While it’s incredible that a lawyer like Fabrizio would be so bold (and foolish) to use such language in discoverable emails, what he is proposing is even more incredible. A deliberate attempt to circumvent the DMCA. Ironic, right?
It's not incredible at all. He has an alternative legal theory that he thinks might stand up in court and lead to issuance of a court order. That's exactly the job a lawyer is paid to do - come up with legal strategy that advance the interests of clients, including employers.
I don't know whether this legal theory would prevail and I hope it doesn't, but going to court and asking for what they want is the appropriate way to go about things.
the MPAA should be finding ways to reduce piracy by enabling access to content via methods that reward creators.
But people torrent things anyway, even when they are instantly available. I mentioned to someone the other day that The Master (a film that did rather poorly at the box office in 2012 but has maintained a good level of audience interest over the longer term, like many art films) has been available on Netflix streaming since July and is also available on other services like Amazon Instant Video, but you can see 25-30k people torrenting it on popular trackers. You can always invent another excuse for why it's more convenient to Torrent something than pay the paltry $8 or $10/month for Netflix, ie the cost of a few cups of coffee or about an hour's wages in a low-paying job. This method rewards creators and is clearly affordable.
Without endorsing the MPAA, how much more should they be doing in this case? Imagine that I worked for them and you were about to torrent this film, exactly what is it you would want me to do for you that would change your mind?
I think its important to consider the audience for torrenting. When I was a teenager, the majority of the content I consumed was downloaded for free. I think this was hugely helpful in shaping my taste and mind.
I would assume a large amount of illegal downloaders are being done by teenagers who have the most free time to consume, and the least amount of resources to consume.
I'm on my tablet, just checked Netflix. Turns out The Master is unavailable in the UK. Presumably I could work around that, maybe even legally for now - but it's an obvious weakness with the argument about Netflix. Sure it's affordable but these media companies seem determined to keep their archaic licensing systems in place to the detriment of any service that tries to be legal.
You are right, there is no perfect solution for the motion picture industry. Technology has undermined their business model. That doesn't mean we should allow them to sculpt our laws in order to unnaturally perpetuate their dominance. If your business model relies on restricting the flow of information, you are at complete odds with the internet, and you are doomed.
While I would buy music or movies if I could, in most cases I don't and use torrents because -
1. Most content is not available in my country (including services like Netflix). As one of the goals of my life is learning about various cultures through their movies, I would rather pirate than not watch.
2. Even if content is available, they are heavily censored. I refuse to watch this censored stuff.
3. The price is outrageous. I am not going to pay for stuff whose price is equivalent to the dollar amount after conversion.
It sounds like you're implying that paying for Netflix and using bittorrent is mutually exclusive. If the content on Netflix were better (it has everything you would ever want to watch) and less restrictive (want to watch offline?), and content creators were fairly compensated, why would a rational consumer chose anything else and why would a content creator not advocate for this scheme?
I love streaming subscriptions for the convenience factor but I find they fall far short of their promise due to "incomplete" content and restrictions of artificial scarcity-and I say this as a supporter of these services and the model used.
The profits are still largely going to the middlemen, and from all indication (that I can see), the content creators are still being shafted.
But people torrent things anyway, even when they are instantly available. I mentioned to someone the other day that The Master (a film that did rather poorly at the box office in 2012 but has maintained a good level of audience interest over the longer term, like many art films) has been available on Netflix streaming since July and is also available on other services like Amazon Instant Video, but you can see 25-30k people torrenting it on popular trackers.
To make your point about rewarding creators, it's necessary for you to demonstrate that these correspond to lost sales, and you haven't done that.
You do realize that collecting is a goal in itself for a lot of people, right? The guys I hung out with in college made it their sole purpose in life to "own" every piece of software ever written for the Apple II. But that doesn't mean that their actions cost Dan Bricklin, Richard Garriott, and Paul Lutus very much. Probably 95% of the products they pirated, they never even ran.
It's unlikely that the 30,000 people torrenting The Master are devoted but penurious fans of P. T. Anderson. You need to look for alternative explanations.
Also, as others have pointed out, Netflix isn't available in many places outside the US. There is absolutely no one to blame for that but Hollywood. Now that we've seen the intellectual and ethical caliber of the people running the studios, a lot of seemingly-paradoxical things are starting to make sense.
> You can always invent another excuse for why it's more convenient to Torrent something than pay the paltry $8 or $10/month for Netflix, ie the cost of a few cups of coffee or about an hour's wages in a low-paying job. This method rewards creators and is clearly affordable.
I actually think the opposite. I believe content piracy has gone down because services like Netflix and Spotify have come out and simplified consumption of media. These services has several advantages to torrents compared to the one disadvantage (it actually costs money) - Cross platform support, unlimited media in the tap of a button, etc. If the movie industry created something like Popcorn Time and charged $15-20/mo for unlimited movies, I'm sure they could get millions of subscribers.
A whole bunch of people in this world cannot pay the $10 a month for Netflix. Yeah, perhaps many in Western Europe and Northern America, maybe some bits of Asia, too can, but this still leaves millions with access to the Internet that can't pay.
Also consider all the kids and teenagers out there without a credit card.
Additionally content on Netflix seems quite limited, depending on location, so that's another problem. Bittorrent has everything.
It's a very hard to solve problem.
I do not think there is a way out of this, I would simply leave it be. In time, as more people will earn more money the piracy rates will drop.
> Imagine that I worked for them and you were about to torrent this film, exactly what is it you would want me to do for you that would change your mind?
Alright, let's brainstorm.
How about movie companies put up several movie ideas, we vote on which ones we want to watch by paying ahead so they can produce it, much like a kickstarter project, and then once it's done it's already paid for and they can release it for free online?
Oh that's right, it wouldn't work because there's no litigation involved and so it's no fun!
(What I'm trying to say is they're not interested in solving this problem, even though several solutions exist, despite sibling comments here saying that no solution exists).
Of course, it is not difficult to circumvent by using alternate DNS providers other than your ISP's, but the vast majority of people wouldn't know where to start on this.
What I find worrisome is not the blocking of torrent sites, but that a precedent has been set in the UK, and we'll inevitably start our headlong slide down the slippery slope towards censorship of anything corporations or the government find objectionable.
They haven't imposed DNS filtering - or at least, as implemented by almost all UK ISPs, the DNS lookup performs as normal.
The user looks up the IP address of the site they want to visit via a DNS lookup and is provided with the correct IP addres. However, if it's for kickass.so (on the blocklist), the ISP detects traffic to the IP of that site as it attempts to pass out of the ISP's network and blocks it.
Also, most of the work to get sites blocked via court order in the UK (not by some secret lobbying deal, but through the courts) has been done by the music industry, not the MPAA.
>I was so annoyed by the MPAA's ability to impose DNS filtering in the UK.
The only entity with the ability to impose DNS filtering in the UK is the government of the UK. Letting them off the hook guarantees they can run rough shod over you.
DNS is insecure. We know this, and we work around it (hence, TLS). We don't like this, but the implementations to secure DNS (DANE, etc.) leave a bad taste in security experts' mouths.
Attacking DNS with legal pressure isn't something the security industry doesn't already consider. DNS censorship is on of the motivations for using Tor, VPNs, etc.
This is a legal and political conflict, not a technical one.
>We don't like this, but the implementations to secure DNS (DANE, etc.)
DANE is just another half-assed semi-solution that shifts the trust problem around a bit.
A really good solution requires huge infrastructure change. The only currently viable solution to Zooko's Triangle is Namecoin (or a similar technology).
It is not possible to forcibly change a Namecoin entry via legal channels.
Setting aside this lawyer's idea of a new legal strategy, I have a slightly off topic comment: I am getting tired of hearing people talk at parties, etc. about grabbing/stealing stuff via bit torrents.
While I don't like the MPAA and the clout that they have, it also works the other way: people stealing media are also screwing over those of us who are willing to pay for Netflix streaming, etc.
I think that people who steal media content turn a blind eye to the harm they cause other Internet users. This is selfish behavior that is spilling over into bad political actions and government policy.
Half-hearted attempt by the collapsing mass media machine to conflate shitty attempts at DNS filtering as the next SOPA in the hopes the "angry poli-tech" types will run with it to drown out the fact that a darling entertainment exec and devote Democrat is actually racist.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
It's not incredible at all. He has an alternative legal theory that he thinks might stand up in court and lead to issuance of a court order. That's exactly the job a lawyer is paid to do - come up with legal strategy that advance the interests of clients, including employers.
I don't know whether this legal theory would prevail and I hope it doesn't, but going to court and asking for what they want is the appropriate way to go about things.
the MPAA should be finding ways to reduce piracy by enabling access to content via methods that reward creators.
But people torrent things anyway, even when they are instantly available. I mentioned to someone the other day that The Master (a film that did rather poorly at the box office in 2012 but has maintained a good level of audience interest over the longer term, like many art films) has been available on Netflix streaming since July and is also available on other services like Amazon Instant Video, but you can see 25-30k people torrenting it on popular trackers. You can always invent another excuse for why it's more convenient to Torrent something than pay the paltry $8 or $10/month for Netflix, ie the cost of a few cups of coffee or about an hour's wages in a low-paying job. This method rewards creators and is clearly affordable.
Without endorsing the MPAA, how much more should they be doing in this case? Imagine that I worked for them and you were about to torrent this film, exactly what is it you would want me to do for you that would change your mind?
[+] [-] vtlynch|11 years ago|reply
I would assume a large amount of illegal downloaders are being done by teenagers who have the most free time to consume, and the least amount of resources to consume.
[+] [-] bartwe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcintyre1994|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshontheweb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] radmuzom|11 years ago|reply
1. Most content is not available in my country (including services like Netflix). As one of the goals of my life is learning about various cultures through their movies, I would rather pirate than not watch.
2. Even if content is available, they are heavily censored. I refuse to watch this censored stuff.
3. The price is outrageous. I am not going to pay for stuff whose price is equivalent to the dollar amount after conversion.
[+] [-] benajnim|11 years ago|reply
I love streaming subscriptions for the convenience factor but I find they fall far short of their promise due to "incomplete" content and restrictions of artificial scarcity-and I say this as a supporter of these services and the model used.
The profits are still largely going to the middlemen, and from all indication (that I can see), the content creators are still being shafted.
[+] [-] CamperBob2|11 years ago|reply
To make your point about rewarding creators, it's necessary for you to demonstrate that these correspond to lost sales, and you haven't done that.
You do realize that collecting is a goal in itself for a lot of people, right? The guys I hung out with in college made it their sole purpose in life to "own" every piece of software ever written for the Apple II. But that doesn't mean that their actions cost Dan Bricklin, Richard Garriott, and Paul Lutus very much. Probably 95% of the products they pirated, they never even ran.
It's unlikely that the 30,000 people torrenting The Master are devoted but penurious fans of P. T. Anderson. You need to look for alternative explanations.
Also, as others have pointed out, Netflix isn't available in many places outside the US. There is absolutely no one to blame for that but Hollywood. Now that we've seen the intellectual and ethical caliber of the people running the studios, a lot of seemingly-paradoxical things are starting to make sense.
[+] [-] xasos|11 years ago|reply
I actually think the opposite. I believe content piracy has gone down because services like Netflix and Spotify have come out and simplified consumption of media. These services has several advantages to torrents compared to the one disadvantage (it actually costs money) - Cross platform support, unlimited media in the tap of a button, etc. If the movie industry created something like Popcorn Time and charged $15-20/mo for unlimited movies, I'm sure they could get millions of subscribers.
[+] [-] Nux|11 years ago|reply
A whole bunch of people in this world cannot pay the $10 a month for Netflix. Yeah, perhaps many in Western Europe and Northern America, maybe some bits of Asia, too can, but this still leaves millions with access to the Internet that can't pay.
Also consider all the kids and teenagers out there without a credit card.
Additionally content on Netflix seems quite limited, depending on location, so that's another problem. Bittorrent has everything.
It's a very hard to solve problem.
I do not think there is a way out of this, I would simply leave it be. In time, as more people will earn more money the piracy rates will drop.
Aren't they making enough money?
[+] [-] Squarel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Executor|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] innguest|11 years ago|reply
Alright, let's brainstorm.
How about movie companies put up several movie ideas, we vote on which ones we want to watch by paying ahead so they can produce it, much like a kickstarter project, and then once it's done it's already paid for and they can release it for free online?
Oh that's right, it wouldn't work because there's no litigation involved and so it's no fun!
(What I'm trying to say is they're not interested in solving this problem, even though several solutions exist, despite sibling comments here saying that no solution exists).
[+] [-] MarcScott|11 years ago|reply
This was why I was so annoyed by the MPAA's ability to impose DNS filtering in the UK. See here - http://www.ukispcourtorders.co.uk
Of course, it is not difficult to circumvent by using alternate DNS providers other than your ISP's, but the vast majority of people wouldn't know where to start on this.
What I find worrisome is not the blocking of torrent sites, but that a precedent has been set in the UK, and we'll inevitably start our headlong slide down the slippery slope towards censorship of anything corporations or the government find objectionable.
[+] [-] erglkjahlkh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caractacus|11 years ago|reply
The user looks up the IP address of the site they want to visit via a DNS lookup and is provided with the correct IP addres. However, if it's for kickass.so (on the blocklist), the ISP detects traffic to the IP of that site as it attempts to pass out of the ISP's network and blocks it.
Also, most of the work to get sites blocked via court order in the UK (not by some secret lobbying deal, but through the courts) has been done by the music industry, not the MPAA.
[+] [-] happyscrappy|11 years ago|reply
The only entity with the ability to impose DNS filtering in the UK is the government of the UK. Letting them off the hook guarantees they can run rough shod over you.
[+] [-] sarciszewski|11 years ago|reply
Attacking DNS with legal pressure isn't something the security industry doesn't already consider. DNS censorship is on of the motivations for using Tor, VPNs, etc.
This is a legal and political conflict, not a technical one.
[+] [-] wyager|11 years ago|reply
DANE is just another half-assed semi-solution that shifts the trust problem around a bit.
A really good solution requires huge infrastructure change. The only currently viable solution to Zooko's Triangle is Namecoin (or a similar technology).
It is not possible to forcibly change a Namecoin entry via legal channels.
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|11 years ago|reply
While I don't like the MPAA and the clout that they have, it also works the other way: people stealing media are also screwing over those of us who are willing to pay for Netflix streaming, etc.
I think that people who steal media content turn a blind eye to the harm they cause other Internet users. This is selfish behavior that is spilling over into bad political actions and government policy.
[+] [-] sighsigh|11 years ago|reply
http://data.influenceexplorer.com/contributions/#Y29udHJpYnV...
But Firefox CEO can lose his job because he donated to a Republican once. That's cool.
[+] [-] fatjokes|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] influx|11 years ago|reply