this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024

83 points (96.6% liked)

movies

1773 readers

113 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
Trailers
Posters
Retrospectives
Should I watch?

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

Dune

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Motion Picture Association Hires FBI Official to Lead Anti-Piracy Efforts (www.hollywoodreporter.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

MPA wouldn't have anywhere near as big of a piracy problem if all the large streaming platforms worked together to create a singular service at a good price that has everything you want. Now it's easier and cheaper than ever to buy a few external and VPN service and download/torrent your favorite shows over paying for over 5 streaming services (at least in the US) and having nothing to watch because all your favorite shows got removed half way through you watching the first season (and only season if it's a new series).

That, and there are a few shows I have to watch through piracy because they aren't even available anywhere in America.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sounds like a monopoly. I don't think that's the answer but I don't have a solution either.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Distributors for content, and no more exclusive content for platforms. Make it work the way music streaming works.

You sign up for one service and you get access to an unfathomably gigantic library of music. It doesn't matter what service you sign up for either, you're going to get a similarly huge library, and it will include most everything you could find on any competing service so you only need one subscription. The only thing you really choose is UI, device compatibility, and special features.

Imagine if there were two dozen competing music streaming services, and they all had completely different non-overlapping libraries. Maybe Sony has one just for their labels. Maybe another is just for a handful of EDM labels. A third just for country and bluegrass, but only specific labels. A fourth just for indie labels. A fifth for Rap and R&B. Lots of old stuff is completely unrepresented, because it wasn't deemed profitable by any available platform, or there's just too much paperwork and nobody wants to do it.

This is what we have with video streaming right now. Lots of different IP owners running streaming services only with their own limited catalogs. If you want to watch just one show on each platform, you would need a subscription for every show. If you have diverse tastes in movies and television, you are going to be paying a fortune to access it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

It works better for music because about 80% of tracks are distributed through Universal and Sony. Having deals with just those two gives you a gigantic library. And of course Universal and Sony take gigantic cuts, because they can. (there are pro and cons)

But I agree, the competition on the market should be about the way the content is served and not about what content is served.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I actually wouldn't mind a monopoly if we could go back to the days of very reasonable prices with only one service, like back when Netflix was pretty much the only kid on the block. But we're never heading back to those days.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Yeup, enshitification is inevitable.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

VRV was looking to be exactly what you are talking about, then Sony wrecked it

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Instead you could stop making shitty movies and reheating successful recipes. And stop inventing three new streaming services every week.

What about a meta streaming service. One subscription for everything and companies get paid by the share of the views their ~~shoes~~ shows (I'm not that interested in the shoes to be honest) had. Maybe make your own fronts for your services if you insist, but everything is accessible through one subscription.

I'm so tired of getting shit on by corporations to later read I'm the problem. People are sick of this shit. Stop being assholes and people will happily pay for your content! I want to pay for things I enjoy, but I just cancelled Netflix because they suck so fucking hard.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Ugh, I'm really pissed. Please, content producers. Look in the mirrors and check if you are the assholes. You might be surprised by what you see.

[+] [email protected] -13 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Not sure I get the "You make a bad product so I feel justified in stealing it" argument.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They didn’t argue the product (the content on streaming platforms) was bad, they argued the only legal ways you can get the product are not acceptable.

Therefore yes, it becomes ok in my book to violate copyright (which does not equate to stealing, the owner hasn’t lost the original).

As soon as I can have a choice of service that has virtually all of the content (like you do with music, or groceries), and I can pick the storefront based on its usability and cost rather than its catalogue, piracy numbers will go right down. Because it becomes less of a hassle to get it legally rather than pirate.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I did both to be honest. And I don't want to pirate media, I'm fine with sane pricing for good quality. It's just that currently they focus on neither, so I'm just stopping to give them money.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

They didn’t argue the product (the content on streaming platforms) was bad,

Really? How do you interpret the very first sentence?

Instead you could stop making shitty movies and reheating successful recipes. And stop inventing three new streaming services every week.

That seems to be saying it's bad to me.

they argued the only legal ways you can get the product are not acceptable.

You know what I do when a product I want is unacceptably expensive or whatever? I don't buy it. It's not like we're talking about food or medicine. This is all lame rationalization.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Piracy isn't stealing if buying isn't owning.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So it's okay to keep a rental car because you don't own it and it's therefore not stealing?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's ok to make a 1:1 copy of the rental car without depriving the company of the car in any way

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So a writer spends a year of his life writing a book with the idea that he can sell copies for $15 each so that, if he sells enough copies, he can make that year's time worthwhile. But you think it's okay to just make a copy for free since he still has his original?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yes. I was never going to buy it anyway. He didn't lose anything. At least this way, his art is consumed and discussed, potentially generating a sale. BTW, you are absolutely wasting your time here with me. I obviously have a very different perspective on this than you do. You'll have to either accept that, or become increasingly frustrated that your arguments fall flat with me

Edited because I realized I wasn't in the piracy community

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

At least now we've gotten to the common understanding that it is theft, but you just don't care. I personally think copyright laws have been good for our society because they've allowed people to live off of creating art. You obviously have a different view.

I'm not at all frustrated by the conversation - it's like discussing car registration or driver's licenses with a SovCit. In fact, it's pretty much exactly like that. It's interesting for me to see how you rationalize your view, but I don't expect you to change your mind.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Still not theft.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sure it is. You're taking something that isn't yours without paying for it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not taking anything. Theft implies loss.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Theft DEMANDS loss

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The ordinary rules don't apply to corporations, and we're suckers if we play by ordinary rules.

That's why 'shoplifting' from Kroger, 'robbing' a Bank of America branch, 'stealing' cable TV from Xfinity, or 'pirating' movies or music from Columbia or Universal is not morally wrong. Quite the opposite, it's the right thing to do.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Will that's complete bullshit. What ridiculous rationalization. If you don't like those places, don't do business with them. If enough people don't do business with them, they'll go away.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Except thats not how our system works. When they fail they get bailouts at our expense.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's because I didn't make that argument. Exactly the opposite to be honest.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Then what did you mean by the first sentence?

Instead you could stop making shitty movies and reheating successful recipes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

That all studios do the last few years is remakes and sequels and it's boring as hell.

How can you understand that sentence as a call for piracy?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Well I for one have not seen Batman's or Spiderman's origin story enough times yet. Can I get 3 more takes each please slowly starts banging head off monitor

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Look at the title of this thread and then the first sentence of your comment. How else should it be read?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Still no, sorry. We seem to have very different understandings of those things.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The title is a bit misleading. They didn't hire an FBI agent. They hired a retired FBI agent. I feel that is a pretty crucial difference

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

First day in retirement?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Real life sisyphus.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Won't change a thing. They would need to R&D fixes. That would cost money and they don't spend that.