Upcoming
Youth in Revolt
January 15
January 22
Drool
The Girl on the Train
Get Tough
At yesterday's Congressional hearing in Van Nuys about illegal movie downloading, Steven Soderbergh reportedly suggested that the U.S. should adopt a not-yet-passed French law project (nicknamed DADOPI) that would cut off an offender's internet service after three warnings. What's wrong with that idea? It would certainly cut into piracy revenues.
Vanity Fair's Julian Sanction, who speaks French, doesn't care for it. Earlier today he explained the particulars in a mocking way.
(1) "Individuals will be charged not for downloading illegal content, but rather for failing to properly secure their internet access. So even if some guy parks his car behind your house and poaches your service to download, say, the complete works of Jerry Lewis, you will be held responsible."
(2) "Those charged with illegal downloading will be sent two e-mail warnings, followed by a third warning by registered letter."
(3) "If offenders re-offend within one year of being warned, their Internet service can be cut off for a period of two months to a year, or one to three months if they promise not to do it again."
(4) "Offenders whose Internet service is cut off would continue to pay their providers during the period of suspension.
(5) "The law will be retroactive, meaning there is to be no amnesty for people caught downloading content illegally before the law is passed.
(6) "To further discourage illegal downloading, lawmakers have proposed reducing the DVD window to four months rather than six."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 8, 2009 at 3:42 PM
comment #1
George Prager
says ...
Dumb.
Posted by George Prager
at April 8, 2009 4:06 PM
comment #2
MilkMan
says ...
The Internet is the All-Time Clusterfuck. Getting anyone to not do anything is tantamount to trying to figure out how to get someone's brain to stop thinking about something. And what the fuck crawled up Soderberg's ass? Why is he so goddamned cranky all the time?
Posted by MilkMan
at April 8, 2009 4:16 PM
comment #3
The Winchester
says ...
Isn't the DVD window already 4 months? I feel like I just saw Marley and Me at the local multiplex, and now here it is, ready for my DVD enjoyment.
And trying to regulate the internet and illegal downloading is futile. What they should do is publicize uncool people doing it, like Rupert Murdoch, or my dad. Once people see those guys doing it, the act of illegal downloading will suddenly lose its' luster.
Posted by The Winchester
at April 8, 2009 4:17 PM
comment #4
Gordon27
says ...
I love conflating movie downloading with the people who sell pirated copies and bootlegs. I'm not arguing that these people aren't guilty of the same crime, mind you, but the attitude seems to be, "Piracy costs us [made up amount of money to sound serious], so we have to combat it, but we can't do anything to stop the people responsible for 95% of it, so let's give up on them and focus on the people we can maybe catch, even though they're not the ones who are really interfering with our bottom line."
Worked really well for the music biz...
[Weird, I thought Soderbergh supported multiple platform release to combat piracy.]
Posted by Gordon27
at April 8, 2009 4:17 PM
comment #5
KC
says ...
I would think this sounds completely deranged to anyone who didn't need someone to explain to them how Facebook works
Posted by KC
at April 8, 2009 4:19 PM
comment #6
Deathtongue_Groupie
says ...
The cure is pretty simple - the studios and record labels upload dozens of hot movies and CDs onto pirate services loaded with brand new, very nasty malware.
After a few thousand computers crash and keep crashing from this "file spiking" (much like spiking trees to fight logging) people will get hesitant to chance losing their data over it. Yes, many family and university computers will get burned, but it has to start somewhere.
Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie
at April 8, 2009 4:33 PM
comment #7
Aris P
says ...
^^ Now THAT is the best thing I've heard about this topic in a loooong time. Excellent idea.
Posted by Aris P
at April 8, 2009 5:23 PM
comment #8
corey3rd
says ...
Deathtounge - the record companies did put out CDs with malware which messed up computers when people tried to merely play them on their laptop. This was done to the first Neil Diamond - Rick Reuben album and a Celine Dion album.
Posted by corey3rd
at April 8, 2009 6:07 PM
comment #9
nakedmanatee
says ...
Every Neil Diamond disc is malware in some sense.
Posted by nakedmanatee
at April 8, 2009 7:07 PM
comment #10
D.Z.
says ...
I like how it's always people whose careers are based entirely on WOM who are most against piracy. So how many screeners did Soderbergh have to send out before they gave him that Ocean's gig again? Or maybe he's trying to blame bootlegging for Bubble being a disaster now?
Gordon: "I love conflating movie downloading with the people who sell pirated copies and bootlegs"
I love how the studios claim that piracy hurts the "artists", but then they drag out WGA and SAG negotiations for compensation for legal downloads.
Posted by D.Z.
at April 8, 2009 7:12 PM
comment #11
mccool
says ...
Are they going to tell the offender's mother, too?
What a joke.
Posted by mccool
at April 8, 2009 8:19 PM
comment #12
Gordon27
says ...
Yeah, 'Bubble' was such a disaster that the distributor continues to follow that model exactly...
Jeez, you really are a dumb piece of shit, aren't you, DZ?
"So how many screeners did Soderbergh have to send out before they gave him that Ocean's gig again?"
That's so pricelessly uninformed, it's amazing.
Posted by Gordon27
at April 8, 2009 8:40 PM
comment #13
D.Z.
says ...
Gordon: He tried that model with Che, actually.
Anyway, David O. Russell's slumming. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118002266.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
Posted by D.Z.
at April 8, 2009 9:02 PM
comment #14
Gordon27
says ...
*shakes head*
Shut up, you moronic piece of fucking shit.
Posted by Gordon27
at April 8, 2009 11:50 PM
comment #15
Jonah
says ...
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
DZ has no idea what he's talking about. And he's aware of this. If you argue with him long enough on one issue he will completely contradict himself.
He knows he's full of shit. It's useless to argue with somebody like that.
Posted by Jonah
at April 9, 2009 3:20 AM
comment #16
SaveFarris
says ...
There's no problem that can't be made worse with government intervention.
Posted by SaveFarris
at April 9, 2009 9:51 AM
comment #17
bents75
says ...
I think this just seems silly because it would cut into internet revenue to spite the piracy revenue :
(4) "Offenders whose Internet service is cut off would continue to pay their providers during the period of suspension.
Why would you continue to pay for something you're not getting? You just make a phone call - cancel your service - and then call up and start it again when your so called suspension ends. If the provider has a problem with that, then go with another one.
No one is going to support forcing you to continue to pay your internet provider when they're not providing you with the internet.
Posted by bents75
at April 9, 2009 9:56 AM
comment #18
Nick
says ...
Instead of making laws that hurt the consumer, why don't they give the consumer what they want?
Where are the reasonably priced "all you can eat" download services? I want Netflix but downloadable.
I want a download service that I pay a monthly fee for and I can download what I want, when I want, on any system that I want. Without DRM, without ads, without restrictions.
Why is that so hard for these companies to understand?
It's because they'd actually have to change and innovate their business models and nobody wants to do that.
Netflix is going in a good direction but they're too limited by the studios. Itunes rental pricing model is a joke. Same for most of the other digital individual rental models.
And really, I see 90% of the movies I WANT to see in the theatre. Then there's the stupid action movies that I don't want to see in the theatre, and are always out in Netflix. Therefore I'm going to download it, because I'm looking for something to put on while I'm doing something else. I would pay for a service that would allow me to download this movie quickly and have no restrictions on how I can play it.
Is that too much to ask?
Posted by Nick
at April 9, 2009 10:02 AM
comment #19
Chicago48
says ...
You have to use the host company to shut down the users. Why not just send the users a bill for the downloads? We/They know who the illegal users are, just send them a bill.
Posted by Chicago48
at April 9, 2009 10:07 AM
comment #20
George Prager
says ...
The French just rejected the bill.
D.Z. says..
Anyway, David O. Russell's slumming. http://omg.yahoo.com/photos/2-hot-2-handle/2797?nc
Posted by George Prager
at April 9, 2009 10:19 AM
comment #21
Deathtongue_Groupie
says ...
Nick - thing is, the Netflix model only works based on the physical copy model. There has to be an upper limit to how many films you can get and the use of snail mail ensures it.
The fact is, the future is going to be more ala carte than buffet. You will pay for every single film, but for much, much less. The distributors will see that it's about the most basic of business models: volume, baby, volume. Each download will run you like .50 - .99, with deep discounts the higher it gets.
Of course, they will need to come up with some system that keeps you from being able to record it.
Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie
at April 9, 2009 12:15 PM
comment #22
Nick
says ...
A la cart would only REALLY work if the prices are absolutely miniscule. Apparently those Russian mp3 sites did big business on 5 and 10 cent downloads.
The buffet model would work. I know people who have gone off the traditional means grid completely (no cable no netflix) and pay a monthly fee for ultra fast downloading.
Why can't the Media Congloms have a service just like this? Instead of worrying about drm worrying about how they can get the most content to the customer as fast as possible?
Posted by Nick
at April 9, 2009 1:30 PM
Post a comment