Total clowns. These are the same greedy executives that can't wait to fire as many humans as possible and replace them with generative AI trash.
> Rivkin claimed that in the US, piracy "steals hundreds of thousands of jobs from workers and tens of billions of dollars from our economy, including more than one billion in theatrical ticket sales."
What steals hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of billions are movie executives who make terrible movies and continuously abuse workers by underpaying them all the while enriching themselves with million dollar salaries.
I'm an unapologetic piracy advocate, but the one time I skipped meeting up with friends to see a movie and downloaded a camrip instead, I deeply regretted the experience. The idea that piracy is a substitute for movie theaters is preposterous. It's a competitor to bluray purchases and gimmicky streaming, sure. But not theaters.
I kinda wish they get what they wish for and pirating movies becomes impossible.
I think modern Hollywood movies are somewhere between poison for your brain and propaganda. The world is going to be a bit better if people stop spending time watching them.
I also think they are cutting the branch they are sitting on. If kids and young adults lose access to piracy they will develop other interest and won't spend money on movies once they have disposable income.
One way or another I support them. It's a win-win if their wish is granted.
> If kids and young adults lose access to piracy they will develop other interest
Entertainment is a lot more fungible than these companies realize. Pour cold water on movies and people will watch TV. Dampen that and people will play video games. Make me hate Reddit and I'll go to youtube. Start forcing ads on youtube and I'll go to instagram. etc.
> I kinda wish they get what they wish for and pirating movies becomes impossible.
If only movies would be magically impossible to watch without paying, without any catches, I'd agree. Sadly, there's no magic out there and the side effects from the implementation are going to be... a very big problem, to say the least.
And I'm sure movie industry understands it (to some extent) - they won't dig their own grave, they're going to boil the frog at well controlled pace.
> I think modern Hollywood movies are somewhere between poison for your brain and propaganda
Where does this hyperbolic rhetoric come from? Is this just your standard appeal to tradition? It's not like the movies of the 70's, 80's and 90's were any less "propaganda". They're entertainment, it's not that deep or serious.
There is an underlying "tragedy of the anticommons"[1] problem that will be exasperated even if kids and young adults stop consuming mass media.
For example, Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia communities almost refuse to believe any performer, label, TV/film/game studio, etc would ever release their work under a CC-BY license, even though some of these parties (as large as Warner Bros and Amazon) have a pattern of doing so in the past, probably for marketing purposes.
Typical attempts to justify why an entity is unable to distribute copyrighted content as CC-BY include:
1. Someone pressed the wrong button and marked the audio/video as CC-BY.
2. A separate marketing company may be responsible for social media accounts or website and they didn't have permission of their client to upload certain audio/video, or didn't have permission to distribute with a CC-BY license.
3. The copyright is owned by a production company which is a subsidiary of a parent company. The distribution and marketing of the copyrighted content is handled by a separate subsidiary company of the parent company. Both companies may even be led by the same vice president / CEO of the parent company. However, the theory goes that one subsidiary may not have the permission of the other subsidiary to use a CC-BY license. The CEO of the parent company also may not have the permission of the subsidiary companies.
4. A performer or label may not have gained the permission of ALL rights holders of a work to release under a CC-BY license. What if the movie studio did not get the permission of one of the multiple script writers, the person holding recording rights of a background song, the writer of the lyrics to the background song, etc. In an extreme case, perhaps a random person comes along later to claim that the movie contains a background song, the background song contains a sample, and the sample they consider to be a copyright infringement from another work.
The problem is that if you're an indie filmmaker and release a trailer to your film or excerpts from your film with a CC-BY license, the tragedy of the anticommons situation means that people won't believe you meant to or were allowed to use a CC-BY license. Even releasing all the complex web of contracts between rightsholders in your film wouldn't stop people from disbelieving in your ability to distribute with a CC-BY license.
Why don't they simply pay the ISPs 100 million dollars each to block the websites? Perhaps they AREN'T losing 1 billion dollars per year to piracy. Or buying off the politicians is cheaper.
>He also told the audience that pirate-site operators "aren't teenagers playing an elaborate prank. The perpetrators are real-life mobsters, organized crime syndicates—many of whom engage in child pornography, prostitution, drug trafficking, and other societal ills. They operate websites that draw in millions of unsuspecting viewers whose personal data can then fall prey to malware and hackers."
I have a great idea that will greatly reduce the traffic to pirate sites:
Reduce the copyright on movies to 1 year.
Most of the money is made in initial release in theaters anyway.
It well help preserve our cultural heritage.
And it will greatly reduce demand for pirate sites.
Remember: If you pay for big media, you vote with your wallet for this.
While piracy might be the better and more moral choice for our community, I'd advocate to create something yourself, have fun with friends, watch indy stuff, ...
Massive overreach - these are companies that dont deserve to continue to exist. Make some new stuff that we want to pay you for, guys… it’ll look a lot more like a fair trade.
Readit News
> Rivkin claimed that in the US, piracy "steals hundreds of thousands of jobs from workers and tens of billions of dollars from our economy, including more than one billion in theatrical ticket sales."
I was never a fan of the cinema so if I do happen to pirate a movie it certainly isn't a "lost sale"
I also think they are cutting the branch they are sitting on. If kids and young adults lose access to piracy they will develop other interest and won't spend money on movies once they have disposable income.
One way or another I support them. It's a win-win if their wish is granted.
Entertainment is a lot more fungible than these companies realize. Pour cold water on movies and people will watch TV. Dampen that and people will play video games. Make me hate Reddit and I'll go to youtube. Start forcing ads on youtube and I'll go to instagram. etc.
If only movies would be magically impossible to watch without paying, without any catches, I'd agree. Sadly, there's no magic out there and the side effects from the implementation are going to be... a very big problem, to say the least.
And I'm sure movie industry understands it (to some extent) - they won't dig their own grave, they're going to boil the frog at well controlled pace.
Where does this hyperbolic rhetoric come from? Is this just your standard appeal to tradition? It's not like the movies of the 70's, 80's and 90's were any less "propaganda". They're entertainment, it's not that deep or serious.
[1] https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/is-captain-marvel-military-p...
For example, Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia communities almost refuse to believe any performer, label, TV/film/game studio, etc would ever release their work under a CC-BY license, even though some of these parties (as large as Warner Bros and Amazon) have a pattern of doing so in the past, probably for marketing purposes.
Typical attempts to justify why an entity is unable to distribute copyrighted content as CC-BY include:
1. Someone pressed the wrong button and marked the audio/video as CC-BY.
2. A separate marketing company may be responsible for social media accounts or website and they didn't have permission of their client to upload certain audio/video, or didn't have permission to distribute with a CC-BY license.
3. The copyright is owned by a production company which is a subsidiary of a parent company. The distribution and marketing of the copyrighted content is handled by a separate subsidiary company of the parent company. Both companies may even be led by the same vice president / CEO of the parent company. However, the theory goes that one subsidiary may not have the permission of the other subsidiary to use a CC-BY license. The CEO of the parent company also may not have the permission of the subsidiary companies.
4. A performer or label may not have gained the permission of ALL rights holders of a work to release under a CC-BY license. What if the movie studio did not get the permission of one of the multiple script writers, the person holding recording rights of a background song, the writer of the lyrics to the background song, etc. In an extreme case, perhaps a random person comes along later to claim that the movie contains a background song, the background song contains a sample, and the sample they consider to be a copyright infringement from another work.
The problem is that if you're an indie filmmaker and release a trailer to your film or excerpts from your film with a CC-BY license, the tragedy of the anticommons situation means that people won't believe you meant to or were allowed to use a CC-BY license. Even releasing all the complex web of contracts between rightsholders in your film wouldn't stop people from disbelieving in your ability to distribute with a CC-BY license.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons
Source: https://www.motionpictures.org/remarks/charles-rivkin-state-...
I have a great idea that will greatly reduce the traffic to pirate sites:
Reduce the copyright on movies to 1 year.
Most of the money is made in initial release in theaters anyway.
It well help preserve our cultural heritage.
And it will greatly reduce demand for pirate sites.
I did download Hackers
While piracy might be the better and more moral choice for our community, I'd advocate to create something yourself, have fun with friends, watch indy stuff, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark:_The_A...