backtop

Print 96 comment(s) - last by doctor sam ada.. on May 27 at 11:03 AM

Neo and friends already freed from high-def DRM
AnyDVD HD software stillborns latest AACS high-def protections one week before launch

Efforts that began in December 2006, and continued through February 2007, lead the way for the circumvention of the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc copy-protection scheme.

It started with the discovery of individual encryption keys for specific movies titles that would allow the decryption and backup of the protected media. Continued efforts eventually uncovered the Processing Key, essentially a silver bullet that is able to defeat the copy protection of all HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc media currently on the market.

Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administration (AACS LA) acknowledged the effectiveness of the hack, but promised that it would soon patch up the hole in future releases. “AACS LA has confirmed that AACS Title Keys have appeared on public web sites without authorization,” read a statement from the AACS website. “AACS LA employs both technical and legal measures to deal with attacks such as this one, and AACS LA is using all appropriate remedies at its disposal to address the attack.“

Beginning May 22, which is most notably the release date of the Matrix trilogy on HD DVD, all high-definition titles will ship with Media Key Block (MKB) v3 – a new encryption key version that would render the previously discovered Processing Key obsolete.

“If a set of device keys is compromised in a way that threatens the integrity of the system, an updated MKB can be provided by the AACS LA that will cause a product with the compromised set of device keys to calculate a different key than is computed by the remaining compliant products,” as found written in AACS documentation. “In this way, the compromised device keys are 'revoked' by the new MKB.”

However, it appears that the AACS’ updated copy protection measures have already been circumvented even before the new software’s official release. SlySoft, developers of a software used to defeat the copy protections of DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc, have revealed that its latest version of AnyDVD HD is able to sidestep the new MKB from the AACS.

According to posts in SlySoft's forums, the new AnyDVD HD version was successfully able to decrypt an early-shipped release of the Matrix trilogy. Judging from how the protection system works, the newly discovered exploit will also work with all upcoming software until the AACS LA implements yet another patch.

The original Processing Key, found in February, recently caused quite the stir. Attempts to censor a string of letters and numbers stirred Internet users to overwhelm Digg.com in the first well-documented Internet Riot, leading it and other websites to change their legal position on censorship.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I'm just saying
By leidegre on 5/18/2007 5:19:25 AM , Rating: 5
Why bother? Copy-protection, and copyrights, it's beyond me. For every method there is always a fix amount of time for which a method for circumventing can be created.

The bottom line is that instead of trying to prevent piracy, they should find a way to go with it. I read a while back, that there's a websites were you can pay for stuff you have downloaded and so, protect your self from prosecution.

I strongly believe in the ways piracy have opened. But I do not endorse copyright infringements. This is however reverse psychology, you tell them not to, and they pursue it even more rigoursly.

The single one most fact preventing copying of DVD9/HD/Blue-ray is there size alone.




RE: I'm just saying
By Vonagio on 5/18/2007 5:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The single one most fact preventing copying of DVD9/HD/Blue-ray is their size alone.


Cost per GB is getting lower all the time and internet connection speeds are increasing (well not so much in the UK as elsewhere). For me anyway, hard drive space and connection speed are not a problem with regards to the increased size of the space used by films.


RE: I'm just saying
By leidegre on 5/18/2007 6:26:01 AM , Rating: 2
HDTV ~45 min TV ~= 350MB
HRTV ~45 min TV ~= 700MB
720P ~45 min TV ~= 1GB
HDTV DVDRIP Movie ~= 700MB-1400MB
720P DVD9/Blue-ray Movie ~= 8GB

See where I'm going? The data has gotten a lot bigger...

I enojoy the benefit of a 100Mbit connection but those are rather rare and it takes a lot of time to download that amount of data. I do believe with the current development that the quality and size will continue to grow faster than available internet speed and disk space. And that will undoubtly cause problems if you intend to store this amount data. (not taking into consideration the time it would take to encode the amount of data of any such HD media)


RE: I'm just saying
By dluther on 5/18/2007 6:54:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I enojoy the benefit of a 100Mbit connection...


It's pretty clear that you have equated the size of the ripped file with the bandwidth required to transfer it. Hmmm.

For someone who claims to eschew piracy, your conclusions seem to point to a different direction.

I'm just saying...


RE: I'm just saying
By MonkeyPaw on 5/18/2007 10:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
I think that these large file downloads are what is going to help catch pirates the most. ISPs are really going to notice if you have several multi-GB downloads in a week. From what I gather, ISPs can and do send warnings to users who are suspected of downloading illegal content. I think the first red flag for the ISP is high-bandwidth consumtion. Downloading full-length HD-quality video will most certainly set off alarms.


RE: I'm just saying
By gramboh on 5/18/2007 11:41:05 AM , Rating: 3
Except that ISPs don't care about piracy. They want you to use your connection a lot because it brings about the chance for extra billing or selling you an upgraded speed package. They also don't want to assume any liability for monitoring what content you are transferring or else they will be sued by content providers.


RE: I'm just saying
By Schrag4 on 5/18/2007 2:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
My ISP cares. They sent a warning to someone I know.


RE: I'm just saying
By alifbaa on 5/18/2007 6:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
They sent a warning to a friend of mine based on an email from a company working for a copyright holder. They verified it themselves, and then shut down his service without warning. He called, and was forwarded to their central office. They gave him a talk about how downloading was illegal, made him delete say he deleted his files, and then said "if you get caught doing this 3 more times in the next 6 months, we'll consider banning you for 6 months."

Overall, it seemed to him that they didn't care beyond giving the appearance of caring to the Hollywood types.


RE: I'm just saying
By feelingshorter on 5/18/2007 10:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
The opposite must be true. The average person who browses the internet for news/email/youtube doesnt use as much bandwidth as a person who pirates movies. So they definitely care because it is taxing their system heavily. The 80/20 rule is quite true. The top 20% internet users use 80% of the bandwidth. You can watch as many youtube videos as you want all day, it still wont equal the gigs upon gigs you just downloaded for a movie or whatever. You cannot watch movies while your asleep, but you can surely leave your computer to download all night. ISPs care, but companies who make a living off the bandwidth such as Cisco (who don't support net neutrality either, for obvious $ reasons) doesn't.


RE: I'm just saying
By PsYStuMmY on 5/20/2007 5:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
i had about 7 friends that had their service disconnected by cox cable because of what they dl'ed. their service was cut, and they called to inquire about the lack of service. they said if they got caught a few more times their service would be cut off indefinetly. i know at&t yahoo dsl doesn't care about what their users dl'ed because i have another friend that dl's stuff for my seven other friend's lol.


RE: I'm just saying
By Murst on 5/18/2007 5:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... I doubt ISPs would have much control over that. Just because you are transfering a large amount of data that doesn't mean you are breaking the law.

I would be *very* upset if I got a call from my ISP because of my high bandwidth usage. Downloads from MSDN are often multi-GBs. If my ISP would, for example, disconnect my service because they [i]thought[/i] I was illegally obtaining copyrighted material due to my high bandwidth usage, there'd be hell to pay. Not to mention I think something like that would probably violate some kind of law here in Ohio.

The bad PR they would get from one wrong case would make it not worth all the trouble anyways. There is a huge amount of competition in the DSL/cable business. None of them would want to risk losing customers like that.


RE: I'm just saying
By Christopher1 on 5/22/2007 2:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
Uh..... there are other things that are multi-gigabyte downloads. Legal games that are released as trial versions (one I recently downloaded was 5, count them, 5 GB's!), legal movies made by home movie buffs, etc.

The first red flag for the ISP is NOT high bandwidth consumption. I use about 500 GB PER MONTH on my Comcast Internet Account (I took the time to see how much I used about 3 months ago) and there haven't been any 'red flags' raised.

Studio's, both gaming and movie, are just going to have to realize that people are NOT going to stand for their inflated price BS anymore, and if they are not going to give them their products at a reasonable price, people are going to get them some other way.

To the people who I KNOW are going to say "You can just do without if you cannot afford it!"...... go shoot yourselves! People should NOT have to do without entertainment just because the movie and game companies are greedy SOB's and before you bring up "Entertainment is not that important!"..... yes, it is! Movie, video games, and the children I play them with are the ONLY things that have kept me reasonably sane over the past 15 years, since I hit puberty.


RE: I'm just saying
By Adsski on 5/18/2007 5:53:58 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agreed the size of a movie on HD DVD / Blu-Ray is enough of a deterrant to prevent copying, without all this DRM AACS nonsense.

For me here in the UK the current state of play is this, blank recording media for HD-DVD & Blu-ray is currently in the £13-15 pounds range, the retail movie is about £2 more. Allied to this i'll have to buy an HD format burner for my PC which currently retail for about £425. Thats a lot of burning needed to recoup initial outlay!

Now some may say, defeat the encryption and convert/downmix to DVD format and burn to DVD9 using cheap blanks etc. But i can't see the point in that, i mean I want the full HD experience!

I don't think the studios should be worried, yes it may be possible to copy these films now, but for the average user it's going to take a long while before the enabeling technology becomes cheap enough for it to be tempting.


RE: I'm just saying
By loeakaodas on 5/18/2007 10:25:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now some may say, defeat the encryption and convert/downmix to DVD format and burn to DVD9 using cheap blanks etc. But i can't see the point in that, i mean I want the full HD experience!

Most HD movie rips are in the DVD5~DVD9 size encoded in x264 and with a decent connection you can get a movie in a few hours.


RE: I'm just saying
By Mitch101 on 5/18/2007 11:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
Hard Drive space is about 20 cents a gig now.
15-50 gig movie = $3.00 - $10.00 of hard disc space.

I dont know what size the movies are on the disc's but I would guess they are maybe 20-30 gig on average making them $4.00-$6.00 of disc space in thier native format.

While there is currently no DVD media to burn back to in native format in its entirety there will be eventually.

Since there are a lot of HDTV's out there which cant do 1080P and movie players that can only do 1080I I would suspect they could covert 1080P to 1080I and save a lot of space but Im not sure if it would fit onto a DVD-9 at that point.


RE: I'm just saying
By Christopher1 on 5/22/2007 2:55:30 AM , Rating: 2
It's less than that if you go to someplace like Newegg. I am thinking of buying an external hard drive for my movies (legally downloaded or not available for purchase in the United States).

I priced a 500GB external drive for a little over 150 dollars. I was SHOCKED at the price, and it wasn't at a no-name seller either.


RE: I'm just saying
By borowki on 5/18/2007 6:14:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's worthwhile for the entertainment industry to demonstrate that there isn't a technical solution to piracy. They could use that to argue for some favorable legislations in Congress. We'll likely see in the near some kind of piracy tax levied on our internet connection. When happens, you can thank these freedom-loving hackers.


RE: I'm just saying
By leidegre on 5/18/2007 6:30:47 AM , Rating: 2
What about an impractical one? For all we know, if we end up with HD++ quality content, which doesn't lend itself for copying, let alone encoding. We end up with something like an asymmetric encryption, the way RSA does it. Time makes all the differance. If it's not worth it, why bother?


RE: I'm just saying
By alifbaa on 5/18/2007 9:06:48 AM , Rating: 2
That won't really work. The fact is, so long as it's something people want, they will spend the time to get it. In fact, the better quality you make something, the more people will want it.

The hacking groups have parallel processing set-ups to process their files -- effectively a supercomputer in their home. They also have money and time in excess. Processing power is not an obstacle to them.

Even at 25GB, a downloader in the US with a decent internet connection and a Bittorrent client can download a full movie in 4 or 5 days. That's not enough time to stop most people who are capable of decoding/viewing 1080p. Plus, with decent recoding to a more compressed format, you can get that 25GB down to 1/3 of the size with only a very negligible difference in quality.


RE: I'm just saying
By Oregonian2 on 5/18/2007 1:39:51 PM , Rating: 3
May not be a technical solution, but there is a marketing one. Why don't people photocopy books en masse? Paper books have been around for a zillion years, and although some poor soul might want to copy or maybe scan one, it's really not worth the money or time. Most books are cheaper than the cost to copy it, and the copy will be of higher quality. So why bother. If the Blu-Ray or HD disk sold for a price that was cheaper than copying it onto another disk and/or be of higher quality then there shouldn't be much copying except for the few chronic pirates who will do it even if it's a money losing proposition. I have no idea how much blank Blu/HD media goes for (or even if it exists), but in the short term I doubt there will be substantial piracy. When the HD blanks sell for a dollar, well, then there will be a problem (can't see 'em selling new copies for a dollar -- even though some really old and bad movies on DVDs sell for that price at Walmart). Do they have burners for the new formats, and if so, what does the blank disc cost (and how does that compare to just buying the movie)?


RE: I'm just saying
By lumbergeek on 5/18/2007 2:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
recordable blu-ray discs are available
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=20601&v...

Blu-ray recoders? Haven't seen one yet.
Chicken - Egg.....


RE: I'm just saying
By deeznuts on 5/18/2007 2:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
RE: I'm just saying
By Oregonian2 on 5/18/2007 5:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
$22 each? Ouch! Definitely don't want to make a coaster with one of those! Adding in extra to amortize the $500 "cheap" blu-ray drive that was linked to ....

So, how much is it just to buy a Blu-ray movie?

I use a regular DVD recorder to record stuff off of TV, and at least that's covered legally, being the exact activity that was in the famous Sony videotape supreme court case. Will they be making Blu-Ray (or HD) recorders (not "drives") and if they did, would they allow HDTV to be recorded (presumably using the HDMI cable)? Else those recorders would be mostly useless it seems (iow might just as well stay with my sony regular DVD recorder).


RE: I'm just saying
By Oregonian2 on 5/18/2007 5:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and the copy will be of higher quality


Of course, I meant the original will be of higher quality! Duh!

:-)


RE: I'm just saying
By encryptkeeper on 5/18/2007 9:44:06 AM , Rating: 3
The bottom line is that instead of trying to prevent piracy, they should find a way to go with it. I read a while back, that there's a websites were you can pay for stuff you have downloaded and so, protect your self from prosecution.

The whole "copyright" and "copy-protection" idea now is mainly to make the damage caused by illegal copying as little as possible. This idea isn't bad, but I would guess around 1% of people would ACTUALLY pay to make their pirated media legit. At the same time, you are supposed to have the right to backup your media one time, and specifically for backup. One example would be with kids movies, you let them have the burned copy so they don't ruin the original. That's a good idea, and the way the law is written that should be viewed as totally legal. At the same time, some moron, some idiot, some dipshit decided that with all the new technology out there they were going to stop piracy...COMPLETELY. Wrong. As the protection gets better, so does the ability to break it. They need to take tips from Sony in the 80s, they realized people were going to copy tapes and there was nothing they could do to stop it, so they stopped trying. Same case here.


RE: I'm just saying
By othercents on 5/18/2007 11:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
The market should be moving away from stand along media all together and start looking closer to streaming media instead. In some areas there is enough bandwidth to stream everything, or at least allow DRM type download rentals.

My idea is simple:
1) Sale a stand alone device (IE. DVR type) that can download the videos. Some hard coded information on the device along with software encryption. 1 Box per account.
2) Allow purchases and rentals from the device to company.
3) Videos expire after 1 week (even purchases). Allow all purchases to be downloaded on demand, but still expire in 1 week. There isn't a need for a backup copy anymore.

At some point in time we are going to get away from using stand alone media. The harder it is to get to the source the harder it will be to crack it. Plus once someone does then you just require an update on all devices. The DRM code change for every download.

Other


RE: I'm just saying
By leidegre on 5/18/2007 2:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking a lot like you guys too. I really do think the the attitude has to change in order for piracy to change as well.


RE: I'm just saying
By Christopher1 on 5/22/2007 3:05:15 AM , Rating: 2
That's true. With a good server that a person on the other end has, I can get a downloaded movie legally at about 700-800 KB/s, and have a movie downloaded in about 30 minutes, tops.

Some services artifically limit bandwidth for some stupid reason, where the servers are hosted. I had that problem with downloading a home-made cartoon XXX movie, I was getting 3KB/s speeds for some reason, informed the server owner, and he found that they were throttling his service and he EXCORIATED them for that because he and his buddies were paying in excess of 500$ a month for the service which was supposed to be 100MB/s, unthrottled, with only him using it.

They tried being sneaky, and put him on a SHARED 100MB connection, which he was pretty pissed about.


RE: I'm just saying
By Mitch101 on 5/18/2007 11:31:18 AM , Rating: 3
Does the MPAA or Consumer deserve a refund for DRM?
http://freshscoop.com/modules.php?name=News&file=a...

Was the MPAA smart enough to write a contract for DRM that would entitle them to a refund should the system be hacked in such a relatively short amount of time?

So while the MPAA can cry about pirates stealing all their revenue are they looking at the idea that the company that developed DRM in the first place is the first one who stole the first billion?

The real theft is DRM with the costs passed onto the consumer. Pirates win, DRM wins, Lawyers win, and the Consumers lose and MPAA lose.


RE: I'm just saying
By chick0n on 5/23/07, Rating: -1
Time to Hire New People
By UppityMatt on 5/18/2007 5:16:11 AM , Rating: 4
You would think Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administration (AACS LA) would try to hire the people that continue to hack their patches. I think it would save them alot of money in the long run. Because obviously the guys at slysoft are 1 up on the AACS LA division.




RE: Time to Hire New People
By alifbaa on 5/18/2007 9:27:21 AM , Rating: 3
There are so many simple, cost effective, low processing overhead ways of producing a much more robust system that the only conclusion I can draw is that AACS made a conscious decision not to produce a secure format.

At first, this seems to be a ridiculous hypothesis, but when you think of it, it makes sense. Having a weak system discourages the casual movie copier. It also places the content firmly under the purview of DMCA -- enabling the industry to sue "pirates." Finally, creating a system that is able to be hacked over night with every update politically "proves" the need for stronger laws protecting the industry.

In my opinion, this is part of the campaign to eliminate the fair use concept. The entertainment industry is trying to strengthen the view that consumers using content in manners of their own choosing is a criminal act. What they ultimately want is for consumers to buy the same content multiple times for each device they own. As much as many of us would hate to admit it, the hackers are all that stand in the way of that.


RE: Time to Hire New People
By abhaxus on 5/18/2007 9:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
Where is the fair use in HD-DVD/BD anyway? Supposedly you are allowed to make ONE copy of a disc for your own personal archive use, AACS was supposed to be built around allowing that. Yet to this date there is not a single legal tool for doing so for those of us with large hard drives and HDDVD/BD readers on our PCs.

These illegal tools simply allow us to legally use the content we paid for in the method we deem fit. If it allows pirates access... too bad.


RE: Time to Hire New People
By mars777 on 5/18/2007 11:55:23 AM , Rating: 3
AnyDVD is not illegal in any way.
A method to circunvent copy protection is not illegal. It is illegal doing the cincumvention.


RE: Time to Hire New People
By alifbaa on 5/18/2007 5:59:13 PM , Rating: 3
My understanding of DMCA is that attempting to circumvent, publishing procedures for circumvention, or producing the means to circumvent any data encryption scheme is illegal.

The way AnyDVD/AnyDVDHD gets around this is by being produced and distributed from the Caribbean, where such programs are legal. Bringing the program into the US is illegal even though the likelihood of getting prosecuted for doing so is extremely small.


Disturbing trend
By Munkles on 5/19/2007 7:43:17 AM , Rating: 3
For starters,

I do not like DRM, I do not like RIAA/MPAA.

That said Im seeing good people with good thoughts, and idea's turning from good ideas to blatantly backing piracy to "stick it to the man". Wrong is wrong is wrong, some things have been deemed illegal by the American government and whether we like it or not until that legislation is repealed our duty as American citizens (presuming you reside in America) is to obey those laws.

"fair use" sure but, people who actually fairly use said copies are the VERY vocal minority. I USED to download a LOT of stuff off of p2p and torrents, but as I got older, and could afford to purchase it I've started to utilize legal download programs for music, and movies.

Does DRM make my life nightmarish at times? Yes! Do I wish things were different? Absolutely. What I will ask though is that the GOOD people here be very careful, because Im seeing people who advocate "fair use" turn into advocating "piracy" to go about getting that fair usage.

C'mon people! If in trying to get unruly legislation repealed you break the law youre still wrong. Lets try to work within the system to effect change rather than BREAKING laws and saying to hell with it.




RE: Disturbing trend
By Christopher1 on 5/22/2007 3:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong is wrong is wrong, some things have been deemed illegal by the American government and whether we like it or not until that legislation is repealed our duty as American citizens (presuming you reside in America) is to obey those laws.


Sorry, but no, it isn't! When a law infringes on the rights of the American people, the Founding Fathers SPECIFICALLY said that you did not have to follow that law in question!

That's the same bullshit that leads to nothing ever being changed, the "It's illegal, so just fucking well shut up and obey the law!" attitude that some people have.

No, when a law infringes on the rights of people to protect an investment or to do with a product as they wish (common law dating back to the 1600's says once you buy something, it is YOURS TO DO WITH AS YOU PLEASE!), you do not have to obey it.

The only way that we are TOTALLY going to get rid of DRM is for the American people to stick their fingers up to "the Man" and the movie/game studios and say "We aren't going to put up with your BS anymore, and we are going to do with things as we damn well want to!"

I don't agree with sharing things that can be gotten at a REASONABLE price, but come on: 100$ for a single PS3 game? Or for a Blu-Ray movie trilogy?

Get real, get tough, and pirate until the studios get the message and lower their prices.


RE: Disturbing trend
By dluther on 5/22/2007 2:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, but no, it isn't! When a law infringes on the rights of the American people, the Founding Fathers SPECIFICALLY said that you did not have to follow that law in question!

I think you're going to have to provide specific references to that section of our Constitution. The salient portions that immediately come to mind are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, when in the course of your citizenship you break these laws, those rights are taken away from you.

quote:
No, when a law infringes on the rights of people . . . you do not have to obey it.

Unfortunately, you do. If a newly-placed stop sign infringes on my right to travel unimpeded, does that mean I don't have to obey that stop sign? Of course not.

quote:
is for the American people to stick their fingers up to "the Man"

Right. Stick it to "the Man". That rings about as true as a turd in a punchbowl.

quote:
I don't agree with sharing things that can be gotten at a REASONABLE price, but come on

Hey, these guys are capitalists, just like everyone else. They provide a product or service, and charge as much as the market will bear. Maybe it is expensive, and maybe it's not. Personally, I think Lexus charges too much for their automobiles; that doesn't give me the right to steal one. That's called life, jackass. Better do some growing up and start getting used to it.

You know, the beauty of doing the right thing is that you never have to defend or justify your actions. You should think about that for a while.


RE: Disturbing trend
By doctor sam adams on 5/27/2007 11:03:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The salient portions that immediately come to mind are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, when in the course of your citizenship you break these laws, those rights are taken away from you.


The bit about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness actually says you are born with those rights. "Inalienable" is the word, I believe, so even the Guantanamo Bay prisoners have them, at least if we follow our own stated principles.

quote:
Hey, these guys are capitalists, just like everyone else.


"Everyone else" who counts for you, you mean.

quote:
You know, the beauty of doing the right thing is that you never have to defend or justify your actions. You should think about that for a while.


To rephrase: the beauty of doing what you're told is that you never have to think for yourself. Think about that for a while and you'll never have to think again! And if you're ever forced to, you can simply blame it on The Man--"oh, I had to bomb you and your family because the President said it was the right thing to do--no justification required, sorry!"


How much money...
By glenn8 on 5/18/2007 10:39:10 AM , Rating: 3
How much money would a company (companies) save if they ditched all this copyright mumble jumbo and whatever else unnecessary items and used that money to lower the cost of each HD movie? I can't speak for other people but I would rather buy a high quality HD movie at 5-10 bucks than wait several days to get it through torrents (if it even exists in that quality).




RE: How much money...
By Griswold on 5/19/2007 5:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. But a big piece of the problem is production cost of the movie itself. If you look at how much a so called blockbuster costs these days, you see why they want to milk the cow the way they do now, especially because the DVD release carries alot of the financial burden these days. Movie theaters arent as popular anymore as they were...

So, the other half of the strategy would be to lower production cost as well. Maybe they should stop paying actors 25 million dollars per flick, amongst other things?


Who are they really after?
By luigionlsd on 5/18/2007 11:21:52 AM , Rating: 3
It seems like the copy protection (or lack of) on the HD formats are really hurting the paying customers the most. Look at Fox on Blu-ray: they haven't released any catalog titles in the past month or two just because they're worried about the copy protection! We've only seen the day and date releases to match up with DVDs (Eragon, Night at the Museum), and no big titles we've been patiently waiting for like From Hell, or even The Princess Bride, that were expected in March. Is it too much to ask for Fox to support their own format, and trust in the consumers to use their software properly? This war is not going to win itself.




Price it right
By flurazepam on 5/18/2007 12:43:11 PM , Rating: 3
To a minuscule degree I understand the purpose of protecting the video content from being copied, reproduced and sold cheaply where the profits might be going to some nefarious organization or group of individuals. However, if you price the product accordingly, i.e. as to discourage copying, you're more likely than not, going to sell more of your discs legitimately. I know some people would rather pay nothing for something, and that will never change, but there are quite a lot, that would pay $10 or less for a title, that comes in a nice, labelled box - doesn't require hours of time duplicating and shrinking (read: wasted time that could be used for other important things) the content to fit on a disc. When the industry charges ridiculous prices for movies, naturally this will happen. Key point - lower the price and stop wasting time on encryption schemes that will be broken in a fraction of the time it costs to develop. Which, incidentally, is a cost added to the title. Supply and demand. My 2 cents.




Losing money?!?!
By masitcgitw on 5/20/2007 10:16:53 PM , Rating: 3
If these big, poor, starving companies are losing SOOO much money from piracy, then I would just like to know one thing. Why do they continue to pay actors and actresses more and more money per movie? If they were making less profits, shouldn't they be telling the stars, "Sorry, but I can't pay you $24 million for this movie, is there any way you could afford to live on only $11 million?"
Another thing, if there IS a decline in people attending movies, how can the say with certainty it's BECAUSE of pirating? Could it possibly be that the people's habits are just changing? Are they gonna try and say that the drive-in movie theater died in America because of pirating movies? Peoples habits change, if you're losing customers, adapt to the changes, don't alienate the customers you still have.
I am not saying I am for pirating, I am not. But I can say that I have not ONCE downloaded a full length film off the internet, and only ever watched 2 to 5 that somebody else has. Yet I have not been to a movie theater in over 6 months. I previously used to go AT LEAST once a month sometimes more. They lost this customer, but not because I'm just stealing it. I don't see how they can justify taking away the rights of people who HAVE purchased the product because of people who haven't. And whether they like it or not, according to FAIR USE, purchasers have the RIGHT to make personal copies of the movies and cd's they have paid for.




Cracked...
By Zeleni on 5/18/2007 10:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
lol.
So much about that ;)




why do they even bother
By otispunkmeyer on 5/21/2007 3:55:41 AM , Rating: 2
theyre barking up the wrong tree here.

they make a copy protection, some clever tit breaks it within a week...repeat and add nauseum.

they need a different approach. either that or they need to hire some more competent.

at the moment though, all this is doing is increasing costs. all the money dropped on copy protection that simply doesnt work has to be recouped, and that = more expensive films.

they need more incentives for people to buy genuine stuff. but at the rate they are going, its turning people away.

spend wonga on copy protection --- it fails --- passes cost on to consumer

again... rinse, repeat.

and yeah reverse pyscology comes into it... they say "hey you cant break this!" some nerd in his bed room takes him up on that.




I gotta Say...
By Treckin on 5/18/2007 9:09:23 PM , Rating: 1
Im to lazy to quote, but a few posts ago someone mentioned the fact that the recording industry ar essentially money-grubbing assholes. The would be true.
Beyond all of the abstract, metaphysical argumentation going on here, I would like to look at the situation pragmatically. William James defined truth as whatever does good in ones life, serves a good purpose, is true.
By that standard, I would say that 'Media piracy is good', and that statement would be entirely true.
There are a few different causal arguments on that measure;
It is good because im stickin it to the man
It is good because I cant afford to watch the content
It is good because I bought the shit, and my disc melted, now im F-ed, and up yours Sony.

Ive always found it disturbing that when I buy a movie, Im really lisencing it for and indeffininte ammount of time. Its the same with other media; music, games, software, etc.
Basically, the end user got raped in the ass (and contracted aids!) when the first EULA came about. When I buy a DVD, IMO, I own that piece of plastic in its entirety. Every scratch, bit, color, encryption algorythm, etc is MINE.
Of course, thats my opinion.
I believe its about time to rewrite the laws to that effect, and selectivly outlaw specific behaviors with said media - make it illeagle to PROFIT from it.
One good thing I heard, and this is mostlikely in the pipe, is an 'on-demand' type service. Its coming, just wait.




By dluther on 5/21/2007 4:41:49 PM , Rating: 1
There are an extraordinary number of comments in this forum from various people trying to defend the act of stealing. It's a powerful testament to the current status of our culture, and a chilling harbinger of what's to come.

Some of you guys...




I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By Sharky974 on 5/18/07, Rating: -1
By Vonagio on 5/18/2007 5:45:33 AM , Rating: 5
You like DRM? DT are just exposing the stupidity of DRM.

I don't understand how these companies can expect any of their measures to succeed, if it can be viewed, it can be cracked. They are fighting a losing battle it seems...


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By defter on 5/18/2007 6:45:08 AM , Rating: 5
This has nothing to do with piracy. It's about giving consumers some rights to watch movies they purchased (e.g. watch movies without paying tons of money for software or watch movies on Linux).


By Gatt on 5/18/2007 1:14:45 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt very, very, highly that this software and the resulting torrents are being used for legitimate backups by the majority of people who download it.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By dluther on 5/18/2007 4:49:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This has nothing to do with piracy.


It has everything to do with piracy.

Nobody seems to have a problem with royalty payments when they purchase a DVD player, because the payment is concealed in the purchase price. Oh, but mention royalties when purchasing a software DVD player, or (gasp) Linux, people throw their hands in the air and scream like frightened children.

Folks, "profit" isn't a dirty word -- it's the fundamental tenet upon which society is built around.

I may not agree with all the draconian steps the MPAA and RIAA take to protect their property, but they have not only the right, but the responsibility to protect their properties from piracy.

You wanna watch, you gotta pay. It's that simple. Anyone who thinks differently needs a reality adjustment.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By alifbaa on 5/18/2007 6:09:17 PM , Rating: 3
I "wanna watch," and I do pay. What I refuse to do, however, is pay a second and third and fourth time for the same thing. If I buy a BD, I expect to be able to use it on a portable video player as well as on my DVD player on my old TV. If I'm on a trip, I expect to be able to watch the video on my laptop from a saved file. If two years from now, the disc gets scratched, I expect to be able to create a new copy of the disc from my backup. In short, I expect the ability to the "fair use" of what I have purchased.

Just because technology has progressed and allowed me to use the movie I buy in different ways than VHS allowed doesn't make the concept of fair use any less valid. Don't believe everything Hollywood, their politicians, and their lawyers tell you.


By dluther on 5/18/2007 6:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
And I think that's a perfectly legitimate use. Unfortunately, you're not going to get HD quality on your portable player.

But I don't think that Hollywood, their politicians, and their lawyers are so much concerned about these scenarios as they are you giving your friend a copy of the file. And his friend.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By Metroid on 5/18/2007 8:13:46 AM , Rating: 4
DT does not promote piracy. It is just reporting and for that fact I love the free speech.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By redbone75 on 5/18/2007 9:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
Here, here. Totally agree with you on that; however, the last paragraph in this article leads one to question the stance of DailyTech's writers:

quote:
Attempts to censor a string of letters and numbers...


The way that is worded leads the general reader, one who is not abreast of the topic, to believe that there is no true significance to those numbers, that they have all the importance of a person just randomly hitting keys. For all our ranting and raving and general disagreement with DRM, the proprietors of that "string of letters and numbers" have a legal right to protect their intellectual property, no matter how much we disagree with it. That paragraph was carefully worded to seem to be on the side of those who disagree with DRM in general so as not to alienate the readers of DailyTech.


By Xietsu on 5/18/2007 10:49:06 AM , Rating: 2
To expect media to not be purveyed with some partisanship is foolhardy. At the heart of it, there can be a slant which is respectable in footing and if such is the case, it really doesn't matter, even if you might somehow suppose it to be of higher integrity to present all in objectivity, you would have made a supposition of fallibility, no doubt.

As long as their is an ethical consideration to the materials reported on, it is responsible no doubt to convey which is the best (ethically dignified) perception to view the content, as not everyone may see that. It doesn't matter if you want to claim that news and media needs to just "report", as a strong company will pervade a positive demeanor in regard to such stances.

Thus, the being of free speech and the idea that this is a blog -- essentially, an editorial outlet -- negate any such obligation for impersonal accounting. Everyone should know that pushing such concepts forward without offering any distinct alternative allowing the consumers to do of their intending is something conniving, calculated, and in the end, manipulative. The foothold the companies and agencies backing DRM have taken is morally disgusting and repugnant.


By alifbaa on 5/18/2007 10:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, except that the string of numbers you refer to stands between us and our right to fair use. Unfortunately, the string of numbers is protected by DMCA, copyright laws, several million dollars a year in lobbying money and lawyers' fees. All we have is the "crackers" giving us back our right to use content in the way we choose.


By Topweasel on 5/18/2007 11:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
I understand what your saying but the importance of the string of numbers and letters has nothing to do with our right to write it down on a website and be able to view it. This isn't a case of national security. Once the information like that gets leaked out it doesn't become a protected piece of information. They need to go after the people who are cracking these things and not trying to stop the flow of information, once you starting doing that people revolt.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By mars777 on 5/18/2007 11:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
It's clear on which side are YOU. I don't like you.

A middle aged brainwashed corporation assgiving probably computer-retarded maybe-paid-up moron.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By michal1980 on 5/18/07, Rating: -1
By Some1ne on 5/18/2007 4:29:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If by buying a disk you have the right to watch the movie then thats what the disk is for. Its not for copying, and placing on a torrent.


That's just it though, you're buying the right to watch the movie, period. You're not buying the right to watch the movie for however long your disk remains free from scratches, and that's why making personal copies is (or maybe was, now the the lawmakers are in bed with the DRM people) considered "fair use", as you are simply preserving your right to watch the content (which you payed for) in the event of the unexpected (or even just the event of normal wear and tear). Hell, back in the day, it was even considered "fair use" to show your movie to friends, but I guess we just can't have that anymore, eitherm because by your logic if the creator of the product didn't consent to have you show it to your friends, then it's illegal to do so.

However, most current DRM technology works to prevent even the creation of personal copies, and that alone is reason enough to be anti-DRM. By trying to fight piracy, DRM is really just pissing all over fair use, and making things harder for legitimate users while at the same time proving completely ineffective at stemming the flow of pirated content to illegitimate users. Wouldn't you be upset if there was a "smart bomb" that always went off target and hit a school or a hospital instead of its intended target? And wouldn't you be even more upset if the people making and using the bomb were completely oblivious to this fact, and kept making larger and more powerful versions that just kept hitting more and more innocent bystanders? Well that's roughly what's happening with DRM. The world would just be better off without it.


By doctor sam adams on 5/18/2007 5:09:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Did you make the movie? did you film it? did you make the disk, encode it? anything?


The people who actually do those things certainly don't own the movie either. So, your argument is based on nothing.


By dluther on 5/18/2007 5:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think there ought to be some kind of forum rule stating that in order to participate in a conversation, you first have to demonstrate an ability to intelligibly carry one.

Statements like "It's clear on which side are YOU" not only show a fundamental deficiency in the proper usage of the English language, it also implies a complete lack of maturity on your part.

So unless your name's Yoda, please feel free to come back when you've grown up a bit.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By Some1ne on 5/18/2007 3:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's okay, I really hate how there are still a handful of people who claim to frown upon piracy.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By dluther on 5/18/2007 5:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
I frown upon piracy.

In fact, I frown upon thieves of all kinds, but I have a special disdain for the thieving bastards who think they're not really stealing anything.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By AndreasM on 5/18/2007 5:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Get off your high horse. Equating copyright infringement to theft is an insult to all victims of real thievery. If you seriously think shuffling around and copying some bits is a worse crime than stealing someone's purse, then I can only assume that your livelihood is in some way dependent on the dying business model of overcharging for bits.


By bigboxes on 5/18/2007 6:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
The real problem is that it's an artificial market. The RIAA/MPAA has had a monopoly on distribution of music/movies that when it is cut out of the loop (profit wise) we see this over-reaction "the sky is falling" crap. We have always supported those artists that we like. I remember making tapes of my vinyl and that was supposed to be ok. Suddenly we are all evil because it's digital. Well, I've got some bad news for you sunshine... you keep on putting out crap at inflated prices in formats that we don't want (DRM) then you reap what you sow. We want good music/movies in formats that we want at prices that we find reasonable. It doesn't matter that the industry has moved into hi-def. We still don't want to be gouged. So, let's remove the monopolistic market they have created, offer us what we want (maybe hi-def that will fit on a dvd-9) and you'll see sales increase instead of decrease. Keep on the current path of restricting our choices, artificially setting the market price and limiting our fair use of the products we do buy and you'll make criminals out of all of us.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By dluther on 5/18/2007 7:04:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Get off your high horse


No. I like the moral high ground, the view's pretty nice from up here.

Your argument is exactly the same as the people who refuse to get car insurance for any number of reasons. Oh sure, everything's fine until they cause an accident (and yes, they invariably will cause an accident), then someone else has to pay for their mistake. And in case you haven't noticed, the money fairy isn't skipping along doling out wads of cash. Nope, I have to get uninsured motorist coverage and pray that I never have to use it, but the rates keep going up because these muffinheads keep causing more damage that I have to pay for.

And I'm pretty damned tired of it.

The movie industry is losing money to pirates like you, and lots of it. Every ticket they don't sell because some assbag with a camera uploads a crappy copy of a movie, or rips a DVD and uploads it is causing a loss of revenue. They have to offset that revenue by raising ticket prices, increasing licensing fees to legitimate users, and increasing the costs of DVDs. Not only that, the additional costs of tracking you down and prosecuting you are also rolled into the increased pricing, as are the costs to develop and implement the anti-piracy features they use. Then when you sidestep those features, I have to pay even more money because they have to come up with even tougher anti-piracy measures, the costs of which are then cheerfully passed along to me. And on, and on, and on. Oh and by the way, these anti-piracy features that have to be implemented are reducing (or in some cases completely eliminating) the ability to legitimately make copies of these disks, making piracy even more restrictive to legitimate users.

Now, some could possibly argue that the people who watch these pirated downloads were never going to pay to watch it in the first place, so it's essentially a zero-sum game. But I don't completely buy that, because research shows a clearly distinct trend of fewer ticket and CD sales, and a corresponding spike in pirated material.

Sorry pal -- saying that information is just bits and needs to be free is complete and utter bullshit, and you know it. So you'll excuse me while I get my indignation up when someone like you tries to deflect your own culpability for something you instinctively know is wrong.

By the way, I'd really want to hear you try and sell that load of manure to any judge.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By Some1ne on 5/18/2007 9:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I don't completely buy that, because research shows a clearly distinct trend of fewer ticket and CD sales, and a corresponding spike in pirated material.


Whose research? Yours? There's just as much research to suggest that while things like CD sales at brick and mortar stores have been declining, legitimate online music sales have been climbing at an even faster rate. Similarly, movie ticket and DVD sales continue to regularly surpass previous records (the most recent example being Spiderman 3), and that's not simply because the cost per ticket has gotten slightly higher over the past decade or so. No, I'd say that just as many (more, really) people are seeing movies in theaters and/or paying to buy the DVD version now as there have ever been, despite the rampant piracy that is bringing the entertainment industry to its knees and forcing them to raise prices in order to break eve-er, I mean, in order to continue pulling profit margins measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars potentially on a single movie or music album.

The bottom line is that the record labels and movie studios *are not* hurting for money as the result of piracy, and any argument that implies that they are is flawed on its face. The entertainment industry complains about piracy bleeding it dry on the one hand, while it continues to rake in multi-million dollar profits on the other, and they don't deserve any sympathy regarding the former until they at least drop the act and stop pretending like their very existence is being threatened by the whole piracy issue.

quote:
Not only that, the additional costs of tracking you down and prosecuting you are also rolled into the increased pricing, as are the costs to develop and implement the anti-piracy features they use. Then when you sidestep those features, I have to pay even more money because they have to come up with even tougher anti-piracy measures, the costs of which are then cheerfully passed along to me. And on, and on, and on. Oh and by the way, these anti-piracy features that have to be implemented are reducing (or in some cases completely eliminating) the ability to legitimately make copies of these disks, making piracy even more restrictive to legitimate users.


You're the one that's choosing that path though (and do you really think that if there was no piracy at all, and the entertainment industry had full control over the dissemination of its content, that prices would be any lower? In such a case they would charge more just because they can...such is capitalism). You could always come and join us on the sane side of the fence. It's more fun, and you'll get to see even more movies.

So you can either continue to complain about getting the short end of the stick as the result of pirates running around and having all the fun, or, well, if you can't beat 'em...


By dluther on 5/19/2007 8:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The bottom line is that the record labels and movie studios *are not* hurting for money as the result of piracy


Of course they are. It's a matter of degrees, and while they're probably not hurting as bad as they say they are (everyone exaggerates when it comes to money), the fact is that due to the loss of income, there are two options: 1) live with it and adjust everyones' salary accordingly, or 2) adjust the price to make up the difference. Somehow, I don't think the shareholders will agree with #1 as an alternative.

However the "little people" like the directors, screen writers, production companies, and distribution houses *are* hurting, because the majority of their income is based on distribution deals, royalties, and percentages of sales.

And you can keep yammering on about how piracy is really a good thing, a fun and exciting thing, but any argument implying that that is flawed on its face.

Sorry bubba; you've got to come up with some better arguments than "bring down the evil corporations" and "stick it to the man" before I believe that stealing is cool.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By AndreasM on 5/18/2007 9:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
I have heard that argument before, and it isn't any more convincing than last time. You don't really have anything to back up your argument, and bringing up a car analogy doesn't change that (this isn't slashdot ;). I think that without piracy, you would be paying a lot more and still have just as much DRM. Without having to compete with pirates the distributors of media would have total monopoly, which would not bode well for the price of "licensing fees". Now if you want to convince me otherwise, explain to me why economic theory doesn't apply to media; and more precisely why less competition would mean lower prices.

As for explaining it to a judge, I don't live under the ire of the DMCA, so no need for that. :)


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By Gatt on 5/19/07, Rating: 0
By Some1ne on 5/19/2007 2:14:07 AM , Rating: 2
You didn't seriously misinterpret his point that severely, did you?

He wasn't asserting that theft (and copyright infringement is very different from "theft" in this context, as if you steal a car off a dealership lot, the dealer is now missing one car which must be physically be replaced, the cost of which comes out of the dealer's own pocket and thus inflates the prices of the remaining cars...but if you download a movie off of the Internet, no store ends up missing a physical copy of the movie, nobody has to replace it, and any case for arguing that it inflates prices is far more convoluted than when there is an actual theft of a physical item) drives prices down. He was saying that monopolies drive prices up, and that if the MPAA/RIAA/etc. were given a monopoly over content distribution via unbeatable DRM then prices would go up accordingly, because the *only* way to access the content would be to go through the monopolistic entities, and they could therefore fix prices accordingly.

It's not a flawed argument, it's a very simple concept that's part of basic economics. Monopolies drive prices up, as a general rule.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By dluther on 5/19/2007 8:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and bringing up a car analogy doesn't change that


But it's exactly the same principle. I could even put in shoplifting as an analogy as well and it would work just as well.

People who don't have insurance drive up the cost of insurance for those who do have insurance, and the people who steal movies drive up the prices of tickets, rentals, and purchases of those who actually pay.

This is sound, solid economic theory -- practice actually. Which part did you have a problem understanding?


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By AndreasM on 5/19/2007 12:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
The part where it applies to copyrights. Both your insurance analogy and shoplifting analogy are flawed, as they don't apply to copyrighted works. If I could use magic to create duplicates of products that are inside a store, then it would be comparable to copyright infringement. I think you'll agree that such a situation would not raise prices, as there would be no extra costs to recoup.

Your movie analogy doesn't hold water either. When buying a ticket, you are paying for a seat. The only way to "steal" that would be to sneak in without paying. While copying movies decreases the demand for movie tickets, economic theory states that the theater should decrease prices to increase demand, or alternatively decrease supply (i.e. show the movie less often) to make each showing more profitable if it wants to stay competitive.

I'm sorry, but equating copyright infringement with theft shows a serious lack of understanding for the technology.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By dluther on 5/19/2007 4:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The part where it applies to copyrights. Both your insurance analogy and shoplifting analogy are flawed, as they don't apply to copyrighted works.

You can't be serious, can you?

They're exactly the same. Copyright BS aside, the bottom line is that your thievery is making it more expensive for me to watch movies. I suppose a klepto like you wouldn't see the parallels if someone drew you a map. You are taking something that you didn't pay for. That's called stealing.
quote:
Your movie analogy doesn't hold water either. When buying a ticket, you are paying for a seat.

Bullshit. Most of the money from ticket sales goes back to the movie studio. A film booker leases a movie to a particular theater for a set period of weeks. The percentage of ticket sales that the studio takes decreases on each week that a movie is in the theater. If the screening was arranged by an independent middleman, he also takes a slice. So the movie has to pull in sizable audiences for several weeks in order for theater owners to make any serious profits. That's why ticket sales tend to vary from theater to theater (nicer ones are more expensive), and prices of concessions are so sky high, because more margin can be made from them as opposed to ticket sales. I don't think you're familiar with the operating costs of a movie theater, but just heating and cooling alone is pretty expensive.

When I can count 14,278 torrents of "Shrek the Third" on a popular torrent site, that's $110,460 worth of lost revenue for the actors, studios, writers, distributors, local governments -- everyone who has income based on the distribution of that movie.
quote:
I'm sorry, but equating copyright infringement with theft shows a serious lack of understanding for the technology.

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it. Which part of that isn't perfectly, crystal clear to you? Believe me, I completely understand the technology; more than you ever would if you lived a couple more lifetimes.

It's painfully apparent that your opinions and actions have absolutely no basis in reality. You're trying, and increasingly unsuccessfully, to defend an indefensible position. It would be sad if you were just mentally deficient and couldn't grasp the concepts, but you do grasp them. It's just that you don't care.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By edray10 on 5/19/2007 9:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's really amazing how little people understand of economics. The pricing of movies and DVDs is set so that it maximizes profits. In the case of movies and DVDs, since the marginal cost (the cost of making one more copy of a DVD or having one more person in the theater) is pretty much $0, they try to set pricing so that the maximum total revenue will be generated, which results in the highest profits. Consequently, if they were to "raise prices" because of piracy, they would actually reduce their revenue because, if they've set their pricing properly they would be moving away from the pricing that gives them the highest revenue. Therefore, moviegoers and DVD purchasers should not be paying more to see or buy movies because of piracy.

Now piracy probably does have a cost to the movie industry, if you assume that some people who pirated would otherwise have purchased the DVDs or gone to the see the movie in a theater. This would probably be reflected in fewer movies being financed because profits would drop and more movies would run a loss, which would result in fewer movies being financed. Or, alternatively, if they would have had more revenue then more movies would make a profit and more movies would be financed.

Therefore for the moviegoers or DVD purchasers, the cost of piracy is having fewer movies available to see, not in paying more for DVDs or seeing movies.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By edray10 on 5/19/2007 11:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
As I thought about it a little further, I realized that while piracy will not increase prices of movie theater tickets or DVDs, it could cause prices of movie theater tickets or DVDs to drop.

Consider a situation where a movie theater has a 20% decline in moviegoers because those people are just pirating movies and watching them at home. In that context the movie theater will probably lower tickets because every single empty seat is lost revenue, so to maximize revenue they should be lowering their prices. Of course, some theaters may not be able to operate at a profit at the lower overall revenue, so they might go out of business (or you could have fewer theaters built).

Similar effects could be seen with DVD sales. For example, there are a certain percentage of people who absolutely must have a particular DVD. Now those people, if they are sufficiently technically savvy may choose to download it off the internet rather than pay $20 for it, but those people may be willing to pay $10 for it. So the question then becomes for the studios are there enough of these people that maybe the best price to maximize revenue is lower than the price they would otherwise charge?

This is, in fact, what happened with video stores originally. When VCRs first became popular each movie cost something like $100 because the studios assumed that the only people who would buy it were video rental stores and those stores absolutely had to buy the popular movies. Then the studios realized that by lowering the price to $30 or so a movie that they could generate more revenue because ordinary people would actually buy them. This trend has continued further so that most DVDs are now under $20 and some are under $10.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By dluther on 5/20/2007 2:04:34 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, the old "piracy is actually good because I can show how it may lower ticket sales" argument. Doesn't work, here's why:

As I mentioned before, theaters get precious little money off ticket sales because during the film's opening week, the studio might take 70 to 80 percent of gross box office sales, depending on the tier of the movie. Top-tier movies command 80%, while second tier movies only take 70%. By the fifth or sixth week, the percentage the studio takes will likely shrink to about 35 percent.

So, let's say you pay $7.50 for a ticket to see "Shrek the Third" this week. The studio takes $6.00, and the theater gets to keep $1.50 of that. Now, in a multiplex theater, this is showing on two screens, each with a 200 person capacity, so that's a maximum potential of $600 gross profit for the theater per showing from ticket sales, assuming complete sellouts in both screens and only adult tickets are shown. However, there's a built-in disparity because the pricing is different for matinees and evening showtimes, and a difference between children and adult ticket prices. Let's say this theater has 6 matinees and 4 evening showings, with a 50-50 mix between children and adults -- a pretty good estimate for a "Shrek" movie. Now let's say the matinee price is $5.50 for an adult ticket and $3.00 for kids tickets, and evening shows are $7.50 for an adult and $5.00 for the kids. And let's be optimistic and say that the theater sells out every showtime. When you total that up, the gross ticket sales come to $20,200. 80% of that goes to the studio ($16,160) and the remaining 20% is kept by the theater, or a grand total of $4,040.

That's peanuts.

When you factor in the costs to operate the theater which include:

1) Employee pay -- a crew of 8 making $6.75/hour * 13 hours, 2 managers at $12.50/hour * 13 hours, and 2 operators at $8.00/hour for 12 hours ($1,219)

2) Electricity to run commercial appliances and cool two 292,000 cu/ft theater filled with 200 people (~$400)

3) Local and state sales taxes (around 9%, or $1,818)

4) Advertising (~100)

Just these items leave the theaters with a net profit of $503 per day on the two screens, and that's assuming sellout crowds at every showing.

Now, what happens when you have a 5% drop in ticket sales, or 190 people (same ratio as above) per theater? $391.90 total ticket profit.

10% drop? $280.80 total profit.

15% drop? $169.70.

So, let's say they knock $1.00 off the ticket price for adults, and 50 cents off the kids tickets, but only for the evening showtimes:

100% - $371.00
95% - $266.50
90% - $162.00
85% - %57.50

Hopefully, you can see there's not a lot of wiggle room to play with the ticket prices there.

Obviously, this doesn't take into account concession revenue (which, by the way, is where the theaters make their money), but you can't sell overpriced popcorn to people who aren't there, and ticket prices have to remain static.

Basically, the theater can't afford to gamble that lowering ticket prices will attract moviegoers. That price cut has to be significant enough for people to reconsider their spending, and then it somehow has to be conveyed to the community, which means a significant increase in advertising costs. So if you cut ticket costs by 15%, increase advertising from .5% to 1%, ($200), and net a 10% increase in patronship (95% capacity -- wildly optimistic), the theater would still only see $166.50 in profit from ticket sales.


By edray10 on 5/20/2007 8:23:22 AM , Rating: 2
What you're basically saying is that the theater may go out of business if it can't support its higher prices because of piracy, which I already mentioned in my post.

As I wrote, since marginal costs (not fixed costs) are close to $0 in this context, the theater's strategy should be to set its pricing to maximize revenue and if the movie theater has significant empty seats because of piracy (or any other reason) then that would suggest it should lower its prices to increase revenue.

Your example also does not include the most important source of revenue for the theater, concessions, and various other sources of revenue like commercials, private events, etc.

Also, since a theaters main source of revenue (concessions) is entirely based upon the number of people going to see movies and most of the ticket price (at least early on after release of the movie) goes to the studios that suggests even more strongly that a theater should make sure it can fill every available seat by any means necessary, including lowering ticket prices, because most of the cost of the lower ticket prices is passed on to the studios and therefore only a small portion of the cost of the lower prices is eaten by the theater.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By AndreasM on 5/20/2007 2:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
While your examples are interesting, they all fail to address the main problem I have with your argument. That is, while you claim that piracy increases prices, your examples don't explain why prices would decrease if piracy goes down. If piracy disappeared overnight, why would prices go down? I am unable to see how the copyright holders gaining a perfect monopoly would be good for consumers.

The movie theater example was enlightening, I had no idea they were getting ripped off by studios that much. I almost feel sorry for them now. OTOH, now there's even less of a reason to go to theaters, as most of the money goes to hollywood. :P


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By dluther on 5/21/2007 12:43:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If piracy disappeared overnight, why would prices go down? I am unable to see how the copyright holders gaining a perfect monopoly would be good for consumers.


A few points to consider:

1) The copyright holders don't have a perfect monopoly, or haven't you ever heard of these things called "independent films"? How can there be more than one movie studio in a monopoly? More than one production company? You probably ought to think these things through before you open your mouth.

2) Until there is a downward trend in piracy -- and that looks pretty unlikely -- we'll never know if the price of movies go down. It really is an academic question at this point, kind of like "what if we all start carpooling to stop global warming". One won't happen, so its' possible effect on the other is impossible to measure.

3) Why is this any of your concern? You're the one stealing the movies, so that kind of argument coming from the likes of you rings pretty hollow.

quote:
as most of the money goes to hollywood


Well where exactly did you think the money was going in the first place, lab partner? So basically, you're a thief, and you're stupid.

Good luck with that combination.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By AndreasM on 5/21/2007 10:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) The copyright holders don't have a perfect monopoly, or haven't you ever heard of these things called "independent films"? How can there be more than one movie studio in a monopoly? More than one production company? You probably ought to think these things through before you open your mouth.


This is false, as movies are unique. If I want a chair, I can buy one from the multitude of chair manufacturers. If I want the movie "Rocky III", I can only buy it from the studio that owns the rights. It doesn't really matter that there is a million other movies, because they're not the movie I want.

quote:
2) Until there is a downward trend in piracy -- and that looks pretty unlikely -- we'll never know if the price of movies go down. It really is an academic question at this point, kind of like "what if we all start carpooling to stop global warming". One won't happen, so its' possible effect on the other is impossible to measure.


One could also measure the opposite. I assume piracy has been growing for the last ten years? So if we took the price of a new DVD release in 1997, compared it to a new DVD release today, then according to you the price should have gone up. Of course, adjusting for inflation the price should have gone up more than ~30% for there to be any real change.

quote:
3) Why is this any of your concern? You're the one stealing the movies, so that kind of argument coming from the likes of you rings pretty hollow.


I would like to eventually start paying for them, to support the people making them. But as long as their competitors offer far superior merchandise for free, I just can't justify spending that much money on defective products.

quote:
Well where exactly did you think the money was going in the first place, lab partner?


I was under the belief that the majority of the money goes to the theater, they're the ones doing the work after all.

quote:
So basically, you're a thief, and you're stupid.


I love you too.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By dluther on 5/21/2007 4:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
movies are unique. If I want a chair, I can buy one from the multitude of chair manufacturers. If I want the movie "Rocky III", I can only buy it from the studio that owns the rights. It doesn't really matter that there is a million other movies, because they're not the movie I want.

. . .

That's got to be the stupidest, least thought-out argument I've heard from you yet. If you could, would you please point me to the exclusive Columbia/Tri-Star store, where there, and only there, I may buy Columbia/Tri-Star movies.

Even by your "chair logic", it's exactly the same system. Sure there are hundreds of chairs, but there are hundreds of chair models and dozens of manufacturers. But if you want a Henredon 3031-27-649 dining chair, then you have to buy it from an exclusive Henredon authorized retailer, who has already paid Henredon for the chair. If you want a fight movie, there are hundreds of fight movies from dozens of studios. But if you want "Rocky III", you have to go to a reatiler who has already paid a royalty to Sony Pictures. And the real kicker is that it's not like it's a line item on your receipt, and stores don't separate their movies by manufacturer, so I'm curious as to where you think this giant, invisible monopoly is.

quote:
Of course, adjusting for inflation the price should have gone up more than ~30% for there to be any real change.

Not exactly, because you have this thing called critical mass, which we're experiencing right now with HD DVDs. 10 years ago, not everyone had DVD players, the players were very expensive, production facilities for DVDs were limited to a handful, and actual media costs were much higher than they are now. I mean, I didn't get my first DVD player until 2001, and it wasn't until 2002 that DVDs even became commonplace in rental stores. Once the DVD player hit the $75 mark (in line with the cost of VCRs), the DVD market started achieving that critical mass.

However, the end-user cost of a DVD has stayed relatively flat, even gone down a measurable amount, even though the production costs have decreased tremendously. Do you know why?

quote:
the money goes to the theater, they're the ones doing the work after all.

I'm sure that the actors, director, writers, producers, publicists, camera operators, property masters, craftsmen, carpenters, drivers, electricians, caterers, assistants, composers, musicians, decorators, designers, stylists, production supervisors, stage managers, engineers, editors, and a host of other contributors too long to mention will all be very interested to find out that the theaters are actually doing all the work.

quote:
I would like to eventually start paying for them

Well, you may actually start paying for them sooner than you thought.

quote:
their competitors offer far superior merchandise for free, I just can't justify spending that much money on defective products.

Ummm, the original will always be superior to a copy. I don't know why you'd think these would be defective. If they were, that defect would appear in the copies as well.

Here's a novel idea: STOP STEALING!

quote:
I love you too.

I think we ought to agree to disagree. I mean, nobody's going to convince you that stealing is bad, and you're not going to convince me that stealing is good; that leaves us exactly nowhere.


By AndreasM on 5/21/2007 5:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think we ought to agree to disagree. I mean, nobody's going to convince you that stealing is bad, and you're not going to convince me that stealing is good; that leaves us exactly nowhere.


Now that is something I can agree on. :)


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By Clienthes on 5/19/2007 7:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like piracy, either. I just wanted to point something out.

quote:
Every ticket they don't sell because some assbag with a camera uploads a crappy copy of a movie, or rips a DVD and uploads it is causing a loss of revenue. They have to offset that revenue by raising ticket prices, increasing licensing fees to legitimate users, and increasing the costs of DVDs. Not only that, the additional costs of tracking you down and prosecuting you are also rolled into the increased pricing, as are the costs to develop and implement the anti-piracy features they use. Then when you sidestep those features, I have to pay even more money because they have to come up with even tougher anti-piracy measures


They don't actually have to do this, as long as there are enough people being honest that they still cover the cost of content production. It isn't like shoplifting a physical item, as there is no additional production cost associated with this type of crime. If the cost of the physical media that would have been purchased if not downloaded was equal to manufacturing, the cost of producing the content, and profit then they only lose the profit, as the cost of content production was probably made up by legitimate customers. It wouldn't be very good business for them not to try to prevent piracy, though, and I will agree that it needs to be treated in exactly the same fashion as theft of actual physical property, however, because just like more traditional forms of theft, it still impacts profitability, and the costs of preventing it are passed on to legitimate customers, who make up the vast majority of the population.

People who say they pirate because they are "sticking it to the man" have a rather odd world view. You're sticking it to me. I'm not "the man". I just want to make a friggin' back-up so my cat can't destroy my investment in personal entertainment pursuing her dream of shiny chew toys.

I also believe that the content providers are blowing the problem out of proportion, that they badly need to rethink their business model, and that DRM is a giant pain in the ass. Pretty much the only people involved in this mess that aren't jackasses are people that just want fair use. Jackasses are generally better at getting what they want than honest people, so honest people are gonna get screwed.
/sigh


By dluther on 5/21/2007 7:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
DRM is a giant pain in the ass. Pretty much the only people involved in this mess that aren't jackasses are people that just want fair use.


If that were truly the case, DRM wouldn't exist.

But it does, because piracy is real, measurable, and increasing. It's taking revenues from the people who make a living making movies -- and I'm not just talking about people like Steven Spielberg; I'm talking about people like the assistant screenwriter who doesn't even get so much as a credit, but may get a $150 per day stipend when he's working, but relying on that .005% of the adjusted gross revenues.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By SmokeRngs on 5/21/2007 1:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I don't completely buy that, because research shows a clearly distinct trend of fewer ticket and CD sales, and a corresponding spike in pirated material.


Useless argument. As usual, it leaves out every other factor such as the glut of CD sales when people were repurchasing their old vinyl and tape albums to have them on CD. Once people finished repurchasing their old albums, the only way to make sales was on newer content. The massive buying trend of repurchasing older content can last only so long. The same applies to DVD sales where people bought older movies in DVD format to replace VHS tapes for whatever reason.

The release of a large number of older albums or movies on a new format caused a purchasing spike that was unsustainable. Obviously, this would cause a drop in the overall numbers purchased.

Finally, correlation is not the same as causation. I put gas in my car last week. The price of gas went up the next day. Does that mean the price of gas went up because I fueled up my car the day before? There is a correlation between the two but there is no causation without further evidence.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By dluther on 5/21/2007 4:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
correlation is not the same as causation. I put gas in my car last week. The price of gas went up the next day. Does that mean the price of gas went up because I fueled up my car the day before? There is a correlation between the two but there is no causation without further evidence.

Unfortunately, we're not discussing ancillary, 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' situations, we're talking about direct cause and effect.

A more realistic analogy would be if people in large numbers started stealing gasoline instead of paying for it, the price of gasoline would go up. Gas stations would have to charge more for gasoline to make up for the loss, implement anti-theft measures and pass those costs along to you. Since the capital to operate a gas station isn't unlimited, they would have to purchase less gasoline because the revenue from the stolen gas wouldn't be available to resupply, thus hurting the refinery. And the refinery has to offset that loss of revenue by raising gas prices, which are passed along to the gas station who already raised prices to offset the original theft, and in kind, pass those costs along to you.

It was a nice try, but still a pretty brainless statement. Why do you guys try to obfuscate your own obvious criminal malfeasance with such banal misdirection? I'll never know why there's so much controversy surrounding stealing. Didn't your parents teach you these things?

It's not yours. You didn't pay for it. You take it anyway. That's called stealing. Really, how plain can it be?


By Christopher1 on 5/22/2007 3:08:26 AM , Rating: 2
A lot more plain. That's like saying that a person who is starving is stealing when they take a piece of bread. Yeah, they are, but I can overlook it!

Same thing with pirates, they are stealing, but the movie, game and music companies are so overcharging the poor shmucks that are stupid enough to buy things from them, that they can afford for 100-200 times the amount of people who buy legally to pirate.

Also, in most cases, the 'pirates' wouldn't have the money to buy the thing in question legally, so I am not too flussed when they pirate something.

You just have a LOT of overdeveloped morality, and believed the stupid Christian admonition that "It is always wrong to steal!" No, it isn't, and things are NOT as black and white as you would like to believe.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By dluther on 5/22/2007 8:43:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's like saying that a person who is starving is stealing when they take a piece of bread. Yeah, they are, but I can overlook it!

Most people can; I'm one of them.

quote:
the 'pirates' wouldn't have the money to buy the thing in question legally, so I am not too flussed when they pirate something.

Survival and entertainment are two completely different things. It's one thing to steal food because you or your family will die if you don't, but equating that kind of dire need with the desire to see a movie is just... appalling. So, where do you draw the line, or do you at all? Say your car breaks down or gets stolen. Insurance won't cover it, and you don't have the money to replace it, much less lease one. Is it okay to steal a car then, and if so, which kind and from whom?
quote:
You just have a LOT of overdeveloped morality, and believed the stupid Christian admonition that "It is always wrong to steal!"

I wouldn't call it "overdeveloped" at all, it merely exists. The fact is, I'm quite proud of my sense of morality, especially in a society where that virtue is sorely lacking. Eschewing larceny isn't simply a Christian value, it's a societal one, evidenced by the fact that every society has laws that prohibit larceny.

If you truly believed the bullshit you're spouting, then your parents did you a major disservice in rearing you. However, I believe you merely have a heavily overdeveloped sense of self worth, coupled with a severe lack of maturity. The fact that you're somehow able to equate stealing movies with the basic need for survival is a stark testament to your naked conceit and hyper-stylized self-image. The sad fact is, you don't have even the most fundamental understanding of real need, and your equating watching a movie with survival is a wanton insult to those who are on the precipice of death from impoverishment.

You're absolutely right to say that things are not always black and white, yet the very fact that they exist indicates they exist for a reason. You can dance around the issue all you want, it won't change a thing.


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By yak8998 on 5/26/2007 8:51:31 AM , Rating: 1
stop peppering your ramblings with eloquence, it comes off as trying way too hard.

and you're making some good points, but ... you'll appreciate this phrase... too many ad hominem attacks

on topic though, stop gouging prices like hell and DRM'ing the shit out of stuff and I'll buy. I haven't been to a regular theater ($10 tickets) in over a year, but we have a drive-in here that is $5 for 2 shows, I go almost every week. Same thing with DVDs. I have a ton, but I only buy them when walmart has em on special for $10 or less.
I can understand where they're coming from with DRM, but at the same time, my girlfriend was buying her tv shows on DVD, then again on iTunes for her ipod. Why should she not be able to rip it? I ended up giving her my powerbook with handbrake setup (its easier than doing it with windows. oh, and i wanted a new laptop) so she would stop blowing shittons of money on desperate housewives or whatever crap she is watching now


RE: I really hate how dailytech promotes piracy
By dluther on 5/26/2007 11:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
stop peppering your ramblings with eloquence

I'm sorry you consider my statements to be "ramblings". However, if I may be permitted a small amount of latitude on the subject, wouldn't you rather hear eloquent rebuttals anyway? This is simply the style in which I converse; it's a pity you find it offensive. And to paraphrase Henry Kissinger, they have the added benefit of being true.

quote:
stop gouging prices like hell

These guys are capitalists, just like everyone else. They have a product to sell, and they charge whatever price the market will bear. You do it in your job, when you shop at Wal Mart, and when you buy discount DVDs.

The items you discuss, to me at least, seem perfectly legitimate uses of the material you've bought. And the key principle here is "bought". My statements were not about fair use restrictions, but rather downloading movies.

People whining about "price gouging", complaining about restrictive DRM technology, and crying about how their station in life can't afford them the luxury of disposable income are quite simply insufficient arguments for larceny. If a person can justify stealing movies, then it logically follows that they can (and probably do) justify stealing other things if the opportunity presented itself.

As you've taken umbrage at my eloquent rebuttals to thievery, let me try and close the discussion with the following statement:

Nobody has ever had to defend, justify, or argue the merits of doing that which is right.


By yak8998 on 5/26/2007 10:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
I read through all your posts; I was just saying, it doesn't come across as your natural way of speaking. You wax and wane between fancy colloquy and everyday speech when you write. I figured you were trying to give credence to your arguments with better English.

I know its capitalism, but its screwing them to a point. I'm not condoning piracy, but its a vicious cycle. I don't know who started it, but they raise prices, so people pirate, then they raise prices more, etc. I'm all for capitalism, but it gets ridiculous when they're going after everyone for money (look at how they're trying to get money from terrestrial radio now...its traditionally been free advertising, ever since its inception.) I don't even listen to any new stuff nowadays because it costs way too much to buy, and if you want to pirate it, limewire/kazaa is hit or miss if you get the actual song. Its not too hard with CDs (copying them for the ipod and what not), but I am not going to buy any of this new high def garbage with the hoops you have to jump through. Yes it is my fault, but I demand the right to mishandle my CDs and have a backup copy to use. I can back up my DVDs and CDs rather easily, and I'm not going to get any of this new crap until I can copy it onto my computer easily. All this lost business is not because of piracy. Some of it, sure. But a lot more is because all the new stuff they're coming out with is getting shoved down our throats, overpriced and DRM'd to hell and back. My dad would buy 10x more DVDs like he used to, except he can't get them on the fancy video ipod he just bought, so instead he just uses his Tivo and HBO to watch everything. There would be a lot more business with the baby boomer generation (big spenders, not good at bypassing DRM) if they'd stop trying to get everyone to double/triple pay for everything they want to watch and listen to. The younger generation is not going to buy it regardless. If they finally do stop piracy (theoretically...like that will ever actually happen) then the kids will go find free music to listen to, or just listen to radio. College kids living off ramen do not have money to spare for cds, they need it all for beer and drugs. DRM is just screwing the pooch, as evidenced by this and the big hex key that was floating around, its not really protecting anything from the pirates. It just serves to make more money off of joe consumer.

An aside:
I am the person people always bring up in arguments about piracy. (By the way, its not a method of justifying it, its still wrong, but it is a good point). I am not "lost business." I am not going to buy the CD. I'm even too lazy to pirate it in this case. You are not losing any business with me if I should decide to pirate. I'm not going to buy it anyways. --- I actually have probably downloaded 10 songs tops over the past year, I'm a vinyl junkie...so yeah. It costs me out the ass, but its sweet. Which brings up another example of the price gouging - now they want to charge people to buy used CDs...


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton



Latest Headlines
2/10/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 10, 2012, 5:50 PM
2/9/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 9, 2012, 11:54 AM
2/8/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 8, 2012, 1:11 PM
Ex-Acer CEO Slapped With Lawsuit for Joining Lenovo
February 7, 2012, 5:38 PM
2/7/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 7, 2012, 12:23 PM
2/6/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews -- Intel 520 240GB SSD Edition
February 6, 2012, 12:04 PM
botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki