"So why won't anyone in Hollywood build my service? The reason isn't stupidity. When I called people in the industry this week, I found that many in the movie business understand that online distribution is the future of media. But everything in Hollywood is governed by a byzantine set of contractual relationships between many different kinds of companies—studios, distributors, cable channels, telecom companies, and others."
IANAL either, but it seems to me that if Hollywood can push through the Bono Act and try for the golden goose with ACTA, they could just as easily push for a world-wide agreement that regulates media shared across networks, and even put in a grandfather clause (right term?) negating all those pesky contracts.
For the sake of argument, let's call it the SHIP agreement. (Safe Harbor Internet Protocol.) since they are so fond of acronyms.
People worldwide contribute a 'tax' on their internet connections, and in exchange they can share anything they want across any network across any national boundary.
Companies, people, etc, register their work, and get a hash for their file. When somebody transfers a file with that hash, the creator gets a point. Those points will translate into their local currency at the end of the month, and the creator will get a check. (this would be based on complicated mathematical formulas but basically the files that get transferred the most get the most money kicked back to the creator)
They 'could' do this, but they don't. They want control and containment even more then they want money.
I am thinking with all the industry 'bois' hanging around here, maybe one or more of them will belong to FOX.
Business model #24
sell me this weeks episode for $2.00 and I will buy it.
sell me next weeks epsiode for $3.00 and I will buy it.
The week after that? $4.00.
And so on and so forth to the end of the season. Heck, I might buy them all (on that increasing payment schedule) just so that I don't have to deal with the cliffhangers. That's why I cap the hi-def streams with my MyHD card and wait for the sixteenth episode before I start watching.
Watermark it all you want. If I can't see it, I won't care. I won't put it up on torrent because if I had such a scarce good and had paid for it, I would want everybody else to pay for it too. (not to mention that it could be tracked back to me.)
DO NOT restrict my use of it. If I want to downsize it and put it on my phone, I should be able to. If I want to watch it on my popcorn hour, I should be able to. Locked to my computer? No. Limited use? NO. May be kept away from me if the authentication server goes down? NO! No! no!
I think this would be Paramount?
The new Transformers movie coming out? On opening day, to enjoy the movie in my home, I would pay up to the amount it costs to take my family of four to the theater and stuff their faces with popcorn. - about $60.00. But...A) You cannot restrict it, and B) It must be in hi-def.
2 brand new business models for you. Cash from my pocket to your bank accounts. The hitch? NO DRM. The possibility that there may be more like me? Better than average.
sorry about that, forgot that 'enter' is equivalent to 'submit.'
In any case, what drugs are these people on? When I bridge my DSL Lines, I can download 3 MB/s - that's MegaBytes - not Megabits per second. Theoretically, I could bust that cap, in five hours. Oh, what to do with the other 715 hours in the month?
Let me tell you why TWC is doing this - Hulu/Boxee vs OnDemand, Netflix online (whatever they call their streaming video service) vs OnDemand. BD Live Vs OnDemand, etc, etc.
This isn't about piracy, this isn't even about running out of bandwidth, this is about competition from the internet, plain and simple.
I don't use Netflix, but I am sure their prices are much lower than the 3.99 TWC charges for their pay-per-view movies. They got tired of subsidizing their competition and said... Enough.
From the article: Time Warner Cable has 8.4 million broadband customers.
I wonder how many they will have after this plan goes into effect?
Sorry, got distracted by something and hit submit before I was ready.
The point I was trying to make with my pointless diatribe was that there are only so many things you can call Mafia-based video games.
"The Italian Whack-Job?"
"Families settle a score?"
"The Favor Game?"
"Elliot Ness and His Band of Merry Fellows?"
"Omerta?" I like that one, but probably already taken.
"Scarface?" Copyrighted. "Scar?" Character in a disney movie so protected by overeager teams of mouse-ear wearing lawyers.
"War of the Five Families and Anyone Else Who Wants to Join In?" Good, but probably too long of a title for whatever IM apps are in use today.
"Capo?" Good, but easily mistaken for a nice, hot coffee brand and get sued by Starbucks.
"Capo de tutti Capi?" Good, but when abbreviated it sounds like a bio-war game.
See my point? We have THE MOB, and THE MAFIA. Based on actual case files and good old fiction. There really isn't anything else to call a good-old-going-to-the-mattresses game.
Lawsuits by the estates of Mario Puzo, Al Capone, The Five Families...
"I want him dead! I want his whole family dead! I want his house burned to the ground! And god help anybody that tries to make a video game about me!"
Prior art, lots of it, get over the fact that somebody had the same idea as you and make yours better. Or, conversely, whack the opposition. It would be interesting to see a copyright infringement lawsuit fought out on the streets of LA by the Gangs of New York.
"And the South wonders why non-Southerners (and the more enlightened Southerners) hate the South."
Don't blame Southerners for this, blame all the lawyers they kicked out of New York and Los Angeles, the South is just where they happened to end up because nobody else in the country wanted them. (That includes East Texas.)
Yes, I am from the South, in a little burg in (South Carolina.)
Another thing: Here in the South, we have practiced 'BuyItNow' for ages before there was an internet and eBay, and many an auctioneer has been baffled by the story I tell them about the patent fight that happened over 'BuyItNow.'
Sorry, you must be a MPAA shill instead, Voice of Reason, sorry.
Reason this: There are thousands of consumers who have been burned by DRM, in my case, DRM on cellphone ringtones. My daughter was dismayed that she couldn't move her ringtones from her old cellphone to her new one because of DRM.
This DRM was put in place to keep 'consumers' from buying one ringtone and sharing it amongst their friends, but in this case prevented a LAWFUL use.
My solution? I went and downloaded the songs, cut them up into clips and put them on her new phone. I had to hack around the DRM on the new phone to get it to recognize the clips as ringtones as well.
Does that sound fair to you? It probably would sound fair to the Voice of Reason whose object is to get customers to pay for the same thing over and over again.
IT DOES NOT sound fair to a customer who has to buy the same thing over and over again.
I saved $60.00 and got a lesson about how in bed the cell-phone companies are with the Industry.
Final words? Take your reasoning and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Since the **AA's and the politicians are so fond of acronyms. Let's call it the 'SHIP ACT' for (Safe Harbor Internet Protocol) A person pays x amount of dollars a month (call it $5.00 for music or $15.00 for music and movies. or $20.00 for music, movies, ebooks and software) said person will then be able to log on to a server and download whatever they want (with no DRM). No pay, no access....
As a bonus - if the person helps re-distribute the work, they get a partial credit on their bill for their time and bandwidth.
All copyrighted works will be included because this would be a federal law and therefore override all contracts and distribution agreements.
This is, of course, only valid in the United States of Fantasyland, because the content owners (not to mention the cable and satellite companies that love to sell you everything piecemeal hence five-and-ten dollaring you to death) would never let such open and consumer-friendly legislation see the light of day.
"Trying to explain "stupid" to a southerner isn't the easiest of tasks."
You do know that Kentucky sits further north than most of the state of California, right?
In fact, you follow that same line that passes through Louisville, Kentucky east, and it comes very close to passing through the District of Columbia.
You can make all the hick jokes you want, maybe even say that the mountain air does no good for the brain, but please don't try to call them southerners.
I can imagine that the **AA's are watching this very close. After all, they would love to seize piratebay's domain. Then, after that victory, they might even get around to seizing techdirt.com because Mike offers a contrary view which might 'promote piracy.'
"...people getting content that they want, when they want, and the way that they want it."
Didn't you mean that?
If CBS would put their most recent episode of say...CSI:Miami online in a non-DRM'ed HD format (See .mkv) for two dollars- I'd buy it in a minute. Hell, if they made it a torrent, I'd seed it for them too. (Not on Comcrap)
What happens if five million people buy it? (If a season of Enterprise cost $38 million to make, then CSI must be lower.) And they run 24 episodes and make $10 million each.....
I would probably buy every Crime-Time CBS show every week. (Including but not limited to: CSI, CSI:NY, CSI: Miami, NCIS and Numbers.)
I know there are a lot of me out there - willing to pay $$ for content but want it DRM-free. No DRM makes for infinite storage or conversion, and No Windows.
"While those involved in negotiating the document will continue to do what they've done all along (i.e., ignore the requests), hopefully some politicians will start to notice the complaints and begin asking questions."
It has to be in the mainstream press for our politicians to notice it, (see California train wreck and the resulting call to ban cell-phones for engineers.) And since the people that own the mainstream press stand to benefit from ACTA, we won't hear anything about it.
And if some politicians do hear about it, and question their copyright-funded benefactors, said benefactors will say "it's just a bunch of thieves complaining about it (ACTA) and they aren't voters anyway, they are copyright anarchists."
ACTA will continue to be negotiated in secret, (unless somebody from wikileaks gets a hold of a final draft and is paid obscene amounts of money to leak it.) And then ACTA will be run through a lame-duck Congress (probably voted upon favorably by all the politicians voted out of office in November and looking for 'retirement funds' and passed by said Congress, just like the DMCA was.
I know that's a glass half-empty view, but that is what's going to happen.
Yes, opposition managed to kill the CBDTPA (see 'Fritz chip', 'broadcast flag',) but that legislation was a public bill in a mostly-public system. (not to mention the numerous re-tries.) Content owners got so frustrated that they tried an end-run around Congress by submitting a form of the CBDTPA to the FCC to pass as a 'rule' rather than a 'law.'
The EFF and the ALA (two of the groups trying to get ACTA into the light) finally got a court to say that the FCC didn't have the power to regulate signals after the consumer had received them. Now we have a slew of devices that respond to the 'broadcast flag' anyway.
Best-case scenario - ACTA gets brought into the light, and doesn't get ratified. What will happen then is that ISP's will still implement content-filtering (via 'filter your networks or we'll sue' agreements between ISP's and **AA's,) Computer makers will still implement hardware that makes fair use very hard (Trusted Computing,) and Customs will legally be able seize any computer that has non-drm encoded movies on the hard drive. (what's another rule here or there?)
They're just trying to get the UK politico's to agree on some sort of punishment for file-sharers, knowing that if they tried something like that in the United States - particularly around election time, they would get laughed out of Congress.
Look out, because once they get all of their cronies elected or re-elected - Hear me 'Hollywood Berman?' They will be trying it in the United States. - Even if it is some fine-print amendment attached to an appropriations bill that funds the war in Iraq or Afghanistan for another year.
Except for the fact that I couldn't connect above 33.6kbps, it looks like your math is pretty good. (I won't mention the 1,024 multiplier because it doesn't make that much of a difference, except for when you buy a 500GB HDD and it only reads as 465GB.)
When I was on dial-up, I could get 4~5 megabytes an hour, which translates into ~3.5 gigabytes a month (24/7 service was something that my dial-up provider could do well.) A one gigabyte/month plan? you do the math.
Is owned by the companies who are pushing for this law. You think the AP, AFP, or UPI don't want stronger copyright laws?
Let's not hope for any coverage from CBS, or ABC and especially not NBC or FOX either. We all know the reasons why that is.
All that remains to spread the word are blogs. Anything that you might see in the mainstream press is some executive praising the treaty for its 'step forward in combating counterfeit goods.'
You won't see anything about ISP filtering, P2P squashing, or any other negative aspect of the treaty (negative from my point of view) until it has been ratified by a lame-duck congress - JUST LIKE THE DMCA.