And yet again, nobody realizes that people will pay if you make things available and give it a fair price. The actions these companies take are more criminal than the people they're punishing.
And yet again, nobody realizes that people will pay if you make things available and give it a fair price. The actions these companies take are more criminal than the people they're punishing.
As a personal anecdote, I used to pirate a lot of media, especially movies and TV shows. During the heyday of Netflix, maybe 2008-2015 or so, I basically stopped, because almost everything I...
As a personal anecdote, I used to pirate a lot of media, especially movies and TV shows. During the heyday of Netflix, maybe 2008-2015 or so, I basically stopped, because almost everything I wanted could be streamed painlessly for $7/mo. That $7 was simply a better value proposition than spending ten minutes hunting down the perfect copy of your movie and then fifteen downloading it, even if you weren't paying.
But somehow the media companies missed out on how much of a win-win that was, and now everyone and their grandma is taking their content off netflix and trying to start their own streaming service. With the balkanization of streaming, content I want is now locked behind a dozen different services, all trying to charge more for less. Needless to say, I'm back to piracy. I seriously doubt this is more profitable long term than bringing practically everyone on board with one lower cost service.
I can only speculate because most of these deals take place behind closed doors and the agreements are not made public, but I would assume that the reason why companies keep taking their content...
I can only speculate because most of these deals take place behind closed doors and the agreements are not made public, but I would assume that the reason why companies keep taking their content away from streaming services is simply because they don't feel they are making enough money on them. Even with the assumption that a streaming company doesn't have any costs except what they spend on licensing, it's easy to see that there is more money to be made by licensors. Assume that licensors get paid based on views; if a customer paying $7 a month watches just two shows a week, the licensors are getting paid less than $1 per view.
(My actual opinion is that many of these licensors are probably expecting far more money than they actually deserve. We are in an era where movies can turn a profit yet still be 'unsuccessful', after all.)
Having things move to smaller streaming services may actually be a good thing. It means that if you have the patience to wait for the season to end, you can watch the complete story arch for the cost of only a single month's subscription, which is usually cheaper than buying the box set or 'digital rentals'. And as a result of the licensors leaving, Netflix is now generating a lot of original content - perhaps in higher volume than any individual TV channel has ever made before.
That being said, if we see too much fragmentation, things can get worse.
I think that's exactly what's going on. They see the buckets of money Netflix is raking in and want a bigger piece of the action, not realizing that Netflix only became so popular due to being a...
My actual opinion is that many of these licensors are probably expecting far more money than they actually deserve. We are in an era where movies can turn a profit yet still be 'unsuccessful', after all.
I think that's exactly what's going on. They see the buckets of money Netflix is raking in and want a bigger piece of the action, not realizing that Netflix only became so popular due to being a one stop shop for movies and TV for years, whereas their service would only have their stuff and thus have less draw. Honestly, with the reduced subscriber count and economies of scale, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the less popular streaming services are actually losing money.
A lot of companies moved from Netflix to Hulu because Hulu is owned by the media companies; that is, they get a share in the profits in addition to the royalties from every view. And companies who...
A lot of companies moved from Netflix to Hulu because Hulu is owned by the media companies; that is, they get a share in the profits in addition to the royalties from every view. And companies who make their own services take 100% of the profits.
I also used to pirate everything until I got Netflix. I didn't watch a ton of content, but of what I did watch, all of it was on Netflix, and I felt I was getting my moneys worth. With the graveyard Netflix is becoming, I've gone back to torrenting in the past few months. I don't download much much, but I hadn't had a torrent client installed for so long so it was somewhat significant for me. Hopefully music streaming doesn't suffer the same fate, I really enjoy Google Play Music.
Me too. I just got some specific programs (which I won't name because I'm not sure how allowed that would be), and it is easier than anything else. Search, add, and in a few hours everything shows...
Me too. I just got some specific programs (which I won't name because I'm not sure how allowed that would be), and it is easier than anything else. Search, add, and in a few hours everything shows up in the exact same interface, Plex. I don't have to deal with 10 different apps, all of which have different controls, which may or may not support downloading stuff for offline play. The movie and tv industry can't compete on price. But they seem to not want to compete in any other way. If the industry had there way, the only reason at all to get media legally is just that it is legal.
I'd never heard of any of those. Radarr and Sonarr look identical. Are they forks of the same project? A lot of times I don't want to necessarily keep the files I torrent; I just want to watch...
I'd never heard of any of those. Radarr and Sonarr look identical. Are they forks of the same project?
A lot of times I don't want to necessarily keep the files I torrent; I just want to watch them, so I've been using Soda Player and it works fine, and has AirPlay support.
Yup Sonarr is a fork for Radarr as far as I know, Sonarr is for TV shows and Radarr is for movies. There are more *arrs out there and many others like Jackett that works as a search engine for all...
Yup Sonarr is a fork for Radarr as far as I know, Sonarr is for TV shows and Radarr is for movies. There are more *arrs out there and many others like Jackett that works as a search engine for all of them and so on and so forth.
With some learning, you can have a powerful automated system for all your media needs.
For me, it's all about them trying to control the platform, effectively trying to control the device I bought and paid for. I steadfastly refuse to use proprietary software (that means no...
For me, it's all about them trying to control the platform, effectively trying to control the device I bought and paid for. I steadfastly refuse to use proprietary software (that means no Microsoft, no Apple, and not much Google, either). I'm not going to install some DRM nonsense that prevents me from using my own device. What I want is an "I give you money, you give me video" transaction.
This has existed for a long time with music. Bandcamp offers transactions of exactly this type ("I give you money, you give me FLAC file, I play it any way I want on any of my devices, without greedy corporations getting their grubby malware all over everything") and some other players, too. With movies (even independent movies) it's tough, though.
The movie industry just seems to work differently...less interested in money and more interested in control, it seems.
Is this a real legal precedent? If so, why can't we extend this to other sectors? For example, we could send a notice to gun manufacturers and shops that they are selling to criminals and then...
If we send you a notice telling you that your internet account is being used illegally and you do nothing to stop it from being used illegally, then you become primarily liable -Ken Clark, lawyer, Aird & Berlis
Is this a real legal precedent? If so, why can't we extend this to other sectors? For example, we could send a notice to gun manufacturers and shops that they are selling to criminals and then hold them liable. Or, would we start holding landholders liable for Tennant's crimes?
Also, what exactly constitutes as doing something to stop it? If you change your wep password and your neighbor just cracks it again and torrents, would you be protected from legal action? Would they have to send another notice out (would they even bother)?
Edit: Also, would a WiFi hotspot EULA/TOS protect the company giving the wifi?
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.
My router resets the password to AT&T's factory-set password any time it reboots (after a power failure, for instance). So you can't even set the password and have it stay that way.
If you change your wep password and your neighbor just cracks it again and torrents, would you be protected from legal action?
My router resets the password to AT&T's factory-set password any time it reboots (after a power failure, for instance). So you can't even set the password and have it stay that way.
I posted this because I thought the following was interesting: Personally, I don't really have any strong issues with Canada's current laws and enforcement, but thought who pays this cost is a...
I posted this because I thought the following was interesting:
The top court is poised to rule on a dispute between movie production company Voltage Pictures LLC and Rogers Communications Inc. over who should foot the bill for identifying customers who allegedly infringe copyrights, a process Rogers said costs about $100 per hour.
“This could be the tip of the iceberg,” said Toronto-based intellectual property lawyer Graham Honsa, who noticed a “torrent of claims” earlier this year.
“The lower the cost for the plaintiff up front, the easier for them to increase the number of defendants. That can make the difference between naming a lot of defendants and a few.”
But though it is economically efficient for a plaintiff to sue all the Does at once, each individual could have vastly different circumstances that the court may have to weigh separately, said James Plotkin, an associate at Caza Saikaley, who has represented a few Does accused of infringing copyright.
Personally, I don't really have any strong issues with Canada's current laws and enforcement, but thought who pays this cost is a worthwhile topic.
And yet again, nobody realizes that people will pay if you make things available and give it a fair price. The actions these companies take are more criminal than the people they're punishing.
As a personal anecdote, I used to pirate a lot of media, especially movies and TV shows. During the heyday of Netflix, maybe 2008-2015 or so, I basically stopped, because almost everything I wanted could be streamed painlessly for $7/mo. That $7 was simply a better value proposition than spending ten minutes hunting down the perfect copy of your movie and then fifteen downloading it, even if you weren't paying.
But somehow the media companies missed out on how much of a win-win that was, and now everyone and their grandma is taking their content off netflix and trying to start their own streaming service. With the balkanization of streaming, content I want is now locked behind a dozen different services, all trying to charge more for less. Needless to say, I'm back to piracy. I seriously doubt this is more profitable long term than bringing practically everyone on board with one lower cost service.
I can only speculate because most of these deals take place behind closed doors and the agreements are not made public, but I would assume that the reason why companies keep taking their content away from streaming services is simply because they don't feel they are making enough money on them. Even with the assumption that a streaming company doesn't have any costs except what they spend on licensing, it's easy to see that there is more money to be made by licensors. Assume that licensors get paid based on views; if a customer paying $7 a month watches just two shows a week, the licensors are getting paid less than $1 per view.
(My actual opinion is that many of these licensors are probably expecting far more money than they actually deserve. We are in an era where movies can turn a profit yet still be 'unsuccessful', after all.)
Having things move to smaller streaming services may actually be a good thing. It means that if you have the patience to wait for the season to end, you can watch the complete story arch for the cost of only a single month's subscription, which is usually cheaper than buying the box set or 'digital rentals'. And as a result of the licensors leaving, Netflix is now generating a lot of original content - perhaps in higher volume than any individual TV channel has ever made before.
That being said, if we see too much fragmentation, things can get worse.
I think that's exactly what's going on. They see the buckets of money Netflix is raking in and want a bigger piece of the action, not realizing that Netflix only became so popular due to being a one stop shop for movies and TV for years, whereas their service would only have their stuff and thus have less draw. Honestly, with the reduced subscriber count and economies of scale, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the less popular streaming services are actually losing money.
A lot of companies moved from Netflix to Hulu because Hulu is owned by the media companies; that is, they get a share in the profits in addition to the royalties from every view. And companies who make their own services take 100% of the profits.
I also used to pirate everything until I got Netflix. I didn't watch a ton of content, but of what I did watch, all of it was on Netflix, and I felt I was getting my moneys worth. With the graveyard Netflix is becoming, I've gone back to torrenting in the past few months. I don't download much much, but I hadn't had a torrent client installed for so long so it was somewhat significant for me. Hopefully music streaming doesn't suffer the same fate, I really enjoy Google Play Music.
Me too. I just got some specific programs (which I won't name because I'm not sure how allowed that would be), and it is easier than anything else. Search, add, and in a few hours everything shows up in the exact same interface, Plex. I don't have to deal with 10 different apps, all of which have different controls, which may or may not support downloading stuff for offline play. The movie and tv industry can't compete on price. But they seem to not want to compete in any other way. If the industry had there way, the only reason at all to get media legally is just that it is legal.
With Radarr/Sonarr/Headphones/Jackett/etc... you don't need to hunt anything.
I'd never heard of any of those. Radarr and Sonarr look identical. Are they forks of the same project?
A lot of times I don't want to necessarily keep the files I torrent; I just want to watch them, so I've been using Soda Player and it works fine, and has AirPlay support.
Yup Sonarr is a fork for Radarr as far as I know, Sonarr is for TV shows and Radarr is for movies. There are more *arrs out there and many others like Jackett that works as a search engine for all of them and so on and so forth.
With some learning, you can have a powerful automated system for all your media needs.
For me, it's all about them trying to control the platform, effectively trying to control the device I bought and paid for. I steadfastly refuse to use proprietary software (that means no Microsoft, no Apple, and not much Google, either). I'm not going to install some DRM nonsense that prevents me from using my own device. What I want is an "I give you money, you give me video" transaction.
This has existed for a long time with music. Bandcamp offers transactions of exactly this type ("I give you money, you give me FLAC file, I play it any way I want on any of my devices, without greedy corporations getting their grubby malware all over everything") and some other players, too. With movies (even independent movies) it's tough, though.
The movie industry just seems to work differently...less interested in money and more interested in control, it seems.
I do think copyright laws need a lot of improvement. However, I don't believe people should be able to break the law with impunity either.
Is this a real legal precedent? If so, why can't we extend this to other sectors? For example, we could send a notice to gun manufacturers and shops that they are selling to criminals and then hold them liable. Or, would we start holding landholders liable for Tennant's crimes?
Also, what exactly constitutes as doing something to stop it? If you change your wep password and your neighbor just cracks it again and torrents, would you be protected from legal action? Would they have to send another notice out (would they even bother)?
Edit: Also, would a WiFi hotspot EULA/TOS protect the company giving the wifi?
In the US at least, there is a law protecting gun manufacturers from liability.
My router resets the password to AT&T's factory-set password any time it reboots (after a power failure, for instance). So you can't even set the password and have it stay that way.
I posted this because I thought the following was interesting:
Personally, I don't really have any strong issues with Canada's current laws and enforcement, but thought who pays this cost is a worthwhile topic.