So I was reading the news this morning and ran across this.
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/hollywood-faces-new-piracy-threat-reuters
An article talking about the new threat to movie makers. It goes something like this. Foreign market takes a cam shot of a movie and puts it online in their "vault". People then pay them money per month to view films in the vault. (article said $5, I'm assuming this can vary.) When they get DVD rips they take the cam down and replace with higher copy. They then stream this copy over the net to all those who subscribe to their service. Seeing as they don't pay for the rights to the movie, the only costs they have hosting and streaming. Get enough people paying $5 (or more) a month and this is can be rather profitable. And the MPAA response?
So let me get this straight. People WANT to stream stuff to those big TVs they've been buying with their nice surround sound sets, but the official sites look like crap. And rather then upgrade or better your sites you're just going to go after the cyberlockers? How well did that work with the RIAA? How well did shutting Napster down? You have a new market opening up like the music industry did with .mp3s. And instead of embracing it and finding a way to make it work your going to just try to sue everyone? The RIAA/MPAA need to find a way to fold these new technologies into their business model. You can't sue everyone, and you can't put your head in the sand hoping it goes away. Times change, and to survive you need to change with them.
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/hollywood-faces-new-piracy-threat-reuters
An article talking about the new threat to movie makers. It goes something like this. Foreign market takes a cam shot of a movie and puts it online in their "vault". People then pay them money per month to view films in the vault. (article said $5, I'm assuming this can vary.) When they get DVD rips they take the cam down and replace with higher copy. They then stream this copy over the net to all those who subscribe to their service. Seeing as they don't pay for the rights to the movie, the only costs they have hosting and streaming. Get enough people paying $5 (or more) a month and this is can be rather profitable. And the MPAA response?
"Sometimes these sites look better than the legitimate sites," Huntsberry said. "That's the irony."...Consumers increasingly are streaming pirated digital video directly onto living room TVs, the Paramount exec noted. But the public needs to know that with such pirated convenience comes the risk of having credit card information ripped off, and problems with spyware contamination are even more common...On a grander scale, the motion picture industry is combating the situation with country-by-country campaigns for tougher laws against video piracy. But the effort has a long way to go.
So let me get this straight. People WANT to stream stuff to those big TVs they've been buying with their nice surround sound sets, but the official sites look like crap. And rather then upgrade or better your sites you're just going to go after the cyberlockers? How well did that work with the RIAA? How well did shutting Napster down? You have a new market opening up like the music industry did with .mp3s. And instead of embracing it and finding a way to make it work your going to just try to sue everyone? The RIAA/MPAA need to find a way to fold these new technologies into their business model. You can't sue everyone, and you can't put your head in the sand hoping it goes away. Times change, and to survive you need to change with them.