Industry News Report

Spot|DSE wrote on 11/8/2004, 10:07 AM
Part of a press update we get on a daily basis...thought you'd find it of interest.

File-Sharing Network Thrives Beneath the Radar

A file-sharing program called BitTorrent has become a behemoth, devouring more than a third of the Internet's bandwidth, and Hollywood's copyright cops are taking notice.
For those who know where to look, there's a wealth of content, both legal -- such as hip-hop from the Beastie Boys and video game promos -- and illicit, including a wide range of TV shows, computer games and movies.
Average users are taking advantage of the software's ability to cheaply spread files around the Internet. For example, when comedian Jon Stewart made an incendiary appearance on CNN's political talk show "Crossfire," thousands used BitTorrent to share the much-discussed video segment.
Even as lawsuits from music companies have driven people away from peer-to-peer programs like KaZaa, BitTorrent has thus far avoided the ire of groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America. But as BitTorrent's popularity grows, the service could become a target for copyright lawsuits;
According to British Web analysis firm CacheLogic, BitTorrent accounts for an astounding 35 percent of all the traffic on the Internet -- more than all other peer-to-peer programs combined -- and dwarfs mainstream traffic like Web pages.
"I don't think Hollywood is willing to let it slide, but whether they're able to (stop it) is another matter," Bram Cohen, the programer who created BitTorrent, told Reuters.
John Malcolm, director of worldwide anti-piracy operations for the MPAA, said that his group is well aware of the vast amounts of copyrighted material being traded via BitTorrent.
"It's a very efficient delivery system for large files, and it's being used and abused by a hell of a lot of people," he told Reuters. "We're studying our options, as we do with all new technologies which are abused by people to engage in theft."

FOR GOOD OR EVIL

BitTorrent, which is available for free on http://bittorrent.com, can be used to distribute legitimate content and to enable copyright infringement on a massive scale. The key is to understand how the software works.
Let's say you want to download a copy of this week's episode of "Desperate Housewives." Rather than downloading the actual digital file that contains the show, instead you would download a small file called a "torrent" onto your computer.
When you open that file on your computer, BitTorrent searches for other users that have downloaded the same "torrent."
BitTorrent's "file-swarming" software breaks the original digital file into fragments, then those fragments are shared between all of the users that have downloaded the "torrent." Then the software stitches together those fragments into a single file that a users can view on their PC.
Sites like Slovenia-based Suprnova (http://www.suprnova.org) offer up thousands of different torrents without storing the shows themselves.
Suprnova is a treasure trove of movies, television shows, and pirated games and software. Funded by advertising, it is run by a teen-age programer who goes only by the name Sloncek, who did not respond to an e-mailed interview request.
Enabling users to share copyrighted material illicitly may put Suprnova and its users on shaky legal ground.
"They're doing something flagrantly illegal, but getting away with it because they're offshore," said Cohen. He is not eager to get into a battle about how his creation is used. "To me, it's all bits," he said.
But Cohen has warned that BitTorrent is ill-suited to illegal activities, a view echoed by John Malcolm of MPAA.
"People who use these systems and think they're anonymous are mistaken," Malcolm said. Asked if he thought sites like Suprnova were illegal, he said: "That's still an issue we're studying, that reasonable minds can disagree on," he said.

GOING LEGIT
Meanwhile, BitTorrent is rapidly emerging as the preferred means of distributing large amounts of legitimate content such as versions of the free computer operating system Linux, and these benign uses may give it some legal protection.
"Almost any software that makes it easy to swap copyrighted files is ripe for a crackdown. BitTorrent's turn at bat will definitely happen," said Harvard University associate law professor Jonathan Zittrain. "At least under U.S. law, it's a bit more difficult to find the makers liable as long as the software is capable of being used for innocent uses, which I think (BitTorrent) surely is."

Some of the best legitimate sites for movies and music:

-- Legal Torrents (http://www.legaltorrents.com/), which includes a wide selection of electronic music. It also has the Wired Magazine Creative Commons CD, which has songs from artists like the Beastie Boys who agreed to release some of their songs under a more permissive copyright that allows free distribution and remixing.

-- Torrentocracy (http://torrentocracy.com/torrents/) has videos of the U.S. presidential debates and other political materials.

-- File Soup (http://www.filesoup.com) offers open-source software and freeware, music from artists whose labels don't belong to the Recording Industry Association of America trade group, and programs from public television stations like PBS or the BBC.

-- Etree (http://bt.etree.org) is for devotees of "trade-friendly" bands like Phish and the Dead, who encourage fans to share live recordings, usually in the form of large files that have been minimally compressed to maintain sound quality.

Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/8/2004, 10:42 AM
Boy, lawyers & the feds would make sharing CD's & movie rentals if they thought people were copying them instead of watching them. :)

Oh well, thanks for the heads up!
p@mast3rs wrote on 11/8/2004, 11:48 AM
This excerpt was taken from www.doom9.org

"At least some people in the entertainment industry are getting it: At the recently concluded Billboard Digital Entertainment conference, broadcast.com co-founder and owner of the HDTV station HDNet Marc Cuban has gone on record citing price and timely availability as the two main reason for movie piracy. If potential consumers have to wait for months until they can get a movie on DVD, they might start looking for alternatives. And that's even more true for those of us not living in the US and having to wait even longer (some time it can no only take weeks or a few months but years). Now if only that wisdom would make it into the management offices of the MPAA members.."

Its the truth. Viewers dont want to wait 6 months to a year to own their favorite movies. Cost of the DVDs are also too high. I am all for making a buck but I am willing to bet if the prices were lower they would sell more DVDs than having people rip them off. You will always have pirates as you cant stop them. But lets face it.You make it cheap enough and people wont go through the hassle of ripping, encoding, burning, etc...

The problem with piracy doesnt start with the pirates. IMO, piracy starts with the studios. Studios spend a fortune on productions and talent. Far more than any of them are worth. Seriously, is Julia Roberts worth $20M a film? No way. Also, is there seriously a major need to paste ads on every commerical 24/7 for millions of dollars?

Also as stated above, people dont want to wait a year to view it. We all have busy lives. Some dont have time to go to the movies. Think about it. For a family of 4 to take in a film, ($8.75 ticket- roughly $36, approximately $30 on concessions) youre looking at almost $70. Thats ridiculous. Then six months later, if its a favorite the family shells out another $20 for the DVD.

IMO, the studios (MPAA/RIAA) have created piracy. Every year, prices rise for their products. Neither embraces technology or alternative delivery methods. Its hard for the public to be sympathetic that all of these companies are losing money when profits continuje to rise every year. Hell, the Polar Express took in $70M in its opening weekend. I seriously doubt any level of piracy from here on out would cause loss to them.

In this day in age, there is a lot of competition for entertainment dollars. Let me give you the best example of where these companies claim they are losing money.

Lets say you spend $100 a month on music. Then as you start embracing the DVD market more, you start shifting some of your dollars to them. Lets say the following month you decide to buy 2 DVd movies at $20/ea. So the music industry only makes $60 off you and then claims they are losing $40 to piracy. Then the following month, you spend $20 on music and $80 on DVDs. Again, the RIAA claims its losing $80 from you on piracy. This cycle continues for several months and then a harsh economy hits. And you only spend $20 on a DVD. So the RIAA loses "$100" from you and the MPAA loses $60 from you and both sides claim they are losing money due to piracy.

My point is this. The RIAA/MPAA fail to realize that just because they dont sell and make money at the rate they have expected, doesnt mean piracy is the main cause. Too many things figure into the equation (i.e economy, lost jobs, bad products) but neither of those things will drum up sympathy from the public or share holders. Could you imagine the MPAA syaing this: " Our profit margins are down because last month, we produced a film that was stupid and offending to the public. Since we lost money because of our own incompetence, we want to raise the cost of films by $2.00" How well would that go over?

Its just more simple to blame piracy for everything. Piracy does serve a positive purpose believe it or not. Our own Spot, is a pirate. Read the bio on the Sony site and youll see Spot tried out a pirated version of Sound Forge and was hooked and they continued to make money off of him. They made a profit off of piracy. If Spot didnt like the software, he wouldnt buy it and they wouldnt have made a dime. Not all pirates are like that. Some collect warez and media just to collect. Some even profit with their goods.

How do you solve it? You dont. You cant stop piracy. But with current dinosaur business models, the studios will continue to "lose" money will continuing to turn increasing profits every year. The studios claim that people will pirate regardless of the price. How would they know? They havent lowered their prices to find out. And why is that? Because they are afraid they would be wrong and would be stuck in offering a lower price from here on out.

Someone recently posted about the lack of creativity and art form in todays entertainment world. My question is to the artists, when did this become about money? When did the almighty dollar replace creativity and the love for the art and craft you strive to perfect? Oh, you say that money has always been that way. Perhaps you just answered your own question to why piracy exists. Sadly, it has always been that way.
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/8/2004, 12:28 PM
Ahhh....more of the "you make too much money producing great films and so it's OK for me to steal" concept. Wow. Amazing.
Work hard, learn your craft, create works that are eons better in production using huge names that have equally worked hard at their acting, shooting, lighting, set design, costuming, CG, even honey-truck driving skills....and sell your movie to break even. Or even make a buck.
Screw marketing costs, screw distribution costs, screw actors making money on the back end, screw the whole concept of working hard, getting good, making good money that compensates your years of eating dirt to get good, because "It's not fair that you make a whole 2.00 on the profit of a DVD when millions are sold" whine of those that wish they could do as well at anything.
It's so damn easy for those that are mediocre or less to whine about those that are sitting at the top of the mountain. Guess what? (said to the Doom poster) Someone had to CLIMB to the top of the mountain, often weathering rockslides, mud, back slip, and uncharted routes to get there. They deserve to make whatever they make for having gone there ahead of anyone who would follow.
p@mast3rs wrote on 11/8/2004, 1:14 PM
Now read again what I wrote. I never said it was ok to steal anything. I merely pointed out the flaws in saying that piracy is the cause of the "losses" incurred by the industries.

Furthermore, Spot, for someone who he himself is guilty of pirating Sound Forge you would have to look at yourself in the same light as those that steal. Sure you tried it to see if it would do what you needed. Again, like you have said before, stealing is stealing regardless of whether you did it years ago or today. I can honestly say, I have not pirated movies or music. I have use pirated software before but not to my knowledge (bought a computer with a pirated copy of windows 2000).

I do take several issues here with your last post. You say these huge names have worked hard at their acting. Julia Roberts is a pathetic actress who is not worth the cash she is paid. Now I will agree that shooters, lighting, grips, etc... work hard and surely they dont make what they should. Afterall, without them, they have no production. But to suggest that a company only makes a $2 profit on a dvd sale is ridiculous, acutally, I challenege to prove what you say.

But its nice to know that my opinions are constituted as whining. But for you to sit there and take shots at those that are "mediocre or less" really makes you nothing more than pompous and an elitist. Furthermore, twisting my post to your liking still does not condone stealing. It merely explains part of why piracy is such a problem.

And dont think for a second that all that make it had to work hard to get there. Can you say Britney Spears? Michael Moore? Neither have the talent to make it. One depends on her sexuality to sell (no talent) and the other one depends on controversy to sell (only marketing talent there.)

I also dont buy your marekting costs justification. Now in the business world, marketing costs are passed on to the customer. But is that really justified. Why the hell should the customer pay for you to sell them something? If a company wants their brand out there or wants recognition for their products, the costs should be shoulder by the company and the company solely. But we live in a modern world where every single cost is passed on to the consumer. Piracy is how the consumers are responding to all these passed on costs.

My point was customers are not as dumb as they were before the internet age. 10 years ago, the movie and music industries enjoyed major success because they called all of the shots. They decided what customers could do and THEY dictated price. The consumer became more educated and discovered a way to screw the system that they felt has overcharged them for a long period of time. No mater how wrong it is, the consumers have FORCED both industries to scurry and rethink their business models. Look at ITunes. It has proven that customers want music in a digital form and are willing to pay for it. The music industry makes money but Itunes doesnt. $.99 a song isnt a bad price and once they prices are lower, they will sell more.

Once the movie industry realizes that piracy is also the result of customers not wanting to spend $70 at the movie theatres and offer movies for download at the time of theatre release, they will make more moeny then as well. Lets face it. The biggest opposition to downloadable movies is NOT the MPAA but more so the movie theatres themselves. Through downloadable flicks, it eliminates the need for the middle men (theatres) which means not only do they lose money on admission but also on concessions. So I say BIG DEAL! Why spend $70 at the local complex when I can purchase and download the film in the comfort of my own home for a much lower cost and not have pay overcharges for concessions?

But back to your concept "more of the 'you make too much money producing great films and so it's OK for me to steal' concept. Wow. Amazing", did you think the same thing when you tried a cracked version of Sound Forge? Did you stop and think about all the hard work the programmers put into their code when you used it? Its not a shot at you but simply that your opinion today differs greatly from your actions then.









Arks wrote on 11/8/2004, 1:31 PM
hmmm... this is a great topic, and I see it flaming very soon; so I wont add my feelings on this; just another fact of a business model:

Fast food joints make money on selling Soft drinks; not the food. The same holds true for the movie theatres. They make there money on concessions as you talked about; not the movie ticket. It costs them a few cents to fill a 35 oz. plastic cup with frozen water and carbonated juices... and it costs on average more than a dollar or more for the consumer to buy that. Thats a huge margin.

I have an idea; lets steal our soft drinks for now on!

=)

Arks wrote on 11/8/2004, 1:35 PM
ok, i cant hold back; I have to make one comment. I am in no way saying its alright to steal and everyone should use all of these file sharing programs; but the sad fact of the matter is this:

The internet is much faster than the court system. One program will get shut down (developers sued, threatened, etc, etc...) and while this is happening, another program will spawn and start all over again. Its happened many times already...

B
farss wrote on 11/8/2004, 1:43 PM
Stangely enough I didn't once read "it's OK to steal" in the article. What I did read is something echoed by my largest client.
These people produce books, audio and video products. They produce their own content and sell through several hundred of their own stores nationally. Many of their products also sell to a global market, several have attracted significan global sales netting millions in revenue so they're not a bit player.
They are telling me that sales of audio product both cassette tape and CD have declined, sales of video product, obviously DVD, have increased, more than offsetting the loss of audio sales. Does this mean they're loosing money to piracy, no way, I doubt if more then 20% of their customers would have a clue how to even use a search engine. I'm basing that assumption on the age demographics of their customers, certainly most of them have had to be educated how to play an mp3 file!
So what has the response to this change in the marketplace been by this very conservative organisation?
Well they sure haven't wasted time wingeing to APRA, they now are repackaging much of their catalogue as mp3, they're adding value to their audio product by including DVDs, just simple stuff that's cheap and easy to produce. Oh and yes they spend a lot on packaging, graphics and included printed material.
Needless to say I'm making a decent living out of this, if business gets any better I might have to think about hiring a few more vegemites to keep up.
In a bold move they're also moving the product out of their traditional shops, it's now on the counter of many service stations, judging by how quickly the display stand at my local service station gets emptied, sales are booming. Next time you buy petrol in Oz, you might be able to pick up a CD or DVD that was touched by Vegas.

Let me give you an example of how this translates into real dollars. One product, a large set of CDs that retailed for around $300 is now sold for $35 on two CDs, their profit margin is higher, their inventory is lower and the product is now affordable by a larger share of the market. You'd have to be pretty keen to spend $300 to listen to 20 hours of talking, at $35 you can buy it as a christmas present for someone who might have had a vague connection with what it is about.

And now the interesting part. I recently tried to help them solve a copyright issue, mostly created by their own lack of care. They used material that they'd recorded with their own orchestra in their own studios as a bed in another production, oops big time! Anyway they went to buy the additional rights but who scuttled the composer getting a few extra dollars for his work, the publicist. I doubt the composer ever even knew the offer was on the table.

So if this organisation can see what needs to be done to not just hold the bottom line but to improve it I'm at a loss to see why the rest of the industry doesn't get it, or maybe they do. I see Sanity, one of our biggest record retailers now devotes more space to DVDs than CDs.

Now one of the biggest growth areas in this country is home cinema, people are spending upto $100K on gear! You can bet good money that they'll pay a fair price to get the latest release movie in HD but they don't want it 12 months after it's released, they want it now. If they can 'steal' it becuase they cannot buy it they will. If they can buy a copy in true HD now they'll buy it. 12 months after they've watched a dodgy rip it's no sale is it? They'll never go near a cinema, so holding off the release lest cinema sales suffer is not in the studios interest but the studios don't get it. The only ones making money out of this sorry mess are the telcos, those that do the work, those that are entitled to their just rewards are the ones suffering, even the studios shareholders are loosing out.
Anyway enough said, I'm too busy making a legitimate dollar for a hard days work to keep beating this drum.

Bob.
JohnnyRoy wrote on 11/8/2004, 2:19 PM
> The consumer became more educated and discovered a way to screw the system that they felt has overcharged them for a long period of time

People have the right NOT to watch or buy the movie. Nothing can justify stealing it! No one is holding a gun to their head. They need to find their entertainment elsewhere. Perhaps they should play a board game with their children of a $70 movie is too expensive. Perhaps they should just watch more of their overpriced cable TV. (or do they steal that too?) There is no justification for piracy. The only right you have is the right to abstain.

~jr
p@mast3rs wrote on 11/8/2004, 2:25 PM
AGAIN....I never said stealing was ok. But you say that doesnt give the right to the customers to steal from the companies. Does that mean the companies have a right to steal from the customer? Before you answer, not too long ago that music industry was found guilty of price gouging which is stealing money from the consumer.
apit34356 wrote on 11/8/2004, 2:50 PM
The concept of price fixing is not the same as stealing copyright material. Pmasters, you have stated that you have a four year college degree, how can you logically connect the two issues, they are based on different laws.

Secondary, are you stating that Spot uses itllegal software or did I read your post wrong?
JohnnyRoy wrote on 11/8/2004, 2:54 PM
> Does that mean the companies have a right to steal from the customer?

No, but two wrongs don’t make a right. (at least not in my Bible)

> Secondary, are you stating that Spot uses itllegal software or did I read your post wrong?

It has been acknowledge by Spot that he started using SoFo products with a bootleg copy of Sound Forge way back when, before he bought his first copy. The point is, he eventually bought a copy and became a life long customer. IMHO, it was a low blow on pmaster’s part. (like you never sinned and God doesn’t forgive you)

~jr
apit34356 wrote on 11/8/2004, 3:02 PM
no it does not, but if you multipy -1 x -1 = 1. I think sometimes people confuse the rules alittle.
farss wrote on 11/8/2004, 3:02 PM
Just a thought, this country was mostly built on those who broke the law, laws that today are still in place. But when the Brits ran out of places to ship the offenders to it finally dawned on them to question WHY so many were breaking the law. Today we have social security, you can technically still go to jail for stealing a loaf of bread but oddly enough not too many have to steal bread to live, not even in the UK!
Now of course many earn their daily bread delivering those social services. Is there a message in this somewhere?
Bob.
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/8/2004, 3:08 PM
First, when I used the copy of sound forge I used, it was shareware. That's the story there, but the copy I used had a purchase code from a friend. The internet wasn't what it was. Yeah, I used a shareware that someone else paid for as part of their "donation." And I liked it, promptly went out and bought it. Over the phone, from the now CTO of Sony Media Software, who was just one of 3 people programming Sound Forge at the time.

I also think I've paid my penance for using a friend's serial for Sound Forge. And I've not used, and don't use illegal software now.

I was also writing to the person who posted on Doom, whose post you copy/pasted here. I didn't realize I was posting to you too. I didn't ever think you'd be a guy pirating or supporting piracy. I was apparently wrong. I also thought that the poster's opinion was the standard whine. "you make too much money from your products." To me, that is a whine. That's why we have capitalism and it works. For the lower income folks, there are low cost Geo's and similar cars. For the upper income, there are Lamborghini's and the guys that buy the 200,000.00 motorcycles I drool over on American Chopper. I think I'm in the median of that, but you'll never hear me say "I think it's OK to steal someone's American Chopper because they can afford it."

You don't think marketing $$ go into a Hollywood release? If you REALLY believe that, you're out of your mind.

That said, regardless of what you think, Julia Roberts, Michael Moore, and Britney Spears have ALL worked damn hard to get to where they are. You might not think so, but having been fairly high up the "celebrity" ladder at one point in my life, it's a HELL OF A LOT OF HARD, HARD work. Not the kind of hard work that Bush talks about, it's hard work. Different cities every day, different bed every night. Creative energy exhausted every afternoon, fingers raw from playing all day. Making contacts, connections, AND being talented, AND finding people to believe in you and help you get to where you want to go is very difficult work. Managing the schedules is hard work. Putting your ass on the line physically, emotionally, and mentally is hard work. Many people who have great talent can never climb high enough because of missed/lost breaks, or simply not having all the right chemistry. In 1996, I was called the "Next Chuck Mangione" and no matter how hard I tried, I didn't quite get there. I don't have what it takes. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but that's the way it is. I had a GREAT team, GREAT band, and wonderful support. But something was lacking. So, regardless of what I think of Julia Roberts, Michael Moore, or Britney Spears, I respect them for getting somewhere. BTW, Britney Spears was well known long before she sprouted breasts. (Mickey Mouse Club)

I've proven the marketing $$ several times in the past, in this very forum. You clearly don't get it, do you? It's not hard to figure out.
Walmart sells DVD for 17.95, they make 6.00 or so, but they've also got the cost of overhead.
Distribution company that supports Walmart makes 3.00
Studio gets a gross rev of about 8.00 in this scenario. Out of that comes cost of manufacturing (1.50-1.75) cost of marketing (.25) cost of producer, actor, and other related shares. There are also licensing costs related to any songs or video used, not to mention other licensing costs or related costs.
So, studio makes between 2-3 per disc. MPAA claims it's less. I'm in the biz, I can rough the math a little more openly than they can.
Even IF they made 10.00 profit per disk, so what? They conceived and produced it, they marketed it and either sink or swim with it. Their profits provide seed money for the Ben Affleck's of the world that make crappy films that show promise. it takes PROFIT for a business to grow. Last I knew, we all lived in the USA where profitability is what we aspire to. For it to be limited by Congressional act or piracy is absurd, and certainly not "American."

The point in the earlier post, which I thought was from Doom, articulates that people don't want to wait til a movie comes out on DVD, and even then they don't want to buy it because it "costs too much." Maybe so, but the OWNER of that film gets to decide when, how, where it's released. Getting it illegally from the internet removes his right of choice. Getting it illegally from the internet is stealing. So the logical whine to that is, "He makes too much money anyway." OK, maybe Spielberg is loaded. But he employs a LOT of lower paid gaffers, grips, makeup, truck drivers, camera persons, etc. out of what he makes on a film. His actors make a percentage of his film whether in theatre or DVD. Who gets to say how much profit he makes? Not me, and not you. If you feel he makes too much money, then don't put money in his pocket by going to see the movie, but don't TAKE money from his pocket by advocating that it's ok to download it.

You support that lower prices cause people to buy more. I say it doesn't. Supply and demand....and if the supply gets cheaper, does demand go up? Nope. Walmart is LIVING PROOF of that. Used to be a good vacuum cleaner cost you a coupla hundred bucks. Walmart comes in, sells a knock off of the good vacuum cleaner for half the price. Sure, it breaks faster, but it was cheaper. Eventually, it forces the big, better vacuum cleaner company to make cheaper products, lay off their workforce, and sell through Walmart where everyone hurts except Walmart. We've witnessed this in the music biz too. Walmart has a set, low price point that is nearly 30% less than a Camelot or Sam Goody was paying. This means that the labels have less $$ to spend on development or production. Used to be spending a million on a record was expected for a big name group. Now, if it goes beyond a quarter mil, it better be pre-sold for at least 10% of the recoup. Now, we see fewer and fewer artists being developed. By far and deep. You'll never again see another Eric Clapton, Garth Brooks, Dave Mathews, Rolling Stones, Kiss, or any other long-life band. Because it's all about one-album profit and then dump em. Because there is no longer a fund that can support a weak record to hold over to the next record.

Why do you teach? to put food on your table, right? But if you could get a gig that paid 3 times as much, you'd take it, right? Because you aspire to be greater than you are now. In some countries, that aspiration alone is a crime. But here, in the USA, we have that right, and in some cases that responsibility to constantly seek better for ourselves and our kids. And pirates, aspire to STEAL from our kids, so that they can have free entertainment. I find that repulsive, obnoxious, and ridiculous. And if you are one of those that complains about people "making too much money" on their creative genious and hard work to produce their creative endeavor, I guess that makes you a whiner in my book.
apit34356 wrote on 11/8/2004, 3:14 PM
thank you JohnnyRoy for the explanation. Well, I personally believe that Spot's acknowledgement ownly proves to me that he deserves the respect of the forum(s) and the business community.


Pmaster's comment is in poor taste, reminds me of someone's posting.
nickle wrote on 11/8/2004, 4:32 PM
It is just as easy to solve this problem as it is to solve the problems in the Middle East.
Somebody is right and somebody is wrong.
We just have to decide who is who and what is to be the punishment.

Apple stole their o/s from Xerox. Microsoft stole Windows from Apple.
Microsoft stole disk compression from Stacker who probably stole it from PKWare.
Do they deserve our respect? Or did they invite us to do the same to them?

Every EULA states that it may or may not work or suit your purposes, but when you take the shrinkwrap off, you own it.
There is no warranty.
Microsoft has never fixed the bugs, they just release a new version.

If you buy something do you own it?

Does everyone here buy 2 versions of Windows if they install it on 2 computers?

Who has a vcr? Why did you buy it? What was the selling point? To record commercial broadcasts and movies and music videos?

Has anyone recorded anything from the radio?

Has anyone photocopied a part of a book?
Has anyone taken a picture of a painting?
Should architects get royalties if you film their building?
If you film something and a radio is playing a song in the background is it illegal?

This argument has been going on for many years and the grey areas are muddied by the manufacturers of the products we use that have more than one purpose, especially if you bend the rules.

Those with something to lose are on one side. The rest are on the other side.

I think everyone draws their own line. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
The real offenders are those who steal and resell someone elses work for their own profit and they deserve the harsh punishment.
p@mast3rs wrote on 11/8/2004, 4:58 PM
JohnnyRoy wrote:

"It has been acknowledge by Spot that he started using SoFo products with a bootleg copy of Sound Forge way back when, before he bought his first copy. The point is, he eventually bought a copy and became a life long customer. IMHO, it was a low blow on pmaster’s part. (like you never sinned and God doesn’t forgive you)"

It wasnt a low blow. Its public information. Take a look at Spots Bio on the Sony site. Its there in black and white. Does it make him a bad person? Not at all. But theft is theft no matter if you become a customer later on or not. My example: If i use a cracked copy of your script and then buy it two years down the road, are you going to be as forgiving?

But you missed my point. Someone like Spot was checking the software out and he became a customer. If you listened to the RIAA/MPAA, EVERYONE, not just a few is out to rip them off and not pay for something they like. As I said, it wasnt a shot against Spot, just an explanation of why its an ongoing problem.
p@mast3rs wrote on 11/8/2004, 5:00 PM
apit34356 wrote:
"The concept of price fixing is not the same as stealing copyright material. Pmasters, you have stated that you have a four year college degree, how can you logically connect the two issues, they are based on different laws.
"


Price fixing is stealing. You are stealing from the customer and its against the law for a reason. Its theft. Thats how I connect them
winrockpost wrote on 11/8/2004, 5:14 PM
I remember when an album was 5 dollars , maybe came with a poster , great artwork on the album cover,lyrics printed out etc.. .A cd is 15 dollars no poster no nothing.
I dont steal music, but I am sure somebody is making makin money on a 15 dollar cd, I am also sure somebody is making money on dvds, i am positive blockbuster is making money, hell the late fees themselves ar e a couple a hundred a year in my houshold. Not advocating piracy in any way shape or form, and maybe I'm not in touch, but seems to me it is not as big of an issue as crappy music and lousy movies are to declining sales.
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/8/2004, 5:27 PM
But theft is theft no matter if you become a customer later on or not. My example: If i use a cracked copy of your script and then buy it two years down the road, are you going to be as forgiving?

To clarify, since a time element has now been introduced, I'll spell out the whole damn story.

A friend bought a copy of the software. He told me it was shareware. I installed it. I needed tech support. I called Sonic Foundry for tech support. I spoke with a person there who asked me for my name. He didn't have my name on a list of purchased serials. He told me my copy was not licenced, and not entitled to tech support. We talked for a long while about the software and what I was doing for Windham Hill at the time. He offered me a free copy. (35$ value or so) I declined, I bought, and they mailed the 5 1/4 discs. Same day. No two years, two weeks, two days, or even two hours transpired.

If you used a cracked copy of our software and bought a copy two years later, we'd be happy. We'd be forgiving. But the person that cracked the software? I'd go after him with every penny I had and sue his/her ass for cracking and uploading the software for you to download. Just as Sony would and has. We've already gone after someone for uploading content from a VASST DVD.
The problem isn't nearly as much in the "who is viewing the illegal movie." The problem predominantly lies with the person who uploaded and made the access happen. It's akin to a bank employee giving the keys and alarm codes to a friend.

Relating my situation nearly 14 years ago when there was no internet distribution and no real "demo" of the software to what's happening today is specious at best. Second of all, at the moment that I was given the software to use, it wasn't presented as something I needed to buy to use, it was presented as shareware, and at that time, shareware mostly was donative. And it was all managed out of the back of magazines, where people actually used phones and snail mail to communicate and send products. VERY unlike today.
Sonic Foundry's folks got a chuckle out of the incident, and it's grown to legend over the years. Castigate me for it. I made it good the SECOND I FOUND OUT it wasn't a legal copy. And my friend got an earful for the hassle I endured in the phone call.
So, my intent was never to use anything that wasn't licensed. Because I've always been a copyright fruitcake, and likely always will be. And like a moron, I've bought into another moronic argument about copyright, which I've tried very hard to avoid. You can't argue copyright with someone whose never registered one. It's like arguing sex technique with a virgin.
p@mast3rs wrote on 11/8/2004, 5:47 PM
I'll respond inline:

"First, when I used the copy of sound forge I used, it was shareware. That's the story there, but the copy I used had a purchase code from a friend. The internet wasn't what it was. Yeah, I used a shareware that someone else paid for as part of their "donation." And I liked it, promptly went out and bought it. Over the phone, from the now CTO of Sony Media Software, who was just one of 3 people programming Sound Forge at the time.

I also think I've paid my penance for using a friend's serial for Sound Forge. And I've not used, and don't use illegal software now."

Its not a matter of paying your penance. In your situation then, I may have done the same thing. It doesnt make you a bad person. But thats the mindset of people who pirate (Im talking about your casual Joe not the hardcore pirates.)



"I was also writing to the person who posted on Doom, whose post you copy/pasted here. I didn't realize I was posting to you too. I didn't ever think you'd be a guy pirating or supporting piracy. I was apparently wrong. I also thought that the poster's opinion was the standard whine. "you make too much money from your products." To me, that is a whine. That's why we have capitalism and it works. For the lower income folks, there are low cost Geo's and similar cars. For the upper income, there are Lamborghini's and the guys that buy the 200,000.00 motorcycles I drool over on American Chopper. I think I'm in the median of that, but you'll never hear me say "I think it's OK to steal someone's American Chopper because they can afford it."

My mistake. I read your post and thought it was directed at me. I agree that what you said is a pirates rationalization. But through piracy, they can "right" their perceived wrongs. Still doesnt make it right.


"That said, regardless of what you think, Julia Roberts, Michael Moore, and Britney Spears have ALL worked damn hard to get to where they are. You might not think so, but having been fairly high up the "celebrity" ladder at one point in my life, it's a HELL OF A LOT OF HARD, HARD work. Not the kind of hard work that Bush talks about, it's hard work. Different cities every day, different bed every night. Creative energy exhausted every afternoon, fingers raw from playing all day. Making contacts, connections, AND being talented, AND finding people to believe in you and help you get to where you want to go is very difficult work. Managing the schedules is hard work. Putting your ass on the line physically, emotionally, and mentally is hard work. Many people who have great talent can never climb high enough because of missed/lost breaks, or simply not having all the right chemistry. In 1996, I was called the "Next Chuck Mangione" and no matter how hard I tried, I didn't quite get there. I don't have what it takes. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but that's the way it is. I had a GREAT team, GREAT band, and wonderful support. But something was lacking. So, regardless of what I think of Julia Roberts, Michael Moore, or Britney Spears, I respect them for getting somewhere. BTW, Britney Spears was well known long before she sprouted breasts. (Mickey Mouse Club)"

I think we can agree to disagree on the Spears thing. I took my step daughter to a concert of her, paid $65 a icket and we weatched her lip sync for 56 minutes and that was it. You are very talented, more so than I and most on this board. Sadly enough, I honestly believe the most talented of people are never discovered. Its all about contacts and the ability to translate talent to dollars. I have a friend who weighs over 500 pounds and has an awesome voice. He didnt get a deal because of his appearence and they told him that.



"You don't think marketing $$ go into a Hollywood release? If you REALLY believe that, you're out of your mind.

I've proven the marketing $$ several times in the past, in this very forum. You clearly don't get it, do you? It's not hard to figure out.
Walmart sells DVD for 17.95, they make 6.00 or so, but they've also got the cost of overhead.
Distribution company that supports Walmart makes 3.00
Studio gets a gross rev of about 8.00 in this scenario. Out of that comes cost of manufacturing (1.50-1.75) cost of marketing (.25) cost of producer, actor, and other related shares. There are also licensing costs related to any songs or video used, not to mention other licensing costs or related costs.
So, studio makes between 2-3 per disc. MPAA claims it's less. I'm in the biz, I can rough the math a little more openly than they can.
Even IF they made 10.00 profit per disk, so what? They conceived and produced it, they marketed it and either sink or swim with it. Their profits provide seed money for the Ben Affleck's of the world that make crappy films that show promise. it takes PROFIT for a business to grow. Last I knew, we all lived in the USA where profitability is what we aspire to. For it to be limited by Congressional act or piracy is absurd, and certainly not "American."

Im positive marketing $$ go into each release. And it gets passed on to the customer. Seriously, why do some companies feel the need to shell out millions of advertising dollars when they could get the same result for spending less? And if they could, do you honestly think they would pass the savings on to the customer?


"The point in the earlier post, which I thought was from Doom, articulates that people don't want to wait til a movie comes out on DVD, and even then they don't want to buy it because it "costs too much." Maybe so, but the OWNER of that film gets to decide when, how, where it's released. Getting it illegally from the internet removes his right of choice. Getting it illegally from the internet is stealing. So the logical whine to that is, "He makes too much money anyway." OK, maybe Spielberg is loaded. But he employs a LOT of lower paid gaffers, grips, makeup, truck drivers, camera persons, etc. out of what he makes on a film. His actors make a percentage of his film whether in theatre or DVD. Who gets to say how much profit he makes? Not me, and not you. If you feel he makes too much money, then don't put money in his pocket by going to see the movie, but don't TAKE money from his pocket by advocating that it's ok to download it."

I dont advocate downloaidng movies without paying for them. My point is the MPAA is missing yet another opportunity to head off piracy to some extent by waiting to offer the DVD version a year later. Let give my example here. Say Film A was released in the US today and of course, some pirate monkey will put it on the net. People in Germany may not get the film for another year and they see this film on the net. They download the film and see it. What incentive is there for them to go see the film when it makes it to Germany in the theatres or on DVD? Personally, I think they would maximize their sales potential by offering a DRM copy for sale by download.


"You support that lower prices cause people to buy more. I say it doesn't. Supply and demand....and if the supply gets cheaper, does demand go up? Nope. Walmart is LIVING PROOF of that. Used to be a good vacuum cleaner cost you a coupla hundred bucks. Walmart comes in, sells a knock off of the good vacuum cleaner for half the price. Sure, it breaks faster, but it was cheaper. Eventually, it forces the big, better vacuum cleaner company to make cheaper products, lay off their workforce, and sell through Walmart where everyone hurts except Walmart. We've witnessed this in the music biz too. Walmart has a set, low price point that is nearly 30% less than a Camelot or Sam Goody was paying. This means that the labels have less $$ to spend on development or production. Used to be spending a million on a record was expected for a big name group. Now, if it goes beyond a quarter mil, it better be pre-sold for at least 10% of the recoup. Now, we see fewer and fewer artists being developed. By far and deep. You'll never again see another Eric Clapton, Garth Brooks, Dave Mathews, Rolling Stones, Kiss, or any other long-life band. Because it's all about one-album profit and then dump em. Because there is no longer a fund that can support a weak record to hold over to the next record."

I agree with your point. However, isnt this why labels and companies should move to a alternative distribution? If you had digital distros, then all of sudden costs to manufacture (note I didnt say shoot or record) has gone down, theres no need for packaging, marketing may/may not be cheaper but a bigger return on investment should happen. How much does it cost to prepare one song/cd for for retail distro? How long does it take to prepare the cd and ship to the retailers? Now how about 10? How about 100K? Now compare how long it takes to prepare the digital file. Once and you never have to do it again which eliminates the need for reissues and more materials on which to reissue and ship. Thats how you beat the Walmarts of this world. You can still produce a top quality while lowering your cost and pass that savings on to the customer. Itunes has proven that the demand for digital files are there.


"Why do you teach? to put food on your table, right? But if you could get a gig that paid 3 times as much, you'd take it, right? Because you aspire to be greater than you are now. In some countries, that aspiration alone is a crime. But here, in the USA, we have that right, and in some cases that responsibility to constantly seek better for ourselves and our kids. And pirates, aspire to STEAL from our kids, so that they can have free entertainment. I find that repulsive, obnoxious, and ridiculous. And if you are one of those that complains about people "making too much money" on their creative genious and hard work to produce their creative endeavor, I guess that makes you a whiner in my book."

I am all for making what you can in this world. We all work hard. But when you look at the world and the economy, sometimes you have to realize when its enough. Because a guy can hit a baseball, does he deserve $60M? No way. Give it to those who serve and protect. They are risking far more and get paid far less. But when it comes to piracy, what the RIAA/MPAA have doen thus far hasnt worked now has it? According to them, piracy continues to rise along with prices. Lawsuits arent working. the DMCA isnt working. Educating the public isnt working. The only thing that everyone involved here understands is money and thats something they have pretty much refused to use.

The point of my original post was to explain why piracy has become so bad and for years, both the RIAA/MPAA has had their head in the sand and did nothing to head off the problem. Nowthat your everyday common Joe can download whatever they like, instead of adapting their business models they cry foul and ask for sympathy. I dont fault them for making hundreds of millions of dollars. But because they make that much, not many people will find it easy to feel sorry for them.

Right or wrong, piracy will never stop. It will always be cracked. But the smart thing to is to do something that will slow the piracy down. MS' DRM solution has proven thus far to be uncrackable (other than using a screen cap program.) But instead of going that route, they stay with the model that has protection that just dont work.
farss wrote on 11/8/2004, 6:04 PM
I don't have a problem with anyone making whatever they can so long as it's not morally wrong, if someone gets $20M for a movie good luck to them, if you feel Blockbuster are ripping you off, well that's the great thing about capitalism, someone will do it cheaper.
Now SPOT does raise a very good point and one that's too easily overlooked, more and cheaper don't equate to better, I cannot agree more.
Look I charge quite a bit to rip a CD to mp3, if you didn't know how much work I put into it you'd think I was ripping the clients off, even my son was staggered at how much I charge when he can to it in 5 minutes. Except I carefully edit the material, type up full info into the tags etc. It works out I get around $25/hour for my effort when alls done.
What I find really sad about this thread and previous similar ones is there's some very serious issues that have nothing to do with copyright directly but they're being mixed in with the same issue. As far as I'm concerned there isn't a copyright issue, you've only got to say the word out loud, nice and clearly to get what it means, don't need a high paid lawyer to work it out, for those that still don't get it try this: "RIGHT TO COPY", simple isn't it.
What's being missed is the issue of content delivery, this is a huge topic, as is what the public wants to buy and from where I sit I think the days of the CD are pretty close to dead, we want images with our music, we want to see performers perform and for those who can rise to the challenge this should be a good thing. Time to kick the roadies into gear and get back on the road. Music as a performance would seem to be coming to life again, and that's something that'll never be pirated, maybe they can pirate the DVD but not the experience of a live concert.
Bob.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/8/2004, 7:03 PM
Hey, if you use CDex (a free program) it will read the CD info from cddb.org & automaticly put that into the tags (just helping ya out).

Trying to stay on topic here, I don't know how going after Bittorent will stop things. A friend in college could get anything he wanted (litterterly) though IRC. And he did.

It's like going after the highway dept because if they make the roads. Hookers & troubling teens hang out around the street. It's the highway dept's fault for that.


Oh, I pirated Doom 2 years ago. I have bought every id software product since. :) and Doom 1/2. :)
farss wrote on 11/8/2004, 7:28 PM
HappyFriar,
that'd be fine except none of this stuff is in any online database and the track splits are invariably in the wrong place, like in the middle of a note or word.
Funny how everyone always thinks about music, how many realise lots of people listen to BOOKS in their cards?
Bob.