311–320 of 385 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah. This old argument again. It would make sense if people actually support artists. Every time some one brings this up in real life, I ask them for instances where they have actually supported somebody.
Supporting them doesn't mean paying for million dollar mansions and vehicles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what (sadly) puts a hole in the concept. Because most of the tyrant ISPs don't provide symmetric connections, you are never going to maintain a 1.0 ratio throughout a viewing, so you depend on seed boxes to keep the download demands from crippling popular videos. Unless they add a daemon option to keep seeding when not using the app, users are always leechers.
Not necessarily. It doesn't matter how much faster your download speed is as long as your upload speed is fast enough to "reverse stream". i.e. for a 700mb 1h40 movie your upload speed needs to be ~120kB/s, which most people have now (at least in the UK)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always thought of how revolutionary it would be to have some kind of video hosting site where you distributed encrypted content throughout the users in fragments. When you would be using the client it would always be broadcasting to others, but you could enable or disable a background daemon to do it throughout the day. You could have it "smart allocate" the video cache, and it would keep local your favorites an…
Why couldn't you maintain a local cache with JavaScript? Chrome and Opera already support the Filesystem API and it's only a matter of time before it ceases to be a working draft. But even discounting that API (which allows you to set a user authorized storage limit your application has read/write access to) there are already ways to cache > 5 MB of data in the browser; they're just hacks at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite innacurate and narrow. Many movies don't make the weekend. You will see them at some stores for 1 dollar one month later. It's not the users who kill the industry. Actually, in this era more and more tv shows are made because they're a better format than movies and because they're attracting people to consume or pay services. Movies will never dissapear, only the worth making movies will make it and that task w…
The folks in the entertainment business who have seen revenue drop since the 90s when bandwidth and mp3 / video encoding became practical would disagree.
I will translate it for you: "24€ for the 3 of us at the cinema... empty place. And downloading is the guilty"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please explain how crowd-funding a movie even makes sense? There are plenty of movies with actors I love that are terrible. Have you seen RED (or worse, RED 2)? For the same reason your boss doesn't pay you for the month you haven't worked yet, you shouldn't expect people to produce movies without any reliable way of getting paid.
Ironically, the crowd-funded 'Veronica Mars' opens this week and is getting favorable reviews by fans: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2771372/
Veronica Mars (2014) Ratings: 8.0/10 from 312 users
...
User Reviews: Review this title »
ie, no reviews. How is this "favorable"? Sounds like insiders gaming the score for the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it should not be so easy to benefit from someone else's hard work without compensating them. Nonsense. I benefit from the work of Mozart and feel no need to compensate anyone. There are real issues with funding mechanisms and creative work in a shareable digital world, but we can reject the idea that you should always pay for anything that is beneficial. If you want to give gifts to creative folks you like, you can…
The sense of smug entitlement in some of the posts in this thread is amazing. "I should just get for free things that other people make because how dare they charge. If they're greedy enough to want to make money for their work, then they should follow a business model I set forth here and only make money by donations or selling other things I'm not going to buy anyway. Because freedom."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it should not be so easy to benefit from someone else's hard work without compensating them. Nonsense. I benefit from the work of Mozart and feel no need to compensate anyone. There are real issues with funding mechanisms and creative work in a shareable digital world, but we can reject the idea that you should always pay for anything that is beneficial. If you want to give gifts to creative folks you like, you can…
Ah, spoken like someone who has never created anything of value.
I clicked "12 years a slave", a movie I have not yet had an opportunity to watch and it started streaming in less than a minute in high quality. I immediately quit the application as it should not be so easy to benefit from someone else's hard work without compensating them. Please, movie people, let me pay for this. You might kill the cinemas, but you'll still get paid.
In the case of the record companies, widespread pirating put pressure on these companies to make their content available online at reasonable prices. In my opinion, piracy is once again providing that pressure, this time on the film production houses. I believe that once the majority of films are available online at reasonable prices, products like Popcorn time will lose much of their appeal.
I clicked "12 years a slave", a movie I have not yet had an opportunity to watch and it started streaming in less than a minute in high quality. I immediately quit the application as it should not be so easy to benefit from someone else's hard work without compensating them. Please, movie people, let me pay for this. You might kill the cinemas, but you'll still get paid.
Don't use propaganda terms like 'compensation' here. It's not compensation unless you hired someone to do something. The reason the media corporations want you to use terms that don't make rational sense is because it gets you to think, wrongly, that you owe them money all the time and forever. Don't fall for it my friend. No one thinks there's anything wrong with supporting creativity and artistry so let's stop usin…
1. Someone comes up with an idea for a movie 2. They approach someone with money to create the movie 3. Monied person gives idea person $X to make the movie with the assumption that they will receive back $X + $Y (ignoring Hollywood accounting). 4. Movie is made. People are paid out of $X 5a. Movie is successful. Monied person receives back $X + $Y 5b. Movie is unsuccessful. Monied person receives back $X - $Z
None of this simplified hypothetical happens without the idea or the monied person. The idea person makes an arrangement that allows them to realize their idea and make some coin. The monied person... Well, he just cares about money. So he wants to make more.
If movies are perpetually unsuccessful, guess what happens? The monied person ends up investing in something else, leaving the idea person out of luck.
I do agree with some of the other people on here that piracy puts pressure on the business people to improve access.