Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The war against movie piracy is getting downright explosive. The producers of the Oscar-winning "The Hurt Locker" are preparing a massive lawsuit against thousands of individuals who pirated the film online. The case could be filed as soon as Wednesday.

Voltage Pictures, the banner behind the best picture winner, has signed up with the U.S. Copyright Group, the Washington D.C.-based venture that, as first reported in March, has begun a litigation campaign targeting tens of thousands of BitTorrent users.

According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit should be filed this week. He declines to say exactly how many individuals will be targeted, but expect the number to be in the tens of thousands, if not more. "Locker" first leaked onto the web more than five months before its U.S. release and was a hot item in P2P circles after it won six Oscars in March. Despite the accolades, the film grossed only about $16 million in the U.S. -end snip

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ia3e81d4dc935f423aef090323c40270a

Thoughts?

never heard of the movie... also i hope at least one of those thousand ppl kill the guys who sues them and their lawyer..

in mexico piracy isnt ilegal. there are vendors on the street selling bootlegs in front of walmart or just about anywhere for like 2 bucks in pesos.

the studios should get on their asses more for letting citizens of another country sell that stuff. sure its in another country and the laws are different. but if they want to keep it that way then the studios shouldnt be sending the mexican versions to retailers to sell if its ok to buy them and copy them and not get in trouble.

another thing that would help a little with piracy is if movies came out on the same date at the theater all over the world including dvd releases. there would be less piracy if they did it that way.

People still use things like bittorrent/download to see films...

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
never heard of the movie... also i hope at least one of those thousand ppl kill the guys who sues them and their lawyer..

Why?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why?

Because they're trying to impose on our freedom to piracy.

It's really their own fault for not taking care of their movie-screeners.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because they're trying to impose on our freedom to piracy.

It's really their own fault for not taking care of their movie-screeners.

This reminds me of the discussion here where someone claimed it was his natural right to kill repo-men.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This reminds me of the discussion here where someone claimed it was his natural right to kill repo-men.

Freedom.

Originally posted by Robtard
Freedom. not anymore

All this being said, its sad the producers aren't a little bit more creative. There are tonnes of people making a lot of money from internet distribution, and many TV shows are available, legally, to be streamed from sites. Advertising shemes that are still tolerable for the viewer are available today that would have allowed the Hurt Locker studio to turn those downloaded copies into profit with almost no change to accessibility from the user.

For instance, Global TV puts all new eppisodes of The Office on its site to stream with small comercials 3 times in the show and banner ads. I havn't pirated The Office since.

Originally posted by inimalist
All this being said, its sad the producers aren't a little bit more creative. There are tonnes of people making a lot of money from internet distribution, and many TV shows are available, legally, to be streamed from sites. Advertising shemes that are still tolerable for the viewer are available today that would have allowed the Hurt Locker studio to turn those downloaded copies into profit with almost no change to accessibility from the user.

For instance, Global TV puts all new eppisodes of The Office on its site to stream with small comercials 3 times in the show and banner ads. I havn't pirated The Office since.

I honestly think they're butt-hurt over Hurt Locker not making much money from cinema revenues, despite the movie being so heavily lauded as "great".

It's their fault though, the advertising for the flick was almost nonexistent when the film first opened.

Originally posted by inimalist
All this being said, its sad the producers aren't a little bit more creative. There are tonnes of people making a lot of money from internet distribution, and many TV shows are available, legally, to be streamed from sites. Advertising shemes that are still tolerable for the viewer are available today that would have allowed the Hurt Locker studio to turn those downloaded copies into profit with almost no change to accessibility from the user.

For instance, Global TV puts all new eppisodes of The Office on its site to stream with small comercials 3 times in the show and banner ads. I havn't pirated The Office since. kinda like the southparkstudios.com site as well you can watch all the episodes but if you try to download one it downloads one of the comercials in between.

Originally posted by Robtard
I honestly think they're butt-hurt over Hurt Locker not making much money from cinema revenues, despite the movie being so heavily lauded as "great".

It's their fault though, the advertising for the flick was almost nonexistent when the film first opened.

I'm sure there are some angry investors who are trying to be appeased with finger pointing and promises of a legal pay-day.

But totally, I hadn't heard anything about it until the Oscars. Didn't see it though, I never really understood what was supposed to be great about it...

Originally posted by chomperx9
kinda like the southparkstudios site as well you can watch all the episodes but if you try to download one it downloads one of the comercias in between.

exactly

going this route even reduces the number of people who keep the file on their PC, thus reducing the number of people who could be sharing it p2p.

Radiohead's "in rainbows" ablum is probably one of the best examples of this whole thing, but it is true that there are very few people producing media with the standing of thom york

Originally posted by inimalist
exactly

going this route even reduces the number of people who keep the file on their PC, thus reducing the number of people who could be sharing it p2p.

Radiohead's "in rainbows" ablum is probably one of the best examples of this whole thing, but it is true that there are very few people producing media with the standing of thom york what would reduce a % of piracy as well is if studios would release there films at the theater the same date all over the world. like i listed above.

sometimes they come out at the theater 1st in europe or japan and from there those guys put the videos on torrent site for the rest of the world to get a look at the movie before it comes out in their country. thats costing the theaters money as well.

Originally posted by inimalist
All this being said, its sad the producers aren't a little bit more creative. There are tonnes of people making a lot of money from internet distribution, and many TV shows are available, legally, to be streamed from sites. Advertising shemes that are still tolerable for the viewer are available today that would have allowed the Hurt Locker studio to turn those downloaded copies into profit with almost no change to accessibility from the user.

For instance, Global TV puts all new episodes of The Office on its site to stream with small comercials 3 times in the show and banner ads. I havn't pirated The Office since.

Absolutely. Making the stuff more available is a great way to kill piracy. I used to pirate anime, but since a lot of series are available in Hulu (FMA:Brotherhood woo!) I don't bother anymore. Hopefully that sort of thing will become more common.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Absolutely. Making the stuff more available is a great way to kill piracy. I used to pirate anime, but since a lot of series are available in Hulu (FMA:Brotherhood woo!) I don't bother anymore. Hopefully that sort of thing will become more common.


I have never pirated. I have gotten illegal copies from people, via USB sticks, but that's as far as I got with that shit.


I quoted you because the only thing I download to where it could be considered even remotely illegal is fan subs. It's a gray area.



But, what inimalist said is the best: just put that shit online and stream it, bro. STREAM!

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/04/tv-economics-101-why.html

interesting read

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/04/tv-economics-101-why.html

So piracy is justified. I can't see it for free legally and if I try to watch it free illegally they will use a threat of force to stop me. Clearly the best course of action is to stand up the attack on my sense of entitlement.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So piracy is justified. I can't see it for free legally and if I try to watch it free illegally they will use a threat of force to stop me. Clearly the best course of action is to stand up the attack on my sense of entitlement.

I'm not sure if you are doing your usual extremist/objectivist/freetard bit or not, but I think the issue is more complex than that anyways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not sure if you are doing your usual extremist/objectivist/freetard bit or not, but I think the issue is more complex than that anyways.

Well the issues are:
can the stations stream shows for free legally and at least break even?
is it allowable to pirate shows you can't see for free?
is it okay to shoot people who sue you for pirating their stuff? (which Wild Shadow said he hope would happen on the first page)

this is what someone should do..

H9zy37-_0LU

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This reminds me of the discussion here where someone claimed it was his natural right to kill repo-men.

Repomen are always ass-holes. The first rule of a job interview is being friendly; so how do they do it? Do they put on a mask during their interview, or what?

Like 11 or 12 years ago, one came to my house to repo my truck. I came close to beating the fool's ass, but I didn't wanna spend the night in the slammer. And it wasn't because he was gonna repo my ride (that's just him doing his job), it was because of his attitude. I think they get a power-trip from doing what they do.

That's why stuff like this happens: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21592566/detail.html
http://www.wkrg.com/financial/article/repo_man_shot_killed/22451/Jan-08-2009_12-09-pm/
http://www.truthblue.com/2010/03/repo-man-shot-while-taking-car-in-conn.html

Originally posted by Robtard
The war against movie piracy is getting downright explosive. The producers of the Oscar-winning "The Hurt Locker" are preparing a massive lawsuit against thousands of individuals who pirated the film online. The case could be filed as soon as Wednesday.

Voltage Pictures, the banner behind the best picture winner, has signed up with the U.S. Copyright Group, the Washington D.C.-based venture that, as first reported in March, has begun a litigation campaign targeting tens of thousands of BitTorrent users.

According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit should be filed this week. He declines to say exactly how many individuals will be targeted, but expect the number to be in the tens of thousands, if not more. "Locker" first leaked onto the web more than five months before its U.S. release and was a hot item in P2P circles after it won six Oscars in March. Despite the accolades, the film grossed only about $16 million in the U.S. -end snip

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ia3e81d4dc935f423aef090323c40270a

Thoughts?

Hahaha...You're only posting this cos it means you. Please don't give them my address...Thanks.

Odd though that if it hadn't been pirated long before it was released then I don't think it would have been as popular as it was because most of the hype was spread by word of mouth long before it was tipped for any awards.

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/04/tv-economics-101-why.html

The gent who wrote that article seems a little biased towards TV licensing. It's quite easy to build a global network of advertisers, cost little to produce an online ad (sometimes), and the ads are extremely easy to embed into a streaming service (because they are like templates).

The market is resistant to change. They are not used to making money from online ads.

The person in the article said this:

"Someone will probably find a way to make real money streaming online soon, and then the business model will shift (again) and you'll see more episodes of TV online. Until that happens, this is why you don't see more shows online."

dur dur dur dur dur dur

Netflix and Blockbuster. dur dur

Netflix much more so than BB, of course.

If there was NOT a TV market to begin with, the online streaming market would make a lot more money. The writer in the article doesn't seem to realize this and, instead, thinks the online market a second, very low, option. Which makes me face palm.


Of course, the viewer have to be setup to watch online in their "main viewing area", and that's another problem. It's a slow change but it is happening. I only watch online shows, now. I rent movies for the rest through netflix.

I am way too busy to even care about whether or not I'm watching a movie that came out 6 months ago or 6 days ago, so I'm not up to date on how the whole piracy thing is going in terms of quality.

The only thing I can really form an opinion on is that the few times I've watched someone's copy of a film that was still in the theaters, it strongly resembled a person's point of view when they're two seconds away from vomiting. Blurry, shaky, and with distorted audio.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well the issues are:
can the stations stream shows for free legally and at least break even?
is it allowable to pirate shows you can't see for free?
is it okay to shoot people who sue you for pirating their stuff? (which Wild Shadow said he hope would happen on the first page)

Issue one and two I'd agree with, three is of course insane everyone sees that, but I'd say there's probably more to the morality of pirating than just the "okay if you can't see it free" argument.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The gent who wrote that article seems a little biased towards TV licensing. It's quite easy to build a global network of advertisers, cost little to produce an online ad (sometimes), and the ads are extremely easy to embed into a streaming service (because they are like templates).

The market is resistant to change. They are not used to making money from online ads.

The person in the article said this:

"Someone will probably find a way to make real money streaming online soon, and then the business model will shift (again) and you'll see more episodes of TV online. Until that happens, this is why you don't see more shows online."

dur dur dur dur dur dur

Netflix and Blockbuster. dur dur

Netflix much more so than BB, of course.

If there was NOT a TV market to begin with, the online streaming market would make a lot more money. The writer in the article doesn't seem to realize this and, instead, thinks the online market a second, very low, option. Which makes me face palm.


Of course, the viewer have to be setup to watch online in their "main viewing area", and that's another problem. It's a slow change but it is happening. I only watch online shows, now. I rent movies for the rest through netflix.

He's talking about international problems. Your "Netflix and Blockbuster" doesn't fit so well with the article as they are solely doing that on a by country basis, I also don't know how much they make with the streaming part of their operation. Like he said there are problems with the ownership of the rights that make it complex to stream for other countries. Additionally you say it is easy to make and embed, however that doesn't really help when you don't get the returns on your advertisements. Also building a global network of advertisers is easy? Tell me how, I'd like to be a billionaire.

Though again, you live in America, you don't face the problems that this article addresses, to pretend they don't exist is silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He's talking about international problems. Your "Netflix and Blockbuster" doesn't fit so well with the article as they are solely doing that on a by country basis, I also don't know how much they make with the streaming part of their operation. Like he said there are problems with the ownership of the rights that make it complex to stream for other countries. Additionally you say it is easy to make and embed, however that doesn't really help when you don't get the returns on your advertisements. Also building a global network of advertisers is easy? Tell me how, I'd like to be a billionaire.

Though again, you live in America, you don't face the problems that this article addresses, to pretend they don't exist is silly.

It does fit well. Fits quite nicely. It's not entirely up to Netflix and Blockbuster to fill the holes in other countries. Other companies could easily startup and start streaming and it's in the producers' best interests, actually, because it maximizes revenue.

That wasn't about that bomb squad in Iraq was it...

Originally posted by dadudemon
It does fit well. Fits quite nicely. It's not entirely up to Netflix and Blockbuster to fill the holes in other countries. Other companies could easily startup and start streaming and it's in the producers' best interests, actually, because it maximizes revenue.

No, as he explained that would decrease their chances of getting shows picked up potentially losing a large chunk of money. Or pissing of the way people that make them money at the moment. You should address these points he makes in the article, because even if the things you said were true, and I think some of them are definitely harder than you make it out to be, those problems still stand.

You know I agree with you that streaming is the right way to go, but I can see that there are problems in the way of it that'll need to be addressed and solved first.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, as he explained that would decrease their chances of getting shows picked up potentially losing a large chunk of money.

You're thinking too closed mindedly, just like Craig. You're thinking the exact opposite of what you should be. You're too hung up on the classical distrubution of "TV." Thnk outside of the box for a change and, literally, not inside the TV box.

Slates and "large" screened mobile phones are taking us by storm. Soon, people will be able to watch TV while pooping, taking the dog for a walk, on their coffee break, at a family reunion, etc. It will become much more economically feasible to stream instead of distributing to a TV Station. They can host their own material. We may see a shift ware from actual telivision stations and more towards producers.


Don't get caught up on the classical delivery of media, like Craig obviously is. Already, people are producing "made for the internet" only shows, some of them quite popular. The first people to capitalize on this will make billions a year: See Netflix.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're thinking too closed mindedly, just like Craig. You're thinking the exact opposite of what you should be. You're too hung up on the classical distrubution of "TV." Thnk outside of the box for a change and, literally, not inside the TV box.

Slates and "large" screened mobile phones are taking us by storm. Soon, people will be able to watch TV while pooping, taking the dog for a walk, on their coffee break, at a family reunion, etc. It will become much more economically feasible to stream instead of distributing to a TV Station. They can host their own material. We may see a shift ware from actual telivision stations and more towards producers.


Don't get caught up on the classical delivery of media, like Craig obviously is. Already, people are producing "made for the internet" only shows, some of them quite popular. The first people to capitalize on this will make billions a year: See Netflix.

Like I said, I think you are ignoring the facts of the distribution model atm. Like he said he doesn't disagree with you he just sees the legal problems with it. Like, how do you think it should work, who buys the servers to bring the streaming stuff. And should they buy the different shows?

So yeah, in a perfect unicorn fart world you are right, this is easy peasy. Sadly that's not the world we are living in so that's why there's currently those problems, which hopefully will be resolved in time, as consumers and advertisers further understand the value of streaming to them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Like I said, I think you are ignoring the facts of the distribution model atm.

Like I said, I think you're stuck on the old-school and are getting hung up inside the box, just like Craig.

Nothing in your post brings anything new or relevant to the discussion. Don't waste my time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Like I said, I think you're stuck on the old-school and are getting hung up inside the box, just like Craig.

Nothing in your post brings anything new or relevant to the discussion. Don't waste my time.

Well, you are wrong in your argument. But since you are right about there not being anything new to be addressed we should indeed drop it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you are wrong in your argument. But since you are right about there not being anything new to be addressed we should indeed drop it.

No, you're wrong, as is Craig.

I'm glad some people aren't listening to marketing idiots like you and Craig.

...I'm not in marketing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...I'm not in marketing.

Right, because that was my point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, because that was my point.

I assume your point was that I am wrong and an idiot. I obviously can't convince you of that not being true as I have tried for 4 posts now, but perhaps I can convince you I am not in marketing, which for some reason you seem to think is the type of idiot I am...

I like watching movies at home.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, because that was my point.

ya, I didn't see where you were coming from either here

its like this:

reality is A
you are describing B

the path between A and B is going to step on a lot of toes and require at least as much as a shift in corporate distribution as has occured in the music industry. Unfortunatly, there is much more financial regulation over the distribution of shows vs the distribution of music, so it will be much harder and companies are going to be less motivated to put content online because of potential losses.

Now, we all love piracy, so we would all love it if it were stream-on-demand, but like you seem to be insinuating that there are no actual hurdles to getting there... As if the movie industry isn't going to be harder to "take down" than the music industry was.

It seems all you have done is restate the fact that there is potential, and then critisize bardock for pointing out the actual financial reasons that companies wont. Like, are you saying he is wrong? are you saying there are factual inaccuracies with what he is saying?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I assume your point was that I am wrong and an idiot. I obviously can't convince you of that not being true as I have tried for 4 posts now, but perhaps I can convince you I am not in marketing, which for some reason you seem to think is the type of idiot I am...

Correction: Marketing idiot, which happens to be exactly what we were talking about: marketing products to get as much market penetration as possible. (Selling it to distributors, etc.)


What you fail to realize is that media only has to be hosted once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Did you get that? Just once. Not twice, not in every single country. Just once. It is up to the distributor to offer language redirects to the material. The costs are far less when something is hosted just once. That's what both you and Craig don't realize. You both are hung up on trying to "sell" it to a TV station in another country when you don't have to. You only have to get past any sort of regulation in the hosted country and the "available in" countries. Your hosting team should be intelligent enough to alter redirects based on IP location (actually, it could be based off of ISP or certain origin gateways/hops), to alter the site for the common language or even offer to allow the language to be chosen. If the produce wants to dub or sub, they can, as that's their option and prerogative.


Not really hard to do.


Then you have the complaing of Ping time. That's legit, but not very much considering the stream will start eventually, anyway. That can be gotten around by simply having a 'smart' buffer download that auto-downloads similar to the auto-record feature in the TiVo OS. Ping time is really not an issue, but there are very simple technical ways around it for those people that detest a 1 or 2 second delay before a video starts. I'm aware that part of the appeal of the iPad is it's snappiness.


Do you want me to continue? I can, for pages and pages.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What you fail to realize is that media only has to be hosted once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Did you get that? Just once. Not twice, not in every single country. Just once. It is up to the distributor to offer language redirects to the material. The costs are far less when something is hosted just once. That's what both you and Craig don't realize. You both are hung up on trying to "sell" it to a TV station in another country when you don't have to. You only have to get past any sort of regulation in the hosted country and the "available in" countries. Your hosting team should be intelligent enough to alter redirects based on IP location (actually, it could be based off of ISP or certain origin gateways/hops), to alter the site for the common language or even offer to allow the language to be chosen. If the produce wants to dub or sub, they can, as that's their option and prerogative.

you are either describing illegal file hosting, which is rampant and we are trying to think of legal alternative to combat, or you are in fact describing the process which undermines potential profits (in the way companies design their business models) that companies are not willing to engage in anyways

who has said that, in theory, this type of hosting isn't preferable? All that has been pointed out is that the people who would make this possible are not willing to do it

Originally posted by dadudemon
Correction: Marketing idiot, which happens to be exactly what we were talking about: marketing products to get as much market penetration as possible. (Selling it to distributors, etc.)


What you fail to realize is that media only has to be hosted once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Just once. Did you get that? Just once. Not twice, not in every single country. Just once. It is up to the distributor to offer language redirects to the material. The costs are far less when something is hosted just once. That's what both you and Craig don't realize. You both are hung up on trying to "sell" it to a TV station in another country when you don't have to. You only have to get past any sort of regulation in the hosted country and the "available in" countries. Your hosting team should be intelligent enough to alter redirects based on IP location (actually, it could be based off of ISP or certain origin gateways/hops), to alter the site for the common language or even offer to allow the language to be chosen. If the produce wants to dub or sub, they can, as that's their option and prerogative.


Not really hard to do.


Then you have the complaing of Ping time. That's legit, but not very much considering the stream will start eventually, anyway. That can be gotten around by simply having a 'smart' buffer download that auto-downloads similar to the auto-record feature in the TiVo OS. Ping time is really not an issue, but there are very simple technical ways around it for those people that detest a 1 or 2 second delay before a video starts. I'm aware that part of the appeal of the iPad is it's snappiness.


Do you want me to continue? I can, for pages and pages.

Well, you still didn't answer who you think should host it. Should it be the owners of the property, or the channels that bought certain rights for it, or maybe a new middleman. It seems to me that you are perfectly right...in a copyright free world. However in this world we live in you have to be more pragmatic, and the best way to make money atm is by going the old distribution model, the risk of trying it only in streaming is immense, and if you want to do part old distribution you run into the problems of ownership that was described in the article and you rely on people who don't want streaming to happen as it would cut into their piece of the pie.

Originally posted by inimalist
you are either describing illegal file hosting, which is rampant and we are trying to think of legal alternative to combat, or you are in fact describing the process which undermines potential profits (in the way companies design their business models) that companies are not willing to engage in anyways

who has said that, in theory, this type of hosting isn't preferable? All that has been pointed out is that the people who would make this possible are not willing to do it

Damnit, edited out too much.

No, I'm not. It's not illegal. One file, one media cluster, bla bla bla. the server can ....forget it. Wait a while and I'll post on it in a bit. I'm too busy at work.


Won't happen very soon because places like the BBC want it on their own junk because they want to make money...so producer's or original funding studios (like ABC) sell contracts for it. That's where the problem is: cut out the middle man, which won't happen very quickly because there's too many chiefs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I'm not. I'm referring to file hosting, which only has to happen once. ABC.com only has to store the file in one media cluster, and use their media templates to add in advertisements, based on IP, origin hope/gateway, and, presto, you have one AV file, cut up, and advertised, for any place you get approval to "play" it in.

ok, this already exists.

We talked about southparkstudios before, which does exactly that

I still have to pirate south park, because the show is not allowed to be shown in my area. I could further break the law and start hiding my ip or changing where it is from, but elsewise, this doesn't stop me from pirating.

The problem you seem to be glossing over is that you wont get the approval to play it everywhere, and the market infrastructure really doesn't exist, yet, to provide that on a global basis.

I think its an enventuality, but that doesn't mean we can do anything, today.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, this already exists.

We talked about southparkstudios before, which does exactly that

I still have to pirate south park, because the show is not allowed to be shown in my area. I could further break the law and start hiding my ip or changing where it is from, but elsewise, this doesn't stop me from pirating.

The problem you seem to be glossing over is that you wont get the approval to play it everywhere, and the market infrastructure really doesn't exist, yet, to provide that on a global basis.

I think its an enventuality, but that doesn't mean we can do anything, today.

Thank the Lord you captured what I accidentally deleted. I didn't feel like typing that all out again because it had to be worded properly.



And, yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It is not what I'm glossing over, it's what I am literally calling the problem. That's what I've been talking about. "Local" channels want a slice of the pie when only the producers should be getting slices.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It is not what I'm glossing over, it's what I am literally calling the problem. That's what I've been talking about. "Local" channels want a slice of the pie when only the producers should be getting slices.

fair enough, there must have been a communication problem, because thats what I also figured Bardock was saying

I think we all want the same thing, and I guess we are all not happy with the current regieme of distribution

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you still didn't answer who you think should host it. Should it be the owners of the property, or the channels that bought certain rights for it, or maybe a new middleman..

Yes, to all of the above and no to some, and yes to others. Just depends on what the people want. In the end, it will be some sort of combination of the above with cable companies being data companies, instead. They will either have to focus on data busing or diversify. It's still a slow change as it will take a decade or two before things are the way I say they will be.


Originally posted by Bardock42
It seems to me that you are perfectly right...in a copyright free world.


No, I'm perfectly right, in the copyright world. Remove the copyrights and "my" ideas turn to complete and utter sh*t and the whole data hosting thing fails.



Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, there must have been a communication problem, because thats what I also figured Bardock was saying

I think we all want the same thing, and I guess we are all not happy with the current regieme of distribution

Sort of. Yes, Bardock, you, and I all want the same thing: access to media, instantly, for what we want to watch, when we want to watch it: video on demand. It's there already, but people don't want to pay $100 a month for it: it's quite clear with the Netflix project that they will pay abotu $30 a month for it...but still want more options.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I'm perfectly right, in the copyright world. Remove the copyrights and "my" ideas turn to complete and utter sh*t and the whole data hosting thing fails.

but we can dream, no?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Won't happen very soon because places like the BBC want it on their own junk because they want to make money...so producer's or original funding studios (like ABC) sell contracts for it. That's where the problem is: cut out the middle man, which won't happen very quickly because there's too many chiefs.

That's exactly what I (and I think the article) were saying. There's too many people profiting from it not being streamed, people that the owners of the property are reliant on atm, because that's where the money lies.

So yeah, if someone could create an online platform that would get creators of shows the same revenue the distribution model does at the moment, though that seems problematic at the moment

In this simplistic model there are 5 different interest groups. And due to the entangelment it is explained why there aren't more streaming sites at the moment

Consumer: Mostly watch TV, some do streaming what is availale, some pirate.

TV Studio: Own a show and need to maximize their profit. Get a lot of money from selling the rights to a TV Network in one country, hope to make money internationally by selling it internationally to other TV Networks, can't stream it nationally because they sold rights to TV Network, don't want to stream it internationally cause they have little ability to monetize it as there's no good way for them to connect to advertisers in every country and there's currently no working global model, and they don't want to hurt their chances of selling it to a network for a lot of money by making it available for free.

TV Network 1 country: Bought the rights to distribute it nationally (online or offline) makes a lot of money offline cause advertisers pay some prime buck for TV Commercials. Can make some money online, and perhaps win new viewers, but can only limit it to streaming nationally as their rights bought from the TV Studio don't cover international streaming and they'd find themselves in a lawsuit. Additionally they can only stream a certain amount nationally because of the Cable Providers.

Cable Provide: Don't want too many people to watch it online as they want to maximize their viewers as that's how they make money. And the TV Networks are reliant on their subscription based monetization

Advertiser: Know they can make a lot of money on TV. Know they can make some money online, though that is not nearly as mature. Can only make money with national viewers, as international viewers might not even be able to buy the products advertised.

That's the situation now, as described in the article, if you can convince the Advertisers, Consumers and TV Studios to bypass this system, you'll potentially make a lot of money, but it's just not as easy as a snap of the finger as you make it out to be.

We are on the same page it seems, you just villainized me and the article for some reason. I and, as I understand it, the author (although his job kinda depends on it) are on your side, we'd like it to happen, but he explained why it doesn't at the moment.

I assume you'll probably not read what I said again, cause I didn't admit you were 100% right in the first line, but I think that's how it is. If you have some constructive argument why I am totally wrong about what I said there I'd love to hear it, I am just tired of trying to set misconceived opinion of my argument straight.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sort of. Yes, Bardock, you, and I all want the same thing: access to media, instantly, for what we want to watch, when we want to watch it: video on demand. It's there already, but people don't want to pay $100 a month for it: it's quite clear with the Netflix project that they will pay abotu $30 a month for it...but still want more options.

indeed, my point would be that, if I wanted TV, I could pay a single price and have access to as much or as little TV, whenever I want it.

I'd be happy to pay money to my ISP that gave me unlimited access, and have them deal with it the way is done on TV.

I'm willing to admit that the price of bandwidth will increase (just naturally, inflation and increased demand) due to distribution and such, but I can't imagine this would be impossible. I'm no economist though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It is not what I'm glossing over, it's what I am literally calling the problem. That's what I've been talking about. "Local" channels want a slice of the pie when only the producers should be getting slices.

Okay, this is exactly, 100% what the article explained, and what I said. Why did you even argue with me?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, this is exactly, 100% what the article explained, and what I said. Why did you even argue with me?

Don't pretend that that was your idea: I pointed out that the actual problem is TV and local channels wanting a slice of it on their TVs. He did not say: "Let's get rid of TV type TV, and start doing TV streaming."

He said, "Someone will probably find a way to make real money streaming online soon, and then the business model will shift (again) and you'll see more episodes of TV online. Until that happens, this is why you don't see more shows online."

Which was completely stupid. It's already being done, and across borders, at times. He explained how things work, but he did not say he disagreed with it. In fact, he seemed to be keen on the idea of getting TV stations to make profits and he did not even consider cutting them out and going straight streaming. That was quite explicit: he's part of the problem. He can't think outside of his world, but only acknowledge it.


For instance: ABC funds a project...say....Lost. They should get to "air" the show anywhere in the world as long is it met the censorship or other regulatory requirements but NOT have to sell it to a local TV station in each country. THAT was my point. That was not his point.



Edit - I can see this is giong to take forever to hammer into your head, you'll still argue about something petty, and pretend something about something. I don't want to do that. Get it out of yoru system in one post.



Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, my point would be that, if I wanted TV, I could pay a single price and have access to as much or as little TV, whenever I want it.

I'd be happy to pay money to my ISP that gave me unlimited access, and have them deal with it the way is done on TV.

I'm willing to admit that the price of bandwidth will increase (just naturally, inflation and increased demand) due to distribution and such, but I can't imagine this would be impossible. I'm no economist though.

Technically, Bandwidth costs should actual decrease as time goes by until we hit a ceiling, and then they'll start to go up. Japan has 100Mbps for like $60 a month: we are still paying $60 a month for 20Mbps. We've got a long way to go before we catch up to them. Someone might say, "But teh japeneez government subciteez!" Snarf.

Not a big deal with a democrat in office pushing broadband penetration....teehee. We just need to get it down much faster and our shareholders need to stop being so short-sighted. I thought the housing bubble might take care of some of that short-sightedness...but I think I'm mistaken.


Originally posted by Bardock42
That's exactly what I (and I think the article) were saying. There's too many people profiting from it not being streamed, people that the owners of the property are reliant on atm, because that's where the money lies.

So yeah, if someone could create an online platform that would get creators of shows the same revenue the distribution model does at the moment, though that seems problematic at the moment

In this simplistic model there are 5 different interest groups. And due to the entangelment it is explained why there aren't more streaming sites at the moment

Consumer: Mostly watch TV, some do streaming what is availale, some pirate.

TV Studio: Own a show and need to maximize their profit. Get a lot of money from selling the rights to a TV Network in one country, hope to make money internationally by selling it internationally to other TV Networks, can't stream it nationally because they sold rights to TV Network, don't want to stream it internationally cause they have little ability to monetize it as there's no good way for them to connect to advertisers in every country and there's currently no working global model, and they don't want to hurt their chances of selling it to a network for a lot of money by making it available for free.

TV Network 1 country: Bought the rights to distribute it nationally (online or offline) makes a lot of money offline cause advertisers pay some prime buck for TV Commercials. Can make some money online, and perhaps win new viewers, but can only limit it to streaming nationally as their rights bought from the TV Studio don't cover international streaming and they'd find themselves in a lawsuit. Additionally they can only stream a certain amount nationally because of the Cable Providers.

Cable Provide: Don't want too many people to watch it online as they want to maximize their viewers as that's how they make money. And the TV Networks are reliant on their subscription based monetization

Advertiser: Know they can make a lot of money on TV. Know they can make some money online, though that is not nearly as mature. Can only make money with national viewers, as international viewers might not even be able to buy the products advertised.

That's the situation now, as described in the article, if you can convince the Advertisers, Consumers and TV Studios to bypass this system, you'll potentially make a lot of money, but it's just not as easy as a snap of the finger as you make it out to be.

We are on the same page it seems, you just villainized me and the article for some reason. I and, as I understand it, the author (although his job kinda depends on it) are on your side, we'd like it to happen, but he explained why it doesn't at the moment.

I assume you'll probably not read what I said again, cause I didn't admit you were 100% right in the first line, but I think that's how it is. If you have some constructive argument why I am totally wrong about what I said there I'd love to hear it, I am just tired of trying to set misconceived opinion of my argument straight.

I didn't read one word of this post.

Originally posted by Robtard

It's their fault though, the advertising for the flick was almost nonexistent when the film first opened.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't pretend that that was your idea: I pointed out that the actual problem is TV and local channels wanting a slice of it on their TVs. He did not say: "Let's get rid of TV type TV, and start doing TV streaming."

He said, "Someone will probably find a way to make real money streaming online soon, and then the business model will shift (again) and you'll see more episodes of TV online. Until that happens, this is why you don't see more shows online."

Which was completely stupid. It's already being done, and across borders, at times. He explained how things work, but he did not say he disagreed with it. In fact, he seemed to be keen on the idea of getting TV stations to make profits and he did not even consider cutting them out and going straight streaming. That was quite explicit: he's part of the problem. He can't think outside of his world, but only acknowledge it.


For instance: ABC funds a project...say....Lost. They should get to "air" the show anywhere in the world as long is it met the censorship or other regulatory requirements but NOT have to sell it to a local TV station in each country. THAT was my point. That was not his point.



Edit - I can see this is giong to take forever to hammer into your head, you'll still argue about something petty, and pretend something about something. I don't want to do that. Get it out of yoru system in one post.

That's actually exactly what he said:



Did you read the whole post? You may argue that he doesn't want it to change, perhaps that's true, I don't know his feelings, but he objectively explained exactly everything you said there. So yeah, that's exactly what I said, as I argued for the article. He explained why it's not working at the moment.

Also when he said his last sentence:



He explained again that it is hard to monetize a TV Show online only, which is absolutely true. Just because some parts of it work, doesn't mean it works across the board and that it works as that only. So no, he was not wrong, he didn't say that you can't monetize online, he said it is impossible to make the same money online only.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't read one word of this post.

Exactly like I said. I wouldn't be proud of that though, it is somewhat shameful, to just close your eyes and yell la la la. However it explains the insane straw man you built around my posts.

Seriously, you are just being aggressive towards me today for aggressions sake.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx


That reminds me: if they don't offer the shows people want, because of some marketing failure, it will be pirated...money will be lost. Could have been solved with simple file hosting.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That reminds me: if they don't offer the shows people want, because of some marketing failure, it will be pirated...money will be lost. Could have been solved with simple file hosting.

Well it has to do with things I mentioned in one of the posts you didn't read.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well it has to do with things I mentioned in one of the posts you didn't read.

K.

We can talk about it later...literally talk about it.


I still think that guy is an idiot...saying that he hoped someone would figure something out for hosting sh*t.


What do you propose is a solution to that, other than my centralized hosting suggestion?

Originally posted by dadudemon
K.

We can talk about it later...literally talk about it.


I still think that guy is an idiot...saying that he hoped someone would figure something out for hosting sh*t.


What do you propose is a solution to that, other than my centralized hosting suggestion?

I think your solution is a fine technical solution. I didn't read any of what he said as saying that there are actual technical limitations at the moment. The way I understand it all the problems are bureaucratic or legal.

I agree with everything you said about technical aspects. I just don't view the article author as the "enemy", rather than a journalist giving an objective overview.

In fact I think considering his position, it is very remarkable how he put no bias in it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think your solution is a fine technical solution. I didn't read any of what he said as saying that there are actual technical limitations at the moment. The way I understand it all the problems are bureaucratic or legal.

I agree with everything you said about technical aspects. I just don't view the article author as the "enemy", rather than a journalist giving an objective overview.

In fact I think considering his position, it is very remarkable how he put no bias in it.

He seemed to be hung up on the idea that more money is to be made with TV spots when that isn't the case. For me, he was justifying the problem. He made it worse when he acted a fool at the end there...basically being ignorant to a multi-billion dollar industry.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He seemed to be hung up on the idea that more money is to be made with TV spots when that isn't the case. For me, he was justifying the problem. He made it worse when he acted a fool at the end there...basically being ignorant to a multi-billion dollar industry.

Wait, are you saying that atm, without any changes, there's more money to be made online, and that the TV money could be disregarded?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wait, are you saying that atm, without any changes, there's more money to be made online, and that the TV money could be disregarded?

I don't expect you to have read all my post contents, as I didn't yours.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course, the viewer have to be setup to watch online in their "main viewing area", and that's another problem. It's a slow change but it is happening.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't expect you to have read all my post contents, as I didn't yours.

I read everything you said as I am interested in your input, but my problem is that your argument is the same as the authors, just going further, but you always seem to focus on a different part to disagree with him. But I don't want to bother to go through the happenings in this thread, as it will be pointless anyways, to me it is clear that we both agree, and imo it is clear that what the author of the article said is factually true, even if he disagrees on the implications, even though he didn't discuss them, so I don't see a point why we should argue, I only replied as I was under the impression you disagreed with the facts in the article, now that it is clear that you don't we don't need to debate it.

WB stated that their new movies wont be avalible on Netflix right away, so members will have to wait a few months to get the movies.

Its not the pirates fault, its the greedy companies that mess everything up.

If its a good movie, I will still see it on the big screen and buy it in the end.

hmm.. now i am curious to see what the movie is about... might have to visit the watch movie site..

I can see this thread getting locked soon.

Also they have made millions so far but why stop there, when they can make billions or even trillions and destroy peoples lives to get it. Cops dont care about this crap for a reason( I know a ton of cops that pirate stuff ). They are after the real criminals and only the money sucking Vamps are after us!

Originally posted by The Nuul
I can see this thread getting locked soon. why?

Originally posted by The Nuul
If they get an average of $600 each user.


Probably going to sue for a lot more, I'd suspect thousands. Unless you know something specific?

Just saying.....thats all and yes you are right, its a lot more than that.

Ultimately I agree with you, if this flick had brought in massive cash, they wouldn't be doing this. It's an ego trip, their film which went up against Avatar, yet made 1,000 times less. That's got to be a kick right in the balls.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ultimately I agree with you, if this flick had brought in massive cash, they wouldn't be doing this. It's an ego trip, their film which went up against Avatar, yet made 1,000 times less. That's got to be a kick right in the balls.

My favorite part is the smugness the berch had about her film.....compared to her ex-husband.



If both went to a major studio company and asked for funding for a $400 million film, who do you think will get approved first?



hahahaha



Cameron can always say: Score board, berch!