Another one bites the dust

[runningdownthatdream]

Big studios just need to realize that their archaic distribution system is out dated. With the advent of cell phones with large capacity file storage systems, portable media players, and more and more people doing things online, people don't like to use physical media anymore. It's much more convenient to have a digital copy of your media so it's all in one place and you can search and categorize it. Music artists acknowledge this fact. These file sharing sites allow users to still get content for free, all while the artists still get paid for the downloads and allows them to easily distribute their music. All artists have to do is sign up for a paid account. This could be applied to movies and software also. This is more relevant to file sharing sites, but torrent sites could probably do the same. The studios need to embrace the technology not fight it. But big studios would rather price gouge by selling physical media. lol

...like I said earlier and in another thread the solution is technology-based but they are too lazy and greedy to pursue that with the creators of the various file formats. It's not just the big studios but companies like Grooby too. It's far easier for them to pay lobbyists to influence lawmakers (which incidentally is perfectly acceptable to them) rather than invest in making their product secure.

[timxxx]

It's far easier for them to pay lobbyists to influence lawmakers.

Too right,that ship has already sailed,this is a fight they CAN'T win.All the huffing and puffing & name calling is not going to change that.

[MacShreach]

... but you can't have a television in the UK WITHOUT paying a license fee can you (unless you prove it cannot receive TV channels). Yes there are channels getting paid by advertising revenue but you don't get them unless you pay the Beeb. I'm not sure where you get Yorkshire from, maybe you should check up on your Geography.
I fail to see where I called you dishonest? Explain?
Right so far.

... but you can't have a television in the UK WITHOUT paying a license fee can you (unless you prove it cannot receive TV channels). Yes there are channels getting paid by advertising revenue but you don't get them unless you pay the Beeb. I'm not sure where you get Yorkshire from, maybe you should check up on your Geography.
I fail to see where I called you dishonest? Explain?
Right so far.

Sorry, you have a problem with logic. Yes if you receive broadcast television in the UK you have to pay a fee that goes entirely to the BBC. You can watch as many of the other channels as you like for free, other than the Murdoch ones of course, which...I wouldn't watch anyway.

Oh, my geography is just fine thanks. So is my history.

You said "If your reasoning that everything on the internet should be free, then I don't think that's for altruistic reasons?" in other words, you think my argument for a free internet comes from reasons of self-interest. You stop short of accusing me of thievery or intent thereto, but let's not imagine I am quite so naive, hmm?

[MacShreach]

Big studios just need to realize that their archaic distribution system is out dated. With the advent of cell phones with large capacity file storage systems, portable media players, and more and more people doing things online, people don't like to use physical media anymore. It's much more convenient to have a digital copy of your media so it's all in one place and you can search and categorize it. Music artists acknowledge this fact. These file sharing sites allow users to still get content for free, all while the artists still get paid for the downloads and allows them to easily distribute their music. All artists have to do is sign up for a paid account. This could be applied to movies and software also. This is more relevant to file sharing sites, but torrent sites could probably do the same. The studios need to embrace the technology not fight it. But big studios would rather price gouge by selling physical media. lol

That's a good analysis. However, it's more than just trying to gouge selling physical media; they want to establish a new revenue stream through the internet, but the problem they have is that the market price for their product, via download, is zero. That is of course the consequence of the internet and free market forces. What the studios want to do is what the record companies tried to do, which is charge a price for downloading their product which is roughly the same as what the customer would pay if he or she did buy a physical product. This, they say, is to protect the existing distribution network, which is of course a lie, because what they want to do is cut out the middlemen and take all the money for themselves. But because their product has zero real market value, they can't. So their solution is to attempt to force legislation to curtail the free market. This has never worked in the past and it won't work now.

What is funny is that they do not see how many enemies they are making, by following this line, amongst people in their target market, as is manifest even here.

[GroobySteven]

...like I said earlier and in another thread the solution is technology-based but they are too lazy and greedy to pursue that with the creators of the various file formats. It's not just the big studios but companies like Grooby too. It's far easier for them to pay lobbyists to influence lawmakers (which incidentally is perfectly acceptable to them) rather than invest in making their product secure.

I've never paid a lobbyist and I don't have the means to build out own file format which could take millions. I do however, use the law to it's full extent when applicable, use existing software to make it as difficult as possible to stop piracy, hire individuals to remove as much stolen content and make it has difficult as possible to find our stuff. If it's driven underground as much of it is, then that's the right direction.

You'd be an idiot not to use all of those means in protecting your business and for us, it's working.

[GroobySteven]

Sorry, you have a problem with logic. Yes if you receive broadcast television in the UK you have to pay a fee that goes entirely to the BBC. You can watch as many of the other channels as you like for free, other than the Murdoch ones of course, which...I wouldn't watch anyway.

Oh, my geography is just fine thanks. So is my history.

You said "If your reasoning that everything on the internet should be free, then I don't think that's for altruistic reasons?" in other words, you think my argument for a free internet comes from reasons of self-interest. You stop short of accusing me of thievery or intent thereto, but let's not imagine I am quite so naive, hmm?

Your logic is flawed - you stated TV is free, it isn't you pay for it! You could not watch those free channels if you had not already paid. True or false?
You want free internet because you don't want to pay for it, that's not altuistic, I never stated you were going to steal it or anything such.

[GroobySteven]

Big studios just need to realize that their archaic distribution system is out dated. With the advent of cell phones with large capacity file storage systems, portable media players, and more and more people doing things online, people don't like to use physical media anymore. It's much more convenient to have a digital copy of your media so it's all in one place and you can search and categorize it. Music artists acknowledge this fact. These file sharing sites allow users to still get content for free, all while the artists still get paid for the downloads and allows them to easily distribute their music. All artists have to do is sign up for a paid account. This could be applied to movies and software also. This is more relevant to file sharing sites, but torrent sites could probably do the same. The studios need to embrace the technology not fight it. But big studios would rather price gouge by selling physical media. lol

That model works when there is an artist account (basically the Itunes model) but while there are free options available which are set up to steal and profit from those same artists work then a lot of people are going to take that option who may have bought it.

It's amazing that all of the supporters of the "free for all internet" like to vilify the studios because "they make billions of dollars" but refuse to do the same to the websites set up to steal and profit from that studio's work and who haven't had to pay a cent towads that production.

You should have a choice whether to buy a product. If you can't afford it, or don't think it's worth the ticket price, then vote with your wallet and don't buy it. Stealing it because a company "makes billions" is justifying your own criminal behavior. Don't cry if you get caught.

[MacShreach]

Your logic is flawed - you stated TV is free, it isn't you pay for it! You could not watch those free channels if you had not already paid. True or false?
You want free internet because you don't want to pay for it, that's not altuistic, I never stated you were going to steal it or anything such.

That is a non-sequitur, and no, I will not let you away with it. In the UK, the only channel you pay towards is the BBC, via the Licence Fee. All other channels work by an advertising revenue model or a subscription revenue model. If I watch advertising-based television like STV, for example, or C4 or C5, they get no money from me via the Licence Fee, thus I am watching their content for free. Q.E.D.

Free internet is like advertising-based television in this way: we pay by being exposed to advertising, which is sold. Content, which is required to encourage us to watch the channel, is paid for by the channel, not by us; in the end it is paid by the advertisers, who add the price to their products, so, if I buy that product, I will pay a proportion of the cost of the television channel. But I don't have to buy the product.

This is the way forward for the Internet, and it will inevitably happen, because there is no way that using legislation to deny a free market as large as this is going to result in anything other than a huge black economy, which is in no-one's interest. I believe the internet should be free so that everyone can access it, because I think that this will be, in the long term, the most useful, and ultimately, the most profitable path.

What has to happen, however, is that content producers must get a share of the advertising revenue that is being generated, which at present they do not, and that is unfair. Unfortunately the short-sightedness of some traditional content producers has caused them to target the end-user instead of using their legal muscle to arrive at a deal with the internet-based companies, which is something they actually could achieve.

I certainly don't want to pay directly for the Internet, but I see nothing wrong in that, as long as the content providers are getting their share of the advertising revenue that a free internet generates, which is a huge economy.

Sticking your head in the sand has an unfortunate consequence...

[MacShreach]

It's amazing that all of the supporters of the "free for all internet" like to vilify the studios because "they make billions of dollars" but refuse to do the same to the websites set up to steal and profit from that studio's work and who haven't had to pay a cent towads that production.

You can include me out of that one, chum. I want to see a free internet because it is a logical and profitable way forward. Content providers should pay for the content they provide.

[LibertyHarkness]

good another pirate site goes down ..