The analogy between shoplifting and copyright infrigement gets really, really old.
I've made that argument myself, but agree that the current video streaming situation is just dumb. Could you explain me why that analogy is wrong? I understand there is no damage done as in, they don't have less money than they had before, but they still have less money than they would have if i bought/rented the video.
The thing taken in shoplifting is rival in the economics sense. It makes impossible a sale to someone else. With piracy, it's just another copy.
Again, just a distraction To be an issue of entitlement the person would have to say something that sets them apart, akin to: it's ok for me to pirate but for everyone else its bad; Whereas the gp was just describing their process without applying any opinion on the ethics of others doing the same an excuse is just an excuse, the special treatment is what makes it entitled Have you ever pirated anything? If you have…
Nah. Entitlement is the belief that one is due something unconditionally. Its ego at heart; an entitled person probably has no opinion on what is due others.
Then the confusion arises from you applying your own unique definition stead the one agreed upon by the publically accessible literature chronicling the definitions of words
I'm glad for Netflix original content. It's been high in quality, and I've already seen all the top 250 IMDB movies I want to see. What Netflix could do to prove its love of movies, and which would probably make good business sense, is unearth movies that have never been shown on TV, or never been digitized to DVD or even transferred to VHS. There are websites devoted to those lost treasures, and movie lovers who wou…
See Karagarga and the vulnerability of obscure films[1].
"Without a service like Karagarga movie-lovers are in thrall to the whims of an implacable market — one whose recent and unerring shift to digital streaming has left vast swaths of cinema history to molder unseen. The myth that Netflix and iTunes offer a frontier where “everything” is available to watch instantly is a bad joke to anyone with a serious interest in movies. That crowd is forced, by the market itself, to fend for itself. Many of us would indeed buy an Out 1 Blu-ray or cue up Out 1 on Netflix if such a thing were possible. But in the meantime Karagarga will be cherished for the rare and valued access it affords."
The analogy between shoplifting and copyright infrigement gets really, really old.
I know; I have to keep bringing it up because people keep pretending they're owed entertainment. This entitled generation is just disappointing.
I don't necessarily sense any sense of entitlement from it. It's just that the access mechanisms are Byzantine-complex and full of people charging rents.
Rents are completely inherent in entertainment product - it's just that we have a faux facade of competition between services for the charging of rents. This is confusing.
> Netflix--and others, like Amazon Prime--are becoming less and less worthwhile, and piracy is becoming more and more convenient again. Lawyers are the primary reason why Netflix is becoming less convenient, and by pure coincidence, lawyers will benefit from an increase in piracy. Money talks.
So why doesn't this happen in the music industry? And a few exclusives here and there doesn't count. Spotify / Apple / Amazon / Tidal / Deezer have 99.9% of the same content with a few high profile albums that are only found on one or another service.
Music has compulsory licensing so anyone can start their own music streaming service. Video does not.
> I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content Funny how so many people screamed for al la care programming and now that it's happening everyone is realizing it's actually worse. I know people hated it, but there is something to be said about traditional TV and how it's consumed. Having a centralized menu/guide of all the content you can view makes it much easi…
> Funny how so many people screamed for al la care programming and now that it's happening everyone is realizing it's actually worse. I wouldn't equate balkanization with a la carte. To stretch the restaurant metaphor, the current situation is akin to taking 5 cab rides between restaurants to cobble together a meal, there's a lot of overhead and waste. Traditional cable television is the restaurant with everything av…
Even worse; many of the restaurants still make you buy a whole bundle to get the one item you want from them. At the end of the day, in order to get your burger, fries and a shake you've also paid for 3 bowls of rice, 3 plates of nachos, 3 breakfast platters, 3 extra-large sodas, and (nobody knows why) 3 whole durian. Edit: oh, and a year of Prime shipping. Wat?
If that's the case, that leaves the problem (from the consumer's point of view) of where to get access to a complete(ish) catalog of films. Netflix actually achieved this back in the disc-by-mail days. So we're actually moving backwards. I'm not particularly ashamed to say I turn to unlicensed torrents for this purpose, but I would prefer if it weren't necessary.
Do you seriously think there'll be a legit service which can replicate the arthouse, cult and alternative films selection of a certain tracker with four A in the name? I think we would sooner see a blanket fee making it legit.
Rights aren't a license. If the creator adds a license they have free rein on the form of license. They don't have to offer a license of course.
Sorry, you're just wrong here. If I publish a video online, it is a copyright violation for you to redistribute it without my permission. I don't need to put a license or even a copyright marking.
The point i feel you're missing is that if I'm making my work available for redistribution I must attach a license to it, that license -- for a limited example -- doesn't have to include no public performance (a common license term for movies, play manuscript, music) you can allow it and retain your copyright in full.
The context is you providing a video for me to redistribute. You don't have to, say, give me geographic limits.
I don't know. I think there is a difference between applications and platforms like Adobe Software and Windows which often get pirated but at times hugely cost prohibitive to new entrants (e.g. students, young people) vs pirating movies/shows. I'm persistently left unconvinced by moral arguments on show/movie piracy, especially in an age where there's no shortage of new content being created, be it on YouTube, your l…
I'm not trying to make a moral argument one way or the other. My point is strictly relating to the business end result of the following three alternatives: 1) DO pay for and DO consume digital product. 2) NOT pay for but DO consume digital product. 3) NOT pay for and NOT consume digital product. Only alternatives #1 and #2 provides a way to monetize the consumer, either via direct monetization of the product (ie pay-…
The other aspect is which of alternatives #2 and #3 point out through tracked metrics that a business decision may not be working as intended? itunes, Netflix and others have reduced piracy, if this kind of balkanisation of content shows a large uptick in piracy, are they likely to back off of it more so than just reduced viewership?
> I don't want to subscribe to 10 different streaming services that all have their own original content Funny how so many people screamed for al la care programming and now that it's happening everyone is realizing it's actually worse. I know people hated it, but there is something to be said about traditional TV and how it's consumed. Having a centralized menu/guide of all the content you can view makes it much easi…
The really funny thing is that people seem to assume a la carte would be cheaper, but there's no economic reason it should be. I get 200 channels from Xfinity, and I watch about 5 of them. My neighbor also watches 5, though a different 5. That is, I've already proven to Xfinity that I'm willing to pay my monthly cable bill for those 5 channels, so if they offer them a la carte, those 5 will cost about what my monthly…
Cable started as a way of people to not have to fool with an antenna. Then it evolved "cable only" channels.
That means that cable operators are sort of duty-bound to offer local stations. I will bet that those local stations are much less likely to be in your list of 5.
So what's mainly driving up your cost is local stations charging for carrying them. You'll see the odd game of chicken between local stations and cable operators when the local stations want to raise prices.