The New Republic

“Just been to google search for mission impossible. Wow, several sites offering free links. I rest my case.” Left unsaid is that the quality is invariably awful, a shaky hand held camera type quality. The problem comes much later, after DVD's are ripped and posted online but it would become impossible to get a real handle on that since so many are zipped and archived in foreign servers that host web storage and since so many browsers have translation functions embedded language doesn't become a problem. I guess the only long term solution is to get rid of DVD's and go to encrypted webstreaming for digital rental or release the movies to commercial tv much earlier. And maybe they can provide on demand with commercials for older movies. I would love to go to MGM website and watch an old movie I always wanted to watch and the commercials would be well worth the convenience.

- blackton

January 19, 2012 at 9:59am

Here's the deal, the "content" producers or at least the behemoths like Viacomm, Fox, RIAA, Disney see any distribution format in which they do not have multiple fingers in the pie see the internet as this existential threat to their very existence. The crackdown on piracy is one thing, but SOPA / PIPA do nothing to curtail that. Underground/blackmarket trading in goods has always existed and always will. This has to do more with crushing (with Government support) entrepreneurial advances in the internet realm. The RIAA and movie studios made the same arguments against cassette tape recorders, VCR and Betamax, then it was CD-Rs. The list goes on. The problem with these corporate behemoths is that they do not and don't want to understand how the internet has changed consumption of entertainment content. Sure I could spend countless hours on bit torrent sites looking for free movies or music and never sure of their quality or if they're really malware. Or I can look to legitimate sites that provide the content I'm looking for at reasonable prices. Why would I steal a movie when I can stream it via Netflix or Hulu? But then that's me. The domestic blackmarket in America for entertainment content is nothing compared to international markets. If these companies were really worried about piracy they should be looking at ways to counteract it in the biggest theft markets we know. India, China and Russia. The major studios could effectively stop distribution of movies abroad but then this really isn't about stopping piracy is it? It's about controlling content markets in the US. PIPA and SOPA don't simply target foreign websites, it allows corporations to target "rogue" sites they deem as threats in the US that offer aftermarket or second market platforms for people to sell their legally bought content or wares to other people. Monster Cable has listed ebay and craigslists for allowing people to sell their used cables, mind you, instead of buying new cables that MC would like to happen. MC has made indications that it would ask for immediate blocking of these sites if SOPA/PIPA passes. RIAA has found it's market control continue to shrink because of the way it handles music artists, distribution and royalty payments. It will continue to see that happen regardless of SOPA / PIPA. These laws are the worst idea to come out of Congress since the Patriot Act and that was the biggest load of bullshit lawmaking ever.

- singlspeed

January 19, 2012 at 10:46am

Thank you Singlespeed. An excellent overview of the situation

- Idefix

January 19, 2012 at 4:49pm

A million years ago, I was an English major in college and studied literature. One of the striking themes in the history of English (and other literature) was the development of the concept of authorship (as a way to make a living) and of copyright (as a way of helping authors get a financial reward for creating literature. I am a little rusty here, but I think it safe to say it came rather late in the game. Big name #1, Chaucer, was a government bureaucrat. I don't think he made a living from his writing. Big name #2, Shakespeare, made his living as an actor. He apparently didn't care whether anybody ever READ his works or if anyone knew what he wrote after he was dead. For that matter, Shakespeare borrowed frequently from other writers. His style of borrowing hardly falls into what we would call plagiarism today, but even so, if copyright existed in his day, he might have found himself in court quite a bit. It wasn't until Dickens' times that copyright became an important part of a writer's life and income, and Dickens had some major battles with American publishers who “pirated” his work to sell in the states without paying him for it. I am less up on musical history even though my uncle is an obscurely famous modern classical composer, but I think it safe to say that composers and musicians did not make a living by “publishing” there music in any modern sense. They performed, the were patronized by royalty or aristocrats or employed by the church. As far as I know, “piracy”, was not an issue for Bach, Handel, Mozart, etc. In some ways, we seem to be reverting back to an earlier age. Many musicians now make a living (such as it is) more by performing live then by selling recordings of their work. A lot of writers are also scrambling in odd ways to make a living. Perhaps Bob Dylan can speak to all this: You raise up your head And you ask, "Is this where it is?" And somebody points to you and says "It's his" And you says, "What's mine?" And somebody else says, "Where what is?" And you say, "Oh my God Am I here all alone?" But something is happening here But you don't know what it is Do you, Mister Jones ? I suspect Bob keeps track of his royalties. Though, there were underground bootleg Dylan records, were there not?

- skahn

January 19, 2012 at 10:53pm