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!

Controversial Torrent Streaming App 'Popcorn Time' Shuts Down, Then Gets Reborn

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the why-buy-the-cow dept.

Piracy 199

An anonymous reader writes "A piece of software called 'Popcorn Time' drew a lot of attention last week for encapsulating movie torrents within a slick, stream-based UI that made watching pirated films as easy as firing up Netflix. The app ran into trouble a few days ago when it was pulled from its hosting provider, Mega, and now Popcorn Time's creators say they're shutting it down altogether. They say it was mainly an experiment: 'Piracy is not a people problem. It's a service problem. A problem created by an industry that portrays innovation as a threat to their antique recipe to collect value. It seems to everyone that they just don't care. But people do. We've shown that people will risk fines, lawsuits and whatever consequences that may come just to be able to watch a recent movie in slippers. Just to get the kind of experience they deserve.' However, the software itself isn't a complete loss — the project is being picked up by the founder of a torrent site, and he says development will continue."

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

Too late! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46492913)

"Thank you, come again. Smithers, release the hounds."

Entitled Asshole Mentality (1, Insightful)

infinitelink (963279) | about 7 months ago | (#46492957)

The belief you "deserve" an experience, or are entitled to the enjoyment of other's work.

Entitled Asshole Mentality (4, Insightful)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46493019)

The belief you "deserve" a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493111)

It's not a belief, they paid for it.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (4, Insightful)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46493129)

Paid for what?

The entire notion that you should be able to have a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods that infringe upon free speech and private property rights is something I believe qualifies as an "entitled asshole mentality."

Entitled Asshole (5, Insightful)

Stellian (673475) | about 7 months ago | (#46493331)

Or as Simpsons' Lenny would put it: "All we want is brand new, big-budget entertainment in our homes for nothing. Why doesn't Hollywood get that?"

A service problem indeed.

Re:Entitled Asshole (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493957)

Or as Simpsons' Lenny would put it: "All we want is brand new, big-budget entertainment in our homes for nothing. Why doesn't Hollywood get that?

Again, most of you are missing the point. It's not all about begin free, I think most people are not adverse to paying reasonable charges for entertainment. However, the modern crop of Hollywood movies are just not worth the ticket price. Most of them are simply "remakes" of movies I watched as a kid in the 70's. I don't need to watch those again at $12 a pop, $18 if it's in "3D". For a family of four with teens one movie with popcorn and drinks can blow the whole entertainment budget for a month,

With big screen TVs the whole "theater experience" just isn't what it used to be. Even a modest 42" TV is better than a theater because I can control the sound volume. I can pop up a large bowl of popcorn and get a six pack of pop for less than what just the bowl of popcorn costs at the theater. I don't have to walk on sticky floors and day old popcorn, the only screaming children are my own AND I don't have to worry about getting shot by some demented off-duty cop in the back row. Oh, and I can pause the movie if anyone needs to take a break.

I don't want free, I want reasonable. Why doesn't Hollywood get that?

Re: Entitled Asshole (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | about 7 months ago | (#46494731)

Okay. If you want reasonable just wait for three to four months for the movie to come out on video on demand and pay $5.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (2, Interesting)

J3947 (2543110) | about 7 months ago | (#46493179)

Your comment completely ignores the economic situation of creators. There's a large overhead cost and a very small per-unit cost. Pirates want to pay the per-unit cost and ignore the fact that creators have the burden of paying-off the large overhead cost. Copyright (or "government enforced monopoly") is a way to balance that equation so that creators can actually get sufficiently paid for their labor. If you're going to ignore the economics of the situation, then of course you're going to arrive at ignorant opinions about copyright.

BTW, it isn't about "ideas or methods" it's about taking someone's work VERBATIM. It's disingenuous to claim it's about ideas.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46493273)

Your comment completely ignores the economic situation of creators.

No, it doesn't; it's just an irrelevant point. What I care about is freedom, not the safety of authors (anything but "creators," please). Copyright infringes upon freedom of speech (through the use of censorship and other means) and private property rights, while patents infringe upon the latter. That alone makes them intolerable to me.

A less important point (less important because freedom is still what's most important, and I wouldn't accept copyright/patents even if they were proven to be beneficial because of that) is that you have no scientific evidence [slashdot.org] (been there, done that) that copyrights and patents are effective.

If you're going to ignore the economics of the situation, then of course you're going to arrive at ignorant opinions about copyright.

If you're going to pretend as if economics is what's important, then of course you're going to arrive at ignorant opinions about copyright and its ilk.

it's about taking someone's work VERBATIM.

Nothing is being taken.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (2)

J3947 (2543110) | about 7 months ago | (#46494609)

you have no scientific evidence [slashdot.org] (been there, done that) that copyrights and patents are effective.

Considering that your version of "scientific evidence" involves creating an alternative universe with no copyright and seeing how things work out, your claim is utterly irrelevant because all you've done is limit "scientific evidence" to something that can't practically be done. You've moved the goalposts so far away that nobody can actually meet the level of proof you demand. You're like a creationist who says that we can't know if evolution happened unless we build a time-machine and since that can't be done, then I have "no scientific evidence" for evolution.

Copyright infringes upon freedom of speech (through the use of censorship and other means) and private property rights, while patents infringe upon the latter. That alone makes them intolerable to me.

All moral and legal systems are based on consequences. We support freedom of speech because the consequences are generally bad if we don't. However, we make allowances for certain cases (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater). Similarly, we know that lying is bad. In a court of law, lying is called "perjury" and it is punishable by law. If you claim that you wrote something that was actually written by someone else, that lie is called "plagiarism" and it's frowned upon. In other cases, like telling a white lie or lying to protect someone (e.g. protecting someone from being killed by Nazis), we permit and even praise such actions. All lies could also be put under the umbrella term "freedom of speech" (which would suggest that all lies should be legal). So, why are some lies treated very differently than other lies? Because of *consequences*. If you hold some stance that freedom of speech is absolute, then all lies should be permissible and legal. The fact that we care about consequences rather than absolute principles changes things. Copyright (like laws against perjury) might seem like affronts to your principle of free speech, but they are specific exemptions that exist because they are important in creating the kind of society that humans want to live in. I'd go so far as to say that even laws against theft of property isn't a moral absolute, but rather, a principle that we hold to because of the consequences. (And, I'm sure you could complain that government taxation that is used to help poor people could also be classified as "theft" and therefore morally wrong, but I see it as a specific exemption to the "don't steal from one person to give to another person" rule which actually produces a better world.)

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (2)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46494727)

Considering that your version of "scientific evidence" involves creating an alternative universe with no copyright and seeing how things work out

Been there, done that. The least you could do is say something that wasn't already said in one of those comments; something I didn't already respond to. The next best thing would be to get rid of copyright, since, again, there is no scientific evidence for it, and by default, restrictions should not exist, so the burden of proof is on those defending restrictions.

We support freedom of speech because the consequences are generally bad if we don't.

I support freedom of speech because I believe freedom of speech is a good thing in and of itself and should not be limited. I simply like the idea of being able to speak freely and not being censored. That is why I do not care for the 'safety mentality' that gives us 'amazing' things like the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, and all those other things the government uses to violate our rights.

However, we make allowances for certain cases

You might, and society obviously does, but I don't.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (4, Insightful)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | about 7 months ago | (#46493275)

I'm a mathematician. I am a "creator", paid by your taxes to produced good research ideas that are later put on arXiv.org and on my website for everyone to download. This system seems to work well, at least in our field. Just sayin'...

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1, Troll)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#46493447)

But you are not making $1.2million per release, so you cant afford yet another gold plated Ferarri...

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

J3947 (2543110) | about 7 months ago | (#46494487)

paid by your taxes

Considering that this economic model doesn't exist for software developers, musicians, movie studios, or authors, I don't understand your point. Further, I don't think those people should be paid by taxes because either the government ends up paying a bunch of people (regardless of the quality of their work) or the government picks and chooses who gets paid. Neither of those are good systems. I trust the free market to decide who should get paid for their work, but just as you don't depend on people donating money so that you can pay your bills, I don't think that other people should have to, either. Hence copyright.

I'm a software developer (1)

Kartu (1490911) | about 7 months ago | (#46495157)

And please, don't mix me into this.
Most money in this area is spent on "tailor made" "for this company only" projects, makes no sense to copy them.

On the other hand we have HTC paying Microsoft for every Android phone they sell because MS managed to patent insane shit like "showing icon in the loading area of the browser".

No, thanks.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

BronsCon (927697) | about 7 months ago | (#46493981)

Pirates want to pay the per-unit cost

Uhm... then what's the problem? Do consumers want to pay more? Or are you saying that I should have to pay the entire cost of production just to get to see the movie, and if I don't do that, I'm a pirate? If so, fuck you.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493993)

Sorry, but "creators" are no more entitled to make a living off of something nobody wants to pay for then I am. You know what I do when I want to "create" something? I work for a while to earn my keep, at my day job. Then I sit down and "create". Then I don't have to whine about it when people "take" my "creations", because I gave them away, not wanting to charge for the "privilege" of enjoying my "creation".

What you fail to understand is that there is a supply and demand curve going on here. If you want to invest in a HUGE startup cost, then you should look into selling your idea on a kickstarter. If anyone wants it, they'll pay. If they don't, you take the risk like the rest of us. Some people will pay, others won't. But you're the one who thinks that a substantial up-front cost is both necessary and entitles you to work on just that project like it's the cure for cancer. But it's not. It's entertainment. Not even "art" in 99% of cases, just entertainment. If I can find people willing to entertain for me (myself included) then why should I care when you cry about lost profits?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493999)

I am a creator. I don't get any "help". There are a lot of costs and patents to dodge if you want to commercialize your work. Even slipping a little humorous reference to a brand can get your work in trouble.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46494085)

If you're going to ignore the economics of the situation, then of course you're going to arrive at ignorant opinions about copyright.

Are we talking actual economics here or Hollywood accounting economics? Hollywood very definitely does not have the moral high ground here. They routinely lie, cheat and use phoney shell companies to make darn sure that movies do not make any money, at least on paper. All to avoid paying what *THEY* promised the actors or the creative talent behind the story.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46494331)

"Your comment completely ignores the economic situation of creators."

And YOUR comment gets both the law and some of the economics wrong.

DOWNLOADING IS NOT PIRACY. Piracy is a 150-year-old legal term that (generally) means bulk copying for profit. Get it through your head and start using the word properly. Downloading without permission is a copyright violation, but not piracy. Uploading without permission is also a copyright violation but usually, unless you have a profit motive, that's not piracy either. Piracy has a narrower and different definition than how you used it. Someone in China selling bootleg copies of a CD is a pirate. Somebody downloading (or uploading!) a low-res rip of "Scary Movie" is not. (Which, BTW, is usually not even close to "verbatim".)

Having said that: yes, overhead is a large part of the cost. But you are ignoring 2 important relevant facts: first, the studios' own business model is to make back that money via those small per-unit sales you mention. And second, there is no good evidence that downloading hurts sales. On the contrary: studies that have been done over the last 15 years (since Napster came on the scene) have pretty consistently shown that it HELPS sales.

Most downloading occurs in situations in which there would NOT have been a sale in the first place. (Due to lack of money, lack of transportation, whatever.) Which means the studio really hasn't lost a sale. On the other hand, it provides good "word of mouth" about a product (movie, CD, whatever), which can be considered free advertising. The ones who lose are those who get box office revenue by drawing people in to what turns out to be a shitty movie. So it could be said that downloading helps the industry weed out the bad actors.

And further yet, when somebody downloads, even if you assume that it was a lost sale, all the studios and "the artists" lose is the profit that would have been made on the sale, which is usually a small fraction of the retail price. Which is one reason downloading has actually helped the studios and artists make more money, rather than lose it.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 7 months ago | (#46493341)

Everything you "own" is protected by a government enforced monopoly over that item - why are the laws which protect your stuff better than the laws which protect other peoples stuff?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46493367)

Never heard that one before. [slashdot.org] See how it went for him.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46494493)

Anonymous Brave Guy might not have been 100% correct, but he did have some good points. Getting shouted down does not mean he was wrong about everything.

Recent abuse of government does not mean the whole concept of government is bad. In the same vein, recent abuse by copyright holders does not mean the concept of copyright is bad. It served us well for most of 200 years. It still can.

The trick is to rein in the abuse, not to destroy something that demonstrably works well when it is allowed to.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (2, Insightful)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46494551)

Recent abuse of government does not mean the whole concept of government is bad.

That's not at all the point I've been making, not even about copyright. My point, as I've made clear, is that copyright itself is intolerable because it infringes upon free speech and real private property rights, regardless of any 'good' people think it does. The less important point I make is that there's no actual scientific evidence that it even is beneficial to begin with.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46494741)

"That's not at all the point I've been making, not even about copyright."

Uh... that sure as hell is what it looked like you were saying with the comment I replied to.

You weren't "making points" at all. You were simply making bald claims of philosophy.

Now, I happen to be somewhat on your side when it comes to GP's statement about "deserving" somebody elses' work. But that doesn't mean I agree with you about copyright in general not being useful or good.

We DO have evidence of what happens when you do not have a reasonable body of copyright law: Soviet Russia and Red China. In both cases, their production of innovative invention and art was reduced to a fraction of what it had been. And in both cases, what innovation there was was almost strictly government-sponsored. They tended instead to just "borrow" what others had already developed in the way of both art and technology. I'm not saying their production of ideas stopped. But it was reduced rather drastically.

This *IS* historical -- and scientific -- evidence that absence of personal gain, as a motivation to to innovate, results in less innovation. And it is not the only such evidence.

Anything else is counter-factual wishful thinking.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46494813)

Uh... that sure as hell is what it looked like you were saying with the comment I replied to.

I don't think so.

We DO have evidence of what happens when you do not have a reasonable body of copyright law: Soviet Russia and Red China.

So your evidence is to point to past societies that were and are vastly different from our own in a myriad of other ways. Different economic systems, different forms of government, etc. Really?

This *IS* historical -- and scientific -- evidence that absence of personal gain

Who says there would be an absence of personal gain? Given a lack of copyright, people would have to strive to find other ways to make money. No one can say what it would look like.

Anything else is counter-factual wishful thinking.

Much like copyright itself.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493807)

As long as you keep paying for it. Try not paying municipal taxes on a house you supposedly "own" and see how far you get.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

infinitelink (963279) | about 7 months ago | (#46495005)

You're speaking like a "conservative" screaming "government intervention" when their leadership propagandizes, or "liberal" screaming that the rich are behind a nefarious scheme to put down the poor when told by their masters (while those opposed are advocating eliminating some kind of thing that actually harms the poor the most). But the worst part is, you're using libertarian rhetoric to do it, and injecting emotion-laden buzzwords to get a reaction ain't thinkin'.

In the US context, "[...] government-enforced monopolies on ideas and methods" happens to pertain to PA-TENTS, , a separate class of objects altogether.

Access to copyrighted works recently-made with little merits or contribution to the advancement of useful arts and sciences, in any way, is neither a public good nor a public right; they are copy-righted, by their creators, to extract a return for their efforts and basically because they want to, and nobody really actually disagrees with this (openy and publicly); personally I'm fine with monopolizing-away Hanna Montana bullshit. (If you want to see how television effects children, take a sample of the Disney-raised little princesses that watched that shit over the last six or seven year.)

But vast collections of facts, cleverly arranged and not really a creative act (though courts like to find, wherever possible, how it could possibly be creative)? Nope on that. (I'm looking at various kinds of 'scholarly' works.)

But patents should never be granted on facts of nature or mathematics or merely exploitative or derivative consequences: the supreme court never pretended they (or their isomorphisms, ideas and methods) were patentable, on the grounds that anything so fundamental to knowledge, science work, and being human, violates and does violence to men's natural rights...until they not only stopped caring about those but even questioned that they exist (even the Conservatives: pick-up Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America" and you'll find a quasi-libertarian Authoritarian 'as-long-as-process-is-followed'" statist).

Movies however belong to the domain of copyright. And these days, they're barely even artistic, thinly-veiled engagements of the most prurient interests; appeals to emotion; some either substituting a identity-less character so you can step-in (a well-known trick to make something explode in popularity because the consumer feels as though everything is happening directly to them) or celebrations of those with personality cults (hence, no real acting anymore: just people playing themselves with a different name and context).

And then there is that useful distinction that stands quite well: idea vs. expression. Now if the optimal and only expression, such as a scientific formula mathematically derived, then no it's not...copyrightable (a different class); but any of the material "pirated" in this scenario isn't of that nature. It was just appropriated by all with the chance to see what they want, when they want...

Note however, I already appropriate (for those who used the link) for fair-use, though only through reference, a copyrighted work: it's called fair-use.

But...if you were thinking before you posted, you would know that they are separate issues, that there are methods of critiquing copyright, but shouting "government-enforced monopolies" and sleighting with "ideas and methods" would get-up the cheering of the horde here because they're near-and-dear words that play to certain prejudices...whereby you poison the well [of thinking] before it can commence.

Speaking of the Supreme Court: it is to such stupidity, whether libertarian, Conservative, Progressive, etc., that words by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes are wise, that is, that men should think not in words but in things.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46495029)

you would know that they are separate issues

Obviously, I acknowledged that they are separate issues. Not sure what the point of your comment was.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46495053)

But I *do* find it funny that you talk about "emotion-laden buzzwords" when you're the one who made a comment titled "Entitled Asshole Mentality" and then went on to mock people who supposedly think they're entitled to other people's work (whatever that means).

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493065)

I think the entitled ass-hole is the person who creates, but will not share, simply because they believe they should be paid for their work. I understand that people need to be able to earn a living, but we tend to create scarcity in order to create profit. Think of the cost of reproducing a film these days, or an mp3, do you think each copy is worth the fee charged for it?

If someone created the most beautiful symphony, or cured all disease, or just answered a question, should we hide the work because they want it hidden? Bring on Economics 2.0...

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (4, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46493239)

I understand that people need to be able to earn a living, but we tend to create scarcity in order to create profit. Think of the cost of reproducing a film these days, or an mp3, do you think each copy is worth the fee charged for it?

It's not only the reproduction costs but it also includes the value of the hard work of the artist.

At first glance it would seem that "no one loses anything" when you make a copy of some song. But it's kind of like making fake money -- no one loses money if you print money, but in the end the value of the money decreases due to inflation. It's the same for music: if enough people just take a free copy, the value of the music decreases. Then the artist and/or record company do not see feasible to produce that artist's music anymore.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493613)

I run a business selling bottles of air but people keep breathing from the atmosphere instead of buying mine. I demand to get paid. I'm doing hard work and it's expensive to do what I'm doing. Let's fix this problem. First of all, we need to subsidize my work with taxes. Then we need to stop all these free-breathers. They are DESTROYING the economy. Think of all the sales and even healthy competition that would occur without a bunch of kids running around stealing what is essentially my work.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46493799)

Yeah, well, try to make a song once. It does not have to be a big hit, but you have to make a finished product. Write and sing some lyrics, play some guitar, record it with a computer. I assume that you would find that it's not as trivial as bottling air.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46494297)

Doing real science isn't trivial either. Yet, us scientists give away all of our work for free, collecting just our salary, not related to how many people benefit. Science is more important than art, so why do artists get to make all the money? The least the artists could do is give scientists free access to their art.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

J3947 (2543110) | about 7 months ago | (#46494505)

That's a stupid and non-analogous example. If we took your example seriously, it would mean that authors would be allowed to stop *OTHER AUTHORS* from selling books. You clearly do not understand copyright.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493625)

if enough people just take a free copy, the value of the music decrease

Great. I'd much rather live in a society where if you make music you have to earn a living being paid for performing, or for someone else to license your work for commercial use.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

David Jao (2759) | about 7 months ago | (#46493701)

THIS.

Restrictions on computing or copying are unacceptable. Full stop. This is not negotiable. Copying is as natural as breathing in the digital age. Everything else, without exception, has to start from this premise and work around it. Nothing else is compatible with technological progress. Nothing else is compatible with free society.

If artists cannot sustainably produce music under this constraint, then so be it. Better to have no music at all than no freedom of computing.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46493823)

Should commercial software also be distributed freely?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46494087)

You're talking to someone who just said that it would be better to have no music at all than to restrict copying, so I would presume the answer to your question is "yes."

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (4, Interesting)

David Jao (2759) | about 7 months ago | (#46494089)

Yes, absolutely. Commercial software represents about 1% of our economy, even under the current copyright regime which artificially tilts the market in favor of the software sector. It's absolutely, criminally insane from a policy perspective to hold the other 99% of our economy hostage to this special interest. Lifting the artificial technological restrictions imposed by copyright would grow our economy by much more than 1%, every single year.

To take just one example, if not for copyright restrictions, Google Books would provably be willing to make available for free to every human on the planet the entire contents of the Library of Congress. You're telling me that the future potential growth from making this knowledge available isn't worth trading 1% of our economy on a one-time basis?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46494389)

I cannot even put this level of stupid into a language that I speak.

What a narrow-sighted fool.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

David Jao (2759) | about 7 months ago | (#46494805)

Right, attack the messenger. Do you have any substantive arguments? Didn't think so.

In a world lacking music, the human species can survive. In a world lacking free sharing of knowledge, the human species is doomed to die. Take your pick.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (2)

nblender (741424) | about 7 months ago | (#46493923)

But it's kind of like making fake money -- no one loses money if you print money, but in the end the value of the money decreases due to inflation. It's the same for music: if enough people just take a free copy, the value of the music decreases. Then the artist and/or record company do not see feasible to produce that artist's music anymore.

Yes, kind of. Only not really at all.

I can print as much fake money as possible and burn it or wallow around on the floor in it and I haven't really devalued the nation's currency at all. Now, if I turn around and try to sell that money to someone as my money, the your analogy holds. However, I can make a copy of a song and listen to it in an infinite loop all day and as long as I never intended to purchase the song in the first place, I haven't devalued the song in any way. (Until such time as I turn around and give or sell it to someone else).

The first content provider who sets up a voluntary "donation page" where you can pay what you think a pirated movie was worth to you, will be seen to "finally get it"... See: Radiohead.

If I could register with an organization and submit donations for movies that I pirated and watched, I would absolutely pay. I still pay my cable bill even though I pirate all of my TV and haven't turned my cable boxes on for over 2 years.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46493969)

However, I can make a copy of a song and listen to it in an infinite loop all day and as long as I never intended to purchase the song in the first place, I haven't devalued the song in any way.

You consumed the song's value when you listened to it. But before that you didn't pay for it. So you devalued the song.

You got value for listening the music, the artist got no value for making it.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 7 months ago | (#46494201)

Maybe the author gets "value" (quoted because you're trying to ascribe a dollar amount to an intangible) from creating. Maybe they also get value from the fact that people want to listen to it. If an author is purely doing it for the money then that denigrates the act of creation and makes them a production line worker. Which is exactly what the big labels want, drones that increase their bottom line and to hell with the quality just so long as it sells.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46494327)

Agreed, I hope no one does music just for the money! But they have to get reasonable kind of money as being a musician is often the main job of an artist.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 7 months ago | (#46494379)

Maybe the author gets "value" (quoted because you're trying to ascribe a dollar amount to an intangible) from creating.

Financially speaking, the author would derive better value from flipping burgers if all he got from his book was a momentary emotion of "having created something awesome."

If an author is purely doing it for the money then that denigrates the act of creation and makes them a production line worker.

Really? In that case, software devs should work for free as there is a lot of creativity (but not as much as an author) involved in creating software.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46494097)

However, I can make a copy of a song and listen to it in an infinite loop all day and as long as I never intended to purchase the song in the first place, I haven't devalued the song in any way.

It doesn't matter whether you did intend to purchase it or not; money you never had isn't something you can lose.

Re: Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

corychristison (951993) | about 7 months ago | (#46494509)

If I could register with an organization and submit donations for movies that I pirated and watched, I would absolutely pay. I still pay my cable bill even though I pirate all of my TV and haven't turned my cable boxes on for over 2 years.

I thought this up quite a while ago, and even brought it up on slashdot once before. I was modded down because the people who did see it screamed "think of the transportation industry!"

Anyway, my vision is quite clear. The media companies put together a website in which we could simply buy a license to obtain a copy of a specific work by any digital means available in whatever formats available.

The idea is since they are selling the license only, it completely cuts out the cost of producing physical media and the costs of distribution. Therefore, the per unit costs would be drastically reduced. For example, a full length movie would be $5.00 or less. A price point I think most people have no problem spending even if the movie turns out to be garbage. It could result in more sales, is easier to track sales. I can even envision companies set up to sell these licenses coupled with high quality versions of these works.

This obviously is a dream. As no media corp would consider it because, well, they are greedy assholes and enjoy their monopolies and ability to fuck with everyday normal people like me who flat out have no need for physical media or DRM encumbered crap I can't play on my home media center.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

J3947 (2543110) | about 7 months ago | (#46494521)

See: Radiohead.

Article: "Radiohead won't repeat 'In Rainbows' release / Band says pay-what-you-like system won't happen again"
Source: http://www.nme.com/news/radioh... [nme.com]
What was your point exactly?

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 7 months ago | (#46495035)

The entitled asshole is the person that refuses to engage the market for his work then complains about not making any money.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493079)

I'm happy to pay for...

1. timely
2. 1080p and/or 1080p 3D
3. portable, clean (but reasonable DRM accepted) ...movie file / TV show episode file download.

Nobody wants my money.

Steam is something I currently consider reasonable. I can log in anywhere and (re)download my purchases and use them freely. Sadly it's just for PC/Mac games.

Netflix is closest to usable, but they fail #1 and #3. I also grossly dislike the fact that something being on Netflix today does not guarantee it is there tomorrow. Shows and movies get yanked out all the time with no rhyme or reason. Heck, just a couple of weeks ago I decided that I'd like to re-watch Stargate. Old but popular Sci-Fi TV series that is already pretty much out of rerun circulation on the TV. Surely Netflix has it.

Nope.

Certain "Bay" that shall not be named had it in perfect set of high quality files that I can watch at any time and that nobody can take away from me tomorrow based on their whim. I would have paid for that, but nobody wanted my money. I actually tried - every single place told me my money was no good because I did not live in the US. I did not want a mountain of DVD discs on my shelf (tho I did consider buying a bunch of boxed sets but the total shipping costs and the sheer physical amount of discs and the hassle of juggling them put me off).

Wake me when the studios match at least Blu-Ray release dates with worldwide, downloadable (not streamable) high quality offerings at a price point that is less than the Blu-ray box (as Blu-rays have resale value while downloads generally do not).

Not holding my breath. Nope.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1, Informative)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46493149)

reasonable DRM

Isn't something that actually exists.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493287)

Doesn't mean it cannot be done.

And yes, I consider Steam to be "reasonable DRM" at this time.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46493323)

DRM necessarily means that you're not in full control of your computing, or that someone is attempting to take control away from you, and that alone means it's automatically bad. Steam is not "reasonable DRM," as reasonable DRM does not exist. And as far as I'm aware, games on Steam don't *need* to use DRM.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

terrab0t (559047) | about 7 months ago | (#46493917)

It would be nice if the existing big studios were intelligent and competitive enough to eventually catch up with technology, but if even the piracy they rave and lobby the government over won't push them forward, they may never join the rest of us.

The future lies in content producers who already sell their work mainly online [www.vhx.tv] . It woudn't surprise me to see vhfx.tv releasing an app like Netflix, or adding their library to any number of other convenient online media stores. They get it. Digital distribution is better for them and their customers.

The existing large media companies will only follow suit long after we have all abandoned them for the ones who do things sensibly. However, that will never happen unless we stop giving them our money and start giving it to people who use services like vhfx.tv

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 7 months ago | (#46494035)

Yes, you can resell you physical BluRay disc, but why would you, and who would buy it? Then, you're stuck with a viewing license for media you no longer posses, while the buyer now holds media they have no license to view. I actually read something to this effect in a license that came with a BluRay copy of a movie once; if I happen across it again, I'll reply to this post with verifiable details.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493083)

Said the English major that will never create anything of value other than a nice hot cup of starbucks.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493203)

Which still has more value than nebulous ideas about IP.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493095)

Imagine every piece of media could be covertly torrented/copied/streamed to any machine. You either deserve to have access to it, or the Web deserves to be shut down. Copying bits hurts no one whether or not you know what is being copied.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

J3947 (2543110) | about 7 months ago | (#46493245)

"Copying bits hurts no one"

No, it undermines the economic system of creation.

Besides, if "copying bits hurts no one", then I guess you're also a fan of the website "Is Anyone Up?".

"You either deserve to have access to it, or the Web deserves to be shut down."
See: "False Dilemma": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]

Essentially, all you're doing here is trying to take something bad (piracy, malware, email scams, etc) and chain it to something good (the internet) and then claim that we have to accept the former if we're going to accept the latter. Of course, most every technology comes with some bad aspects. It makes no sense to say "we should not try to eliminate the bad effects of a technology if we want to have that technology".

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 7 months ago | (#46493371)

No, it undermines the economic system of creation.

I agree 100%, but the Slashdot groupthink seems to be that the era of an 'economic system of creation' is over. Opinion seems to be that all content should be made free by creators ('content is just bytes and wants to be free.')

Exception seems to be paid admissions to live performances (music / theatre) as that appears to still be acceptable - Not sure how that works for people like my author-brother, though.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (2, Interesting)

BronsCon (927697) | about 7 months ago | (#46494215)

I'm all for artists and production crews getting paid for their hard work. After all, I survive on copyright and I enjoy getting paid or my work. What I can't get behind is (and let's simplify by making the assumption that the theatrical release brought in just enough to cover production, distribution, and the gap between wholesale and retail, for the BluRay release, that none of that revenue went toward paying for the production of the movie itself, and that there was no profit from the theatrical release) being asked to pay $40 for a BluRay copy of a $20M budget flick *after* it's sold 500,000 copies. Pay *something* for it? Yes, but they've recouped their production costs. Remember that a movie budget includes *every* expense, pay for the actors, production crew, stage hands, and the guy that brings the director his coffee, the cost of renting props (and creating one-off props) and buying or renting set locations. Everything. 500k * $40 = $20M. They've been paid at that point. All of them. Everyone.

Now, let's acknowledge that the theatrical release already covered the production budget and brought in a bit of profit. Moving away from the earlier simplification, we also have to admit that, while the $40 cost of a BluRay isn't pure profit, the production and distribution costs of that BluRay disc are much less than the $30 wholesale; pennies per disc, but let's call it $1 to be extra fair to the industry. So they're making $29 on that disc when the store buys it; on a movie that's already been paid for and turned a profit. The people who did the actual work have already been paid by this point, so piracy really and truly is not hurting them; the store they might have bought it from lost $10 or so in profit (and if that store happens to be Target, they probably deserve it at this point, anyway), but the studio can't say they lost the $29 they would have made when the store restocked that sold copy, because the store likely won't restock it unless it's a brand new release, anyway.

For a large subset of pirates, this is the motivating factor. Wholesale the damn disc for $10 with a retail of $15, $5 and $7.50 for DVD, and make a noticeable dent in piracy. Allow (DRM-free) downloads, from the day the BluRay becomes available, for 2/3 of those prices (since there's no resale possible -- and those prices would be $10 for 1080p, $5 for SD) and take out an even larger chunk. Allow *unlimited* streaming, also from the day the BluRay becomes available, at 1/3 of those prices (for those having trouble following along, that's $5 for 1080p and $2.50 for SD) and one-time streaming for $2 for 1080p or $1 for SD, and yes, there will still be pirates, but nobody will bat an eye when you prosecute them.

And if the studios do this first-party, they will reap all of the profits. As it is right now, They see less than $2 for 1080p and $1 for SD from Apple, when someone streams a movie from iTunes, so it would be a win all around.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493097)

Perhaps if you do not wish to or can not pay the cost of copyright protection, you shouldn't have copyrighted your work in the first place...

Oops, I forgot your government forces you to copyright your works and extract the costs for it, and you have no say so in the matter anymore.

Well it sounds like your only beef is with your government representatives. I doubt you'll find many of those here on slashdot to note your complaint.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493127)

Just like the belief that some jackass "deserves" to put a tax on my blank CDs, DVDs, and memory sticks.

'Other's work'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493263)

Fortunately, making a copy using bittorrent does not involve the labor of either the original creator or the licensed distributor, so this particular moral concern is a moot point.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#46493435)

Like how movie studios Deserve financial help from the government and they never make money on a movie so they dont have to pay taxes.

I would feel bad for them if they were not raging scumbags themselves. Just ask Stan-Lee how he was robbed of any money from the Spiderman movies.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

infinitelink (963279) | about 7 months ago | (#46495093)

You're importing separate issues. I wasn't speaking of justice or injustice regarding their misbehaviors, but the entitlement felt by Americans to access everyone else's.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

silviuc (676999) | about 7 months ago | (#46493441)

No asshole, I'm willing to pay for for the experience. The people you shill for don't allow me to do that because I do not live in a country that they deem worthy of their "blessing". I'll bet my ass that it's not the artists that chose not to take my money but the assholes that you and they work for.

Fuck them and fuck you too... I don't want you to feel discriminated or something.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

Windwraith (932426) | about 7 months ago | (#46494037)

Yeah, in places like Europe you can't get certain content even paying, and the content we have is more expensive than in the US (at least videogames and movies). And importing certain content in Spain will make it automatically taxed on customs, with a bullshit "handling" tax our government sneaked upon us, above 60â for importing a $30 videogame or movie. Since few people imports anything here, nobody ever speaks of it.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (1)

infinitelink (963279) | about 7 months ago | (#46495109)

Either your government is in some kind of treaty that we also hate, or else you're just not looking hard enough, but you don't have a right to consume entertainment--neither do I. You can make your own--it has nothing to do with discrimination--and I don't shill for anyone: I do tech support these days and deal with assholes who feel like we should give them everything and more all day, as though they deserve (all the services + also all our labor + setting-up all their networking, configuring all their computers, cleaning them because they won't stop surfing porn--or let us know when it would be useful--and worse).

If you were crying about access to textbooks then I'd side with you--maybe (if our system weren't so twisted). But you feel discriminated and butthurt cause you can't catch an episode of the Walking Dead, 24, or the next movie? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

To put this into perspective folks: I'm homeless. I work out of hotspots for my job, and I don't feel like I MUST be able to watch anything, and basically I don't. Yet all around me people who say how you just have to have this or that, a smartphone, such and such style, be able to read something, etc...I would settle living in a tent off a campus and having access to a university library. :(

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493495)

Deserve may have been a bad choice of word there, but what they are trying to get at is that when people hand over money they expect a certain level of service for that. Now yes you will always get those who feel entitled to everything, but for those who are willing to pay the existing services don't meet the expectations. How many times have you, or someone you know wanted to watch a movie on netflix, or amazon prime only to find that the studio hasn't made it available for streaming, or my favorite, you cannot stream high definition on this device if you want that you must use your 10" tablet not your desktop hooked to your home theater's projector.

The problem for the movie industry is the longer they wait the more polished and accessible the pirates make the experience for people without cost, the more difficult it will be for them to convince people to pay for a service.

Re: Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Inness Asher (3579093) | about 7 months ago | (#46493775)

A$$. Drop the party line and you'll realize *we are entitled*. We're entitled to get what we pay for. It's *our* money. That's the 'entitlement' you're moaning about. Drop the buzz words, start thinking about who and what you're criticising, and you just might start to see the ultra-violet ink all over your face that spells 'corporate slave'.

Re:Entitled Asshole Mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46494259)

It's not entitlement, it's just opportunistic. Get it through your dumb fucking head.

This is indeed a service problem (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46492959)

This is indeed a service problem, which I've been saying for years. I'm happy to fork over $$ to any service that lets me watch the latest episodes of my favourite TV show or a movie that has recently been released.

No stupid region codes, no stupid staggered releases to other parts of the world (yes, I am in YURP), just a reasonable price for access to the latest contest. Netflix goes a long way, but generally has older content (which, I guess, is easier to license).

I feel that I have no other option but piracy, and if a legitimate alternative would be available, I'd use it.

Re:This is indeed a service problem (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46492999)

Different AC Here but in fact, I buy a lot of mp3, non-DRMed, non-region encoded, music. A few albums a month from the Amazon MP3 store.

If I could buy non-DRMed, non-region encoded movies, I'd buy about as many. As it stands, I buy zero.

Re:This is indeed a service problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493141)

there is no itunes store in europe?

in the USA itunes gets movies a few months after release in the theaters. along with Vudu, cinemanow and a few other open stores that share purchases

Re:This is indeed a service problem (1)

lennier1 (264730) | about 7 months ago | (#46494311)

There's an iTunes store in most European markets, but it's more of an afterthought where the original videos are usually inacessible and you only get localized/dubbed crap even though the original version is right there next to it on the server.

Re:This is indeed a service problem (0)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 7 months ago | (#46493229)

Preface: I think copyright should be abolished, and distribution rights more strictly enforced. There, that out of the way...

I'm happy to fork over $$ to any service that lets me watch the latest episodes of my favourite TV show or a movie that has recently been released.

Good on ye, mate!

No stupid region codes, no stupid staggered releases to other parts of the world (yes, I am in YURP), just a reasonable price for access to the latest contest.

Sounds good to me!

Netflix goes a long way,

It sure does!

but

Oh for pete's sake. We knew it was coming. It's always coming. Okay, fine, let's hear your arguments.

generally has older content (which, I guess, is easier to license).

Well, yes, yes it is. As soon as we try to license more recent content, prices go up. Our prices go up, your prices go up. All of a sudden, we run afoul your whole "reasonable price" thing. I know, we should blame the content providers for charging more for something recent for which there is greater demand than there is for the old stuff, supply & demand shouldn't apply here because supply is infinite and all that. Unfortunately, reality doesn't work that way, but let's continue.

I feel that I have no other option but piracy,

Why do you have that feeling? Is that a feeling imposed on you by outside influences (is the industry bombarding you with so much advertising that it has instilled a psychological need, like an addiction), or a feeling that is entirely self-created?

I.e. if Netflix does not offer you Movie X that was recently released, why do you feel that your only option is to download it (be that legally, as in The Netherlands, or illegally) - rather than going out to see it (if still playing in theaters), renting it (physical or pay per view), buying it, or... I know, odd suggestion ...not seeing it?

and if a legitimate alternative would be available, I'd use it.

So do you use Netflix?

See, on the one hand, Netflix is a legitimate alternative to downloading "older content". That would suggest that you should be using it for that older content. But there's that "but". So I don't know if you do or do not use Netflix.
If you don't, and the reason for this hinges upon that "but", then where would you put the bar - and are you willing to make this bar immovable?

You see, I come across people saying "oh I would totally pay for X if they'd just offer Y", but then once that becomes available they slowly add on the entire rest of the alphabet.

"I would totally pay for music if it were cheap"
$0.99/song iTunes.

"I would totally pay for music if it were cheap and DRM free"
DRM-free iTunes

"I would totally pay for music if it were cheap, DRM free and played anywhere"
DRM-free MP3s at iTunes

"I would totally pay for music if it were cheap, DRM free, played anywhere, and I didn't have to store it"
iTunes Radio

"I would totally pay for music if it were cheap, DRM free, played anywhere, I didn't have to store it, and came as uncompromised quality without lossless encoding".
Well we haven't reached that bar yet, and it might not end up being that bar, but we all know that bar is going to move; if not in features, then in exactly what defines 'cheap'. Streaming music services have already moved the bar on that - $0.99/song is considered rather expensive now.

So when you consider an answer to the "where would you put the bar", make sure you aim as high as you're truly comfortable with. Then put yourself in the shoes of a company that is supposed to make this happen, and contemplate whether you can think of a way that this could be made to happen, and be sustainable.
If you find that it can be - good god, man/woman, what are you still doing here? GO OUT AND DO IT - I would sign up pronto.
If you find that it cannot be - then be honest with yourself, and realize that you will always be downloading, are unlikely to be paying for any service that does not meet the bar, and are perfectly fine with that.

I would be. I'm fine with impossible demands and the impossibility of meeting them. Let everything go back to patronage, I say. Then pirates would no longer be pirates, artists get exactly what they agreed to, and we can all revel in whatever quality and quantity of entertainment this results in. There'll always be local bands playing for free beers and actors doing stage performances for the joy of it.

In the mean time, download away - especially if it's legal. Just try not to distribute - especially not if you profit off of doing so (and that includes all the people making a cozy living off of shady ads plastered around the little iframe with the video in it).

Re:This is indeed a service problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493307)

Does anyone REALLY still pirate music?

I mean, if you disregard pre-teen freeloaders with no money and little morals and count people who are able to pay, I would say that most of them either...

- Use Spotify
- Buy DRM-free MP3s (i've bought a bunch, tho I'm not a big time music consumer)

Only case where I've even considered torrenting music were squarely cases of "nobody is selling this specific piece of music anywhere - and yes, I tried".

Re:This is indeed a service problem (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46493351)

I mean, if you disregard pre-teen freeloaders with no money and little morals

Copying bits has little to do with morality.

Re:This is indeed a service problem (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 7 months ago | (#46493865)

Copying bits has little to do with morality.

Then neither is sitting in a mostly empty movie theater without paying for a ticket, or taking a bus or train ride, when they are mostly empty, without paying for the ticket. In both cases, the owners of those establishments are not losing any money by your freeloading because hardly anyone is using them at that moment.

Re:This is indeed a service problem (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 7 months ago | (#46493935)

Then neither is sitting in a mostly empty movie theater without paying for a ticket, or taking a bus or train ride, when they are mostly empty, without paying for the ticket.

Yeah, but you risk being kicked off by the property owners. But there is no tangible harm there, you're right.

Re:This is indeed a service problem (1)

Windwraith (932426) | about 7 months ago | (#46494137)

iTunes doesn't carry certain songs into Europe, so even if they are under one Euro a pop, we just can't get it through there.
I am not sure about Netflix but when I checked it back in the day it was as region locked as Hulu, is that still the case?

Likewise certain mobile apps are also region-locked, even when they are free.
The whole region lock is a very complex issue, not to mention certain governments tax multimedia content on customs even if it's just a $2 comic book, to discourage importing physical content.
It's not as easy as just paying for it, at least for us. If it was just paying for it, it wouldn't be a big issue. I have absolutely no reservations about paying for what I want, and most of the stuff I like is actually rather cheap.

Re:This is indeed a service problem (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 7 months ago | (#46494291)

I think you're mixing up two things - although the end-result to the user is largely the same.

Region locking would mean that if you tried to 'import a song/movie' from the U.S., you can't play it back on your European music player. See e.g. the region locks on DVDs and computer games.

What you're referring to though is market segmentation/differentiation. E.g. releasing of a title in one market, but not in the other, or under different terms - be that release date difference or price difference, etc.)

While it's certainly unfortunate that iTunes doesn't carry all material, does that also mean that alternate stores don't carry said material?
If they do, then what is the barrier in buying from them?
If they don't, how does that reduce all options to "I will just pirate it" versus "I will just not get it".

( Note that for music especially chances are good that you will be able to find it on YouTube - even if you're in Germany and GEMA blocks most of the results there's practically always an alternate - and Google tends to have the appropriate licensing in place. I do say 'tends' because there's plenty of YouTube videos of content that certainly isn't covered by a blanket license :) )

Import taxes are something you really should take up with your government - especially when it's over just a $2 comic book.
( I can understand why some import taxes exist, and generally don't mind paying them - but I'd contest a charge like that on principle. )

Oh stop sugar-coating a turd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493017)

We've been able to watch movies in our slippers since VHS rental, so about 35 years now. (And my parents watched 8mm movies they ordered through the mail in the '60s, so...) You just want to pirate stuff and that's OK too. Just be honest about it, otherwise you're just as douchy as the content providers are.

Re:Oh stop sugar-coating a turd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493175)

*I* don't pirate anything, nor do I think shitty VHS rental is the solution people want. I certainly don't. Stop with the nonsense that the only reason people complain is they want free stuff. My 2000+ DVD collection (plus my CD collection) attest that it's not true.

Re:Oh stop sugar-coating a turd (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 7 months ago | (#46493219)

Then why do I willingly pay for both Netflix and Prime? Those services are extremely convenient, but the selection is not always there. Usenet/torrent are good fill-ins for those services, and probably will be until these knuckleheads realize that their government-enabled monopoly isn't really very enforceable anymore.

It's SO controversial... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493033)

...I've NEVER even heard of it.

This is why you use Freenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46493035)

If you want to publish something, and don't want it taken down, you upload it to Freenet and share the key.

Sounds like a great idea (3, Interesting)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 7 months ago | (#46493059)

Most torrents are probably added to watch right away, so if more emphasis on getting the first part first, and watching while it is downloaded, how is this not simply a good thing.

YIFY (1)

Dunge (922521) | about 7 months ago | (#46493377)

Great idea, too bad YIFY torrents are always very compressed and quality is far from the real scene releases.

Re:YIFY (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 7 months ago | (#46494347)

We're talking about a pirating scene that still thinks Xvid/AVI is a great format to use. I bet they play them on their Pentium 4s running Windows XP, too.

Re:YIFY (1)

Dunge (922521) | about 7 months ago | (#46494761)

Actually movies usually are x264/h264 video with DTS/AC3 audio

if they just charged less (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46494109)

first off I rarely watch movies in a theater, the reason for this is I don't believe the two hours of entertainment is worth $14 if that rate was lower... much lower I would consider. Second, I refuse to pay more than $8 for an album, if it is higher I will use other means or just not buy it all together. I believe most people are like me. If the RIAA MPAA and all other profiteering gluttons would just figure out the right price for things, then you would see a significant decrease in piracy.

The marginal cost of creating a copy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46494363)

global warming people of hollywood say it is $9.99

I paid $$, still have to torrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46494477)

I dont have a cable tv connection. I purchased season 2 of Vikings on the google play store. I'm happy to pay for goods and services. Friday night rolled up, 10pm, long day of hard work, I pour my beer, sit down, and start the latest episode

"Previously on Vikin..." -- "There was error with playback, please try again later." Damnit. Refresh. "Previously on Vi..." -- "There was an error with playback, please try again later." This went on for about 5 minutes. Sometimes this just happens.

So what to do? I download a torrent, it's ready in 2.5 minutes. It's not simply about stealing. The platform in which pirated material is distributed is simply superior with less fuss.

I know i'm going to get zapped by this but... (1, Interesting)

cyberzephyr (705742) | about 7 months ago | (#46494597)

I found out about Popcorn time from Huffington post last week and used it 3 times. It was amazing. If you did not get the chance to see it then, too bad. Netflix sucks by comparison for something that lasted 4 day's.

Now as for legality, I feel something might have been illegal about it (hehe) but i wish it were not. I am totally unashamed about what i did. It truly was something to see.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?