MPAA Cracks Down

NEENAHBOY

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Aug 15, 2004
400
2
Arlington, VA
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/14/news/fortune500/piracy/index.htm?cnn=yes

The MPAA needs to be more open to change. There is a huge opening here for Apple if they are willing to devote the time and energy necessary to take advantage of it. The store could be called the iFilm Store. It would have essentially the same layout as the iTMS. New releases could be $11.99 or thereabouts, and other movies at Apple's discretion. There can be the option to download just the film or the film and the extras ($1 or $2 more). They could allow you to print cover art for the DVD case if need be, and it would have essentially the same personal use rights as the iTMS. It would take a lot of time and effort to lure independent studios, but it can be done. Apple was the first to make friends with the music industry, and they need to be first in this case so everyone can be riding their coattails once again.

The RIAA has been a lot more open to change than the MPAA. At least one organization recognizes to a point that downloading is the wave of the future.

What I don't understand is why the movie industry hasn't done something major like this already. I don't know if anyone remembers that 60 Minutes interview with the CEO of Grokster who said, "If they have the money, they can buy me out and shut me down." If that's their plan of attack, why haven't they done it already???

But I digress. New Movie Tuesdays, anyone?
 

munkle

macrumors 68030
Aug 7, 2004
2,580
0
On a jet plane
I've no doubt that we will see an iFilm/iTheatre/iFlick/iCinema. However, the market just isn't there at the moment for it to be a viable commercial alternative. You can cite the number of people downloading films via torrents as an example of an available market but in reality very few of these people would stop downloading torrents in favour of paid legal downloads. Plus most of the popular torrents are of new releases, and studios are not going to be prepared to cut into their cinema takes by releasing films for downloading at the same time. Not to mention the huge amounts of time it would take to download a film, the number of 'power' broadband users are still very small. The same with the number of people who have DVD RW's.

Basically it will happen, just not now or anytime soon. And there are just too many differences between movies and music to make direct comparisons, i.e the iTMS is a success, therefore the iFilm store will be too.
 

stevehaslip

macrumors 6502a
Apr 30, 2004
657
0
The Ocean Floor
i just read a very similar story on wired.com, they wan't to stop movie downloading and i understand that. Theres big bucks to be made from movies and music and they will always try to stop that.

I use bittorent for downloading tv programs that haven't or won't be aired in the uk. Is that illegal? I know that when dvd's come out of the series then if they were rips from the dvd then that would be illegal. But these are recorded from tv, is that illegal to record off the tv? i didn't think it was. But is distributing it illegal as the program is the tv companies property?

Just wanted to know if they were gonna clamp down on tv too?
 

munkle

macrumors 68030
Aug 7, 2004
2,580
0
On a jet plane
It probably is illegal to download ripped TV programmes but yet again you have TiVo devices so you're hitting shady territory. But I don't think there is going to be a big clamp down for TV like we're seeing for movies because the companies aren't seeing a huge revenue lost. The combat against piracy is a combat against lost revenues - not such a big issue with TV.
 

rickvanr

macrumors 68040
Apr 10, 2002
3,256
11
Brockville
It's illegal if you download a tv program without commercials. Does it stop me? No. I'm a small fish in a very, very big pond.
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
rickvanr said:
It's illegal if you download a tv program without commercials. Does it stop me? No. I'm a small fish in a very, very big pond.
yes, you are a smal fish in a very, very big pond. just don't complain if you get caught.

it's illegal to distribute TV programs in any shape or form. downloading is probably safe as you are only helping others infringe on the copyright, not infringing on it yourself.
 

Calvinatir

macrumors 6502
Nov 8, 2003
430
0
LA
jxyama said:
yes, you are a smal fish in a very, very big pond. just don't complain if you get caught.

it's illegal to distribute TV programs in any shape or form. downloading is probably safe as you are only helping others infringe on the copyright, not infringing on it yourself.
Crap! MY Face is on a whole season of south parks. I ripped them with a TV card, and put my face in the bottom right of all the season 7 episodes. They are allll over the internet, i've had people calling from Chicago telling me they say my face on a buddies south park episode. It's pretty wild!
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Oct 20, 2002
16,570
0
This sounds like an awesome opportunity for Apple. IMHO the price is right. A negative would be those that don't have broadband internet connections. I would like to see blank DVD's that would be resilient and long lasting. Also like the idea of being able to to print a cover for DVD Jewel. The only close that exists like this is from BMW, that offers the downloads of movies that they produce.
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
Calvinatir said:
Crap! MY Face is on a whole season of south parks. I ripped them with a TV card, and put my face in the bottom right of all the season 7 episodes. They are allll over the internet, i've had people calling from Chicago telling me they say my face on a buddies south park episode. It's pretty wild!
that's pretty funny. but unless mpaa/riaa nail you right in the act of offering your stuff for sharing, you should be safe. the fact your face is on it kinda consequential... (unless a post on MR can be used as an evidence/confession...) ;)
 

maya

macrumors 68040
Oct 7, 2004
3,225
0
somewhere between here and there.
And this is different from a VCR, how other than quality wise.? :confused:

The RIAA and MPAA are always looking to fight loosing battles and lean a tough lesson when they have no alternative and then succumb to new technologies. :)
 

brap

macrumors 68000
May 10, 2004
1,701
0
Nottingham
jxyama said:
that's pretty funny. but unless mpaa/riaa nail you right in the act of offering your stuff for sharing, you should be safe. the fact your face is on it kinda consequential... (unless a post on MR can be used as an evidence/confession...) ;)
I was under the impression Parker/Stone couldn't give 2 s**ts about people pirating South Park. Can't remember where I got the info from, though... :rolleyes:
 

JeDiBoYTJ

macrumors 6502a
Jun 22, 2004
859
0
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
brap said:
I was under the impression Parker/Stone couldn't give 2 s**ts about people pirating South Park. Can't remember where I got the info from, though... :rolleyes:
There are a lot of directors out there that couldnt give 2 s**ts about people pirating their movies/tv shows, the thing is the distributor does. Example, Mikey Moores Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore said he didnt care if people downloaded the movie... but Lions Gate Films and the MPAA was like "woah woah woah... its still illegal...blah blah blah". Its almost the same with most Music artists. a lot of bands out there dont care if you download their music... its the RIAA that cares
 

maya

macrumors 68040
Oct 7, 2004
3,225
0
somewhere between here and there.
JeDiBoYTJ said:
There are a lot of directors out there that couldnt give 2 s**ts about people pirating their movies/tv shows, the thing is the distributor does. Example, Mikey Moores Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore said he didnt care if people downloaded the movie... but Lions Gate Films and the MPAA was like "woah woah woah... its still illegal...blah blah blah". Its almost the same with most Music artists. a lot of bands out there dont care if you download their music... its the RIAA that cares
Because care about name recognition and make money off the Concerts and the RIAA make money off sales and giving the least amount of money to the artists.

It's hurting the RIAA and MPAA profit margin no doubt, however what is a decent profit gap that is a matter of opinion. I believe a CD should cost 9.99 and a DVD 14.99 however how much of that goes to the artists and how much to the RIAA and MPAA.
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
m a y a said:
And this is different from a VCR, how other than quality wise.? :confused:

The RIAA and MPAA are always looking to fight loosing battles and lean a tough lesson when they have no alternative and then succumb to new technologies. :)
it's no different for a VCR, except that VCR requires a physical medium and is hard to "share" over the internet... if 100 people want a copy of your VCR, you need 100 tapes. if 100 people want a copy of your digital copy of a TV show, you just need 100 people willing to wait to download it.

before mp3s, RIAA hardly ever bothered going after CDs being shared by "friends" and taped copies being made, because it was physically difficult for such copying to propagate beyond a circle of friends, say 100 people at most. it's a different story when a single file can be shared between millions of people in a matter of minutes with no associated physical cost.


brap said:
I was under the impression Parker/Stone couldn't give 2 s**ts about people pirating South Park.
creaters' opinion on how their creation is distributed doesn't matter, unless they are the distributors themselves.
 

suneun

macrumors member
Feb 5, 2002
80
0
One major problem an Online Movie Store would have to confront is the burden on ISPs. Currently, many ISPs have quiet total upload/download maximums per month. I believe Cox Cable's is 30 gig download, 7 gig upload. This _might_ seem like a lot, until you're a bittorrent user. Or a legit Movie downloader.

The ISPs wouldn't want to foot the bill for thousands of legal movie downloads. Figure a movie could be anywhere between 700 mb to 3 gigs. They're going to want to pass that cost directly to the consumer. Right now I think they turn their heads if you go over their cap but don't adversely affect your neighbor's network. Don't expect that to last if a Movie Store gains anywhere near the popularity of the iTMS.
 

Punani

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2004
199
0
Los Angeles
MPAA Mentality

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone." -- Jack Valenti (MPAA President 1967 - 2004; 1982 United States Congressional Testimony)
 

Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
jxyama said:
it's no different for a VCR, except that VCR requires a physical medium and is hard to "share" over the internet... if 100 people want a copy of your VCR, you need 100 tapes. if 100 people want a copy of your digital copy of a TV show, you just need 100 people willing to wait to download it.

before mp3s, RIAA hardly ever bothered going after CDs being shared by "friends" and taped copies being made, because it was physically difficult for such copying to propagate beyond a circle of friends, say 100 people at most. it's a different story when a single file can be shared between millions of people in a matter of minutes with no associated physical cost.




creaters' opinion on how their creation is distributed doesn't matter, unless they are the distributors themselves.
I think it is hard for some people to see the "value" in a CD at $15 or a DVD at $25; when the media they can buy to record the product on is way under a $1 for the average consumer, and much less for the industry.
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
Chip NoVaMac said:
I think it is hard for some people to see the "value" in a CD at $15 or a DVD at $25; when the media they can buy to record the product on is way under a $1 for the average consumer, and much less for the industry.
i never bought that argument... you go to restaurants, don't you? the ingredients cost probably 10% of the price...

part of the reason "value" is not seen as much for CDs and DVDs are because they can be copied and obtained for "free." if your parents ran a restaurant and you could just eat as much food for "free," then your perceived value of paying for food at other restaurants will go down somewhat too.
 

Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
jxyama said:
i never bought that argument... you go to restaurants, don't you? the ingredients cost probably 10% of the price...

part of the reason "value" is not seen as much for CDs and DVDs are because they can be copied and obtained for "free." if your parents ran a restaurant and you could just eat as much food for "free," then your perceived value of paying for food at other restaurants will go down somewhat too.
Depends on the "restaurant" you go too. Food costs can be almost 50% of the cost.

Perceptions of the cost are based on what people see. The issue is that the RIAA and MPAA are so interested in gross profits they force swill down the throats of the consumers.

Look at CD's; in many cases there is only a song or two on most that are "keepers".
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
Chip NoVaMac said:
Depends on the "restaurant" you go too. Food costs can be almost 50% of the cost.

Perceptions of the cost are based on what people see. The issue is that the RIAA and MPAA are so interested in gross profits they force swill down the throats of the consumers.

Look at CD's; in many cases there is only a song or two on most that are "keepers".
i know what you are saying, but the argument is used often by pirates to justify their actions -> because they don't think it's as valuable as their prices are, so they think it's ok to pirate them.

if one thinks the price is too high, the proper thing to do is to not buy it.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,366
119
Los Angeles
Chip NoVaMac said:
I think it is hard for some people to see the "value" in a CD at $15 or a DVD at $25; when the media they can buy to record the product on is way under a $1 for the average consumer, and much less for the industry.
Then people need to realize they are not buying blank media. They are buying media that contains something that took many, many people months, if not years, and millions of dollars (sometimes hundreds of millions) to create. Following that same logic books are a rip off, video games are a huge rip off, computer software is a mega rip off. I can't believe Apple wants me to pay $120 for disc I can get at Best Buy for 25 cents. :rolleyes:

Perceptions of the cost are based on what people see. The issue is that the RIAA and MPAA are so interested in gross profits they force swill down the throats of the consumers.

Look at CD's; in many cases there is only a song or two on most that are "keepers".
The big studios and big labels aren't forcing any thing down any one's throat. No one has knocked on my door, or sent me threatening letters demanding I purcahse certain CDs and go see certain movies. There are plenty of great movies, and great CDs out there but people, by and large, are too stupid and lazy to realize it. If a CD only has one good song on it don't buy it. It won't kill you not to have that one-hit wonder on your shelf (odds are you'll forget about that band in 6 months any way).

This is just my opinion, but I think file sharing can have the opposite of the intended effect. Instead of sending the "You market crap and I won't pay for it" message, I think the "I like your stuff, but I'm just too cheap/lazy to buy it" message is there too. The latter message encourages the majors to keep pumping out the same crap (obviously people want it or they wouldn't buy it or download it) and at the same time come up w/ways to make sure people pay for it.


Lethal
 

Nermal

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 7, 2002
18,681
1,184
New Zealand
suneun said:
One major problem an Online Movie Store would have to confront is the burden on ISPs. Currently, many ISPs have quiet total upload/download maximums per month. I believe Cox Cable's is 30 gig download, 7 gig upload. This _might_ seem like a lot, until you're a bittorrent user. Or a legit Movie downloader.

The ISPs wouldn't want to foot the bill for thousands of legal movie downloads. Figure a movie could be anywhere between 700 mb to 3 gigs. They're going to want to pass that cost directly to the consumer. Right now I think they turn their heads if you go over their cap but don't adversely affect your neighbor's network. Don't expect that to last if a Movie Store gains anywhere near the popularity of the iTMS.
I understand that cable connections are shared with your neighbours, but on the other hand, DSL gives you your own pipe. They still have data limits though - officially I can transfer up to 10 GB per month (although thanks to a billing error, I currently have unlimited :D)

Yes, movies are big. And with a slow connection, they can take quite some time to download. While some connections (such as mine) can download a 1.5 GB movie in 2 hours (therefore allowing real-time viewing), people with slower connections would get frustrated with the lengthy waiting. People are prepared to wait a few minutes for a song to download, but waiting hours for a movie would annoy people.

Anyway, I'm basically just typing without going anywhere, so I'll stop now :rolleyes:
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
i can't see an online movie store taking off... for movies, there aren't the same (rather compelling) reasons that made iTMS a success:

1) movie is not an "instant gratification." it takes 3 to 5 minutes to listen to a song after a minute or two of downloading. it takes an hour to two hours to watch a movie after, say, 30 min. to an hour of downloading, at best.

2) movie is not compatible with multitasking. you pretty much have to devote that 1 to 2 hours to watching a movie. music, you can have it play in the background while you surf the web, send emails, etc. this kind of lumps together with #1 because it means there are more opportunities to enjoy the music without "committing" time to listen to it.

3) movies do not "split" very well, nor do they need to. iTMS does well partially because you can choose ind. songs from albums, skipping songs you don't want, something you cannot do in retail stores. (hence $15 CD sold at a store with 15 songs but 2 that you want will look like a not a great deal, but you can get those 2 songs online at iTMS for $2.) same problem does not exist for movies - retail stores sell the movie as a whole, as it should. online store has no advantage, unless the price is significantly cheaper. (but popular DVDs routinely sell for under $15...)
 

Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
jxyama said:
i know what you are saying, but the argument is used often by pirates to justify their actions -> because they don't think it's as valuable as their prices are, so they think it's ok to pirate them.

if one thinks the price is too high, the proper thing to do is to not buy it.
You and I are on the same wave length.

Though I see the situation differently. More so with RIAA; but the fat cats are protecting the big profits for the few. In many cases the artists are left holding the bag. For it is the one at the bottom of the ladder gets you know what rained down on them. And the consumers pay.

For me ITMS gives me what I need for music. Buy just the tunes I like. And on the video front, Netflix gives the ability to enjoy unlimited viewing of my favorites, and seeing new releases at a reasonable cost. So much so I dropped the pay channels from my cable.