or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal - Page 5

post #121 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

I do not believe in piracy. It is wrong. Artists deserve to be paid for their efforts. Piracy is nothing more than stealing. Period. HOWEVER, I do believe that when I buy content, I should have the right to consume that content however I see fit. So long as I do not distribute that content, it is NOBODY'S business how I use it.

How do you propose we let you copy what you want yet prevent pirates from doing the same?
Can't have it both ways, right?
post #122 of 491
Anything that can be played can be copied, one way or another. Sure, you could come up with something nearly unbreakable, but the stipulation that it must be *playable* means it can also be copied. Encryption, BD+, you name it, does not, cannot prevent piracy. To pirates, it's only a minor inconvenience.
post #123 of 491
So just for shits and giggles. Say 15 years from now that optical storage becomes a thing of the past and everything is either on hard drives or flash drives have increased storage capacity to well above BD capacity for pennies. Our entire libraries of either DVD or Blu-rays will have to be repurchased in whatever new prevailing format? This ruling seems to me to be a way for the studios to continually resale you the same content for years to come.
post #124 of 491
Also just thought of this as well. The following scenario has happened to me on several occasions. I pop in either a DVD or Blu-ray from Netflix and get half way into it only to have my player freeze from a scratch on the disc. I then remove the disc and then make a copy on my computer's burner to finish watching whatever was on the disc. That is now illegal. If I run a 50 foot HDMI cable from my PC in the office to the TV and play it that way that is legal. Silly.
post #125 of 491
of course it's illegal! But we all do it any way
post #126 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermr2 View Post

So just for shits and giggles. Say 15 years from now that optical storage becomes a thing of the past and everything is either on hard drives or flash drives have increased storage capacity to well above BD capacity for pennies. Our entire libraries of either DVD or Blu-rays will have to be repurchased in whatever new prevailing format? This ruling seems to me to be a way for the studios to continually resale you the same content for years to come.


Are all of your old VHS movies on your hard drives or are the ripped DVD repurchases of them are? wink.gif

Same for dvd - bluray and in the future bluray to 4k/8k etc

This doesn't change that. If you want the latest HD or ultra HD movie for your new ultra HD screen, guess what, your current collection isn't going to do.

This is what drives sales, not the fact that you can't legally copy something. rolleyes.gif
post #127 of 491
The extra definition is irrelevant. You are talking to someone who bought a VHS to DVD burner 10 years ago I also just watched "The Good Earth" on DVD and "The Grapes of Wrath" on Blu-Ray. Honestly an almost 100 year old movie doesn't look that much better on Blu-Ray than on DVD or even VHS that has been converted. I realize the audience on this forum is a bit extreme on video PQ and audio PQ but the older movies I own don't really benefit that much form the extra resolution. Also anyone that owns any VHS tapes can tell you the heads wear out after so many hours which make playback worse over time. This really doesn't happen with digital media per se although a good scratch on the disc can make it unplayable. FWIW, I transferred all my VHS tapes to DVD about 6 months ago.
post #128 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by bootman_head_fi View Post

How do you propose we let you copy what you want yet prevent pirates from doing the same?
Can't have it both ways, right?

Sure you can. No, you can't stop pirating completely of course. But then, you can't stop theft either. Look at napster. The studios hated it and fought downloading tooth and nail. Then somebody finally figured out that you could make money with media downloads... Now look at the billions being made by the studios with legitimate downloads.

So how do you limit piracy? it's hard if you're just going to fight the hackers and software companies. It's easy if you cooperate with them. Negotiate compromises. The Studios could agree to leave legitimate backups alone. In return, the software guys would agree to implement restrictions that making pirating more difficult. Enable Cinavia type protection on RENTAL movie discs, but leave the retail discs alone. In return the Software and media player guys would implement that protection in their products. Watermark legitimate backups with the users registration information so that it's source could be identified. The studios win because Piracy would be limited. The software and media player guys win because they would gain a stable business environment. Consumers win because they would retain choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

It's not at all clear that new technologies (of the sort we are talking about here) have increased the studio's profits. It's certainly the case that DVDs did up until it became easy to rip and upload them, because it was a vast improvement over the previous delivery format. And of course the studios didn't fight that, they backed it. Same for BluRay.
But the technology you are talking about, ripping software, it's very debatable whether that's been of benefit to them. The fact that you have a hard drive of legally purchased movies isn't really proof, it's just anecdotal and likely is more of the exception, not the rule. It's unfortunate that folks like us get caught in the crossfire, but it is what it is, and I don't think it's a case of the movie industry shooting itself in the foot. For every one of us there are probably a hundred who are using the same tools to steal the content. Even people who could easily afford to purchase the content are likely to just steal it these days.
Clearly a supply side approach would be nice, but that's not very doable, and as more and more P2P type systems proliferate there isn't a supply side anymore. The supply and the demand is all woven together, and the tools are designed as much as possible to obfuscate the illegal activity of the users, and to limit their liability if they get caught.

It's absolutely clear. Look at the sales of new Blurays. Bluray releases like "The Avengers" are producing vast sums of money for the studios. That wouldn't be true if everyone was just pirating it. Technology has made things fun and entertaining, so people buy more of it. Bluray movies sell far better than VHS tapes ever did. Technology--including ripping--breeds excitement, excitement drives higher sales. Of course, I'm talking about good movies and good music. Crap doesn't sell well in any form.

I absolutely disagree that pirating exceeds legitimate purchases.If that was true, why are Apple and Amazon making incredible amounts of money selling music? The easiest media to pirate, yet people buy it instead. How many people know--or bother to learn--how to download a 40GB Bluray. Damn few in the real scale of things. Even some people on this forum--among the most technically savvy--didn't realize backups could be played without losing quality! It's easier just to go buy the thing, as sales prove. Yes, people are copying rentals, but as I describe above that could be addressed easily. Also, consider this: In today's environment, does the copying of a rental really cost the studio anything? The studio gets their revenue from the rental in the first place. Distribution is unlikely to occur based on file size. So the studio loses the revenue from subsequent rentals from the same person. Not a huge figure. Regrettable; but again, easily combated. Further, Netlix has forced most of the rental stores out of business. If you're a Netflix subscriber, why would you copy anyway? I'm sure some do, but it has to be a small number. Why go through the hassle when you can keep the disc as long as you want, or get it again when you want it? And if you do, has Netflix lost any money? You're still paying the subscription fee regardless... The losses suffered because of this are small, debatable and addressable if the studios choose to embrace the technology. The gains from that would certainly outweigh the losses, as history has proven.

When business embraces new technology, they inevitably make a fortune. When they fight it, people find a way around the restrictions anyway. Where would the studios be without the huge revenues they are getting from legal downloads? Worse off, for sure. Yet they fought that for a long time. Declining revenues are due to poor content. Revenues from good content are skyrocketing.

It really comes down to what's right. Will our government, will the Obama administration, protect consumer rights--or will they be bought off? I believe that as a consumer I should have the right to consume content I have legally purchased as I see fit. In the end, that will be best for everyone, consumer and business alike.
Edited by Kirnak - 11/7/12 at 11:00am
post #129 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermr2 View Post

The extra definition is irrelevant. You are talking to someone who bought a VHS to DVD burner 10 years ago I also just watched "The Good Earth" on DVD and "The Grapes of Wrath" on Blu-Ray. Honestly an almost 100 year old movie doesn't look that much better on Blu-Ray than on DVD or even VHS that has been converted. I realize the audience on this forum is a bit extreme on video PQ and audio PQ but the older movies I own don't really benefit that much form the extra resolution. Also anyone that owns any VHS tapes can tell you the heads wear out after so many hours which make playback worse over time. This really doesn't happen with digital media per se although a good scratch on the disc can make it unplayable. FWIW, I transferred all my VHS tapes to DVD about 6 months ago.

For you perhaps... If you enjoy your collection as is, that's absolutely great!!! Consumer choice. For me, I can't tell you how much better movies like "Gone With The Wind", "Patton", "The Wizard Of Oz" and similar titles are on Bluray over VHS. VHS quality is so poor in my theater, I wouldn't ever bother to watch anything on it. But on Bluray... The excitement of seeing "Jaws" and the terror of seeing "The Exorcist" back in the theater when they first came out just can't be replicated on VHS, or even DVD. Seeing those movies on Bluray with a 138" screen brought me back 40 years to my first Date Bluraay allows you to be immersed in a movie in a way that just can not be duplicated--or even closely approximated--by VHS/DVD.
post #130 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by bootman_head_fi View Post


This is what drives sales, not the fact that you can't legally copy something. rolleyes.gif

It's not about copying per se, It's about the right of the consumer to consume legally purchased content as they see fit. Some business's get it. Amazon sells all of their online music as UN-PROTECTED mp3s. Yes, that's right, no DRM. Why? Because they have found that INCREASES sales. Give the consumer the choice to consume content as they see fit and they are more likely to buy it. Duh. Seriously, is that really all that hard to understand? More and more of the ebooks I buy come DRM free. These are new releases. Why are publishers doing this? Because they are slowly, ever so slowly, finding that the sales of DRM free books exceed those of protected books. Kind of blows the whole "people will just pirate something instead of buying it" theory out of the water. Make it easy, and people will buy instead of pirate. As I've said before, history has conclusively proven this.
post #131 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

It's not about copying per se, It's about the right of the consumer to consume legally purchased content as they see fit. Some business's get it. Amazon sells all of their online music as UN-PROTECTED mp3s. Yes, that's right, no DRM. Why? Because they have found that INCREASES sales. Give the consumer the choice to consume content as they see fit and they are more likely to buy it. Duh. Seriously, is that really all that hard to understand? More and more of the ebooks I buy come DRM free. These are new releases. Why are publishers doing this? Because they are slowly, ever so slowly, finding that the sales of DRM free books exceed those of protected books. Kind of blows the whole "people will just pirate something instead of buying it" theory out of the water. Make it easy, and people will buy instead of pirate. As I've said before, history has conclusively proven this.

Good points.
Let me add, make it affordable and even less people will pirate.
I'll personally buy tons of HD movies with HD audio in a ripped format for media server use if they were say $5 vs $30 now for your average new release with dvd, bluray and itunes versions. But i want full HD PQ and HD audio.
No crappy down rez versions like you get off Pirate bay. (you know what I mean...) tongue.gif
post #132 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

It's absolutely clear. Look at the sales of new Blurays. Bluray releases like "The Avengers" are producing vast sums of money for the studios. That wouldn't be true if everyone was just pirating it.

The issue isn't whether every single person on the planet is pirating content or not. It's how much content is being pirated vs. being legitimately sold. You keep taking anecdotal evidence and trying to argue that these things prove something that they don't. And the other thing you are missing is that MAKING the Avengers took a vast amount of money, as do most movies these days. Once in a while a movie makes a lot more than it cost, but that's the exception, not the rule. In the music industry, something lie 8 to 9 out of 10 acts never even recoup the investment made. The movie industry has it better in that it has more outlets for its content, but still it costs a lot to make movies and most of them don't make a lot more than it cost to make them. If a movie doesn't much much more than it cost to make it, then it lost money effectively, because that (large amount of) money could have been invested elsewhere for a much better return, and you won't get people to invest that kind of money without a good ROI.
Quote:
I absolutely disagree that pirating exceeds legitimate purchases.If that was true, why are Apple and Amazon making incredible amounts of money selling music?

Here again, you are factually incorrect. The number of songs downloaded illegally in a couple of months is around what Apple has sold in the entire history of iTunes. The music industry's sales are down by half from the year that the Naptser case widely publicized the free availability of music on the internet, and created the anti-IP owner propoganda machine that permeates the internet today.

*Apple and Amazon* don't pay for the production of the content, so they aren't particularly hurt by losses, they mostly only gain from sales. Think about it. It's the people who pay to produce the content who lose when content is stolen. BTW, Apple more or less claims that it's never even made a profit from sales of content via iTunes. And that's probably not THAT far from true. They want to have an iTunes so that they can sell you expensive, high margin hardware. If they make a little money selling you some legal content, that's great, but not essential.

Quote:
The easiest media to pirate, yet people buy it instead. How many people know--or bother to learn--how to download a 40GB Bluray.

They don't need to. One person buys it, does a high quality down conversion and uploads that. And most people would be more than happy to download that instead of purchase the Blu-Ray. And of course the more that it's possible to generate revenues from providing pirated content, the easier it can be made to provide that content to non-technical people, with fast downloads because you have the revenues to build the infrastructure to do so.
Quote:
Yes, people are copying rentals, but as I describe above that could be addressed easily. Also, consider this: In today's environment, does the copying of a rental really cost the studio anything? The studio gets their revenue from the rental in the first place.

The studio both loses revenue, because people just rip and return immediately, so fewer discs are required to meet the demand. And the fact that they can rip and return means they don't need to buy something that they would like to keep around, so they lose sales as well. When someone is walking through the grocery store and they see a movie on the shelf, and it costs $19, how many will buy it vs. thinking, I could just put that on my Netflix queue, it'll be here in a couple days and I can rip it and keep it instead.
Quote:
When business embraces new technology, they inevitably make a fortune.

This is a statement that is true (mostly) but basically meaningless to this discussion. There ARE people making a fortune, but they are mostly people making money off of the content without having to pay the price to generate the content. And the movie industry HAS embraced new technology. They spent a lot of money creating and adopting the DVD and BluRay formats.
Quote:
Where would the studios be without the huge revenues they are getting from legal downloads? Worse off, for sure. Yet they fought that for a long time.

Again, they are not huge. The revenues from legal downloads doesn't even cover the losses from downloading, hence why the music industry is imploding. You need to do some research I think. And of course, of what they do still sell, the price is going down more and more to try to offset losses from piracy, but it also lowers revenues. Compared to the cost of a CD when they first came out, in real terms adjusted for inflation, a CD is something around 3 times less than what it was. How many things do you buy today cost 3x less than they did decades ago? But of course people still use the high price of music to justify stealing it.
Quote:
Declining revenues are due to poor content. Revenues from good content are skyrocketing.

This is absolutely not true. You really are quite misinformed. It's well proven that the most popular stuff is the most downloaded. Since both the music and movie industries depend the most on the revenues from those things that happen to do particularly well, they are MOST hurt by downloading of the most popular stuff. And of course you have to explain why people would download stuff they that they think is bad. They don't. They download what they want, and that is the most popular stuff.

Even the (quite conservative) Harvard study, in its second version, estimated a loss of 20% to pirating. And this is a study that initially, maybe five years earlier in the first round, argued that there was no loss. Of course that first version of the study was very widely quoted on the internet, the second one not nearly so much so. Most industries, if they had 20% losses from theft, would be taking their security people out back and shooting them. And that's likely a quite conservative estimate, actually it's almost guaranteed to be, given the massive decline in sales of legal music since Napster.
Quote:
It really comes down to what's right. Will our government, will the Obama administration, protect consumer rights--or will they be bought off? I believe that as a consumer I should have the right to consume content I have legally purchased as I see fit. In the end, that will be best for everyone, consumer and business alike.

There's no such right per se. It's perfectly legal for a company that sells a product to require that you agree to usage limitations before they sell to you. It's not a product required for life or liberty, it's entertainment content. You aren't being stripped of any human right if you can either buy the product and agree to the usage limitations, or not buy it at all. Or sign up for some streaming service that will allow you to do what you want to do.

And, so far, it's NOT been best for businesses, at least not the ones who foot the bill to generate the content. It's been GREAT for people who provide the means to do the stealing, storing, and playing. And, furthermore, that damage has been done within less than 20 years of the internet going public, so MOST of the population up to now has been pre-downloading born people who were used to buying content. That group will get smaller and smaller over time.
Edited by Dean Roddey - 11/7/12 at 1:14pm
post #133 of 491
Very well put Dean. I don't know where people come up with the idea that piracy does not hurt anybody. Digital download sales may be increasing but net income to the music industry has plummeted over the last decade.
post #134 of 491
....aaaand this is why I just illegally download to begin with wink.gif
post #135 of 491
I think it's pretty obvious where they come up with it. One of the biggest jobs of the internet is to convince people that stealing is OK, that the people being stolen from are always insanely rich people or pampered rock stars who deserve to be stolen from, or (alternatively) the music industry always stole from the artist so let's steal from the music industry (as though that doesn't hurt the artists even worse), that reports of losses are grossly overblown, that profits are always going up. There's a vast amount of such content out there on the net. And some blatantly incorrect 'facts' as well, almost always put out by those who stand to gain from theft of content.

Even worse, often disguised as a fight for 'freedom of the internet', which is just hugely hypocritical. Not that some people don't geniunely want to keep the internet a wild west for honest (if perhaps misplaced) reasons. But there's an awful lot of using freedom of the internet as a means to protect the ability for people to steal content with minimal risk.
post #136 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by nastynice View Post

....aaaand this is why I just illegally download to begin with wink.gif

Case in point...
post #137 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by bootman_head_fi View Post

Good points.
Let me add, make it affordable and even less people will pirate.
I'll personally buy tons of HD movies with HD audio in a ripped format for media server use if they were say $5 vs $30 now for your average new release with dvd, bluray and itunes versions. But i want full HD PQ and HD audio.
No crappy down rez versions like you get off Pirate bay. (you know what I mean...) tongue.gif

Exactly! Most of the Blurays I've bought I've found on sale for $5 to $10, So you can buy TONs of movies now and put them full res and uncompressed on a media player. Check out Best Buy's Black Friday sales and stock up. New releases cost more, that's the way of everything. Wait 6 months and they go on sale. Take "The Avengers". I rented it first day off Netflix. Kept it for a few days till all the kids had a chance to watch it, then returned it. I'll buy it for $12 in 6 months to a year. In the meantime, if I want to watch it again I'll get it from Netflix again. Seriously, where is the incentive to pirate--for the vast majority anyways?

@ Dean. Wow, you've bought a lot of propaganda hook, line and sinker. First off, any numbers on the amount of piracy is pure guesswork. Second, Absolutely sales of music are down. Duh. Have you heard the crap they're putting out??? But seriously, you don't think downloaded music is making vast sums of money? Really? Reaalllyyy??? You think Apple got to be the most valuable company in the world selling Ipads? Really? You haven't heard that Amazon is selling Kindles at cost so they can get more content sales? Really? You think the music industry would be making more money if downloaded music didn't exist? Really? You think it's easy to download an uncompressed Bluray file, and that more than a very few people know how to do it? Really? Tried downloading a 40GB file lately? Sure maybe a few people are doing it, but not many in the grand scheme of things. You think it's surprising that crappy movies often don't make a profit? Really? And you think piracy is to blame for that? Really? You don't think the studios are making much money off of iTunes and Amazon? Really?

You say there is no right to entertainment... blah, blah, blah. Duh. I said SHOULD, did you not get that? If the administration ends up in the pockets of the industry, no we won't have that right. If the administration cares about the people, then yes, we will end up with that right.

Netflix: Sure, some people copy Netflix movies. But really, do you think there's all that many that do? Why for God's sake? Where's the incentive? You can get it again any time you want without the hassle of ripping it, storing it, backing the storage up or setting up RAID, etc, etc. If the Studios believed they were losing money overall, do you really think they'd be supplying Netflix with movies? Of course not, that would be too stupid even for them. So, obviously, the Netflix model makes money for the studios, it does not cost them money overall. And if the studios embraced the technology--rather than fighting it--they could drastically cut down on what piracy there is vis-à-vis Netflix. I've outlined a few easy ways to do just that in my posts here.

Music: People want to play music on their devices, not from CDs. That's what's driven the vast majority of all music sales over the last 10 years. Without it, sales would be even worse than you have now. It doesn't really take a lot of intellect to figure that out. Put out better music, sales will go up. Duh. Put out better movies, sales will go up. For you to claim that it is not true that declining sales are related to poor content is ludicrous. People. Will. Not. Buy. Crap. At least not in high volume.rolleyes.gif To claim that downloaded music has hurt the music industry is equally ludicrous. How many of todays' young people would be walking around carrying CD walkmans listening to music if that was their only option. Not very many. The combination of poor content and no downloadable music would be far worse for the studios than just the poor content they have today.

BTW, I never said Piracy didn't hurt anyone or wasn't bad. In fact, I said quite the opposite. It's just that I believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for both business and consumer. I also don't believe piracy is hurting the industry as much as they'd like us to believe. It is a fact that there are ways to fight piracy without limiting choices for the consumer. Again, I have outlined a few of them in my posts, and those are just off the top of my head. Further thought would result in even better options, obviously. I believe that business would be better off embracing a pro-consumer attitude; I believe revenues would be higher in the long run. History has proven this to be correct in the past. The only way to find out for sure would be to try it of course. It should be a great comfort to the studios that every time it's been tried in the past, it has turned out wonderfully for all involved.
post #138 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsoccer33 View Post

Very well put Dean. I don't know where people come up with the idea that piracy does not hurt anybody. Digital download sales may be increasing but net income to the music industry has plummeted over the last decade.

Of course it has. The quality of music being released over the last decade has also plummeted over the last decade. Maybe it's just me, but do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship there?

It's a lot easier for Music Executives to blame piracy rather than to admit to themselves--and everybody else--that they've been incompetent at their jobs.
post #139 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

Of course it has. The quality of music being released over the last decade has also plummeted over the last decade. Maybe it's just me, but do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship there?
It's a lot easier for Music Executives to blame piracy rather than to admit to themselves--and everybody else--that they've been incompetent at their jobs.

YOU think it's not so good, probably because you are older than 18. Therefore the bulk of the music isn't being made for you, it's being made for young people, as it always has. And of course it if were so heinous, why are they downloading it by the shipload? They are downloading it because THEY don't think it sucks. I don't agree with them either, but nonetheless it's their music and they like it.

So it's just a very common fallacy to try to argue that sales is down because the music being made sucls. If that were true, the most downloaded stuff would be music from previous generations, but it's not. Lady Gaga has more views on Youtube for single videos than The Smashing Pumpkins probably has in total, though I'd certainly argue that TSP was a vastly more talented outfit. But if everyone else agreed, then the numbers wouldn't be what they are.

So, please let's drop this argument because it's just proveably not true and just muddies the waters.
post #140 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

YOU think it's not so good, probably because you are older than 18. Therefore the bulk of the music isn't being made for you, it's being made for young people, as it always has. And of course it if were so heinous, why are they downloading it by the shipload? They are downloading it because THEY don't think it sucks. I don't agree with them either, but nonetheless it's their music and they like it.
So it's just a very common fallacy to try to argue that sales is down because the music being made sucls. If that were true, the most downloaded stuff would be music from previous generations, but it's not. Lady Gaga has more views on Youtube for single videos than The Smashing Pumpkins probably has in total, though I'd certainly argue that TSP was a vastly more talented outfit. But if everyone else agreed, then the numbers wouldn't be what they are.
So, please let's drop this argument because it's just proveably not true and just muddies the waters.

No, you're wrong. Sorry. You've neglected a few very important facts. Of course young people like new music better than old. That isn't the issue. That's a fact of being a new generation. What IS important is that young people today do not like their music as much as young people liked their music 10 years ago, and even less than young people liked their music 20 years ago. Today's music does not inspire positive emotions. It does not uplift. Young people are not as passionate about their music as past generations, because it isn't as good. It's not that there aren't good musicians out there, there are. Part of it is because fewer good musicians get picked up by the music industry. The Industry favors a formula of music that generates quick bucks but no passion. I have heard FAR better bands in small clubs than those that publish today. Bands that not only rock me with their talent, but inspire passion and emotion from the 20 somethings in the crowd. The crap the industry puts out is bought by young people because they see it as "their" music, as young people have always done and always will do. But so much of it is talent-less, downbeat and uninspired that the sales suffer. And THAT is provably true.
post #141 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

Of course it has. The quality of music being released over the last decade has also plummeted over the last decade. Maybe it's just me, but do you think there might be a cause and effect relationship there?
It's a lot easier for Music Executives to blame piracy rather than to admit to themselves--and everybody else--that they've been incompetent at their jobs.

thats subjective. nsync sold several million copies of no strings attached in a week. that wouldnt happen now because the thing wouldve leaked a month or two prior.
post #142 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

@ Dean. Wow, you've bought a lot of propaganda hook, line and sinker. First off, any numbers on the amount of piracy is pure guesswork. Second, Absolutely sales of music are down. Duh. Have you heard the crap they're putting out??? But seriously, you don't think downloaded music is making vast sums of money? Really? Reaalllyyy??? You think Apple got to be the most valuable company in the world selling Ipads? Really?

I'm not going to address all of this, some of which I already clearly addressed in my previous response to you. As to what they are putting out, see my post above. As to Apple being the most valuable company in the world selling iPads, well yes that's EXACTLY how they did it, that and iPhones. They don't make much profit from iTunes. All you have to do it look at the numbers and you'd know this is the case. The stock market doesn't care about iTunes, but they watch every move on the iPad front because that's where Apple makes its money. Feel free to confirm this yourself.

Here is a (crude) graph of the breakdown of Apple's revenues. Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.wingsofreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Apple-Revenues-Slopegraph2.png

Quote:
You haven't heard that Amazon is selling Kindles at cost so they can get more content sales? Really?

This is pretty irrelevant to the argument, but just to respond... Books have not been available in electronic, or even electrical, form until very recently. When a company is trying to create a new industry, they will often sell an enabling technology at or below price in order to help corner that market.

Quote:
You think the music industry would be making more money if downloaded music didn't exist? Really? You think it's easy to download an uncompressed Bluray file, and that more than a very few people know how to do it? Really? Tried downloading a 40GB file lately? Sure maybe a few people are doing it, but not many in the grand scheme of things. You think it's surprising that crappy movies often don't make a profit? Really? And you think piracy is to blame for that? Really? You don't think the studios are making much money off of iTunes and Amazon? Really?

This has already been addressed. They clearly DID make a lot more money before downloading. And I already indicated that no one generally needs to download an uncompressed Bluray, just like very few people download full resolution CD tracks. And no, the studios are not making a lot of money from iTunes and Amazon's digital downloading. This is fact, not speculation. Of course if you consider anything more than what you earn to be a lot, then yeh, they do. Compared to what they have lost to downloading, they are not. Apple takes a third of the revenues right off the top as well.
Quote:
Netflix: Sure, some people copy Netflix movies. But really, do you think there's all that many that do? Why for God's sake? Where's the incentive? You can get it again any time you want without the hassle of ripping it, storing it, backing the storage up or setting up RAID, etc, etc.

If that were try, why would anyone buy any movie? They do it so that they can keep them around. And of course a lot of them are not getting blurays, they are ripping DVDs which can be as small as 3GB apiece. You can buy terabyte drives now.
Quote:
If the Studios believed they were losing money overall, do you really think they'd be supplying Netflix with movies? Of course not, that would be too stupid even for them. So, obviously, the Netflix model makes money for the studios, it does not cost them money overall.

The studios don't have to 'supply' Netflix. No one needs the permission of IP owners to rent legitimate copies of content. Netflix may of course have deals with the studios, given their volume, but they don't need it. If the studios didn't want them to exist, they couldn't stop it. And I'm sure that the studios do make money from Netflix, but they are also losing a lot of sales in the process. They don't have much choice to take what they can get.
Quote:
And if the studios embraced the technology--rather than fighting it--they could drastically cut down on what piracy there is vis-à-vis Netflix. I've outlined a few easy ways to do just that in my posts here.

There is no technological solution for piracy. There just isn't.
Quote:
Put out better music, sales will go up. Duh. Put out better movies, sales will go up. For you to claim that it is not true that declining sales are related to poor content is ludicrous. People. Will. Not. Buy. Crap. At least not in high volume.rolleyes.gif

Wow, it's particularly interesting to see someone be so wrong in such a righteous way. You are proveably wrong, just look at the numbers. Go to Youtube and see how many downloads Katy Perry, Gaga, Biebier, etc... have. You really think that all those views were from people who hated that music? Of couse not. This is just a fallacious argument that never seems to go away. *I* don't care for it, but what I like doesn't defined good or bad for anyone but me.
Quote:
To claim that downloaded music has hurt the music industry is equally ludicrous. How many of todays' young people would be walking around carrying CD walkmans listening to music if that was their only option. Not very many. The combination of poor content and no downloadable music would be far worse for the studios than just the poor content they have today.

This is a meaningless statement because legal digital downloads DO exist and have for a long time, as do streaming services. But, nonetheless, sales have plummeted over the the last 10 years. And, no suprise, the peak was reached like a year after Napster publicized the issue widely. It's been downhill ever since.

Actually, it's a kind of bizzare statement. Yes, things would be worse if there was no digital sales available, since then they would be getting zero percent of digital downloads. But that doesn't mean that the losses that the internet have created aren't much larger than the digital sales have made up for. Overall it's been a disaster for the music industry.
post #143 of 491
Okey doke, Where do I start? LOL

You're using a "WingsOfReason" chart to prove your point? Really? LOL

Netflix doesn't need the studios? Wow, I'll need to make sure and let my nephew who was an executive at Netflix know that. He can call his buddies there and let them know, they'll be thrilled. Netflix's revenues are about to take a big jump! Buy some stock now! You think Netflix would work if they had to go out and buy the discs retail, or even wholesale??? You wrote "No one needs the permission of IP owners to rent legitimate copies of content." Really, I can go and rent out the movies I've bought? Cool! I'll be sure and use your quote as my defense when I am inevitably sued and/or arrested. rolleyes.gif Seriously, this ENTIRE discussion is about what buyers of content can and can't do with that content.

You are correct, there is no way to stop piracy, just as there is no way to stop any crime. But it can be limited. In fact, it would be fairly easy to stop most pirating of rented movies. Not all, but most. I've detailed a few easy steps to start, which I notice you've failed to note any flaws with--other than to just say piracy can't be stopped.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm really sorry that you're wrong... wink.gifbiggrin.gif
post #144 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

Okey doke, Where do I start? LOL
You're using a "WingsOfReason" chart to prove your point? Really? LOL

It was a conveniently available graph. I didn't see any other evidence that the numbers were substantially different. They are a public company and this informaiton is available. They clearly make the bulk of their money from iPads and iPhones, not from iTunes.
Quote:
Netflix doesn't need the studios? Wow, I'll need to make sure and let my nephew who was an executive at Netflix know that. He can call his buddies there and let them know, they'll be thrilled. Netflix's revenues are about to take a big jump! Buy some stock now! You think Netflix would work if they had to go out and buy the discs retail, or even wholesale???

I meant in a legal sense, they don't need the permission of the studios. As I said, they may well have deals with the studios given their bulk.
Quote:
You wrote "No one needs the permission of IP owners to rent legitimate copies of content." Really, I can go and rent out the movies I've bought? Cool! I'll be sure and use your quote as my defense when I am inevitably sued and/or arrested. rolleyes.gif Seriously, this ENTIRE discussion is about what buyers of content can and can't do with that content.

You do not need the permission of IP owners to rent legitimately purchased copies of movies or music. *Copyright" is exactly what it says, it's the right to control the making of copies. Renting legitimately purchased discs doesn't make new copies, so it is perfectly legal to do so. As I understand it, during the VHS era, the studios held that rental stores had to buy special rental copies (at a higher price than retail.) That was challenged and they lost, and rightfully so since copyright wasn't being violated. As long as you are not creating new copies, what you do with the disc is your business. You can resell it, you can rent it.

As a practical matter, if the rental business couldn't make a reasonable profit without getting a lower cost per copy by buying in bulk, then that's a de facto type of leverage. But it's not a legal one.

If you have any proof that this is not true, I would like to see it. Otherwise, I'd back off on the rolling eyes stuff.
post #145 of 491
rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif
biggrin.gif

OK, now I'm being immature. Can't help it, just took my pain meds.
post #146 of 491
post #147 of 491
I could be wrong on the law on that one, you could be right. Of course, that makes everything even more nonsensical. It's OK to rent out and make a profit of of a disc I buy, but if I backup that disc for my own personal use, that's a bad thing? OK, I just took some legally prescribed pain meds for an injury, but even I can see the stupidity in that. Can't you?????? rolleyes.gif Oops, did it again! biggrin.gif
post #148 of 491
As has been already pointed out multiple times above, it's really not about you making a copy for personal use. If there was some way to allow you to do that, without effectively opening Pandora's box, I'm sure that all would be fine. But currently there really isn't.

IP owners may well wish the rental business didn't exist, but they can't stop it. So they might as well get what they can out of it. Same with (legal) digital downloads. It's there, so they might as well get what benefits they can, though it doesn't make up for what's lost due to illegal downloads (which they currently can't do much about.)
post #149 of 491
I don't think we're really as far apart on this as it seems. I'm guessing this conversation over a beer instead of the internet would go better.

Amazon and B&N are looking to sell a lot more content than just ebooks. Digital content sales are producing vast sums of money, and will continue to increase. That really isn't debatable. Whethor sales are higher or lower than they would be without downloadable music--both pirated and legal--is impossible to discern. We could argue or days, or years, and still neither could prove their position. I believe sales are far higher than they would be otherwise, even with the losses due to pirating. You do not. In the end, it does not matter, because there was only one rational choice for the music industry: Embrace downloaded music. Had they not done that, their sales would be far lower; that is unarguable. Whatever the ratio is now between legal and pirated music, it would be much, much worse if not for legal downloads.

I think if the movie industry embraced copying technology, they could do more to fight Piracy than they do now. That's mainly what I'm saying. Can they stop it? no. But could they do more than they can now? Yes, I believe so. I could be wrong. But I believe producers of programs like DVDFab and AnyDVD would be interested in an agreement that would result in a more stable environment. I think builders of media players like Dune would at least listen to proposals to help limit playback from rental copies in exchange for assurances that retail copies would remain playable for the original purchaser. There are technical means to achieve these things. Will they be 100%? No. Will they limit piracy more than it is limited now? Yes. Will it encourage some number of additional sales of new discs? I believe it will. Win-win for everybody.
post #150 of 491
But again, you have to consider that Amazon and B&N don't pay to produce the content. The situation for them is very different. Their revenues may fluctuate up and down as piracy goes up and down, but it's not relative to money spent on producing the content. So it makes vastly less difference to them. So if producing a device that helps them sell more e-books actually works, then that's great. As long as they aren't losing more making the hardware, then they are benefiting. For the folks who have to pay to produce the content, then piracy is money out of their pockets literally, because they are not being compensated for creating the content.
Quote:
Digital content sales are producing vast sums of money, and will continue to increase. That really isn't debatable

It doesn't matter how much money it generates, it matters how much money it generates relative to the cost of producing the content, and relative to what they were making before downloading began. That is now vastly lower, and it's destroying the music industry. The music industry's product is unprotected, and therefore it's clear from facts on the ground what happens to industries that cannot protect their content. They will implode. There are very few high quality music studios today as compared to 15 years ago, because the music industry can't really support them anymore. Do you really want that happening to movies?


Your mentioned technical ideas probably aren't really doable. If the technology was there to do that, then we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with since the IP owners could protect their content.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal