Finally, something to watch our RED footage on

[Sad Max]

Well, that's certainly the image the motion picture industry is painting, but it doesn't hold up when one considers the fact that copy-protection schemes ultimately impede the paying consumer more than any pirate.

By pirate I mean someone who takes product for which they have not paid, to have and/or enjoy in a manner for which the distributor normally receives payment.

Which has nothing to do with copy-protection schemes; for my purposes someone who purchases a DRM-equipped copy of a work has paid their money and may reasonably make personal-use copies for playback on other devices. I'm talking about people who just take what they want, for free, no purchase involved - and no right to the works they're taking, either.

When "pirate" is used to refer to us, the general public, is it not appropriate to take issue with the term?

This is a smokescreen. When we talk about 'piracy' we are talking about free and/or illicit distribution, and everybody knows it. And knowing that, it is not appropriate to take issue with the term, on the pretext that it's really only legitimate license-paying home users making backup or cross-platform copies, that we are talking about...

Would we all not benefit if the motion picture industry embraced the growing dissemination of digital content,

Depends upon who "we" might be.

If "we" means people who want valuable stuff, without having to pay for it, just 'cause we want it, then yes, I guess that "we" would benefit from cessation of copyright enforcement.

If "we" means creative artists and investors and crew personnel and studio administrators and distributors - that is, the "we" that does the work of making the valuable stuff, and earn our livings at it - then no, "we" would not.

rather than pouring money into fighting a losing battle against the consumer?

It's not a 'battle against the consumer;' it's a battle against theft. The fact that it's largely consumers perpetrating the thievery, doesn't alter the fact that it's the thievery being fought.

 

[IRecordThings]

By pirate I mean someone who takes product for which they have not paid, to have and/or enjoy in a manner for which the distributor normally receives payment.

Which has nothing to do with copy-protection schemes; for my purposes someone who purchases a DRM-equipped copy of a work has paid their money and may reasonably make personal-use copies for playback on other devices. I'm talking about people who just take what they want, for free, no purchase involved - and no right to the works they're taking, either.

But the studios aren't making that distinction. Copy-protection has everything to do with this, because that is the vehicle that is supposed to be preventing piracy in the first place. According to the DMCA, it is illegal to circumvent any such scheme, criminalizing those who have indeed paid for these products and merely want to utilize them alternatively. You may be talking about freeloaders specifically, but in the eyes of content distributors, and even the law, the consumer is on-par with these individuals.

This is a smokescreen. When we talk about 'piracy' we are talking about free and/or illicit distribution, and everybody knows it. And knowing that, it is not appropriate to take issue with the term, on the pretext that it's really only legitimate license-paying home users making backup or cross-platform copies, that we are talking about...

And piracy is made possible by the pirate itself. If copy-protection is employed to protect against the pirate, why are non-pirates the ones who end up getting the short end of the stick? This isn't prevention selectively-applied, it's spread across the whole, effectively blanketing "pirate" and "non-pirate" into a single, presumed-guilty entity. So, everyone is punished, and yet it doesn't even do anything to combat the original problem, since piracy continues to operate regardless of these methods.

Depends upon who "we" might be.

If "we" means people who want valuable stuff, without having to pay for it, just 'cause we want it, then yes, I guess that "we" would benefit from cessation of copyright enforcement.

If "we" means creative artists and investors and crew personnel and studio administrators and distributors - that is, the "we" that does the work of making the valuable stuff, and earn our livings at it - then no, "we" would not.

This seems like a false dichotomy to me. Are there not also people who want valuable stuff, and are willing to pay for it? Should those people not be able to fully enjoy what they pay for, simply because others are exploitative?

I recommend you read Steve Jobb's thoughs on this very matter; he puts it much more elegantly than I could hope to.

It's not a 'battle against the consumer;' it's a battle against theft. The fact that it's largely consumers perpetrating the thievery, doesn't alter the fact that it's the thievery being fought.

It's a losing battle against theft as well. If it's largely civilians stealing physical items, does that mean you arrest all civilians? The model simply doesn't make any sense.

 

[karapetkov]

Okay, people who choose to grant themselves any sort of five-finger discount, whether that means "free," or merely illicitly discounted from what the legitimate copyright holder is asking.

Asking ~20 $ for a CD\DVD is fair [maybe], given average US salary. Asking the same price for every country is wrong and inadequate.

My salary is currently ~250 $. Needless to say I'm not motivated to pay the US price for a CD\DVD [although I've done it many times]. Inadequate pricing philosophy - wrong. And I haven't mentioned third-world countries yet.

Meaning only that you are legitimately using the service provider's service, for which you are paying. Which does not alter the fact that you are still stealing from the copyright holder, if you use that legitimately-purchased connection time to illicitly take their product.

I'll say it again - if there weren't for the movies\mp3s, I wouldn't be paying the price for the service, and these money wouldn't be going there. When there was no Inet, I was going to the rental and these money were going there. I was also recording song off the radio .

On the pure technological end, I prefer to click rather than to lose 30 mins. to go to rental and get back. Saves time - time is money and free time is precious. Obsolete distribution paradigm.

The fact that one pays for the cab fare to a store, doesn't entitle one to shoplift once one is inside.

Who shoplifts inside a cab?

So what? The point is not how much you personally are paying; the point is that people who hold the rights to the work they have produced, aren't getting paid what they are owed.

The reason for that is that the system is inadequate to current technology and the HUGE changes the Internet makes to everything, including entertainment.

Who is the money you are paying, going to? Are the creators/legitimate distributors of the content receiving anything, or is the money just going to the service provider who provides the connection required to take their content?

Same thing. Blame it on the people in charge of the system who don't see what's going on.

Which 'internet providers?' Studios (obviously) don't have a conflict with Internet providers who operate in agreement with the studios. 'Internet providers' who don't, are just pirates.

Yes, but that's not my problem.

Bull. People who do wrong, are guilty of wrongdoing. Taking something that's not offered for free, for no better reason than you want to have it, but don't want to pay, makes you a wrongdoer.

Right and wrong become even more relative when the lust for $$$$$ is involved. Only thing you can say here is what the law says about that. And the law is also inadequate to Inet and modern technologies. FYI, a lot of the major "pirate" distribution sites are based in the US.

I bet that people helping themselves to things of value that belong to you, without compensating you in any way, would look like wrongdoers, to you...

Yes. But actually if I can find the sponsorship, I'd actually be perfectly happy if people watch my movies even for free. All I want is that people watch my movies and like them. If I don't end up being a millionaire - I won't die. But as I said, there are better ways, in which people will have relatively cheap and easily available electronic entertainment and its creators will get paid.

"Piracy" is an indication that things should change, I'm not saying that it has to exist forever.

Right now the 21st century model appears to be that people just help themselves to as much of your product as they want, when they want it, without doing the courtesy of paying for what they take. Makes for a challenging business model.

Are you saying that an eventual one-click-away distribution philosophy is something bad? If all the clicks provide money for the content creators, I don't think so.

If you make your money by providing a product in exchange for payment, then not fighting people taking your product and refusing payment, is what would be stupid.

Certainly, but if the pricing and distribution are inadequate, people will always go to "piracy". It's a penalty for being inadequate.

 

[Sad Max]

Asking ~20 $ for a CD\DVD is fair [maybe], given average US salary. Asking the same price for every country is wrong and inadequate.

The owner of a work is responsible for finding the price at which they want to sell.

If they insist upon asking more than a given market can bear, the consequence should be that they don't sell product - not that people just shrug and steal the product.

We're not talking about food, medicine, shelter, or clean water. We're talking about the most elective, dispensable, non-essential sort of commodity imaginable. Which means that there is no legitimate excuse for stealing it, at all. If you can't afford the asking price for something you don't need, then just skip it. Don't steal it.

My salary is currently ~250 $. Needless to say I'm not motivated to pay the US price for a CD\DVD [although I've done it many times]. Inadequate pricing philosophy - wrong. And I haven't mentioned third-world countries yet.

An interesting inversion of morality.

I'm not wrong for stealing this product!

The person marketing the product is wrong, for asking a higher price than I feel like paying for the product!

I'll say it again - if there weren't for the movies\mp3s, I wouldn't be paying the price for the service, and these money wouldn't be going there.

I have to ask for a clarification - when you say 'paying the price for the service,' are you describing paying a licensed fee-charging download or pay-per-view service, working in agreement with the rights-holders...or are you talking about using a paid-for ISP for access to the net, then downloading illicit copies of stuff, without paying anything to anyone directly connected to the actual media owners?

When there was no Inet, I was going to the rental and these money were going there.

At least if you rented from legitimate rental businesses, the original content creator was getting their proper taste of the fees.

On the pure technological end, I prefer to click rather than to lose 30 mins. to go to rental and get back. Saves time - time is money and free time is precious. Obsolete distribution paradigm.

Again, if you're talking about a legitimate paid service where you are putting in money that in some proportion gets back to the rights-owners, then fine.

If you're talking about access to someone else's content, for which you don't pay the legitimate fees, then the problem is not the obsolescence of the paradigm, but the unethical behavior of the end user.

Who shoplifts inside a cab?

You miss the point.

Saying that legitimately paying for an ISP service somehow negates the crookedness of stealing licensed material once their service has got you connected to a place where you can steal it, is like saying that legitimately paying fare for the cab ride to a store, negates the crookedness of stealing merchandise from the shelves, once the cab has gotten you there.

The reason for that is that the system is inadequate to current technology and the HUGE changes the Internet makes to everything, including entertainment.

The reason is that when you open up an opportunity for people to steal stuff they want - even just as a passing fancy - with very, very low risk of consequences, they'll steal stuff. It's not a failure of technology; it's a failure of ethics.

Same thing. Blame it on the people in charge of the system who don't see what's going on.

Does this philosophy cover other forms of crime?

I mean, shouldn't bank robbers, cat burglars, pickpockets, embezzlers, purse snatchers, con artists, etc, all get off by pointing out that their transgressions are in one way or another failures of the "system" that didn't dissuade or prevent them from committing their crimes?

Right and wrong become even more relative when the lust for $$$$$ is involved.

This philosophy is a big reason the world is as f'd up, as it is. Stealing something you don't need, with zero extenuation, taking something that isn't yours, just because you want it, remains wrong whether you are stealing something worth $.01, or worth $1,000. It's precisely the same act.

Only thing you can say here is what the law says about that. And the law is also inadequate to Inet and modern technologies. FYI, a lot of the major "pirate" distribution sites are based in the US.

Does a law against assault become obsolete, when the available tools for the purpose change from fists, to clubs, to firearms?

There's no more reason that a law against illicit duplication or distribution of someone else's valuable intellectual property should become obsolete, simply because the tools available for breaking that law, continue to develop.

A law saying that "you can't distribute copies of something without the rights-holders' permission" doesn't suddenly become less valid, just because new techniques are introduced, for violating it.

But actually if I can find the sponsorship, I'd actually be perfectly happy if people watch my movies even for free.

If that's your distribution model, that's great.

No one else should be expected to accept that model, for their own product, unless they choose to.

All I want is that people watch my movies and like them. If I don't end up being a millionaire - I won't die.

Studio entities don't share that perspective. And the fact that they don't, does not grant anyone the right to rip them off.

"Piracy" is an indication that things should change, I'm not saying that it has to exist forever.

Why the quotation marks around "piracy?" It *is* piracy, and the use of quotes suggests that it somehow isn't. Which is dishonest.

Are you saying that an eventual one-click-away distribution philosophy is something bad? If all the clicks provide money for the content creators, I don't think so.

As long as the content owners are getting the price they have set, via consumers' legitimate access to their material, under the terms the content owners have drawn up, then the specifics of the distribution model don't bother me. I don't object to clicking; I object to clicking-without-paying.

Certainly, but if the pricing and distribution are inadequate, people will always go to "piracy". It's a penalty for being inadequate.

Bank robber - Not my fault! If the bank handed out money on terms I found adequate, I wouldn't have robbed it!

Pickpocket - Not my fault! If the owner of that wallet had been distributing his money by means I thought adequate, I wouldn't have taken it!

Burglar - Not my fault! If the homeowners were handing out their property in a way I saw as adequate, I wouldn't have burglarized them!

If only banks, and homeowners, and people on the street were just adequate about allowing everyone access to their stuff, because, you know, people want it, then imagine how much bank robbery and pickpocketing and burglary we could prevent...

The thief is in the wrong, when he steals something he doesn't even need because he figures that rightful owner is asking more than the thief cares to pay. Always. Every single time. No exceptions.

The suggestion that it's the victim's fault, for not offering the thief what he wants, on the thief's terms, is just perverse.

 

[karapetkov]

Sad Max,

I'll reply to your post in detail, but just a quick thought now, cause I gotta get out, but ... it's itching.

You're defending the people that are actually robbing you. Remember my nice idea about profit sharing "which will never happen" and all the discussion around writer's strike?...

Yes, the money actually goes to them. Even if I pay "legally", the money goes to non-content-creating-money-having-and-lending bankers. It doesn't go to you. How about that? I don't think it's very nice.

And one more thing - The entertainment industries cannot defeat Internet piracy . They simply cannot.

Even with all its billions of dollars and influence, the're like a bug, trying to sue a tiger. Trust me on this. I can elaborate on the purely technical reasons why they can't. I'll do that in my genius article.

Instead of trying to defeat it, they can try and accept it and incorporate it in the game.

If you want to defeat drugs, try defeating the demand, cause defeating the supply is impossible, you can only reduce it [not much]. Think about the roots of the problem, the causes.

Why would people wanna do drugs? Why would they be tempted to download illicit copies of movies?

Ever watched Traffic? Remember what the border control said about their agency's budget compared to the cartel's?

In our case, for every paid computer specialist, involved in trying to protect the status-quo, there are at least 20 unpaid ones, trying to hijack it.

Try to [peacefully] fight the demand, cause you've got no chance against the supply, seriously.

"And remember you work for a drug dealer too", cause you're defending the people who are robbing you.

And I'm trying to be honest in my dishonesty , unlike many [increasing] millions and [soon] billions of people who download pirated content, without feeling any guilt.

And they'll continue downloading and, technically, there's almost nothing that can be done about that.

Should've kept the ARPANET for the military guys only .

But even then, they'll probably be sharing pirated movies by it .

P.S. I'm late .

 

[jmc]

While dreaming of one these huge TVs is fun, there is a cautionary tale to consider as well: Buying a monitor that is "too big" can cause you to fall foul of DRM.
http://davisfreeberg.com/2008/01/03/bad-copp-no-netflix/

This is the kind of stuff that does nothing to stop piracy, but hurts regular users.

 

[Sad Max]

Even if I pay "legally", the money goes to non-content-creating-money-having-and-lending bankers. It doesn't go to you. How about that? I don't think it's very nice.

Bankers - or other investors - who have fronted money that ultimately makes viewable, pirateable product, are entitled to whatever repayment the borrowers signed for, when the money was loaned. Same as any investor in a legitimate business venture, is entitled to their contracted return. How do you figure it's "not very nice" for borrowing producers and studios to honor their deals with the lenders?

When you pay legally - no quotes needed on that word - some very very small fractional percentage actually does go to me, in the form of the health, welfare and pension plans that are financed in large part by distribution revenues, per my guild's and union's deals with the studios. So it's not abstract; that's my medical/dental coverage, and pension, and that of umpty-thousands of my assorted IA/guild brothers and sisters. And actors. And writers. And directors. And teamsters. Etcetera.

And one more thing - The entertainment industries cannot defeat Internet piracy. They simply cannot.

Even with all its billions of dollars and influence, the're like a bug, trying to sue a tiger. Trust me on this. I can elaborate on the purely technical reasons why they can't. I'll do that in my genius article.

It's evident that they can't defeat it. What they are trying to do, is moderate it. So long as their well-trained highly-paid cost-benefit people find that's where net dollars lie, that's how it will be.

Instead of trying to defeat it, they can try and accept it and incorporate it in the game.

The mechanism by which creators will make very expensive product, then reap profits sufficient to continue doing same, while product is distributed free-of-charge to all who want it, will presumably be detailed in your genius article.

Think about the roots of the problem, the causes.

The root is that people will take stuff that's not theirs for free, if they figure there's a low risk of penalty. Aside from teaching people some kind of moral discipline, I don't see much alternative to increasing the risk of penalties.

Why would they be tempted to download illicit copies of movies?

Avarice. I think most people regard that as a character flaw. At least, I hope so.

"And remember you work for a drug dealer too", cause you're defending the people who are robbing you.

Please explain exactly how you figure that.

And I'm trying to be honest in my dishonesty, unlike many [increasing] millions and [soon] billions of people who download pirated content, without feeling any guilt.

You're less a thief, because you feel some guilt over your thievery...?

While dreaming of one these huge TVs is fun, there is a cautionary tale to consider as well: Buying a monitor that is "too big" can cause you to fall foul of DRM.
http://davisfreeberg.com/2008/01/03/...pp-no-netflix/

This is the kind of stuff that does nothing to stop piracy, but hurts regular users.

Hooah, that's messed up, all right.

 

[karapetkov]

I'm back. It was nothing special [where I was, that is].

I read your posts and I was preparing my heavy-duty sophist amoral dirty shameless arguments but I realized that from a legal point of view, you're absolutely right, on almost all accounts. But from a moral POV, [you used the word moral a lot, which is a good choice] they are not right. There are so many poor and miserable low-income souls which wish only to watch good [when they're good] American films, but you won't let us, cause you want us to pay half-month's wages for it. That's torture. rogar-Angry(DBG): It's wrong.

It's evident that they can't defeat it. What they are trying to do, is moderate it. So long as their well-trained highly-paid cost-benefit people find that's where net dollars lie, that's how it will be.

Good for them. Let's help!

The mechanism by which creators will make very expensive product, then reap profits sufficient to continue doing same, while product is distributed free-of-charge to all who want it, will presumably be detailed in your genius article.

PLEASE scratch "free-of-charge" three times, cause it's got nothing to do with my brilliant concept.

And here's my grabber: Using something similar to my brilliant new distribution system, the industries can make MORE money than they currently make on Audio CD sales, DVD rentals and DVD sales, all summed together.

Possibly: Much more, and on a regular basis... OK?... Cash... Let's make them happy. We need them, obviously.... unfortunately...

It might be just another utopia, but at least it sounds sweet.

The root is that people will take stuff that's not theirs for free, if they figure there's a low risk of penalty. Aside from teaching people some kind of moral discipline, I don't see much alternative to increasing the risk of penalties.

Yeah. But that's the wrong way and the pirates will always figure a way out, powerful the Dark Side is.... And using Gestapo methods for protecting entertainment goods - not cool.

There's a better way, believe me. I have the solution to all problems, i can defeat death :2vrolijk_08:.

Avarice. I think most people regard that as a character flaw. At least, I hope so.

Yeah, to a certain degree, but also because they're poor. In US - it'd be piracy legally and morally. In India - sorry. In Bulgaria - same, for now. And if you wanna know, I'll tell you how bad our "legal" distribution firms are. I mean bad as a service, not morally. Criminals, they don't deserve a dime and straightening them out is definitely not my problem.

Please explain exactly how you figure that.

No, no, no, no. I didn't mean it to sound personal. I was just quoting this great movie. OK, wrong choice.

What I meant was that, at least, you shouldn't be defending them that much. They deserve a little slapping around. It's good for blood circulation.

You're less a thief, because you feel some guilt over your thievery...?

I'm a convert, alright? I'm a repenting devil, trying to atone for his sins after crossing the line and seeing things from the maker POV.

Hooah, that's messed up, all right.

See? Kill 'em. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Oops... my Hollywood career is gone.

 

[IRecordThings]

While dreaming of one these huge TVs is fun, there is a cautionary tale to consider as well: Buying a monitor that is "too big" can cause you to fall foul of DRM.
http://davisfreeberg.com/2008/01/03/bad-copp-no-netflix/

This is the kind of stuff that does nothing to stop piracy, but hurts regular users.

This is exactly the type of irritating, customer-punishing practice I was referring to. I've had similar experiences trying to watch premium digital channels like HBO and Showtime HD on my TiVo that are aired with a "copy never" flag that prevents them from being watched over high-quality connections like HDMI. Even though this type of flag is supposedly reserved for Pay-Per-View channels, TiVo does not currently have a fix for this "glitch" and I was forced to downgrade to Component cables. Same with the PS3. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I was there and yeah it was awesome upclose. Too bad they had no content to show on it. It just ran some looped 1080p footage all day. Samsun had a 2k, 4k panel. It was incledibly sharp. Image looked like a backlit poster. They had video running but it was made from 4 1080p cams and stitched together. It was very impressive.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

My question is... How will it show sd or even hd video? will it be pixelated?

It was playing HD only. At about 7 feet away it looked great. The arials of NYC made me dizzy when standing next to it. :2vrolijk_08:

 

[Xhenchmen]

i think i would have to reenforce my wall with steel studs and supports to hang that sucker up. I could see it just tipping the wall over and collapsing my house. how much does it weigh?

 

[shaun1970]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video

I stumbled across this a while back, quite interesting and if you take a look at the figures, its mind blowing. My guess is that the end is coming in the not too distant future for 35mm film.

 

[paviboi]

WOW thats ridic

 

[karapetkov]

22.2 Audio?! F*ck!

A while ago I was joking with my friend that I have 2 x 5.1 systems at home which means that actually I have 10.2 audio...

But now this is happening...

I wonder what's the point for all this?

I mean 5.1 is nice, but even uncompressed Stereo is good enough. I don't see the advantage...

Well, maybe for theaters - yes, but for home - sticking 30 speakers around my room and calibrating all of them - that's lunacy! :laugh:

 

[ilauzirika]

that's lunacy!

and plenty of free time:grin:

 

[dpdane]

This is what home theater will become.......

http://blog.audiovideointeriors.com/208great/

 

[dg1]

^that brings a tear to my eye......

 

[bigbossbmb]

^ yes please