MPAA's Lies About Films Being Available Online Easily Debunked In Seconds

from the why-do-they-even-bother? dept

Stan McCoy was, until recently, the lead negotiator on "intellectual property" for the US Trade Representative -- making him the main guy behind ACTA and the horrific intellectual property sections of the TPP and TTIP agreements. Then, last year, he jumped ship exactly where you'd expect him to go: becoming a lobbyist for the MPAA. McCoy, as we've noted, has a history of condescension and mocking towards anyone expressing concern for "the public," rather than "the industry" which pays his bills.

So, it should come as little surprise at all that, in his current role, he's out there trotting out more bogus claims that ignore reality, in order to push the agenda of his employer. In a blog post discussing his appearance on a panel in the UK, McCoy insists that he's busting the myth that there's piracy because the content isn't available from authorized sources:
We need to bust the myth that legal content is unavailable. Creative industries are tirelessly experimenting with new business models that deliver films, books, music, TV programs, newspapers, games and other creative works to consumers. In Europe, there are over 3,000 on-demand audio-visual services available to European citizens. According to a recent KPMG report, 86% of the most popular and highest quality films and television series are available across legal digital platforms to UK consumers.
Okay, so this is McCoy's attempt at mythbusting. And it fails, pretty miserably, as TorrentFreak's Ernesto showed with just a little bit of effort. He went and looked at the top 10 most downloaded films last week and busted McCoy's weak attempt at mythbusting:

Click through for TorrentFreak's clickable chart
And, of course the KPMG study that McCoy relies on is quite misleading as well, since it actually found that over 80% of the top movies are not available on Netflix, by far the most popular service. That means that if people actually wanted to see the movies they want, they face a fragmented, confusing market, in which they'd need to sign up for a bunch of different services with different limitations to actually see what they want.

In other words, despite the MPAA pretending otherwise again and again, it remains a simple fact that the lack of availability and convenience on authorized services has a difficult time competing with the availability and convenience of unauthorized offerings. The same thing has been true for well over a decade. The music industry has mostly figured this out, so why can't the movie industry?

Of course, what McCoy can't really say is the truth: the movie industry can't readily adapt because it will piss off the theaters. The recording industry couldn't more fully embrace the internet until the old record stores finally lost their power, and the studios are held back by the theaters nowadays. Of course, the MPAA could and probably should be trying to help transition to the future by pushing back against the theaters' outdated views and explaining to them how they can also easily compete with home viewing by providing a better in-theater experience. But that takes real work. Instead, the MPAA's focusing on "content protection" because that way it retains a reason to exist.

Filed Under: availability, copyright, innovation, movies, piracy, releases, stan mccoy, windowing
Companies: mpaa


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 11:31am

    If only they could learn to use Google, they could find these things.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 11:40am

      Re:

      If only they could learn to use Google, they could find these things.


      Google? You mean the pirate's tool? Can't use that. The MPAA only uses poor, down-trodden key grips who have to log overtime to feed their starving children. They hire them to manually search the internet, as should everyone.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:06pm

        Re: Re:

        I think their disdain for Google/youtube is probably the strongest proof that their true intents are not to stop infringement but to stop all forms of competition. That's why they were able to take down megaupload for no good reason.

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

  • icon
    DocGerbil100 (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 11:38am

    Heh.

    At the risk of becoming needlessly recursive, I posted this on the comments on TF. No reason not to repost it here:

    - - - - -

    The issue isn't just about whether content is theoretically available somewhere in a given region, it's also about how accessible it is.

    If consumers have to sign up for forty or more premium-priced services in order to match the content of a branch of Blockbusters, it's safe to say that content is not really available in any meaningful sense.

    In the UK most services are artificially restricted to hosting just a handful of new films and TV programmes. The Sky-owned service NowTV boasted about the issue in a blog post - and reading between the lines, it's abundantly clear that content is being centrally restricted to make all online services as useless, expensive and uncompetitive as the film industry can get away with.

    I posted some simplistic research on the issue on TechDirt some time back. I can't be arsed to do new research at the moment, so I'l just copypasta it here. It wasn't too long ago, so it should still be a fair reflection of the state of the UK VOD market.

    The only thing I'll add is that since writing this, I've had the chance to play with the apps on a Samsung Smart TV device. There's not really much on it from anywhere, but it still has more content available from south-east Asia than it does from Hollywood. When the biggest companies in the industry aren't even trying to compete with no-mark Korean and Malaysian providers, there's clearly something wrong.

    - - - - -

    UK VOD services

    No idea about US services, but for those interested, here are the UK services currently available.

    While I assume this info is largely accurate (no-one would bother to make it up), it is largely from sites I've not previously heard of -- mostly http://anonym.to/?http://community.nowtv.com/t5/Movies/Movies-Latest-amp-Biggest/td-p/7604 -- and the original post is from February, so some details have probably changed since then.

    There are probably more reliable and up-to-date sites for this information, somewhere, but this is the best I could find without a more substantial research effort.

    VOD sites -- Monthly Movies Subscription Costs

    • Now TV (the online version of Rupert-Murdoch-owned Sky Movies) - £9
    • Netflix - £6
    • Amazon Prime Instant Video - £6
    • Wuaki - £6 sub, PPV @ £4.50/new film rental
    • Knowhow Movies - no sub, PPV @ £5/new film rental
    • Blinkbox (from Tesco) - no sub, PPV @ £4.50/new film rental
    • Apple iTunes - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental
    • Google Play - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental
    • Xbox Video - no sub, PPV@ £4.50/new film rental

    US readers may wish to note that the UK version of Netflix is generally regarded as an aborted washing-machine foetus of a service, when compared with its US counterpart.

    All PPV prices are for the highest definition versions, which is usually 720p, with a couple of services offering 1080p. Older titles and SD rentals are normally cheaper. TV episodes are usually available - prices vary widely, but are usually cheaper than films.

    As far as I know, all providers -- both subscription and pay-per-view -- require the installation of crapware from either Adobe or Microsoft and all require their users to allow the monitoring and commercial exploitation of their viewing habits.

    Most content available is nearly identical across services. New content - i.e. movies released in the last few years - is heavily restricted. NowTV has a blog post on the subject - http://anonym.to/?http://community.nowtv.com/t5/Movies/Movies-Latest-amp-Biggest/td-p/7604 - which they update monthly:
    The list below shows the top 100 UK box office films in the last 18 months from 29th August 2014.

    Of the titles on the list available to watch on the relevant services at 5th September 2014; Sky Movies has 44, Amazon Prime Instant Video has 4 and Netflix has 4.

    Wuaki Selection is not listed, as this service does not currently feature any titles in the top 100 list.

    When a movie is first available on Sky Movies it will not be available on Netflix or Amazon Prime Instant Video for at least 12 months.

    Source: Rentrak

    The blog post then goes on to list the top 100.

    While the numbers change and have recently shifted in Sky Movies' favour, the figures have strangely consistent ratios from month to month, with retail getting everything, Sky getting a big chunk -- now at 44% -- and Netflix and Amazon both getting the same amount -- now 4%.

    The other 48% or so does not appear to be available, except for retail, the online version of which also shows remarkable consistency of pricing.

    It's fairly apparent that both prices and content are being centrally set by Hollywood, with the intention of driving as much business as possible to their preferred vendors and neutering new services as far as they can get away with.

    This may or may not be legal under UK law, but since there is no prospect of their friends in Parliament ever prosecuting them for anything, it doesn't really matter.

    In any event, it's clear that consumer choice is not on the agenda for the movie industry.

    Not even slightly.

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

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:35pm

      Re: Heh.

      One the same note, me and a lot of my friends are watching a lot more Asian films simply because they're readily on Netflix, and we're more excited to see what new Asian movies are popping up than what new Hollywood films are popping up.

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

      • icon
        art guerrilla (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 5:50pm

        Re: Re: Heh.

        MAFIAA: hey, rubes, we got another shit sandwich for you, enjoy ! ! !
        rubes: no thanks, going elsewhere now...
        MAFIAA: what, you can't do that!! ! what are you talking about ? ? ?
        (whoa, its slippery in here...)
        rubes: about had it with your extortionary pricing, shitty presentation of products, and limitations that make no sense, much less cents...
        MAFIAA: b-bu-but, *we* control the horizontal, *we* control the vertical...
        (damn, what is all over this floor...)
        rubes: too bad, so sad, you cut your own throats, then blame us, now *you* enjoy your self-inflicted bloodbath...
        MAFIAA: unka sam ! ! ! protect US ! ! ! make the bad cord-cutters go away ! ! !

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

    • icon
      DocGerbil100 (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:48pm

      Additional Beermat Research

      In addition to the above, it's worth noting that Apple's terms & conditions and privacy policy are over 22,000 words long, which at an average reading speed will take most people at least 90 minutes to read and understand.

      If that's a reflection of the average, then signing up for the same content as an old branch of Blockbuster Video (or rather, as much as you can get, since so much is missing) will require thirteen and a half hours of reading, assuming you want to know what your rights & responsibilities are.

      As opposed to signing up with Blockbusters, when it still existed, which - if memory serves - took me about ten minutes.

      It feels odd to me, comparing new services with old and finding the new services so wanting, but then, most of the new services, despite the hype, are deliberately crippled by US industry policies. The companies who want to compete - such as Apple and Amazon - can't really do so under the current trade regime.

      It could be and should be so much better than this.
      Perhaps, one day, it will be.

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

      • icon
        art guerrilla (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 6:00pm

        Re: Additional Beermat Research

        *sigh*
        why i am coming to despise our so-called modern society with all the "conveniences"...
        i *used* to be able to: A. call a pizza place and order a fucking pizza...
        DONE...
        there is no 'step B.' to ordering a pizza...
        no idiotic 'registering' or opening an online 'account'; and with no more intrusion than they caller-id'ed my ass to make sure i wasn't a deadbeat...
        *now* ? they nearly force you to use some CRAPPY website which invariably is NOT up-to-date, and asks for information as if i'm taking out a fucking bank loan...
        FUCK YOU, you shit pizza chains: i want a fucking PIZZA, NOT waste a half hour 'registering' to be some marketing data you sell off to others to then bug the shit out of me for for-fucking-ever...
        guess who i don't buy pizzas from ? idiot chains who funnel you into their ridiculous crapp...
        sure, compared to the NSA they aren't *that* intrusive, but seeing as how i think buying a fucking pizza should have ZERO intrusion/hassle, it is still infinitely more intrusive than is necessary...

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

        • icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 6:19pm

          Re: Re: Additional Beermat Research

          I remember when you had to walk to the pizza place to get a pizza because there were no telephones. Of course, they didn't have pizza then either, so you just came home with a rutabaga. And you liked it.

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

  • icon
    Chris ODonnell (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 11:43am

    Just like the music industry

    You can't really blame the movie industry, ever since music became easily available online it's become freaking impossible to find any band playing live.

    Live music generated $16.6 billion in 2006, and 23.5 billion in 2011. See? Digital music is killing the music industry.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:31pm

      Re: Just like the music industry

      Someone played a song I wrote over the weekend so I had to cancel all my upcoming gigs.

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

    • icon
      LAB (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 1:44pm

      Re: Just like the music industry

      "You can't really blame the movie industry, ever since music became easily available online it's become freaking impossible to find any band playing live.

      Live music generated $16.6 billion in 2006, and 23.5 billion in 2011. See? Digital music is killing the music industry."

      I appreciate the irony. As the income generated from the sales of recordings fell, live performances become even more important for artist to earn a living. 95% is the percentage thrown around of a major act's income derived from live performance. Eventually the movie industry will come around and admit an illegal download is an opportunity for monetization lost because the consumer could not get the content how and when they wanted it.

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

      • identicon
        Pragmatic, 4 Feb 2015 @ 2:48am

        Re: Re: Just like the music industry

        ^This. Fans like to support the artists they like and they will use legal channels when they are made available to them. Microdonations to "buy them a coffee" and crowdfundin for projects are also available.

        Illegal downloading CAN be monetized. Drop the control freakery. Move away from the control freakery. Awesomeness will ensue.

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

  • identicon
    jackn, 2 Feb 2015 @ 11:44am

    "Creative industries are tirelessly experimenting with new business models that deliver films, books, music, TV programs, newspapers, games and other creative works to consumers." -Stan McCoy

    a very funny quote!

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 2:03am

      Re:

      As funny as the "experimenting with new business models" claim is, I also find it amusing that his idea of a "creative industry" is one that churns out very traditional, categorized, and discreet products like films, books, TV programs, etc.

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

  • identicon
    Jason, 2 Feb 2015 @ 11:56am

    Of course, the MPAA could and probably should be trying to help transition to the future by pushing back against the theaters' outdated views and explaining to them how they can also easily compete with home viewing by providing a better in-theater experience.
    I actually like going to the theater, and it boggles me what they're so afraid of.

    Now, to be fair, I don't see every movie in a theater; I decide which movies I feel are worth it, along with choosing the particular theater and showing that best suit my tastes for crowds and convenience.

    But I wholeheartedly agree: it's the experience that brings me there. (It sure isn't the overpriced popcorn...) Some movies are worth the theater experience and others aren't, but if they would just put a little extra effort into that experience I think it would pay off a whole lot more than anything else they're trying to do.

    Even if I could stream perfectly crisp 4k video onto my big screen I probably would have still gone to the theater to see Interstellar on 70mm. But it doesn't have to be a blockbuster... I'd take an evening out with friends at the theater over watching a movie at home most any day of the week.

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

    • icon
      ltlw0lf (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:08pm

      Re:

      But I wholeheartedly agree: it's the experience that brings me there. (It sure isn't the overpriced popcorn...) Some movies are worth the theater experience and others aren't, but if they would just put a little extra effort into that experience I think it would pay off a whole lot more than anything else they're trying to do.

      As do I. It is the experience that has kept me away. I cannot see paying $15+ for tickets alone to see a movie in a crowded movie theater where more than half of the attendees are inconsiderate and rude, talking or playing on their cell phones, talking to other movie goers, kicking the seat, etc. I have a decent sized video projection device at home, with decent speakers, and if I really want the "movie going experience," I can invite friends and family to watch with me. The theater going experience is what has kept me from going to the theaters for over a year, and has resulted in me seeing three movies in the movie theater in the last five years. And I tend to buy and rent more than my share. Will I watch Intersteller at the movie theater? No. Will I miss the experience while watching it at home. Hell no.

      I only wish I could have your experience in the movie theaters, but sadly, I apparently live in a city/country that doesn't have much respect for others when it comes to movie going experience.

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

      • identicon
        Jason, 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:17pm

        Re: Re:

        It certainly isn't always as nice as I'd like, don't get me wrong about that. But I have the advantage of enough flexibility in my own schedule that I can often pick days/times to go that aren't nearly as crowded.

        Annoying idiots are the single worst part of the whole process, and the most enormous low-hanging fruit that theater owners could start working on if they actually cared at all.

        And I do plenty of movies at home too; I'm definitely not arguing against that being a thing. I just like getting out to a movie now and again. Sometimes I regret it, but it can be fun too, especially if I can pick the right day.

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

        • icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:39pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          There are others like me who have stopped going to theatres altogether. A projector at home makes for a very nice and cozy experience, and if I want to leave the house I'd rather go see music or live theatre than do something I can get easily at home.

          But it's the hardware that threatens cinemas, not a stupid release schedule.

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

      • identicon
        BigKeithO, 2 Feb 2015 @ 1:34pm

        Re: Re:

        US movie theaters sound horrible. I've never once seen someone using their phone during a movie. I don't think it would be tolerated by everyone else in the theater.

        The reason I've stopped going to the theaters as often is because the movies being released don't justify the ticket price and it is just too damn busy. It doesn't seem like theaters are hurting around here when every time I go you have to fight your way through a sea of humanity to get your tickets/snacks. At least they've started allowing you to reserve your seats online, that is nice.

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

        • icon
          art guerrilla (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 6:11pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          couple observations:
          1. as other posters, pretty much don't like many current movie theaters for the fact of the audiences... related once about lady who opened up her fucking LAPTOP in the theatre DURING the main movie...
          at times like those, i see the logic in concealed carry...
          (NOT that it was okay under any circumstances to use your laptop in a movie theater, *but* doing so during the interminable ads -another reason i hate going- is not the capital offense during the movie is...)
          2. at a recent semi-hoity-toity theatrical performance of phantom of the opera, and the generally older audience had a huge percentage dicking around with their brain cancer machines... did not notice any *during* the show, but *right* up to it, and during intermission, and afterwards they were all over their time-wasting gizmos...
          living in the moment ? doesn't happen any more...

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

        • icon
          ltlw0lf (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 7:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          US movie theaters sound horrible. I've never once seen someone using their phone during a movie. I don't think it would be tolerated by everyone else in the theater.

          It shouldn't be tolerated. From my observations, it is usually it is a pre-teen or teenage girl on the phone, and I have yet to go to a theater (in the last ten years) where it hasn't happened at least once during the movie (it is almost always the following, almost scripted, "ring ring, hello, I am watching [movie] so I can't talk right now...yeah, its great, you should see it, should have come with us, oh yeah, ... [talk talk talk] ".) And like Art Guerrilla, I've seen quite a few laptops, including a person who sat in the front of the theater and blinded everyone with their laptop screen while typing away on whatever they were doing. With all the distractions, I'd end up leaving half way through the movie after reporting it to the manager. They'd always refund my money, but never even sent an usher into the theater to remove the individual. The only time I've seen a revolt by movie goers was when a drunk guy started being really obnoxious during a movie, and he was removed by other patrons, and the manager refunded *his* money (but didn't stop the movie or offer refunds to the folks that removed him from the theater.)

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 11:57am

    Not even like books and music...

    The movie industry pretends that they can limit how and when you see their creative works when they're first released to the public - through a movie theater...

    When a musician produces a new album or song, does he force you to see it live in concert before you can buy it and listen to it yourself?

    When an author releases a new book, do they force you to come listen to someone read it to you (or watch the words roll by on a screen that they control) before you can obtain it and read it at your own pace?

    This idea that they can control your "viewing experience" is rather bullshit IMO. I don't want to go to a movie theater - I want to obtain a copy of the movie that I can watch at my leisure, pausing and playing as needed, rewinding and watching again to see the parts I didn't understand or wasn't paying attention to, while eating my own food on my own couch in front of my own TV (or sitting on a plane during a business trip).

    The idea that I must wait weeks or months for this opportunity is strange and old-fashioned... and by the time the movie is released on disc (or streaming), it's already lost a lot of it's luster and interest. They're excluding a huge audience here.

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

    • icon
      Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 1:56am

      Re: Not even like books and music...

      The idea that I must wait weeks or months for this opportunity is strange and old-fashioned... and by the time the movie is released on disc (or streaming), it's already lost a lot of it's luster and interest. They're excluding a huge audience here.
      X-Men: Days of Future Past...
      UK cinema release date: 22 May 2014
      UK DVD (purchase) release date: 10 NOVEMBER 2014
      UK Rental release date: January 2015

      Me: Cancelled my Lovefilm/Amazon Prime subscription because
      a/ Their back catalogue sucks and any film you might actually want to watch isn't available
      b/ Any new films take forever, even after the DVD release, to be available and by then I've lost whatever tiny will I had to watch them in the first place
      c/ The streaming quality and availability sucks even worse than the back catalogue

      Your point, sir...

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

  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:26pm

    Maybe I'm misreading something in the last paragraph, but to think theaters have control over the MPAA is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

    The MPAA is already pissing theater owners off, and it doesn't take much to see why. Garnering over 92% of ticket sales, now two weeks out from the former first (and originally only the 3 day weekend after release), as well as forcing them to spend extra money for being copyright police, the theaters are losing ground to retain customers.

    Serves them right, frankly. If I walk into a theater, having paid for my ticket, and are then treated like a criminal, that's not a place I want to be.

    So please, allow the MPAA to continue shooting off its mouth and punching the horse that makes its revenues.

    The sooner the revenue streams stop, the faster the MPAA goes away.

    Oh, and stop buying movies, people.

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

  • identicon
    John Nemesh, 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:28pm

    How about this idea?

    Instead of the theaters constantly trying to protect their bloated release windows and keeping current movies offline...how about they offer a different experience to compensate them for "lost revenue" when films go online earlier?

    For instance, "Game of Thrones" is going to show 2 episodes in theaters. Just a guess, but I am thinking these showings will QUICKLY sell out! Why not show EVERY episode in theaters, the night it airs on HBO? HBO would get a cut of the profits, and the theater owners would pack people in on a usually slower Sunday night!

    This could EASILY be done these days, we have theaters with digital projectors, we have online distribution of content...all we need is some cooperation between theater owners and content producers!

    This could also easily be applied to other shows. Imagine going to the theater to see the next "Star Trek" TV series or the new season of "House of Cards".

    There is still plenty of appeal for the theatrical experience, even at the sometimes ludicrous prices they are asking these days...give us a REASON to come to your theater, and we will come.

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

    • identicon
      Jason, 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:34pm

      Re: How about this idea?

      I went with some friends to the Doctor Who 50th anniversary special in the theater, and we had a blast. I wouldn't want to do that for every single episode (it would have to be a whole lot cheaper for one thing) but for one-off events like that it can be a lot of fun.

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

      • identicon
        UriGagarin, 2 Feb 2015 @ 3:12pm

        Re: Re: How about this idea?

        Same here, and when its with people who want to enjoy the same thing, its a joy!

        Not sure about the US, but there is a growing trend in the UK for more "grown up" cinema experience (not using the word adult for obvious reasons )

        Comfy sofas, relaxed atmosphere, proper bars where you can share a bottle of wine together, no problems with phones and idiots, its for people that want to enjoy a film experience in a relaxed environment that treats its customers as adults.

        Last time I went to a 'normal' cinema it was uncomfortable, slightly stressful and to be frank rather rubbish for the near on 50 quid spent, waiting and buying the DVD would have been a better option .

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

    • icon
      John85851 (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 12:00pm

      Re: How about this idea?

      Actually, this is happening already.
      When I saw X-Men last summer, I saw ads for the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Best of Both Worlds", which would be shown in theaters. This was a 2-part episode plus some interviews with the cast and crew. Honestly, this would probably be better than some of the later Star Trek movies. ;)

      I don't know how much money Paramount or the theaters made, but it seems like it would be pretty easy to show more shows in the theaters simply because the content has already been paid for.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 11:45pm

      Re: How about this idea?

      On top of what other people have said, in the UK it's not unusual to have non-film events, and there seems to be a successful run of live theatrical productions (opera, ballet, etc). A couple of World Cup games were screened in 4K as well. Mark Kermode often joking complains on his radio show/podcast whenever one of these breaks the top 10. This is one of the UK's major cinema chains, for example: http://www.cineworld.co.uk/events

      I'm not sure how well this kind of thing can translate to the US market, but there's clearly money to be made by doing things other than just showing whatever Hollywood wants to push in a particular week.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:32pm

    What are these "movies" that you speak of?

    Oh yes...I do remember. Used to watch those, back in the day. Some of them were quite entertaining. But then, well, theater prices went through the roof, their staff began alternating between incompetence and indifference, and sitting through previews ALONG WITH REALLY LOUD WARNINGS ABOUT PIRACY in a theater chilled to a meat locker temperature and eating popcorn whose price is rivaled only by printer ink...somewhere along there I just lost interest.

    I have other things to do now. Healthier things. I read a lot more. I listen to music. Oh, it does mean that I have no idea which movies are out, but I really don't care.

    And that, MPAA, what you're really losing. Because I'm not alone. And we're raising our kids with a world view that doesn't include you -- other than as a legacy business most visible through your obsolete theaters.

    You had your chance. Now it's someone else's.

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

  • icon
    TruthHurts (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:39pm

    Uhhh? What? Fury / John Wick

    Both of those were available for rental and purchase via Google Play last week.
    I know, because I bought and watched both.

    I'll have to double check, but I think "The Judge" and "Gone Girl" were also available.

    Google allows for digital rental and purchases on many movies up to 6 weeks ahead of DVD/Blu-Ray release schedule.

    Sorry, but your busting is busted (at least partially).


    Brand new movies in theaters for less than a handful of weeks? Sure, I wouldn't expect them to be available anywhere... DUHHHHHHHHH

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

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 12:51pm

      Re: Uhhh? What? Fury / John Wick

      Brand new movies in theaters for less than a handful of weeks? Sure, I wouldn't expect them to be available anywhere... DUHHHHHHHHH


      Yet, there they are being shared via torrents, so obviously some people expect them to be available much sooner than you do.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 1:03pm

      Re: Uhhh? What? Fury / John Wick

      Moron... of course you don't expect them to be available because you support and expect them to continue their retarded release model.

      And yet, they're available only - either as crappy cam rips, or dvd screener rips.

      People watch these, even with blurry shaky images or irritating watermarks - why? Because they don't want to go to the theater.

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

    • icon
      DocGerbil100 (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 1:08pm

      Re: Uhhh? What? Fury / John Wick

      It's not emphasised in this article, but the original TF article was in response to the MPAAs hyperbolic claims about the EU market.

      Accordingly, TF used Findanyfilm.com, an industry service designed for finding legal content in the UK.

      The titles in question were not available in the UK at the time the article was published.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 12:13am

      Re: Uhhh? What? Fury / John Wick

      "Sorry, but your busting is busted (at least partially)."

      No, it's your busting that's busted.

      If you read the actual study being talked about, it's referring to EUROPE, and that the service used to check availability was a UK service (presumably to filter out the usual excuses surrounding translation and localisation).

      The information is accurate. Looking elsewhere, Fury has a DVD release date of 23rd February, while John Wick has its UK theatrical release on 10th April. That's right, your smug debunking has missed the fact that one of the movies you bought doesn't even have a *theatrical* release date in the territory being discussed, so any home viewing will be artificially restricted even later.

      In other words, the article is accurate, and you should read them properly before announcing how it's wrong.

      "I know, because I bought and watched both."

      Good for you. Perhaps instead of whining, studios should allow UK customers to do the same?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 1:19pm

    I enjoy going to the theater to see a movie- love the big screen and sound.

    So no, I have no desire to see theaters go away.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 5:20pm

      Re:

      I enjoy going to the theater to see a movie- love the big screen and sound.

      So no, I have no desire to see theaters go away.


      Can you point to where we said theaters were going away? No? If you actually read the story, rather than kneejerking, you'd see that we actually said that there were clear ways that theaters can and should compete successfully.

      But, you know, you never actually read what we write. You'll just lie about us. Don't you get tired of it?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 12:11am

        Re: Re:

        lol. An apparently innocuous opinion setting Mike Masnick off? Because he has IP addys tagged.

        Stop being such a buffoon, Mike. You're embarrassing. Funny, but embarrassing.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 12:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Because he has IP addys tagged"

          If I had obsessed morons lying on every post they make, usually with a focus on attacking me directly, I'd do the same. Or, would you prefer he went against his stated policy and blocked you and/or any anonymous comment instead?

          As for your original comment, you stated 2 things. Neither of which addressed anything in the article, and one directly addressing something that was not even suggested. But, Mike's the one in the wrong because he called you out on being an asshole again? Sure...

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

  • identicon
    PRMan, 2 Feb 2015 @ 1:40pm

    From CanIStream.It:

    Interstellar - Buy on Google Play
    American Sniper - Buy on Google Play
    Taken 3 - Not available
    Hobbit - YouTube: rent; Amazon, Google Play, Vudu: buy
    John Wick - Buy on Google Play, Vudu, XBox, Sony
    Into the Woods - Buy or rent on Amazon or Google Play
    Fury - Rent on iTunes, Google, Vudu, YouTube or Sony; Buy on any of those and XBox
    Gone Girl - Rent on Amazon, iTunes, Google, Vudu, YouTube or Sony; Buy on Amazon, Google, Vudu, XBox
    American Heist - Not available
    The Judge - Rent on Amazon, Google Play, YouTube, Sony; Buy on Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, XBox

    So, I hate to defend scumbags, but he's mostly telling the truth. I mean, Taken 3 came out Friday, so I wouldn't really expect that to be available to all the services.

    Nearly everything else is available digitally, usually from multiple large well-known providers.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 1:44pm

      Re: From CanIStream.It:

      Are those for people in Europe or the US?

      Because this was specifically about European citizens.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 1:59pm

      Re: From CanIStream.It:

      Yes, but those providers want money even though they already have more than enough.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 12:30am

      Re: From CanIStream.It:

      That's awesome for the US, which is not a region covered in the article.

      How about Europe, to which the article and the MPAA's original comments refer? Some of the films on that list don't even have theatrical release dates.

      "Nearly everything else is available digitally, usually from multiple large well-known providers."

      All of whom are forced to comply with regional restrictions which prevent them from selling to European citizens even if they have previously been able to sell physical copies quite legally.

      "I mean, Taken 3 came out Friday"

      I'd keep checking your information, as well. Taken 3 had a US release date of Jan 9th.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 2:19pm

        Re: Re: From CanIStream.It:

        Let's not forget Canada who is LITERALLY next doo and share free trade agreements, and a significant amount of culture.

        Let's not forget most of these shows are even FILMED in Canada and yet we get fuck all for streaming.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 1:57pm

    "MPAA's Lies About Films Being Available Online Easily Debunked In Seconds"

    I do not recall reading anything attributed to an official of the MPAA that everything anyone might want is available online, so it is not clear just what you think you are debunking.

    My personal experience (US only) is that shortly after theatrical release the vast majority of new films can be found in several well-known and easily accessible locations that do not involve engaging in piracy. Of course there is the downside that one typically has to part with some $$, but those $$ are relatively nominal if you shop with care.

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      antidirt (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 2:20pm

      Re:

      I do not recall reading anything attributed to an official of the MPAA that everything anyone might want is available online, so it is not clear just what you think you are debunking.

      My personal experience (US only) is that shortly after theatrical release the vast majority of new films can be found in several well-known and easily accessible locations that do not involve engaging in piracy. Of course there is the downside that one typically has to part with some $$, but those $$ are relatively nominal if you shop with care


      Mike unilaterally declares complex things completely "debunked" when it suits him. Don't ask for any kind of reasoned argument from him. He has none. Just grab your pitchfork and stop thinking.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 5:22pm

      Re:

      I do not recall reading anything attributed to an official of the MPAA that everything anyone might want is available online, so it is not clear just what you think you are debunking.

      It helps to read the article in question where we explain exactly what we're debunking.

      My personal experience (US only) is that shortly after theatrical release the vast majority of new films can be found in several well-known and easily accessible locations that do not involve engaging in piracy. Of course there is the downside that one typically has to part with some $$, but those $$ are relatively nominal if you shop with care.

      What does that have to do with anything in the post?

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

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 6:56pm

        Re: Re:

        It helps to read the article in question where we explain exactly what we're debunking.

        Read the article before posting? Read?! Who'd got time to read, there are strawmen to set up and attack, non-existent arguments to counter, and imaginary articles(because again, who's got time to read the real one?) to complain about!

        'Read the article first' indeed, what, do you think people have precious minutes to waste like that when there are irrelevant comments regarding imaginary articles to be made?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 8:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Read the headline, then the article, then the link purportedly debunking what was allegedly said, and then the blog post by the person with the MPAA before even considering submitting a comment..

          Perhaps you can point me to precisely where in any of the various materials the person from the MPAA lied...you know, deliberately uttered something known by him to be false. TD accuses him of lying, but I was unable to locate anything even remotely resembling a lie. Naturally, I do have to wonder just what TD believes it has debunked since I did not discern any lie it alleges was made.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 9:20pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            So he gets a free pass because he's ignorant? That speaks volumes about you.

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

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 9:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Outright lie? Perhaps not. Incredibly misleading statement? Absolutely.

            The claim:
            According to a recent KPMG report, 86% of the most popular and highest quality films and television series are available across legal digital platforms to UK consumers.

            The counter-evidence:
            And, of course the KPMG study that McCoy relies on is quite misleading as well, since it actually found that over 80% of the top movies are not available on Netflix, by far the most popular service. That means that if people actually wanted to see the movies they want, they face a fragmented, confusing market, in which they'd need to sign up for a bunch of different services with different limitations to actually see what they want.

            Trying to claim that the content is available, and 'forgetting' to mention that it's been intentionally spread out over a large number of services, such that if people wanted to have a decent selection to chose from they'd need to sign up to, and pay for, multiple services, is disingenuous at best.

            Making something available is only half the equation, if it's not available in a convenient, reasonable fashion, then it might as well be stored in a basement bathroom behind cabinets and a door with 'Beware of leopard' posted on it.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 9:09am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Surely you realize that the inventory of movies are not under the control of the MPAA, but under the control of a myriad of production companies. Surely you are not advocating the proposition that such companies must be limited in who they can negotiate with for the deal that best promotes their financial interests.

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

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 9:40am

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

                Surely you are not advocating the proposition that such companies must be limited in who they can negotiate with for the deal that best promotes their financial interests.

                'Best promotes their financial interests'. You know what would do that very well? Making their products available to people in a convenient, timely, and modestly priced fashion.

                Not locked down to individual services who are willing to pay a little extra for 'exclusive access', requiring potential customers to shell out big bucks if they want a decent selection to chose from, removing from the pool of potential customers those who don't feel like signing up for half a dozen or more services just to watch movies.

                Not released in 'windows', where a movie will be released and available in one area/country at one time, yet for completely arbitrary, greed driven reasons, someone in another area will have to wait weeks, or even months for it to be offered in their area, if it ever is.

                And finally, and this ties in a bit with the first point, not at a price where people are practically paying 'sale' prices for gorram rentals, or full, brand-new-release prices for movies that came out well over a decade or two ago.

                They want to promote their 'financial interests', then they need to pay attention to the people who would gladly give them money for what they could offer, if they would only offer it on reasonable terms.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 11:19am

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

                  What is it about this site that emboldens people to openly declare they know how best to run the financial end of an industry within which they have zero relevant experience? Experience has taught me an almost invariable rule...those who declare they know best how to do something usually do not because they lack business critical information.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 3:26pm

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

                    What is it about an industry that lets it assume that it knows what consumers want better than the consumers themselves?

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 3:39pm

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

                      The mere fact you even ask this question tells me you know nothing about how the industry works.

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 4:36pm

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

                        What's that got to do with anything? If the "industry" doesn't provide it in my country in an accessible fashion they're not going to get my money. I cannot legally give them cash in exchange for their product. It's that simple. Whether I understand how the "industry" works or not has nothing to do with it because my knowledge has no impact on their decision-making. You being here effectively calling people like us pirates for not giving the "industry" money for a product we cannot legally access is useless.

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

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 11:59pm

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

                        But, don't you admit below that neither do you?

                        Go on, tell us oh genius one, what vital component of the business mechanics are we missing? Educate us so that our opinions can be based on this mysterious truth.

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

                  • icon
                    Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 4:59pm

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

                    What is it about this site that emboldens people to openly declare they know how best to run the financial end of an industry within which they have zero relevant experience?

                    Why do you assume zero relevant expertise? That's rather presumptuous of you. Having spent a fair bit of time with some theater owners (mainly independent theater owners, but they face many of the same issues), the concerns and ideas raised in the original comment you replied to are dead on and quite accurate.

                    It's really something how you almost always insist that only you or your friends possess the relevant knowledge to hold an opinion on anything. It's doubly funny since we've proven you to be flat out wrong nearly every single time.

                    I sense a pattern: when you feel the need to defend the copyright industries, you simply insist that whoever comments here couldn't possibly understand the complex details and therefore we must be wrong. Yet, you fail to provide any details or data on your own (because, of course, you have none) and so you just insult people.

                    Here's a thought: perhaps rather than being a pedantic jackass all the time, recognize that, perhaps, there are others in the world who know more than you.

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 6:18pm

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

                      Since I have never worked within the film industry I stake no claim to being an expert in that industry. My observation that seems to irk you is that no one who either writes articles or comments here appears to have any such expertise, and yet despite this manifest lack of expertise many of them, with you in the lead, have not the slightest reluctance to wax poetic on subjects about which you are largely ignorant.

                      Your headline falsely suggested an individual had lied, and yet this falsity seems not to bother you in the least. Sad that accuracy and truth seem to have taken here a back seat to uninformative and midleading advocacy.

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 6:35pm

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

                        This individual insists that products are available to the point that people would not have to download them, insinuating that everyone else who experiences otherwise must be lying/pirates. This statement has been proven incorrect.

                        So why do you take it upon yourself to defend this person's inaccuracy? This falsity seems not to bother you in the least. Sad that accuracy and truth seem to take a back seat to you getting a chance to rag on anyone who dares to criticize the MPAA.

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

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 11:58pm

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

                        "Since I have never worked within the film industry"

                        Funny. I could have sworn that your entire argument was along the lines of "you just don't know how they do business!" - but now you admit that you know as much as the rest of us? No longer you're incapable of constructive criticism.

                        "My observation that seems to irk you is that no one who either writes articles or comments here appears to have any such expertise"

                        Nor do they claim to. What else that they don't say annoys you? I hope you're equally obsessed with the likes of Fox News, which pays its anchors large amounts of money to spout ignorance every day to be streamed into millions of homes and businesses, rather than just a sad obsession with a random blog you decided to visit.

                        "have not the slightest reluctance to wax poetic on subjects about which you are largely ignorant"

                        If you're the AC I think you are, the lack of self awareness here is fantastic.

                        Do you have anything constructive to say, or is this your daily bitchfest because, yet again, you can't grasp or admit the central issue at hand?

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

                      • icon
                        Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Feb 2015 @ 3:58am

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

                        My observation that seems to irk you is that no one who either writes articles or comments here appears to have any such expertise, and yet despite this manifest lack of expertise many of them, with you in the lead, have not the slightest reluctance to wax poetic on subjects about which you are largely ignorant.

                        Would you like me to point to the many times when *you* have done that yourself?

                        Your headline falsely suggested an individual had lied, and yet this falsity seems not to bother you in the least.

                        What was "false" about it? He said that the lack of availability was "a myth." Yet, it's absolutely true. He lied.

                        Why are you now lying to pretend he wasn't lying?

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:05am

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

                          Did he say anything you may want is available online? Of course not! Did he say that a large percentage of what people want is available online? It seems so.

                          So how is he being debunked and accused by you of proof he is a liar? Some films apparently are not yet available online, so he is debunked because of this. Problem is he NEVER said everything is available. If you missed this part your headline might be excused as an honest mistake, but we both know better. Libel is playing with fire. Caveat author.

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

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:40am

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

                            "Did he say anything you may want is available online"

                            Pretty much. He referenced "over 3,000 on-demand audio-visual services" and claimed that "86% of the most popular and highest quality films and television series are available across legal digital platforms to UK consumers."

                            This is demonstrably wrong, since by looking at the most popularly downloaded movies only 80% have even been released in a UK cinema - and only 10% are legally available online. American Heist hasn't even got a release date set in the UK yet. That's right - his figures are wrong even if you try to pretend he meant that "as long as a single cinema is playing, it's 'available'".

                            Now, you will probably try to deflect this by claiming that the list is unfair or something, but the facts are there as stated. McCoy's position suggests that he was aware that the statement he was making was misleading, and that counts as a lie in my book. If I'd be far more concerned about the admission that European citizens have to trawl through "over 3,000 on-demand audio-visual services" to find what they want than the minutae of which technicalities can be utilised to say that the above wasn't a lie. Especially since, even the "over 3,000" figure is completely misleading, since arbitrary, anti-EU free market restrictions prevent most of these from servicing customers in other countries. If a film is available on a Norweigan streaming service but nobody else, it's not available to "Europeans" because nobody outside of Norway is allowed to pay for it. Even if his figures were correct - and they are far from it - they are incredibly misleading.

                            Do your sad obsessions with attacking everything Mike says and defending everything the MPAA say - no matter which fictions and contortions you have to employ - at least allow you to admit that the state of affairs described is a problem that's directly losing money, piracy or no piracy?

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 10:49am

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

                              Sigh...your comments and those of so many others here remind me of worker bees in a colony attacking any perceived danger to their queen.

                              Clearly, nothing I can say will ever give diehard TD fanatics any pause to consider the possibility that poetic liberties are being taken with facts to promote a specific narrative. It is dispiriting to observe fan trust being abused.

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

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 5 Feb 2015 @ 11:41am

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

                                Oh dear. So, no attempts to refute my point of view? No acknowledgement of the very real problems indicated by the MPAA employee that neatly illustrates my first hand problems with the industry that literally block me (and millions like me) from spending money with them? Just a pithy rejection and attempt to whine about a cargo cult that exists only in your mind?

                                It's sad how pathetically predicable this is. If only you were interested in an adult conversation.

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

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 4:32pm

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

                                "Waaaaah! I wanted to be mean to mean ol' Mike Masnick but he was mean to me! Waaaaah!"

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

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2015 @ 7:56am

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

                            Why don't you point out the many times when you have waxed poetic on subjects on which you have no relevant expertise and are largely ignorant?

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

                  • icon
                    That One Guy (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 8:05pm

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

                    Well, since you clearly have access to that 'business critical information', please, enlighten me, explain why what I listed above, that of 'make your product available, and offer it on reasonable terms for reasonable costs' is so horrendously flawed.

                    If I'm wrong, then correct my misunderstanding, provide me evidence showing why I'm wrong, don't just claim that I don't understand it and then refuse to explain what I'm not understanding, that's a cop-out and dodging the question.

                    You don't need to be an 'expert' to be able to see the available evidence showing that the movie and music industry are dropping the ball, and leaving money on the table.

                    Probably the best example: Netflix and services like it.

                    Piracy rates, pretty much without fail, drop any time Netflix or a service like it becomes available in an area. This makes it abundantly clear that the industry is failing to offer their product in a convenient, modestly priced fashion, and leaving money on the table because of their failure. People are more than willing to pay them, if they offer the product on reasonable terms.

                    Someone doesn't have to be a mechanic to be able to point to a car that can't go a mile without stopping, and declaring 'That car is broken'. Likewise, it doesn't take a masters in economics to be able to state 'The best way to sell your product is to make it available to buy'. If someone can't buy your product, or if it's horrendously difficult and/or time consuming to do so, then they won't buy your product, this is really not a difficult idea.

                    Experience has taught me an almost invariable rule...those who declare they know best how to do something usually do not because they lack business critical information.

                    Like the movie and music industry telling the tech industry how 'easy' it should be to follow their demands, because infringement is just so 'easy' to spot? That kind of 'lacking critical information'?

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

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 4 Feb 2015 @ 12:21am

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

                      Notice that his argument is constantly along these lines, but he never divulges what "critical information" is missing? He's either a liar (there is no such information) or dishonest (he won't tell anyone because he doesn't want a level playing field).

                      Pretty pathetic either way, as ever.

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

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 11:52pm

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

                    "What is it about this site that emboldens people to openly declare they know how best to run the financial end of an industry within which they have zero relevant experience?"

                    The fact that we're customers, and we see the mistakes that they are making that actively block us from giving them money? Because it's blindingly obvious that many of the ways they do business are based on market realities that no longer exist? That their way of doing business is actively harmful to the very customers (us) they're trying to sell to, while they use piracy as an excuse to change laws in ways that negatively affect even those who aren't their customer base?

                    When you stop lying about the character of the people discussing these thing, and start listening to what they're really saying, it's amazing what you might learn about their motivations.

                    "Experience has taught me"

                    What's your industry experience?

                    Why not divulge whatever critical information you think we need so that we can base our opinions on the facts you think we're missing? Why not make an argument other than "you're wrong! I won't tell you why but just believe me!"?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2015 @ 5:51pm

    Stan McCoy? Is this the real McCoy?

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

  • identicon
    Tcooke, 3 Feb 2015 @ 2:39am

    Why are we defending the right to steal peoples products?

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 2:56am

      Re:

      Because by "we", you mean the usual strawmen that exist only in the heads of people who don't understand the actual argument.

      Nobody's defending the "right" to pirate. We're just explaining the painfully obvious reasons why people do it, and why it's better to address these issues rather than trying to outlaw huge numbers of of perfectly legal activities, and criminalise people based on false accusations (as per the industry's tactics thus far). People are pirating in part because there's no legal option to obtain a home copy as yet. You can quite honestly attack the pointlessness of these artificial barriers without also supporting piracy.

      Get it? Or, are you just another one of those people who ignores the actual arguments so you can make false accusations of theft against anyone who dares criticises outdated business methods?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 3:57am

      Re:

      I'm not stealing anything. I can't watch it because it's not available in my territory. Why do I need to give you money for something I'm not watching?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 7:22am

      Re:

      A new guy!

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 7:57am

        Re: Re:

        If only one of them would bring a new argument with them when they visit...

        The best thing about this is that sales lost to piracy only tell part of the story. The same factors that encourage people to pirate also affect those that don't. People who were blocked (or at minimum discouraged) from paying to access the content but don't pirate will still be affected by the same factors.

        You can't quantify the people who decided to watch a DVD they already own, borrowed a book or even just bought from competitor as easily as you can point to piracy figures, but you can be damn well sure they're experiencing the same issues.

        But no, everyone who points out the broken ways they do business *must* be stealing from them so why consider any of the real arguments? 15 years after Napster's debut, any they still haven't found a way to base their retorts on fact.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 8:16am

        Re: Re:

        Nah, more like a new IP address average_joe set up with his fuckbuddy Whatever/horse with no name/Just Sayin'/Anti-Mike.

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

        • icon
          antidirt (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 9:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Nah, more like a new IP address average_joe set up with his fuckbuddy Whatever/horse with no name/Just Sayin'/Anti-Mike.

          I'm happy to log in before posting. If you're looking for sockpuppets, talk to Mike. He's the pro.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2015 @ 4:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            This coming from the guy who promised to leave the site for the rest of a year and promptly started sockpuppeting everywhere, and who started posting chicken noises not more than a week or two ago.

            Your promises aren't worth shit, buddy.

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

          • icon
            Gwiz (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 5:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            If you're looking for sockpuppets, talk to Mike. He's the pro.


            Hey AJ, remember the time you accused me of being Mike's sockpuppet? Fun times.

            To be honest, I was a little bit flattered and took it as a complement to even have my comments compared to Mike's in the first place.

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

  • icon
    Matthew (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 8:25am

    Good Luck

    Good luck reasoning with an industry that thinks $6 is a reasonable price for a soda.

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

  • icon
    res (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 8:38am

    the cost of movies

    Theaters pay studios around 90% of their receipts for the first week (although this is negotiated by each theater chain. That is why the popcorn is so expensive - they are making a lot more money selling candy and popcorn than they are making showing the movie. If the theaters could get concerts, sporting events and other large venue events on their big screens they might come close to wanting to stay in business. Imagine a football game in 4k resolution on a giant screen!

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

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 9:53am

      Re: the cost of movies

      "If the theaters could get concerts, sporting events and other large venue events on their big screens they might come close to wanting to stay in business."

      In my part of the country, we are blessed with many small, independent theaters. Along with playing recent (but not first-release) movies, they also let you sit in comfy couches, bring beer, drinks, and food to you during the show, but they also do exactly what you're suggesting here: they to live simulcasts of events of all sorts: concerts, football and other sports, and intellectual fare such as interesting debates and lectures.

      These theaters are doing very, very well financially.

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.