161 replies to this topic

[gumgum]

Set up a Paypal account and tell it you are in the US. Paypal doesn't check.

Have you done this?
I have tried to pay for Hulu and there isn't a paypal option. Only direct payment through cc.

[spanky123]

Have you done this?
I have tried to pay for Hulu and there isn't a paypal option. Only direct payment through cc.

Pay every month via Paypal for Hulu and Netflix.

[LJ]

Set up a Paypal account and tell it you are in the US. Paypal doesn't check.

With my paypal account they verified that the credit card billing address was the same as my mailing address.

[sebberry]

So do you think that C-11, 115 years later, will solve piracy?

I need to find some piracy statistics in the US after several years of their massive crackdowns.

http://upload.wikime...Canada_1897.png

[http]

So do you think that C-11, 115 years later, will solve piracy?

Not a chance. Computers are designed to copy information perfectly, and every DRM scheme invented so far for consumer use eventually falls to programmers who believe that once you purchase a thing, you should be able to access the information it holds.

I despair when people use the word "piracy" when what they mean is "copyright infringement". There is no robbery involved. There's been a consistent marketing effort for a couple decades to confuse people, to encourage them to use a demonstrably false mental model about copyright when trying to reason about it or discuss it. I've been fighting against it, but the media conglomerates have staff and a budget for this.

Copyright infringement and theft have about as much in common as parking violations and arson.

[Baro]

The only way to reduce "piracy" is to make a good product people are willing to buy, and make buying it very fast and easy. PC games learned this but TV/movies is still using a 20th century model and refusing to budge.

[sebberry]

PC games learned this but TV/movies is still using a 20th century model and refusing to budge.

The video game model has changed quite a bit. Many games are online multiplayer games which require subscriptions, game consoles that haven't been modded and legitimately purchased games in order to play.

You can bet that people still have modded game consoles to play non multiplayer games that they've ripped or downloaded.

[sebberry]

I despair when people use the word "piracy" when what they mean is "copyright infringement". There is no robbery involved. There's been a consistent marketing effort for a couple decades to confuse people, to encourage them to use a demonstrably false mental model about copyright when trying to reason about it or discuss it. I've been fighting against it, but the media conglomerates have staff and a budget for this.

Copyright infringement and theft have about as much in common as parking violations and arson.

Thanks for that, I agree.


If a manufacturer of a TV set wants to profit from the sale of a million TVs, they have to manufacture and sell a million TVs.

If the media giants want to profit from a million movie sales, they produce it once and replicate it a million times for next to nothing. It doesn't make it "OK" to steal a movie, but the damages to the producer are virtually nothing - it's not much differfent than stealing a piece of paper with 1's and 0's photocopied onto it.

Any business model that's based on producing one original and profiting from selling millions of copies will be open to some form of abuse.

Back in the old days when life itself was in black and white, movie producers made their money almost exclusively on showing the movie in theaters. Unlike today, there was no way to replicate the film a million times for pennies a copy, mark it up by 8,000% and sell it for years to come. Now with online digital distribution, their manufacturing and distribution costs are even smaller!

I do believe that any damages awarded arising from the "theft" of a movie should be equal to the actual damages incurred - now days that's pennies per copy. Remember, the movie has already made it's money back in theaters, any future sales are just icing on the cake.

It's the media industry's ignorance, arrogance and greed that has them in this position.

[Mike K.]

Prices on DVD's and post-theatrical release materials are still largely based on what was charged in the 70's, 80's and 90's before online distribution was even possible and people paid top dollar for the entertainment value.

Movie makers are responsible to their investors and shareholders. Slash DVD prices to $5 and movie downloads to $0.99 and revenues will drop, affecting stock prices. No distributor will risk repricing materials unless the entire industry does so and we're still in an era where DVD's/Blu Ray's continue to sell and generate handsome revenues.

I also don't agree with the argument that because something can be replicated for pennies it shouldn't be priced with a huge markup. Virtually every product we consume on a daily basis costs pennies on the dollar to produce but we pay a massive markup without batting an eye. Why should the movie industry slash prices if Nike can make a shoe for $2 and sell millions of reproductions for $150 a pair?

[sebberry]

If a container of shoes goes missing, Nike is out the cost of materials, workmanship and the price of the container. If a "container" of online movies goes missing, the producer isn't out a cent.

While Nike can sell millions of "copies" of a shoe, there's still a material and workmanship cost to each pair. You can make a million pairs, but that will still cost you $2 for each pair. It costs me nothing to copy/paste a million times a photo that I've taken.

Stolen media that are traded outside the distribution methods paid for by the studios have absolutely zero financial impact on the producer. They're not even out the price of the virtual container (bandwidth costs).

Does it represent lost revenue potential? Perhaps, but I'm willing to be that many of the movie pirates have already paid their dues and watched the movie in theaters, perhaps more than once.

As for revenue - I don't think Bill C-11 will magically see millions of people running to the store to drop $25 on movies, but if movies were cheaper I do think you'd see more people choosing to buy than download.

[sebberry]

[Mike K.]

But it doesn't cost Nike $100 million to produce, film, market and distribute a film. I'm not sure why the entertainment industry has to be held to a different standard simply because the product that they release is not physically interacted with or requires physical labour to mass produce.

I think a good idea would be to include a digital download link for each moviegoer. You have a unique URL included on the ticket stub and after the theatrical release is completed you can download the film for a much reduced price compared to the market rate for which it is made available.

As for revenue - I don't think Bill C-11 will magically see millions of people running to the store to drop $25 on movies, but if movies were cheaper I do think you'd see more people choosing to buy than download.

Most aren't quite that expensive. But yes, if you could download a movie and keep that movie for $.99 I'm sure more people would be willing to buy the digital media they currently stream or download.

Itunes has been successful in that regard but we shouldn't expect a movie to cost anywhere near the same price as a 3 minute music track.

[jonny]

Copyright infringement and theft have about as much in common as parking violations and arson.

In a legal sense, theft and copyright infringement are different, that's true. That should not make it acceptable to infringe on the intellectual property of others.

That being said, both tangible and inangible assets exist. There are laws to protect both types of assets. Without legal protection, innovation and creativity would most certainly be stifled.

Would Warner Bros invest tens of millions in making a new Batman movie if they had no legal right to the revenues from their substantial investment? Would Pfizer invest any money in developing new pharmaceuticals if they had absolutely no legal way of protecting their innovations from being "infringed on" by others? No, of course they would not. Pfizer and Warner Bros assume all of the risk of their investments on themselves, and should be entitled to any reward.

Using the "computers are made to replicate data" excuse is a cop out. Why don't I just use my computer to download and copy work from the internet instead of completing my own?

I do agree with those that say the industry has been slow to adapt, but I am happy to see the progress that has been made with on demand television. On demand is definitely the way things are headed. Once suppliers develop the right product, I think most people will take the convenience of an on demand product through, for example, their TV PVR rather than download a movie for hours on bit torrent and hope they are getting a good version.

I haven't watched too many on demand movies, but aren't they quite inexpensive? I have watched a few for no additional cost through Telus Optik.

[sebberry]

I haven't watched too many on demand movies, but aren't they quite inexpensive? I have watched a few for no additional cost through Telus Optik.

$7 from Shaw, which is more than what Blockbuster was renting blu-ray discs for, and the picture and sound quality is lower.

Not only that, but you also need to be subscribing to their service for access to VOD. It would be like having to spend $xx per month on a Blockbuster membership just so you could rent movies.


Unfortunately for a lot of tech-savvy consumers it goes far beyond simply watching the movie. When people spend $20 or more on a movie, they want to be able to rip it so they can watch it on their computer, tablet, laptop, etc.

It's a constant battle between fair use (ripping for personal enjoyment without the intent to redistribute) and the movie producer who outright refuse to let you do that but will happily take your money again to give you access to a crap quality streamed version online. Bill C-11 has criminalized anyone who wants to buy a movie, rip it and watch it on their laptop with no intent to redistribute it.

I'm sure it's just a matter of time until it becomes illegal to sell used discs once you're done watching them.

[jonny]

$7 from Shaw, which is more than what Blockbuster was renting blu-ray discs for, and the picture and sound quality is lower.

I have never noticed a quality issue with VOD, but I am not a savvy user. I barely even watch movies. I have watched a couple of free movies and a bunch of tv episodes through Telus. Of course you need a cable television provider to access this service....just like you needed cable to watch episodes of Seinfeld in the 90's. Maybe tv providers will have on demand only services in the future, but until then they have it pretty sweet and won't be wanting to change anytime soon. Who wouldn't love more flexibility in what they are paying for?

I do not know the details of C-11, but not being able to make your own copy as a back-up would be unfortunate. I also vehemently disagree with ISPs handing over this information to the feds.

But, I strongly support intellectual property laws. They are such a critical component of what makes our society what it is today. Why the hell would anybody ever invent or innovate anything if they know they have no legal right to their ideas?

[sebberry]

I do not know the details of C-11, but not being able to make your own copy as a back-up would be unfortunate. I also vehemently disagree with ISPs handing over this information to the feds.

Bill C-11 makes it illegal to break a digital lock. Since no DVD or blu-ray is available without digital locks protecting the content, it's effectively illegal to make a copy of the disc for playback. If you want to watch it on another device, too bad. If you lose the disc, too bad. If your kid scratches the disc, too bad.

I too disagree with ISPs handing over information. Shaw has been fairly good and is on record stating that IP addresses cannot be tied to particular users. Other ISPs have handed over information without batting an eye.

Future internet bills from our Harper Government (I love how he insists on attaching his name to things that hurt Canadians) will require ISPs to keep records on IP address assignments and hand them over when requested.

[VicHockeyFan]

I too disagree with ISPs handing over information. Shaw has been fairly good and is on record stating that IP addresses cannot be tied to particular users. Other ISPs have handed over information without batting an eye.

Future internet bills from our Harper Government (I love how he insists on attaching his name to things that hurt Canadians) will require ISPs to keep records on IP address assignments and hand them over when requested.

If I have wifi at home, short of seizing my computer, how can authorities prove I downloaded the material, and not someone else using my wifi (with or without my permission)?

[sebberry]

See that's a big part of the problem, and more than one Judge has ruled that IP addresses do not equal people. However, many ISPs have in their TOS that customers are required to ensure their network is secure and to assume liability for anyone using that network.

[VicHockeyFan]

See that's a big part of the problem, and more than one Judge has ruled that IP addresses do not equal people. However, many ISPs have in their TOS that customers are required to ensure their network is secure and to assume liability for anyone using that network.

That might work civilly, but will never hold up criminally. And nobody is ever scared of being fined, charged damages or whatever, they fear criminal prosecution, which will never happen here. But governments and companies make you fear it in order to scare you.

[sebberry]

I wonder how long it will be before someone counter-sues for extortion.

That's all these cases really are - when actual damages are perhaps pennies, a letter demanding $5,000 is just that, extortion.