TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Piracy: are we being conned?

200 pointsby MetallicCloudalmost 14 years ago

13 comments

ryan-allenalmost 14 years ago
As an Australian, hypothetically our US counterparts are often viewing and discussing brand new popular television as it comes out in America.<p>In Australia, hypothetically said episodes tend to come out a number of days later for very popular shows and often weeks or months later for less popular shows.<p>This is due to hypothetical dinosaur age licensing of said programs from hypothetical Australian media companies.<p>I have heard hypothetically on a number of occasions, hypothetical Australians downloading hypothetical series only hours later than they were literally aired in America.<p>The exact same things happens (hypothetically) with DVDs and whatnot. Contextual shows like South Park make less sense when aired in countries like Australia many months after they were aired in the US.<p>What do these companies expect is going to happen?<p>---<p>On a side note, a television series that portrayed the story of a number of gangland murders was produced, and was to be aired WHILST THE TRIAL WAS STILL ONGOING. Now the magistrate in their epic wisdom decreed that the show was not to be shown in the state that the crimes were committed, as it may contribute to biasing the jury of the case (there's a correct legal term, which I forget).<p>What happened was that the show was aired in all other states except Melbourne, as ordered by the judge, and the very next day there were people STANDING ON STREET CORNERS IN THE MELBOURNE CBD selling DVDs of the episode to people as they were stopped at red lights. I kid you not, this actually happened.<p>Anyway, long story short the main man was convicted and later murdered in prison, but I hope this illustrates the utter lack of understanding and wisdom of Australia in these matters. Hypothetically no wisdom at all.
评论 #2624517 未加载
评论 #2624721 未加载
评论 #2624533 未加载
评论 #2624489 未加载
评论 #2624519 未加载
评论 #2625366 未加载
评论 #2624574 未加载
scythealmost 14 years ago
&#62;claimed piracy was costing Australian content industries $900 million a year and 8000 jobs.<p>Is it just me or does even this clearly inflated figure seem like pocket change? The economy of Australia is some $900 billion a year and counting. The costs of enforcing such legislation and the impact on people's freedom and privacy is surely not worth a mere 0.1% of the overall economy even in the best case.<p><a href="http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/</a>
评论 #2624757 未加载
systemizeralmost 14 years ago
I agree: piracy is a problem. But here's an even bigger problem to worry about: the government believes statisticians. I have come by so many stats that are clearly wrong, and no one (sometimes not even the government) will question the math behind it. It is just believed that the source is valid and everything makes sense; especially in a case like piracy that people are aware of its effect (but not the magnitude of that effect).<p>My heart sank when I read this: "Ferrer said that, even if the numbers were not completely correct, there was no denying that piracy was a significant issue for the industry that was only expected to increase with the arrival of the National Broadband Network."
评论 #2624709 未加载
paul9290almost 14 years ago
Piracy would not be an issue in other countries if these countries too had access to Netflix, Hulu, Crackle (Sony stuff), TV.com, CBSnews.com/video and the others. Though there is justin.tv and youtube, but both are not marketed and cant be marketed as a place to watch copyrighted material.
评论 #2624652 未加载
评论 #2624472 未加载
cletusalmost 14 years ago
The entertainment industry--music, television and movies--is living in the past. Content is distributed through physical media and balkanized distribution deals. Movie and TV studios cannot envision a world without traditional cable distribution.<p>Pretty much everyone who reads HN knows this.<p>The gaming industry has largely ditched these old world models. Titles are generally available worldwide within days of initial release. Games are AFAIK not region-protected (they could be on at least console platforms). Digital distribution, at least for PC games, is widespread (ie Steam). What's more that distribution is awesome. Delete a title? Want to re-download it? Not a problem! Not so with iTunes.<p>Take Game of Thrones, a series produced by HBO with immense worldwide interest. I imagine piracy of this is enormous. Unfortunately, HBO, which seems stuck in the premium cable model, will look at this of evidence that we need more regulation and prosecutions.<p>What it actually means is there is unsatisfied demand. If people could buy it on iTunes or buy an HBO subscription on their PC on iPad without having to have a cable subscription (which HBO Go requires) then there would be a lot less piracy IMHO. Of course international distribution would also interfere with HBO's traditional distribution deals.<p>Basically, HBO is just leaving money on the table when I'm sure people would pay $3-5 per episode of GoT as long as they could watch it when they wanted and re-download or re-stream it as desired.<p>Most, if not all, US networks distribute their content via the Web, either directly or via Hulu (or both). Some place further restrictions like a window in which you can watch the content or a one week delay (as Fox does).<p>I like this model. I have no TV. I don't want a TV. I don't want a cable subscription (other than for internet).<p>The problem is that the experience is so awful the choice becomes either pirating it or not watching it. The ads break, they will switch you out of full screen mode, if you have to go back to the content (because it breaks, which it does) you will have to endure a half dozen ads to find the spot you were at and the inventory is repetitive and pointless (1 in 3 online ads are for Geico I swear, and I live in NYC and have no car so why am I being tortured with them?).<p>Part of the problem there is that advertisers are also stuck in traditional media. I wonder why this is. My best theory is that there are no accurate metrics on audience or conversion with, say, TV advertising so advertisers are basically buying into the lie that networks sell them.<p>Another theory is that traditional media reach audiences that online media don't.<p>But why can't I pay for a Hulu with no ads? I would. I have two theories about this too:<p>1. Hulu likes having a relationship with advertisers; and<p>2. The people most likely to pay not to see ads are the ones of most value to the advertisers.<p>So instead Hulu tries pointless differentiators to get me to buy Hulu Plus, like being able to watch it on my iPad. That would actually be nice but if I have to watch it on my laptop instead so be it.<p>The one company that seems to get online distribution is, of course, Netflix. Watch as much as you want, whenever you want, on whatever device you want for a flat fee. They've obviously solved the problem of distributing royalties and so forth to content owners. Why can't anyone else?<p>That'll probably change today with iCloud. Ironically, the record companies don't like how powerful Apple is but they've created the monster that is iTunes by first insisting on DRM and then shutting out other players. They wanted Amazon and Google to pay for playing music you own when it comes from a hard drive in the cloud rather than one you own. Neither did.<p>The result seems to be that they've turned to Apple as their saviour, which will probably make Apple even more powerful.<p>The whole situation--music, movies and TV--is utterly stupid.
评论 #2624742 未加载
评论 #2624904 未加载
评论 #2625780 未加载
评论 #2624900 未加载
评论 #2624635 未加载
评论 #2625339 未加载
评论 #2624636 未加载
评论 #2624890 未加载
评论 #2625200 未加载
评论 #2624903 未加载
评论 #2625276 未加载
评论 #2625277 未加载
nhangenalmost 14 years ago
The war on piracy is like the war on drugs. Giant waste of time and resources, will never end, and no gets out without losing an arm.
评论 #2624553 未加载
pflatsalmost 14 years ago
I think one of the best ways to at least look at why the music industry is really reeling is to take a look at album sales and singles sales.<p>When CDs hit the market, there was no compelling way to get singles. CD singles were relatively rare, and few people wanted to buy cassingles instead of CDs. This is at odds with the the music industry existed up until that point.<p>Take a look at the list of best-selling albums and best-selling singles on Wikipedia. Sort the categories by year. There's fewer than 10 high-selling singles there from 1992-2004, while there are dozens of multiplatinum albums from the same era.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_States#10.E2.80.9314.C3.97_platinum" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_...</a><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_singles" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_singles</a>
评论 #2624621 未加载
modernerdalmost 14 years ago
The Internet, like DVD, VHS, cable, radio, and sheet music, is just the latest in a long line of transmission mediums.<p>Use of each medium to transmit work that was once locked down and overseen by a controlling influence has always been considered piracy when that medium was in its infancy -- right back to sheet music -- as Cory Doctorow notes in a video interview with the Guardian[1]:<p>"The copyright wars aren't new, of course. In the first part of the 20th century you had sheet music composers who represented the only real 'music industry'. They were an industry as a pose to a trade because they had an industrial apparatus; a copying machine that made sheet music. And so they could sell it even when they weren't there.<p>"Then you had performers who weren't really an industry; they were just a trade, because you could only make money as a performer if you were actually performing; there was no industrial component. And then someone invented recorded music, and the performers who were buying their sheet music down at Tin Pan Alley and performing it all these years started performing it into recording devices.<p>"And the composers said, 'What are you doing? You're selling our compositions without our permission! You must stop this -- it's an act of piracy!' And the performers said, somewhat understandably, 'You sold us the sheet music, didn't you? Didn't you think we'd perform it?' And different states came up with different answers, but at the end of the day, all the countries that made the transition to having a successful recorded music industry said that composers actually don't get a say in whether or not their music is recorded. They may get some money from an automatic royalty system, but you don't get to say 'this can only be performed here' or 'only that guy can perform it'. Once it's been performed once, everyone can perform it and everyone can record it, because that's how music is.<p>"So here you have the great pirates of the first decade of the 20th century: the music performers; the record labels. And the record labels turned around, not that long afterwards, and pointed at the radio stations and said, 'What are you doing playing our records on the radio? You have no business doing it! What we did when we took those compositions without permission, that was progress! What you jerks are doing... that's just piracy!' And, of course, the broadcasters went out and they said, 'no, you should let us broadcast' and they eventually won that fight and then <i>they</i> were the brave pirates who became the main stream.<p>"And so when cable channels started taking broadcast signals and pumping them over cable wires, the broadcasters said, 'Well, you know, when we took that music from the record labels that was progress, but when you take our radio diffusion and pump it down over a cable that's just piracy'. And the cable operators fought that fight.<p>"Then along came the VCR, which could record programmes off the cable, and the cable operators, having won the fight with the broadcasters, said, 'You know, when we took the broadcasts that was progress! When you take our cable transmissions and record them on a VHS cassette, that's piracy!"<p>"And then, the company that invented the VCR, Sony, joined with the major studios in suing the Internet for taking movies that had been diffused on DVD or VHS cassette or over the air and said, "You know, when we put your cable diffusion on a VHS cassette, that was progress, but when you take it and put it on the Internet, that's just piracy."<p>"The biggest difference now, I think, is the extent to which they're being taken seriously. I think it used to be true that no lawmaker believed he could be re-elected by breaking the thing that his constituents use to entertain themselves. And now there seems to be an awful willingness to go to Corfu with a music composer and come back and propose that the Internet should be censored and that people who are accused of file sharing should be locked out of it and so on. And I guess that's the major difference and the thing that gives me anxiety about the future of the Internet.<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2011/may/30/internet-piracy-cory-doctorow" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2011/may/30/in...</a>
评论 #2625410 未加载
评论 #2625704 未加载
te_chrisalmost 14 years ago
Is it just me, or has iTunes Match finally made this whole world a slightly better place?<p>I mean of course, in terms of actually finding a way to monetise content acquired through any means - i.e. I download album over BT, pay itunes match sub, sync lib, then artist gets royalty. It seems like we're finally approaching a sensible business model.
jnealalmost 14 years ago
I love music - but I'll be honest, I rarely buy my new music. However, the music industry still gets my money, and here's how.<p>If I had to spend let's say $10 per CD, and on average I get a new CD every week (I do) that's over $40 per month. Instead, I get my music for free, and I spend the $40 going to a concert almost every month. So far this year, I've been to 4-5 concerts.<p>Now, I'm not saying this is legal or this is even "right" but it's just what I do. Besides, bands don't see much money from CD sales, they get money from touring, so I much more prefer to spend my money in the way that more directly affect's the band's paycheck.<p>I do still occasionally buy CD's. For example, Linkin Park's new album "A Thousand Suns" I downloaded before it was even released so I could listen to it, although I had already pre-ordered it and received it a few days after it was released (it's still unopened)
goodspeedalmost 14 years ago
Another view would be to look up publicly available company revenues and see that their annual revenues are totally not affected at all. You can see an increase in year on year. No were are those figures dipping or near bankruptcy like what they claim.<p>I'd love to see these revenue
Natsualmost 14 years ago
Yes, we're being conned by lobbyist-written "research" that contains wild (but always bad) guesses about the piracy impact but which has nothing to do with the real world.<p>It's been going on for a long time now. Remember how they compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler? Yeah, only to go on and make billions of dollars off of it.<p>If they really want to investigate something that's hurting the industry, maybe they should look into that Hollywood accounting thing.
fleitzalmost 14 years ago
The best way to reduce piracy is to shorten copyright. Lets give the industry what they want, 6 month copyright length. This would vastly reduce piracy, by the time the DVD comes out it's legal to copy. I think after that they'll be begging for the return of piracy.