301–310 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A simple hash of the full names would do, wouldn't it?
Well, but everyone could try guessing the names then, something they probably don't want. After all, it's just speculation what they have hidden there.
What the heck does that mean? Four times, eh? You mean you asked four different lawyers? You asked the same lawyer four times? You got sued four times and won? (Obviously not). You 'checked' by googling around for legal information... four times? You asked your cousin who took a class on copyright once? Four cousins? You emailed the MPAA... four times?
I don't think the law works like you think it works.
> Our experiment has put us at the doors of endless debates about piracy and copyright, legal threats and the shady machinery that makes us feel in danger for doing what we love. And that’s not a battle we want a place in.
So, if after your 'four times checking', it still caught you by surprise that there'd be debates and legal threats... I don't think you were checking in the right places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This will sound like I'm playing devil's advocate, but it's a serious question. Hulu Plus theoretically works an awful lot like a DVR from your cable/satellite company (we'll come back to the "theoretically" in a moment): watch new shows the day after they aired, as many as you want. Plus a lot of back catalog stuff, plus weird independent stuff that they bring in. Not for cable or satellite prices of $100+ a month (…
Hulu's breaks are steadily increasing in length. First it was 30s, then 45-60s, now it's typically 120-145s. I avoid Hulu now if there's any other way to watch a show.
Did anyone believe that Popcorn Time was going to end any other way than this? Either they were going to be shut down by their own choice, or their hand would be forced by outside litigation. Just because something is legal doesn't mean companies won't spend millions of dollars to make your life miserable because of what you built.
If you link to unauthorized copies, you are an accessory to theft. The fact that this is still legal is largely historical accident, and is bound to be overturned by one lawsuit or another, or Congressional loophole closing. It's still morally a crime.
Your claim is no more valid than saying if you tell your friend to park their car illegally, you are an accessory to fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the contrary I think that's an even higher incentive to close source, obfuscate binaries and add DRM etc. And while someone may be able to copy the binary, they can not create derivative work from it. It's still going to be a fight, but it will be fought outside of the court rooms without support of the law. To me that sounds like a step backwards, because even more than today that's a fight where a resource heavy…
> they can not create derivative work from it. You can easily decompile it, and without copyright nobody can tell you want you are allowed to do with it. > only to have the work taken by some large corporation that manages to profit from the work due to large marketing budgets, sales channels and existing customers, while the author remains uncompensated How would you profit from the work if you can't "sell" the work…
Easy to decompile, is not the same as easy to deobfuscate, understand and create deriviative work from. The entire point of GPL or any license is to tell what's allowed to do, that means you can share source code, and have legal means backing you up.
> How would you profit from the work if you can't "sell" the work?
You are the one who say that you can not sell the work. Of course you can, but it may not be relevant to the question of profits here since we are talking about source code, it may be incorporated in an existing system or service or even in a hardware product just to give some examples.
> in how many other disciplines do you expect compensation for finite effort for infinite time?
It's not infinite, it is restricted to a finite time. You do not get compensation unless you sell a product, selling that product it self takes work and investments. The amount you get paid, and if there are any reoccuring payments depends on the terms you are able to negotiate with who ever it is you sell to. It has nothing to do with copyright.
Now a technology comes along that in several ways delivers a better service than Netflix to consumers, for absolutely no cost to Hollywood. Is there any reason Hollywood shouldn't just release content to torrents, and sell an unlimited license for $8, $16, $24, or ?? a month to consumers living in countries which respect intellectual property?
I would gladly pay some amount of money to the content creators if it would buy me Popcorn-time service in a legal manner. I would say the vast majority of Americans are in this boat. They want the service that Popcorn Time used to provide, and they'll pay a price for it. It makes absolutely no sense to me that Hollywood hasn't figured out how to make an absolute killing off of this free infrastructure by merely selling legal amnesty in the form of bittorrent-streaming licenses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hulu's breaks are steadily increasing in length. First it was 30s, then 45-60s, now it's typically 120-145s. I avoid Hulu now if there's any other way to watch a show.
Is it still the same ad played over and over during the same break? Just 8 times now instead of 4?
Here's what I don't understand. I pay Netflix $8/month to stream movies and TV shows in HD. From that $8 Netflix has to pay their hosting expenses, maintain a profit margin, and pay licensing fees to Hollywood. Now a technology comes along that in several ways delivers a better service than Netflix to consumers, for absolutely no cost to Hollywood. Is there any reason Hollywood shouldn't just release content to torre…
- Set this monthly fee
- Work out a way to share the fee among content creators, and get that agreed by those content creators
- Get the data required to support the fee-sharing agreement (e.g. movie plays)
- Protect the revenues through, e.g. legal action against those who use the service without paying, and providing a payment mechanism for everyone else
Think about it from the point of view of an individual content creator. If I were to create the best movie ever, and wanted to maximise my revenue from the money/sweat/risk I put in to get this far, what kind of revenue sharing model would need to exist, in order to persuade me to make the movie available on a service like the one you describe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was also a contributor to the Veronica Mars movie Kickstarter. When I received my email today and found out it was Ultra Violet, I was quite upset. I emailed the address they have listed on the F.A.Q. site with my complaint. I backed the Kickstarter, but in order to watch it on my AppleTV I have 2 options: 1. Purchase from iTunes. or 2. Pirate. The money I spent to back the Kickstarter could have been used for the…
You kickstart something because you want to help them make it, not because you want a product in return. While you could strip the copy protections that's a crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Second: It's ridiculous to expect of me to buy a movie I haven't watched, or a book I haven't read. I've heard this argument many times before, but don't buy it (no pun intended). There are enough professional and user reviews, video clips, etc of everything for sale online that anyone can make an informed decision on whether the product is likely to be something they'll enjoy. Why not take advantage of all these g…
>There are enough professional and user reviews, video clips, etc of everything for sale online that anyone can make an informed decision on whether the product is likely to be something they'll enjoy. Most people have bad taste, or are fan-boys. I didn't like "The Batman Rises". Yes, it's Nolan. The extra (actors) were aweful (some of them were laughing in fighting scenes). The scenes where there was a riot, I've se…
I'm sorry but this is a load of bull and it's a sentiment that people have been relaying for centuries and it's always ignorant. "This generation's _____ lacks substance but look at ____ and ____ from the past generation and how great it was!"
You can look back on any time period and point out the best of entertainment, just like you can pick out the worst. There was as many awful actors, movies and music when the Godfather was released as there is now, and there is just as much great entertainment being put out right now.
Just because YOU haven't looked past top-40 music and the most popular movies doesn't mean great ones don't exist, and just because YOU only point out the highlights of past entertainment doesn't mean the shitty stuff went away.
This is a ridiculous way of thinking.