Download Squad

There is always going to be a problem with piracy, the best that the industry can do is try and minimize it. If it's reasonably priced (25c on the high end), and open (of course everybody is going to say that) then people will buy their music, and not swap it because the trouble of pirating will not outweigh the benefits of buying it.

Reply

My personal feeling is that the MPAA is barking up the wrong tree. If they want more revenues, they should focus on increasing demand rather than protecting the supply chain.

In the real world, probably upwards of 99% of the tv and movies that are watched are legally obtained. Most people don't feel safe downloading a movie from bittorrent, and they can't download them from their friends because their friends have 100k outbound bandwidth and it's a waste of time.

I truely believe that it's possible to create a way to get movies that is safe, brain-dead easy, and inexpensive, which does absolutely nothing to protect against the fair use of the content (no DRM), but increases MPAA member revenues, just based on removal of barriers to entry. If such a system were in place, the hole would still be that most of what the MPAA members produce is crap, and they need to clean up their act. Make moving image content easy to produce and distribute and stop strangling ideas that won't pay for hundred million dollar marketing budgets and we'll see a whole lot of good stuff, stuff that I and many other people would be willing to pay for.

Reply

As being said.. they simply don't know how to deal with this issue. They are still in deep slumber and don't know how to make money and create demand with the internet in their backpack. Just like MP3s, the industry went straight to their lawyers instead selling MP3s in a high quality demand feeding enviroment online. MP3 and DIVx are not only a format to copy stuff around. They are easier to handle and thats what we consumers love. Its 2007 and no one wants to flip CD/DVDs anymore. We have stuff like TiVO, HTPC, iTunes and MP3 phones. If they wouldnt have started a "witchhunt" in the first place -and directly created platforms- they could have made lots of money already. The RobinHood explanation hits the nail. They should work on platforms instead of destroying things people love, wheter if these things are illegal or not. They don't generate happy (future) customers this way.

Reply

Unlike Bryn, I'm going to head the other way and say that the industry should adopt to digital distribution of video and audio content.

While there are surmountable difficulties (i.e. DRM or some sort of copy protection, ability of transferrence), it's becoming more common that we're moving into a Digital Age. Bandwidth has increased greatly and certain companies have been wise to capitalize on this fact (e.g. Apple's iTunes, Slingmedia's Slingbox).

Instead of new formats like the current HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray war, it's my opinion that we need to progress to a more robust and flexible system. A friend of mine had this idea of creating a home video file server which is in some ways brilliant! Given the low pricing of storage (hard drives) and a decent networking interface, one can easily store all their music, movies, and tv shows in one place. Add the ability to access this from anywhere and you've got the summation of a whole lot of technologies!

Take the redundancy of a RAID storage system, a high speed home network plus a broadband connection, throw in a PC version of a DVR (which can be done), add some sort of remote access player (like the slingplayer) and now you've got a server in which you can record, stream, and archive favorite movies and shows from anywhere in the world (provided you have a broadband internet connection). With the popularity of high speed cellular networks (EVDO, 3G, etc.) you can even watch, schedule, retrieve your personal movie/audio connection from your phone (this feature is already possible and available).

Now if you add in the ability to interface with something like the AppleTV or the Xbox 360's media extender (or the unofficial original xbox equivlent) you can enjoy your shows even in your living room as well (and keep that computer in the basement).

Now granted the technical know how is pretty steep to combine all those technologies, so why not build a company that handles that? Or better yet have it adopted by existing companies.

Imagine, if you will, Apple (Or Microsoft) paired with DirecTV or Time Warner Cable (or Comcast) with some company that has tons of server space (and bandwidth). You pay 1 monthly fee and you can access your movies, TV shows, audio library from anywhere (your home PC, your work PC, your cell phone, your living room via Media Extender or AppleTV) and you have the power to choose whatever you want to watch/record/rewind/fast forward.

Bringing together everything under 1 bill. Now I can tell if it was a bundle service, companies can charge outrageous amounts, but if you went a la carte (like iTunes current setup) I'm positive that you can ease 80% of folks to join up.

Marketing would be a snap! Now for some VCs to throw money at it (or me)...

Reply

Make downloads Cheap (.99 to 3 bucks) to download, leave out the DRM, make them Hi-Resolution and easy to play (mpeg2, h.264, etc.) and keep the extras and bonus material for a $10 DVD, in hi-def if possible.

Don't make me "Stream it in a java/flash player" and don't limit what I can do with it. If you make the acquisition process cheap and friendly (iTunes minus the stupid DRM) 99% of consumers won't care about pirating it.

Being a jerk just makes people want to screw you over... I'm lookin' at YOU RIAA.

Reply

I think the solution is simple. Cheaper disks. A DVD should cost $10 - $15 dollars and come with the movie in portable player formats on the disk.

The key is easy access and flexibility a little love for the consumer. I think the Robin Hood effect is there because people are tired of being nickel and dimed for all the different versions. Make it straight forward and add value and people will pay. I know I will.

Reply

I don't download movies but my friends do. I understand why they do because they are like me broke and don't feel like buying 3 versions of the same movie and also paying 20 or 30 bucks for just one flicks. I use Netflix so it's like buying a new flick every month but I can watch as many as I want. MPAA has no problem with me and I ain't raising any red flags.

Reply

I do like the idea of discs with multiple formats on them. That does add real value to the product.

I just don't buy the argument that cheaper prices will reduce piracy. No matter how little you charge it's going to be more than free.

If you reduce the price and release material without DRM, then why should I pay you even $1, when someone is going to put up a copy of that DRM-free product that I can download for free?

I think the root of the problem is that people are devaluing the product. By making it available for a very low cost or for free, society has begun to teach people that music and movies (particularly in digital format) don't have any real value. They do have value and someone worked hard to produce that product. I doubt pirates would think it was ok for other people to "take" their hard work.

Suppose you tell a co-worker about an idea you have. That person goes to the boss and tells them the idea. The boss thinks it is great, the coworker gets a promotion and a big raise. Somehow I don't think people who think piracy is no big deal would be ok with that. Using the pirate logic, the coworker could say, "I don't take anything from you. You still have your idea. I just have a copy of it."

People will also justify piracy by saying "the movie studios already make too much." Well I don't see anyone stealing cars because they think Ford makes too much. That argument is just a rationalization to make people feel better about something they know is wrong.

We also need to rewrite the laws. Right now people don't think piracy is a crime because there is nothing physical taken. The vast majority of pirates would never think about going into Best Buy and stealing a DVD, but they have no problem with piracy because "nothing physical was taken." The laws need to be changed to reflect these new realities and people need to be taught that theft is theft whether it's physical or electronic. Just because it's cheap and easy, doesn't make it right. In fact, if you like a band or actor, you SHOULD pay for it somehow. That is how these people make their living and you should support artists you enjoy.

All that being said, I don't download movies because I don't really care that much and they aren't that big a part of my life. I would only watch 99.9% of the films I see once, I don't feel the need to "share" things with my friends, and my time is too valuable to waste it finding and downloading stuff, burning it, wondering if it is going to work and cleaning up from the malware infested download sites. If I really want a disc, I'll go buy it at Amazon and wait the 2 days it takes to arrive.

Reply

I would like to remind people low prices can be GOOD for a business.

Say I have a movie, It costs $25 and 500,000 people buy it. I make $12,500,000.

But say I sell it for $5, It sells 2.5 million copies, i am still making $12,500,000. Not to mention it put previews and my brand in front of 5x as many people,

Which would you pick?

Reply

Cheaper Prices for sure. I am the kind of person that watches a movie one or twice and only more if it is a favorite. I want prices like $5 for a DVD, Especially those released in theaters.

Reply

tobin92 - The problem is you have no way of knowing that it will be linear like that. You could lower the price to $5 and sell only 1 million copies. Then which one would you choose?

Don't ever forget about the quality of the product. Seeing a movies in the theater costs the same no matter which film you see, but some sell way more tickets than others. A bad product will be hard to sell at any price.

Reply

Nah, it's all wrong. The thing that will always lead to piracy is the difficulty posed by DRM. I guess I should mention at this point that I don't pirate stuff. Don't know why every argument against DRM makes people accuse me, but so be it. Anyway, it's a pretty simple concept- people do not want to buy a movie, buy it again for their iPod, then buy it again on the next format. Sure, some secondary purchases can't be avoided (VHS > DVD, DVD > ??), but why should it be illegal to make the heavy downgrade from DVD to iPod? Hard to justify- that should be very clearly expressed as fair use, so companies can release more user-friendly products for consumers.

Now, to make it clear, Piracy is NOT cool. Watching a film is not the same as trading an idea. But to get the mainstream pirate, the consumer with a basic grasp of bittorrent/limewire, the MPAA needs to loosen restrictions. Maintain pricing if you will, but allow people to watch their legally purchased DVDs on a portable device of their choice, watch it how they want, and so on. Should be their right.

Taking the natural extension... why is a real DVD download service such a difficult idea? What are we worried, that people will take their downloaded films and put them online? Seeing as that battle would be hard to lose FURTHER, making it easier to download films legally (and yes, burn it to a simple DVD-R without a struggle) might reduce some mainstream piracy. I am a firm believer that iTunes, with its ubiquitous gift cards and ease of use reduced piracy more than lawsuits did. Of course, now mainstream consumers are being exposed to the problems of that DRM, leading to reports that suggest a sales drop of epic levels. Plus, the continent of Europe mobilizing against Apple.

I really think that offering a reasonably priced (not dirt cheap) download service with easy DVD burning and mobile support (iPod for some, Archos for me) will reduce piracy more than any lawsuit they plan next.

Reply

The way I see it, there are always going to be those who download from the pirate bay etc. no matter how strict the regulations become. Since 2000 the Movie industry and the Music industry has not lost any profit, in fact piracy of certain films has boosted there popularity, I beleive that the MPAA should just lay off and continue making money the way they've been. Think of it this way
-John Doe downloads a low quality cinema-tape of a movie
-John Doe really likes it
-John Doe buys it on DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray so he can watch it on his TV

Both parties are happy, the movie industry makes there money, the only loser in the whole deal is the theater and thats a whole other argument......

Reply

That argument doesn't work, unless John Doe signs an agreement to pay for it. We have all seen movies that we were disappointed in, and every movie made (no matter how good) had people who leave saying "I paid for that?" Well, they also add to a movie's gross. You can't just say to make better movies, as every movie will have these disappointed people to an extent. Besides, with full DVD rips and the recent cracking of HD-formats (not to mention the fact that hard drive sizes are rising at a pretty good pace), you make this John Doe out to be an insanely honest and nice guy. Most people who pirate movies have little to no interest in buying them. What you are more suggesting is to leave pirate bay alone, so that its users can continue operating on the hope that SOMEONE is buying the movie so that they can download as you wish with no guilt of not buying.

Reply

Peter, I agree with you that artists should see payment for what they produce, but your office/idea analogy falls apart under some scrutiny.

If my co-worker "copies" my idea, and uses it to gain a promotion, they are not only copying my work, but stealing credit for it and getting paid for it. In order for your analogy to be apt, instead of just downloading and watching a movie, a person would have to somehow make it look like they directed, produced, created, and acted every part in the movie, and then they would have to try to resell it to the public.

The reason copying digital media brings in an interesting point is that it doesn't really have an ready analogy in the physical world. The only way to create one is to invent a world where you had some kind of physics-defying duplicating machine. You decide that you want a bike and duplicate one instead of buying it. Of course, the company loses out because you just copied their bike and essentially prevented them from recovering R&D costs. But it's not exactly stealing either, because you haven't taken anything physically from them.

It gets even more complicated if you consider the scenerio where you would have never bought the bike, but decided to copy one just because you could. There is a possible gain for you (in enjoyment of the bike), but has the company really lost out if you had no intention of ever purchasing their good if you couldn't copy it?

All I'm trying to say with this rant is that the whole digital piracy issue is a lot more complex than the office anology made it out to be... It's a pretty new economic ground to explore, and there are still a lot of questions involving the morality and economic impact of it.

Reply

phojo11 - I do agree with you. My analogy was more to the people who justify it with a "nothing physical was taken so no theft occurred." The point being that people can still be harmed even if no physical theft occurs.

Reply

Personally, I find it is a question of practicality. If I were to download a movie from a legal service it would have DRM and I would not be able to transfer the movie to any other device. Pirated versions offer the kind of flexibility that I like.

I would much prefer if there was a legal way to have that kind of flexibility, but there isn´t so I have no incentive to use legal services.

I even download copies on bittorrent of films I own on dvd because its easier and quicker than ripping a dvd and then compressing the file!

Either way DRM is not about stopping piracy, its just a way for the studios to maximise their revenues so they can sell their products multiple times

Reply

A lot of people bring up the fact that if they only want to watch it once or twice, they would want to spend less on it. But if they want to watch it only a couple of times at most, why not just rent it? That right there is a cheaper alternative. Put it online and add unlimited rentals per month for a set price and you've got a great deal [ie. NetFlix].

Reply

The reason that piracy is so prevalent is simple. Its easier to get it this way and use as you wish then through other legal means. Take Itunes for instance (may I die before i buy any low quality DRM ravaged piece of music!) But its popularity is in its simplicity. Download song connect ipod, take with you whever you want. Simple.
Nothing will change until both "idiotcracies" ie MPAA and RIAA make things simple.

Reply

well i only watch movies once unless they are really good, I think what would make sense is to charge per viewing, like 25 cents a viewing, and then if they kept it all digital like with a download service they wouldn't have to worry about disc production costs and stuff.

there would probably be some crazy DRM crap involved though, maybe there could be a "per-viewing" version released and a "buy for infinite viewings" version on a disc or something.

if i only had to pay 25 cents to watch a movie once in my own home i would do it. (and i pirate movies like crazy)

Reply