the film industries biggest customer (paid) are indeed "pirates". I wonder when the court will overrule the MPAA's moronic attempts at blocking those studies from being properly published. (I do not condone piracy in any way shape or form. )
arwen Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) It won't make a jot of difference, it's a tiny part of the whole piracy problem. IMO they shouldn't be going round blocking access to these sort of sites, they should sort out the biggest problems - cinema costs and inconveniences, release DVD's being more full of rubbish than the film itself, most of which you can't skip and they might actually make an impact. Oh this reminded me of another point! If dvd's came with a 'digital' copy, without costing an extra tenner then I would be more inclined to buy them. One of the benifits of downloading is not having a bookcase full of dvds, and the abliitly to play then on a range of devices. (I know you technically could buy the dvd then rip it, but thats illegal aswell still is it not? so whats the point...) Edited July 28, 2011 by arwen spelling
Gatt Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 It won't make a jot of difference, it's a tiny part of the whole piracy problem. IMO they shouldn't be going round blocking access to these sort of sites, they should sort out the biggest problems - cinema costs and inconveniences, release DVD's being more full of rubbish than the film itself, most of which you can't skip and they might actually make an impact. Besides which, studies have long been done which show very clearly that the film industries biggest customer (paid) are indeed "pirates". I wonder when the court will overrule the MPAA's moronic attempts at blocking those studies from being properly published. (I do not condone piracy in any way shape or form. ) I have to agree here.. the cost of buying either a DVD or an Album is ridiculous compaired to how much it costs to mass produce them. I recall when a "Single" came on Cassettes, where there were only 2 songs an A side and a B Side and came in either a plastic case that soon ended up as a makeshift ice scraper for the car, or a cardboard sleave... And they cost less than £1! Then the CD's came out and there were about 5 songs on it and the price rocketed to about £2-3 quid (which used to be the cost of an Album on Cassette tape!) and albums hit the £10 quid mark... DVD prices are horrendously overpriced - they get made for about a few quid, and then sold at about £20 a pop! And lets not mention computer games! (£50!?! - Hell a decent Speccy game used to be about £1.50!) /rant
SYNACK Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 It's just another in a long line of stupid rules from the government (UK/NZ/AU) who are sock puppets to the US government who are in turn sock puppets to the RIAA and the other companies that still think it is 1957. Given the fact that the US is now helpfully attempting to provide a free trip stateside for anyone who even posts a link that one of their corporate masters takes exception too. Stupidly market size wise they could all be brought and sold a dozen times over by MS/Google or Apple but they control how the people see their govenrnments. This gives them power but only because said governments are concerned at how their populations would react if they were told the truth in a truely negtive slant. Sure people will wave the paranoid viewpoint flag but I prefer to think of it as pragmatisum.
MK-2 Posted July 28, 2011 Author Posted July 28, 2011 Hell a decent Speccy game used to be about £1.50!) you sir do not know quality. a decent speccy game should be about £3, £1.50 was reserved for frogger and joe blade
Gatt Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 you sir do not know quality. a decent speccy game should be about £3, £1.50 was reserved for frogger and joe blade I stand corrected...
notalot Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 What will help to slow the problem of piracy (as you will never remove it completely) is to make the movies, music and games downloadable and at fair price, I'd bet that 50% of pirates will stop and download the legal content and support the creators. For me the more concerning problem is that this is starting us on the road to censorship. How far does it go, shall we block Google as you can find out how to download things, make bombs and etc. Shall we stop teaching Alevel chemistry and other subjects just because if you have half a brain you can take what you have learnt and use it in a illegal way. However this will be impossible to police, people will always find ways around filtering or other restrictions.
SYNACK Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 What will help to slow the problem of piracy (as you will never remove it completely) is to make the movies, music and games downloadable and at fair price, I'd bet that 50% of pirates will stop and download the legal content and support the creators. And within a reasonable timeframe / avalibility to places outside the contental US.
MK-2 Posted July 28, 2011 Author Posted July 28, 2011 What will help to slow the problem of piracy (as you will never remove it completely) is to make the movies, music and games downloadable and at fair price, I'd bet that 50% of pirates will stop and download the legal content and support the creators. but would it? remember the person going in to the cinema to film the movie has probably paid, so the price is paid there. i would guess a lot of the hackers/crackers do it more for a challenge than because they object to the price, as a lot of nfo files that accompany cracked software says "dont forget to buy the retail software if you like it". i dont think anything will stop or cut down piracy in general. make movies cheaper and all you do is enable said pirate to record twice/three times as many films for the same cost
AyatollahPies Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 I have to agree here.. the cost of buying either a DVD or an Album is ridiculous compaired to how much it costs to mass produce them. I recall when a "Single" came on Cassettes, where there were only 2 songs an A side and a B Side and came in either a plastic case that soon ended up as a makeshift ice scraper for the car, or a cardboard sleave... And they cost less than £1! Then the CD's came out and there were about 5 songs on it and the price rocketed to about £2-3 quid (which used to be the cost of an Album on Cassette tape!) and albums hit the £10 quid mark... DVD prices are horrendously overpriced - they get made for about a few quid, and then sold at about £20 a pop! And lets not mention computer games! (£50!?! - Hell a decent Speccy game used to be about £1.50!) /rant Why should the price of producing an item correlate to the selling price? I've not bought a new release for a long time, but I've seen some new CDs for about £7-8. That's just a bit more than the national minimum wage for an hour. (Pre tax of course). I have had 100s of hours of enjoyment listening to each of my CDs, therefore per listen, it works out to be pennies, and get's less as time goes on. Is that not good value for money? Likewise games. Just got back into playing CoD Modern Warfare 2 online, and noticed that I'd worryingly played it for over 3 full days and counting. I bought the game for £22. Again, more than worth it. Never paid anywhere near £20 for a DVD, even when new. Piracy doesn't happen because of the price of media. It happens because it's so damn easy to do.
penfold_99 Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 Just wish the MPA would realise there business model is dead in the water and move to a model that does't people off. The music industry has moved. Piracy would reduce if films could be purchased for under £5 instead of £20+. I have BT Vision and the pay per view had gone up from £2.99 to £4.00 for SD, £5.00 for HD and £6.00. this pricing is getting to near the supermarket discount price point to purcase it. Services like hulu are the way forward, if MPA continue as they are piracy will just keep rising. oh at get the studios to make other things apart from sequels as it the first one is rubbish its not going to get better with a second one. 1
tommej Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 When will these companies realise their way of doing things is outdated and not what consumers want. When people can stream or download a movie in a format they want, when they want, and can keep it for as long as they want there might be a reduction in piracy. Things like netflix in the US are a decent example. Shame lovefilm in the Uk is awful. Piracy is always going to happen, they should perhaps be looking at why the average joe is pirating movies instead of trying to lock him up.
synaesthesia Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 I dont think the cinema price is particularly bad for entrance. However cinema's recently are shoddy. Noone there these days to control the yobs/morons, snack/drinks prices are - well, go thirsty unless you fancy remortgaging and the general experience is not that good any more. Realistically, release films tend to hit 12/13 quid on DVD which I'm happy to pay for - it's not an unreasonable price. But having paid that, I don't want to put it in the player and sit through 15 minutes of "You might also want to watch..." "Disney also do..." "DON'T PIRATE!!" "REALLY, PLEASE DON'T PIRATE THIS DISC!" "Yes, I know if you're pirated this disc you've taken this stupid warning off, so this warning is 100% pointless". It's the equivalent of making the word "Mars" smaller on a sweet packet so you can fit on PLEASE DO NOT STEAL THIS PRODUCT. The *ENTIRE SYSTEM* is outdated and ridiculous, and the RIAA/MPAA/Whoever need to wake up and actually ask what people want. There's a few ideas - one of my own would be the option to pay another fiver at the end of a film if you enjoy it to get a coupon which allows you to download it via whatever possible means, legally, at release time. Without all the crud. In essence, they're repeatedly trying to slam the door yet they know full well the horse has long bolted. Not only has the horse bolted, but it's watching them slam the door, laughing at them. And rightly so. Something has to give for them to notice, and I hope it happens soon. I'm not saying they deserve to have their products stolen; I'm saying they deserve to be slapped around the face until they have a clue and get with the times. 1
localzuk Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 As others have said - producers are missing the point of what people want. If movies were easy to access (and not hindered by ridiculous DRM schemes as most services are now), reasonably priced, not full of nonsense 'DON'T PIRATE' adverts, and were worth their price then people would pay for them. I regularly buy games on Steam and EA Origin - I've not bought a 'boxed' PC game for at least 5 years. I like the convenience of clicking 'buy' and it downloading in the next few hours. The only problem with these services is the pricing for newer games - £40 for a game is ridiculous. Much like the cost of cinema tickets are far too high, and dvd rentals (and as penfold_99 says, BT Vision rentals) are too high also. Just look at the profits the producers make - they are obviously charging too much if they are making so much profit, yet there is rife piracy. I pay £9.99 a month for Spotify and I think that it is a brilliant system. Unlimited music, on computer, phone, ipod etc... wherever I am for a simple monthly fee. If movie producers could copy that business model to their products, and charged a decent price (I dunno, £25 a month seems like a reasonable price for unlimited movie viewings), they'd get themselves a solid continual income. I pay for the BT Vision film club because it provides me a list of movies I can watch 'free' each month, and the TV pack, as it provides me with a list of tv shows. The pricing for these is excellent - I just wish it was extended further. Piracy shouldn't be seen as a 'threat', it should be seen as a flaw in their business model that needs fixing. 2
synaesthesia Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 Piracy shouldn't be seen as a 'threat', it should be seen as a flaw in their business model that needs fixing. I will use this in future Great line that sums it all up nicely.
Jamman960 Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 Not sure why they're targeting usenet... I would have thought torrents would be an easier target Surely the usenet crowd could also be a good target for subscription services etc as most people making use of it will be paying for premium server access due to most ISP servers being about as much use as a chocolate tea pot(very few binary groups and retention measured in hours rather than days/years)
jinnantonnixx Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) The film and music industry itself doesn't appear to be a shining beacon of morality. Two from TechDirt http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml Sad reading for artists and those too naive to understand slippery contracts. Hollywood accounting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edited July 28, 2011 by jinnantonnixx 1
localzuk Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 Not sure why they're targeting usenet... I would have thought torrents would be an easier target Surely the usenet crowd could also be a good target for subscription services etc as most people making use of it will be paying for premium server access due to most ISP servers being about as much use as a chocolate tea pot(very few binary groups and retention measured in hours rather than days/years) How would they target torrents? They are inherently difficult to block due to their P2P nature. Add in the various distributed tracker technologies that exist too, and blocking that would be like trying to block a river with pebbles. Blocking websites is easy - we do it every day within our schools. Sure there are ways around most blocking systems, but for the majority it serves as a preventative measure.
localzuk Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 The film and music industry itself doesn't appear to be a shining beacon of morality. Two from TechDirt 'Hollywood Accounting' Losing In The Courts | Techdirt RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales | Techdirt Sad reading for artists and those too naive to understand slippery contracts. Hollywood accounting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yup, its sickening. Its also one of the reasons why Trent Reznor no longer works with a label - when he released Ghosts I - IV, I happily paid for it, rather than downloaded it free. I knew that the money was actually going to the talent, not suits sitting in offices somewhere thinking of ways to rip off the little people even more. Record labels and movie studios are con artists, who cash in on the talents of others blinded by the promise of riches. The only way musicians make real money today is by performing live.
sted Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 It won't make a jot of difference, it's a tiny part of the whole piracy problem. IMO they shouldn't be going round blocking access to these sort of sites, they should sort out the biggest problems - cinema costs and inconveniences, release DVD's being more full of rubbish than the film itself, most of which you can't skip and they might actually make an impact. Besides which, studies have long been done which show very clearly that the film industries biggest customer (paid) are indeed "pirates". I wonder when the court will overrule the MPAA's moronic attempts at blocking those studies from being properly published. (I do not condone piracy in any way shape or form. ) cinema costs are silly £8ish to watch a film that will be on dvd in 6 months for £12-15 why would you bother? I really do object to those you wouldnt nick a car etc "adverts" unskippable at the start of the dvd the fact im watching it pretty much tells you ive bought it as any pirate version would cut that right out. I dont mind trailers etc on diskc but ffs put them on the disks menu so i can watch them if i want rather than being forced to watch them (and 2 years later i probably have all teh ones i want anyway) Oh this reminded me of another point! If dvd's came with a 'digital' copy, without costing an extra tenner then I would be more inclined to buy them. One of the benifits of downloading is not having a bookcase full of dvds, and the abliitly to play then on a range of devices. (I know you technically could buy the dvd then rip it, but thats illegal aswell still is it not? so whats the point...) I have a few bluerays with digital copies you need to install software to play them as they have the dreaded drm and why would i buy a hd version of the film but want an sd download version? (ok as an option but not as the only download) I have to agree here.. the cost of buying either a DVD or an Album is ridiculous compaired to how much it costs to mass produce them. I recall when a "Single" came on Cassettes, where there were only 2 songs an A side and a B Side and came in either a plastic case that soon ended up as a makeshift ice scraper for the car, or a cardboard sleave... And they cost less than £1! Then the CD's came out and there were about 5 songs on it and the price rocketed to about £2-3 quid (which used to be the cost of an Album on Cassette tape!) and albums hit the £10 quid mark... DVD prices are horrendously overpriced - they get made for about a few quid, and then sold at about £20 a pop! And lets not mention computer games! (£50!?! - Hell a decent Speccy game used to be about £1.50!) /rant id argue that say jet set willy cost much less to program etc than call of duty/forza etc (though granted offset a bit by sales numbers) but still speccy games vs/console is a bit of am unfair comparison
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now