DMCA Takedown Service Tells Copyright Companies: 'Adapt Your Business To The New Digital World'

from the they-really-get-it dept

Although DMCA takedown notices figure quite frequently here on Techdirt -- especially abusive ones that use the system to remove material covered by fair use or even in the public domain -- the industry that has grown up around them remains somewhat in the shadows. That's what makes the site with the self-explanatory name "Takedown Piracy", found via the 1709 Blog, so fascinating: it offers a glimpse of the world of DMCA takedowns as seen from the other side.

As you might expect, Takedown Piracy sends DMCA notices to sites that it believes are holding copyrighted material belonging to its clients. But what's surprising is the scale of the takedown: one recent post on the site talks of "hammering these sites with DMCAs", and later goes on to give an idea of what that entails:

Once word got around that [the #3 adult torrent site] Cheggit was complying, myself and at least one other removal company began monitoring the site daily resulting in 100s if not 1000s of torrents were being reported every day.
Since the site was "complying", that presumably meant 1000s of torrents were also being taken down every day. Making extra work in this way lies at the heart of the company's service, as this helpful FAQ explains:
Piracy is rampant and can often seem like you’re playing Whack-A-Mole. However, in this case you’re not just hitting the moles with rubber mallets but we’re dropping napalm bombs on the whole field. Part of the success of piracy sites can be attributed to them offering a superior surfing experience for users. As long as copyright owners do nothing, that experience will continue to be superior. We interfere with that experience by introducing frustration to the mix. Whether it’s the site owner frustrated at the amount of time he/she spends on removing content or the frustration the downloader feels at not being able to find free content, frustration is a very valuable tool to use in combating piracy, and we excel at that.
What's fascinating here is the recognition that piracy sites offer a "superior experience for users" – compared to the official offerings. That confirms other evidence that what people who use unauthorized sources are really seeking is not free content -- because often they must pay to access them -- but the extra convenience those sites offer.

Which means, of course, that it is the copyright industries themselves, with their failure to provide that convenience, that are helping to drive potential customers to alternatives. It also implies that if the content companies managed to make their offerings competitive with pirate sites -- that is, even more convenient -- they would win back much of that lost business.

Significantly, that is what the Takedown Piracy service seems to advocate:

While we’re doing our thing, you’re able to adapt your business to the new digital world and have a chance for your new distribution models to flourish.
If even an avowed enemy of pirates can see what's needed, why can't the copyright companies themselves?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 4:29am

    "We interfere with that experience by introducing frustration to the mix."

    No frustration they can introduce can compare with the ones Hollywood can. In this respect, they do have the superior model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Loki, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 4:43am

    Oh, they can see what is needed. But since we are talking industries that either built their businesses (the MPAA/ major studios) around "violating" other people's IP (basically, by their personal worldview, their own businesses are built on "theft of property") or built their businesses (the RIAA/major labels) by essentially hijacking the copyrights of other people to leverage into profits.

    Adapting would require them to both be honest (something they've proven to be largely incapable of) and to be able to actually compete in the marketplace (something they've also proven to be largely incapable of).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 4:52am

      Re:

      Yea but you see, they figure if they can make the Internet inconvenient enough for people to use, they will all flock back to the old ways. And in the meantime they can blackmail the tech-industry to give them full control of the Internet. That way, they believe they can turn it into something resembling TV and Radio. The only thing they understand. Then they can squeeze even the last coin from their "consumers" (or stupid, filthy, unwashed plebeians, as they see them) from this new monopoly stream.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 2:31pm

        Re: Re:

        Thing is though, that had they made their services easy to access, easy to use and accessible along with little or no DRM they'd have had the public running to them because, at the time, TV, Radio and the Movie house experience was largely all there was. They'd have had their internet/web version of tv, radio and movie houses with some changes and made a killing and the public would have gone along with it.

        Instead. They told people "no singles from cds" which gave birth to Napster. They kept idiotic windows in place which sent people to video and movie pirate sites and kept geographical restrictions in place which sent people off to video sites. Sometimes industries create their worst nightmares and the piracy issue is one glaring example of that. Live music thrives because there really is no alternative to being at a show even if there's hundreds of people dancing and crowd surfing around you. You're a part of something. An important part of something, at least in your own mind which is where it really matters. Recordings not so much to hear the RIAA tell it thouhgh they've never addressed the issue of 13 cuts on a CD and 9 of them trash at an expensive price. Movies not at all because. apparently, they're all losing their shirts while continuing to drag in record revenues and profits.

        What the monitoring agency/company is telling them is STOP making things so difficult or there will always be piracy. Seems a simple enough thing to figure out. But the RI/MPAAs of the world just can't seem to grasp it.

        The way you did business, the pre-Web models you used are dead and gone. Accept it and adapt and you'll do fine. But just remember this you made things so hard or impossible to do legally the underground you were afraid of is alive, well and thriving and it's not going away. More people seem to trust pirate sites that they do Hollywood or whatever sites Hollywood might set up to respond to this in an intelligent way. So the opportunity to carve out part of the web to be the "new" radio, tv and movie houses has come and gone and they weren't there for it. The orderly mall has become a bazaar. So now they're going to have to try harder to convince customers to try them out after the customers have been treated as criminals (DRM), locked out (sliding release windows), geographic restrictions that make no sense (gee I can record a program from an American channel in Canada or I can record the same program on a Canadian channel but I can't watch a clip???? WTF?).
        They had the chance, they blew it. The chance isn't coming back again. So much for some kind of new monopoly steam, four or five years ago it MIGHT have worked. Not now.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 4:46am

    That's why TPB is THE superior and perfect experience. They give a shit about DMCA takedown notices so you can find virtually anything. Ok, not perfect, you gotta use Google to browse their stuff cause their search system sucks. But that doesn't frustrate me in anyway =D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 4:54am

    Ripping your own DVD's gives a superior experience

    You don't have to sit through fifteen minutes of unskippable commercials that all begin with ". . . coming soon in 2003 . . .".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:39am

      Re: Ripping your own DVD's gives a superior experience

      That's plain annoying. I'm in 2012 and I can't skip those damn trailers?

      Doesn't need much more than 2 neurons to see that this will be outdated next year so why make it obligatory to watch?

      Sometimes I take my DVDs out to watch and that's when I get reminded how nice it is to be a pirate. No unskippable content.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Suja (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 6:10am

        Re: Re: Ripping your own DVD's gives a superior experience

        that's when I get reminded how nice it is to be a pirate. No unskippable content.


        Yep. And no 10-20 minutes of commercials for TV shows.

        While they can be skipped with DVR i would rather not even have them intertwined with the show in the first place.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chosen Reject (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:14am

        Re: Re: Ripping your own DVD's gives a superior experience

        DannyB: unskippable commercials that all begin with ". . . coming soon in 2003 . . .".
        Ninja: That's plain annoying. I'm in 2012 and I can't skip those damn trailers?
        Dang, did Warner Brothers increase the rental delay at Netflix again?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 4:59am

    they can see it. they just dont want to admit that they themselves are at fault! it must also be more beneficial to the entertainment industries to continuously waste money on trying their damnedest NOT to change than to actually change. couple that with the absolutely disgusting attitude they have towards customers in general (remember how after SOPA was put on hold, the entertainment industries wanted to talk to find middle ground, but the general public were all labelled as pirates?), is it any wonder they will fail eventually?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:09am

      Re:

      Have you seen the latest statement from the RIAA? They basically said, "if plan to move to Sweden, you're admitting being a criminal."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:05am

    Do you really think Hollywood doesn't know what their customers want? They know. They want to own 90% of the content, and they are used to getting their way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:13am

    wow, what a way to read into it exactly what you want, you have not even thought of the way they could mean it

    "superior surfing experience for users"
    could also mean, no ads, no stupid articles, no annoying pictures or pop ups etc...

    bottom line is they want it free

    "While weíre doing our thing, youíre able to adapt your business to the new digital world and have a chance for your new distribution models to flourish"

    could also mean, while we take down the illegal content, your able to sell your content, since the illegal content is now gone


    but most of the free loading losers will just look for another illegal rogue site to download content from, that they don't want to pay for to begin with


    this article doesn't prove what you say, you read it your way to back up your arguement, while others read it differently

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:17am

      Re:

      "bottom line is they want it free"

      You're right, that's why Gabe is swan diving in his piles of money right now.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:37am

      Re:

      "what a way to read into it exactly what you want"

      "bottom line is they want it free"

      "free loading losers"

      "they don't want to pay for to begin with"

      Mr Pot, have you met Kettle, Esq.? I think you'll get on.

      How does your typically skewed and falsified take address people who want to pay but either can't or are offered a vastly inferior experience?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:17am

        Re: Re:

        Oh please just shut the fuck up, you asshat.

        Who do you think you're fooling? You're very funny here, prancing around pretending this blog isn't full of unemployed content addicts that spend their worthless days ripping off other's work, in between bouts of registering faux indignation about their "rights" on pirate blogs like this. Gag.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I'm wondering who the fuck YOU think your fooling. You're nothing but a joke, a random anonymous moron on the Internet who hangs around a website posting MPAA/RIAA propaganda pieces and insults all day long.

          And guess what, the more you post shit like that, the more transparent you become.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          BigKeithO (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:45am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Neither me or any of my friends are willing to spend $30+ on a single blu-ray. Most don't pirate, some do, most are willing to go without instead of pay those prices. Personally I got a Kindle for Christmas and have switched the vast majority of my spending to Amazon and Steam. Really TV and movies aren't that important.

          Most of my friends have had or currently do have a Netflix account. Single biggest complaint on Netflix? Lack of new content. These are paying customers looking for the content you worship above all else who can't get it.

          Here's a tip, put this junk on Netflix for reasonable rates. I can guarantee that piracy rates will plummet overnight.

          Oh, me and my friends are employed too.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          MrWilson, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:55am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "pretending this blog isn't full of unemployed content addicts that spend their worthless days ripping off other's work, in between bouts of registering faux indignation about their "rights" on pirate blogs like this."

          [citation needed]

          You keep saying things like this. I'd like to see the files you've had drawn up on all the commenters on this blog. How much does who pirate who also comments on this blog? How many of us are unemployed? How many private investigators are you wasting money on to find all this out?

          Oh, you're not investigating us? You're just wildly speculating and your conclusions coincidentally fit your preconceptions about freetard pirates who just want everything for free? We thought as much.

          Not everyone here is a pirate. Not everyone here just wants stuff for free. That you can convince yourself and attempt to convince others that that is the only perspective held by anyone who disagrees with your point of view is indicative of how much you live in denial of reality.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Gwiz (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:01am

          Re: Re: Re:

          ...pretending this blog isn't full of unemployed content addicts that spend their worthless days ripping off other's work, in between bouts of registering faux indignation about their "rights" on pirate blogs like this...

          I am none of those things you describe. You, on the other hand, seem to be of the first commentors on every single Techdirt article posted. Isn't that telling.

          Why don't you go peddle your one sided bullshit on the comments section of a MPAA or RIAA sponsored blog. Oh that's right. They don't actually want to hear what their customers are saying.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 10:25am

          Re: Re: Re:

          7/10. Entertaining and also successful trolling since you got several responses.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:59am

        Re: Re:

        Paul, considering you have admitted to downloading stuff because you couldn't get it conveniently as an expat living in a country that mostly doesn't speak your language, I think you need to keep away from the pot and kettle thing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:06am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Really? that's your argument? I used the example of me obtaining something that I was literally refused access to in any legal way to prove my point about "underserved customers" and that makes me a bad guy? You miss the entire point of my example if you thought that "convenient" was my major argument, and I'm someone who spends a lot of time, money and effort legally buying material in spite of your industry's idiotic attempts to stop me spending money.

          Think about that for a moment, then ponder the actual arguments being made, not the fantasy strawmen you people depend upon.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Because he is in a country that gets content 3 years behind the rest of the world he doesn't get to complain about not being able to get content?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            KelvinZevallos (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 12:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Specially considering how does "piracy" shows us that the content is so easy to transfer that the "3-year gap" or any kind of "time gap" the content distributors (who contractually buy the rights, but do not create the content) is completely ludicrous?

            I mean... if the "pirates" can distrubite the content so easily, why the content industry can't?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Niall (profile), Feb 20th, 2012 @ 4:27am

          Re: Re: Re:

          So you missed all the posts where he describes the massive hurdles he tries to jump fruitlessly before being 'forced' to pirate?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Suja (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 6:17am

      Re:

      my comment doesn't prove what I say, I write it my way to back up my arguement, while others read it differently

      FTFY

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 6:42am

      Re:

      "this article doesn't prove what you say, you read it your way to back up your arguement, while others read it differently"

      Wow, the stupidity of this comment, accusing someone of something while doing that very same thing to "back up your arguement"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Josef Anvil (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 6:52am

        Re: Re:

        Yup, I read that completely wrong...

        "Part of the success of piracy sites can be attributed to them offering a superior surfing experience for users. As long as copyright owners do nothing, that experience will continue to be superior."

        They obviously mean that piracy is evil and costs the economy more than the entertainment industry makes in a year.

        Oh and....

        "While weíre doing our thing, youíre able to adapt your business to the new digital world and have a chance for your new distribution models to flourish."

        That clearly means that we are doing our best to hold off piracy until you can get lawmakers to completely protect your business at the expense of everyone else.

        Thank you for helping us all with our reading comprehension. All those words in plain English were a little confusing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 6:46am

      Re:

      Im curious to hear you're thoughts on corruption, hypotheticaly?
      A genuine question

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:51am

      Re:

      this article doesn't prove what you say, you read it your way to back up your arguement, while others read it differently

      That's known as the "Redbeard Rum" argument:
      "Isn't it usual to have a crew on a ship?"
      "Opinion is divided; All the other Captains say it is, I say it isn't"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      bigpicture, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 10:02am

      Re: Read It

      Yes you can read it any way that you want, but in the end it is facts that matter. Who actually produces music or written content? Is it not actually the artists and authors?

      Does the recording companies and publishers not steal all the producers rights, when they sign them up for marketing agreements?

      Now there are options to how producers market their stuff and these recording and publishing companies no longer have monopolies.

      You think MegaUpload was shut down for piracy? No that was only the public face of the action, the spin if you will. There were plenty of artists making a good living through MegaUpload that will not have that option any more. "Monopoly" through any means possible.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jade, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 10:48am

      Re: (@9)

      Are you daft?

      There are ads all over piracy sites for one. The popup thing is a false claim, no one likes pop ups. I'm glad they stopped being such a big thing as they were in the 90s. At least now I can watch porn without having to close 20 popups a picture.

      Who really cares what the reason is though, a superior service is a superior service. If I have the option between a mechanic who makes me listen to music I hate at full volume and a mechanic who just has on quiet music, whatever it is, the latter is a superior service and people will go there even if the first is cheaper.

      Most people would be fine with paying, but if it means I have to sign up for 3 services that don't work well together (violetlight or whatever it is, I'm lookin at you), then its service is equivalent to having your dinner served with a shit log on top.

      "You're able to adapt your business" does _NOT_ mean "you're able to sell your content" because the latter implies that _NOTHING_ is changing. Something has to change in your business for it to adapt.

      Next time you say "could also mean", make sure you find actual possible meanings. You're practically inferring that the sky is red from the sentence "the sky is blue".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:16am

    Where the part "often have to pay for access to pirate sites" comes from?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:28am

    Glyn, you are truly missing it here.

    If you run a restaurant, and don't have to pay for your food costs, you can spend plenty of extra money and time on "the eating experience". Pirate sites are in the same boat, they don't spend their time producing the content, cataloging it, or maintaining it, they get all that for free. They can spend their efforts on a better user experience. That improvement in experience is mostly that people don't have to pay!

    I think what these guys did is perfect. They made the torrent site have to deal with the reality of using pirated content as the core of it's business, and when it got the point of having to deal with 100s or 1000s of removal requests, it ends up being too expensive to use this "free" content.

    When it comes to this sort of thing, porn companies are way ahead of everyone else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:40am

      Re:

      It doesn't matter, the fact is the market has changed. People do pay for art, but only good art. The thing the MAFIAA feared the most, and main reason why art itself was so retarded in the past.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:51am

      Re:

      "If you run a restaurant, and don't have to pay for your food costs"

      ...then you're working in a fantasy universe where physical items incur no overhead, and thus you can do anything with the unicorns surrounding you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:39am

        Re: Re:

        Paul, are you living in a fantasy universe where things are produced at no cost ever? Forget marginal costs only, there is always overhead even for your "infinite goods" (something Mike never, ever wants to explore).

        So sorry if it doesn't line up with your world view.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Forget marginal costs only, there is always overhead even for your "infinite goods" (something Mike never, ever wants to explore).

          Why don't you explain how much it costs to produce a copy of a pdf?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "So sorry if it doesn't line up with your world view."

          I'm sorry your world view can't allow for anything other than black-and-white, and precludes you from intelligent thought. Even a child would understand that your pathetic analogy is fundamentally wrong.

          Unless you honestly think that the negligible overheads associated with copying digital files is the same level of overhead as buying in raw food ingredients, in which case back to the unicorns with you.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:02am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Paul, you are again not dealing with the main issue, and trying to argue a sideline.

            The site was packed full of torrents of illegal content. The rights owners "pounded" them with DMCAs until the cost of their "free" content was higher than it would be to be legit, and they shut down.

            Deal with the main subject, stop trying to wander away from it. FACE UP TO REALITY!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Excellent idea. The main issue was that "even a service company dedicated solely to aiding copyright enforcement can see the need for business model change so why can't the studios?".

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:41am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                There is no need for the studios to change their business model.

                Wait... I know, you are snickering. But think about it. There is no need for them to change at all. If their business models are truly that bad, they will be wiped out by new business models, new entrants into the entertainment business that will wipe them out.

                Let's go back and look at the classic buggy whip / buggy history. When the car came out, it became a better product, with better usability, better user experience, and it slowly but surely pushed the buggy companies out of business. Now, the car manufactures didn't hire hit squads to go out and shoot all of the horses to eliminate the old business model, they just made a better product, sold it in a better way, and as a result, they came to dominate the marketplace.

                Mike tries to play it as a "business model" discussion, but it really is product. The business model follows the product, not the other way around.

                If you think that the free distribution model is a better business model, then make some content for it and use the business model. If the model is so good, it will wipe out the existing entertainment businesses and the problem will solve itself.

                However, if the only way the new models can compete is by taking the product of the "old models" and delivering it without cost, then they really aren't better business models.

                Why do all the new models seem to be hinged on "and we pirate the old system into the ground?"

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  BigKeithO (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:56am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Because that is the reality of the situation today. You will never, ever kill piracy. The entire thrust of this blog is how to complete with piracy and make money doing so.

                  The crazy thing about all of you AC's is how you attack Mike and this site while he is only trying to help you.

                  However, if the only way the new models can compete is by taking the product of the "old models" and delivering it without cost, then they really aren't better business models.

                  Correction - they aren't better business models for you! Why don't you guys ever consider the customer in your arguments? It isn't Mike himself out there costing you $10-bizallion in lost sales every year. It's your own goddamn customers. They decided your business model is no good. Deal with it.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:08am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  There is no need for them to change at all. If their business models are truly that bad, they will be wiped out by new business models, new entrants into the entertainment business that will wipe them out.

                  Well yes and no. That's exactly what willhappen/is happening. Except the playing field isn't level so it isn't happening as fast as it should. Unless, I suppose, you consider it acceptable as part of a business model to be able to buy laws to prop up your business in against any emerging competition that doesn't happen to have several billion lying around to "lobby" with.
                  The business model follows the product, not the other way around.

                  It's both and service is a product too. Cars took off not when cars turned out to be "better" than horses, but when they were better AND accessible AND cheaper due to mass production.
                  If you think that the free distribution model is a better business model, then make some content for it and use the business model

                  You do know that every time you yark on about "giving stuff away doesn't work" you sound dumb, right? Not one person in this thread mentioned "the free distribution model" but you. I wasn't aware it was singular either.

                  Why do all the new models seem to be hinged on "and we pirate the old system into the ground?"

                  They only do in your tiny little universe inside your head. Most articles and comments about business models I've seen round here talk about different ways of using legitimate content. Netflix for example. On the other hand you, like the major content companies seem to have one of 2 responses to companies or ideas like that; 1/ [put fingers in ears] "La la la la la I'm not listening to you, you can't make me so there!" 2/ "Oh, we didn't think that would work, right well now you owe us ummmmmm a Gazillion dollars in extra licensing fees that we've just invented on top of the ones we agreed to in the first place. Why? Umm well because only WE are allowed to make ANY money whatsoever of our stuff (It's OURS OURS OURS SO THERE!!!) and you're just making too dang much even though you're paying us."

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:32am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Case in point: Louis C.K.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:45am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  " If their business models are truly that bad, they will be wiped out by new business models, new entrants into the entertainment business that will wipe them out."

                  Unless they spend 100s of millions of dollars to keep their bad business model relevant by buying registration and federal officers.....

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Paul, you are again not dealing with the main issue, and trying to argue a sideline."

              Because that's all that was presented to be by you to argue with. I'm not disputing either than the site had pirated material, nor that the DMCA was used to shut it down (although there were certainly better ways to do this, and the method used is troubling for less clear cut cases).

              No, what you presented was an idiotic analogy, attacks on people who haven't disputed your point, then went on your usual bullshit path of asserting your own opinion as if it were fact. In other words, you won't address the actual reality in front of you, because then you might have to think, and accept that people sometimes have valid opinions that differ from your blind assertions.

              Why don't you wake up to reality? You are still unfamiliar with it, despite all the times people have shown it to you.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Machin Shin (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:52am

      Re:

      Have you actually looked at the sites people complain about the most? The Pirate Bay for example?

      You really should take a look because then you will realize just how little is actually spent on "efforts on better user experience". Pirate sites tend to be pretty bare and ugly to look at. They are not the most user friendly. In general as web pages go pirate sites suck.

      The reason people go there is because even though they are ugly and a pain to use they are STILL easier to deal with than movie studios options.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:14am

      Re:

      If the problem is that "content creators" are spending too much time and money on the content and that prevents them from developing good working customer experiences, then that is a problem with the content creator. They are the ones that have their priorities backwards.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:04am

        Re: Re:

        Great service and accessibility without a product would be worthless. Downloading a file fulls of just 1s because there was no movie made isn't going to help.

        Let's stop apologizing for guys who run torrent sites, profiting from the work of others. It seems just stupid to support them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:23am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Having a great product when you can't deliver it to your customers or provide a customer service would be worthless. Having a great movie sitting in a format that only a fraction of your potential customers want isn't going to help.

          Let's stop apologising for guys who run studios that expect everyone to pay though the nose for mediocre product with zero delivery or service. It just seems stupid to support them.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Zos (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 10:01am

      Re:

      lmao.

      From my experience on the other side...

      first we comply with a few. then some asshole starts sending dozens, then hundred or thousands. so we mirror the site, redirect to a new domain and burn the old contact emails.

      Lesson learned, thats the last time those admins will deal with your nonsense.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Smith, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:56am

    They Just Don't Get It!

    I couldn't agree more with the article. I am an HBO subscriber and HBO has on demand offerings. However, right now HBO offers on demand of Sopranos from season 2 and True Blood from season 2. I canít watch the past season of True Blood as I missed it because I was overseas. I also missed a lot of the last season of the Sopranos. So even though I pay to have HBO, I had to get the shows I wanted to watch over torrent sites. It is very sad when it is easier to find what I want illegally than legally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Smith, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 5:57am

    They Just Don't Get It!

    I couldn't agree more with the article. I am an HBO subscriber and HBO has on demand offerings. However, right now HBO offers on demand of Sopranos from season 2 and True Blood from season 2. I canít watch the past season of True Blood as I missed it because I was overseas. I also missed a lot of the last season of the Sopranos. So even though I pay to have HBO, I had to get the shows I wanted to watch over torrent sites. It is very sad when it is easier to find what I want illegally than legally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      BigKeithO (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:59am

      Re: They Just Don't Get It!

      Don't feel too bad. You've already paid them for access, they were just too stupid to give you what you paid for.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:48am

        Re: Re: They Just Don't Get It!

        So you are paying them to sleep soundly at night while you still have to put in the extra work to find pirated version of their content that don't contain viruses or look like shit. So let them rip you off in exchange for the moral high ground. Sounds....fair.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          BigKeithO (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 10:55am

          Re: Re: Re: They Just Don't Get It!

          I didn't say pirating it was the preferred method, just not to feel bad about pirating it. Sounds like he's paid for the content and just couldn't get it legally. So I don't see a moral issue with obtaining it illegally.

          In a perfect world HBOGo would have all of the episodes you are looking for. This isn't a perfect world however.

          (Viruses in pirated content, really? Just read the damn comments they aren't hard to avoid.)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Suja (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 6:07am

    If even an avowed enemy of pirates can see what's needed, why can't the copyright companies themselves?

    Morony, pure and simple.

    They are like a monkey who won't let go of handful of nuts in a jar, the nuts are keeping their hand stuck in the jar but they refuse to let go and get them out 1 at a time.

    They will eventually starve to death, still clinging the same nuts they refused to let go of. Morons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 6:46am

    However, in this case youíre not just hitting the moles with rubber mallets but weíre dropping napalm bombs on the whole field.

    hahahah, such a 'macho' analogy.

    but what do you do when the moles go underground totally? Your 'napalm' won't work there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 6:50am

    But you know - the funny part is.. if some media company would have been the ones to develop torrent - you would see ads on the TV daily about how it's the "best" technology out there, etc, etc, etc.

    It's all just spin.

    As long as SOPA exists - I won't buy music or movie DVD's/CD's new - used only.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:04am

      Re:

      You mean like CBS did with CNET back in the day? Am I the only one who remembers how they advertised file-sharing and Usenet applications like nepster? Heck, they still offer most of them for download right now.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:27am

        Re: Re:

        You mean like CBS did with CNET back in the day? Am I the only one who remembers how they advertised file-sharing and Usenet applications like nepster? Heck, they still offer most of them for download right now.

        You remember wrong. CBS has only owned CNET for a few years. "Back in the day" they were independent. That meme that went around about CBS purposely seeding the world with file sharing programs is highly misleading and has to do with a silly lawsuit someone filed. Don't be duped.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          What dose it matter when they bought the company? CNET was and still is advertising piracy programs. I still remember downloading BitComet from them.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Because torrent software has no legitimate uses...

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 10:07am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              But see thats the point, they claim it doesn't. And yet make money out of the same software companies they are suing. They were hosting Limewire forcryingoutloud, WHILE they were suing them AT THE SAME TIME. And are doing the same with Frostwire. Talk about hypocrisy of the highest order.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:42am

      Re:

      Torrents are generally NOT effecient, except that they spread the load over everyone else's network rather than making the original distributor pay to get their work out there.

      If you started from scratch, this still wouldn't be the most desirable model. Versioning alone of files is a real issue.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:11am

        Re: Re:

        Torrents are generally NOT effecient, except that they spread the load over everyone else's network rather than making the original distributor pay to get their work out there

        "Torrents are not efficient, except for the ways in which they are efficient." Interesting observation.

        If you started from scratch, this still wouldn't be the most desirable model. Versioning alone of files is a real issue.

        Soooo making, for example, an official release with an appropriate hash that's independantly checkable wouldn't go some way to solving versioning, or a little bit of thought and development from someone in whose intrerests it would be to make it more efficient? And as it is, you'd say bit-torrents were far less efficient than, say, shipping little plastic disks everywhere?

        I think what you meant was "I can't think of a good way to be able to charge a boat-load of cash for every single peer-to-peer byte of data moved, nor can I think of a justification I could use to charge enough to average at least 1000% profit per item that anyone would swallow"

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:45am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Spreading the load isn't effecient, as much as it is freeloading on other people's networks.

          Versioning issues exist because not everyone has the right update. Trying to keep current (and eliminate out of date versions) in a universe where you don't control the distribution is pretty much a losing batter.

          As for the rest of your post, it's total bullshit. Let's compare REAL models - bit torrent distribution, or direct download servers. In a direct download, you control the content, and you serve your customers directly, creating trust. The costs of bandwidth are low, so the costs to distribute in this manner are very low.

          The rest of your post, well, just isn't honest or fair.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            In a direct download, you control the content, and you serve your customers directly, creating trust.

            Now there's an idea. I think I'll just go buy myself a legitimate 1080p download of the "just re-released on bluray" Pulp Fiction. Oh.. that's a shame I don't seem to be able to find one that's not (probably) infringing. In fact searching for it I don't see one offering I could "trust" not to be infringing. It seems my only choice for legitimate HD content is a little plastic disc. What was that about comparing REAL models?
            The rest of your post, well, just isn't honest or fair.

            Fair? possibly not. Honest? Yes it was a 100% honest, if facetious, opinion based on observation.

            Oh, and:
            Spreading the load isn't effecient, as much as it is freeloading on other people's networks.

            Aaaaaand again with the "wanting stuff for free" rant. If you dislike it so much offer the customer a CHOICE. Personally I don't mind sharing a bit of bandwidth since a/ I can control it and b/ I can get a Linux distro or appliance server down in a 10th of the time it would take otherwise. But if sharing your toys and playing nicely isn't your thing that's up to you.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm paying an ISP for service, which means I get to upload and download. How is that freeloading?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Gwiz (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Spreading the load isn't effecient, as much as it is freeloading on other people's networks.

            Riiiight. Freeloading on the internet connection that I pay for with my hard earned cash.

            Next, your going to tell me that about all those bastards who "freeload" phone minutes on their unlimited phone plans by talking too much.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 9:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You act like the host can not provide a ton of bandwidth over a torrent. You realize you can seed your content with a huge pipe right? So you can host a file that is in essence both direct download and torrent.

            This is what Blizzard does and its much better than a direct download. Its better because they have multiple servers all giving out the bandwidth that most people use for a direct download. So rather than choosing a mirror to download from you download from all the mirrors at once.

            Also, when a ton of people are downloading the same thing from a direct download host that host will not be able to provide a good speed to everyone, all pipes have their limits. However if this is a torrent all the people share with each other so as the host slows down the web of peers picks up the slack.

            Blizzard has 11 million people downloading patches on the same day. They would not, and were not, be able to do this efficiently without torrenting the content.

            Claiming you can't control versions when using torrents is also laughable.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 10:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Spreading the load and providing large amounts of bandwidth are not mutually exclusive. Understand what you hate, you might learn not to hate so much.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:28am

        Re: Re:

        Most of the software community uses torrents for years to cut down on their own costs. Saying they aren't efficient isn't logical, since they're designed for efficiency from the get go

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Skapare, Feb 18th, 2012 @ 7:58am

      Other places to buy music

      Don't forget other business models like Magnatune.Com

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    MonkeyFracasJr (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 6:58am

    "... you're able to adapt ..."

    Rather than argue over several interpretations of the statement, how about someone with the resources or connection actually ask them what they specifically meant?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:01am

    Customer Appreciation

    We interfere with that experience by introducing frustration to the mix. Whether itís the site owner frustrated at the amount of time he/she spends on removing content or the frustration the downloader feels at not being able to find free content, frustration is a very valuable tool to use in combating piracy, and we excel at that.

    This sounds like the content industry's business model to a tee. The content they provide aka. "legal" are pure frustration for end users who have already paid! Frustrated by window releases, region locks, forced commercials, drm locks, lack of device portability, etc. Until the legacy buffoons make their services less of a frustration than pirate sites they will not gain ground over piracy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Niall (profile), Feb 20th, 2012 @ 8:54am

      Re: Customer Appreciation

      I do like Dreamworks movies, but it's frustrating to have to sit through the unskippable ads on my legally bought copy of a kid's movie that is as likely to make my 3-year-old want to watch that instead, only to run into another unskippable ad that makes him want to watch that instead, and I'm grinding my teeth at another mindless ad for a movie I've probably had to see 50 times already...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    CN, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:35am

    Frustrating customers... what the media industry does best.

    I find it amusing that they think frustrating the customer is the solution to infringement, when in reality it is a major cause of it in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:43am

      Re: Frustrating customers... what the media industry does best.

      I find it amusing that they think frustrating the customer is the solution to infringement, when in reality it is a major cause of it in the first place.

      Well that's exactly it. When you've made your proudct so much more frustrating than the pirate alternative, you have two choices to compete. Make your product less frustrating, or theirs more so. They are unwilling to do the former, so are left with the latter.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 7:39am

    They're easily dealt with

    Like this:

    takedownpiracy.com: BLOCK

    Nobody is obligated to accept their email, just like nobody is obligated to accept anyone's email. And since they've publicly admitted that they're spammers, there's no reason to. Best to just blacklist them permanently: if they REALLY want to communicate, then can send a (paper) letter.

    Bet they won't. Bet their "service", based on intimidation, abuse, and extortion, won't be financially viable if they actually have to pay for what they use instead of stealing it from their victims.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 8:08am

    I guess the real question here is this?
    If I pay to see a movie or concert, I am also covering the Intellectual property fees, SO WHY am I not allowed purchase the event in question in digital format of my choosing at the manufacturing cost?
    Oh yeah I forgot itís NOT about I.P. itís about the money stupid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 10:02am

      Re:

      There are lots of bands that will actually sell you a 3$ cd of the show you just saw on your way out the door.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 18th, 2012 @ 12:24pm

        Re: Re:

        And many bands that offer links to DL an MP3 of the show for free (not for "free", but included in your ticket price.) Just go to the website, enter your ticket #, and D/L.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mekhong Kurt (profile), Feb 20th, 2012 @ 1:09am

    Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers

    Time to summon white hats to mau-mau these folks at Takedown. Some good guys should band together to constantly takedown Takedown, letting the b*st*rds have multiple overdoses of their own medicine.

    Phaps they'll come to understand the concept of restraint once the corn cob is swiftly ascending their posterior nether regions. . . .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Oct 18th, 2013 @ 12:52pm

    opyright owners must share the blame

    I work as a copyright agent for Copyright Handler and I would agree more that copyright owners must share the blame for online piracy but how is it because of their service? You say pirates sites are offering extra conveniences than the official sites? What extra conveniences would those be?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Oct 18th, 2013 @ 1:29pm

    opyright owners must share the blame

    I work as a copyright agent for Copyright Handler and I would agree more that copyright owners must share the blame for online piracy but how is it because of their service? You say pirates sites are offering extra conveniences than the official sites? What extra conveniences would those be?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This