This is so gonna kill bittorrent. . .

Movie Downloads Break New Ground

8O

What the hell are these people thinking? The only reason people download movies-- from wherever they download them from-- is because its. . . FREE! (and they don't think they'll be caught or prosecuted)

Music: check.

TV shows: check (as long as they're commercial free and not more than. . . two bucks)

Movies: negatory, Ghost Rider. . .

Morons.

LOL.

They just don't get it. Who the fuc*k is gonna pay $20 for a copy of Brokeback Mountain on their computer? Cause we all have 60 inch plasma displays and surround sound hooked up to our PC's, right? Why on earth would you download a movie that only works on 1 PC for $20 when you can pay the same price for the DVD????

I'd say the only companies who are starting to "get it" are Apple, ABC, NBC, and Comcast.

All are selling TV shows or going to make them available on demand for free. Of course the TV show downloads on iTunes are a little silly (low resolution and compatibility w/ iPod only), but at least they're getting there.

I wouldn't be totally against a pay-per-view system... so long as it was universal for all digital devices and reasonably priced. In other words, I'd be able to watch said media on my iPod, Computer, or TV. Not necessarily all of them for one charge, but at least one of them.

I travel frequently and it'd be nice to download/watch a show on my laptop that I missed while I was at dinner w/ a client. Same goes for watching something at home...

Stop and think about it though. How many DVD's do you own? How many times have you watched the majority of those DVDs? Once? Maybe twice?

I've got about 50 DVD's and I can confidently say I've watched 90% of them only once. Why pay $20 for a DVD I'm only going to watch once? It's retarded. It's also the reason I don't buy DVD's anymore. And when I do it's usually a TV series that I eventually sell on eBay.

To me, a pay-per-view system is more logical and would probably save people money... all the while making money for movie studios. Also, renting movies is essentially the same thing as pay-per-view. The only difference is pay-per-view is easier!

Like it or not, the industry as a whole is (as you observed) moving to pay-per-view and it will (in my opinion) be successful. Bill Gates said so! ;-)

LOL.

I watched a DVD Screener of it back in January. It's really not that great... Shitt*y ending and no plot.

I know your joking but a guy yesterday came in and was asking about plasmas and he wants to hook up a 61" pioneer, and $5000 Klipsch home theater up to his computer for WoW, Oblivion, and DVDs

I was like you could throw some $$ my way so i could get some speakers for my computer that cost more then $22.....he laughed and was like "We'll see, but who knows how this goes....i just might buy you a whole new computer"

This guy wants to drop $40k on tv's, computers, appliences, and all that....he's builind a house so its like a 2month sale. But that would be hella tight if he hooked me up.

he's only 28......lol, but hes so much like me its crazy.
maybe he should hire me to be his electronics guru, i would take 15k a year plus use of all his old stuff.

i have a crush on you...

Please don't push me away... i just want love. DON'T MAKE ME STALK YOU MAN!

/me cries

That was beautiful. Just reminds me how much I love you...

The two changes I would make are

1) Copyright extension: it's time to let Mickey go. We are deprived of a huge percent of our culture - unjustly- by the ridiculously long copyright terms. The vast majority of these things are no longer money-making commercial media - their owners are probably dead - and should be public domain. And even those that are still commercial, like Mickey, should long have been available for the public to tinker with - right after Walt Disney's death. There was a reason for limiting copyright, reasons that hold now more than ever.*

2) This is kind of my own idea, might be a bit radical, but I think a law making copyright for corporations or non-original-creators, not illegal exactly, but with much stricter restrictions. This would adress the problem with fair competition you brought up, I think, among others. Exclusive contracts would still be possible, of course, but contracts are after all different than a publishing company owning all copyrights to the works they publish (something I find ridiculous).

I'm actually a very strong believer in creative property rights, but I believe that those rights should belong only to the creator and for the duration of his life. If you create ideas, they're *yours*- not Sony's or Disney's or your bum children's living off your estate.


*You know your laws suck when those made hundreds of years ago are better.

Hm, if you look at it from an intenation POV...wow, what a crap-pie that becomes. In Russia, for example everything before 1973 (I think) is now in the public domain. How does that even work? Are only things published in Russia covered or can I legaly make derivative Disney works?

Regardless, you are right and this does need a much deeper and international approach. (As opposed to the "who-has-the-biggest-lobby-and-scariest-lawyer" one we have now)

Also,

I would agree with you for most things but intellectual property does not exist, as such, except in the mind and the law. It just my personal opinion that, while you can sell exclusive rights to publish or add or change something, you can't change the fact that an idea still belongs to the original creator and what becomes of it should be ultimately his decision - a decision that can't be sold away.

There are more things that are not tangible, but do represent value in a capitalistic system. Brand value for instance (trade marks in legislation). I can respect your personal point of view on intellectual property, but it does not mean sh[i][/i]it if we (all members of the capitalist world) cannot reach agreement on what its value is in a capitalistic system. And if it has value, it can be sold in a capitalist system.

A lot of value has been generated on the basis of patents. Make no mistake about it: most of the capitalist corporate world today is built on the value of patents. If you propose to make it valueless then this will mean a huge destruction of built up capital. Making it impossible to sell things, renders them valueless in a capitalist system, except as parts of things that you can sell.

Personally I would love to do this in a gradual sense, and to see copyright as fundamentally different from patents, trade marks and other stuf, but it all boils down to acknowledging that these virtual entities have actual value.

I download them because of my busy lifestyle. I spend so much time in the boozer I don't have time for shoplifting anymore.[/Scouse]

One of the chosen few blessed with birth and upbringing in Liverpool. We are so perfect in every way, jealousy often gets the better of our fellow countrymen and leaves them bitter. This has resulted in the formation of a Scouse stereotype as a thieving, work-shy layabout. Some reckon us to be tight fisted and cocky. This is untrue. I am a humble and generous fellow, for instance did you know that I taught your girlfriend that thing you like?

Basically just me poking fun at myself.

basically just covering your scouse arse before someone else gets a go at you.

Rarely does a creator of something ever make it on his own. In other words, at some point someone (usually a corporation) helped an artist or creator make their idea into a reality. Take Stan Lee for example (creator of Spider Man among other things). He created Spiderman while working for Marvel. Marvel paid his salary to create. And he signed an agreement stating anything he creates under Marvel's supevision is theirs. If he didn't like the way Marvel did business he could have left and sold his idea to DC Comics or someone else.

Don't you think that Marvel owns at least some rights to Spiderman? Without Marvel (or any comic book company) Stan Lee's Spiderman would be nothing! Sure it was his idea, but Marvel financed it.

This is how things get done. If every asshole out there had an idea but no capital to make it come true, we'd be nowhere. Additionally, artists KNOW what they're doing- they are the ones who sign the rights away. If they don't like it then they don't have to do it. But they're probably not going to get paid for it.

Every creative industry works the same. Music, Books, Movies, etc. If property rights or trademarks didn't exist for corporations we'd get nowhere.

There is a difference between exclusive contract to publish, and 'owning' IP. I'm not against the first, but I don't think Marvel deserves to hold on to all the ideas their authors put out ad infinitum. They deserve the exclusive right to publish( for a time) any an all works that are made by the people working there , but putting the control of images and ideas in their hands is not something that helps advance our culture, methinks.

For instance, a Stan Lee should be allowed to make more Spiderman or whatever comics even if he doesn't work for Marvel - the old stuff would still be sold by Marvel but new stuff would not be stifled.

This would raise the value creators have and advance competition in the industry...

Why is that bad?

How is this going to hurt bit torrents????

Oh