my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » MPAA: Kodi Abusers Are Growing Video Piracy Threat (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: MPAA: Kodi Abusers Are Growing Video Piracy Threat Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 10-07-2017 09:27 PM                        quote: Steve Guttag I think there is a difference in your examples between government imposed rules on behavior (speed limits) or the game they have made out of taxes (if you don't know the ever changing rules, you pay more!) and stealing someone else's (private or corporate) work. Actually, all three are very similar. Copyright legislation is a set of government-imposed rules on behavior, just like the tax code and speed limits are. It has only existed for about the past three centuries: before the ability to copy intellectual property for a fraction of the cost of creating it in the first place (i.e. the invention of printing), there was no need for it. To give two examples, the Statute of Anne and Article 1, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution appeared in response to the mass reproduction of printed texts becoming widespread in the jurisdictions they affected. The theft of physical property, however, has been illegal literally for as long as the rule of law has existed. Intellectual property is a more abstract concept than physical property (especially for those who have never created any IP that is of significant financial value, i.e. about 99.98% of the population), which is surely a big part of the reason why such a large proportion of the population do not believe copyright theft to be as serious as the theft of physical objects, or even, in some cases, an act of theft at all. Steve's comparison with speed limits is actually a relevant one: the overwhelming majority of the population don't believe that defying those is wrong, either. There is no social stigma in admitting to friends, relatives and co-workers that you got a speeding ticket in the way that there would be if you were busted for DUI. You almost never encounter anyone obeying the speed limit on any of the roads I regularly drive on, or have ever regularly driven on. Opinion polls regularly show that an overwhelming majority of the population would support doing away with speed limits, and most copyright law. It doesn't happen, because for various reasons that are off limits for this forum, no mainstream political party with a realistic chance of being elected to serious office has ever been willing to act on them. The other aspect of Hollywood's uphill struggle is that when Joe Public thinks of Hollywood, (s)he doesn't think of the thousands of middle class, middle income earners who comprise the bulk of Hollywood's workforce: instead, (s)he thinks of badly behaved millionaire celebrities. When buying a Kodi box, the average purchaser probably figures that if this makes it a little more difficult for Harvey Weinstein to afford his latest payoff and NDA for some wannabe starlet he did something gross and disgusting to, (s)he's not going to lose any sleep over that.  |  IP: Logged Alexandre Pereira Expert Film Handler Posts: 126 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jan 2016 posted 10-07-2017 11:47 PM                        Yes - but Kodi boxes could be stopped immediately if the studios really cared. Partner up with the ISP's - the pipe - instead of some ponzi scheme like netflix. Pirating only exists because large amounts of data is allowed to be downloaded and streamed without tracking. The problem is that studios are always looking for money on the floor and simply cannot see beyond that next percentage to the spiral to the bottom.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-08-2017 02:21 AM                        I think "paying for the pipe" would be a huge undertaking from a bookkeeping and tracking standpoint. ISPs go in and out of business all the time. It's way easier and cheaper for a studio to do business with a few big companies like Netflix and let those companies deal with things like collecting subscriber fees. It's the same reason you can't buy a can of Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup direct from the Campbell company. If they dealt with every individual soup-loving consumer, it would create a nightmare of expenses. Things tend to work the way they do for a reason.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-08-2017 06:13 AM                     Leo, the problem with the speed limit (versus most other laws) is that the number assigned to speed limtis is more arbitrary. How is the number derived? Is it safety? If so, is it to be 100% safe or reduce acidents to "an acceptable level." And even if it is the latter, then what is with "speed zones" where the limite, on the same road, same condidtions, suddenly drop 10-20 MPH for a few blocks? Speed limits are treated as a game whereby, as you have noted, most people know they can exceed the posted limit by 5--10 MPH (varies by area, just to make the game more fun). You get away with it just enough to almost encourge it to the point that the police can always make their quotas by an endless supply of speeders. In work zones is really the places that they take is seriously by having photo enforcement. It is a "we're serious this time" sort of statement. There are also other areas (typically near schools) where again, society puts up a "we're serioius" statement. But that can also be interpreted is that in other earas "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, don't get too carried away." Stealing phystical or intelectual property is never okay though. The problem with intelectual property is that the owner has to find out about the theft and then enforce their copyright. Disney will, if they find out about it. Unfortunately, this also reinforces the public perception that they have legal content because the public doesn's see much in the way of torrent site prosecution and, in particular, people getting serious fines/jail time for having these illegal devices. You start busting people for having these devices and use them to get to people that are offering and running the sites. This is a multi-billion dollar problem and should be treated as such.  |  IP: Logged Harold Hallikainen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 906 From: Denver, CO, USA Registered: Aug 2009 posted 10-08-2017 09:35 AM                        Regarding speed limits, at least in California, a posted speed limit must be supported by a traffic study completed within the past 5 years if radar is to be used as evidence. If no traffic study was done in the past 5 years, the radar evidence is inadmissible. That law discourages arbitrary speed limits. I think we benefit by following the law to the best of our understanding as opposed to what we can get away with. Harold  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 10-08-2017 01:03 PM                        I think that a lot of people lose respect for copyright because of the exceptionally long terms involved. People would understand a copyright on something that was made last year, for example, but don't understand why something made in 1935 is still under copyright. "You mean something that was made before my grandmother was born is still copyrighted?" That spills over into "this whole copyright thing is ridiculous" and there you have where it is today. "Founders copyright" (14 years, possibly renewable for another 14) would be a lot more defensible from a common sense standpoint than what we have now.  |  IP: Logged Harold Hallikainen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 906 From: Denver, CO, USA Registered: Aug 2009 posted 10-08-2017 01:49 PM                        What is the term for copyright now? I seem to remember something like life of the author plus 70 years. Also, does copyright work like patents as far as the author compared to inventor? Patents are issued to individuals, but the patent term is not related to the life of the individual. I think the patent term is now something like 20 years from date of filing (and, I think it used to be 20 years from date of invention). Are copyrights issued to "natural persons" (not corporations)? They may be assigned to corporations, but it seems like the term would be limited to "life of the author plus 70 years). It would probably be simpler if copyrights had a fixed term from either date of creation or date of registration. That way you would not have to figure out if the author is still alive or when he/she died. Patents and copyrights are an exchange of value between the inventor/author and the public. In exchange for disclosure, the inventor/author gains a limited term monopoly on the creation. After that, the invention or copyrighted work goes into the public domain. The term has to be long enough to encourage inventors and authors but short enough for the public to get some value out of the disclosure. Harold  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-08-2017 01:52 PM                     I agree that copyright law should be changed to allow public domain MUCH sooner than it does. I'd make it closer to patent law and definitely not beyond 50-years. There comes a point where you really have milked the economical value out of it. The copyright only exists because we in society have made such laws. As has been pointed out above, if not for the movable type printing press, it wasn't much of an issue before.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-08-2017 02:13 PM                        quote: Harold Hallikainen Are copyrights issued to "natural persons" (not corporations)? Both. If you read the fine print at the end of movies you'll often see something along the lines of "For international copyright purposes Movie Production Company is the author of this film." Disney is one of the big instigators behind extended copyright. The Mouse would be out of copyright years ago if the law hadn't changed. Copyright in the US was originally, IIRC, thirteen years. The purpose of copyright and patents, according to the Constitution is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." , not to make a bundle of money for the author, corporation or their offspring. But that boat has sailed, hit an iceberg, sunk and had a movie made about it, so we're not going back.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 10-08-2017 02:45 PM                        Copyright didn't really have much application to regular people until the advent of computers, photocopiers and cassette tape recorders. You couldn't copy a book without a printing press, you couldn't copy a record without a record press, and so on. So copyright as a concept only really mattered to commercial enterprises who had the equipment and some method to sell those things for a profit. Joe Blow at home couldn't copy his LP or this week's best selling novel or his copy of Vogue magazine and give it to his friend next door. So copyright as an abstract concept really didn't have any effect on Joe. And again, I think the excessively long terms lead to a general contempt for copyright overall. If people view the entire regime as a rip-off, they won't make a distinction between the latest thing versus the 1935 player piano roll transcription.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 10-08-2017 04:19 PM                     Copyright is a pretty difficult balance. On one side, it's important that people who create, are protected by law to benefit from what they create. But it should also not be this perpetual license to print money without adding anything of value, which is essentially what it has become, with all those extensions. If copyright never expires, it becomes a weapon against it's original purpose: To motivate people to create. But also, copyright in the digital age, where everything is interconnected and easily copied, is a pretty difficult concept to maintain. People also like to share stuff around, it's a pretty natural habit. In most cases this is a good habit, it's the way we transfer knowledge. Without it, we would probably still be stuck in the dark ages. Copyright in the digital age is looking for a place, for a solution. I think the solution is not in manically trying to protect content distribution, like studios and content owners are trying to do with DRM systems and the whole security chain also present in DCI for example. The problem with those systems is that they end up being more a hindrance for the legitimate user, than a real roadblock to privacy. They're even a real threat to long-time archival. Every major DRM scheme has failed upon now. AACS was soon to hit the toilet to never return, and it now looks like AACS 2.0 is also going to bite the dust. So, while the legitimate content owner, who paid premium for his or her disc or download isn't allowed to make a backup copy, the pirate gets all the goodies and can make copies he/she wants. He even doesn't have to care about a working HDCP chain for example. The problem also isn't on the punishment side. Most people don't know, because they never face the potential consequences, but downloading and especially spreading copyright protected content can lead to punishment that can severely impact your life. The problem is that people don't see the value in content anymore, they think it has to be free. The content industry also isn't really helping. With their ever-shrinking theatrical release windows for example, and the push to streaming to any device, they're seriously hurting the perceived value of their own content. And to be honest: What's the value of watching a movie on your tablet or mobile phone? It's a sub-par experience and it's the experience people are willing to pay for, not so much the content itself. So, in order to fix the copyright issues we're having, people should be made aware about the value of content. About the fact that it takes some serious efforts to create this content and that this process supports a major industry, not only consisting of a bunch of super-wealthy Hollywood asshats, but also a whole bunch of average Joes like themselves. I think we should start educating people early on, even in school we should be thought that what we create, has value. That if what you create has some qualities to it, that it even can pay a living. It's this what also inspires people to choose a career in this field. On the other hand, the industry should focus more on experiences, because like I mentioned, that's what people are really after. Most people don't want to own a particular movie. Even though many people used to buy a certain movie, they only bought it, because it was the only way they could experience it. Both the content and exhibition industry should focus on that aspect of the content they produce. I watched "Blade Runner 2049" the other night, on a big screen, with bombastic sound, the way it should be. I was surrounded by this dark, forbidden world for 2 hours and 45 minutes and I liked every minute of it, as did the people around me. It's an experience I will never forget. The same movie on the TV in my living room? A nice evening filler. The same movie on a tablet or computer screen? What? 2 hours and 45 minutes? Forget about it, I'll watch the highlights and be done with it...  |  IP: Logged Harold Hallikainen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 906 From: Denver, CO, USA Registered: Aug 2009 posted 10-08-2017 08:39 PM                        US Copyright terms are at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf . For recently created material: 1. A work is protected when it is created and fixed to tangible form. 2. For an individual author, the term is life of the author plus 70 years. 3. For a work created by two or more authors, the term is 70 years past the death of the last surviving author. 4. For works for hire, the term is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. There are a bunch of other scenarios and stuff copyrighted under previous laws. For Mickey Mouse ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse#Legal_issues ), it looks like it was created and published in 1928. As a work for hire, it would expire in 2023. It's interesting that Mickey Mouse is also registered as a trademark. Trademark identifies the originator of a product, so, it seems like you would not be able to create new Mickey Mouse cartoons or other products since that would be a trademark violation, but you'd be able to make as many copies of the 1928 movie as you wanted. Harold  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 10-09-2017 02:11 AM                     In many jurisdictions around the globe, the copyright on Steamboat Willie expired a while ago and as such, it's perfectly legal to distribute it, without asking Disney for permission or even paying them for the privilege. For Disney, the issue is indeed primarily in the main character in this cartoon (and the other two cartoons from the same year). But like you pointed out, the trademarks they filed give anybody trying to publish products with Mickey Mouse in it a hard time. Also, Mickey Mouse went through a few noticeable iterations, before it ended up looking like it looks today, those alterations themselves are also original works with their own set of expiry dates. So, even if those trademarks would not hold, the only thing this would really be good for is if you'd be running some shady knock-off company and are producing tableware with 1928's Mickey on it.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-09-2017 06:54 AM                     As I mentioned before, those time limits are absurd. Cut them in half and things get much more reasonable.  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 10-09-2017 11:08 AM                     And then there is the issue of underlying rights (music/story) for public domain works. When a work drops into public domain, that should include all underlying rights as long as the public domain work is not altered. The law is ambiguous in this regard, and ambiguity breeds contempt.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.