I disagree. Fithian is succeeding just fine as a professional lobbyist. He is doing what he is paid to do. He doesn't really give a crap about whether the theaters succeed. Once they dry up he'll move on to the next lobbying job
Actually, there is an apple orchard near me that does pretty much that. It is a small shack with a few crates of apples and gallons of apple cider. There is a sign that says "Honor System: pay what you want." There is a little collection box next to it.
They have been doing it that way for years so it must be working. I always stop by because they have the best apple cider ever! I always seem to leave $10-$15 behind depending on what I get.
So true. If they would license the content to stream on Netflix and as a benefit to your sub you could download a high quality, DRM free version for $5-$8 it would be gold! They would make a boatload of money and piracy I bet would take a nosedive.
Why is it I came up with this idea in about 30seconds and the MPAA hasn't been able to figure it out yet?
Kids fight. All the time. It's what they do. The proper thing to do is inform the parents, maybe suspend both parties for a day or two and move on with life.
Sexual Assault? They are 7! There is nothing sexual in a 7 year old's world!
Are they trying to torment this child? Do they give any thought to the message this can send to a kid? Tell them what they did wrong and why, that it's wrong to fight and kick people in the genitals. This is when and how kids learn right and wrong.
They are blowing this out of proportion and risk giving this child some self perceived stigma that he is bad or something is wrong with him. You don't think other kids will tease him about it or call him a perv? That's what kids do. Are they going to arrest them all for harassment? Where does it end.
I apologize for rambling but I am genuinely angry about what is happening here. I fear for my own children.
I will be writing the superintendent and letting her know how wrong I think this is. I urge others to do the same.
Re: Two major flaws: only US traffic, of only Bittorrent.
Are you daft?
Netflix isn't "skimming" off anybody. They provide a means of distribution for content creators. Netflix pays the costs associated with distribution as well as paying for the content it provides. All the studio has to do is license the content and collect their check. Not a bad deal.
Netflix provides consumers with the convenience of watching what they want, when they want, on the screen they wan, and for a fair price. People gladly pay for that. That isn't "skimming" either.
If the studios would work with rather than against Netflix, I believe piracy, in the US at least, would decline a great deal. They should try it and find out for sure.
All people want is to have their entertainment delivered in a convenient way when they want it. No hoops to jump through. And they don't want to be price-gouged for it either. Why is that so hard to do for Hollywood?
The thing is Warner is only checking for its own stuff. Service providers are expected to check every file, wade through all of the possible entities that own copyrights and then determine infringement on content that they aren't the owners of. How realistic does that sound?
I honestly don't think this is realistic to expect either group to be able to keep up with. Some will always get missed.
The current system doesn't eliminate piracy and neither will SOPA. At least the current system allows services to operate and provide legal uses and benefits which I think outweigh the negatives.
I really think the best bet would be for content owners to work to distribute their content in more convenient ways at prices that don't turn people away. Convenience is a huge factor, the success of Netflix and the like prove this.
Will the pirates disappear? No, but this way content producers can further capitalize on their works to keep those record quarters and CEO raises rolling in.
You won't be able to distribute anything if service providers decide that the liability involved is too high. SOPA kills sites before they even get a chance to defend themselves. Who would provide services in that environment?
Regardless of the aims of the bill, the methods it is using to "clean up a whole swath of the internet" will do more harm than good.
The liability it places on service providers is unrealistic. Youtube users add 8 years worth of content per day. How can you expect them to filter all of that if WB can't even filter which content is theirs on one website? Do you feel that shutting Youtube down is the answer? is that acceptable collateral damage?
And why should Mike ease up on WB? They certainly don't want to acknowledge the challenge this presents to service providers when they themselves couldn't get it right.
He could have gotten approval, but he did not have to publish the app and make it available to the public. Even if he did publish he could have pulled it immediately after. Why leave it up? Maybe he thought it would be good PR when he went public.
He made malicious code available to the public. This puts it in the hands of others who would use it for evil. And now they know to look for it. Hopefully the exploit is patched before that happens.
Anyone know if he tested his proof of concept by running code on someones device? That would be a serious issue whether the code was malicious or not.
Advertising is a terrible criteria to qualify a film. If you made a film and release it commercially to a audiences in a certain number of theaters shouldn't that qualify as a serious film? Maybe set a minimum number of ticket sales or something. All of that seems way more relevant than whether or not you have paid advertising.