Studios Apparently Would Prefer Searches Only Turn Up Pirated Copies, Rather Than A Legit Option
from the do-they-not-think? dept
There have been some stories about how YouTube is preparing to work with a bunch of big movie studios to sell access to movies. It’s been offering up some movies for a year or so, though it hasn’t really caught on. The hope is that with big Hollywood pictures, people might care more. I’m not convinced it will be that big of a deal — especially for folks who use Netflix — but it’s an easy enough thing to do. Except… apparently two of the major studios, Fox and Paramount, are balking at the deal, because they don’t like that people can find unauthorized copies of their movies via Google’s search functionality. This makes no sense. Basically they’re saying they’d rather that when people search on their movies, that their only options are unauthorized versions, rather than having a legitimate version at the top of the list. This is not how you “compete” with unauthorized versions.
Filed Under: movies, piracy, searches, streaming, studios, youtube
Companies: fox, google, news corp, paramount, viacom, youtube
Comments on “Studios Apparently Would Prefer Searches Only Turn Up Pirated Copies, Rather Than A Legit Option”
but it could be a more profitable option. how many times has it been said that the reason there are so many law suits, is because it can get a studio more money than competeing in the real world. that is why it is so wrong that people have to prove innocence rather than the studios have to prove guilt!
Re: Re:
That… may very well be the logic they’re using.
Re: Re: Re:
We’re talking about movie studios and you’re talking about logic?!? What past experience has led you to believe that they have any?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, they ran away from Edison when he start6ed suing, so there must be some somewhere. Maybe it got lost in the archives…
I know this has been said before but…
1. Lobby to make any public copies of your content illegal.
2. Secretly “leak” your content and make it go viral.
3. Sue everyone!
4. Profit!
This is like 1984 where the rebels against the government were actually run by the government. Sandbox your rebels and make them believe they’re conspiring against you, but really they’re just admitting their guilt to your agents.
This makes sense to me.. They disapprove of youtube for whatever reason so they don’t want to support it or partner with them for this deal. I do this all the time.
Re: Re:
In fact, I would say this is the way I would *want* them to act on their opinions about youtube’s service, rather than trying to use more nefarious means to shut them down by manipulating legislation towards that end or something.
It makes no sense...
and yet, it’s standard operating procedure. Like when J.K. Rowling refused to put out an e-book version of her popular series (whose name escapes me on purpose) because “piracy” would lead to lost sales.
Apparently, these two studios (and Ms. Potter) would rather have only unauthorized versions of their product floating around.
Whitey did the same thing as well when his demo was leaked. Sure, it’s shitty but by not putting “Great Shakes” on the virtual shelves, he guarantees that only the pirated version exists. And that kind of sucks, because he is a truly kickass artist.
[Citations]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWgLBEvvMpA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LODDDFFIW5Q
Re: It makes no sense...
Sure, it’s shitty but… that kind of sucks, because he is a truly kickass artist.
ummmm….i suppose the subject is accurate
“Basically they’re saying they’d rather that when people search on their movies, that their only options are unauthorized versions, rather than having a legitimate version at the top of the list.”
No, they are saying they are cheap and lazy sacks of crap that do not want to maintain their copyrights. They want to farm out all the actual work of protecting these works to the government and other corporations. The actual cost of policing these works will very soon exceed the monetary returns.
Re: Re:
I guess they should have thought about the cost of enforcing their copyrights for life +70. You know, “be careful what you wish for”, and all that. I seriously hope the cost of their greed buries them.
I'm no longer a luddite! *pops cork
Having just upgraded my home entertainment system, the first thing I noticed was the options of my DVDs are now blocked, despite not having been such on the old player.
It amazes me this industry can put Twitter and Facebook on a goddamn BD player but can’t prevent the FBI warning, now completely unskippable, from showing if the security layer is present.
Dear Hollywood: I hate you so much. I also hate piracy, but only because it hasn’t put you out of business.
Re: I'm no longer a luddite! *pops cork
Yep, only the film industry could take a wonderful “new” technology, so much more convenient than a tape because you have instant access to any point of the content…. and make it so that doesn’t work. Same as the legitimate TV streaming media – unskippable ads in the centre – I can skip them on my PVR player but not when I watch it online… Doh!
Can I suggest the answer to your dilemma is hooking a small PC to the TV instead of a vanilla DVD player and using the appropriate tool to prevent the stupidity?
Film and recording business plan A
1 release your content to “illegal sites”
2 Sue everyone on the flimsiest of evedence (or none at all)
3 Drive or cut as many people as possible of line
4 ISP become fewer
5 people get peed off with being sued and scammed for no reason, leave the web.
6 film and recording businesses say we knew it was a fad and the internet can be closed.
plan B as plan A (sarc)
Re: Re:
Not likely to happen, because the internet industry makes MUCH more money than the recording and film industry put together.
If this is their plan, they had better get a new one, because more and more judges are realizing that an IP address is N O T personally identifiable information in CRIMINAL cases…. if they are realizing that in criminal cases, how long until they realize that in civil cases.