Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: It's so easy to pirate content, some people don't believe it's pirated

This is topic It's so easy to pirate content, some people don't believe it's pirated in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007273

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-05-2015, 02:01 PM:

I was at my accountant's office today and his secretary, a woman in her early 30's, said, "I see that you're playing American Sniper. I watched it on television a while back, and liked it quite a lot."

Turns out that she has some gadget called a Showbox that attaches to her television and allows her to watch, in her words, "all kinds of movies and television shows, sometimes before they are in the theatres and all for free!"

Never having heard of Showbox, I said that it must be some kind of a pirated content service but she said, "Oh no, it's perfectly legal" and she wasn't trying to kid me. She really believes that, and I think you would have a very difficult time convincing her otherwise.

It's now become so easy to obtain pirated movies that at least some of the people who are watching them don't even realize that it isn't a legal service.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 02-05-2015, 02:29 PM:

I have never used it, or even heard of it before Frank's post.

Showbox Link

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-05-2015, 02:50 PM:

The fact it's not available in the App store should be the first clue it's not on the up and up.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-05-2015, 02:59 PM:

It's my understanding that she has an actual dedicated "showbox" gadget that she purchased at a store.

I know that the local hardware store here has some kind of an "android television box" for sale but I never looked at it since it wasn't of any interest to me. They had a sign up to advertise it a few weeks ago, though. Perhaps that's it.

If this is a device that you buy in a local store and hook it up to your television at home, I can see why most people would never question its legality.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 02-05-2015, 03:14 PM:

Obviously you can use the showbox stuff with a Google chromecast device. That goes for 35US$... go figure!

- Carsten

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-05-2015, 03:18 PM:

I just did a quick search, and there are methods for getting it to play on Roku players, XBox 360, and SmartTVs.

If she's so ignorant as to whether the content is legal, I would guess it was set up by someone more tech savvy - probably using something purchased from an electronics store.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-05-2015, 04:04 PM:

Popcorn Time is another torrent application that has grown very popular for streaming pirated movies and TV shows.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-05-2015, 05:26 PM:

Why do I get the feeling that this "Showbox" thing is basically a pipeline through which all your personal information will flow once you've connected it? It makes no sense why something like that would be completely free and not have any ads or anything.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-05-2015, 06:04 PM:

The minute they start putting ads on those kind of services is when the stuff gets interesting, because that's when a traceable money trail comes into the picture.

But sure thing, many of those services are most likely not as harmless to the end user as they seem, besides the fact that most of those services are indeed totally illegal in most places on this world. Or rather, the services themselves might not necessarily be illegal, but their usage sure is. (A rather interesting conflicting situation.)

I've heard of Popcorn Time and someone told me actually today he bought some "whatever box", probably an Android based media player that seemingly came pre-loaded with it.

Also, if you Google "Popcorn Time alternative", all kinds of stuff comes up, including one called Flixtor. Now, I've never tried this thing before, but looking at the screenshots, this looks just like Netflix and Amazon Prime, only with all the movies you otherwise couldn't have.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-05-2015, 06:25 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
The minute they start putting ads on those kind of services is when the stuff gets interesting, because that's when a traceable money trail comes into the picture.

There was a screenshot doing the email rounds a few months back of a Nigerian pirate torrent site showing a banner ad for an MPAA anti-piracy campaign.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 02-13-2015, 02:02 AM:

I just talked to an employee of CHARTER CABLE today. He says he has watched dozens of New Movies before they are in the theaters. Apparently before the film is released to Theaters. The Studio Burns a DVD/S that are sent to members of the Motion Picture Academy. Granted they have something like not for public viewing or whatever is across the top of the Video; but apparently some Academy Members are Burning extra DVD's to give to their Family/Friends. Every Film that is playing at our 14 theater Multiplex he said he saw more than a month or more before they ever hit the Theaters [Eek!]

How many times are these Academy DVD's being burned over and over ????? Academy Members? "Who can you Trust anymore"

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-13-2015, 02:17 AM:

If you haven't been living under a rock the last 10 years or so, you might know that those leaked "screeners" are probably the single biggest piracy problem around.

Exhibitors all over the world have jump trough all kinds of difficult hoops, have to buy extra-expensive, certified gear, all just to keep Hollywood's content secure, while on the other hand they keep leaking it out and giving it away on discs to Academy Members and whatever other award's jury members.

At least some of them claim that those discs they give to jury members, etc. are now watermarked, so they could, theoretically, quite easily follow it back to where the leak happened.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-13-2015, 12:37 PM:

You'd have thought that the problem of screeners would have been addressed by now, given the overwhelming evidence that they are a major source of leaks to pirates. Maybe the Academy could give its members a set-top box that enables them to watch nominated movies streamed directly from their own secure server through an HDCP 2.0 link to their TV? OK, even that's not completely secure, but it would be an improvement on mailing out thousands of unencrypted DVD-Rs and BD-Rs all over the place.

I suspect that the reason is more political. It's easier to blame kids videoing a movie on their phones in a theater in Pumpkin Junction, KS, than it is to admit that AMPAS members, many of whom are well connected and politically influential within the industry, are in any way a part of the problem.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-13-2015, 03:00 PM:

There's another one called "DareTV" that's floating out there that does the same thing.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 02-13-2015, 05:23 PM:

The "watermark-on-screener" solution is also something the industry has claimed to have for years. If they really do have this capability, why is this still a problem?

Sure looks like Academy promotion is more important than protecting against piracy.

On the other hand, we all know it's those damned theatres that are causing all the trouble! [fu]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-13-2015, 09:46 PM:

quote: Frank Cox

It's now become so easy to obtain pirated movies that at least some of the people who are watching them don't even realize that it isn't a legal service.

I have always said that its the laws that need to become ever stricter which would help prevent some of this.

For example, in Canada we have some serious impaired driving laws that make a serious criminal offense to even decline to blow into breath test. Most people I know understand how serious impaired driving can be.

Why not make it even more serious for this type of behavior?

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 02-13-2015, 10:21 PM:

quote:
It's easier to blame kids videoing a movie on their phones in a theater in Pumpkin Junction, KS,

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-13-2015, 11:19 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Why not make it even more serious for this type of behavior?

Because this type of behavior isn't life threatening like impaired driving is.

I agree the penalties should be severe but they need to be enforceable too.

By the way, despite disbelievers, people really do camcord movies in theaters. Every month I get the report from NATO that shows how many people are caught and it's surprising, especially how many new offenders there are each time. Most of the activity is in big cities and in the south -- not so much in the northern large cities like Minneapolis, but the closer you get to the coasts or Mexico and Florida the more concentrated it is. I've never seen an incident in Montana or any of the states around us (Denver is the closest) but I'm sure the time is coming.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-14-2015, 11:46 AM:

I'm not suggesting that the camcordering of movies doesn't happen, only that it's not the source of most organized piracy. Time and time again people who have bought DVDs of Hollywood titles from backstreet market stalls in Shanghai (and I have to confess that I did once, purely out of curiosity) and similar sources report that one look at them is enough to see that the content simply couldn't have been mastered that way. A kid camcordering a movie will likely pass a copy of it to half a dozen other kids in his school, and no further. I'm not condoning that, just pointing out that clamping down on it will not stop the organized crime aspect of the problem.

As for drink-driving, Britain has similarly draconian laws to the ones Terry describes and California's are even stricter (jail is very likely, even if you are stopped for DUI but without causing an accident - in the UK you pretty much have to seriously injure someone while drink-driving in order to be sent down), but does not have significantly less of a drink-driving problem than countries that are more lax. I once read about a study which suggests that Russia probably has among the lowest number of drink driving-related deaths per head of population in the world, but it's in the top 20% of miles driven per head of population and the top 5% of booze consumed.

That is because most drink-drivers do it because of an alcohol addiction which prevents them from making a rational risk/benefit calculation. Most are incapable of this thought process: "I'd better not do this because the chances of being caught are significant, and if I am, the consequences will be serious". Organized movie pirates, on the other hand, are making a very rationally calculated risk/benefit calculation: "Once I've got the content over to China, which has no effective copyright legislation, my chances of being caught are zero and the amount of money I can make enormous." Therefore, the only way to stop them is to prevent them from getting the content.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-14-2015, 01:54 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
A kid camcordering a movie will likely pass a copy of it to half a dozen other kids in his school, and no further.

You must have never been in the retail entertainment biz. I was, and I can tell you from experience...even in this small town (2000 people), one copy of anything can get copied by a couple of people, and then each of them gives out a couple of copies, and before you know it everyone's got it but nobody has bought it. It started in the cassette years. I don't even know how many times I heard kids say "Don't buy that....you can copy mine."

I remember when CD burners were huge, one of my employees happened to bring a case full of CDs to work. I was looking thru them, and there was not one "factory" disk in the bunch -- all copies. I said, "when's the last time you bought a CD in a store?" She thought about it and said "I don't think I've ever bought one!"

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-14-2015, 02:17 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
As for drink-driving, Britain has similarly draconian laws to the ones Terry describes and California's are even stricter (jail is very likely, even if you are stopped for DUI but without causing an accident - in the UK you pretty much have to seriously injure someone while drink-driving in order to be sent down), but does not have significantly less of a drink-driving problem than countries that are more lax.

Leo, my point was that because of tougher drunk driving laws, drunk driving is not as prevalent as it once was, at least in Canada. It is a very serious crime that carry very serious consequences. Drunk driving because of the serious penalties does not occur all that often.

In contrast, accessing an illegal movie carries very minor penalties, there will always being drunk driving or piracy but if the laws were much tougher especially to those who access pirated films, we would maybe see a serious decrease.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-14-2015, 02:43 PM:

I doubt it.

Society has a general attitude that drunk driving is bad -- you are a bad person if you do it and deserve to be punished.

Society has a general attitude that movie and music piracy is not actually bad. You are merely unlucky if you are somehow caught, and any punishment is not deserved.

Furthermore, laws need to reflect the general values of the society they regulate, otherwise you are living in a dictatorship. If "everyone" in a democratically governed country believes that something should not be illegal, it probably shouldn't be.

For a currently playing-out example, look at the laws surrounding marijuana; for a historical example look at the US Prohibition. In both cases, the main effect of the outlawing of what many people considered harmless was to create and enrich violent criminal gangs who supplied the prohibited product.

Government doesn't (and shouldn't) exist to protect anyone's business model at the expense of society at large.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-14-2015, 04:04 PM:

That sounds like a good argument on the surface but you're forgetting that movie piracy is essentially stealing. You're watching something that you didn't pay for. The amount of money that's lost is something that's been argued to death here and elsewhere (and really can never be determined with any exactness), but you can't deny that there is at least SOME loss to the content creators. Hence it makes sense for there to be laws against the activity, same as there are laws against shoplifting.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-14-2015, 04:40 PM:

Re-read the first post that started this thread.

The lady involved is "honest" and has a sincere belief that what she is doing is legitimate. Do you really think it is she should be arrested, fined thousands of dollars and spent several months or years in jail? She isn't trying to rip anyone off; she's just watching television at home with her family; if she wasn't watching her Showbox she would be watching Channel 7 instead.

Would I prefer that she came here to watch a movie instead of watching it at home? Absolutely! Should she be arrested for watching it at home under the circumstances that I explained above? I'm not so sure about that.

While there may be a monetary loss involved (assuming that she would otherwise have attended a movie here and paid for a ticket), is it really stealing when something is apparently freely available? If I put out a box of chocolates with a sign that says "Free, take one", did the fellow who took one steal it from me? Is it reasonable to expect him to ask me for proof that the chocolates are mine to give away before he takes me up on my offer of a free chocolate?

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-14-2015, 05:27 PM:

Arresting would be harsh, stupid and unproductive. But not unprecedented. Napster anyone?
Let's hope the movie industry is smarter than the music industry.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-14-2015, 05:45 PM:

quote: Frank Cox

The lady involved is "honest" and has a sincere belief that what she is doing is legitimate. Do you really think it is she should be arrested, fined thousands of dollars and spent several months or years in jail?

So the moral of the story is under this argument, play ignorant and you can break all the laws you want!

Still though why is this any different than anything else in life? Should the people who didn't know the seat belt law came into effect still be fined?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-14-2015, 06:05 PM:

Well, old discussion I guess [Wink]

But no, copyright infringement is not the same as stealing, that's why it's a different set of laws altogether. That doesn't make it right off course, it's just that there is an important difference. Also, yes, in a democracy, laws should be based on what the public thinks is right, otherwise it would be indeed some kind of dictatorship. You might argue many so called democracies around the globe already resemble something like that, but... different discussion. But essentially, It's all based on the conception that the public, at large, knows what's best for themselves. So, if the public at large finds piracy totally acceptable, then the laws should actually reflect this...

But yeah, those copyright laws are there for a reason. They do protect certain rights of the creators of "creative works". They're there to ensure those creators do get their due compensation for their work, so they can continue and create new, original creative works. With all the extensions on copyright terms, you could argue that the current copyright laws are missing one of their original intentions though...

Copyright laws in today's globally connected world are facing some true challenges. People like to share information, for free. Look at the Internet, the World Wide Web, you can find almost anything and most of it is totally free and instantly available.

All this "free content" also has a deflating effect on the perceived value of creative content in people's minds. So most people don't see much harm in illegally downloading a song or watching some bootlegged movie online. I doubt the public at large really considers this a crime.

Also, I guess there is a problem of perception here. If you look at Hollywood, all most people see and hear about are the filthy rich stars, directors, executives, etc. It's hard to get the public's sympathy by telling them that piracy has lead to celebrity X having to sell her big 10 bedroom Beverly Hills mansion. What they're missing is the entire industry connected to it, employing thousands upon thousands of people.

This piracy problem will never go away entirely, but there are lots of things that can be done to limit the damages inflicted.

New laws are not a solution. If you look at the copyright laws, especially in the U.S., you'll see they're already extremely strict and if you get caught, you're facing massive fines and potential jail time. Yet, those strict laws didn't solve anything, piracy is as ubiquitous as never before. I also doubt the public is really waiting for thousands upon thousands of "petty pirates" to be sent to jail or otherwise severely being punished.

First off all, Hollywood should start to treat their new releases like the Super-Secret-Coke formula*. Just do your homework and make sure this stuff doesn't leak prematurely constantly. This shouldn't be too hard, should it?

Secondly, and this is important for the exhibition industry at large: Make going to the movies a worthwhile experience. It should be way better than staying at home and watching a movie there. Don't you think people are a little fed up with thirteen-in-a-dozen multiplex-robot-cinema experiences?

Also, try to enlighten the public in what their money buys and that it doesn't only buy this Hollywood exec a new yacht, but also makes a whole industry work. Telling your public they're going to jail for copying their content just isn't creating any sympathy, telling them a lot of ordinary people are being paid by their money might do a better job.

And last but not least... the most time proven concept of them all: Create better movies! You know, if you create movies people actually want to see, chances are they're actually willing to pay for it [Wink]

.

* If you Google a bit, you'll find that this formula of carbonated sugary water (potentially) leaked out in some forms over the years and it's essentially all just shiny marketing... but still, it works.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-14-2015, 11:31 PM:

Want to watch 50 Shades of Grey? Someone put the entire 2 hour movie on youtube today.

Watch it here

It gets dark towards the end.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-14-2015, 11:39 PM:

quote: Frank Cox
The lady involved is "honest" and has a sincere belief that what she is doing is legitimate.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

quote: Frank Cox
Do you really think it is she should be arrested, fined thousands of dollars and spent several months or years in jail?

If there some serious laws passed, I would have no problem fining her or putting her in jail.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-15-2015, 12:00 AM:

There's no need to jail somebody for something like that "Showbox" thing, considering it's apparently being sold in stores.

Better would be to just take the device away from the offending user and somehow punish the store. This is what happens if you buy something from, say, a pawn shop and it turns out to be stolen -- the cops will take the item from you and the pawn shop is out the money (and is free to try to find the a-hole that sold them the stolen property).

If it could be proven that the store was none the wiser, find out the source of the product and go after that company. Of course at this point you're probably crossing national borders so the process breaks down.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 02-15-2015, 12:29 AM:

Well going back to the 70's when HBO and Premium Channels started coming to Cable. I remember HBO was put on a Channel 6 positive notch filter. Well it was hardly out a month and many people that had planned to subscribe found out all you needed to do was hook up a piece of 300ohm antenna cable that was 54" in length and wrap a piece of Foil around it. when you slid the foil up and down you could get almost a 100% image. Soon after that, TV Supply houses were carrying these Boxes that were nothing more than 2 potentiometers(variable resistor) that brought in the picture also. The Cable TV Franchise in 1977 was claiming that 2/3rds of people getting HBO weren't paying for it. They eventually went to a Negative 3 Trap Filter to try and hinder the Problem.

Was this theft of Service? Well in a way it was; but I say if I can turn some knobs or hook an antenna or whatever and receive the signal in the Privacy of my home then I don't feel it's stealing. I'm already paying for the Cable service to come in my Home. Now if I climb the Telephone Pole and unhook a Negative Trap Filter or hook myself up to Cable without a subscription than that's Theft of Service. My home is my Domain so what I do in it regarding Electronics to a Television is not theft as far as I'm concerned..

General Instruments (Jerrold) was our Scrambling system in the early 80's. they used what was referred to as inbanded gated sync suppression where the Video is suppressed into the horizontal sync around 6 decibels. It scrambled the Video but let the Audio pass through. So when the Sugar Ray Leonard/Thomas Hearns Fight happen back in 1981 at Caesars Palace on Showtime, you could turn to Ch 15 and at least hear the Fight broadcast but would see scrambled Video. This in essence was Theft of Service even though Tele-Communication's Jerrold Scrambling System let the Audio Pass through to every home that paid for Cable TV. So anyone even listening to the Showtime Channel that wasn't subscribed was according to the Cable Industry stealing their Service. Telecommunications could have picked a number of other Scrambling systems that do both Video and Audio. so once again what happens in my Home regarding my Television and not the Telephone Pole or the Drop Cable isn't theft of service to me !

Posted by Martin Murray (Member # 162) on 02-15-2015, 02:15 AM:

You mean to tell me I'm supposed to wear seatbelts???

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-15-2015, 03:03 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
If there some serious laws passed, I would have no problem fining her or putting her in jail.

Those laws are already there, I don't know the specifics about Canada, but the potential penalties are quite unpleasant for average Joe. Still, it seems courts have better things to do than sending old ladies to jail for buying a naughty box at the local store. I agree with Mike, the ones they should hang for this are those who build those boxes and peddle them to the public.

quote: Steve Matz
Was this theft of Service? Well in a way it was; but I say if I can turn some knobs or hook an antenna or whatever and receive the signal in the Privacy of my home then I don't feel it's stealing.

The situation in the U.S. might be a bit different, because of the DMCA actively prohibiting any circumvention of copy protection (even ripping a Blu-Ray you bought could potentially end you in jail [Wink]

).

But in most jurisdictions without something like a DMCA, it's not considered illegal if you unscramble a signal that's already delivered to your home, whether this signal is delivered by cable, satellite or over-the-air doesn't really matter.

The only conflict that could arise is a conflict with your cable company, because you're misappropriating their connection and are probably using it outside the scope of what's defined in their terms of service. So, they could potentially cancel all your services and sue you for it. But, if you don't have a contract with them to begin with, the only thing they could do, is disconnect you from their network.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-15-2015, 12:02 PM:

quote: Frank Cox
Society has a general attitude that drunk driving is bad -- you are a bad person if you do it and deserve to be punished.

It does now, but didn't always.

I once saw a British 16mm classroom film from the 1950s aimed at teenage schoolkids who would shortly be learning to drive. Once scene shows a man coming out of a country pub staggering around a bit, getting into his car and driving off down the road, weaving from side to side, as the commentator states (as near to verbatim as I can remember): "There's no harm in driving home after a few pints, but it's not a good idea to drive when you're completely sozzled - you'll probably end up in a ditch!"

When you consider that 1950s driving was a lot slower and there were far fewer cars in existence per mile of tarmac, that advice probably wasn't as stupid or as reckless as it seems from today's perspective. The drink-drive laws were later toughened up because the roads became inherently more dangerous places.

Today, the authorities are mounting a big propaganda effort to convince us that driving while using our cellphones is as unacceptable as drink driving, but all the signs I see are that it isn't working. I see people with one hand on the wheel and the other holding their phones to their ear (or writing text messages) every day. If the police tried to catch them all, they'd have to drop everything else they're doing.

A serious effort has been going on to make the piracy of recorded music and movies socially unacceptable for decades - at least since the Home Taping is Killing Music campaign that started in the early '80s. The music industry essentially gave up trying and changed their business model to one in which pop stars effectively give their recordings away, but make their money on live gig tours. The movie industry is still trying, but I'm not holding my breath as to the outcome.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-15-2015, 12:25 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Today, the authorities are mounting a big propaganda effort to convince us that driving while using our cellphones is as unacceptable as drink driving, but all the signs I see are that it isn't working. I see people with one hand on the wheel and the other holding their phones to their ear (or writing text messages) every day.

Leo, the consequences of driving while using a cell phone are not as severe as drunk driving, if you increase the consequence, you would decrease the use of it.

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 02-15-2015, 01:20 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Leo, the consequences of driving while using a cell phone are not as severe as drunk driving, if you increase the consequence, you would decrease the use of it.

Actually Terry, driving while on the phone is just as bad or worse.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-15-2015, 02:48 PM:

It IS worse, because you can drunk-drive and still be at least watching the road and thinking about the act of driving. You can't text and watch the road and think about your driving all at the same time. Plus drunk-driving doesn't tie up your hands, while texting on a cell phone tie up at least one of them.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-15-2015, 07:54 PM:

I wasn't actually trying to open a debate as to how dangerous drink-driving is compared to driving on the phone, but rather to make the point that people's ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't change over time, and that vested interests try to make that change happen - as illustrated by the fact that for many decades, DUI was not a crime at all, and then for many decades after that, was considered by many if not most to be a victimless one. 12 year-old girls being married off to 40-something men was considered quite OK once upon a time, too (and in some parts of the world, sadly, still is, but we're in danger of getting political if we go there) - etc. etc. etc.

What's relevant here is that a critical mass of the population still regard the pirating of mainstream movies as a victimless crime, hence the large-scale sales of these boxes that enable them to do it. If history is anything to go by, this situation cannot be changed by law enforcement alone.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-15-2015, 09:05 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I have always said that its the laws that need to become ever stricter which would help prevent some of this.

The laws are already very strict. The problem is enforcement. And good luck on that. A great deal of computer based crime, particularly crime involving theft and distribution of pirated movies, music and software, happens across International borders in countries with no extradition treaties with the United States or other western nations.

quote: Mike Blakesley
By the way, despite disbelievers, people really do camcord movies in theaters.

While it's true people do sneak camcorders into theaters and bootleg content from the screen none of those taped off the screen movies have much of any value. The video and sound quality is almost always horrible. I laugh at anyone silly enough to waste 2 hours of their life watching a movie in that form.

Screener discs are far higher quality sources. They often deliver at least DVD quality levels if not quite a bit higher. The only thing viewers have to put up with (sometimes) is stuff like time code at the bottom of screen or labels like "Property of Paramount Pictures."

quote: Frank Cox
The lady involved is "honest" and has a sincere belief that what she is doing is legitimate. Do you really think it is she should be arrested, fined thousands of dollars and spent several months or years in jail? She isn't trying to rip anyone off; she's just watching television at home with her family; if she wasn't watching her Showbox she would be watching Channel 7 instead.

I'll echo this. There's a lot of people who really think Popcorn Time and Showbox are legit ways to watch movies, even though all they would have to do is ask themselves a simple question: Am I having to pay anything for this? That should be a clue some wrong-doing is taking place. Even when they realize these polished looking torrent applications are delivering illegal content they shrug their shoulders and just keep using it. Just like Napster back when it was popular.

quote: Mike Blakesley
There's no need to jail somebody for something like that "Showbox" thing, considering it's apparently being sold in stores.

I serious doubt any gadget pre-loaded with Showbox is being sold as a legit device in a retail store, particularly any retailer with multiple locations (such as Best Buy).

The showbox app is not available through any legitimate online store, such as Google Play or Apple's app store. Further, if you're installing it on an Android device the app's installation instructions tell you to turn off certain safeguards, like allowing unknown software. That's a big invitation to huge risk. I can just see this app being used to hack into someone's Google Wallet details and then max their credit cards.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-15-2015, 09:58 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
It does now, but didn't always.

Up until the advent of Mothers and/or Students Against Drunk Driving in the 1970's, drunk driving was considered cute and humorous, just like student ed film.

Look at movies like Topper, with starts with a drunk driving double fatality for laughs. Hollywood loved drunk driving almost as much as smoking. But then, alcoholism in general was considered good for a laugh for a long, long time.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-16-2015, 01:09 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
all they would have to do is ask themselves a simple question: Am I having to pay anything for this? That should be a clue some wrong-doing is taking place.

I disagree with this statement.

I don't pay anything for use of google, youtube and CNN, and I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by using their services.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-16-2015, 01:35 AM:

We still see a lot of people drinking in movies and don't ask about any of them how they do get home [Wink]

.

But like Leo already pointed out, values and standards differ between times and cultures. Piracy is, by and large, not seen as something bad, even though the laws are already in place.

So, either "Hollywood" learns to live with it and finds ways of making sufficient money despite the rampant piracy, maybe they can help themselves a bit by trying not to prematurely leak the good stuff or they'll find a way to get to people's minds and change the perception.

Unfortunately, what they're actually doing is something different. They're trying to convince governments around the globe how much they're hurt by piracy and therefore need to be compensated. Essentially they want to tax your Internet connection. This way, they tap a large revenue stream without actually producing anything new.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'll echo this. There's a lot of people who really think Popcorn Time and Showbox are legit ways to watch movies, even though all they would have to do is ask themselves a simple question: Am I having to pay anything for this?

How many people do actually know how the business model of free-to-air TV and radio works? And like Frank already mentioned, Google, YouTube et all also deliver tons of "free" goodies or at least point the way to all kinds of "free" goodies.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I serious doubt any gadget pre-loaded with Showbox is being sold as a legit device in a retail store, particularly any retailer with multiple locations (such as Best Buy).

The large retailers probably won't sell anything like that, at least not with them knowing. But still, nothing is going to stop an independent operation or a rogue franchisee to sell those devices.

Also, it's seemingly not very difficult to load stuff like the Chrome Cast with those Apps. So, if some sharp-witted family member drops by and loads it on there, they probably also have no clue about the legality of it all.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-16-2015, 10:07 AM:

quote: Frank Cox
I don't pay anything for use of google, youtube and CNN, and I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by using their services.

That's not the same thing. There is a big difference in terms of content. Much of it is stuff no one would buy at all. Even when you're just visiting one of those sites to read an article or watch a viral video commercial ads are often included to monetize the operation.

These people are using Showbox and Popcorn Time like they would Netflix. It costs money to subscribe to Netflix. It doesn't cost anything to use Showbox or Popcorn Time. Again, that's another big clue. And those torrent applications are serving up movies that are still in theaters or even haven't made it into theaters yet.

Someone has to be incredibly naive or even just plain stupid not to realize any of this new breed of movie torrent applications are illegal.

Most people know deep down they're doing something wrong when using these applications. They can try to rationalize it all they can. One excuse I've heard is some of these applications serve up ads. So what? While that ad revenue might pay the people maintaining these applications it doesn't give someone a free pass to watch movies in theatrical release on their computer or phone free of charge.

To me these torrent applications are no different than Napster and Kazaa. Everyone who used those two applications knew they were breaking laws when downloading pirated music, videos and software. It shouldn't be any different this time around either. Like Napster and Kazaa, I'm sure these new torrent applications carry their own high risk of delivering malware to computers and portable devices.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
But like Leo already pointed out, values and standards differ between times and cultures. Piracy is, by and large, not seen as something bad, even though the laws are already in place.

Most people have no clue the amount of work that goes into making a movie or developing a software application. Yet they expect the people creating those things to basically do the work for nothing. The same goes for creative, copyrighted works like art, photography, literary material, etc. I guarantee NONE of the people downloading movies, music and software illegally would be willing to do their jobs for free.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-16-2015, 10:26 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
To me these torrent applications are no different than Napster and Kazaa. Everyone who used those two applications knew they were breaking laws when downloading pirated music, videos and software.

Gotta disagree there, at least in the time period before the illegality became big news. People have been recording things off the air or from their own purchased LP/DVD/Itunes since forever and do not know or think of it as illegal. The general public, I'm willing to bet, thinks "As long as I'm not selling it, it is fair use."

One need only look at the number of bars and offices that have radio piped in without paying ASCAP fees. Or the schools, daycares and even small theaters who show movies to a group and think they don't owe the distribs exhibition fees because they are not charging admission.

Radio and TV conditioned people to getting entertainment for "free." The internet is just another access to free entertainment they do not even question.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-16-2015, 01:42 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
The general public, I'm willing to bet, thinks "As long as I'm not selling it, it is fair use."

That, and "As long as I'm not carrying an item out of a store, I'm not stealing."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-16-2015, 03:34 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
Gotta disagree there, at least in the time period before the illegality became big news. People have been recording things off the air or from their own purchased LP/DVD/Itunes since forever and do not know or think of it as illegal. The general public, I'm willing to bet, thinks "As long as I'm not selling it, it is fair use."

The act of recording music off radio or TV broadcasts might technically be illegal (or not), but the recorded content has little if any value. The audio and/or video quality is seriously degraded compared to that of a retail product. This is especially true for music pulled off radio broadcasts. Plus music on radio is often edited shorter to squeeze in more commercials, plus you have some announcer or other crap blaring over the beginning or end of many songs. Back when I was in grade school I remember trying to record things off the air onto casette tape and never liking the results.

Today you can use web browser plug-ins to download music videos off YouTube or Vimeo. From there you could open a downloaded .MP4 file and extract the audio out of it. The problem is the audio has already been seriously degraded by being compressed down to 160 kilobits per second or worse than that. Saving it again as a MP3 or AAC file will only worsen the situation because another level of lossy compression is being added. The only choice is saving it has a LPCM .WAV file, which is sad because you don't want an audio file with crap quality hogging 50MB or more space on a hard disc.

I don't use my Dish Network DVR for archiving any kind of movie collection, even though I could do that. The video quality just isn't all that great. It might be better than DVD quality, but it sure isn't comparable at all to Blu-ray and barely any better than Netflix. That's a big reason why I haven't bothered with any virtual purchases of "HD Digital" download movies. If they're streaming from the cloud the video quality is only as good as the Internet connection. My Internet connection isn't all that good. Things might be different if I had a 30 million bit per second connection.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-16-2015, 04:34 PM:

Don't disagree about the quality, but we already know what the general public thinks about quality.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-17-2015, 02:23 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
That, and "As long as I'm not carrying an item out of a store, I'm not stealing."

This is also where it gets flaky. For example, everybody knows taking a magazine from a store without paying for it is wrong, illegal and punishable. But if someone would read the entire magazine inside the store without buying it? Sure, many would consider him an *sshole, some would consider him being clever. But if this is actually illegal and punishable is rather questionable (and also a whole lot harder to prove). I guess the public would say it would be punishable by just throwing him out of the store, which would usually be a far lesser punishment than the one for shoplifting.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The act of recording music off radio or TV broadcasts might technically be illegal (or not), but the recorded content has little if any value.

Even with the DMCA in place you can still record radio and TV broadcasts for personal use. Even giving those recordings to a friend is still within the realms of "fair use". Sharing those recordings with everyone else via the Internet is the thing that makes it illegal. On the Internet, sharing something with your friends and everyone else is just a very thin line to cross...

The thing is, in many places around the globe, the act of filming in a theater actually isn't illegal, as long as it is for personal use. The only standing the exhibitor has in those cases is that it is against their own regulations, which you agreed upon once you bought a ticket. For movie theaters, the no filming thing is relatively simple to enforce, but for stuff like live performances of popular bands, I wish you good luck. It might actually even be counter-productive, because all those little, crappy YouTube movies that will pop up will serve as marketing instrument in itself.

I doubt people record music off the radio nowadays, there are far simpler ways to get the same music. Also, the popularity of rental streaming services has shown that many people aren't even so keen to "own" their content, as long as it is there in some way to instantly access it, they're perfectly fine with it. That's also why services like Spotify, Netflix and Amazon Prime are so popular.

Maybe I'm still old fashioned, I want to own my copies. Maybe also because I know how those big corporations operate. Once corp X gets a conflict with Y, they just pull the plug on it and that's that.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-17-2015, 03:02 PM:

Unfortunately for those of us who like "perpetual licenses" and buying content on physical media, the subscription based business model seems to only be getting more popular.

The user base for streaming services like Netflix, Pandora, etc. is only going to grow as residential Internet speeds slowly improve. Some places already have download speeds more than fast enough to stream HD movies at Blu-ray quality bit rates. Most places however are still in the dark ages with download speeds well under 10 million bits per second, even with high monthly prices for shitty low bit rates.

Computer software subscriptions are getting more popular whether anyone likes it or not. Windows users have already been accustomed to paying for annual anti-virus subscriptions for many years. Microsoft is signing up more people to Office 365.

I'm pretty concerned about the potential of Adobe strong arming its customers with big price hikes on Creative Cloud subscriptions. For now the $50 per month subscription price is still holding steady. Even if Adobe isn't thinking about raising prices I'm sure its investors are demanding big hikes.

A couple years ago there were lots of predictions that Adobe would face increased competition from rivals when its 2013 generation of applications went exclusively to Creative Cloud. That hasn't really happened. If anything Adobe seems to be turning into even more of a monopoly in creative software. As older computers stop working that will force users holding onto their aging Creative Suite perpetual license software to switch to Creative Cloud when the old applications won't install on new systems. It's already a crap shoot getting applications from the CS3 generation or earlier to work on new systems. It probably won't be long before the CS4 & CS5 app generation starts getting flaky on new machines.

By the way, software piracy was one of the big reasons why Adobe shifted its applications to Creative Cloud subscription. Lightroom, Premiere Elements, Photoshop Elements and Acrobat are (I think) the only applications they sell in boxed form anymore.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Once corp X gets a conflict with Y, they just pull the plug on it and that's that.

There's a good chance of that happening with portions of Adobe Creative Cloud. Adobe has strung together a variety of partnerships to build up the benefits of Creative Cloud. Any disputes or deals not renewed could turn off portions of the service. You could see content disappear from the CC market, certain fonts go dead in Typekit or any number of other things get suspended.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-17-2015, 03:09 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Computer software subscriptions are getting more popular whether anyone likes it or not. Windows users have already been accustomed to paying for annual anti-virus subscriptions for many years. Microsoft is signing up more people to Office 365.

I'm pretty concerned about the potential of Adobe strong arming its customers with big price hikes on Creative Cloud subscriptions. For now the $50 per month subscription price is still holding steady.

That sucks. I liked being able to buy a piece of software for a couple hundred bucks, then in about 3 years buy the upgrade for around $49.95. I probably upgraded Pagemaker about 4 or 5 times that way.

Quickbooks is one program I use at my day job that's gone crazy. Used to be if you paid for the payroll service (which when we started was about $250 a year) you automatically got the upgrades to QB when they came out. Then they dropped the automatic upgrades. Then they started raising the payroll price and started including a "per-employee" monthly surcharge. I would love to put the Roxy on that service but that surcharge prices it out of reach considering the number of employees we have.

I think the most recent upgrade is something like $150 and then the payroll is near $400 a year, which is before the monthly surcharge is added.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 02-17-2015, 10:15 PM:

So..,if you happen to pass by an unlocked Wi-Fi signal and use it to look something up on Google, is that stealing the Wi-Fi signal?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-17-2015, 10:49 PM:

It must be, otherwise there wouldn't be passwords on wi-fi.