The studios still don't quite get it.

[Nigel]

This is a pretty interesting read.

http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13506_1-9847 ... 47-1_3-0-5

Good Luck

[cubdukat]

This is a pretty interesting read.

http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13506_1-9847 ... 47-1_3-0-5

Good Luck

LionsGate should only wish someone wanted to pirate one of their Blu-Ray titles. I think there's probably a LionsGate title on everyone's Worst Title of the Year list. And most of those list probably picked "Terminator 2."

[Nigel]

I think you missed the point.

This isn't about Lionsgate but more about the industry as a whole. Why they will back a solid/holdable format to begin with just because of DRM illustrates the broader problems within the industry.

Once again studios are pissing away an opportunity which will ultimately have a noticeable impact on many more pockets than they can see at this time.

Good Luck

[Termin8Anakin]

HAhaha that's a pretty close-minded reason by LionsGate.
Movie and music studios really need to open the gates of possibility a lot more, and maybe put a LITTLE faith into something that won't make em a million bucks a minute but is beneficial to the future of the distrubution of entertainment media.

Given the success of iTunes and other digital download services, it HAS been proven that there is a large market for people to actually buy digital media without owning the physical product.
Now I don't fully understand how media stores work, but is it a once-only transaction? Or is there a warranty of some kind where if you accidentally delete it you can re-download it for free? I think there are some/most services that do this, but I'm not sure if it's actually an ingrained part of what's expected from them.

Personally though, I like to own the physical product. It's cheaper to buy it online, but there's something inherently satisfying about being able to own the case. Haha.

[Will2]

I have no problem with studios making money, especially when that money gets back to the people making the movies.

They do however need to come up with a realistic model for selling their product. I actually don't have a problem with DRM since I generally buy my DVD's (or rent) anyway. As long as it doesn't effect the quality of the experience I don't care.

But obviously DRM schemes are doomed to failure eventually so they need to go after the big pirates in China and Southeast Asia. Also, they should pay writers, directors and actors enough on the sale of these that those people will go out and promote the idea of piracy as "uncool." Somehow they have to make it seem like piracy effects real people not just the giant money grubing companies.

[cubdukat]

I think you missed the point.

This isn't about Lionsgate but more about the industry as a whole. Why they will back a solid/holdable format to begin with just because of DRM illustrates the broader problems within the industry.

Once again studios are pissing away an opportunity which will ultimately have a noticeable impact on many more pockets than they can see at this time.

Good Luck

No, I got the point; that was just an aside. But the sad fact of the matter is that it's not gonna change unless there's a full-scale boycott of the major studios, and that just ain't gonna happen. That's the only language they understand--money. Endanger it, they sit up and take notice. Sadly the American public has decided that massive amounts of pissing and moaning constitutes action, as opposed to actually doing something--or, as this case may require, not doing something (to wit, not buying LionsGate and/or other Blu-Ray discs).

For my part, LionsGate is on my permanent excrement roster, and I will not buy a single LG title.

[Will2]

But the sad fact of the matter is that it's not gonna change unless there's a full-scale boycott of the major studios, and that just ain't gonna happen.

What exactly do you want to change? The fact that you can't easily copy any Blu-Ray video anytime you want? Not sure I understand what the big deal is...

If you mean the studios and record labels trying to prosecute average people to scare them I might agree but can you fault them for at least trying to protect their intelectual property?

[Termin8Anakin]

I reckon part of the deal here is that they're making such a BIG deal about prosecuting those average people.
They're flaunting the success of the capture of that old woman who copied one or two dvds as if the CIA busted a major international drug ring.

But then what happens is that rather than making an example out of them and seemingly preventing piracy, they're just pushing more people to it because they came off like a school bully.

[Nigel]

iTunes, Amazon and other have proven that people will pay for material when it is provided cheaply and easily. People want to do the right thing generally speaking.

It just is mind boggling how the film industry will end up where the music biz is right now in two to five years.

Connections aren't getting slower. Hard drives are getting smaller. TVs aren't getting less sharp.

But, they won't wake up...

And on Tuesday Apple will roll out rentals at a stupidly over priced rate and it will fail. Then Steve-O will point his fingers at the studios and say that they were strong-arming.

Time will tell.

Good Luck

[cubdukat]

But the sad fact of the matter is that it's not gonna change unless there's a full-scale boycott of the major studios, and that just ain't gonna happen.

What exactly do you want to change? The fact that you can't easily copy any Blu-Ray video anytime you want? Not sure I understand what the big deal is...

If you mean the studios and record labels trying to prosecute average people to scare them I might agree but can you fault them for at least trying to protect their intelectual property?

There's a point at which protecting intellectual property becomes onerous, and these guys have long since past that.

When DRM intereferes with the viewing experience (as it has with Blu-Ray), it beomes onerous. If I'm paying (note I said "paying") for a movie, as long as I am not breaking the law with it, I should be allowed to do whatever the hell I choose with it. If I want to put it on my iPod, burn a backup copy (DVDs don't withstand 200+ pounds of pressure when stepped on) or watch it as many time as I choose, that's my right because I paid for it.

A perfect example is the entire program Microsoft has for their Zune Marketplace concerning PlaysForSure music. They claim that if you present them with PFS track, they'll give you Zune-compatible versions. In theory, anyways; I'm sure in practice, you almost always end up having to pay all over again because yours is one of those "special" cases.

At the rate things are going, we're headed for a pay-per-view/listen society. Even after you buy a movie, you pay the same 20 bucks every time you watch it (a la DIVX--the bad one), and don't think it won't happen. To some extent, it already has.

I mean, does it not seem wrong that you could get more time in jail for "camming" a movie than you could for shooting someone? Money may trump peace, but intellectual property should not be able to trump human life.

[Will2]

If I'm paying (note I said "paying") for a movie, as long as I am not breaking the law with it, I should be allowed to do whatever the hell I choose with it. If I want to put it on my iPod, burn a backup copy (DVDs don't withstand 200+ pounds of pressure when stepped on) or watch it as many time as I choose, that's my right because I paid for it.

Actually, it's not your right. You may want it to be, but it's not.

The generally accepted rule in the U.S. is that you can make one backup copy of a video or software for you're own backup use. Doesn't mean the studios have to allow you to anything you want with it.

The copyright holder is selling you the right to use it in a specific way. If you try to use it in a way they don't want you to or is not explicitly included in the "bundle" of rights you received with the DVD, you're in violation of copyright law.

Yes, showing it to people and charging admission is breaking the law. Making copies and selling it is breaking the law. And even making a copy for your iPod is probably breaking the law too. Those are not your rights simply because you bought a copy. Sucks, but true.

This may change, but as the law stands now only studios have the right to create different versions for different players and charge you money.

Someday you may create a great movie and want to make money with it. You may love making movies so much that you want to quit your day job and just do that. Without those rights you won't be buying health insurance or feeding your family. But at least you'll be poor and entertaining the world.

[Joe Gioielli]

I sometimes wonder if it would't be easier for all concerned in we just paid an extra 0.25 for a DVD as a "Pre-Crime" piracy tax per unit.

Joe

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I sometimes wonder if it would't be easier for all concerned in we just paid an extra 0.25 for a DVD as a "Pre-Crime" piracy tax per unit.

Joe

We already do that in sweden. We pay $0.63 for each empty DVD-R (or +R) we buy and $1.02 for each empty DVD-RW (or +RW) we buy.

I think it is pretty sick.

If they would supply all films in a downloadable format that people can buy and download directly from the copyright holders (or some big stores on the internet) they should be able to cut the price alot. No need to make silly plastic boxes or discs, no need for all the "middlemen" who need profit to survive, and so on. It would be better for the enviroment, and people who still wants discs could burn the discs at home.

If this was a reality (that people could buy all the latest movies as a download) and they actually took a reasonable price for the movies (often a new movie DVD in sweden costs over $32 ... expensive) piracy would probably decrease.

[cubdukat]

I sometimes wonder if it would't be easier for all concerned in we just paid an extra 0.25 for a DVD as a "Pre-Crime" piracy tax per unit.

Joe

I thought we already did.

Hell, I'd pay a dollar extra if it means the MPAA would just shutty! But I think we all know that that wouldn't be enough for them. They won't be happy until we end up paying full retail price every time we play that spanking new DVD we just bought.

[Jim Carlile]

If I'm paying (note I said "paying") for a movie, as long as I am not breaking the law with it, I should be allowed to do whatever the hell I choose with it. If I want to put it on my iPod, burn a backup copy (DVDs don't withstand 200+ pounds of pressure when stepped on) or watch it as many time as I choose, that's my right because I paid for it.

Actually, it's not your right. You may want it to be, but it's not.

The generally accepted rule in the U.S. is that you can make one backup copy of a video or software for you're own backup use. Doesn't mean the studios have to allow you to anything you want with it.

The copyright holder is selling you the right to use it in a specific way. If you try to use it in a way they don't want you to or is not explicitly included in the "bundle" of rights you received with the DVD, you're in violation of copyright law.

Yes, showing it to people and charging admission is breaking the law. Making copies and selling it is breaking the law. And even making a copy for your iPod is probably breaking the law too. Those are not your rights simply because you bought a copy. Sucks, but true.

This may change, but as the law stands now only studios have the right to create different versions for different players and charge you money.

Actually, copyright law allows you to port over music that you have purchased as long as you own a primary copy of the work. There is no requirement that you must buy different versions for different media. As long as you own one, you can do what you wish with it. The customer is under no legal obligation to purchase replacement copies just because the medium has changed.

This right was established many years ago during the cassette age, and it is being utilized quite well still by classical music fans, who go out and buy old junky LP copies of recordings so that they can download newer digital versions of the same performance to each other, and with impunity, because they already own the recording.

The problem is that 'record' companies will not tell you this and will not make newer versions easy to get. By the same token, they have no responsibility to provide more modern representations of the work for free, just because you already own it. They are going to do everything they can to make it as hard as possible to port over music to different formats. That's the problem. But it's not illegal to do so.

See, during the analogue days record companies bitched about it but they knew that the copy you knocked off for your Walkman would be inferior. But with digital, that's not the case, so they're trying to change the rules-- or at least threaten the ignorant.