PDA

View Full Version : So... Netflix



Rare White Ape
February 10th, 2014, 06:10 AM
I'm supporting terrorism (but not in a totally terroristic torrenty way) by subscribing to a pretty neat fake DNS server that allows my 'puter and my iPhone to pretend it's in the USA.

Which means I can get Netflix. I don't have a US-based funding source yet but I'll cross that bridge later when my free trial is up.

$5 a month for the DNS and $8 a month for all the movies I can possibly watch makes me a happy boy. I've never been able to justify spending over $70 a month on subscription TV, which is full of ads anyway, when I could just steal all the content I want at my leisure. I've even figured out how to force HD on the PC video stream!

After a few days checking out Netflix, I do have one gripe.

The selection of movies, especially recent release stuff is not as fat as I thought it would be. All the good stuff appears to be disc rental only. The list of Oscar winners is very thin and not much of it is what I would consider watching.

The range of TV shows is very good but I am not much of a TV show kinda guy. If I had the time to watch 11 seasons of Futurama, the mental gymnastics for Arrested Development, and the insufferable whinyness required for How I Met Your Mother, I'd be in heaven. But I'm not into that.

Except for Archer, and An Idiot Abroad, and maaaaybe Breaking Bad. Oh, and I'm gagging like a $2 whore to see the next series of House of Cards.... TWEEEE!!!!

But aside from those four TV series, I'm in it for the movies and I'm having trouble finding shit that I want to watch.

Is anybody who is experienced in this Netflix thing able to explain why the movie selection looks so broad, but seems to be maddeningly short of depth?

Rob
February 10th, 2014, 06:16 AM
I pay for the UK Netflix and Lovefilm (Amazon-owned) but may or may not use a browser extension that lets me select a region to view any sites. My UK Netflix name and password seems to work just fine as a US account when it thinks I'm in the USA.

Or so I've been told...

In my experience, Netflix (any region) seems a bit crap for newer movies, but has the best selection of TV shows, whereas Amazon have been snagging the latest films to the detriment of their TV series.

Jason
February 10th, 2014, 06:24 AM
I might cancel Netflix again... every time I resubscribe, I check out what they have, and the movie collection is rather sparse. The only real benefit of Netflix anymore seems to be for some of the TV shows they have in their library.

The studios are all gearing up to make their own paid streaming options, and leaving companies like Netflix out to dry.

Yw-slayer
February 10th, 2014, 06:35 AM
I don't understand why people watch How I Met Your Mother. I suppose it's the same crowd who found Friends to be hilarious.

Rare White Ape
February 10th, 2014, 06:59 AM
You've just gotta replace Gen X for Gen Y.

Even when you're paying for it, you're still left short, or needing to go for multiple services.

Why can't there be one? Just one. Like Steam but for video content, where every fucker on Earth makes it available and the good independent stuff is sold on equal terms with the major stuff, and it's affordable and the hosts are not arse holes and the content owners are not pricks.

There is a place like this and it is called The Pirate Bay, but it's legality is questionable. That's what I want to get out of one day.

Jason
February 10th, 2014, 07:22 AM
There is "one"... it's called the most expensive cable package. And paying like $150/mo for it.

Jason
February 10th, 2014, 07:24 AM
Or, you can use iTunes/Amazon/etc and buy content that way... most media is sold on those sites. Not much is streamed for cheap, though.

Crazed_Insanity
February 10th, 2014, 08:04 AM
Netflix has decent kid programs and documentaries which you otherwise probably won't be able to find or wouldn't be willing to spend money to buy. ;)

If you want the latest Hollywood hits, Netflix is not the provider for that. They probably just cannot afford to pay the licensing fees to maintain an awesome library. Or perhaps the movie studios just don't want to license their latest and greatest too soon..., at least not until they can milk the consumers til the very end with DVD sales or cable subscription or itune download?

If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time pretending to be in the USA trying to watch stuffs on Netflix.

21Kid
February 10th, 2014, 09:46 AM
They do have a lot of kids shows and some decent TV shows. I love not having to FF through the commercials. But, they are at least a full year behind anything that you'd want to watch currently. So, you hear all about the breaking bad finally way before you'd ever be able to watch it. :(

It's okay, but like everything else it's not perfect.

I can't stand HULU since they force you to watch commercials. And they only rotate 3-4 of them. So, if you watch more than 2 episodes of something, you'll want to rip your hair out.

Personally, I'd rather pay twice as much to Netflix and have a larger category of things to watch than pay the cable company for 546 channels that I'll never watch. Or be forced to watch commercials that I've seen 500 times. Or even try to download them via pirate bay. I don't have the time to sit down and download every episode of Sons of Anarchy before I want to watch them. :| And then I'd have to connect my laptop to my TV and won't have a remote. :(
Also, with my wife's wacky schedule. I don't know when we'll be able to sit down together to watch said episodes. So, our DVR filsl up rather quickly.

thesameguy
February 10th, 2014, 02:48 PM
I am very happy with my Netflix, but agree that a) the streaming content is far from perfect, and b) I'd pay more for streaming if it meant more content. But, I do both the streaming and disc service, and for <$20/mo it's 99% of all content (even if that means resorting to discs) and 50% of any conventional TV service. It's imperfect, but it's the best The Man is going to let us have.

I worry a little bit about what happens when studios try to stream directly and cut Netflix out of the picture, but I think/hope that will end in a lawsuit. As a studio, it would be a very difficult to make the case you could previously sell your content to a distributor for $x, but you can no longer do that at any price, or at some new unreasonable price. I suspect that would very quickly result in a lost lawsuit or an FTC investigation.

If such a thing were to happen and the only way I could get movies was by paying per-movie to each studio I'd add movies to my Do Not Watch list right along with television. I've stuck with Netflix because it's easy - I don't have to pay a dozen different vendors each for a small piece of my media pie. If those assholes are going to try to make my life difficult by charging a bigger piece of my disposable income or manage relationships with multiple vendors they can all fuck right off. The boob tube is not a healthy part of my life anyway - making it more difficult to be unhealthy rsn't going to work out for them.

Freude am Fahren
February 10th, 2014, 03:46 PM
Yeah, movies are becoming harder and harder to get on Netflix Streaming. However, it'd be worth it just to watch Seasons 1 & 2 of House of Cards (of which Season 2 becomes available on Friday). Then you could cancel it :lol:

Rare White Ape
February 10th, 2014, 05:59 PM
I think half the reason I started this thread in disappointment was that I'd heard many great things about Netflix and their ilk but was let down by their offerings when I finally saw what they have.

I just checked the Playstation movie store and it still costs $6 to rent a movie!

Compare that to unlimited content on Netflix for $8...

Am I getting greedy, or does everyone want to see a HD movie or TV show whenever they want for $1 each?

Jason
February 11th, 2014, 03:03 AM
Sure, everyone wants things for cheap. But the entertainment companies want you to pay out the ass for it. I find it ridiculous that often times digital content costs more than physical media. And then not only that, it's loaded with so much DRM that if a company decides to stop supporting it, you're screwed. Oh, and lets not talk about the idea that you don't even "own" it if you buy it, and they can take it away from you any time, depending on the service.

/rants

Anyways, I subscribe to multiple services, going to cancel one or two of them. And then continue to pirate. I'll gladly buy digital content, when they stop being dicks about it. Took a while with music, I assume movies and tv will catch up sometime.

Crazed_Insanity
February 11th, 2014, 07:03 AM
Well, not sure them being dicks can really justify pirating though. If you think it's too expensive, then just don't buy. Eventually they'll lower the price to a level that you may want. However, if you pirate it, then since you won't be buying even if they lowered the price, then what would be the reason for them to lower their prices? Might as well just rape the honest/dumb costumers in order to make up for the losses due to piracy while they can. When they can no longer milk it any further, then they'd show'em on Netflix. ;)

So don't perpetuate this vicious cycle. I can understand poor starving stupid college kids pirating. But if you make a decent living wage, I think it's time to grow up.

Kchrpm
February 11th, 2014, 07:15 AM
I pirate stuff I want to see but can't easily gain access to. If they want me to stop pirating it, make it available for me on Netflix or a commercial-supported online service.

I was going to watch a couple of episodes of Archer online, but since TimeWarnerCable doesn't have the proper deal with Fox, I can't. Solution? Pirating. They already have it online for free, they just haven't bothered signing some big contract with my carrier or Netflix, which I have minimal control over.

So either they can work with Netflix and/or TWC to get some small amount of money from me, or they can stay where they are and get zero. Either way I'm consuming the content that I want.

21Kid
February 11th, 2014, 08:02 AM
I use Redbox to supplement Netflix for new movies. I may just cancel Netflix's disc service since their selection is so poor. BTW, I saw House of Cards available on Redbox.

Cam
February 11th, 2014, 11:25 AM
When I lived in California, Lori and I would do the DVD-through-the-mail Netflix. I thought it was awesome. I could pretty much get anything I could think of. We perpetually had 100 DVDs in the queue despite me watching about 5 DVDs a week while riding the train to work. Alas, the online selection is very limited in comparison, as some have already mentioned. We don't watch DVDs any more. Lori has a few shows she watches via Netflix and Hulu, but I don't watch TV for the most part. Firefly, through Netflix, was the only TV watching I've done in quite some time. We have watched a few movies via the Apple TV.

I agree with crazed_insanity about price/piracy. I represent a dude that works on the shows you're pirating. That annoys me because, in a way, you're stealing my work. Watching shows and movies in a legitimate ways keeps dudes like me in business, helps keep the shows you like going, and helps create new shows for you to enjoy.

Kchrpm
February 11th, 2014, 11:46 AM
I understand that, Cam, but when the only reason I can't watch it for free online is because TimeWarnerCable's contract with them hasn't come up for renewal since FX started streaming episodes from their website, and I could have watched it for free if I had set my DVR (or in Archer's case my DVR hadn't died and switched boxes), then it's hard for me to justify paying $2 to rent each episode.

Rare White Ape
February 11th, 2014, 12:34 PM
I understood that the whole Netflix model came into existence because of the piracy issue. It filled a new niche created when people discovered they could get shit for free but still felt kind of guilty about it.

Before piracy you would have to wait years before a VHS tape of a film you wanted to see hit the bargain bin.

So the argument about piracy keeping prices high is bunk, IMO.

Crazed_Insanity
February 11th, 2014, 12:55 PM
Piracy for sure isn't the only reason. Greedy studios set the prices and they probably deserve the blame too.

Still, just because you're poor and hungry and the bakers are greedy bastards, it doesn't justify stealing their bread. You are still in the wrong.

Further, entertainment is no bread. It's not vital for your survival if you don't have it.

I can sympathize with poor starving students pirating... or perhaps even Kchrpm's case of unable to get it due to distribution problems. Still, don't pretend piracy is justifiable. Even if piracy doesn't increase the cost for paying consumers, for sure it decreases the profit for the intellectual property owners. Giving them less incentives to do great works in the future. However, you look at it, it doesn't help anybody except your own instant gratification.

thesameguy
February 11th, 2014, 01:04 PM
I use Redbox to supplement Netflix for new movies. I may just cancel Netflix's disc service since their selection is so poor. BTW, I saw House of Cards available on Redbox.

This I have not experienced. I think their streaming selection has a lot to be desired (which isn't even remotely their fault), but I haven't found their by mail service to be lacking at all. What sort of issues have you experienced?


I understood that the whole Netflix model came into existence because of the piracy issue. It filled a new niche created when people discovered they could get shit for free but still felt kind of guilty about it.

No way! Netflix is way before the piracy "issue." They came into being to stick it to B&M rental shops, like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. I subscribed to Netflix in '98 or '99, like around the time Napster just started to catch on... I think when Scour was still popular! Years before the big boom - DirectConnect, Kazaa, BitTorrent, etc. Back when Netflix started, pirating music was still a pretty new concept. Nobody had even thought of trying to send video yet.

harper
February 16th, 2014, 03:47 AM
I understood that the whole Netflix model came into existence because of the piracy issue. It filled a new niche created when people discovered they could get shit for free but still felt kind of guilty about it.

Before piracy you would have to wait years before a VHS tape of a film you wanted to see hit the bargain bin.

So the argument about piracy keeping prices high is bunk, IMO.

No, it's because they saw a loophole (movies whenever you want for however you want!) and an acceptable delivery method (I think it's finally to the point where their costs for content licensing is greater than the cost for mailing stuff!) and went for it. The digital rights were initially an add-on, but Netflix has worked well to shift their business and content delivery method to keep up with the changing usages. Piracy wasn't the loophole or the market they saw, but beating the American big-box rental shops was. Now, it seems like Netflix probably has a bunch of DVDs they need to get rid of sooner or later :lol:

I have Netflix and Hulu Plus both at the moment, and I'll probably cancel Hulu. The only live/current TV I care much about is pro wrestling, the WWE...and they're about to launch their own digital subscription service with both and on-demand coverage. I also subscribe to sports ones too, the American sports are getting better about providing live coverage over services as well. They're really useful.

I'm glad there's workarounds to get access to that stuff from overseas, and I'm also glad the world is moving this way. My sister doesn't have cable back in the States, and I doubt I would either were I back home.

Rob
February 16th, 2014, 06:58 AM
Sorry Cam, if I pirate something you worked on, I didn't steal shit from you. You aren't being deprived of anything at all because I pirate things I'm not prepared to buy in the first place.

Another counterpoint is that for digital entertainment media, the studios expect us to buy a (temporary) licence to 'consume' something that has a very good chance of being awful. Let me pay afterward and based on my enjoyment level and I'll have no need to pirate anything.

Would you buy a car without a test drive? Or get married without having sex with the person beforehand?

Now introduce the licence issue where that car dealer can just remove your access to it.

The359
February 16th, 2014, 08:57 AM
Do you not pay for food if you didn't enjoy it as much as you'd hoped?

Kchrpm
February 16th, 2014, 09:03 AM
If you tell a manager at a restaurant that you didn't like your meal, they will often comp it or get you another order for free.

Rob
February 16th, 2014, 09:04 AM
The359: Do you routinely go back and enjoy a meal a year or so after the last time? No. Stupid comparison.

Ironically enough though, I have been to restaurants where the dishes have a suggested price but you are free to pay according to how much you enjoyed it.

Plus what Krunch said. Now look at how many media companies offer refunds for things you didn't enjoy. If I can't try it first....it'd better be something I'm REALLY looking forward to.

Rob
February 16th, 2014, 09:13 AM
There's the whole additional argument that applies to downloading music too with regard to the recordings being advertisements for seeing the band live. I downloaded Kvelertak's first album a couple of years back. I could have paid about ten dollars of my money for it, of which the 6 band members would have received a few cents each. What actually happened is that I ended up buying tickets (iirc twenty bucks each) to see them, taking a few buddies, we all bought shirts (thirty bucks per shirt) and they also would have received a cut of the bar takings of which our group alone sunk a good couple of hundred dollars into.

The359
February 16th, 2014, 09:58 AM
I wasn't talking about food that was bad and you deserved a refund, just food that you didn't like.

Kchrpm
February 16th, 2014, 10:27 AM
I was at a restaurant, ordered something with goat cheese, and then after taking the first few bites remembered that I don't like goat cheese. Totally my fault. They gave me a free meal to go, despite my initial protest to the idea because it was my fault. I forget if they took the original meal off the bill.

Freude am Fahren
February 16th, 2014, 11:02 AM
Now, it seems like Netflix probably has a bunch of DVDs they need to get rid of sooner or later :lol:

This is an interesting point. The majority of my DVD collection came from the old rental stock bin at Blockbuster. 5 for $20 or whatever they would do. Since they went out of business, I've barely bought any DVDs/Blu-Rays.

Netflix must have a huge stock of DVD's and BluRays just sitting around that rarely if ever go out enough to be all out at once. I bet the warehouse employees have nice big collections...

harper
February 16th, 2014, 11:07 PM
Hollywood Video was (before it went bankrupt) based out of the Portland area, they'd occasionally have warehouse sales. I never went but I can only imagine both the selection and the prices.

Cam
February 17th, 2014, 03:12 AM
Thanks Rob for clearing that up. :rolleyes: Since you seem to refuse to consider the possibility that intellectual property rights are important, I'm not going to attempt to reason with the unreasonable.

Thanks for buying my art when you visited. I appreciate it.

Jason
February 17th, 2014, 03:40 AM
I just think the system needs to be improved. I know a great many people that pirate, who would go legit if content was offered in a DRM free way, and as permanent ownership, instead of either outright renting, or technically renting due to sketchy ToS*. But also price. There's plenty of times where the digital purchase of a movie and the Blu-Ray are the same price, or the Blu-Ray is cheaper. The Blu-Ray comes with special features, better picture, etc etc.

There are obviously some people who will pirate no matter what. But I think many out there would be happy customers if certain things changed.

I'm a happy owner of MANY physical movie discs. I'd be an even happier owner of many digital movie files if the content system owners removed their heads from their asses.




* Example: Amazon removed certain purchased Christmas movies from users libraries during Christmas time last year, because media companies wanted exclusive rights during that time to squeeze more money out of potential viewers.

So you pay for a movie that can be taken away from you at any time, if the media owner decides they want to do something else with it.

I consider myself a content creator, as well. I've sold prints and stock photography (though admittedly not much). I can't imagine ever selling someone something that I can then take away from them, to turn around and squeeze more money out of. I can't imagine selling someone content in a way that makes it difficult for them to use. I can't imagine selling someone something that could be unsupported at any given moment.

Jason
February 17th, 2014, 03:49 AM
I can buy the full series of Fringe for about $100 on Blu-Ray.

or

I can buy the full series of Fringe in digital format for about $240 on iTunes. (I'm sure there's cheaper digital format out there, but iTunes is the biggest collection, iirc)

Kchrpm
February 17th, 2014, 05:17 AM
* Example: Amazon removed certain purchased Christmas movies from users libraries during Christmas time last year, because media companies wanted exclusive rights during that time to squeeze more money out of potential viewers.
:smh: That's...that's... :smh:

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 05:28 AM
Thanks Rob for clearing that up. :rolleyes: Since you seem to refuse to consider the possibility that intellectual property rights are important, I'm not going to attempt to reason with the unreasonable.

Thanks for buying my art when you visited. I appreciate it.

Man created amazing art and literature for millennia before "intellectual property" was even a thing and he still would if intellectual property disappeared as a concept.

I'll pay for what I'm prepared to pay for based on its value to me. I'm not going to allow some corporate fuckhole in an office somewhere to dictate what he thinks a piece of art is worth before taking the lion's share away from the creator themselves to line his own pockets. And this is before we even go down the route of these same cunts deciding that you no longer get to actually own what you are paying for and that they would rather charge you a fee every time you partake in enjoying the given media instead of outright ownership of a copy.

It also pisses me off when somebody tries to clumsily brand modern digital replication as theft. Theft requires deprivation. I'm depriving you of nothing unless you are of the opinion that you are entitled to the money from even a potential customer regardless of their experience with the purchase. Likewise am I not depriving you of a potential sale because I will pay for what I want. If you haven't already got my money then you were never going to get it, regardless of any free advertising or word-of-mouth you may gain from my opinion of your product.

I described a situation where a band I liked benefited financially to a level far exceeding the few cents they would have got if I'd just bought their record blind. The reverse of this situation is also true. If a band start bitching on about how piracy is stealing their sales.....guess who I won't be paying inflated ticket costs to see live. Guess whose t-shirts I won't be buying.

If my 30 cents were so important to you yet you're still trying to get me to buy blind AND you're prepared to totally assfuck legal and dictionary definition to do it, I'll merrily "steal" your shit and fall asleep whilst I do it.

And I haven't even touched upon not giving money to total cuntbags even if their piece of art has no inappropriate connotations.

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 05:32 AM
:smh: That's...that's... :smh:

They did it with Kindle books too.

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 05:37 AM
I consider myself a content creator, as well. I've sold prints and stock photography (though admittedly not much). I can't imagine ever selling someone something that I can then take away from them, to turn around and squeeze more money out of. I can't imagine selling someone content in a way that makes it difficult for them to use. I can't imagine selling someone something that could be unsupported at any given moment.

Do you expect potential customers to buy your pics/prints completely sight unseen? Of course not.

Many movie and record executives (not to mention a good few out-of-touch musicians) seem to think that's the only way to do business.

Kchrpm
February 17th, 2014, 06:07 AM
Many large prints are sold based on a small jpeg of what they will look like. Similar to a movie trailer, or the 30 second samples you can get for music.

The idea of intellectual property came about, I assume, because it became so much easier and more valuable to copy things. Previously it took a very skilled art forger with the same or similar talent and supplies, not just a kid sitting at his computer.

Apparently the actual artist behind a work wasn't something that really mattered until the end of the 14th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_forgery

21Kid
February 17th, 2014, 06:23 AM
Those are the two main reasons that I refuse to "buy" stuff electronically. They have clauses where they can remove your content at any time for whatever reason and it's more expensive. Those are (by themselves) totally unacceptable to me.

If streaming movie rental got in line with redbox pricing, I would be on-board with it immediately. As it is I can pay $1.50-$2.00 to rent a DVD/BD from redbox or pay $4/5 to stream a SD/HD version. More than it used to cost to rent from Blockbuster. Don't they understand that's why BB went out of business? I understand it costs them next to nil to stream stuff. Which is why they don't care if a few people do it at the current higher price. But, they would get much greater total income if they rented more movies at a lower price, since you know, it barely costs them anything to stream them.

Crazed_Insanity
February 17th, 2014, 06:48 AM
For those insist on blaming greedy studios for piracy, I guess you guys probably never go to movie theaters blindly?

Considering how outrageously priced the movie tickets are, it must be very scary or annoying to be forced to pay first prior to knowing whether you'll enjoy the movie, huh?

Also, not test driving a chick out in bed prior to marriage, what an outdated idea! I guess only cavepeople do that! ;)

You know, I regularly violate speed limits because I think some of the posted speedlimits are ridiculously slow, but I wouldn't argue that disobeying traffic laws is the right thing to do because governments are assholes for forcing us to drive slow.

Anyway, I guess this is probably just another thing people won't see eye to eye. So I guess we'll just continue to let stupid people like myself to continue to get reemed from behind by both rich corporations and pirates. For stupid stuffs or licensing, I just won't give them my money as my way of protesting against them. Hopefully they'll make the change that way.

Jason
February 17th, 2014, 07:58 AM
I just want to clarify that I have no real issue with buying something before trying. It's that way for many things. That's not my argument for why piracy happens, or for why I might pirate something. My only real issues are with ownership of purchased products, pricing and content delivery.

novicius
February 17th, 2014, 10:12 AM
I pay $8/month for Netflix and just accept their limited selection, and I pay $30/month for slow DSL internet.

I also buy Blu-ray movies in the $2-15 USD range because I enjoy collecting Blu-ray movies on disc and watching them repeatedly. It's enjoyable to me to bargain shop and be surprised by what's popping up for cheap every few weeks. I do not have a Blu-ray burner nor a proper PC with a monster HD. I have an old $40 Blu-ray/Netflix/YouTube/Pandora/etc. player, an HDTV and bunny ears (TV antenna) for local HDTV channels.

In short, I've paid the artists/companies what they're asking for and yet I'm keeping my costs low enough each month to keep me happy. :up:

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 10:13 AM
Billi, take your bullshit false equivalency elsewhere. You have no understanding of the laws surrounding copyright infringement as clearly displayed by comparing it to a non-civil offence. Your input is rendered worse than worthless. It is dishonest and misleading.

Big. Fucking. Surprise.

So far, it's theft and speeding. What's next? Murder? Troubling livestock? Carrying an ice cream in your back pocket?

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 10:30 AM
Novi, when you buy cheap DVDs (and potentially cheap games) are you buying them new or used? Used, with the move to licenced media on a physical format, is effectively copyright infringement unless you have the express permission of the rights holder. Licenses are almost always non-transferable too.

You haven't paid an artist/producer/distributor anything. Used stock is pure profit for the vendor.

novicius
February 17th, 2014, 10:33 AM
Nope, I'm buying them new. Major chains and Amazon.com both have a lot of new Blu-rays priced really low. The selection isn't necessarily AFI's Top 100 movies -- but I enjoy picking up kitchy flicks that I enjoyed. :)

21Kid
February 17th, 2014, 10:54 AM
I buy the kids movies that way too. You can get a new BD movie for $5 every once and awhile if you catch it at the right time.

Kchrpm
February 17th, 2014, 10:58 AM
I'm glad this discussion has remained civil.

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 11:08 AM
I'm not inclined to give a whole lot of respect to people who have to reword the dictionary so they can satisfy their overblown sense of self righteousness and brand me a thief.

I'm a lot of things, it shouldn't be too hard to avoid lying to describe my behaviour.

Kchrpm
February 17th, 2014, 11:23 AM
Just because someone is disrespectful to you doesn't mean that you should be disrespectful to them. It's somewhat justified, but it can weaken your argument just as it has weakened theirs.

novicius
February 17th, 2014, 11:35 AM
I'm not inclined to give a whole lot of respect to people who have to reword the dictionary so they can satisfy their overblown sense of self righteousness and brand me a thief.

I'm a lot of things, it shouldn't be too hard to avoid lying to describe my behaviour.
Eh? Wait, you don't want to be called a thief for illegally torrenting vids? :twitch:

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 11:36 AM
Except that I didn't resort to redefining terms to suit my argument. They did. Fuck them.

Carlo:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft

I don't want to be called a thief because I haven't committed an act of theft as per the jurisdiction I live under.

It screams volumes of just how much the RIAA/MPAA has utterly convinced you that their racket is right and just and that the consumer is guilty of crimes they never committed if they don't play exactly into their hands.

novicius
February 17th, 2014, 11:52 AM
What about this one? :assclown:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/contents

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 12:03 PM
You mean the one that still makes a clear distinction between theft and copyright infringement by never referencing infringement as theft under the Theft Act 1968? Y'know, backing up what I've been saying all along.

Libellous accusations of theft...not gonna go down well. Especially from people I thought were reasonably intelligent. I expect this sort of shit from Billi, he's practically a Poe anyway....

novicius
February 17th, 2014, 12:09 PM
Ah, I see the distinction now -- yes, you're right, you are not a dirty fucking thief Rob, you're a dirty fucking infringer of copyrights! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22) :lol: :up:

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 12:13 PM
Never disputed that. Your wiki link even clearly defines how infringement is distinct from theft and that the term theft is used by plaintiffs to misinform a jury.

So throwing terms like theft and stealing around is little more than making false accusations....or lying.

It really doesn't matter what you think of a given law, you just don't have the right to invent new ones.

novicius
February 17th, 2014, 12:25 PM
Yup, hence why I linked it.

Infringe on! ;)

Kchrpm
February 17th, 2014, 12:32 PM
Anyway...

There is a big question of the value of digital content, what a license really affords you and what it should afford you, and in the future media is going to transition even more to a digital-first or even digital-only market. Piracy is the weapon the market has to use against the content creators, and there are almost no others. I find it interesting how the market is reacting, whether by focusing on live performances (concerts, live streams, all-you-can-eat streaming services, etc) or just finding other avenues for monetization (sponsors, product placement, low priced DRM-free direct sales). I want to see how these things evolve.

Crazed_Insanity
February 17th, 2014, 12:37 PM
I used an analogy of being poor doesn't justify stealing bread. I didn't actually accuse anyone of 'stealing'. People did openly admit to 'pirating', so whatever that word means. If stealing sounds so horrible and copy-right infringement/pirating sounds so wonderful to you, whatever. Not trying to rewrite dictionaries here nor am I here trying to put you in a trial and attempt to convict you in a court.

If some of you wish to proudly be pirates, so be it. I was just commenting mainly to Jason that since he is now making a pretty decent living wage, it's probably time to start contributing to the overall economy rather than continue to live as if you're poor starving artist/student. After all, it's only a few bucks. If you really think it's too risky to shell out a few bucks right away..., then wait a bit and read some reviews. Poor reviews, then save your few bucks.

Seriously Rob, attacking me won't make copy right infringement legal. If you wish to engage in illegal activities, who am I to stop you? However, please don't lie to yourself that you're doing the right thing.

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 12:45 PM
Oh so you get to define 'right' for me?

First you liken copyright infringement to speeding and now you're judging it by whichever moral nonsense you want to shit out today? All these links that also prove no link to the legal definition of piracy too and you didn't bother to read them.

Take your last sentence and look at it with clear recollection of your physical assaults on a two year old again. Or your defence of slavery. Or any of your other abhorrent actions.

When you judge things as 'right' or 'wrong', it makes my skin crawl.

speedpimp
February 17th, 2014, 12:57 PM
So season 2 of House Of Cards is up and I am really liking this better than the first season.

Crazed_Insanity
February 17th, 2014, 01:01 PM
Rob, I just said that I'm not trying to define anything for anybody nor did I accuse anyone of stealing. I think it's your own sensitive conscience lying to you regarding what I said.

Bottomline is that if you make a decent living wage, you ought to be able to shell out a few bucks or pounds or whatever in exchange for whatever entertainment that you're interested in. If you honestly felt that it's so horrible and you deserve money back, you can probably bully most of them to refund your money anyway. No need to resort to piracy.

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 01:06 PM
Last sentences in Billi-lack-of-knowledge-and-experience shocker.

We have much better consumer rights here than you do. If you're claiming you can get subjective opinion based refunds on open movies/games/albums, you're gonna need to prove that claim.

21Kid
February 17th, 2014, 01:30 PM
So season 2 of House Of Cards is up and I am really liking this better than the first season.

I'm definitely going to have to check that out soon. I loved the 1st season.

Mr Wonder
February 17th, 2014, 02:15 PM
They did it with Kindle books too.And it was, magnificently enough, George Orwell's 1984. How more wasn't made of this I'll never know.

speedpimp
February 17th, 2014, 02:58 PM
I'm definitely going to have to check that out soon. I loved the 1st season.

I thought that the first season was pretty plodding and then I took six months off from watching it and watched the last two episodes of season one and the first of season two and it was a hell of a lot better.

It took me forever to get through the first season. I watched OITNB, Lilyhammer and I Was A Teenage Angst Wolf way faster than I did HOC.

Jason
February 17th, 2014, 03:38 PM
And it was, magnificently enough, George Orwell's 1984. How more wasn't made of this I'll never know.
It's the new normal. You don't own the things you buy. :down:

Jason
February 17th, 2014, 03:39 PM
I'm definitely going to have to check that out soon. I loved the 1st season.

I'll have to binge watch the two seasons before I cancel netflix. :up:

Rare White Ape
February 18th, 2014, 04:41 AM
So season 2 of House Of Cards is up and I am really liking this better than the first season.

That's what I've come here to talk about, but we're stuck in amongst the more, erm, passionate discussion. Maybe we could talk about it louder, and throw in a few "Fuck you!"s for good measure.

Fuck you!

No, fuck you!

Nah, fuck you first.

Fuck you the hardest!

Etc.

So House of Cards is pretty good.

21Kid
February 18th, 2014, 05:16 AM
I'll have to binge watch the two seasons before I cancel netflix. :up:
You'd probably like Orange is the new Black too. I didn't care much for Hemlock Grove, or whatever it was called. But, the other two were good. I'm interested to see what season 2 of OITNB is like too, with how the first ended. :eek:

Crazed_Insanity
February 18th, 2014, 06:35 AM
That's what I've come here to talk about, but we're stuck in amongst the more, erm, passionate discussion. Maybe we could talk about it louder, and throw in a few "Fuck you!"s for good measure.

Fuck you!

No, fuck you!

Nah, fuck you first.

Fuck you the hardest!

Etc.

So House of Cards is pretty good.

No, fuck that! I only watched a few episodes. I like Keven Spacey and I actually did enjoy the episodes that I watched, but it just didn't hook me into wanting to watch more. Perhaps I'm just not that into politics? Anyway, if season2 really is better..., Maybe I'll continue on later when I have more time.

thesameguy
February 18th, 2014, 09:06 AM
Anyway...

There is a big question of the value of digital content, what a license really affords you and what it should afford you, and in the future media is going to transition even more to a digital-first or even digital-only market. Piracy is the weapon the market has to use against the content creators, and there are almost no others. I find it interesting how the market is reacting, whether by focusing on live performances (concerts, live streams, all-you-can-eat streaming services, etc) or just finding other avenues for monetization (sponsors, product placement, low priced DRM-free direct sales). I want to see how these things evolve.

In 1998, I thought things were going to evolve much, much more quickly. I expected artists would shed themselves of the middle men and focus on giving away content in exchange for attendances at live performances, and I thought the middle men were going to shrivel up and die. I really underestimated how entrenched the studios and labels were and overestimated how income-driven the artists were. Sure, some artists have found success independently, but the middle men haven't really lost any ground and consumers haven't gained any leverage. In a sick sort of way, the digital media wants to be free revolution hasn't done much more than further fragment the market and not only make things more difficult for consumers, but also set the stage for things to become even more difficult.

15 years ago I bought a CD changer that could play MP3s off burned CDs and proclaimed I had seen the future. These days, people can't get their new phone to talk to their old car radio and their ISP charges them extra to watch movies from Netflix because Netflix doesn't pay it's fair share of the ISP's bandwidth. I don't ever remember AT&T keeping me out of Hollywood Video, and I recall my tape worked in everyone's deck and copying it was a matter of pushing three buttons. Pre-"rampant piracy" things might have been a bit easier for consumers. Crazy.

Kchrpm
February 18th, 2014, 09:52 AM
Odd, I don't have that impression at all.

Right now if I like a song, I can buy it immediately off of an online store (that quite often has high percentage sales, including the last time I went to buy an album, so I ended up buying two). I can play that music on several different internet connected devices, and download it to multiple of them. If I download it to my computer, I can copy it to a USB stick or CD-R and then play it in almost any car from the last decade and a half (guesstimate).

Plus there are the all-you-can eat services like Spotify and Rdio. I think music is doing a great job.

I think one of the biggest reasons that the studios and labels are still involved, though, is marketing. It's all fine and dandy to make an album at home by yourself with Garage Band or whatever else, and then you can post it on your own website or even self-publish onto a major online store.

But then how will people find out about you? Who is going to tell the mass market that your album came out? Who's going to get the word of mouth started?

As you said, musicians still want to make money and still want to be heard, and they want to do it on a large scale, so a big company willing to throw millions at a marketing campaign and funding a concert tour is going to come in to the picture. But you don't HAVE to work with them, it's just a matter of bands choosing to.

---------
Video content is not to the DRM free download point yet, but comedy specials are already starting to do similar (being sold DRM-free directly from the comedian's site, or from Comedy Central's site), and RedBox is there to give you the Hollywood Video treatment. I think we're much better off than we were, but we're not where we could be. Just like the music industry, though, I think it will slowly figure itself out.

thesameguy
February 18th, 2014, 10:08 AM
All of that is definitely true, but don't overlook all the closed ecosystems that still exist. One of the biggest is iTunes, which for being DRM-free is still all wrapped up in pseudo-proprietary hardware and software. We've got the likes of Amazon and Napster (ironically ;) ) selling wide-open MP3 tracks, but many of them impose stupid, artificial restrictions that make no sense... eg, with Napster, if you buy a track once you download it that's it, that's your only copy. If you lose that file, you have to buy it again. It's like the twisted opposite of DRM. You also have limited services selling anything but '90s-grade bitrates. There are just so many gotchas to be mindful of when navigating the commercial music scene it's tough, as a consumer, to fully grasp what it is you're doing at any given moment. With a tape or CD from Tower Records, you knew what you had. With digital track from somestore.com, it's not so clear. Because we have lax rules at the office for personal use of company resources, I deal with this a lot - it's rare a week goes by I don't get a question like "How come this track won't play here," "Why does this sound terrible," or "How come my music is spread out between three devices? Can't I merge them all together?" It's tough... and annoying. We should be doing better than this.

Video is set to get even worse, for reasons mentioned in this thread. Having to maintain relationships with each studio to get all movies? To pay special transport fees to your ISP to get HD movies? It's ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong - it's not all bad. But, it's bad for many people, and far worse than I expected it to be this far down the road.

Kchrpm
February 18th, 2014, 11:04 AM
I can understand your reasoning, but if simplicity is what a consumer wants, they can still just go out and buy a CD, like they always have. Having that, plus multiple other options, some of which have little to no restrictions, I would say we're definitely in a better place. Consumers can get in over their heads, but there's always a physical media safety blanket waiting for them if they do.

thesameguy
February 18th, 2014, 11:31 AM
Sure, sure. I'm just frustrated/blown away that in the 15 years since this stuff has been happening this hasn't been sorted. It should have been sorted. We've cured diseases, impossible math problems, space flight, and a bazillion other far more complex things than this in less time. It is very upsetting to me that all this time later we are still wondering how we get the media we want, where we want it, for a price we're willing to pay. It's nuts.

Kchrpm
February 18th, 2014, 11:48 AM
I would argue that it *is* sorted, but there's still inferior competition out there that people use because they don't know any better.

I personally don't see any flaws with Google Play's implementation. I'm sure there are some fringe ones (you can only have 10 devices on your account, you can't upload more than 20,000 songs from your own collection, there isn't a native app for Windows Phone so you have to transfer downloaded music over manually), but for the average user it's nearly perfect. The problem is that on iOS you have to use the website to buy music, not the app, because of the 30% cut Apple demands for all in-app purchases. Therefore iTunes is more immediately convenient for huge swaths of people on iOS devices.