NiteShdw Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 As most of you know, the MPAA posted a press release that claimed a lawsuit against "NiteShadow.com". While this site is not "NiteShadow.com", I want to post my thoughts and feelings about why the media industry is missing out on a huge potential market and is alienating its own customers. I have not received any notice from Paramount or the MPAA regarding any lawsuit against myself or my website. I can't comment on the lawsuit itself since I have yet to see it. There is a huge demand in the world for both video and audio in electronic format. People want to be able to put music on their portable audio players, like the iPod, to take with them wherever they want. Even more so, there are people all over the world that don't have any access (over-the-air, cable, or sat) to TV shows and movies. For example, in Australia, the second season of Battlestar Galatica (aired on Sci-Fi) has yet to air on any network. The very popular BBC show "Doctor Who" has never aired on U.S. television, and yet was viewed by 10 million British weekly. Why should someone in Australia have to wait over a year to see a TV show? Why should an American never be able to watch "Doctor Who" simply because they live in the wrong part of the world? The internet today has the potential to create markets that span the entire world. Some broadcasters have already discovered that they can find much larger audiences via the Internet. The show "The IT Crowd" produced in the UK by Channel 4 released all of their episodes on the internet for viewers DAYS before the show aired on TV. It only takes a basic understand of economics to understand that where there is demand, there is a market. So far, large corporations have done little, if anything at all, to harness this vast new market. There have been some steps forward with the video iPod and Google Videos, but even at $2 per show, people must pay $50+ for a season of a TV show, which they can readily purchase on DVD for nearly the same price and at much higher quality. The MPAA's press release dated Feb 23, 2005 states that one website claimed over 4.4 million downloads of the movie "Alien 2". If the industry could have captured just one quarter of those downloads, they could have made millions of dollars in revenue. When Betamax and VHS were introduced, the media industry claimed that those formats would be the end of entertainment as we knew it. In fact, the VHS allowed the industry to make more money than ever before by distributing videos on VHS. Today's digital video is just the next step. Digital, on-demand, video gives the media the means to reach the entire world overnight. Digg this story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S0V13T Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Well said NiteShdw. One would think that they would embrace the technologies that may mean millions in extra profits, instead of trying to criminalize them. History remembers the VHS / BetaMax wars, the scare that taping a song off the radio was a crime, and time will surely remember torrents, and p2p. He who does not learn from history, is destined to repeat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eenie Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 hear hear niteshadow, agree with every word. the prob i think is that a large segment of the public (inc me) now expect to be able to get things online while the corporations are still dragging heels trying to work out how to get the most out of us for their material on the net. surely their must be some way to release things like galactica simultaneously around the world--that would go a long way to ending piracy i think. as for the vhs/beta wars- lets not forget the inferior technology won out thru massive corporate backing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Totally agree (though differently on some points). I love how they include some site and Alien 2 as being the cause for a loss of money. Granted Alien 2 is a debateble great movie, but do we really need to go look at the date it was made? It's old as beans, you can't find it on vhs anymore, and the Alien dvds are some of the more pricey monster/horror dvd's there are. What next, Fox (or whoever owns the rights) getting angry over someone making a torrent of Gone With the Wind? Yes because we know Scarlette O'Hairea is really goin to make them so much money in 2006 ;o While I agree with how some of the things are silly (like no Who in America, yet anyways) I really disagree about the supply and demand. Sure, I have a demand for say, Battlestar Galactica. Would I pay for it? That is debateable. Take into account the average handful plus of series and movies fans enjoy, are we supposed to "scale back" what we supposedly should buy because we like too may shows and can't afford to buy them all? And what about quality? There are plenty of shows that are worth watching, but not nesscarily worth paying for. Are we supposed to just limit ourselves to accepting the few scarce reruns tv channels have? That's even assuming that show is avaible in your country. Only in the recent last two years have companies started releasing the "bargin" dvd sets, usually dubbed "slim cases" they come in much cheaper packaging with usually much less extras. Why hasn't this been done by Paramount? Yes like any company they want to make profit, but there's a huge huge HUGE difference between making profit and down right highway robbery. Myself, I don't think we should have to pay one CENT for a tv show. Why? I already paid for it. Subtract my internet cost, and my cable bill each month is roughly $80.00 give or take a $5 margin for error (off the top of my head). For that price, I get 300 channels of digital cable, much of which includes "on demand" channels, such as HBO on demand. Using such a channel (if one is avaible) I might have the option to view episodes of a show. For example right now on HBO On Demand, I can watch all of Sopranos season 5. Episode by Episode right. But yet, if I choose to go download them (even without uploading or "sharing") it's still illegal? I've paid for it, why does the medium of which I watch it matter? The real kicker? Not all channels have, on demand. ABC, who creates and airs Lost in America? They have no On Demand style channel. So I either catch Lost when it's on, or pray I can catch reruns. The Sci Fi channel, which is our 99% source of science fiction in America, no on demand style channel either. So the "catch it now or pray for reruns" goes for Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, Battlestar Galactica, John Doe and a dozen other series they syndicate that I enjoy. I've paid for these already, if I should choose to watch them on my pc when I should be allowed. The solution is, networks need an online (internet) component to go along with the tv stations offered. I pay for HBO? HBO should then provide episodes aired on their station, for download via their official website. It wouldn't even need to be really high speed, I'd be happy if they capped it at 50kB down or even 30kB. Point being is that if I miss a new episode, and I miss the rerun or it's not rerun then as a paying customer I'd have the right and option to obtain from them legally through them. Networks refuse to do it. How many shows do you know of have been released, online, for free? IT Crowd? I know the BBC is looking into offering other stuff but in America, there's crap offered for free online (or even in relation to having paid for them). The closest thing we have is, downloading the latest episodes of a small handful of shows off of Apple's iTunes service, to view on our iPod Video's. Which of course you have to pay for, again. Hey guess what, that latest Lost I just got off iTunes? Yea my cable bill just paid for that last week, give me my $1.99 back Apple. Why should we fork over MORE money, to convert something we've already paid to view into another format? Maybe it's a new generational thing. Sure when I was a kid, we had cassette tapes. Hell we still used 8 tracks from time to time. CD's didn't become the format for change until I was at least ten or eleven years old. And yes people keep rebuying their albums on new formats. 8 Track, Cassette, CD, even Laserdisc if you believe it. But you know what? I know tons of people who didn't. When CD's became popular, plenty of people stocked up on copies of their favorite cassettes and cassette players. Why? Well, that's just it. Why? Why change formats for the same product you already own or paid for, when you can enjoy it that way? The difference is TV is alot, lot different. Their schedule like radio is rotational. You watch most shows on THEIR time tables, not your own. Maybe if all stations and shows were open to viewing like a TiVo allows, then it would be so much simpler. But even that costs more money for a simple service that really itself does not cost more to produce or put into practice. Sadly, it will be a never ending struggle if you ask me. TV Stations, much like hospitals and insurance companies, are blood suckers. They will find a source of profit and suck it dry until they move onto the next. Anything that threatens that vast profit gorging, is treated as a hostile act aganist them. I mean can we honestly say we understand or respect people "just doing they're jobs" when they sue tweleve year old girls, single mothers workin g two jobs to feed children or even middle aged women who've never owned a computer or used any internet service provider? It doesn't take people much to see past them for what they are. No that's the easy part. The hard part is getting the rest of the world to take off their rose colored glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eonfreon Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Well said folks. Thing I don't understand is that I've never heard of a good business model that includes bullying and intimidation (well besides the mafia). And with statements about loss of billions of dollars as we then see these executives with incredible homes and vehicles and boats and... well you get the idea. If they are losing billions and yet still make billions, then advertise this fact, doesn't it start to gall people. Oh boo hoo, they could only afford twenty trips to Hawaii instead of their usual twenty-five. Kinda hurts to hear that as I get my ten bucks an hour (which I'm grateful for even) and missed my favorite show cause I couldn't get someone to trade shifts with me and I'm working 'till 1 A.M. and my buddy forget to tape it for me. I haven't seen too many stars forced out in the street because of the "loss" of revenue. And yes, my budget is limited and I won't pay for something if I don't know if it's good. But when I do love a show, I will buy the Deluxe DVD with all the Extras. BUt forgive me for browsing before I buy. Anyway, enough with the ranting, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir. But it just pisses me off that I'm considered a criminal for downloading something THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO OBTAIN HERE- D. Who being a prime example. And what's worse- when it does come here it's edited for our crappy commercial television. Forgive me for wanting to see the the show as edited by the creators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I agree. I dont understand why they are so frightened of change. Its costing them so much time, money etc trying to stop the downloaders - why cant they channel this money and energy into something positive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Anyway' date=' enough with the ranting, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir. But it just pisses me off that I'm considered a criminal for downloading something THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO OBTAIN HERE- D. Who being a prime example. And what's worse- when it does come here it's edited for our crappy commercial television. Forgive me for wanting to see the the show as edited by the creators.[/quote'] My thoughts exactly. If only TV series like SG-1, SGA and BSG aired on cable around here three or four episodes after the US, I'd certainly not be using the internet to watch them. However, since it takes months and months (sometimes years) for such shows to air, I feel obliged to use the net or, by the time I finally get to see them, my watching experience will already be spoiled by sites like scifi.com, gateworld.net and so on. Needless to say that, despite paying for cable subscription, I'd also end up excluded from discussing the latest episodes on amazing forums like this one. So, no, I don't see file sharing of TV series as illegal. I see it as the best way for us, worldwide viewers, to enforce our rights as such, thus correcting a system that, as Starbuck would say, is completely frakked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 nice to see you guys!! i think filesharing is ok too... i mean you can watch loads of tv shows & still only go buy a few dvds (i mean you don't buy the dvds of all the shows you watch).... basically replacing the tv with a pc still won't effect sales since I & many others still go & buy the dvds of the good shows........ the only ppl who don't buy dvd's are the ones that never buy dvd's.... any who the net reaches more ppl around the world than any tv service!!! and is most likly better in my eyes !! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjones Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 ... Whats more interesting is this... I know that people who werent the slightest bit interested in the show BSG have now gone out and purchased DVD boxsets of the series just from viewing downloads ;-) So you could argue that Torrents have been GOOD for some series ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 ... Whats more interesting is this... I know that people who werent the slightest bit interested in the show BSG have now gone out and purchased DVD boxsets of the series just from viewing downloads ;-) So you could argue that Torrents have been GOOD for some series ;-) I haven't bought BSG's DVD boxsets (they haven't arrived yet), but, recently, I acquired all ten Star Trek movies on DVD due to this website. I'm sure many people have similar stories to tell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjones Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 ..saying that I dont condone illegal downloads of movies or the like ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
str82u Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 This is an on demand world and as far as all the comments go, the Big Wigs in the sky know what people are doing. The average people. Those who have spyware and asked for it, those same people who don't care how something works, as long as it's there. The same ones that let the "Ooh Aah" cause them to fork out $300 US per child for iPods. It happens and these people are straight up drones baby! They believe a lot of what they're told without question and advertising and the media tactics work on them. So does the Jedi Mind Trick, I make money like this. So anyhow, I never have bought becuse of a download. Criminal? I buy other stuff, don't get me wrong. The kids have show sets, and you just have to have the Star Wars sets, it's just waiting for the right ones. By the way, they market those around my birthdays... I wouldn't have watched some of these shows to tell anyone else to watch, so they got something out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralLee Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Its costing them so much time, money etc trying to stop the downloaders - why cant they channel this money and energy into something positive? Here's a parallel to that.... At the company I work for, about 22 months ago (almost 2 full years now), there was a vote that involved most of the plants employees in a Union vote (The United Steelworkers of America). It was a simple yes/no ballet. Yes: you wanted the Union in, No: you were against the Union. Well, by a slim margin, the Union was voted IN (there were more YES votes then no votes). To this day, the company I work for has spent MILLIONS of dollars on high priced lawyers with high priced company jets, to FIGHT and reject the Union. They claim they are willing to take the case to the Supreme Court if need be. Besides their regular fees, these Lawyers, for example, get paid $3.00 PER WORD that they type out on their various appeals in this case, and some of the appeals are hundreds of pages long of nothing but legalize gobblygook. It's all quite insane really, this Corporate America I live in. People who hold power, do not like to give it up. Resistance to change, is very powerful. (Here is a link to the company I work for) Crestline/VinylCrest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I guess what motivates a person like me to obtain their entertainment from the internet is my desire to avoid the deleterious affects of advertising on the human brain. Movies and TV shows available in an On-Demand format are helpful, but with kids in the house parked in front of the TV day in and day out, who can get access to the thing. Plus, forget finding what you like in the On-Demand format if what you like is anything not so popular. Buying another TV and renting another digital cable receiver is never going to be in my budget. I used to enjoy getting my entertainment fix in movie theatres with their huge screens, surround sound, popcorn, sticky floors, etc., but these days I find myself getting angry at all the ads I have to endure (at the highest volume level ever attained in an indoor venue). I would gladly pay extra just to be allowed to enter a theatre and watch the movie, and just the movie. If my choice is to get entertained and not brain-washed, I should be allowed to. I shouldn't have to wait for the DVD release months and months later. It seems I am a fan of entertainment, not a fan of possessing entertainment, and Sci-fi is the best entertainment going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhug666 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 tv people are crazy, if they adapt to new technology, and provide free tools to enable users to swap formats then, they can make megabuks, instead they refuse to change forcing people to go iligal, then they sue the people who are getting it illiegally. one thing is for sure, tv people are not the borg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Here's a parallel to that.... At the company I work for, about 22 months ago (almost 2 full years now), there was a vote that involved most of the plants employees in a Union vote (The United Steelworkers of America). It was a simple yes/no ballet. Yes: you wanted the Union in, No: you were against the Union. Well, by a slim margin, the Union was voted IN (there were more YES votes then no votes). To this day, the company I work for has spent MILLIONS of dollars on high priced lawyers with high priced company jets, to FIGHT and reject the Union. They claim they are willing to take the case to the Supreme Court if need be. Besides their regular fees, these Lawyers, for example, get paid $3.00 PER WORD that they type out on their various appeals in this case, and some of the appeals are hundreds of pages long of nothing but legalize gobblygook. It's all quite insane really, this Corporate America I live in. People who hold power, do not like to give it up. Resistance to change, is very powerful. (Here is a link to the company I work for) Crestline/VinylCrest Well, this is 'sort of' off topic, but normally I'd say: I hope they go bankrupt on those blasted lawyers, but then again, that's no good solution either, since then all employees wiil get unemployed too. Yuck, sometimes it seems as if the law and lawyers only exist to fill their own pockets and make sure the rich remain rich and powerfull... As for the resistance against change, you're absolutely right, once people are in control, they don't like to give up their control. imo they should make corporate leaders personally responsible for all their company does, so if their company screws up, they'll go to jail and don't pass start or recieve 2000 credits... iykwim But as time passes they'll have to adapt to the 'global enternainment economy', there is no escaping that! They currently are only postponing it and trying to create an environment in which they can 'easily' keep control of what happens with 'their content' and make sure that they remain in global control of new content as well, so as to exclude unaffiliated groups they can't control... imo, it's a futile attempt, music studios will be the first to lose out, since there will no longer be a need to spread the material, it will spread itself via the internet in all possible legal ways... Who needs studios then... Movie-studios will hold out a little longer, but even they will lose their grip in the end if the free market economy is allowed to do its work, instead of all this backstabbing that currently is taking place... * /me puts away his cristal ball :P * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulreaper Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Very well said everyone!!! I'm proud to stand side to side with you people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalith Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 The biggest plus point to any movie/tv manufacturer is the huge world wide market that is available to view their products. Its been mentioned on another thread on this site that a Company could start transmitting programs for instant viewing to every country. this would cost next to nothing to set up as the technology already exists. I must say that i would resent having to pay for this service but if the product was available to download for free some short time after its preview then i would do that. However enough people would pay for and 'tune in' to watch a premier release. The likes of the MPAA are idiots and are missing out on the largest form of revenue they could wish for i.e. a global market. Hey, if that is what they want then let them carry on and more and more people will find the internet and download these commodities with no cares at all about the ramifications. It gauls me to the core what these Corporations are attempting to do, but i will refuse to bow down to their attempts to curtail freedom on the World Wide Web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avagriffon Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 It's more efficient for Mass Distribution in a Global Environment Any theory that supposes downloading poor quality torrents competes with revenue or potential revenue from legitimate sales is crazy. I still can't believe a legitimate service isn't on offer that uses the watermark (Sci-Fi, SKY or whatever as non-invasive ad space i.e. a rotating series of watermarks) as ad breaks are used currently. Ever since the introduction of crypto like cp and Macrovision the Publishers have gone Rabid over protecting their content (ever try to get DVD operating on Grandma’s 35year old TV) - think about it if they could they would try to use crypto to control the content all the way to your optic nerve. A 'CapitolVision' Chip at birth and the correct Neuro surgery should do the trick (not so crazy as it sounds if you have ever read how bionic ears work - in ST they would call them Audio-Neural Interfaces). Or huge databases containing lists of who was entitled to what, so that each distribution could be identified to a specific licence and nail whoever shared it or why not go for the for full 1984 and have roaming teams raiding houses searching your storage media. If you speak on a loud speaker you can’t go crying if it's recorded edited and republished - I can't see the difference between sound and radio or packets - atomic and sub-atomic. It’s called Broadcasting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalith Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Here here avagriffon broadcasting by its very nature is advertising if they dont want people to get it then they need to make it unbroadcastable lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now