File Swapping and the Analog Hole 271
forehead writes "Lawmeme is running an interesting piece on piracy in the digital age. It covers a number of the logical fallacies often cited by the major media companies and certain lawmakers."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
File Swapping and the Analog Hole
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable. -- John Kenneth Galbraith
what the hell is the loss? (Score:3, Insightful)
This consistently boggles my mind, all these companies saying "piracy costs us $500 mil a year". Listen, some third world family that makes $100 a month isn't going to pay $700 for office, alright?!?
-rt
Re:what the hell is the loss? (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, and I'm sure that it's the third world families that make $100/month that are pirating music.
On their C-64 from 1986.
Much like our good friend, JUNIS FROM AFGHANISTAN.
Sorry, but most of the piracy is middle to upper-class teenagers and students... people who could pay for the music, but choose to pirate it.
I have very little sympathy.
Re:what the hell is the loss? (Score:2, Insightful)
Without access to the copied music, they wouldn't have been exposed to a wide range of music, and thus they might only feel compelled to by a fraction of the music.
Remember, the numbers point to file sharing actually increasing CD sales, as people use it as a test bed for music leading to informed CD buying without hassle (finding sales assistant, asking to listen to a certain CD, etc), and thus buying more as a result.
Re:what the hell is the loss? (Score:2, Insightful)
Junis has an Amiga, quite a video-ready machine. Though he may have some problem with the popular pirate codecs, Junis could well be in the streets of Afghanistan, selling boots of AotC.
We will know as soon as Junis is ready for the Q&A Katz promised the NY Times [nytimes.com] would occur once things calm down in Afghanistan.
Though I'm not sure why things have to be calm for Junis to engage in further email. This does puzzle me. As time goes on, my faith in Junis does occasionally falter.
May Katz forgive me.
Re:what the hell is the loss? (Score:5, Insightful)
The important thing, and the thing that is in danger is our right to fair use, and our right to innovate and push the technology we have at our fingertips. The right to use CDs to back up our files, and the right to duplicate files that rightfully belong to us. The right to have POWERFUL hardware and software that is fully functional without limitations. And the right to determine how/for what purpose this hardware is used for.
Stop saying "I defend my right to shoot my neighbor because if I didn't have a gun I'd stab him" and start saying "I defend my right to bear firearms." You do not need to push home the point that technology is being used in illegal ways. You need to push home that certain bits of proposed legislation is going to HARM THE RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE.
Stop letting the REAL issues get so clouded by this tirade about capitalist pigs. We aren't going to change the world for the better this way, but maybe we can at least focus our arguments and keep the rights we have.
-Sara
Re:what the hell is the loss? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the same would apply to file-sharing and music theft. People would be less inclined to steal music if purchasing the real music was more convenient and more desireable. If I could buy a CD knowing exactly what was on the CD, and at a price which the CD was worth (not $16+ for a 9 song manufactured pop CD) I would be far more inclined to purchase the CD than to download the songs. Partly because it is more convienient to get a guarenteed quality original recording.
But when one CD costs me 3 hours of work (at minimum wage, for us "middle class teens") it's easier to spend an hour looking for a good quality rip. Every law is followed simply because it is convenient and desireable as compared to the alternative. The same applies to music sharing and boot legging.
Re:what the hell is the loss? (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that the companies realize this, and instead of trying to bring down the prices to increase the convenience issue they're attacking the "convenience" part and trying to decrease the convenience of downloading music. They're also allowing it to carry over to other areas such as CD burning, broadband, etc.
It's like the whole damned prostitution thing. Instead of making it easier [like Nevada--regulating the prostitution] they crack down on it and push it further underground to make it even less convenient.
The more we bring it to their notice the further they'll push us.
In my opinion, we should band together and remain silent about the aspects of filesharing already deemed illegal, and instead raise hell in a UNIFIED VOICE about the aspects of our lives that are in danger of being crippled. Stop the cry to arms about "I can steal music if I want to." Instead yell out at the top of your lungs that you've genuine concerns about the rights which our government is preparing to deny us.
"Dear Senator:", we should write. "I do not support any legislation which will take away our right to innovate and advance the human race. I do not believe that this is in the best interest of any of us, nor do I believe that it furthers the interests of the copyright holders."
Doesn't that speak a lot louder than immature whinings about how we won't buy the darned CD in the first place?
-Sara
How else to explain this kind of thing? (Score:2)
I completely agree that the principles themselves should stand without explination. The problem is that the few people who haven't made their minds up need something to point them in the right direction. The right to bear arms is severely challenged right now, as are many other rights which were sacred to the old white men who founded the US.
Slashdot has its flamewars, but when we talk rationally we tend to agree on a few basic things which we might be tempted to call common sense. These things are not obvious to the rest of the world, and "because I can do it anyway" is one way to begin explaining why prohibition, strong gun control, extreme intellectual property laws, and other victimless crime laws have never worked and never will. The ones who've made up their minds will trot out their "if it saves one kid" and their "we have to do something", but there's hope for the others, and these arguments are a start.
There is another element of your post which I should address. Your original point seemed to be that we should be campaining for our rights to do harmless things instead of defending the implied rights to do what might be destructive things. That is, the right to bear arms, versus the right to use them against others. This distinction is also lost on far too many people.
There are two sides to this. One is the "prohibit everything by default and allow only what is sanctioned" school of security. Why would you want to own a gun? There's nothing good that could come of it. Why would you want to grow that plant? Why would you want to drink that toxin? It's for your own good. This approach to security assumes that the rule-maker knows everything, and that the rules actually restrict the ruled. These are easy assumptions to be trapped in!
The other side of the lost distinction between freedom to choose and freedom to choose poorly is that people assume that there is a way to elect "better" choosers to make the decions for the "worse" choosers. That is, "we" elect "them" to protect "us" for our own good. The obvious problem with that is that if we are poor choosers we are likely to pick the wrong people. There are many other problems with this, but my post is getting too long and has almost nothing to do with digital vs analog piracy.
Re:what the hell is the loss? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what the hell is the loss? (Score:3)
Re:what the hell is the loss? (Score:2)
Gee, which do you think it is?
mpaa.com vs mpaa.org (Score:3, Insightful)
So much for the internic's rule of
Re:.org doesn't necessarily mean non-profit (Score:2)
Anybody else notice.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anybody else notice.... (Score:2)
Re:Anybody else notice.... (Score:2)
Quality of analog bootlegs (Score:2)
Then again though, I'll gladly watch a movie on my TV where I can lay on the couch or bed (that's what I'm talking about full glory) with just the TV's internal speakers.
The real "digital" threat (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the most prominent and recurrent arguments of the copyright interests is that "digital piracy" is far worse than "analog piracy" and thus justifies the imposition of draconian paracopyright laws, such as the DMCA and CBDTPA. I refer to this argument as the "analog fallacy." The fallacy is that analog piracy is not nearly as threatening as digital piracy because analog copies degrade with every generation while digital copies remain pristine no matter how many copies are made. While true in a strict sense, the fallacy is that most of the assumptions necessary for this argument to be true are not realistic.
But surely the real 'threat' of digital media is actually the close-to-zero marginal cost of copying the original.
With a VCR each copy is a real, physical, medium. With digital everything is, well, virtual.
There are different responses to this - in software, free software is a response. Free software advocates accept that digital 'objects' can and will be copied, so build that in.
I'm not convinced that model works for music and movies though.
Free software is built on a pre-existing cultural norm - ie hacking - that doesn't exist for these other media.
Furthermore, no government contracts (the States), or direct support (elsewhere) is available to create the movie-making equivalent of MIT's AI lab.
Re:The real "digital" threat (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue with this point. In what way do hackers differ from other people who make art on an amateur level? There are people who write, produce music, and produce visual arts non-commercially, and some of this material is damn good, such as Penny Arcade, PvP, or Megatokyo. This is true for all media forms and goes back to a central flaw in the media industry's argument.
They would like us to believe that without commercial distribution i.e them, media would not exist, but this is simply false. Money is not the sole reason people create art, they do so because they enjoy it. They whole idea copyright and IP in US is based around the idea that "Hmm, It would be nice if people who create art could charge for it, allowing them to more easily support themselves and create more." This initial idea was valid and good, but it has now been carried over to the extreme. The media industry now is essentially rabidly trying to destroy non-commercial media, as a threat to their profits.
The attitudes the RIAA shows towards independent labels and bands are really the opinions the media industry has about all amateurs, if we start amusing ourselves, we won't need them. This is why content creating is in danger from SSCA/CBDTPA. They want us to be locked into them with no other choice.
Re:The real "digital" threat (Score:5, Insightful)
<QUOTE>
The media industry now is essentially rabidly trying to destroy non-commercial media, as a threat to their profits.
The attitudes the RIAA shows towards independent labels and bands are really the opinions the media industry has about all amateurs, if we start amusing ourselves, we won't need them. This is why content creating is in danger from SSCA/CBDTPA. They want us to be locked into them with no other choice.
</QUOTE>
After all the ranting I have seen on
The "pirates" that scare the bejesus out of the MPAA and the RIAA aren't the "CD-rippers". They are the indie artists who can afford to purchase mixers, etc. and record and digitally encode their own music and distribute it LEGITIMATELY over the 'net without Sony, Time-Warner, MCA, Disney and the rest of the "usual gang of suspects" getting THEIR cut.
It's not about copying, it's about CONTROL. It's about the survival of an outmoded business model that has left many of the original artists of rock dependent on charity in their old age. It's all about preserving the KNOWN historical rip-off (of the artists by the labels) by preventing a future speculative one.
It's all about the fact that digital camcorders and digital audio recording is on the verge of making the studios and labels and their 18 layers of middlemen and IP lawyers as obsolete and dead as the dinosaurs.
Re:The real "digital" threat (Score:2)
I'd wager a significant amount of money that even successful sites like Megatokyo, Slashdot, PvP and other "fringe" sites have far fewer mainstream hits than the big media sites like AOL, CNN, MSNBC, etc....
Re:The real "digital" threat (Score:2)
It used to be neigh well impossible to record your own material and have it sound or look as good as the big boys in California. It was horribly expensive. Now, a guy with several thousand dollars worth of equipment can do it. One day, it will be someone with a few hundred dollars of equipment. One day it will be common to get our files on line, just as we get them on CDs today. I might even argue it's common today, except that a vast majority of people don't even have internet access, and many of the people that do don't have broadband or any current knowlege of mp3s and DivX.
But one day, they will. Publishing will be cheap, and the RIAA and MPAA will be useless. That's what scares them.
Re:The real "digital" threat (Score:4, Insightful)
But surely the real 'threat' of digital media is actually the close-to-zero marginal cost of copying the original.
With a VCR each copy is a real, physical, medium. With digital everything is, well, virtual.
Yeah, but if you have an analog copy, you make it into a digital copy, and the game's over. And there's always someone who will be able to get a higher-quality "rip" then you did, somewhere, someplace. That's why this is all such a futile waste of effort on their part.
Unless the {RI,MP}AA manages to outlaw ALL computers and recording devices and criminalize ALL recording not performed by them, an analog->digital rip will always be possible and the content will be available. The world is digital and we can't turn back the wheels of Progress. (In fact we should Promote it!)
I'm not convinced that model works for music and movies though.
The basic model they have now seems to be working just fine.. how much did Spiderman make?? All they need to do is lower their expectations of gross margins to the levels of most every other established industry.
Re:The real "digital" threat (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe it should.
What is hacking? Eric S Raymond has an interesting definition [tuxedo.org], but I don't think that's what you mean. I think you're talking about the "sharing code" aspect of free and open-source software; this is the sense in which RMS was referred to as "The Last Hacker"
Slashdot has had other stories of people sharing things other than software -- stories, music, etc (note that I am not speaking of Napsteresque file swapping, but of artists who choose to make their work available). Perhaps I am an optimist, since I know of no scientific evidence of this, but I believe that sharing and helping one another are things that people do naturally. Isn't that what society is about? Isn't society all about individuals and small groups mingling together to improve the quality of life for those people? There are different lines of thought regarding internal structure and philosophy which are beyond this discussion, but I have difficulty imagining anyone other than a hard-core collectivist disagreeing with me.
I've had arguments with aquaintances about this. They say (I kid you not) that a libertarian philosophy will never work because almost all people are evil and greedy, that the government must step in and do something (it's interesting that they disagree about what exactly the goverment must do - a liberal, by which I mean a specific liberal and not liberals in general, says that we must redistribute the wealth in the US, and a conservative says that we need a strong military to defend the country, but I disgress). That's not the world I live in. The existance of NGOs and non-profit organizations proves that people will rally behind the causes they believe in, be it making free software [fsf.org], helping people [redcross.org], or stopping torture [amnesty.org]. It's not a world in which private colleges and universities thrive on grants and donations well out of proportion to their government-funded counterparts. In the real world, people actually do show compassion; while there are certainly heartless people in the world, there are not as many as those projecting friends of mine would have you believe.
What's this got to do with the current topic? If people are willing to share physical property, intellectual property should be even less of a leap. It is therefore a shame that the greedy few, the MPAA, the RIAA, the BSA, and their kin, are placed as an example of what is considered normal. Although it has been bought by an RIAA member, plenty of artists still have their music on MP3.com gratis. A precious few even have music which is libre [mp3s.com].
Sharing is everywhere. You just have to know where to look.
The real cost of swapping movies (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed, bandwidth is not free, digital !=quality (Score:2)
I love DVDs. I enjoy hearing the Smashing Pumpkins talking about their videos while I'm watching them. I enjoy the countless remixes with each video on my Beastie Boys anthology. I enjoy Robert Rodriguez pointing out all the snafus in Desperado (shadows of a camera on a boom passing through a shot, the same extra dying multiple times etc). I like the features.
There was a thing on TV here the other day about cinemas in Australia not being able to afford the equiptment to show digital movies, so we get AotC on analogue film rather than the original digital. People go to the Cinema for the large high quality picture and the sound, in short the experience. If cinemas here can't afford the digital technology, what percentage of people are going to have anything approaching it in their own homes?
Re:The real cost of swapping movies (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, in Australia, there are two companies that give cable. Telstra and Optus. Telstra is a 51% owned government company, and while it may have good telephone service, its cable service is expensive, gets knocked out with regularity, and it has special software that doesn't run on Linux. Optus is waaay better, especially since there is an option for the cap to be X times what the average user uses. Excellent stuff.
(For all Telstra Broadband Cable users, use BPA Login, a linux friendly, easier and more extensive configuration client [sourceforge.net])
Back to the point. I certainly wouldn't waste my time downloading a crappy movie (on my 15'), one which i can see with more enjoyment in front of a nice big tv, with good sound and clear picture.
Besides, I would find it strange sitting with a bunch of friends watching a movie on the PC, or for the few with GF's, how the hell are you mean to curl up with her if your infront of a computer???
Yet these MPAA and RIAA just want to keep enforcing more "protection", make us jump through more hoops, and do not give people the benefit of choice. I make sure i buy all my cd's, DVD second hand etc, and you should too. Its cheaper, anyway.
DVD is an excellent idea for storage and lots of files on the one medium, but due to the MPAA and RIAA's selfishness and oversight, and the corrupt american system (I am not american, Im an Aussie, but we stupidly adopt most american things about 6 months after),the high-tech, convienent uses for DVD is going down the drain.
If that law goes through (and then, undoubtedly, come here), its illegal for me to download Mandrake and burn it onto CD so I can do a install, and have the CD's there for booting or use on other computers. Quite frankly, its gh3y. So much for the tech revolution. More like the tech devolution.
Re:The real cost of swapping movies (Score:2)
2. Run audio cable from your soundcard to your stereo.
3. Play movie full-screen, on your TV.
How hard is that?
Re:The real cost of swapping movies (Score:2)
You may be interested to know that my new Powerbook G4 has, in addition to the digital video output, a SVHS output that the manual explicitly states is designed to be used to watch DVD's on your TV. It also works for DIVX and QuickTime stuff as well.
I think that's kind of cool.
Re:The real cost of swapping movies (Score:2)
Compare to what the MPAA is doing to trample rights, the amount of users that actually pirate is negligent.
Anecdote: I know quite a few computer enthusiasts, and not one has the setup you prescribed. Computers just are not conducive to watching movies with great visuals and sound. The MPAA has draconially overreacted, and the American Senators hitched on for the ride.
Also, considering the age of the senators, they probably won't be around in 20 years to see the results of what they are doing. They're just securing the finacial future of their offspring, they don't really give a shit what they pass into legislation.
Re:i guess you can't get Optus cable then.. :) (Score:2)
According to reports from The Age, SMH and Australian IT, NetStats will be phased out on July 1 and 'soft limits' will be placed on the OptusNet Cable service.
An Optus spokesperson revealed that the plans for Optus Choices subscribers will be as follows:
550MB - $54.95
3GB - $69.95
5GB - $134.95
10GB - $265.95
Australia, the continent of the 3gb 'Broadband' Internet
Pirate vids et al (Score:2, Interesting)
Funniest Line from the Article (Score:2, Funny)
Because that would be "linking"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mike
$250 million seems a relatively small figure to me (Score:2, Funny)
A quarter billion bucks is nothing for this Yale dude.
Bigotry, Facism and the MPAA (Score:2)
If you thought my subject line was provocative think about it. The MPAA is exactly that, we are dealing with an organisation that is beating the drums of war. They point at a group of people and say "They are your problem, they will take your jobs, they will destroy your livelihood, deal with them and life will bed a bed of roses" . What we have is an organisation that is exploiting the same fears and weaknesses in the people they are exploiting as fascists and warmongers have done since the dawn of time.
Next time your watching your favourite (and presumably legally purchased if not legally played) dvd turn on the directors commentary and listen. Most of the time I hear people who care about the movies they are making, they care about the art form and they care about the people who are going to watch it. These guys are as much the victims of the MPAA as we are, keep making your movies and we will keep paying for them.
Some people might consider me foolish for admitting to downloading films and not posting anonymously but in my own way I'm standing up to the MPAA, supina slashdot guys, get my user details. Come to the UK, let 12 of my countrymen see my dvd shelf and then convince them I've lost you money. You'll probably win but I'll get a fine and you'll get a big stack of mud on your face.
Hindering independent filmmakers (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in the pre-digital days it was easy for a determined independent artist to throw together some analog video equipment (eg consumer VHS decks, camcorders, and mixers) and make a film. The only thing you couldn't easily do is distribute the result to a wide audience...
Now, thanks to the internet, anyone who can compress some videos and set up a web server can theoretically distribute films.
*BUT* look at where the technology is going... There is no cheap digital recording and distribution system that is accessible to independent artists. (yeah, DV is fairly cheap - except for editing decks - but you can't *distribute* on DV). You can buy DVD burners for a few hundred dollars now, but consumer-level burners do not let you "author" a properly-formatted, CSS-scrambled DVD like the megadollar Hollywood systems can. And there is certainly no low-cost high-definition format on the horizon - HDCAM is insanely expensive, and HD DVD will be read-only. Broadcast digital video systems use obfuscated encryption methods and will only be accessible to studio productions.
It's in Hollywood's best interest to keep recording and distribution technologies out of the hands of independent artists. Using the cry of "piracy!" as a distraction, they are trying to pass laws that will basically make it illegal to use high-quality video equipment outside of the studio system. This way the MPAA companies will maintain their control over what films get made, resulting in fewer choices and higher prices (the inevitable consequences of a successful monopoly).
Incidentally, in my own production work I've already been hindered by the media industry's efforts. On two occasions I've had to perform a digital->analog->digital dub to record copy-protected music, *the rights for which I had legally paid for*... Also, I've been forced to reverse-engineer a high-definition video transmission format, because no such equipment is available to those without a studio-level budget.
Re:Hindering independent filmmakers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hindering independent filmmakers (Score:2)
His point was that, in fact, it IS easier to shoot and distribute your stuff now than it was ten years ago.
And that the MPAA and the movie studios are scared shitless that someone out there will make a BETTER MOVIE Than they have in the past, and get all the riches and fame, and THEY WILL NOT. Therefore, part of the issue with destroying the ability of PCs to record to DVDs and do video editing is SPECIFICALLY to take the ability to make movies out of the hands of Just About Anyone and put it back in the hands of the studios.
SOMe of us don't have major comic book collections, a bunch of credit cards to max out, and a bunch of friends to hit for loans [imdb.com] that we can use to make our first movie [imdb.com]. Meanwhile, on my next trip, I can start working on mine and do the work on my laptop in my hotel room, getting things started. For about $4000, instead of $50,000.
And even if it sucks, hey, I can use the media over again and start from scratch...
Re:Hindering independent filmmakers (Score:2)
You must be new to Slashdot.... hell, you must be new to this planet.
Hindering independent musicians (Score:2)
What hasn't been mentioned enough is that passage of the CBDTPA would cripple that model. Because any equipment capable of performing an analog recording could be used to pirate music, future audio packages and digital microphones, etc., will need to be RIAA-approved. Will anyone outside a recording studio or a major label be able to invest in recording if that happens?
Why don't they just enforce current laws? (Score:2, Insightful)
If the FBI started arresting average users at random and then made a public display of them, piracy would drop 95% over night. The only people who would be left would be the geeks who know how to share data with each other without being able to be traced.
Re:Why don't they just enforce current laws? (Score:2)
I certainly don't.
It's not about loosing money, it's about making (Score:2)
They don't want to sell you their content, because that way they only get paid once. They want to lend you the content. So that every time you want to see it, you will have to pay.
As stated in the article, all those new laws don't really prevent copyright infringement (what is piracy supposed to be anyway), they rather give the content makers control over the replay devices. Control that starts with the ability to block companies and individuals to produce unauthorized replay devices (CSS), continues with the abilty to monitor and analyze viewing habits and will finally lead to a pay per view/listen system for everything you watch/listen to.
After that copyright law will be changed so that nothing will ever be returned to the public domain.
This is, of course, only their dream and who can blame them, it's the way they make their living. If you have to whine about all those nasty copyright infringers (oh let's call them pirates and thieves, makes much better headlines), in order to get what you want, so what, you need to survive, you don't know how to do anything else.
The consumers can only blame themselves if they let those laws be passed and such excessive rights be granted to the creators, but most unfairly to the distributers, of content. Keep in mind that distributer and creator are almost never the same and that the latter usually gets the shorter end of the profit. The distributers are deeply concerned when their content is illegaly copied via the internet, but don't see any reason to compensate the creator when they do the same. The creator (of content that is) on the other hand,could get the idea to distribute the content him or herself and thereby bypassing all the old distributers. That would be the ultimate defeat. So if we control the distribution devices that can't happen. You can't make a "protected" DVD without CSS and if you want CSS you'll have to pay (or insert any other protection/DRM method for CSS).
No mention of the main fallacy, (Score:3, Insightful)
Please explain to me how making a copy of a computer file can be compared to attacking a ship at sea, boarding it by force, killing the men, stealing the cargo, raping the women, and scuttling it (unless it's a nicer ship than the one you already had).
Somehow, those two actions just don't equate in my mind. "Piracy" is a term the recording industry has sold everyone on because of how nasty it sounds. Certainly a lot nastier than "copyright infringement", which is the actual crime being committed. Talk about corporate-created reality.
I was disappointed in LawMeme for not realizing this, but I guess they've swallowed this BS the same as anyone else.
-Kasreyn
well... (Score:2)
Re:No mention of the main fallacy, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No mention of the main fallacy, (Score:2)
Just some observations.
The purpose of copyright historically [atfreeweb.com] was to create and protect monopolies (for the printers). Note also that originally, the licensing laws gave the right to reproduce to the printer [atfreeweb.com], not the creator of the work. Even though the laws currently claim to protect the creators, in practice this monopoly-creating origin is ironically similar to the current practical situation with respect to the recording companies.
The terms pirate and piracy in the meaning of ship-related robbery definitely has seniority [ferncanyonpress.com]. It has its origins in the greek language, when piracy on the mediterranean was a big plague [ferncanyonpress.com] more than 2000 years ago. Piracy on the seas has to be at least 2400 years old. That's eight times as long as the history of copyright itself, and 24 times as long as since when music can be copyrighted.
Copyright on music has only a short history to its current powerful state.
300 years ago, copyright did not exist at all [intellectu...rty.gov.uk]. About 50 years before that, between 1662 and 1710, the king owned what we now call the 'copyright' on all written works. Before 1662, written words were not licensable or protected in any way besides physical property of the paper.
Only less than 100 years ago, music wasn't copyright protected [arl.org], what remained copyright protected didn't stay protected longer than 28 years.
Re:No mention of the main fallacy, (Score:2)
Yo ho ho and an ISO of Photoshop 6.
Doesn't matter (Score:2)
In the 1500s a pirate was a fearsome thing, now it's the kid next door.
Re:"piracy" (Score:2)
A more direct linkage of "piracy" with copyright infringment would be the pirate radio stations of the 1960's. Who would broadcast from ships in international water.
"Pirated goods", from what I gather, are goods that were stolen off of a ship (by pirates, most probably) and fenced at a lower price than they were intended to be sold at.
The difference is that IP is not physical goods. It can be replicated without depriving the original owner.
Effect of Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones.
Ditto. Movie out in digital piracy a week before opening, and it still makes obscene amounts of money ($86 million this weekend and $110+ million so far).
Wanna check on the sales of Star Wars I: Phantom Menace when released on VHS/DVD? One of the best sellers; ditto for The Matrix -- both of which were floating the web in DivX format before they hit the theaters, much less DVD/VHS.
The last 4 years (1998-2001) are the best on record for revenue generated and attendence at theaters. DVD/VHS sales are thru the roof.
In the "perfect" world, where movies are uncopiable and you have to see it at the theater and/or purchase a legitimate copy, the industry would see only a paltry rise in revenue compared to today -- not the $3 Billion touted by Mr. Valenti.
Most people who get rips would either do without altogether, or wait until the DVD/VHS that THEY WERE GOING TO PURCHASE ANYWAY became available.
Re:Effect of Piracy (Score:2)
Re:Effect of Piracy (Score:2)
Recent events in my life have lead me to believe that what you say is utterly true. I've been out of work for nearly a year now and my nest egg is slowly dwindling. As a result, the two things in my life that dictated how, where, and why I make media purchases (time and money) have flip-flopped -
Employed - Plenty of money, no time.
I buy on impulse. When I buy, I buy alot! I purchase CDs, DVDs and books I think might be good. I don't bother looking for bargains. I stick with one or two retailers that ship fast (but don't necessarily have the best prices). I almost never buy used. I hardly use P2P unless I cannot find something I want, or it's in transit and I can't wait for two days to watch/listen.
Unemployed - Plenty of time, no money.
I never buy on impulse. I never buy anything unless I've heard it/watched it and know that I like it. I buy from the retailer with the lowest price, even if it takes two weeks to arrive. I buy used whenever I can - more often than not, I wait until new releases are available second-hand before I purchase. I constantly use P2P to preview to see if I want to buy and to enjoy the rest that I can't afford to buy at the moment.
Granted, my evidence is anecdotal and limited only to myself but it has opened my eyes, nonetheless. Despite the ravings of Jack Valenti et al. "pirating" is no substitute for purchasing. P2P is a pain in the ass - constant disconnections, mislabeled files, incomplete track listings, and the quality blows more often than not. Not to mention that a bootleg of a movie ONLY available in theaters is in NO WAY a substitute for the original (so I have to budget in the new releases I want to see, grrr...). Am I trying to get a free lunch? Fuck no! I'd rather spend the money, if I could.
Re:Effect of Piracy (Score:2)
Well, according to the RIAA, you'd obviously be one of those Evil Content Pirates(tm), so you're not buying CDs because you can't rip them and distribute them to the world.
Remember, that's how Hillary and Jack think.
The Effect of Piracy - Future Speculation (Score:2)
The problem with piracy is not now, but in the future. At the moment, due to bandwidth and hard disk size, most videos have noticable artifacts and have lost details in compression.
Now imagine the future. Bigger hard disk, more bandwidth. Now imagine high quality video piracy.
For example: at the moment I'm addicted to a series on UPN. Locally, UPN is unavailable to me, and due to living constrants, a DSS feed is unworkable. So, I go to a certain IRC channel and download the latest eps. They might be poorer quality, and it takes awhile to download, but at least I can watch the show. OTOH, there is no commercials and no trailers.
Now imagine the world 10 years from now. I'll probably find a different show to be addicted to, and there will be other changes. If I wait for DVD, I'm probably waiting years between when the show airs and when the DVDs are pressed. With the DVD I get trailers that some players won't skip over, and I have the problem of copywrite protection and the whole region-x hassle. OTOH, if I go online, I'll find the show within hours of it airing, it will be without commercials, and in a choice of formats that will play on any computer and probably easily be burned to a DVD.
So, for a mental exercize, assume that the DVD is $20, and the online stuff cost $25 for, er, bandwidth costs. What would you rather buy? Now, realize that a broadband connection is less then $100 bucks, which means our $25 figure is rather inflated.
Piracy is a problem, but it is partially because the pirated stuff is a better product. Else, why would I spend hours downloading/burning when I could just walk into Walmart and pick up a copy? I'm not *that* cheap.
Just my $.02
Re:The Effect of Piracy - Future Speculation (Score:2, Interesting)
There's obviously a demand for "video on demand"--what's there's not a demand for is "pay every time you watch the video you bought," which is what the industry wants to sell.
So they buy legislation in an attempt to cram it down our throats. Ultimately, we all lose.
Re:The Effect of Piracy - Future Speculation (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want to talk TV shows...
The current model is based off of a certain number of episodes per year, shown a week apart. Half the year gets reruns so people can catch up.
There is the problem -- people no longer need half-a-year to catch up. They can get the episodes they missed by downloading them. If the industry wants to compete, then do it with convenience.
Make a central location (i.e.- getSouthPark.com) that people can go to and d/l an episode for $5 or so. High-speed servers that make your P2P look like shit. Don't have to hunt, don't have to worry you're getting inferior VHS to DivX after-the-dog-chewed-the-tape copies, don't have to wait. Hell, $5 for ones with the commercials or $7.50 sans ads.
Lots of people would jump on that. Add a subscription service for a show -- get all the episodes sent directly to your TiVo for $50 a season. Sort of like "League Pass" with the sports.
The problem is the model is changing and the industry execs don't want to change with it. They are comfortable.
Re:The Effect of Piracy - Future Speculation (Score:2)
I found something interesting on the tv licence website the other month. (Sorry, lost link- google for it if you like). Apparently if you have a TV licence then you can record programmes and then give the tape to a friend who does not have to have a TV licence.
It remains to be seen whether this can be used as an excuse for ripping BBC stuff and then sharing it p2p; reminds me of those plates outside people's houses saying: "There are no strangers, only friends we have yet to meet".
graspee
Re:The Effect of Piracy - Future Speculation (Score:2, Interesting)
That is one of the problems, and it's a big one, but it's not the only one...
Another problem is that what's currently called "ecommerce" (credit cards are a 1950s-era system, and they were not designed for the internet) takes far too large of a bite out of a $5 payment (which doesn't settle for sure for over a month, even with the big-bite). This bite is especially hard on "little-guys" (assuming they can even GET a merchant account, they'll pay more & be treated worse).
I sell something that can help little guys get around the getting-paid bottleneck simply, and with a far-smaller bite taken out of the payment. The big guys, whose generals are busily fighting the previous war, don't want to think about it yet, of course...
JMR
(My opinions, not any employer's)
Re:The Effect of Piracy - Future Speculation (Score:2)
It depends where you are in the world. The US model involves showing a series in one slot throughout the year. Contrived so that new episodes come at certain times and you get "rerun hell". In other parts of the world you'd tend to get either shown once then something else shown in the same slot or shown once in it's entirity then repeated in entirity.
Repeating the programme isn't intended for the benefit of the viewers, it's so that the broadcaster can fill up their schedule at least cost to them.
Make a central location (i.e.- getSouthPark.com) that people can go to and d/l an episode for $5 or so. High-speed servers that make your P2P look like shit. Don't have to hunt, don't have to worry you're getting inferior VHS to DivX after-the-dog-chewed-the-tape copies, don't have to wait. Hell, $5 for ones with the commercials or $7.50 sans ads.
Also since it's comming off a server the ads can always be current ads. Also ads can be selected by the geography of the viewer. Which means potentially more advertisers.
Lots of people would jump on that. Add a subscription service for a show -- get all the episodes sent directly to your TiVo for $50 a season. Sort of like "League Pass" with the sports.
Thing is that the status quo interests would want this $50 to go to the existing broadcasters. Rather than new distribution companies or even direct to production companies.
Re:Effect of Piracy (Score:2)
Any rise in revenue would need to be offset by any loss due there no longer being people who chose to buy after seeing the bootleg.
The REAL Solution (Score:2)
Mike
D-Disney (Score:2, Funny)
Heh heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee, could these big corporate newspapers be writing in the favor of their even bigger corporate owners?
Why is there no focus on the Constitution? (Score:2, Insightful)
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The progress of science and the useful arts.
Securing for limited times.
Authors and inventors.
The only copyright that is Constitutional is one granted for a limited time to the author or inventor for a limited time for a product that promotes the progress of the useful arts or science. The rest are not Constitutional.
If it's not a copyright to the Author or Inventor, it's not valid.
If it's not a copyright granted to promote science and the useful arts then it's not valid.
If it isn't for a limited time, it's not valid.
Re:Why is there no focus on the Constitution? (Score:2)
At least the Congress is granted the power to create some form of copyright. If you're worried about the Constitution, there are many more areas where the Federal Government is exceeding its enumerated powers far further.
And if you aren't worried about those abuses, you're an absolute hypocrite bringing up much lesser ones.
Resistance to change (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are they resisting the change? Because of revenue. All the above organisation's profits are dropping for various reasons and they are trying to stem the loss with either restrictive laws or restrictive licences. As I posted in another topic, this only changes the response to the laws and licences, but does not stop the actual process itself. Trying to exert control, by American companies, of personal devices and media, in an effort to stop the growing digitalisation of society will only result in even more resistance by consumers and the general move of innovation away from the US and bitter infighting amongst the industry. Trying to outlaw devices such as the general purpose PC, will drive parts of an entire industry, into insolvency (Software and tool developers above all) and will make the US an unpopular place to do business in and shift the impetus of media away from there.
I'm not sure but I think that whichever way they go, they will have to face restructuring in the long term and this means losses. There are so many examples that one could fill pages with them- The steel industry trying to stop change with protectionism (only resulting in retaliation from overseas traders), The car industry trying to stop unionisation with violence and anti-communist propaganda (didn't win there either), the English monarchy trying to stop the US from gaining independance, AT&T trying to hold onto it's monopoly in the communication business. - In the long run it mostly backfires. Musicians who earn next to nothing from the RIAA can and will use these restricive laws to further their own poularity by speaking out against it. Companies moving to OSS because it's cheaper and less controlled. Developers not making products for sale or use in the US due to the restrictions there.
I think, in the long run, laws such as these, are immensly damaging to the very organisations trying to enforce them now, because your average person, who doesn't pirate, will get ticked off that he has to pay more for a DVD or CD (or did you think that they were going to implement all these copy restrictions for free?), the same guy will get ticked off that he has no access to independant media, that everything he does on his non-general purpose computing device is watched and controlled by someone. Programmers in the US will be the laughing stock of the world if they can only code within a strictly defined set of parameters that entails very little freedom.
I'm not a fan of Science Fiction analogies but "Flow my tears the policeman said" by Philip K Dick is good reading for the case that these restrictions become law.(Especially the epilog)
Not complete without a mention of my Congressman (Score:3, Informative)
He comes from a generally right wing district (though one that is generally quite secular, the most religious person I've met in my area supports marijuana legalization for example!) and not even the LP will try to steal his seat. He has the luxury of having a district that is not dependent on government subsidies and doesn't have a large techie population therefore he can propose stuff like the DMCA and NETA safely (he is directly responsible for the latter and claims to have been heavily involved in the house version of the former).
People like Goodlatte are proof that we cannot rely on either party, we need a multiparty system where at least half the parties have clear cut political philosophies like the LP and Green Party. The LP IIRC is staunchly opposed to the DMCA and all legislation like it. It is the third largest party and that is a constant. The Green Party doesn't have even half the number of people in pubic office that the LP does. The LP is admittedly not very large, but it doesn't need a "celebrity" like Nader to get politically active people to remember that it even exists. In the last election, I could vote for the LP for governor, lt. governor and IIRC attorney general. The same could not be said about the Green Party. We need a party that has a shot of winning and we need to support it whenever possible.
Who are the dinosaurs--the computer industry (Score:2, Insightful)
The motion picture industry in the past decade has accomplished the switch to having special effects be the real stars of movies. This results in a more uniform and dependable product where the consumer is guaranteed to at least have some payoff. The mass media also embraces scientific marketting where demographic segments are separately marketted to based on gender, age, etc. The American computer industry on the other hand has disinvested from consumer technology except for Apple. Resellers such as HP/Compaq and Dell add absolutely nothing of importance to their products. If there are cheaper and more powerful devices it is due only to the entrepreneurial hustle of Taiwanese, Koreans, and Japanese, not Americans. The basic PC experience for users of all categories remains a hellish nightmare of incompatibilities, nonfunctionality, and blatant lies.
The most elementary advances in the computer industry are made impossible by the industry's stubborn denial of mistakes and a refusal to adopt to technology even decades old. As a small example, the original programmers of C developed the language and Unix on a machine whose capabilities are laughable compared to modern machines. The operating system cut back on features that had been planned for the failed Multics project. In such a restricted environment decisions such as deliberately forgetting the true length of arrays were required just to have an operational system. There is no such excuse today, yet the computer industry persists in trying to sell to consumers knowingly defective products which are compromised by simple buffer overflows. The computer industry thinks its just fine that consumers should have to constantly try and engage in a futile endless quest of "upgrading" to patch security holes that would not exist if a proper computer language had been used to write the base system.
It is the computer industry that in recent years has suffered a complete collapse in revenue and valuation. It is the American computer industry that thinks marketting to consumers rectangular beige or black boxes with no style or gender customization is just fine while in Japan there is no reticence to market electronic devices directly to females.
The only reason the American computer industry didn't have a day of reckoning sooner was the incestuous selling between corporations for IT spending, with the last hurrah the bubble caused by Y2K sales. But that opportunity is now gone and the computer industry is openly admitting it has no new ideas. The motion picture industry for the most part spends the money to develop new movies that for a few hours can satisfy the dreams of its customers. The computer industry can't even make a reliable PC. The motion picture industry eventually embraced DVDs and has changed the economics of the industry so that even apparent flops eventually earn more money than was spent to produce them. The PC industry's idea of progress is removing serial ports, parallel ports, and floppy drives because it can't figure out how to otherwise manage the pathetically small number of IRQs. The American PC industry is quickly heading towards Dell being the only reseller to consumers and businesses while Apple fills a niche upper-class market. Meanwhile the motion picture industry keeps on churning out monster hits such as Spider Man and continuations of franchises such as Star Wars and The Matrix, not to mention potential new franchises in Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. So who are the dinosaurs and who are dying? It's not the motion picture industry.
Re:Who are the dinosaurs--the computer industry (Score:4, Insightful)
So what does all of this have to do with the price of eggs?
The computer industry has produced faster, better machines at lower prices every year. Software has become easier to use and more reliable every year. A single network with most of the computers on the planet has emerged. Through open standards, computers of all types can communicate with each other. Hardware and software works on whatever type of system you have. Retailers and manufacturers, large and small, have been putting together standardized, low-cost components to make computers.
On the other hand, the motion picture industry has been giving us mostly rehashes of tired old stories (with a few exceptions), usually filmed and distribued to theathers on 50+ year old technology.
So who's the dinosaur?
Problem with the article (Score:2)
Film pirating hurts the studios as much as Piracy hurts the software industry... The little guy with grand ideas that he/she will become a billionare will get the slap of reality from the piraters and the big rich guy will not notice that the piracy happens except for the pretty impressive numbers magically pulled out of an analyst's ass. Look at the Recipts of Spiderman already.. it has surpassed EVERYTHING else at the box office.. What the hell did they expect that piracy stole from them?? another trillion movie goers? BAH, nothing but FUD again from a journalist that is trying to not look like a industry puppet. If attack of the clones fails it's because it SUCKS... I personally felt it was nothing more than TITANIC revisited with a star-wars theme... I dont care about the teen-aged angst and the repeated attempts of our hero to get in the protaganists pants... I saw it to see things get blown up, people chopped in half and hopefully to see jar-jar die...It will not fail because it was pirated, digitized and then shared on Kazaa at a horrible bitrate and over-compressed audio track.
Please, someone take these reporters out of their offices and show them what 90% of the pirated stuff is, and then they'll write a column that "worries about pirating are unfounded unless you like to see films of the backs of people heads, crappy-out of focus, pixelated.."
Quit focusing on rights & technology (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM hardware/software amounts to a tax on non-media industry businesses
Nations which already turn a blind-eye to copyright infringement will likely omit DRM measures in hardware for regional markets. This wll put foreign countries at an IT procurement advantage
The trend of closed hardware makes the media industry less competitive by raising barriers for small independent artists. (alright this one is a stretch, but its large media conglomerates who cater to the lowest common denominator.)
The Simpsons (Score:2)
I also have about 60 odd episodes on my hard drive. I like to be able to watch them more often than I'm given opportunity. Presumably, these AVIs and RAMs and ASFs that I've downloaded off iMesh and gotten burned on CDs from my friends are illegal, pirated episodes... But if I'm giving them money every opportunity I get, how can I possibly be said to be STEALING from them for watching The Simpsons every day, instead of the lame every week (if I'm lucky) that it's on in the season? Off-season, it might not even be on at all! Same holds true for the (not all that many) shows that I actually enjoy on the babble box.
Cheers, Joshua
They Don't Care (Score:3, Interesting)
The record companies don't care about me, you and john down the street downloading songs off of Napster/AudioGalaxy/Kazza/Whatever. The songs we download and don't pay for only make up the smallest percentage of the companies revenues. Even then, most of us (well I know I do) still go out and buy the damn CD. I believe what the record companies are really scared of is losing THE ARTISTS.
Here in Australia, if an artist is signed to a record company, and they produce a top album, for all their hard work they receive less than $2 per copy sold. Each CD retails for $30+ each. Of this $30, the record company, the distributor, the retailer and even worse, the government take their share. This leaves the artists with very little. In this brave new world, the artists will not need any of these people. They will be able to go into a studio, hand over their $$, record an album and distribute it online, all without the need of some giant company threatening them with contracts, intelectual property etc. Even if they sold online copies for $5 each, and every second person gave it to a mate for free, they still make more money than they did under the record company reign of terror.
The record companies have realised this, but they can't go to the press and tell the public 'Stop Napster, cause it will send us broke, and you will be able to buy albums for $5 each'. The public wouldn't care less for their plight. So, they make up these figures on how much it is costing them, and how piracy is the reason you pay so much for music.
This, I see the same with the large movie distributors like Fox. They aren't concerned with us pirating Star Wars or Spiderman.. We will all still want to go see it in the cinema with the sound, the screen and the atmosphere. They just use this excuse to cover the fact that soon, people will be able to make and distribute movies without them.
What can I say? I love a good theory.
A/./
Analog Fallacy (Score:2)
Have you ever downloaded anything? There is a slight chance that your copy won't work or something has gotten screwed. Considering most pirates may have Cable, DSL or higher, better access - they are likely getting non-corrupted files.
But! If these digital copies are always so great then how come there is sfv [crc] checking, par files and the rest?
Digital copies aren't exactly 100% point-click-error free-copying. In both cases better equipment makes for better copies.
The piracy issue is a ruse (Score:2)
First, this is a very good article! I have often thought about this, but never really was able to put it quite as well the author did.
Second, I would like to add a piracy method to your collection. Pre-release DVD
screening copies are distributed in advance of an actual DVD release. These
copies get duplicated, or ripped by someone in the chain then are sold for as
little as a dollar overseas. The interesting thing is that these screening
copies are clearly marked as such with additional contact information for those
viewing them. "If you have rented or purchased this DVD, please call
1-800-MPAA-NO-COPIES"
Clearly the quality of the copy has little to do with the incentive for piracy.
Having viewed one of these, I was surprised that anyone could get anything for
them at all. The questionable legality of these things is right there in the
viewing experience!
Finally, my point. I agree with the basic premise of your article in that the
RIAA / MPAA proposals will do little to solve the problem. The answer, as I
see it, has little to do with piracy however.
I believe the primary motivation behind the increasingly draconian copyright
legislation is about control and profit. Media conglomerates in general see
digital technologies as a powerful enabling technologies for "Pay Per View"
(PPV) delivery. PPV technologies provide long tern annuity profits from every
item in the catalog. PPV combined with copyright extension and litigation are
not aimed at protecting anything but profit. If we are forced to get our
content from the source each time, that source is guarenteed profit for as long
as their media content is of any relevance to society.
One more point to consider: Hollywood is not producing new content at the same
rate it is being consumed. WIth analog media, this is a concern, but not a
problem. They get annuity profits from the replacement and resale of older
media. The primary selling point of digital media is long life and high
fidelity. These present a problem today in that the average purchase may
likely be good for the lifetime of the buyer. Our rate of media consumption
is greater than their rate of production. In the near future, if we are
allowed to own personal digital copies, we will only be purchasing new content.
The rights we currently enjoy and the long media life will combine, through
media resale and trading, to sharply reduce the high annuity revenue the media
industry currently enjoys.
It is this future loss of revenue that lies behind the current barrage on our
rights today.
Their answer will be new formats, and delivery methods designed to lead people
away from the durable open media we use today. The switch from analog (vinyl
and VHS) to digital (CD and DVD) made a lot of sense for both sides. Future
format changes have few advantages for us, and many for them.
"Of course I could be wrong..." --Dennis Miller
Enough lawyering (Score:3, Insightful)
America has always been big on law enforcement, but there have traditionally been limits, like search and seizure laws and rules of evidence. The rights-ownership industry (we're not talking about creative artists here) appears to think that protecting IP should become the central goal of law in America. Privacy doesn't matter -- it could be used to hide infringement. Innovation doesn't matter -- it could be used to defeat protection. Opensource doesn't matter -- it's an evil socialist plot anyway. Everybody's behavior must be restricted so as to guarantee that people like Jamie "skipping commercials is theft" Kellner get a nickel every time anybody reads, views or hears anything other than their own bodily functions.
We ought to do follow the advice put forth in some recent article posted here (can't remember the freakin one) that advocated focusing political contributions to defeat legislators who act as toadies to the entertainment industry. Every time a new tendril appears, cut it off. Blacklist the entertainment industry and see how they like it. Does anybody know who Hollings' opponent is going to be in the next election? Send him or her money. Send letters to every other senator notifying them that you are doing this and why you are doing it.
American politics tends to be a series of one-issue campaigns. Our lawmakers understand that principle very well. Make the defeat of the copyright industry your one issue and let them know it.
I thought I had seen everything on /. (Score:2)
What are you trying to do, take /. to new levels?
Re:Analog Hole? (Score:2, Funny)
Mr. Valenti, your remarks will be added to the Troll Hall of Fame along with *BSD is Dying, Right Wing Maniac, and the page widening posts.
Re:Digital is different. (Score:2, Insightful)
Protect themselves how? By making laws that do nothing for the public good, instead only helping to line their pockets? How is making progams that have perfectly legitamite uses illegal their "right"? is that what you mean? Can you name a tool that can be used for illegal purposes that is illegal in the united states? Crack pipes? Guns? penises? Nope. Nothing. Why? becuase who is to say what a object's legitamte purpose is. Why do you want to be analy raped by huge corparations? I don't get it. Why would anyone defend the rights of an entity that isn't even alive? it's bizzare behavior.
Re:Digital is different. (Score:2)
Crack pipes are most definately illegal in the US. If you have a crack pipe on you and a police officer finds it, you can, and probably will get charged with Possession of Drug Paraphenalia.
Re:Digital is different. (Score:2)
Re:Digital is different. (Score:2)
Re:Digital is different. (Score:3, Informative)
The vast majority of digital files traded over the net with ease are sub par. Have you ever watched any of the bootlegs out there? I dont think I have ever seen one that matches even 3rd generation VHS copy quality. Especially in the case of video, making something small enough to be easily swapped also means making it of such a low quality that only the cheapest of person would use that as an option to seeing the film in a theater, or renting it on VHS/DVD
Don't buy into the strawman being put up by the MPAA! They are looking for ways to screw us all for even more of our money...and it's time that the public says 'enough'
Re:Digital is different. (Score:3, Informative)
There are several levels of quality in the underground world:
Cam. Handheld cam for video, audio from cam's mic. Level of insiderness required: None.
TS (Telesync). Handheld cam for video, but the audio is picked up from a "remote source", frequently a lineout in the projection room. Level of insiderness required: Small. You have to work at a theater, but don't have to be important.
Screener. Ripped pre-release copy of the movie, either from a "for-review" copy of the film reels, a preproduction disk, or from the a/v outs of a projector. Quality is usually just below DVD-quality. Level of insiderness required: High.
DVD-Rip. Decoded from a DVD, obviously. Great quality. Level of insiderness required: None. But it takes time for the movie to come out on DVD.
I've seen a bootleg Lord of the Rings that's a screener. DVD-quality audio and video, with an MPAA copyirght warning scrolling randomly down the bottom of the screen about every 20 minutes. It's great.
I've also seen Resident Evil on a Telesync. Crappy quality, sound wasn't bad though. Glitchy, artifacated video stream. Sucked, but it was okay for re-watching after I saw the movie in the theater.
A bootleg's quality is directly proportional to the time spent creating it.
Re:Digital is different. (Score:2)
Telesyncing is actually a pretty 'offical' process, it's one of the more popular ways to convert film to video (where the main problem is the FPS conversion). A pretty standard procedure, but quite a specialized one. In a closed space you project the picture onto a screen and film it off the screen with a camera (like a good Betacam or something).
Of course, in the pirate world, this just means you stick the camera onto a tripod, hook it up to the sound system and roll.
I've seen a bootleg Lord of the Rings that's a screener. DVD-quality audio and video
That's because it was a DVD. A *lot* of Academy members and movie reviewers don't actually go to the cinema, they just sit at home and watch screeners on TV. Now, for years screeners have been VHSes - mainly because... well, that's how it's always been done. Most popular format, and all.
A year (or two) ago this started changing. Studios realized that most Academy members/reviewers probably have DVD players and would apreciate a DVD more than a VHS tape. So many top oscar contenders (like LotR) came out as DVD screeners.
I'm sure that there's more than one Academy member ready to make an extra couple of hundred bucks every now and then by letting some guys copy one or two of his tapes. Or borrow his DVDs.
A bootleg's quality is directly proportional to the time spent creating it.
A bootleg's quality is directly proportional to the media being copied. You will not make a DVDRip like DivX out of a screener even if you capture each frame by hand. High quality DVDRips take a few hours to do, even if you run a double pass codec on them.
Re:Digital is different. (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact is, digital pirating is likely just as difficult, just as widespread, and just as damaging as analog pirating. Actually, many cam rips (when someone sits in a theater with a camera and records the whole movie) are analog to begin with, then later converted to a digital format, and additionally put through some lossy compression schemes to bring it down below 700Mb to be put up on servers.
"It's much more of a danger to the Music Industry, and they have a right to protect themselves."
Actually, this article is about the Movie Industry, not music, I see you didn't take time to read it. And yes, they have the right to protect themselves, but suing KaZaA, Morpheus, iMesh, Napster, and so on for allowing this to take place is like suing UPS for allowing people to send drugs illegally through the mail. The fact is, they SHOULDN'T know what's inside the files that are being swapped, just as much as UPS shouldn't know what's inside a package they deliver.
And, forcing companies to create hardware that won't allow you to make illegal copies is stupid, too. That's like making Xerox put something in their copiers that won't allow people to make photocopies of of pages out of copyrighted books without permission (which is illegal, too). How does a DVD player know that the DVD you're playing in it is being copied to another DVD, and how does the DVD burner (in the case of copying DVD's) tell that the incoming signal is copyrighted material, not the owner's home movie of his son building a sandcastle?
The fact is, if something is being done illegally, the MPAA needs to go for the people who are committing a crime using these devices, not the people who make the devices.
Re:Digital is different. (Score:2)
Re:Digital is different. (Score:2)
It's funny you should say this. People really don't think what the ramifications for the SSSCA (CBDTPA) would really be like. Under either one, Xerox would be obligated under law to produce such a magic chip, and not manufacture any new copiers with the capability to copy copyrighted information.
Personally, I can't imagine how such a copier would function. But, it's an interactive electronic device (some new copiers are, in essence, desktop computers with special software), and one capable of displaying and copying copyrighted material. It would be illegal under the SSSCA, unless Xerox could somehow manage to keep you from copying so much as a page from any book in your local library.
Sounds absurd, but you could easily hand copy the information, and as the current 2600 rulings have shown, the right to a fair use copy does not obligate you to a copy in the highest fidelity possible. You could still copy it, but it would be slow, and in your crappy handwriting.
I wonder if an electronic typewriter would be prohibited from letting you plagerize. I don't know how you'd stop it, but they are interactive digital devices, and the words on that page are copyrighted... it wouldn't be hard to make copies.
Re:Digital is different. (Score:5, Informative)
With analog, you actually have to work at it. You'd have to tape the tape (lossy), make copies (lossy), and give it to friends/fellow pirates manually.
Computers make things much easier for pirates. That's why there's so much focus on swapping music digitally. It's much more of a danger to the Music Industry, and they have a right to protect themselves.
Uh huh.
BULLSHIT
It is A LOT easier to make an analog rip (put tape in machine, hit record) then it is to do a digital rip.
First off there isn't any "Big Red Button" solution to doing movie rips that are of a high enough quality that ANY self respecting movie pirate would use.
Doing even a DECENT digital rip requires extensive knowledge of a large variety of programs and a good deal of work, not to mention the patience to wait while your video sits there and encodes at
Now if you want to do a GOOD rip (a GOOD digital rip will look better then the original DVD, many rippers take pride in that they can correct errors made in the original DVDs mastering) then you had better know a ton about mathematics, some basic data theory, a good deal of color theory, have an intuitive understanding of at least some parts of matrix mathematics, and know how to combine it all of those skills together to create one nice highly polished product.
This is not even going into how you are using primitive tools that range from being everything from crash prone to inducing video or audio errors into your stream if you push the wrong button or select the wrong option. (not that that option should induce errors, but. . . . Betas are betas and all, and the programs you are using likely will never be out of beta stage).
Yah sure now the couriers may have a somewhat easy job (though it does depend on how you are transferring the files) but hell;
don't say that making a digital rip it easy, because it is not.
(of course good Analog copiers have to go through similarly difficult troubles, just hitting record on a VCR doesn't cut it if you want quality goods.)
Absolutely right! (Score:2)
Someone please mod this parent up! You are exactly right - comparing the ripping and encoding of a CD to that of a DVD is apples and oranges. Any 8th grader with a copy of Musicmatch can rip the latest N'Sync album to MP3 but their head would likely explode if you asked to to DIVX a copy of The Matrix. The process has a steep learning curve and encoding takes a long time and a powerful machine! This is to say nothing of the fact that WAV -> MP3 has a lot less apparent loss of quality than does VOB -> MPEG4. The MPAA does not have the same problem as the RIAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Absolutely right! (Score:2)
In my perfect world I'd have a TIVO type device attached to my TV and Computer (same box, two connections) that would let me watch anything, anytime I want. TV wouldn't be broadcast anymore. TV programs would "air" as an available time and date (The latest ER "airs" every Thursday night at 10 pm EST). I could view any show at any time on or after the "air" date (obviously cant watch TV shows before they are made!). Same with movies - watch any movie after an "release" date. Same with music.
Wow. That's exactly what I want. Not sure if I'd pay "pay per view" prices, but if they were low enough, it would be a non-issue. If they could give me pay-per-view and purchase-forever prices for every piece of media, and those prices were reasonable enough that I wouldn't break the bank watching/listening/consuming the 100 hours or so of new media that would be possible to experience in a month's time, then I'd never, ever pirate again.
Let me say that again, because I'm a pretty hard core pirate. Give me the following:
That's it. Give me that, and I'll never pirate again. Ever. You want to end piracy? That's how you do it.
Re:Digital is different.--NOT (Score:2)
Yes you heard me. Pentium... IT has a SCSI-II hard drive array that will hold 4 hours of video. and a set of 3 full length PCI video capture and audio capture cards. I insert the video tape (Betacam or 3/4 for old stuff) set the start timecode, set length of capture or end timecode and press the BIG RED BUTTON. encoded in realtime perfectly.
It was horribly easy to make a digital rip. I can teach a 12 year old how to do it.
You said..
don't say that making a digital rip it easy, because it is not.
well it is... with real hardware not the toy stuff available to the general public it is mind-numbingly easy....
Yes the encoding station I speak of can be bought for $36,000.00 today with a wasted Pentium III in it... but the new version can let you spit out a DVD of the encoded video after encoding....
Remember, EVERYTHING is easy if you have enough money to throw at it... and even thinking that video encoding, something done constantly by every network, broadcast company, cable company, and TV station, is still hard is plain silly... Please chekc out modern video production equipment.. it's much different than the consumer or pro-sumer crap that is available.
Re:Digital is different.--NOT (Score:2)
If you want to dump it out into another format, say MPEG-4 or DiVX, there are a lot of fiddly bits, as regards how to get the best out of lossy compression. A non-action film may compress much better than an action film, trade-offs must be made. However, you can end up with 1-2CDs of data that are quirte viewable. It may take a couple of attempts though.
Re:Digital is different. (Score:2, Informative)
At the expense of everyone else's fair use and unrelated activities?
They presently have a flawed business model that relies on poor technology to protect their income. They've always had this model, and they're afraid to change it because they've never tried anything else.
But if others are innovative and creative enough to improve the technology over time, which was obviously going to happen because that's the nature of technology, why should everyone else suffer as a result of a few mega-sized media companies' bad business decisions and lack of strategic future thinking?
If they want to take reasonable action against people stealing their IP, then fine. But don't let them tear the world down just to save their small profitable island.
Nice troll.
Re:Digital is different. (Score:2, Insightful)
How is making more laws going to HELP? It is ALREADY ILLEGAL to copy the stuff and give it away. Dont belive me its written on every cd vhs dvd I own. Laws that are not enforced do NOTHING. Digital is just a new way to store things. Why in the world do we even make a distinction? Technicaly there is but from Joe consumers point of view one just looks better than the other. He give a rip if one is digital or analog. They just want a better product!
Their WHOLE busness model was based on content distribution charging/control. They are just starting to realize it. Which is why they are lobying VERY hard for new law to 'help' them. When distrubting it costs almost nothing, and they do not control the proces of getting music, the price WILL and MUST go down. They are whining as their busnesses can no longer sustain the higher costs of their OWN system they setup. Also given we are/were in a economy downturn im surprised they are doing as well as they are. There were LOTS of companies that lost ALOT of money in the past few years. However in the past few years in the eye of competion from a new startup basicly (napster/kazaa/gnutela). Did they do what all smart busnesses do when someone else comes out with a similar product? Did they inovate, lower prices, anything? No they bitch and moan and try to pass more law.
Ill quote danny deveto from other peoples money IMDB [imdb.com] "I'll bet the last company that made buggy whips made the best damn buggy whip ever." While it may or may not be true. His anaolgy from the movie is. And if I remember from economics the only times price of product will go up in these conditions. is Increase in production cost, higher demand, or monopolistic controls. They can control 2 of those. One we the consumer controll. If 'piracy' is such a big problem why are their prices going up? Prices tend to go down or level out during recessions. Also if your market share is going down you tend to lower prices to try to attract more people to it. If your a monopoly you can put the price wherever you want. Something else is going on and I do not think piracy is the answer.
My question is simple. Why are they raising prices and therefore pricing MORE people out of their market. As they are moving the wrong way on the demand curve. They make CD's for what 10-20 cents EACH, if that. Then sell them for 15-20 BUCKS each? Their marginal revinue probley does not equal marginal cost. When that happens you are either loosing money or you could be making more. I had that grilled into me in every econ class I took. And if there is an alternative cheaper source of the same as or close to same as copy of the product available, loosing customers to other forms of media that they do not control?! Ill use the pizza example they grilled into me also. If Bob's pizza joint one sells slices of pizza for 1 dollar. And Mikes pizza joint down the street makes very similar pizza for 2 buck a slice. The Bobs pizza will do more busness on a whole baring other cirumstances such as atmospher, help working there, freebees, etc... Both will probly make about the same amount. Now Jimmy makes a magic box that he can setup on the corrner and make pizza for 10 cents a slice. While not AS good as the compition but decent. Little jimmy will make and sell ALOT of pizza. But jimmy _could_ be making more money at it. But he is happy with what he gets. Soon the market will start to change, people will want 10 cent pizza. They will ask why cant the other two places make 10 cent pizza. Why buy from them? The other 2 busnesses will either have to come up with something pretty good or move away from Jimmy. Or try to put Jimmy out of busness with law. Do either hold the patent or copyright on pizza? They may try to ruin Jimmy with health violations etc...
We are seeing from the music/movie industry is a lack of imagination (funny considering what they do!). So if you can not inovate litigate...
Re:Digital is different. (Score:2)
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)