Print 46 comment(s) - last by mgilbert.. on Jul 25 at 12:06 PM

But gains stall in following months and government is stuck in telecom-vs-media battle over fees

New Zealand, like many nations, is struggling with how to balance the rights of big media investors that claim their work is being incessantly stolen by the masses, with the public's rights to privacy and due process.  New Zealand contemplated a "three strikes" plan, which involved sending pirates two warnings, then severing their internet service.  But unlike the outcome in most other regions where similar contentious plans were struck down or modified, the New Zealand plan passed, largely unchanged.

I. No Progress, After Modest Initial Gains

With all eyes watching, media attack dog New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft (NZ FACT) has looked to track the bill's performance, in hopes of showing its efficacy.

The results were impressive -- for a month.  In one month, the top 200 movies were illegally viewed 110,000 times in August, but only 50,000 times in September, the month the law took effect.  But the group admits that in the months since there has been no "discernible progress" in terms of decreased piracy.

Kiwis (New Zealanders) have taken to referring to the laws as "the Skynet" bill.  The bill creates a Copyright Tribunal, which has the power to fine citizens up to $15,000 NZ ($11,870 USD).

You're out
After early gains, New Zealand's "Three Strikes" plan to ban copyright infringers has stalled, with 4 out of 10 citizens still regularly pirating. [Image Source: Ed Zurga/AP]

So far, fewer notices have been sent than some expected.  Aside from government officials double-guessing the passage of the bill, one obstacle to mailing notices has been the $25 NZ ($20 USD) reimbursement fee under the law which media companies must send telecoms to cover their processing costs.

II. Debate Over Notice Fees Rages

NZ FACT has not mailed any notices, but the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) -- the sister organization to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) -- has managed to send out 2,766 infringement notices between October and April.  Of those, only 58 were challenged.  And only two individuals won their challenges before the Copyright Tribunal.

The RIANZ is pushing for the fee to telecoms to be cut the review fee to a few cents.  Telecoms are upset about this, saying it will not cover the cost of warning and cutting off customers.  

The largest telecom in the nation Telecom New Zealand says it lost approximately $431.68 NZ ($342 USD) per user to verify and process the notices.  It sent 1,238 notices and thus lost approximately $400K USD complying with the ruling.  The carrier and internet service provider is pushing the government to raise the fee to $104 NZ ($82 USD) to come closer to covering the costs. 

Telecom New Zealand
Telecom New Zealand complains its lost hundreds of thousands of dollars
complying with the new law. [Image Source: TechDay]

New Zealand's Ministry of Economic Development is currently contemplating whether to cut the fee or raise it.

However, one thing is certain -- in recent months the bill is making little progress.  While the global average for citizens who commit at least one copyright egregious infringement per month is estimated at around 28 percent of the population, the RIANZ estimates that 41 percent -- or approximately 2 out of ever 5 Kiwis commit such an offense, as of Feb. 2012, despite the threat of the three strikes law.

Sources: Fairfax NZ News, Ministry of Economic Development

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sure, of course it would work - in a way
By Rookierookie on 7/23/2012 11:48:55 AM , Rating: 5
If you banned internet, I'm sure you could slash online piracy by 99%. But at what cost?

RE: Sure, of course it would work - in a way
By rpsgc on 7/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: Sure, of course it would work - in a way
By ipay on 7/23/2012 12:17:17 PM , Rating: 5
Gather around the camp fire kids, and let me tell you a story about something we used to call a BBS...

By ClownPuncher on 7/23/2012 6:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
Big Boned Sisters?

RE: Sure, of course it would work - in a way
By MrBlastman on 7/23/2012 11:57:55 PM , Rating: 5
BBSs were awesome. I miss those days. Well, everything except downloading pr0n at 2400 bps, waiting seven minutes for a single picture to download it and then opening it with great anticipation... Only to see a girl with her legs spread dropping a hot, fat, brown load out of her backside.

Yeah. That sucked. :-|

RE: Sure, of course it would work - in a way
By MrBlastman on 7/24/2012 12:31:14 PM , Rating: 3
Writing while sleepy late at night is a bad thing that leads too all sorts of sentence structure errors.

Still, that was a totally true story. It's also something I can never forget. Did I mention she was peeing too? :(

Thumbnails weren't even invented yet--well, not until Telemate came around with them but that took a few years and even then it didn't work that well.

So, while BBSs ruled, at the same time they were a loaded minefield that you had to carefully navigate. Hmm, sounds a lot like the internet, only smaller. Regardless, some of my fondest memories come from that squawky tone underneath my desk as I dial over and over again to get the next spot on the board.

By ClownPuncher on 7/24/2012 2:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
I swear you're either a friend of mine from High School, or we just had a very similar experience. Several minutes to load, then OH GOD WHAT?!

By Paj on 7/24/2012 9:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
Downloading Duke Nukem 3D demo overnight FTW

RE: Sure, of course it would work - in a way
By SAN-Man on 7/24/2012 12:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
I've been thinking for about five years now that private Intranets will replace the Internet as we know it in the next 5-10 years and that governments will not be invited, much the same why governments are not invited to view private corporate networks today.

Major web sites will pay for access to private Intranets. The Internet itself will still exists.

By Ringold on 7/24/2012 1:12:28 PM , Rating: 1
Government invites itself to parties when it wants, I don't imagine if there was a huge expansion of private networks that it'd stay very private for long.

By StevoLincolnite on 7/23/2012 12:17:54 PM , Rating: 5
People used to record movies that aired on Television, Recorded songs off the radio... Before the internet came along.

Heck people used (Probably still do!) Record copies of CD's and cassettes.

You can never stop piracy, you can reduce it by releasing alternatives that provide more value or convenience however, but these media associations don't understand that.

New Zealand doesn't even have Netflix or any real type of alternative to my knowledge, so a good start would be to offer a service similar to that.

By croc on 7/24/2012 12:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
"New Zealand doesn't even have Netflix or any real type of alternative to my knowledge, so a good start would be to offer a service similar to that."

And with our capped service plans and high prices, who could afford a netflix type service? TBH, though, I do believe we now have something called quikflix. But due to first statement, I haven't looked into it.

By AnnihilatorX on 7/24/2012 9:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
I don't support literal pedantry myself, but the original post did put down "online piracy", and online refers to the Internet, hence the 2nd poster is not wrong.

By Rookierookie on 7/23/2012 2:17:14 PM , Rating: 3
I said "ban" the internet. Just because you are using the internet doesn't mean you are using it legally, no?

RE: Sure, of course it would work - in a way
By Uncle on 7/23/2012 3:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
The RIAA/MPAA would love that scenario, then they could stick with the old business model and gouge the consumers and entertainers to their hearts content. The reason of the 3 strikes, the sooner to get everyone off the net.

RE: Sure, of course it would work - in a way
By TheJian on 7/23/2012 6:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
No, the BBS would make a comeback. AE:TAC FTW!! ;) Oh crap. Did I just give away my age...ROFL. Bring back 300baud...LOL. It would take a few light years to download Diablo 4 then. Wait, nobody will be suckered for #4. Blizzard only gets the 37 error once. I fear Epic is about to witness the backlash...LOL. OK, I hope they do if they go online only. :)

By mgilbert on 7/25/2012 12:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
"Light-years" is a measure of distance - not time. :)

By WalksTheWalk on 7/24/2012 11:02:48 AM , Rating: 2
What the RIAA/MPAA doesn't get is that each new technology advance gives them an avenue to distribute their old catalogs in new ways: vinyl, cassette, CD, MP3, Laserdisk, VHS, DVD, BluRay, streaming, next???.

They just don't get that each new technology bump is an opportunity to increase their revenue stream for old content at every turn.

Ok, so you made some progress...sort of
By Hyperion1400 on 7/23/2012 11:42:47 AM , Rating: 4
But, this still doesn't answer whether or not this improved their sales? I mean that, after all is the purpose of this? Who cares if people stop pirating stuff if you are not making anymore money?

I'm willing to bet that their sales actually went down >:)

By danjw1 on 7/23/2012 12:00:34 PM , Rating: 5
Improve sales? Don't be silly, this is intended as a new revenue stream for them, not to improve sales.

RE: Ok, so you made some progress...sort of
By Brainonska511 on 7/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: Ok, so you made some progress...sort of
By Brainonska511 on 7/23/2012 12:28:38 PM , Rating: 1
I forgot to note: I do not support these heavy-handed tactics in copyright enforcement. Surely, there can be some reasonable middle ground to placate the intellectual property owners concerns to some degree (of course, they'll never be totally happy) while also not screwing consumers at the same time.

By croc on 7/24/2012 12:15:29 AM , Rating: 2
"sense of entitlement"

Right-Wing idiocracy diatribe incoming... Duck!

RE: Ok, so you made some progress...sort of
By Uncle on 7/23/2012 3:31:25 PM , Rating: 5
Here's a guy whose proven you don't need the RIAA/MPAA if the price is right. I paid $5 to download an original standup act. Well worth it. Now look at how his tour is going without the RIAA/MPAA involved., read his Dec. 2011 blog also. This is the start of the new business model the old industry fears.

RE: Ok, so you made some progress...sort of
By TheJian on 7/23/2012 7:04:42 PM , Rating: 3
The Witcher 2 and Legends of Grimrock both sold well at different ends of the spectrum. Both are great games and needed no help selling even without DRM. I thought removing DRM/manual/disc would drive the price down on Witcher2 but I guess they were a bit scared and sold it high, or just wanted to capitalize on the group who bought the first and wanted more. Either way they won't get my money if their next game isn't down at $40 or less no matter how good or DRM free. I just don't think any game is worth $60. I will admit to paying $53 for Wiz8 though, I have played them all as a kid and just had to have it on day one. But that's the exception NOT the rule. Also they dumbed it down for console users and lied to PC users about it right up to release day (and after!). That left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. It was designed for consoles but RELEASED on a pc first ;)

RE: Ok, so you made some progress...sort of
By someguy123 on 7/24/2012 1:15:39 AM , Rating: 3
What are you going on about? The Witcher 2 is a great game and the launch build runs circles around the substantially graphically reduced (and model overhauled) xbox version. It's night and day and uses PC hardware very well, especially with its jitter-correcting ubersampling. They also ripped the security off of it after users were experiencing performance problems. Not to mention the game itself is long and has substantial story branches.

If that isn't enough to warrant a purchase I don't know what is. You act like they slap video games together on a factory line and upcharge for the hell of it.

RE: Ok, so you made some progress...sort of
By BillyBatson on 7/24/2012 3:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think he was saying that game prices are marked up too high but that no video game is actually worth $60~ period... And I agree, regardless of how much it cost to make, market, etc. That is a lot for a game. Single player games can be beaten within days if not earlier, all games depreciate almost instantly and very drastically, and the average person won't play a game for more than a few months and that's if it's multiplayer/online.
If a movie ticket is $12 then in my eyes the perceived value of any game is $36~. Sell me games at that price point and I would actually buy games. If game studios have to cut costs to reach that price point then do it, don't develop a game that has to be sold at $60

By Paj on 7/24/2012 9:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
I've been re-evaluating the way I think of games prices recently. Granted, games in the UK seem to be a lot cheaper than elsewhere - most new releases are priced at between £30-£39. Indie games can be half of this, and when steam sales are on you can pick up games for less than the price of a pint.

I often ask myself if the enjoyment I get from buying a game is equivalent to the same value of beer. If I can buy a game for £20 that will give me unlimited hours of entertainment (ie Civilization V, which plays differently every time), well thats basically a couple of rounds of drinks, worth a few hours entertainment and a hangover. Its easy to rationalise that way. If its some AAA single player title with about 4 hours of gameplay then the situation is very different.

By someguy123 on 7/24/2012 2:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
Single player games can be beaten within days if not earlier, all games depreciate almost instantly and very drastically, and the average person won't play a game for more than a few months and that's if it's multiplayer/online.

Really? You're complaining that a few months of gameplay online isn't worth $60 period?

What the do you do for entertainment anyway? You can't watch movies because they're too expensive, I mean it's only about an hour or two for about thirteen dollars on a regular night. Five dollars to swim in a private pool? That's a horrible price/performance ratio! Forget about paying for a club to go golfing.

I can understand short games not being worth the $60 tag, but to say every game isn't worth it just seems silly to me, especially when you're talking about how months of entertainment online is STILL too expensive.

RE: Ok, so you made some progress...sort of
By TheJian on 7/24/2012 8:22:03 AM , Rating: 2
Did you even read the post? It is in english, which you seem to understand. See Billybatson's post.

I commented both games are GREAT and at different ends of the spectrum (major release in the case of the witcher2 and indie in the case of legends of grimrock)...Read it again. However, it must be said that witcher2 didn't lower the price of the game at all for having no manuals, boxes or DRM (although you could buy retail if desired and get a box/drm). Why still $60 for a game I can download? It should have been $40 or so since it is what I'd call a AAA game.

Umm, you haven't played Grimrock have you? Graphics are not bad and it was done by 4 guys in a year or so with family/friends/forum users as testers. The game runs in 2560×1440 resolution for crying out loud. It looks awesome for 4 guys...Devs need to take a page from their book! I hope we see more people in the industry LEAVE EA/Blizzard etc and go indie and do it themselves. These guys have proved it can be done and make a large portion of money even with no brand at all! I'm sure they'll get more for the next one. Look at Torchlight/Torchlight 2 for another example. I'm sure being the EX-DIABLO devs help sales in their case. Torchlight 1 can be had for $15 without DRM on Torchlight 2 has been announced at $20! These guys made Diablo/Diablo2 and the FATE series. GREAT GAMES CAN BE MADE FOR $20! Although I'd happily pay $30 for both torchlights and a much longer version of Legends of grimrock 2 etc. I think $30 is the sweetspot to get every honest person without DRM.

You can argue all you want over the fact that it was DESIGNED for consoles or not. The game did NOT have DRM on If you're dumb enough to buy from a place WITH DRM, that's not what my comment was about and is your problem, not mine. Telltale signs it was for consoles came in the combat changes/menus and gamepad centric style. I'm not alone in thinking that. Google it.

Games can be made cheaper - They're just GREEDY and create a market for piracy at $60 (I'm talking most game devs here, not CD Projekt/ Any game that can be beaten in <15 hours and charges $60 is asking for a LARGE audience to pirate it. See Billy's movie example. PERCEIVED VALUE IS NOT $60. Also note CD projekt says the DRM version was the most pirated NOT GOG.COM's version without the DRM...LOL.
Supporting is supporting CD Projekt! Buy all your games at! If you have any money left, buy at a regular dev if doesn't have your game.

DRM SUCKS! Without it though, the witcher 2 game should have been cheaper. They sold 1.7million copies on the PC alone! It would have been 3 million if it was $40 and that many more would be sucked into the next game from them. I'd venture to guess it would sell 4million+ at $30 as many more can afford that then and would avoid more waiting for later or for the pirate version (you'd just buy at $30 without thinking about waiting for the bargain bin prices or pirating it). Note I think they'll hit those anyway as prices have come down and they even say it has great long term sales it seems for both part 1 and part 2. PC's sell games at the right prices with no need for DRM. Cut out EA/Blizzard/Activision/Bethesda/taketwo etc and you can get your game done for $20-30 easily as already proven by games like fate 1-4, legends of grimrock, torchlight 1&2 etc.

I'm not sure what YOU'RE going on about. Better to just keep your mouth shut if you're not even going to read the post you're complaining about. Billybatson got it, why didn't you? It wasn't a complicated post...LOL. I'm pretty sure the impression was the two mentioned games were GOOD and WORTH purchasing. I'll buy the 3rd witcher if they price it at $40 or wait for reductions. Are we clear yet?...ROFL. But everyone should just pirate EA games until they die :) Blizzard now too. ;) Hung up on morals? Just don't pay them for any games then :) Turn them all into SPORE sales: Meaning, just about NONE. :) DRM should DIE!

By someguy123 on 7/24/2012 2:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
I did read your post, and this second post, and it's nothing but ranting. You offer no reasons for why $60 is "too much money", and you have go out of the way to ignore how much it costs to produce. I've played grimrock and it's incredibly short with classic grid movement. Do you honestly not understand why it's easier to produce better graphics in such a constrained environment? Have you never played an old myst or resident evil game?

You get tens of hours of entertainment from either game, and in the witchers case this is literally hours of text and dialogue as well as combat, story branching and character customization. I always find it hilarious when people say games cost too much when they're cheaper then they have ever been in history based in currency inflation, yet substantially more expensive to develop in general, mainly because of guys like you clamoring for 2560 resolution graphics while complaining that games cost too much.

RE: Ok, so you made some progress...sort of
By Ringold on 7/24/2012 4:31:34 PM , Rating: 1
Games can be made cheaper - They're just GREEDY and create a market for piracy at $60

Like the other guy said, they can be, and are; they're called indie games. $9.99 to $19.99 isn't uncommon. Small teams, often 1 or 2 guys.

Other games cost 100 million to produce, with vast bleeding-edge art assets, huge teams, etc.

It's like you're bitching about Porche's being expensive, as if those are the only cars out there. For people that don't care so much, there are Hyundai's. For the gamer equivalent, there's indie developers.

Almost every product market is segmented like this. Only difference is asshats trying to steal a car may get shot, whereas people anonymously sitting in front of their computer feel no remorse for not compensating others for access to their product. Who cares what your "perceived value" is? Does the world have to revolve around YOU and YOUR perceived value, subject to YOUR budget and income? Grow up.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/24/2012 6:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
Other games cost 100 million to produce, with vast bleeding-edge art assets, huge teams, etc.

But..but...but Grimrock was made by 4 people! In a basement! RAWWWWRRR

By HoosierEngineer5 on 7/24/2012 9:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
For me, $60 for a really good game is a much better value than, say, going out to dinner or a movie. Put those toghether, and $60 seems cheap. Plus, the game will probably provide more than one evening's worth of entertainment. Then, you can even play it again.

I bought Witcher 2 immediatly after planying Witcher 1. I haven't had time to play it yet (still re-playing some old non-DRM games I bought some years back).

I WOULD buy a DRM game for $10, if it had a $10 rebate for including DRM.

Of course, that's simply my perspective.

RE: Ok, so you made some progress...sort of
By Ringold on 7/24/2012 10:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
For me, $60 for a really good game is a much better value than, say, going out to dinner or a movie.

Are you married, and if so, does your wife agree? :P

If you are, and she does, then KEEP HER.

By HoosierEngineer5 on 7/25/2012 8:20:51 AM , Rating: 2
That's one of the reasons a dinner-movie combo GREATLY exceeds the normal cost of a single game.

wait a year...
By roselan on 7/23/2012 2:26:39 PM , Rating: 3
That kind of enforcement has been adopted in France and Sweden already.

Each time, traffic drops 30% in the month after the bill comes in effect, and steadily grows back to what it was in around 9 months.

Of course, media company lobbies take the lowest point to advertise the effect of such bills, and so their service.

Since Mick doesn't read his posts
By TheJian on 7/23/2012 6:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe someone should just to point out how bad it is. Perhaps you'll actually start reading what you post before pushing the button:
"The RIANZ is pushing for the fee to telecoms to be cut the review fee to a few cents."

The RIANZ is pushing for the fee to telecoms to be cut to a few cents.


Can you honestly tell me you read that and thought it made sense? Fire the editor? I realize all people make mistakes. But when it's your JOB to write surely you could read it once before posting it to find silly errors like this. If you're not expected to read your own crap before posting it, surely you have an editor that does it? It detracts from your stories to see this in EVERY one of your articles (if you could call puff blog troll pieces that to begin with).

Apparently we're not just 17th in math and science? Reading too? LOL. I'd hate to give you a hit for every article just to point out your lack of desire to apply a bit of spit and polish to your work (I'm not interested in reading half or more of it), but you're making America look bad. :) As if that's even possible with most countries laughing at the dumba$$ we have in the white house. He shows no desire to do his job either and instead chooses to slander/punish those who do!

Regarding the actual post (ROFL); I'm not sure why it costs $342 or to send an email and verify it (is that like sending a 2nd email or something?...LOL). And here I thought most Americans were overpaid. Mind you, I'm mostly speaking of govt. workers in which I'll include our president :) I mean 100+ fund raisers, 10+ golf outings and not one meeting with the jobs council? Only two with the senate? Those numbers are just from this year (he's been basically fund raising for 3.5 years). What the heck does he think his JOB is? Fund raising and spending our money foolishly apparently.

Even $40 seems high for sending and verifying anything. At $342 that's basically 16hrs of work by a pretty good wage earner in USA. Seriously? But I do hope the telecom wins this...LOL. That price will surely cut down on suing dead old farts and granny without a pc. :) What they should realize is the number that are left will NEVER pay for the software. I can't say I blame them when you can't return a piece of crapware the moment you unwrap it. On top of that software is RARELY worth the price they charge. Diablo 3 can be finished in less than 13 hours for $60 and DRM to boot. Meanwhile, for $13 you could download and play LEGENDS OF GRIMROCK which is also about 13-15 hours with NO DRM from gog on the day it came out. It only took 4 guys to make it also...LOL. Diablo who? They made that game in 1yr and made enough money in a few weeks to cover their next 2-3 years of developing the next game. I can't wait to see what they do with 2 years of dev and maybe a few more people. I'd happily pay them $30 for something with 30+ hours and no DRM again. I love GOG :) No I don't buy games like Diablo despite REALLY wanting to. Vote with your WALLET!

By semiconshawn on 7/24/2012 1:08:58 AM , Rating: 1
Dude. Stay out of your kids ADD meds. You started bitching about editing, followed that up with how Obama sucks then onto piracy, game development, stem cells I think. Who the hell knows. SHUT UP!

Not reliable
By danjw1 on 7/23/2012 11:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
I don't care how much the copyright trolls say they can find these people, the only thing they have is IP addresses. And the courts have found, at least in the US, that those are unreliable. So they have this Tribunal, most likely made up of people from those same Copyright Trolls, who review these cases? Sure, that sounds fair, NOT!

It's all very simple
By Beenthere on 7/23/12, Rating: 0
RE: It's all very simple
By lexluthermiester on 7/23/2012 10:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
You ever heard the term, "Let the punishment fit the crime!"? When laws are unjust and inappropriate to the situations that inspired them, obeying such becomes dubious. Citizens are, at ALL times, above unjust laws.

If I were to go to a store and get caught stealing a DVD, my punishment might be up to $250[US dollars] plus repayment of the cost of the DVD. Second and third offenses would of course carry stiffer punishments. But $10,000 and mandatory jail time is unjust and will cost taxpayers more money in the long run.

Reactionary extremists like you are one of the reasons this world is falling apart. Please do grow up, get educated and follow your own advice....

Skynet Bill
By anti-painkilla on 7/23/2012 5:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
Despite what has been said, I know of noone who has stopped downloading. People have just stopped using the more common places.

Also the only infringement notices issued so far have been for downloading music from Lady Gaga and Rhianna, to be fair they did deserve it.

Looking back, we really did nothing to stop this. Now it will be harder to remove, keep up the fight other countries.

By johnsmith9875 on 7/25/2012 11:52:11 AM , Rating: 2
If they're violating somebody's copyright by singing a song over it without paying a license?

piracy is better than greed
By lolmuly on 7/23/2012 12:33:34 PM , Rating: 1
All art belongs to the public, copyrights are limited.

Copyright holders are not making an effort to publish their content online. Pirates are at least making the effort to make everything available to the public in a centralized manner.

Copyright holders shouldn't be allowed to withhold art from the public the way they have been. Until they actually start making their content available (not through just one site, but through any site that wants to create a centralized service), then I have no sympathy for them.

By ssj3gohan on 7/24/2012 3:54:06 AM , Rating: 1
The general consensus between people who actually give a damn about solving piracy (instead of doing ridiculous shit like this) is that piracy is generally a service issue. Piracy is extremely convenient - you can get movies that can be paused at any point, without any adverts, in any format and download them as fast as your internet connection allows you at any time. You can get any game without DRM. Any music at the touch of a button and any book without going through absolutely extortionate publishers. Giving people a legal alternative which is at least as convenient, possibly more convenient, basically solves this. There is a big gaping market of people who stopped watching movies in cinemas and on television because of the ridiculous amount of advertising and immersion-braking nonsense. Those people haven't lost interest in watching movies altogether, they just don't want the experience they are being given currently. And they also don't understand why the US can have netflix (which is an awesome, piracy-solving measure) and the rest of the world can't. Same goes for music: Spotify is basically ideal. Amazon and their Kindle store is a great step in the right direction for e-books (and books in general). Solve the service problem and you can transform pirates into paying customers. If you just prosecute them for piracy they will probably give up on the industry altogether and refuse to buy even for good services.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki