Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 272 posts

Re: Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop

#251

Post by forrestthewoods »

furyg3 wrote: post #202
forrestthewoods wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call bullshit. Absolute bullshit. If I gave you a credit card that gave you unlimited access to digital content you probably wouldn't be complaining. Certainly not if you live in the US or much of Europe. If you have a $69 AppleTV then iTunes is a spectacular user experience. Search for almost anything you want and hit play. If it didn't cost $5 to rent a movie it's superior to torrents. This is where someone chime…

Selfish greed is also the reason why people buy movies instead of donating their money to charity or using that time to plant a tree. People want stuff, and they want it to be a) good and b) cheap. And you're totally dismissing the first category. You exclude a whole lot of use cases to make your point. It's a disaster for Europeans to do many of the same things. Netflix and Apple have different libraries depending o…

I ignore Europe as a preventative conversation tactic. It's really hard to talk about things on the internet. For any debate there are a ton of edge cases. It's easy for discussions to go off the rails focusing on them. Content not available. Average income of Country X significantly less than Country Y. Bandwidth caps. Unstable connection. Etc etc.

So for discussion sake I throw it out. Not permanently, just for a moment. It lets me focus on the good ol United States. Where people are relatively rich and the vast majority of content is available. Basically it's a best case scenario. If in the absolute base case people still heavily pirate content then the edge cases don't matter. Once that best case scenario is resolved then you can start fleshing out and covering all the international edge cases.

Re: Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop

#252

Post by jameshart »

ddingus wrote: post #249
jameshart wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Casual pirates and cord cutters aren't the same. At all. I don't get how you can erase the moral line between freeloading and just not being a customer. Car rental companies don't look at people who just break into cars and steal them and think 'hey look - setting aside the hardcore boosting crews, and focusing on just casual car thieves, there's clearly a market for people who just want the convenience of taking any…

Secondly... your analogy to theft is part of the problem. Up thread, I wrote this. It's infringing. It's not actually theft. Theft based advocacy is understandable, but not inclusive enough for a productive discussion. And in that is the moral line being blurred quite nicely.

Okay, let's not use a theft-based analogy then. Climbing into empty houses through open windows and sleeping in people's beds isn't stealing, it's infringing.

Since that is so easy and convenient, why would anybody use the products of the old-fashioned 'hotel' industry? And with new players like AirBnB enabling bed providers to monetize their beds so much more easily, really there's no excuse for bed providers to restrict access to their beds. The market has spoken - beds are freely available for anybody, and anybody who is hanging on to the old-fashioned model of bed-rights management needs to get with the times.

Re: Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop

#253

Post by jameshart »

ddingus wrote: post #248
jameshart wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Casual pirates and cord cutters aren't the same. At all. I don't get how you can erase the moral line between freeloading and just not being a customer. Car rental companies don't look at people who just break into cars and steal them and think 'hey look - setting aside the hardcore boosting crews, and focusing on just casual car thieves, there's clearly a market for people who just want the convenience of taking any…

No, they aren't the same. But they are similar in that a lot of members of both will pay. I lumped them in to the same bucket to highlight how mindshare can translate into value other than direct pay per view. As for there being no excuse? Sure there is. It's possible to do. End game is really simple: a. We make it a perfect, closed, trusted computing only world. That's draconian, and very likely not possible. Sudden…

c. We recognize that individuals need to take some moral responsibility for their actions.

The issue isn't that it's possible to do. All kinds of things that are bad for society are possible to do but people don't do them because they will get caught and punished. The issue is that it's possible to get away with doing it.

Re: Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop

#254

Post by kamaal »

yellowapple wrote: post #145
kamaal wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>people are not going to pay for what they can always get at better quality for $0 This is precisely why I think Apple won't last much long in the mobile/watch battle. Android is like the Windows of the 90's and early 2000's. Available for free, with hardware largely being a commodity, and all Google caring about the traffic and market penetration. Apple will have to growingly fight to push their products into the m…

> Available for free Windows wasn't ever free (until very recently, and even that isn't exactly the whole story). A big reason for the sheer quantity of bloatware on Windows PCs even nowadays is because that bloatware subsidizes the cost of Windows. I know (and agree with) what you're getting at (that inexpensive commodity products dominate more easily than expensive niche products in a given industry), but comparing…

Legally it wasn't free. But illegally it always was, at least it was as good as free.

In fact Microsoft itself wanted people to do it. Because if students and ordinary people pirate their OS, they will be trained to use it in everyday life. Later on, they would sell the OS to enterprises when the same people would eventually work there. That way they can always claim their OS was the most widely used OS in the industry.

Plus if they hadn't let people freely pirate their OS, Linux would have eaten their lunch big time.

Re: Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop

#255

Post by ddingus »

jameshart wrote: post #252
ddingus wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secondly... your analogy to theft is part of the problem. Up thread, I wrote this. It's infringing. It's not actually theft. Theft based advocacy is understandable, but not inclusive enough for a productive discussion. And in that is the moral line being blurred quite nicely.

Okay, let's not use a theft-based analogy then. Climbing into empty houses through open windows and sleeping in people's beds isn't stealing, it's infringing. Since that is so easy and convenient, why would anybody use the products of the old-fashioned 'hotel' industry? And with new players like AirBnB enabling bed providers to monetize their beds so much more easily, really there's no excuse for bed providers to res…

Actually, that analogy breaks down too.

And it does for obvious reasons all related to the difference between physical things and information.

This is an information conversation, not a physical one.

Two things:

1. Infringing is wrong. You seem to be attempting to sell me on that it's wrong.

No need for that. It is. Well, until it isn't, and that's up to the content creator really. Some choose to allow infringing uses and will actually source them, thus transforming them into non-infringing uses more than they are infringing ones, and they get value for doing that.

It's important that model be possible. See Doctorow, Lessig, et al. for how and why that works.

Some content creators are opposed, and infringing on them is wrong.

But how that actually works is where the discussion is.

Sometimes we allow infringing for fair uses, despite opposition from content creators too.

The dialog is more subtle than these "it's wrong" physical analogies account for, and where that continues to be true, we have an incomplete discussion, and with that, an ongoing mess and I submit, non-optimal revenue and opportunity for same.

2. Where we are clashing and that is information does not operate on the same terms as physical things do. You seem to be attempting to get me to equate the two, and I'm just not gonna do that.

They aren't the same and they don't operate in the same ways.

Re: Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop

#256

Post by ddingus »

jameshart wrote: post #253
ddingus wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they aren't the same. But they are similar in that a lot of members of both will pay. I lumped them in to the same bucket to highlight how mindshare can translate into value other than direct pay per view. As for there being no excuse? Sure there is. It's possible to do. End game is really simple: a. We make it a perfect, closed, trusted computing only world. That's draconian, and very likely not possible. Sudden…

c. We recognize that individuals need to take some moral responsibility for their actions. The issue isn't that it's possible to do. All kinds of things that are bad for society are possible to do but people don't do them because they will get caught and punished. The issue is that it's possible to get away with doing it.

And I submit it's always going to be possible to get away with doing it

, and

that it's possible to get away from doing it is actually important for all the business models to compete.

Go back to the closed, perfect, world. No infringing uses happen. What's the end game on that, pricing, getting mind share, etc...

I'll tell you what happens, and that is a lot of give aways and a ton of pricing changes. First one to move on that gains huge share, forcing the rest along. One will say, "go ahead, share it" and it's game on.

And who really wants that closed perfect computing world? I sure don't, and look at all the abuse where it does exist?

Open needs to be an alternative to that, if nothing else, to keep people somewhat sane and honest.

If open exists, so does infringement.

So then, how to maximize revenue? Sales is one way, leveraging mindshare is another.

The farther we go down that road, the more productive the discussion is.

And it's about the harm too. People do all sorts of things that are possible to do, and they do them under the threat of being caught and punished.

We make the punishment a remedy and recompense for harm done too.

So how appropriate is 150K / infringing act, compared to actual theft which carries significantly less penalty in most cases?

It's crazy! People are wanting to make it criminal and impose very significant terms too. That will also be crazy.

We need to have a talk about harm. Somebody watching a movie they aren't supposed to isn't that big of a harm.

And it can be a benefit, depending.

That dialog needs to be continued and continued rationally.

Frankly, I've stepped away from a ton of this. When I boil it down, choose to not infringe, I find the value of it all highly dubious, and there are lots of other things to do.

So I'm mostly out.

The little kid mooching software, movies, games, programming tools, whatever seeking to learn and grow might be on the moral bad side, if they have means. If they are poor? Trust me when I say they don't care, and are just seeking opportunity and skills.

It's not as black and white as you frame it.

And it's a control issue sometimes when it shouldn't be too.

Re: Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop

#257

Post by ddingus »

jameshart wrote: post #246
ddingus wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can. There are a few use cases here: 1. Massive pirate. Won't pay for anything. If we made it a perfect world, they would just mooch off other people in the extreme, never paying for anything. They won't be customers. Ever. But they do talk about stuff, make recommendations, etc... So they can be leveraged in that way. Show them an AD, or have them do some other minor league thing of value, and trade on that for…

Casual pirates and cord cutters aren't the same. At all. I don't get how you can erase the moral line between freeloading and just not being a customer. Car rental companies don't look at people who just break into cars and steal them and think 'hey look - setting aside the hardcore boosting crews, and focusing on just casual car thieves, there's clearly a market for people who just want the convenience of taking any…

Regarding the line between infringing and being a customer...

You know, this has another aspect I've been thinking about, and that is there is so much stuff...

Can't possibly consume even a fraction of it.

Maybe they should pay me to pay attention? It's worth thinking about. I really don't give it much attention now. When I decided to not infringe at all, I found a lot of it isn't worth the price. I also found there are a ton of things to do besides watch passive entertainment.

It's really hard to get me in front of a TV doing nothing for a couple three hours. I just don't do it.

So then, I might be talked into doing it, and I might be talked into sharing my experiences, recommending, etc... and that might come with some benefits too, like I might give a rip about some brand or other, or allow an AD impression to sink in.

None of that has to happen for me. Often it doesn't, yet there it is, massive piles of stuff out there, seemingly useless, easily ignored.

My mindshare is valuable. Maybe it's worth it to not just hand it over so easy. Maybe they should earn it, and that starts with some sort of investment or incentive for me to give it a shot, whatever it is.

Many cord cutters are finding this out. Just use less TV overall. It's not a bad thing at all.

So there are aspects here not always discussed, and depending on how things go, those aspects could turn out somewhat ugly, if unintended too.

So what does being a customer really mean?

Just some thoughts there to balance this discussion some.

Re: Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop

#258

Post by e12e »

dagw wrote: post #190
e12e wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer to just make it illegal to hold private ownership of intellectual property for an unreasonable length of time (eg: longer than 28 years after publication).

I would accept a compromise of some sort of compulsory licensing. You still retain ownership, but after N years you are required to license your IP to anybody who asks for a fixed, predetermined licensing fee.

Would the world really be a better place if Disney had had to pay (nominal or otherwise) license fees for "The Little Mermaid"?

Re: Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop

#259

Post by e12e »

anigbrowl wrote: post #184
e12e wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure there's any working DRM for movies currently. DVDs and BluRay can be copied. Streams as well. DRM for DCP "works" but no one was copying 35mm film either - and the old analog hole is still open. All the DRM makes it more complicated to master and distribute legal copies -- I'm not convinced it reduces copying.

The DRM for DCP lets you audit who played your movie. It's not that expensive (I think $7500 or so plus a small per-copy fee), but if a film gets any kind of release at all this is a lot cheaper than paying someone to get on the phone and call around to every theater that booked it to get a written report of how often it was screened etc.

It roughly doubles the price of the digital projectors (granted, a more-or-less one-time fee of an additional ~13k USD). If auditing was all that was needed, I'm sure you could just tag the digital audio track of 35mm as well (or any non-drm'ed digital format).

Re: Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop

#260

Post by yellowapple »

anigbrowl wrote: post #176
yellowapple wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the hand-over-fist profits from box office earnings, merchandising deals, content/trademark licensing, etc. have been insufficient since... when, exactly? Those are the places that the Internet Age hasn't really usurped yet. The old "record a theater showing with a camera" trick is nowhere near desirable quality for most people, and piracy does nothing for those hoping to use a particular trademark in order to ma…

Hand-over-fist profits? Only at the very top of the market. If you're producer of one of the top 50 or so films, yes people are shoving money at you. In the top 100, you probably broke even and people will be shoving money at you when it hits the home video market. In the top 101-200 films, You'll most likely make your money back and enjoy a modest profit. Outside of the top 200 films? Then your box office takings we…

Right, but it's the makers of the big, top-50 films that are the ones that are ridiculously vocal about piracy, not the ones making the small top-200 (or less) films (unless they're flops by the big filmmakers). And the makers of those films can still monetize by licensing broadcast/distribution rights (i.e. to Netflix or to a non-profit for its "Movie Night" or what have you); from there, one can still get a very good estimate of an earning potential that's actually reliable, rather than one that's entirely dependent on an obsolete business model that's crumbling right before everyone's eyes thanks to the Internet.
Post reply on HN