Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

You Will Never Kill Piracy

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the go-ask-louis-ck-how-to-do-things dept.

Piracy 516

scottbomb writes "This is perhaps the best op-ed I've read about the whole SOPA/PIPA controversy. The author challenges Hollywood to re-think their entire business model. It will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, for now. But sooner or later, they will have no choice but to adapt. From the article: 'Now that the SOPA and PIPA fights have died down, and Hollywood prepares their next salvo against internet freedom with ACTA and PCIP, it's worth pausing to consider how the war on piracy could actually be won. It can't, is the short answer, and one these companies do not want to hear as they put their fingers in their ears and start yelling.'"

cancel ×

516 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's the Streisand Effect (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926563)

Just like modding me down won't kill goatse, you'll never stop piracy. You may sink their ships but we will just equip better cannons on our new ones.

Hollywood won't change (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926581)

The world has changed but they hasn't and they ain't gonna change because they are still raking in shitloads of $$$ doing what they had been doing for the past century

I'd wager that it'd be like a repeat of what is happening to Kodak - by the time Hollywood decides to change, it'd be way too late

Re:Hollywood won't change (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926659)

If it's possible to make a movie and sell it cheaply online, with no DRM, and still make a profit as the article suggests why hasn't anyone done that successfully?

It's the distribution channel (4, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926675)

If it's possible to make a movie and sell it cheaply online, with no DRM, and still make a profit as the article suggests why hasn't anyone done that successfully?

It's the distribution channel, my friend

Tell me, currently what are the distribution channel for movies, and how do they distribute them?

Re:It's the distribution channel (5, Insightful)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926739)

Better yet who owns and controls those channels?

Re:It's the distribution channel (5, Insightful)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926863)

If it's possible to make a movie and sell it cheaply online, with no DRM, and still make a profit as the article suggests why hasn't anyone done that successfully?

It's the distribution channel, my friend

Tell me, currently what are the distribution channel for movies, and how do they distribute them?

The distribution channel for physical goods was sailing ships, and in the early days of sailing ships (1400-1850ish) piracy was in its glory years, now pirates are marginalized by the power and pervasiveness of modern warships, and air pirates are almost non-existent.

The fiber just got laid 10-15 years ago, we've barely managed to start rolling out IPv6 (I'd equate IPv4 to square rigging...), piracy will be around for quite awhile, but it will eventually be marginalized just Jean Lafitte and his like have been.

In the meanwhile, expect brutal but ineffective attempts to stop it by the commercial interests who perceive it as a threat (see: Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean movies for a fictionalized depiction of the basic human responses at work...)

Re:It's the distribution channel (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926963)

Piracy rose to popularity because the sailor who did all the actual work were treated worse than unskilled farm laborers, and they could be pressed into the navy before they even got paid from their merchant ship tour, or just cheated out of their pay by the merchant captain. Serving a privateer promised at least a share of the plunder, but it was one share for the sailor compared to 14 or more for the captain. The famous pirates you hear about ran in democratic packs, electing their captains who only got one additional share, and voting on all important decisions. For many a life of piracy was better than the legal alternative. At least for a while.

Re:It's the distribution channel (2, Insightful)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38927029)

Nice read. Just one issue.

You and Hollywood have been taking the word piracy a tad too literally. "Pirates" were guys who boarded your transport vehicle and made away with your goods.

The word what is actually applicable here is "theft" or "smuggling". Now tell me again, how theft/smuggling has ever been marginalized in the world "after some time", at any point in history.

If you try to regulate/restrict something that can be "stolen" easily, then no matter how many laws you pass, it will not stop that specific crime in any way. For most people, temptation is difficult to resist, and they will continuously find a way to commit the "crime" without being detected. And when inevitably such a way is found, they *will* commit the said "crime".

Re:It's the distribution channel (1, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38927089)

"The fiber just got laid 10-15 years ago, we've barely managed to start rolling out IPv6 (I'd equate IPv4 to square rigging...), piracy will be around for quite awhile, but it will eventually be marginalized just Jean Lafitte and his like have been."

That is the single most foolish statement ever made on Slashdot.

The reason Sea "pirates" dont have a chance is because they dont have Trillions of dollars to have massive balttleships built and they typically are low IQ types. If they had any brains they would get their hands on some old WW-II submarines and utterly own the US navy. a WW-II torpedo will take out a US ship easily. We are just lucky that the pirates out there are simply opportunists that are nothing more than petty thieves and muggers of the sea.

On the internet, a 13 year old kid has as much technology and power as the entire US government has. This scares the shit out of the governments of the world and big business. Even after IPv8 has been in place for 20 years and quantum processors have been in the iPad 12 and iPhone 47 a 13 year old that has been studying technology and the internet will STILL have as much power as any government on this planet when on the internet.

The internet is nothing like the physical world where it takes a lot of money and resources to build something.

Re:It's the distribution channel (3, Insightful)

iamgnat (1015755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38927023)

I think it's less about the distribution channel than it is about perception. Most people hold the belief that "straight to video" is a crap product. While this is typically true (I think) for STV movies released by the big studios*, it's certainly not true of a lot of the Indie/Foreign films out there.

Until/Unless the general population (which I think is also of the "I didn't go to the theater to 'read'" mentality) can get past needing a movie to be in a theater to validate that it's "good", using the Internet as your sole distribution channel won't work.

* Now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if that's not at least part of the reason they release crap straight to video. Get some suckers (parents that can't tell their kids no) and reenforce the quality/value stereotype.

Plus, the government supports them (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926719)

I missed out on one other important factor ...

It's the government

From

* Copyright laws (change from bad to worse)
to
* Tax rebates (for producers, distributors, et al)
to
* Revolving door (former politicians becoming lobbyists)
to
* Politicians lining their pockets (with PAC contribution from Hollywood)

Why should Hollywood allow any other people to make money from alternative mean of movie production / distribution ?

Re:Plus, the government supports them (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926849)

Hollywood doesn't.
In fact, doesnt Hollywood have a counter to netflix in the works? Flikr or something like that?
They have already made their movie by no longer signing with Netflix, except Disney I think, and even STARZ has pulled out.
So they are adapting by following others, you know... like what every tech industry does.

Re:Hollywood won't change (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926969)

If it's possible to make a movie and sell it cheaply online, with no DRM, and still make a profit as the article suggests why hasn't anyone done that successfully?

https://buy.louisck.net/

Re:Hollywood won't change (2, Interesting)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926707)

They ain't gonna change because none of the pirates posting on Slashdot have ever elaborated a credible alternative for them. Kodak was killed by superior technology - digital was clearly a better way of taking photos and Kodak just failed to make the leap. But what, exactly, is the superior alternative for Hollywood? Give everything away for free? The financial physics of that don't work. Maybe they should pay for movies entirely out of popcorn sales.

Please. This kind of 24/7 "piracy is freedom fighting" crap tires me. The linked article is worthless and adds nothing to what precious little debate there is. He claims the problem is "massively overpriced" works. He then ignores the fact that the easy and cheap rental services he asks for already exist (eg, iTunes, Netflix, Apple TV), and oddly enough, if both are as easy as he claims the free alternative will still always win. The guy practically admits he breaks the law constantly and doesn't care, which isn't surprising because he has demonstrated the kind of reasoning skills I'd expect of a small child.

How about the police check his computer then throw him in jail for a bit? That won't stop piracy but it might stop stupid articles about it from clogging up the internet.

Re:Hollywood won't change (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926767)

Here's an article for you [techdirt.com]

Re:Hollywood won't change (4, Interesting)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926771)

A Steam like service for movies and TV shows for a start, which works on an international level (including the sales,etc of the Steam business model) should be a start

Re:Hollywood won't change (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926785)

>I'd wager that it'd be like a repeat of what is happening to Kodak - by the time Hollywood decides to change, it'd be way too late

There's one major difference: Hollywood is the only source of high budget films. Kodak was run out of business by digital camera market. I don't see similar thing happening to Hollywood big picture.

Re:Hollywood won't change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926953)

Why? It doesn't take a lot of money to make a good film, unless you're trying to do tons of special effects. Even then, prosumer level camcorders and the average modern PC are way better than anything Hollywood had access to just a couple of decades ago. The very laptop I am typing this on could easily render Toy Story or Jurassic Park level graphics. All you need are people willing to work together.

Re:Hollywood won't change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926895)

How has the world changed? People have always wanted to get shit for free, and do so en masse, as long as it remains as easy to do as it is now. This is normal. This is why people steal, lie and cheat, if you can get something out of it, and get away with it, you'll do it. It's profoundly ludicrous to suggest that the world is changing in a way where selling a product is no longer a feasible business model.

While Kodak failed to embrace digital photography (though in their defence, dSLRs have only recently gotten in range of 35mm SLRs, picture quality-wise) and were left behind, I don't see how the recording industry is in the same boat at all. In your bizarro universe, it's a lose/lose situation for them, they either go broke, or adapt t giving their shit away and go broke anyway. People go a long ways to justify theft, and it's as sad as it is disappointing. Stealing is wrong, the least people can do is have enough respect to acknowledge that's what they're doing.

Arguing that you can never beat piracy completely (which is true) and therefre shouldn't bother fighting it, is like arguing that one shouldn;t bother with security or cryptography because any encryption can be beaten, or that we should give up on medicine because we'll never truly beat death, we'll never stam out violent crime, murder or rape either, so let's make it okay to do that, too right? . The point of anti-piracy is very much like the aim of cryptography: make it hard enough, and if possible expensive enough that it isn't worth the effort for most people to do.

Hollywood isn't really going anywhere at least not for a long while, due to, if nothing else, the generally large financial investment required to produce quality entertainment. The music recording industry, however is on its way out, especially if they have their way with ACTA and the like, anything that makes it easier for the individual artist to protect his or her intellectual property, reduces the need of depending on the middle man that is the recording industry, that being said, of course, it'd likely be the end of world tours ass well, which is most unfortunate. But as it stands, in the bizarro universe of people like you, it won't matter because artists won;t be able to make a living off their work, anyway.

But nobody cares about the artists anyway, slashdot nerds especially try to cheapen what we do at every turn, to veil the fact that in the end, it's really all about wanting shit for free.

Re:Hollywood won't change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38927067)

RIAA management where sometime in 1996-1997 told that roughly what we are seeing today would happen unless they took action and started to sell music online, by the song and at reasonable price. They said "Interesting, but it's not gonna happen". That's some 16 years ago. Eons on an Internet time scale.

Their business will go away. An industry that sues it's customers have no other choice. It will take time. The concept of "music" as a product will vanish. Music will come back to it's roots; performances (where artists have healthy 50% gross margin on ticket sales).

Recorded music is already marketing among fans for performances - add social media and artists will be just fine. I don't know what will happen to movies and actors, perhaps something for kickstarter.com :-)

Re:It's the Streisand Effect (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926685)

Piracy will never die? Really?
No shit.What exactly is the news here?
Of course you'll never stop piracy, just like you'll never stop armed robbery or murder. We should have given up enforcing those laws years ago. Clearly, the only reason we still have a police force is because it's a government controlled monopoly, and they're too lazy and stupid to change their business model into something more sustainable, like selling guns and bullet proof vests to citizens.

Re:It's the Streisand Effect (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926899)

+1, exactly what I was thinking. "You'll never stop it, so why even try?". It's a ludicrous way of thinking.

Let's stop protecting all our crops from pests and thieves and see how that turns out.

Let's just accept that people are going to die in road accidents and ignore all traffic laws.

Let's just accept that the Universe is going to implode one day, and nuke the planet right now.

Re:It's the Streisand Effect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926905)

Wow, that's the lamest analogy I've ever read.

Re:It's the Streisand Effect (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926697)

Well like most crimes you cannot stop them. But you can keep them at a manageable level. Saying it won't end piracy doesn't mean we should all piracy to be allowed.
With all the work and effort people put into making media having it all for free is not sustainable.
Piracy needs to be controlled but the effort to stop it is too high of a cost.

Re:It's the Streisand Effect (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926779)

Piracy needs to be controlled

Unless you are talking about ships, I cannot really agree with you here. Copyright was designed when specialized industrial equipment was required to make large numbers of accurate copies of creative works. That is not the situation today; today, everyone has such equipment in their homes. We should be completely rethinking the law because it is absurd to tell people not to copy things using their own computers.

A number of people have proposed alternative systems for compensating artists, but instead of giving serious consideration to those proposals, we simply ignore them and continue to pretend that copyright is a form of property.

Re:It's the Streisand Effect (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926861)

A number of people have proposed alternative systems for compensating artists ... we simply ignore them

And we ignore them because they are ridiculous. The fact that you didn't just succinctly mention a viable, rational one just now shows that you know that's true.

Re:It's the Streisand Effect (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38927049)

A number of people have proposed alternative systems for compensating artists ... we simply ignore them

And we ignore them because they are ridiculous

Criminalizing a huge percentage of the population while trying to create artificial scarcity in an area where enforcement is hardly possible is what we are doing now.

No matter how stupid the alternative proposals, it doesn't get more stupid than the status quo.

Re:It's the Streisand Effect (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926839)

But... if there's no legal/technical measure that can stop it then should we waste time/money taking away everybody's rights? Nope.

The economics of 'free' does work so long as the cost of reproduction/distribution is also zero. Which it is.

All you have to do is give a better service than the pirates and provide extras which can't be transferred down a wire. Believe it or not people are prepared to pay for official merchandise, accessories, bling, etc. As for concerts...they go crazy for those!

Some people are now DOSing sites with DMCA notices (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926577)

http://takedownpiracy.com/2012/01/another-one-bites-the-dust/ [takedownpiracy.com]
The guy has made it his job to DOS sites with DMCA takedown notices till they shut down
If more people like this start infiltrating private torrent sites, it could cause a major issue

Re:Some people are now DOSing sites with DMCA noti (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926673)

They became DMCA-compliant and didn't see this coming? The sites practically killed themselves.

Re:Some people are now DOSing sites with DMCA noti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926699)

I reported him to the IC3 and FBI. He's going to have fun. Moron, DOS and DDOSing is against the law. Taking any type of vigilante action is also against the law.

Re:Some people are now DOSing sites with DMCA noti (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926925)

I just read that linked article and some of the comments following.

Person in question apparently does this as a paid job, and claims to be agent of various copyright holders to take down material on their behalf. The first: well no doubt, why else would anyone want to do this? The second - well there it's getting tricky. There are so many studios, especially in the porn industry (the article was about how he helped taking down cheggit.net, after going after porn torrent sites empornium and puretna), hard to imagine that he's agent of them all. But it's possible of course.

Wonder how this will work out in the long run. How the torrent sites will react to it. Easiest option is probably to simply leave the US and set up shop overseas where the DMCA doesn't reach. And I hope for his own sake that he manages to keep anonymous, as the pro-piracy activists play really dirty, possibly worse than the anti-piracy lobby which at least mostly sticks to the legal channels.

Re:Some people are now DOSing sites with DMCA noti (1)

MechaStreisand (585905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926945)

Goddamn, why can't somebody garrote that guy and videotape it for our enjoyment?

Re:Some people are now DOSing sites with DMCA noti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926967)

it seems like he could be gamed pretty fucking easily to serve dmca requests for content he doesn't own.

anyone live in his state/nearby, to make it easier? besides he doesn't seem to have any effect on tpb / rarbg / bunch of others. and fuck private torrent sites - as soon as you're keeping a log on upload ratios you're asking for trouble.

Yea, just give it away (-1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926585)

His solution seems to be "Give everything away for free, then it won't get stolen". Nothing wrong with that business model.

He also rationalizes that downloading is okay because it's not like you actually stole a physical object - so it's not really stealing, right?

Re:Yea, just give it away (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926637)

>His solution seems to be "Give everything away for free, then it won't get stolen".

Do you know how I know you didn't read the article all the way through?

--
BMO

Re:Yea, just give it away (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926689)

I'd bet he didn't RTFA at all.

But the "cheap and DRM-free" AKA "compete with piracy" argument has been around for about a decade, I wonder if none of the execs have seen it or if they're all just rock-fuck stupid?

Re:Yea, just give it away (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926789)

I'd say both. They have a reality distortion field

Re:Yea, just give it away (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926983)

More or less, it’s Steam (the online PC game distribution client) for movies. It allows you to rent or download your favorite films with ease, build a library and watch cross devices and share with your friends.

Actually I did read the entire article; "free" was a slight exaggeration (next time change the batteries in your sarcasm detector). But his basic argument as I read it is that content producers should reduce their price to the point that it isn't worth the trouble to get it for free by download from a pirate site. I don't see how this would eliminate piracy though. If I missed something there, please correct me.

Re:Yea, just give it away (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926729)

He also rationalizes that downloading is okay because it's not like you actually stole a physical object - so it's not really stealing, right?

One of these things is not like the other:

  1. I steal your car. Now you do not have a car.
  2. I copy your music. Now we both have music.

Which is why we charge people with theft, rather than copyright infringement. Calling it "theft" is meant to shut down an argument against the copyright system, by equating a copyright with a form of property ownership. Copyright has never been a type of property, it exists only to benefit the public, and at this point it is not clear that copyright is the best way to ensure the public's access to art and science.

People are not going to stop using their computers to copy things; we need to accept that and move on. If we really want to save copyright as a system, then we need to punish violations the same way we punish parking violations: a small but annoying fine for each violation. Gone are the days when only people with specialized industrial equipment could possibly commit copyright infringement; the law was not designed to deal with mass numbers of people having copying equipment in their homes. If we are not talking about updating the law, then we are having the wrong conversation.

Personally, I think the whole copyright system should be scrapped, and the industries that were built on copyrights should either adapt to the new world and its new technology or die like other out of date industries. We should be using the Internet to ensure that creative work is never lost, that it never goes out of print, that it is never buried as part of an effort to maintain a corporate image, etc. A lot of people have proposed alternative systems for compensating artists; why are we not giving any of them any consideration?

Re:Yea, just give it away (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926803)

oh how I wish I had mod points.

Re:Yea, just give it away (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926911)

Because the alternative is copyright tax, and it is by it's nature a closed budget system, so there's no growth potential for the industry.

Re:Yea, just give it away (2)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38927069)

One of these things is not like the other: I steal your car. Now you do not have a car. I copy your music. Now we both have music.

Suppose you decide to sell tickets to a concert. But I tell perspective ticket buyers that I can open the basement door and let them in for free. In the end you only sell 1/4 the number of tickets you would have if I hadn't let most of the fans in for free. I didn't harm you? You lost your shirt because you weren't paid for the work and costs you incurred, but the concert still went on, right? [wikipedia.org]

You'll never stop murder or rape either (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926595)

But that doesn't make it any more right.

Re:You'll never stop murder or rape either (2, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926717)

And no one rational says it is. But even though you can't stop rape and murder you only punish the culprits, not the taxi driver that gave them a ride. Not the guy that rents them an apartment. Not the store that sold them a butcher knife. You don't make everyone wear a RFID tag and track them 24/7. You don't put cameras in every room of every house. No, what you do is you catch the culprits and punish them. The problem with the anti-piracy people is that they seem to think it's okay to take away everyone's freedom on the internet instead of doing actual investigation and punishment of those who actually commit piracy.

Re:You'll never stop murder or rape either (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926733)

But that doesn't make it any more right.

What is right? The prohibition against those two things are just as arbitrary. Nothing more than a subjective dream by a government bureaucrat, depriving my penis of untold pleasures.

Silly, silly AC.

You'll never kill drugs or terrorism either (0)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926599)

But that's never stopped us before!

Been there, said that... (4, Insightful)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926603)

And nothing happens. While I commend the writer for articulating what is wrong with the current movie industry model, the reality is that Hollywood is hell bent on preserving their business model. For good reason too, most of Hollywood are distributors. The distributors are the ones that pay for the movie, the marketing, and shoving it down the throats of consumers. They're middle men protecting their business. Change the distribution model and you'll hear the sucking sound of Hollywood companies drying up. Studios aren't strapped with tons of cash to pay for hit movies on their own, so you'll have fewer movies being made. No one in Hollywood has any incentive to change the current model, and unlike the music industry that got dragged into the 21st century, or the game industry that has adapted to every new platform to survive, the movie industry consumers lack any desire to force a business model change or adaption. Tthe closest thing to adaption is Netflix and recent price hikes are an indicator that the distributors will kill it before giving the consumers what they want.

Re:Been there, said that... (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926949)

And on top of that: why would they change? It's not as if their business model doesn't work anymore. I'd argue it works very well. Just look at the money that's made in Hollywood, it doesn't seem like they're having a hard time making ends meet or so.

If the "war on piracy" has achieved one thing... (4, Interesting)

dingen (958134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926611)

...it is that tremendous progress has been made in the field of anonymous file sharing technology. If the folks from the music/movie industry hadn't pushed so hard to prevent piracy, we would still be on Napster. But instead we now have very advanced things like the BitTorrent protocol, equipped with encryption, magnet links, DHT and PEX. And it's not just the geeks who are using these advanced file sharing technologies either, it's ordinary people. All in all quite an achievement.

Not so sure. (4, Interesting)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926613)

Sure, they will never make it so that it is completely impossible for a few people to do.
But they have more then enough lobbying power to make the consequences of being caught so severe and the internet so monitored that piracy is so underground that 99% cannot find it and would not take the risk if they did.

It might not help their profit margin to do this as much as they think, but they are mega corporations and they at least have a chance at doing whatever they want.
While they might not be able to do so in any reasonably free and fair society or under current US law, but that will not necessarily stop them.
Hell, I would not bet against them if they launched a coup to physically take over the government and impose a tyranny in the US and put the current administrations heads on spikes outside of the whitehouse.

Re:Not so sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926661)

I will not buy a single piece of music or movie until the big ones are gone.

Re:Not so sure. (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926763)

Better is to buy lots of music and movies but only from the independents. This is really where most of these assholes so called profits are starting to leak away to anyhow. People who download movies often can't afford them or wouldn't have bought them anyway. Most of their shit sucks nowadays, I've gotten up and walked out of movies that were boring me to tears after buying tickets at ridiculous prices. I can afford to piss away money on entertainment but it still pisses me off what these cocksuckers have done to American cinema.

Re:Not so sure. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926713)

The only thing preventing Bittorrent from becoming un-killable is that the transition to darknets is hard, much like the IPv4-to-IPv6 problem, but even worse in that you wouldn't be able to keep the same domains in the transition. However if there was some big effort by torrent users to switch to Bittorrent-over-I2P, piracy would be un-blockable and un-traceable. That is, un-killable.

Re:Not so sure. (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38927079)

Nothing is completely untraceable or unblockable.
And blocking and tracing are not the only ways to stop piracy.

Re:Not so sure. (4, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926721)

Easy peasey companero. Do like so:

Load up every movie you've got on a drive. Tell a friend to buy one of them new fangled terabyte drives - that's what? $69 at Best Buy? Then connect your drive to his computer and drive. Click and drag contents from your drive to his and vice versa. Crack a bottle or two of wine, hang out, have a great afternoon and soon, you have more movies and shows than you could plausibly watch in years.

It was called Sneakernet back in the day. There's rumblings about a new kind of "Alexandrian" (i.e. universal) Library - only this time it's totally decentralised and offline and untraceable. How that can pan out, god only knows, but it's the logical conclusion to the graspings of the **AA, the pathetically corrupt governments, and the increasingly policed and threatened internet.

It used to be "never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of floppy disks." Now it's "never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with hard drives..."

Re:Not so sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926961)

Hell, I would not bet against them if they launched a coup to physically take over the government and impose a tyranny in the US and put the current administrations heads on spikes outside of the whitehouse.

Some people think this nearly already happened. [wikipedia.org]

Personally I take it with a pinch of salt though.

It's more than piracy (5, Interesting)

_LORAX_ (4790) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926619)

Studios live on a strong distribution model where they control the vast majority of the content and the distribution channels. Any tool that is viable for "piracy" is also viable by independent distributors as well. While I don't condone copyright infringement I think studios are more interested in their long term viability than to protect their content from "piracy". I expect similar behavior from the major publishing houses in the next couple of years as ebooks break their hold on the distribution channels.

Re:It's more than piracy (2)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926799)

And the book publishers will screw themselves too. Look at Baen publishing. They have embraced DRM free ebook publishing and profited. They also make lots of their author's older books available for free at their website. Strangely they have continued to thrive.

Re:It's more than piracy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926883)

Bingo. The war on piracy is a means to an end, but that end has nothing to do with piracy. The media companies want to retain their stranglehold on content distribution. If people decide to move en masse to distribution channels they don't control, they stop making money. Only way to stop that from happening is to either buy up the new distribution channels, or have them taken down.

Piracy is a convenient boogeyman.

Nothing new here (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926639)

We have been saying this from within the industry for 5 years. Why are we paying truck drivers to haul blu-rays to store shelves when we could be using the internet to deliver the movies for 1/100th the cost? Not only is putting a blu-ray on a store shelf inherently risky (essentially a master copy of the movie) but it costs MONEY to produce, deliver, and manage, Make the movies cheap, remove DRM, use the technology to help figure out where the movies are going so that you can optimally sell merchandise... seems like a winner to me and to many others but apparently not to the people in charge.

Re:Nothing new here (3, Insightful)

gottspeed (2060872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926709)

That's because the majority of their sales come from people who would rather own a physical copy of the movie (or at least the permission to watch it) than view it over the internet or copy it. This, and most people who compulsively collect cheap worthless crap due to razzle dazzle marketing probably don't have big incomes or credit cards to use on the internet, and at least want the item on a shelf as some kind of lower middle class status symbol. All this is worth the overhead of distribution.

Re:Nothing new here (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926981)

There is a good reason why they get almost all their turnover from selling physical disks.

Ever tried to buy a movie online? Other than mailorder from Amazon et.al., that is, but from a service that sells you the movie at a reasonable price and where you can subsequently download it and watch it in high quality at your leisure?

The main problem will be that there is no such service.

Easier said than done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926821)

Make the movies cheap, remove DRM, use the technology to help figure out where the movies are going so that you can optimally sell merchandise... seems like a winner to me and to many others but apparently not to the people in charge.

That's a nice idea. Now go ahead and try to implement it while giving investors their returns.

It's real easy to ponitificate on how things should be done and other grand ideas but unless someone actually goes out proves that an adequate return can be made that way, it won't happen.

And the reason no one has tried is because nobody beleives that it can be done - including myself.

Re:Nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926965)

Why can't I walk into a movie store, pick any movie ever made, and walk out with a shiny new blu-ray five minutes later? The technology to do this has literally been in place for ten years.

Re:Nothing new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38927041)

Years ago, I bought into a DVD rental, where I had the option to buy the movies outright, It was called DivX. Then that went way of the dodo bird, and I have a bunch of discs of movies I can't watch. Ask people who bought umd movies. So now I just buy the standard movies. I like the idea of amazon.com streaming, I have bought a lot there. I bought a lot on itunes. Itunes requires me having a device they approve of to watch movies. So there goes a huge collection. Amazon may one day stop doing the digital route. We have tried to go the alternative ways, only to have our rear kicked in the end. I like having the disc, where I can back it up if I want, and always be able to watch it.

Movies are not cheap to make, they will never be, the way people like to watch with all the visual effects, big name actors, etc.

SimonTek

Missing one critical point (4, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926663)

The op ed is missing one quite critical point. The movie industries aren't sitting here fighting piracy because they don't know the way forward. They don't sit there because they are dinosaurs and luddites who have no idea how technology works.

They sit in their 1990s era thinking because despite everything which is changed, and everything which is conspiring against them from the modern age piracy front they are making money. No actually I take that back. They are making a SHITLOAD of money. When you have a magic machine that spits out $100 bills why tinker with it at all? Until the bills stop coming out why mess with it? Someone opposes the machine, don't adapt your machine to them, attempt to crush them.

It's all good an fine to sit here and claim they are dinosaurs for not getting with the times, but lets face it, the vast majority of us would do anything to maintain our status quo, if that status quo involved having a butter polish your shoes using the face of Benjamin Franklin.

War on Piracy (2)

Ixtl (1022043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926671)

The fact the war can't be won has never stopped them before: See the "War on Drugs", "War on Terror", "War on Poverty", etc.

Re:War on Piracy (3, Insightful)

gottspeed (2060872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926743)

Its actually a war on natural human tendencies. An anti-human campaign by the men behind the curtain. And I'd be totally for it if I wasn't part of the target demographic.

Re:War on Piracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926917)

The war on poverty has rarely amounted to more than feel-good rhetoric.

The war on drugs and the war on terror are not meant to be won. Their end goal is not the elimination of drugs or terror but the continuation/furthering of surveillance and control through the police state. In addition to their geopolitical aspects (covert ops, military interventions, electronic eavesdropping, etc.), these wars have substantial economic impact: end these wars suddenly and unemployment will go up as the police/security apparatus is laid off, and GDP will go down as massive investments in security technology and infrastructure are halted.

War is now economics by other means.

2 simple things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926677)

Grant copyright protection for max say 10 years instead of (de-facto) 100/forever, provide your content via the internet, without region locks or DRM for reasonable prices. People will buy, humanity will profit.

Agreed! (1)

addam666 (1939502) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926681)

Spot on on pretty much all counts, and this from someone who doesn't download anything illegally :)

watermarks (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926687)

Xerox machines are equipped with a mechanism to stop bank-notes from being copied.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation [wikipedia.org]

So, unless the masses are going to build their own audio and video decoder chips, the content industry could use various types of watermarks to prevent piracy.
Sad, but I guess that's what we're ultimately up against.

More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coded_Anti-Piracy [wikipedia.org]

Re:watermarks (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926759)

do you know that hdcp encryption, the shit intel was to push to everyone through hdmi interfaces, has already been cracked recently ?

Re:watermarks (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926913)

No, didn't know.

But afaict, hdcp did not attempt to plug the analog hole. This is something that watermarks _can_ do.

Embrace, extend and extinguish (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926691)

You Will Never Kill Piracy

These copyright laws are not about protecting artists from piracy, they are about expanding the for-profit prison industry.

Let's not full ourselves, the "piracy" issue is just as stupid as believing that the War on Drugs stops people from smoking marijuana.

These copyright agendas use the same principals as Microsoft's "embrace, extend and extinguish" corporate mantra. It's all about one class of people dominating another class of people.

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections_Corporation_of_America [wikipedia.org]
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=867 [corpwatch.org]
http://mediafilter.org/MFF/Prison.html [mediafilter.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish [wikipedia.org]

Sure you will (3, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926695)

Most piracy is based on poorly implemented encryption due to slow processors. Next Gen hardware will be able to run encryption algorithms that don't have a gazillion assembly optimization in them. The XBox, PS3, current gen TVs & Blu Ray players couldn't. Once that happens, pop. No more piracy.

Re:Sure you will (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926757)

Wrong. The "analogue hole" will always exist. If it can be viewed/listened to, it can be recorded and then distributed.

Re:Sure you will (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926781)

dude.

the processing power that is usable to encrypt something, can also be used to crack it.

hdcp has already been cracked. so much for encrypted content over hdmi. no thanks to the soulless bastards at intel, 'inventing' hdcp and preparing to push it onto everyone tho.

Better encryption = no more piracy? (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926897)

Most piracy is based on poorly implemented encryption due to slow processors. Next Gen hardware will be able to run encryption algorithms that don't have a gazillion assembly optimization in them. The XBox, PS3, current gen TVs & Blu Ray players couldn't. Once that happens, pop. No more piracy.

NOPE.

Suppose I want to watch a movie in the privacy of my own home, and movie distributor 'protects' that movie using strong encryption. In order to display it on my equipment, @ some point it will have to be decrypted. At worst, inside tamper-proofed IC's directly embedded in a TV/monitor. But still, encrypted data will have to go there, and decryption key will have to go there.

So one way or the other end-user will have both data and decryption key inside the walls of his/her house. Read: millions of copies of that data + millions of decryption keys scattered all around the world. And among those end-users, a small percentage (but potentially still large number) of 'hackers', some of who will have extensive technical means & knowledge to intercept that key and/or decrypted data. And if only one of those does it, that's enough. Think 'analog hole', but extended to digital media.

If you think stronger encryption will change that game, you don't understand the mechanism. If you think that will stop piracy some day, you're naive / silly / stupid.

Why are we trying to legitimize piracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926741)

1) From the article "Right now, from the browser window in which I’m writing this article, it is possible to download and start watching a movie for free in a few swift clicks."
The argument that it is faster and easier than paying for it is false. Between Amazon, apple store, and best buy, etc. I can easily download the movie or buy it as easily as I can pirating it. Why is that an excuse for piracy? OK, you don't want DRM? That's not an excuse for piracy either. Nothing stops you from buying the actual DVD and ripping it into an avi.
2) From the article "It’s not a physical product that’s being taken. There’s nothing going missing, which is generally the hallmark of any good theft. The movie and music industries’ claim that each download is a lost sale is absurd"
Again, not true... If you didn't have the ability to download it illegally in the first place and you wanted the movie you would go buy it. Lost sale. I'm not a lawyer, but here is a potential legal argument that it is theft. The act of copying a copyright movie from one person's computer to another computer is against the copyright laws which for some reason equates to stealing (not sure how that happens though).

Who am I?
I used to pirate a lot. I was one of the first to get kicked off Napster in 2000 after Metallica got all pissy about piracy (I didn't even know I had any of their music). After a while I realized that musicians really do need to make a living too and felt that if I like their songs they deserve to be paid. While I hate that only a bit of the money goes to the musician and most goes to the company representing them I also understand that the company that gets the money is also promoting the musician (getting the songs on the radio so that I can hear them), helping them tour, getting their music to the people. Its a crappy system. If the musicians don't like it they can always not work with the record labels and go out on their own to form new labels that take a smaller cut of the money.

Re:Why are we trying to legitimize piracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926947)

2) From the article "It’s not a physical product that’s being taken. There’s nothing going missing, which is generally the hallmark of any good theft. The movie and music industries’ claim that each download is a lost sale is absurd"
Again, not true... If you didn't have the ability to download it illegally in the first place and you wanted the movie you would go buy it. Lost sale.

You might buy it, or you might do without, depending on how badly you wanted that movie. Hence the assertion that claiming "each download is a lost sale" is absurd. Claiming that no downloads are lost sales is equally absurd, but TFA doesn't claim that.

I'm not a lawyer, but here is a potential legal argument that it is theft. The act of copying a copyright movie from one person's computer to another computer is against the copyright laws which for some reason equates to stealing (not sure how that happens though).

It doesn't happen. "Pirates" get charged with copyright infringement, not theft. Them both being against the relevant laws no more makes it theft than it makes rape or assault theft.

Re:Why are we trying to legitimize piracy? (1)

Mr EdgEy (983285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926951)

The argument that it is faster and easier than paying for it is false. Between Amazon, apple store, and best buy, etc. I can easily download the movie or buy it as easily as I can pirating it.

The statement you have just made is factually false.
Amazon: register, create account, input address, input credit card details, etc etc
Let's pretend we've already done all of that, as the article writer assumes uTorrent is already installed.

Can Amazon deliver a DVD in less than ten minutes, to my computer screen, in the correct format?
Even if the DVD theoretically appeared at my doorstep instantly, I'd have to get up, take the DVD, rip open the packaging, take it out of the box, put it into the computer, wait through a few minutes of piracy warnings...

Or I could pirate it, and make a cup of tea while waiting. Jolly good.

Whether or not it is then fair to pirate movies is a completely seperate issue.
Pirating movies _IS_ easier and faster than actually buying them. Factually. Even ignoring DRM concerns.

Re:Why are we trying to legitimize piracy? (1)

Mr EdgEy (983285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38927007)

Oh, and something else I forgot to mention:

If you didn't have the ability to download it illegally in the first place and you wanted the movie you would go buy it. Lost sale.

Completely ignoring the field of economics is rather silly, don't you think?
If you offer someone a product for £1000, or another product for £5000, do you think that taking away the £1000 product would result in complete conversion to sales of the £5000 product?

In typical Slashdot style, here's a car analogy (I'm in the UK, public transport is viable here):
I don't own a car because for young drivers, insurance runs at £2000+ per year.
If it were available for free, or for say, £300pa, I would buy a car.
In this case, the 'free or cheap' option (i.e piracy) does not exist. I still "want" to drive. But I don't, because I feel it's a waste of money.

And it's not for lack of means: I could afford the insurance, but it becomes comparable to other activities.
I will never buy a movie again. Ever. You could take away my means with which to pirate movies - I still wouldn't buy movies.
Paying £15 for a DVD is not worth it compared to the alternatives for me. £15 buys me ten books from a charity store. £15 buys me a return train ticket to a city I've never visited before. £15 buys me four meals at McDonalds, or a week's worth of food if I live frugally. Stick on another £5 or so and I can get a night out clubbing.

Paying £15 to sit down and watch moving images for 90 minutes is not worth it. It's one of the most expensive activities, per hour, I can think of outside of motorsports/aviation.

Re:Why are we trying to legitimize piracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38927015)

Between Amazon, apple store, and best buy, etc. I can easily download the movie or buy it as easily as I can pirating it.

Bullshit. There are PLENTY of titles that are not available.

If you didn't have the ability to download it illegally in the first place and you wanted the movie you would go buy it. Lost sale.

Also bullshit. There are movies that I would watch... if it were free. They are not movies I would pay $24.95 for, though. Thus, I would never buy them. NO lost sale.

After a while I realized that musicians really do need to make a living too

Poor Lars Ulrich. His net worth is _only_ $175 million dollars. How can he ever survive??

don't underestimate the enemy (4, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926753)

We are making the mistake that many losers in many conflicts have made: We think our enemy is stupid and not seing the obvious.

What if they are?

Imagine that Hollywood is as smart as us and knows everything we know. And still they are doing what they are doing. Why would it make sense?

One, it gives them time. They may know they need to change business models, but like all humans, they are risk-averse and they need time to adapt, to test out various strategies, to find the most profitable approach. At the same time, they want their revenue to continue coming in. Delaying the inevitable is sometimes a smart move, if you can use the time inbetween.

Two, making everything else illegal guarantees that they can take down the competition before it emerges. Many of the illegal online services like Napster or Megaupload were toying with the idea of going legit, because they realized that you can only get so big and so much exposure before the guys with the guns come knocking. A legal service that competes with the studios (instead of working with them, like iTunes) could emerge out of those. Can't have that, better to shut it down while it's still clearly on the illegal side.

There are probably more good reasons. Don't assume they are stupid without proof.

Re:don't underestimate the enemy (5, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926869)

I'll give you a third reason: to stay relevant. The RIAA and the MPAA know and have known for a long time that the Internet and the widespread availability of computers are a death sentence for their industries. Copyrights just do not work when consumer electronics can make large numbers of perfect copies of any data, and without copyrights the RIAA and MPAA have no business model at all.

What they want is for computers to be consumption-only devices, and for the Internet to be a fancy broadcasting system. Everything they have been pushing for over the past 15 years is designed to chip away at the P2P nature of Internet communications and to put consumers back in their place. There is a grand strategy at work: kill the Internet, rebuild it as a fancy cable TV system.

That is the nature of the enemy here.

Devil's Advocate (2)

neros1x (2492908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926765)

I think it is important to remember in all this that, much as they have gone about it the wrong way, the IP holders really do have a legitimate beef. Piracy is a crime and *can* damage their business models. They have a right to protect that. They don't have a right to violate our rights in the process, which is where I protest horrendous crap like SOPA and PIPA. You will never get rid of murderers, either. Or thieves or rapists. That doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute them, but we have to respect their rights in the process. Same standard should go to fighting piracy.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38927009)

Protecting a "business model" should not be a right. There is nothing sacred or necessary about any given "model." Why not operate your business on the way things actually are instead of some model that may or may not reflect reality? Why pour the energy into forcing people to obey a model and instead change your business to profit off of the way things actually work?

Or, better yet, if your shitty model doesn't work, pack your business up, go home, and find something else to do.

Protecting a "business model" means you do not want to adapt your business to changing conditions. Wanting the government to protect a model is no different than welfare.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

deadweight (681827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38927045)

A friend of mine has been an artist (singer - songwriter - band leader) since the 1980s. I don't want to out her here without asking her, but she has pretty much seen her ability to survive as a musician destroyed. She was never getting rich, but 5 thousand CDs sold *at least* paid for the time and money spent to make them. Now they are selling a couple hundred and everyone else gets it free. I am no "never pirated a thing in my life" saint, but you really can do real damage to real people, not just "THE MAN". On a related note, in the 80s a friend's parents tried to run a store selling software. They gave up after awhile because all the kids - INCLUDING THEIR OWN - had everything pirated for free BEFORE it hit their store.

Piracy? (0)

Pirulo (621010) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926777)

What piracy has to do with SOPA and PIPA?

this is what hollywood should do (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926815)

(again, it will fall on deaf ears):

charge money for real world venues, cinema houses

cinema houses are dying?

consider a movie they made for a quarter billion dollars and grossed $2.8 billion dollars. "Avatar". In 2010

dead business model huh?

isn't that an amazing concept: make money in the CINEMA HOUSE

i know there is a contingent of slashdotters who say the cinema house is dead (prices, cell phone noise, crying babies, etc.). but watching a movie alone at home by yourself, no matter how palatial your AV set up (and forget your friends, nobody has friends who show up exactly when you want to watch exactly what you want) just does not compare with the pseudosocial experience of watching a movie in the dark with a crowd. we're social animals. shared reaction = heightened reaction = more pleasurable experience

Outsourced movies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926831)

That's not the problem they face.

Right now Hollywood has a monopoly (through guilds and various trade unions, distribution mechanisms, etc.) on blockbuster type films. I.e., those CGI films that the Slashdot crowd (and I) enjoy. But this is changing. Foreign companies are every day getting better at making a "Hollywood" movie and it will be only a matter of time before they start distributing wholesale to the US. I'm not at artsy fartsy type, but even I can appreciate the better stories and plotlines from the typical indie film.

Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926841)

will never completely go away. BUT here is how to drastically reduce it. The RIAA/MPAA/Publishers need to:

STOP going after the folks that download a few mp3s, movies, or ebooks. Go after the pirates who sell hundreds of thousands or millions of illegal copies!

STOP buying draconian legislation that only hurts legitimate customers and threatens the internet!

STOP treating your paying customers like criminals with DRM. DRM doesn't stop or even slightly slow down the big piracy operations, it only hurts legitimsate paying customers!

STOP all the regional restrictions BS!

STOP screwing and ripping off the Artists/Authors/content creaters!

START producing high quality, DRM-FREE content that people want. Price it reasonably, and make it easy to get over the internet.

START adapting to changing technology and thr real world!

Piracy cannot be legislated away, it cannot be sued out of existance. The only real solution is to give the customers what they want, when they want it, at a price they consider reasionable, with as little hastle as possible. I know that the above mentioned entities (and their clones around the world) don't want to hear this. If they don't start listening, eventually they will go away. They are already starting to be seen as the un-necessary parasites that they are.

It will never end. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926881)

If people can see it or hear it. It will be copied.

Of course! (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926901)

Just like you won't ever kill robbery!
Come on, be serious!

Goodbye demo (3, Informative)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38926919)

The other advantage of this model suggested in the article is that it opens up the demographic again.

Currently, there's generally pretty much only two types of movies being made: 1. big studio movies that get general release and are deliberately targeted at the average under 25's (big, loud, dumb, and 3d where possible) -- this being the only significant viable cinema-going audience, and 2. niche art house movies that are only designed to appeal to movie students, critics, film buffs, and the clinically depressed.

These are the only two viable production models under the current distribution system. If you are over 25 and don't really want to watch some angst-ridden, slow, dreary, politically-correct, mirror on society, nobody is making movies you want to see right now.

Say, for example, a movie like the Sand Pebbles. That movie would be impossible to make in the current market. Unless you either, slashed the budget so it took place in a few rooms, or if you cast Shia LeDouche, Mila Kunis and had lots of car chases in 3d in it. There's no way a movie will make any money at all unless it's either mass appeal, or funded by some European government socialist film fund. We will never see another Sand Pebbles, nor 2001 A Space Oddysey, nor anything by Robert Altman, nor any similar movie, under the current system.

However, if you broadened the distribution system away from cinemas and DVDs, it is possible to target adults again, and release an whole range of genres. It would be like the late 60's and 70's where big-name directors and big stars could experiment, and produce art that was also extremely entertaining (rather than dreary and narcissistic, like the current art house crap).

My next plan. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38926975)

Copyright the color white and sue polar bears.

brb... gotta eliminate prostitution first (2)

KatchooNJ (173554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38927047)

You can't stop people from taking illegal drugs by making laws against it.
You can't stop people from prostitution by making laws against it.
You can't stop people from drinking alcohol by making laws against it.
You can't stop people from making copies of music, movies, etc... by making laws against it.

For some reason, the alcohol one is the only one we figured out, so far.

Pay attention to the times and move with it (3, Informative)

illumnatLA (820383) | more than 2 years ago | (#38927077)

If only Hollywood would learn to move with the times and adapt instead of stubbornly trying to cling to the past. Back in the day, the MPAA fought tooth and nail against consumer video decks considering them the death knell of the industry. When they finally accepted that video decks were here to stay, they adapted and home video became a major source of profit for them.

Now the industry is fighting once again against the internet. Another pointless battle. They need to learn to adapt and incorporate the internet into their business model rather than continuing this losing battle.

Given the choice, most consumers will go the easiest, most convenient route to the content in the format they would like. Netflix streaming has taken off like gangbusters because it's relatively inexpensive and very convenient. Make it easy and inexpensive and most people will not pirate your content! It's far, far easier for the regular consumer to just go to a Netflix type site than to find and download a torrent client, navigate through Pirate Bay, wait for the torrent to download, and hope they don't get plagued with viruses.

People like the convenience of watching movies via the internet. That ain't gonna change. Hollywood needs to embrace the internet and make their libraries available via Netflix like services. Until then, people will continue to follow the easiest path to get the movies they want to watch in the format they want to watch them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>