This is topic Torrent Sites still going strong 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=007499
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-27-2017, 07:14 PM:
The other night after our show came down, a few of our crew and myself wound up at one of the truck and bus company's apt for drinks. Everyone was talking shop and having a good time. Then this tech asked if we wanted to watch a movie, some said yes and he proceeded to turn on the REAL big screen TV and bring up a site called Exodus which had an index of literally hundreds of movies which included every major title that was currently playing in theatres, including BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. As soon as that scrolled by there was agreement that he should play that.
I asked how he got that and what was this Exodus site. It was apparent that this had to be one of those illegal torrent sites because some titles were marked "screen capture" and some were marked "pristine." B&TB started and while it did have Chinese subtitles (or Asian...can't know which Asian language the , the image was indeed pristine.
I certainly am aware that there are these torrent sites, but I didn't know they had titles that were barely a week old. And when I tell you it is no exaggeration that every single title that is currently playing in theatres was on that list. I felt it necessary to say, "You do know that steaming any of those movies is illegal, right." Someone said, "Not if you paid for the FireStick TV." Some else said, Yes, but you have to get the code to break the security....you get that off Google."
And while most there were not movie industry people, the were theatre people and should have known damn well that's legal and what's not. It got a little testy with me saying, "Did you every read that big FBI screen at the beginning of EVERY home movie you watch? It's doesn't say piracy is illegal...except if you can break the security code." And I have no idea what breaking he security code means in the first place. When I kept pressing the issue, saying "You can't really believe that getting a movie without paying for it is legal? How is that any different than stealing the DVD?" The millennial whose place it was piped up and said, "But I DID pay...I paid $89 for the FireStick." The crowd, most of whom I didn't not know, pretty much started to turn on me. Given that and the fact that I wasn't going to sit and watch these aholes do what is anathema to the industry I work in, so I got up and left with two of my people.
Thing is, there isn't much you can do about jerks like that other than voicing your objections and pointing out that they are committing a crime. More to the point, what specifically CAN be done about these torrent sites? I mean, this Exodus site had hundreds of titles there for the picking. Does one report them to the FCC, the FBI, the MPAA? All of them? It can't possibly be that the studios and FBT et al have no idea that these sites exist; they are no secret. Why can't they be shut down? I would think Disney of all the studios would have a swat team at the ready to go out and crush the operators like bugs.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-27-2017, 08:18 PM:
I think the whole problem is that these sites reside outside of the USA. Apparently we can be the "world's policeman" when it comes to certain issues, but we can't do anything about illegal movies.
Most people are like the ones at your party...they don't think it's stealing if they didn't carry something away in their hand. I don't know how you educate those people.
The studios are under the delusion that they can stop this kind of thing by going day and date with the video on demand. They're too dumb to realize that nothing can compete with "free."
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 03-27-2017, 09:40 PM:
This is why I thought the whole encryption thing was an imposition on theatres from the get-go. I can't put a small screen in the restroom so patrons don't miss the show, but you knew people were going to figure out some point downstream of the encryption to grab pristine copies and fire it out to cyberspace.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-27-2017, 09:42 PM:
The modded Amazon Fire TV stick is just the latest user friendly outlet of movie piracy. Apparently it's a very widespread problem. Yet I haven't seen any news coverage about this or heard any noise about it from the studios. It's almost like they're tolerating it. I personally know several people who have these piracy-loaded Fire TV sticks. And, yes, none of them believe there's anything illegal about it. I even got in an argument with my own brother over this shit.
Like Frank, I'm pretty disgusted about this issue. I'm disgusted about it on multiple levels. This freeloading outlet is yet another thing hurting movie theaters. There's a wider issue of the general public being both stupidly blind and selfish, refusing to see any big picture view. We're developing a destructive culture of selfishness that gives me a grim idea of where our society is headed.
I like movies, but at least I understand there is no free ride on watching them. If we want to continue getting a supply of new, big budget Hollywood movies that's not going to happen without both a healthy movie theater industry and movie production industry.
The studios are wrong to think day and date release patterns will solve the piracy problem. I think it will make matters only worse. The studios know what they can do to correct the problem, but they just won't do it. The steps to solve the problems will inconvenience too many rich douchebag types in New York and Los Angeles.
The studios' first mistake was making all the content digital. The next mistake was creating screener DVDs and Blu-ray discs to hand out to douchebags who couldn't soil themselves with watching a movie in a theater with common, not-rich people. Those screener discs grew legs and walked into the hands of pirates. Then the studios sped up the release cycle, debuting movies in many countries at once. That gave a much larger number of criminals basic access to the content. If they couldn't figure out some way to hack the DCP they now had tens of thousands of screens to pick from to aim a video camera. I don't know if the studios allow "VIP" types to stream virtual screeners of new movies, but it would not surprise me. And it wouldn't surprise me if those VIP movie streams were getting hacked and pirated.
While I'm still mad at the general public for taking part in widespread movie piracy, I'm even more angry at the movie industry because the pain it is suffering from piracy is thanks to self inflicted wounds.
Today the Bloomberg news site ran an article about premium VOD Hollywood movies (and, as usual, painting a mostly "pro" picture of the ploy). The sales angle on it now is helping movie studios save millions on marketing costs. They just run one campaign for the theatrical release and the video release will happen so fast they don't have to do more ad buys months later. I think what ever cost savings they gain from this will be far offset from overall losses they are going to suffer when the plan backfires. And when it does backfire I don't think there will be any going back to longer release windows. This is like pulling the pin on a hand grenade. You can't make that hot potato un-explode after it pops.
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 03-27-2017, 11:36 PM:
I'm no techie, but yeah, a day-and-date VOD release has to be susceptible to piracy. They either have to allow some sort of unencrypted source output to existing television monitors (since people aren't going to buy special TV's), or at the very least a nice crisp "camcorder" version is easily done with a 4K TV + high-end camera + direct sound inputs.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 03-28-2017, 01:42 AM:
Yeah these pirated films are being watched by darn near everyone. I know friends, family... even a theater general manager who's into all that. Unreal. The title should read "Stronger than ever" instead of "still going strong"
The biz... it's going down...
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 03-28-2017, 07:20 AM:
A friend of mine has been working on a long term project in Singapore
for a high-tech firm. He's been there a couple of years now.
We keep in contact by e-mail and online chat services like SKYPE.
He really likes some of the MARVEL superhero flix, and I knew he was
really looking forward to seeing one of them a year or so ago.
(I don't remember which one it was)
We happened to be SKYPING the day the movie was released here in
the USA. So, I casually asked if he had seen it yet, knowing that the
movie was a worldwide release, and Singapore is almost a full day
ahead (time zone-wise) of where I'm at here in California.
He hadn't seen it yet, but said that he'd already seen guys offering
bootleg copies "on the street" as he was walking to work that morning.
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 03-28-2017, 07:41 AM:
The horse is long since out of the barn.
Last summer I was working a VFW booth at the Virginia State Fair and there was a guy a few aisles away selling a version of the KODI box that was preloaded with the software to access the very media streams discussed above. No one was questioning the legality of his product.
Just Google KODI box and you'll see just how pervasive these things have become. Hell, they even sell them at WalMart and Target.
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-28-2017, 07:44 AM:
The software at the heart of this is called KODI. It is a perfectly legal streaming platform that will let the user watch many different streams. For example, JAZZ AT LINCOLN CENTER streams many of its concerts. For a price, BROADWAYHD streams musicals and plays.
There are add-ons to KODI that allow streaming of not-so legal content. The breakthrough here is that it is very very simple to select a movie. It's just like selecting a movie with Netflix...click and go. No setting up Bittorrent software, no waiting for seeding, just hit the button and go.
I was at a Home and Garden show about a month ago and there were 2 Vendors there selling Kodi boxes for about $50. They were showing ESPN streams and touting the movies that were available, and clearly stating that this wasn't downloading, it was streaming and it was "perfectly legal".
It is very very difficult to track streaming. With BitTorrent, you are part of a swarm with a trackable IP address...not so with streaming. The only way to stop this is to cut off the streaming sources, but when taken down, they just pop up at another location.
I don't think shrinking the release window will do anything to stop this. Someone will find a way to grab that content and release it to the world for free.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-28-2017, 11:25 AM:
Thing is, I only knew about this bitorrent stuff peripherally -- I mean, I knew these sites existed; a number of years ago now, one of the IT techs at work showed me how to download a film and I thought, if the average Joe needs to go thru this hassle, it really isn't any major threat. It seemed like it would be too damned complicated for people who barely could manage programming their DVRs. But THIS system was totally different. And yes, I did hear the word KODI when he was explaining how it worked; I was talking with others and wasn't paying too much attention -- I thought he was saying someone named Cody set it up for him.
What was so disturbing to me was that this thing displayed a LONG, seemingly unending list of movies with modern-looking graphics, BETTER looking and more easily maneuvered that a Netflix menu. It had a totally legal looking interface with spiffy graphics. And I am not sure whether or not he was just rationalizing, but this guy said that because he bought hardware and software (KODI is software?), that it was as legal as watching Netflix. In fact, his wife said they had given up Netflix once they got this treasure-trove of first run pictures!
I would say, the only solution here, if it is so difficult to stop the service providers, is that they really have to start searching out the end users and laying hefty fines on them. People are less likely to engage in this activity if there is a REAL threat that the arm of the law can and will LIKELY get them. Right now the populous thinks it's immune.
People don't cheat on their income tax because there is the real threat of The Audit. They pay their parking and moving violation summons because there are real, unavoidable consequences if they don't. Its a matter substantially changing the culture.
First problem is, that this TV box that has been with us for more than half a century, everything the entire family saw on that TV screen -- in the home -- has been FREE. TV screen = free content. Add to that, the culturally ingrained concept that a man's home is his castle, blah blah blah, and he can do whatever he wants in his home without fear of The Law nosing in on him, and you have a mindset that is difficult or impossible to counter. That castle thing is fallacious, of course...you can't commit crimes in your home and claim immunity. But those two concepts together make a very powerful mindset and a very hard cultural egg to crack.
Then of course as Mike says, when you add the idea of getting something for free to the mix, you will have a hard time fixing this problem. The solution isn't to try to stop the torrent servers which obviously had proven to be nearly impossible, but to start prosecuting enough people to the point where most people would no more watch a pirated movie than grow marijuana in their homes. That may take a bit of time, but it can be done. You need to create a situation where everyone knows someone who has been fined (and I mean a hefty, PAINFUL fine -- not a slap on the wrist) for this kind of activity. Right now you have a situation where most everyone -- the ordinary, law-abiding citizen -- knows of NO one who has been prosecuted for participating in this copyright infringement activity. The big FBI warning on ever DVD is simply not enough. The populous needs to come to see there is a real threat of nasty consequences and that WATCHING a pirated movie is basically co-conspiracy, i.e., participation in a Federal crime.
If the next-door neighbor has to move out of that "castle" of theirs because they can no longer pay the mortgage due to a $50,000 fine and the breadwinner's wages are garnisheed, THAT certainly would have much more of an impact those silly "piracy is not a victim-less crime" trailers. And it would give every one of the other neighbors pause should they be contemplating watching a pirated movie.
Damn, I didn't think there was a fascist hiding in me!
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-28-2017, 12:47 PM:
I agree, getting after the end-users might be a solution. But our government doesn't even want to get after people who are openly violating things like immigration laws, so they're probably not going to go after Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack in their living room watching movies with the family.
Also, prosecution is too expensive. What's needed is a way to prosecute automatically. If I'm at work trying to stream Amazon Music, and Amazon can tell that I'm already streaming it at home and ask me if I want to switch, it should be just as easy to nail people streaming illegal stuff. Of course that'd involve some government agency "watching" your download stream, so the ACLU would be all over that.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't think there will be any going back to longer release windows. This is like pulling the pin on a hand grenade. You can't make that hot potato un-explode after it pops.
I guess I don't understand why they couldn't go back to longer windows. They could say, "Yes, we released our last movie early on video but it was a huge flop to do that, so we're going back to a longer window. Visit your local theater to see this great new movie!"
My wife told me that various people at her job (computer guys) have these hacked Fire sticks. They all think they're perfectly legal. Well, they SAY that's what they think. In their heart of hearts they probably know it's a scam but they're playing dumb in order to watch free movies at home.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-28-2017, 01:34 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Of course that'd involve some government agency "watching" your download stream, so the ACLU would be all over that.
As well they should. Does not the gov't "watching" your download stream bother you a bit?
This is an industry problem that the industry is going to have to throw LOTS of money at. Prosecutions will be few and ineffectual. The gov't has been going after dope smokers for about 90 years and are still losing ground, they are not going to do any better in the copyright violation trade.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-28-2017, 02:15 PM:
quote: Mark Lensenmayer
It is very very difficult to track streaming. With BitTorrent, you are part of a swarm with a trackable IP address...not so with streaming. The only way to stop this is to cut off the streaming sources, but when taken down, they just pop up at another location.
One thing I fear is widespread movie piracy will be another excuse for lawmakers to eliminate various elements of Net Neutrality. Perhaps as early as today Congress may overturn a law preventing ISPs from selling a customer's web browsing history on the open market. User privacy is taking a back seat to making money. Mobile carriers like Verizon have already been caught bundling creepy tracking software into the phones. All of the major phone carriers were doing this.
Anti piracy efforts might try to block or severely throttle traffic going to/from piracy havens like Russia and China, as long as that doesn't interfere with legit global business traffic too much. It might involve blocking connections to Virtual Private Networks that many use to hide what sites they're visiting from ISP's. More people are using VPNs out of concern for privacy and freedom of speech. Netflix already blocks most VPNs to prevent people from accessing content in countries where it isn't licensed.
quote: Frank Angel
Thing is, I only knew about this bitorrent stuff peripherally -- I mean, I knew these sites existed; a number of years ago now, one of the IT techs at work showed me how to download a film and I thought, if the average Joe needs to go thru this hassle, it really isn't any major threat. It seemed like it would be too damned complicated for people who barely could manage programming their DVRs.
In the past the average computer user faced a steep learning curve if he wanted to download free movies, music, porn or cracked software using torrent software. Even worse, the average user faced a minefield of download bait pretending to be a free movie but instead carrying a payload of computer malware. IIRC, the MPAA was posting bait online to catch people looking for illegal movies.
Both problems are solved (mostly) with these modded Fire TV sticks. You don't connect them to your computer, just your TV set. I still wonder if it's possible for one of these little HDMI dongles to carry software that will tunnel through your home network and infect any connected PCs anyway.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I agree, getting after the end-users might be a solution. But our government doesn't even want to get after people who are openly violating things like immigration laws, so they're probably not going to go after Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack in their living room watching movies with the family.
I disagree. Over the past decade our government has passed laws that infringe on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and possibly even 9th & 10th amendments. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 effectively gave the government the ability to bypass due process, arresting and holding people for any length of time without bringing charges.
On illegal immigration, I find it disturbing and heavy handed they're willing to arrest and deport "dreamers," people who were brought into the country illegally when they were just kids and grew up in the US. I don't think I'd like it very much if the government grabbed me and dumped me off in Ireland or Scotland where I have no job, immediate friends or family. Many large industries in the United States have deliberately used illegal labor for decades. It will be interesting to see the unintended consequences of mass deportation when certain industries, like agriculture and cattle processing, struggle to find American born people willing to do that work for long hours and shit pay. For the past 40 years America's net population growth has come from immigration. The birth rates of American born citizens are falling more and more into regressive territory. It costs way too damned much money to have and raise kids these days. 20 years from now America could be mired in problems via an inverse, constrictive population pyramid -way too many retired age people and nowhere near enough working age people and younger to keep the system afloat.
quote:
I guess I don't understand why they couldn't go back to longer windows. They could say, "Yes, we released our last movie early on video but it was a huge flop to do that, so we're going back to a longer window. Visit your local theater to see this great new movie!"
If any studio could try lengthening windows it's Disney. BTW they're the only studio that doesn't want to go along with this premium VOD crap. They're also the only studio that keeps quite a few of their Blu-ray discs and DVD priced fairly high -especially all the animated movies and Marvel shows. It's not often you see those titles fall into the bargain bin price range unless the show was a huge flop.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-28-2017, 02:23 PM:
quote: Martin McCaffery
Does not the gov't "watching" your download stream bother you a bit?
I guess I wouldn't care if the government knew what I watched. I'm not watching anything illegal. If they want to watch the old "The Office" reruns along with me, the more the merrier.
Seriously, I just can't think of any other way to deal with the pirates. If going after the end user is a solution, then how else would you implement it? I mean, the cops can bust your door down if they have probable cause that you're using illegal drugs in your house.
quote: Bobby Henderson
If any studio could try lengthening windows it's Disney. BTW they're the only studio that doesn't want to go along with this premium VOD crap.
Disney's average window in 2016 was shorter compared to 2015, but was still longer than it was in 2014. They still have the longest window of the majors. And they had the biggest share of the boxoffice last year. Food for thought, studios?
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 03-28-2017, 03:50 PM:
quote: Martin McCaffery
Does not the gov't "watching" your download stream bother you a bit?
Indeed. Now aren't were running afoul of wiretap laws. It requires a court order for the phone companies to tap a line. I can't see any difference between that and monitoring a download stream.
Going after the end user is not the answer. You have to stop the illegal activity at the source and that would require international cooperation. Sounds familiar doesn't it? And we all know how successful the war on drugs has been.
I'm just not sure the powers that be consider illegal movie watching to be that big of a problem.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-28-2017, 05:58 PM:
I wonder how many of the downloaders would have actually paid for the movie in the first place, though. I don't support movie (or any other type of) piracy, but the claims of lost revenue for every download are grossly exaggerated.
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 03-28-2017, 06:15 PM:
In the UK there has been a recent sucessful prosecution against a seller of so-called "fully loaded" Kodi boxes, which enables one to watch pirated content without going through any hoops. Link to Daily Mirror article that muses on the issue, which links to a report on the prosecution.
Edited highlights:
A man has been hit with a £250,000 bill for selling 'pre-loaded' Kodi boxes which could screen Premier League football to pubs and clubs.
Malcolm Mayes, 65, from Hartlepool, Teesside flogged ‘pre-loaded’ boxes for £1,000 each to pubs and clubs so they could illegally screen live football and pay per view events.
The Teeside Gazette reports Hartlepool Council's authority’s trading standards department brought the prosecution.
The council say he targeted the venue through adverts in a national magazine which claimed his devices were ‘100% legal’.
A judge at Teesside Crown Court ordered him to pay the council’s £170,000 costs while a Proceeds of Crime Order was made against him for a further £80,000.
Mayes - who the court heard has assets in excess of £1m - was also handed a 10-month prison sentence, suspended for one year.
Ian Harrison, of Hartlepool Council Trading Standards, said: “Mr Mayes should not be seen as a Robin Hood-type character."
“In selling these devices he wasn’t stealing from the rich to help the poor. He was stealing to make himself richer.”
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-28-2017, 10:19 PM:
But that last statement does play into the rationale of people who only want to get the movie to watch it, not to sell it or to distribute it of profit from it in any way, i.e., the erroneous idea that we've all heard so many say, that if one is not profiting from it, it's not illegal.
And then again, if you go by what the studio looses by such a download -- three or four people watch BEAUTY AND THE BEAST instead of paying to see it at the movies or instead of buying the DVD or other video format, then they've personally stolen what, at most under $50 worth of "product?" That doesn't rise to the level of more than a petty crime, certainly not even a misdemeanor in the mind of the perpetrator. He doesn't even come home with so much as a stolen pair of jeans. You can see where this much more of a perception problem than one of stopping the likes of bank robbers.
I have also wondered why this industry is so loose with information about their grosses. They have been shooting themselves in the foot by routinely announcing how much this or that picture grossed in an opening weekend. This goes a long LONG way to reinforce perception of the studios as Goliath and Joe pirated movie watcher as David. And David doesn't even wind up with anything material in his possession, yet he is told he has hurt xyz studio who just said they made 140 MILLION dollars in one weekend. It really might behoove studios to play the gross cards close to the vest as this really is a war of perceptions, and the studios are losing.
What other industry treats its weekly grosses like some sort of public marketing fodder? You certainly don't hear Big Oil or Big Pharma announcing their weekly grosses on a national network news break-in every Sunday night (the MPAA does it everyone Sunday night on CBS, I think is the network). And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5brlHqQeGXY
Macy*s doesn't have a big banner as you walk in the store announcing that they made upteen million dollars last quarter while a few isles down, there is no banner admonishing that "Shoplifting is not a victim-less crime."
It's easy to see why Joe Pirated Movie Watcher doesn't think he's making any big dent in Hollywood profits by watching a big blockbuster at home rather than spending $20 to go see it in the theatre.
I can also see where people, me included, can get quite antagonistic toward a business where we, the paying customer who just purchased a ticket to see a movie in a theatre or just bought and paid for a DVD -- are constantly reminded that the business thinks of us as potential thieves. It's like they are saying, "Yah, I know you paid for your ticket, or for you DVD, but we are still not quite sure about you; to us, you are still a potential robber and we better keep reminding you of that at every turn. Eventually someone inevitably is going to say, "Hey, you know what, if they think of me as a potential movie pirate, then hell, I might as well act like one."
This is a very complex, attitude-driven issue that I don't think the studios ever handled wisely, not from the hell and brimstone railings of Jack Valenti in the early days trying say the world can't have video recorders because they have only one purpose....to steal their movies, along with his claim that the industry loses 6 BILLION dollars a year (or was it a month? whatever it was, it was HUGE) to piracy which was "a cancer in the belly of the industry," to the constant bragging they do about how much money they are raking in every big opening. Which goes to what Scott points out -- claims of damage are grossly exaggerated; once the public see it's being played, the studios have lost the pubic relations war.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-28-2017, 11:08 PM:
I think you're right about the grosses thing. Studios love to promote the big numbers they're doing. Other industries do it too, just not with such "exact" figures and I think that does make a difference.
Things like "Ford F-150....the world's best-selling pickup truck, 30 years in a row!" That doesn't make me resent Ford's $50,000-plus price on their trucks. But if they said "Ford...another year selling $400 million worth of F-150s!" they might stir up some different kind of publicity.
Then the news media writing stories with phrases like "Beauty and the Beast raked in $30 million this weekend" doesn't help either. They love to use words like raked, hauled, etc. which makes theaters sound like greedy bastards. They never make mention of the enormous losses (both on the studio end and the exhibition end) when a high profile movie tanks.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-29-2017, 12:19 AM:
When considering issues like the worsening problem of "income inequality," the richest .1% of Americans carving more out of our backs every passing year, the middle class being squeezed and many fearful of lapsing into the lower class, I think it's pretty clear there is a hell of a lot of unspoken resentment toward the people on top.
All these folks using modded Fire TV sticks or whatever to view pirated movies, TV shows, music and sports programs probably couldn't give two shits about their activity being theft. They see the movie stars, directors and producers living an extreme quality of life very few of them will ever attain. These celebrities don't look like they're hurting at all. Even a somewhat obscure American actor can go to Japan, record a TV commercial and make more on that one gig than most Americans would earn in a couple years.
Not many users of these piracy devices think of the average people being hurt by this enterprise. Few jobs in a movie theater business pay well. And there's plenty of workers in the movie industry who earn modest pay checks. Those are the people who tend to get hurt first by a downturn in the movie business, not necessarily the celebrities (although plenty of them fall into obscurity once they get too old, fat, etc.).
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-29-2017, 05:22 PM:
I doubt that people are doing it because of "resentment." They may be using that to justify it if they get called out on it, but the initial thought is just "I can watch new movies at home? For free? Hell yeah, I'll take one!"
Then when their theater owning buddy says "That's illegal, you know," they go "Ahhhhh, those movie stars aren't going to miss a couple of bucks" or "Sheeeeit, you're charging nine bucks for a popcorn, you make plenty of money."
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-30-2017, 12:22 AM:
People distributing the modded HDMI sticks/boxes or acquiring/distributing the pirated content probably know the risks they're running with the law. I don't think anyone merely viewing pirated movies on these modded HDMI sticks/boxes expect to ever get busted just for watching pirated movies. So the studios try to appeal to the would-be customer's morality, by just saying it's wrong, it's stealing, yadda yadda yadda.
Not only do the freeloading viewers think "hey, I'm getting something that costs a bunch of money for free," they also think, "this isn't hurting anyone; those Hollywood types are still making millions and billions." It's still a guilt free crime to them.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Then when their theater owning buddy says "That's illegal, you know," they go "Ahhhhh, those movie stars aren't going to miss a couple of bucks" or "Sheeeeit, you're charging nine bucks for a popcorn, you make plenty of money."
I think high concessions prices add to the rationale for people seeking out pirated movies. They use the snack prices as another reason to justify using an alternative means of watching movies even if it is illegal. Sticking it to the Man is as far as they could go with the train of thought, if it even gets that far. They don't bother to see how well the movie theater manager or other theater employees are living.
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 03-30-2017, 01:19 AM:
I had an argument awhile ago with a couple of middle-aged folks (not of the Napster generation, prone to piracy), who I think genuinely didn't know they were doing anything wrong with their Android box they bought online.
I think part of what's happened is the unlimited streaming services (Netflix etc) have done their part to train consumers to think in terms of a monthly fee for content, rather than pay-per-view as with movie tickets or disc rentals/purchases. In their eyes, they bought a box, and they are paying for Internet service. Some movies show up on Netflix; other movies show up on their Kodi.
And with Kodi, the interface is very slick - it doesn't have that "I"m obviously doing something shady" vibe that earlier piracy had. It *feels* above-board.
Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 03-30-2017, 10:50 AM:
There is a general lack of respect for intellectual property. We saw this with software being copied from floppy disks. We saw it in music copying, whether iPod to iPod or Napster. The RIAA tried all kinds of things to convince people to not copy music. See https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/17400810200.shtml and https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later . The cable and satellite TV industries also went through this. People were (and probably still are) selling decoders for encrypted signals. People often offer me a CD to copy. When I decline saying it's copyright infringement, they often reply that it's ok because they would not sell equipment to copy them if it were not ok.
There is a general attitude that it's ok to ignore our laws and social contract if we can get away with it. It's ok to drive over the speed limit if you don't get caught. It's ok to cheat on your taxes. It's ok to do whatever if you don't get caught. But, we expect everyone else to act properly.
Harold
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-30-2017, 10:54 AM:
Absolutely right -- the Program Guide was as slick and above-board looking...maybe even moreso than Netflix, certainly it has a cleaner, less busy look than Netflix.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-30-2017, 11:29 AM:
If I steal your car then you're walking and I'm driving your car.
If I copy your CD, then nothing has changed for you at all, and I'm listening to music.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-30-2017, 12:02 PM:
It's no different than hooking up an illegal cable. Does it affect anybody else on the cable system at all? Nope. Is it theft? Yep.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-30-2017, 01:16 PM:
quote: Harold Hallikainen
There is a general lack of respect for intellectual property.
I'm reminded about this constantly at my day job. I can spend hours or even days working on a complicated sign project. Most customers see absolutely no value in the labor put into it. They figure it only takes a few seconds of typing gibberish into the keyboard and, bam, the project is finished. Just like in the movies!
Or someone will want me to contribute free illustrations and graphics to some publication they're trying to produce, all for the "honor" of being published. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want to be jerked off I'll use my own hand. Make your own illustrations and graphics, jackass.
quote: Frank Cox
If I copy your CD, then nothing has changed for you at all, and I'm listening to music.
Or using software. I use a few Adobe applications in my work and have a Creative Cloud subscription. The anger from users has never ended. At best it has only eased a little. If you're actually doing paid, professsional graphics work the $50 per month price is a bargain considering what all you get. But I suspect a bunch of these people want free. That even goes for the fonts.
I use the hell out of Adobe's Typekit service, which comes with Creative Cloud. They have a bunch of professional grade type families from many different foundaries that are free to sync to a computer from Typekit. A bunch of these type families cost a fortune to buy outright from a type outlet like MyFonts.com. For instance they just added the Promixa Soft family by Mark Simonson, 48 fonts free at Typekit but $734 at MyFonts. Creating a typeface, especially one featuring all the latest bells and whistles of OpenType, requires countless hours of painstaking work and script programming. Again, the average user sees zero value in that. It's just a font file.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-30-2017, 06:14 PM:
quote: Frank Cox
If I steal your car then you're walking and I'm driving your car.
If I copy your CD, then nothing has changed for you at all, and I'm listening to music.
Close, but not quite. If you copy his CD, you stole "my" performance (presuming I was the "artist" that was on the CD). Through intermediaries (publishers) he and I agreed on a price for my performance to be listened on his equipment and even then only on one piece of equipment at a time.
Once you made the copy (or he made the copy for you), then YOU are getting free performances out of me. A permission that neither he nor you ever had.
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 03-30-2017, 06:36 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Close, but not quite. If you copy his CD, you stole "my" performance (presuming I was the "artist" that was on the CD).
I'd disagree; the CD is evidence of a performance that once took place at a different time and space. The performance only happened once, no matter how many copies of the evidence of that performance there are.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-30-2017, 08:21 PM:
Nonetheless, copies were made which you were not given the right to make.
Whether that is a criminal or civil offense depends on the country you live in, but it is an actionable injury.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-31-2017, 07:01 PM:
Amazon Bans Sales of “Pirate” Media Players, Will Destroy Them
quote:
Amazon is taking a tough stance against vendors who sell fully-loaded Kodi boxes and other "pirate" media players through its platform. The store now explicitly bans media players that "promote" or "suggest" the facilitation of piracy. Sellers who violate this policy, of which there are still a few around, risk having their inventory destroyed.
Streaming piracy is on the rise with popular media player Kodi at the center of attention.
While Kodi itself is a neutral platform, millions of people use third-party add-ons to turn it into the ultimate pirate machine.
In some cases, the pirate add-ons are put onto the devices by vendors, who sell these “fully-loaded” boxes through their own stores or marketplaces such as Amazon. While Amazon has never explicitly allowed the sale of copyright-infringing devices, they are not hard to find in its store.
This is a thorn in the side of major copyright holders, who have repeatedly complained about fully-loaded boxes.
Amazon appears to be well aware of the controversy, as it recently published an updated policy clarifying that pirate media players are not permitted on the platform. Merely ‘suggesting’ that devices can be used for infringing purposes is enough to have them delisted.
“Products offered for sale on Amazon should not promote, suggest the facilitation of, or actively enable the infringement of or unauthorized access to digital media or other protected content. Any streaming media player or other device that violates this policy is prohibited from sale on Amazon,” the company writes.
Amazon states that it is up to the vendor to determine whether their products meet these standards. Those who still cross the line are in for an unpleasant and costly surprise. Amazon states that it will destroy the devices without reimbursement.
“If you sell these products, we may immediately suspend or terminate your selling privileges and destroy inventory in our fulfillment centers without reimbursement,” Amazon writes.
In addition, if there’s proof that the vendors were engaging in illegal activity, any pending payments may be withheld or forfeited under the policy.
While the announcement was published without fanfare, it hasn’t gone unnoticed. Anti-piracy company Irdeto, which works with several major copyright holders on pirate streaming box cases, sees the new policy as a breakthrough.
“This first of its kind preventative measure aims to minimize the pirates’ promotional reach. It’s a policy I hope the other e-Commerce sites will emulate,” Mark Mulready, Senior Director Cyber Services and Investigations at Irdeto, notes.
Despite Amazon’s strong language the site still features many devices marketed as fully-loaded streaming media players. Some, including the one below, even use pirate sources such as Icefilms, Primewire and the Genesis Kodi add-on to market their products.
According to Irdeto, the media player software itself is not at fault. In a way, they are a victim of the pirates too, much like copyright holders. The pirate sources and the rogue vendors are the ones that create and maintain the problem.
This is also reflected in the legal cases that have been launched thus far over the misuse of Kodi players. Both in the UK and the Netherlands, test cases against sellers of “fully-loaded” devices are aiming to stop the phenomenon.
In the United States, the problem is also on the radar now. MPAA boss Chris Dodd recently said that finding a solution to the illegal use of Kodi is one of the main piracy questions the industry currently faces, so it’s likely that more enforcement actions will follow.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-02-2017, 11:47 AM:
quote: David Buckley
In the UK there has been a recent sucessful prosecution against a seller of so-called "fully loaded" Kodi boxes, which enables one to watch pirated content without going through any hoops. Link to Daily Mirror article that muses on the issue, which links to a report on the prosecution.
Edited highlights:
A man has been hit with a £250,000 bill for selling 'pre-loaded' Kodi boxes which could screen Premier League football to pubs and clubs.
Malcolm Mayes, 65, from Hartlepool, Teesside...
Ha! It's a small world...
I worked in Middlesbrough (just across the river from Hartlepool) from 2001-06, formed the impression then that illegal activity probably accounted for most of the region's economy, and see that it's still going strong! You only had to walk a block or two from my office to find pirated DVDs of anything you desired on sale ... except that you wouldn't walk a block or two from the office, because the odds weren't good that you'd get back to it in one piece.
Still at least they're just watching pirate footy broadcasts over there, and no longer stringing up poor, defenseless animals...
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-02-2017, 01:56 PM:
Two words: "Due Process."
If Amazon actually goes through with this, they open themselves up for a big civil liability suit.
If they impounded the merchandise then called the FBI, it would be different but one person can not deprive another of property like that.
Yes, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are supposed to be aimed at the Government's actions against Citizens but if one Citizen (or Corporate Entity) deprives another of their civil rights, that is considered a tort... and a big one at that!
Not even a security guard at Walmart can deprive a person of goods or property, even if the security guard saw a customer steal something with his own eyes. The guard CAN detain the person, impound the goods then call the police but they CANNOT take unilateral action.
I bet that Amazon is basically counting on the "violator" to knuckle under. Most small-time crooks won't have the money or resources to fight their case. They are, essentially, bluffing and grandstanding.
If some spiteful A-hole decides to get an ambulance chasing lawyer, Amazon could get their ass handed to them in court!
Amazon is being REALLY stupid about this! Even if they are only just saying it for show!
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-02-2017, 02:55 PM:
I'm sure Amazon has already covered its legal ass with the fine print it makes sellers agree to in order to participate on their site.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-02-2017, 04:30 PM:
No contract can force you to give up your civil rights. Even that could be considered as a tort, by itself.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-02-2017, 07:26 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
I bet that Amazon is basically counting on the "violator" to knuckle under. Most small-time crooks won't have the money or resources to fight their case.
Or, just as likely, because small time crooks are still crooks, and as a general rule, crooks don't want to draw the attention of law enforcement to themselves, which they'd risk doing by taking Amazon to court.
The problem for Amazon will be if they mistakenly identify someone as a crook and destroy inventory, etc., that does not actually facilitate doing anything illegal. The negative publicity that would result from that would drive a lot of third-party sellers that use Amazon as a storefront away.
quote: Article
While Amazon has never explicitly allowed the sale of copyright-infringing devices, they are not hard to find in its store.
I once bought an HDCP stripper from Amazon. This was not to do anything illegal with: I simply needed it to connect a BD player to a video scaler that could not decrypt HDCP itself. Every second of content that has been passed through the HDCP stripper box has been fully licensed and cleared for playback.
It's certainly true that this device COULD be used to facilitate piracy, but, like hundreds of thousands of other products that Amazon sells, it also has entirely legitimate uses. Is Amazon going to stop selling, and destroy their inventory of, anything that could possibly be used in any sort of crime?!
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-03-2017, 02:18 AM:
I would go as far as to say that stupid stuff like HDCP actually enables piracy instead of defying it.
Stuff like HDCP is being used on so many cheap appliances out there, it will always be a matter of time until someone cracks it. All the content that's being protected by HDCP is already out there, in unencrypted form...
So, what is HDCP good for? Primarily frustrating the "little man" when he tries to connect two incompatible components to each other in an otherwise totally legal way.
It's the same frustration of the little man that loses his music collection on his iPod, iPhone or whatnot player, because DRM never allowed him to make a proper backup or he/she transferred the music between too many devices. Or even worse, the company they bought the music from decided to shutdown their licensing servers. Those who downloaded the same stuff illegal, don't have any of those problems.
It's the same frustration that hits you, when you get an "unskippable" copyright notice in 20 languages on the DVD or Blu-Ray you're watching. Or the 10 seconds of threatening with jail you get when you watch a 20th Century Fox release in a theater anywhere in Europe. I'm the good guy already, I actually paid for your content. Don't screw me. Thank you.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-03-2017, 07:50 AM:
I believe that the last time the MPAA went to Congress plying the members with wine, women, and song (mostly women and I'll be a few young men too) to get the Copyright Law "amended", or possible it was two Copyright Law revisions ago -- you know, what they do each time some studio has one of it's big hit titles about to go into Public Domain and they scramble to find ways to get Congress to rewrite the law to prevent the dreaded Public Domain status or in some way to get some better advantage they want, didn't they add a provision that made breaking ANY protection scheme on ANY software or hardware in and of itself illegal? It rightfully raised a row because people who wanted to make a "protection" copy of a disc or software the purchased, all of a sudden became criminals. In the early days of programs coming on floppy disks, the company would TELL you to make a protection copy. All of a sudden that went out the window and the MPAA's claim was that optical discs are so stable a medium that you never would need a back-up copy. Tell that to Laserdisc owners. Anyway, my recollection is that the studios got that passed.
A few years back, a tech I know had a box full of video chips that he got from China which broke the HDCP protection. That new amendment made using that chip or any other "jailbreak" hack illegal. It made the hacks which allowed someone to be able to strip the protection off DVDs years ago illegal. Which would mean that just the use of those hacked Firesticks would be illegal, theoretically even if you didn't watch a copyrighted movie with it.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-03-2017, 02:16 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
No contract can force you to give up your civil rights. Even that could be considered as a tort, by itself.
Amazon has rights of its own in running its market place. The people selling these Kodi boxes are potentially exposing Amazon to legal action as an accomplice to organized crime since Amazon is facilitating the sales.
Concepts like "democracy," "due process" and "civil rights" have really gone down hill in the United States over the past 20 years. Our government has slippery ways to get around due process. The 2nd amendment is the only one in the bill of rights our government has any desire to uphold. They sure demonstrated that this past week regarding Internet use.
So in this current environment I think Amazon could probably do whatever the hell it wants with those Kodi piracy devices (destroy them, give them to the FBI, etc.) and not worry about the device distributors taking legal action.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-04-2017, 01:08 AM:
Amazon can impound suspect goods and call the authorities.
Amazon can hold monies owed to a suspect in escrow until the case is resolved, after which time they must either return the money (possibly with interest, depending on circumstance) or turn ill-gotten money over to authorities.
Amazon can deactivate any accounts that they think are suspect until such time as the case is resolved and they may permanently block access to persons who they believe are breaking the law.
Amazon may NOT unilaterally decide to take or destroy another's property without due process. Since they are NOT the police, they can not carry out due process.
If Amazon tries this, it is THEY who are in breach of the law, just as much as any person who breaks the rules.
If they do, they could, very well, get their ass handed to them in court.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 04-04-2017, 02:17 AM:
It depends on the terms of the contract that was agreed to by the parties. It may say "Amazon may in its sole discretion destroy any merchandise that it believes may be infringing". If so, then there you are.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-04-2017, 02:56 AM:
It's a contract between two companies. As long as the law has something more specific to say about it, Amazon can put in there whatever they want. If they say they can impound and destroy your goods at their own discretion and you sign this contract with them, there's not so much you can do about it.
The only thing you could possibly bring forward is that their terms aren't fair and since they're so big they're essentially a monopoly and they're abusing their power.
quote: Frank Angel
you know, what they do each time some studio has one of it's big hit titles about to go into Public Domain and they scramble to find ways to get Congress to rewrite the law to prevent the dreaded Public Domain status or in some way to get some better advantage they want, didn't they add a provision that made breaking ANY protection scheme on ANY software or hardware in and of itself illegal?
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act essentially makes it illegal for anyone to remove or override any form of copy protection from any medium.
So, essentially stripping HDCP off of a Blu-Ray you own, makes you a criminal in the United States. And yeah, this provision in the DMCA has lead to some controversial cases.
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 04-04-2017, 06:24 AM:
I would like to chime in here (after reading every single post in this thread):
I am in the theatre business and I have the ability to build a kodi box from scratch. I've built a few media players in my time, none with the "pre-loaded" stuff being discussed on here. But I am sure that the boxes I built ended up being used for those types of things.
I am also aware that the with every year that passes the encryption on DCPs takes less time to crack. Two years ago it would take two weeks to crack the encryption on a hollywood release of a film. With the newest processors and hardware coming out, I am sure it doesn't take as long. Not to mention, somebody working for one of the film companies allowing thier "screener copy" to be loaned out to a friend or family member to be copied. The latter being the number one source of digital copies of the films available on the Interwebs.
Here's the thing though: With everything discussed in this thread and with the discussion of collapsing release windows by the film companies themselves- I am not worried about our business. Why? Well, did your theatre open "Beauty and the Beast"? Did you see the grosses on this film? This was a March opening. Did you see the slate of films coming out before May? A few blockbusters on there. I foresee a great future in our business, at least for the next ten years.
I understand that the younger generation has no problem watching feature films on thier phones (or tablets). But there is nothing like watching a movie on a giant screen in a dark room with a bunch of strangers (in a recliner seat with an alcoholic beverage in hand). The same people watching a bootleg stream of Beauty and the Beast are some of the same people bringing thier kids to see it at a local movie theatre on a Saturday matinee.
Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning people doing illegal things. But if someone choses to watch "Guardian's of the Galaxy Vol 2" on thier tablet rather than see it in a movie theatre or at a Drive-In, then they don't sound like someone that I'd get along with anyway. They are completely missing the point of the Hollywod movie experience.
That's my two cents.
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-04-2017, 06:38 AM:
DCP (AES256) encryption has not been cracked. Not two years ago, not now.
- Carsten
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-04-2017, 08:32 AM:
I think Dennis is speculating that as computer processing power increases, the viability of attempting brute force decryption of a DCP gets closer. I suspect that if it ever becomes even within spitting distance of being do-able on consumer hardware in less than a matter of years, DCI will introduce 512-bit encryption pretty quickly.
What makes DCP encryption an order of magnitude more secure than any DRM system used for consumer formats is that it uses the digital equivalent of a One-time pad: the decryption key for every CPL is different, and itself is re-encrypted in transit between the server and media block, and so is very difficult to intercept.
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-04-2017, 08:35 AM:
Even the decryption key for every single reel can be different. Brute force times X...
- Carsten
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-04-2017, 09:34 AM:
With typical IMBs...it isn't re-encrypted, it is never decrypted...the key resides within the IMB so the decryption resides in there. My guess is that its most vulnerable state is between the IMB and the imagers where the information to form the image is in the clear, though, at that point, the watermarking is already part of the image.
Obviously, one could merely point a camera right at the imager, at that point but again, you have a watermarked copy that would be similar to camcording in a cinema, sans the people. The audio is also likely watermarked (depends on the title, always available on each and every channel too).
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 04-04-2017, 09:39 AM:
Sorry.
It's hasn't been cracked. We'll go with that. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Sidenote: Out of curiousity, I did some research online. I found a place where I could stream an HD version of "Beauty and the Beast" the 2017 version for free.
P.S. I am aware of how it works. But, I know that a 20 minute segment of a DCP was decrypted in less than two weeks previously by someone before. Obviously less trouble to borrow a screener from a film company executive/employee at this point. Knowing someone involved at the first part of the encryption process helps too:
LINK
How does encryption work in digital cinema?
2 March 2016 by Julius Waltenberger
Digital cinema uses a two step encyption method.
Every media asset of an encrypted DCP is encrypted with a 128 bit AES key. This step is a symmetric method, that means for encryption (during mastering of the DCP) and decryption (during playback in the movie theatre) the same key is used.
To transport these media keys safely to cinemas an asymmetrical encryption method (2048 bit RSA) is being used. Asymmetrical encryption uses pairs of keys, consisting of a public and a private key. The message is being encrypted with the public key and can only be decrypted with the private key. The public key can not be used to decrypt the message, meaning it can be safely published / forwarded.
So the AES media keys are sent to cinemas as Key delivery message (KDM), encrypted with the public key of the corresponding projection system and provided with a validity period. There the KDM is being imported on the projector and the media keys are extracted with the private key which is stored securely inside the projector. With the extracted media keys the DCP is being decrypted during playback.
This means that the same DCP goes out to every cinema but there has to be single KDM for for every projection system that will show the DCP. For any KDM that is generated we have to retrieve the corresponding public key / server certificate of the projection system for which the KDM is valid. For this purpose we maintain a database of all projectors in the field, with the information in which movie theatre and cinema hall the projector is used.
And this is how a Key delivery message looks like in detail:
DigitalCinemaPackage_kdm_example_DCM.pdf
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-04-2017, 10:46 AM:
quote: Dennis Benjamin
Sidenote: Out of curiousity, I did some research online. I found a place where I could stream an HD version of "Beauty and the Beast" the 2017 version for free.
That doesn't mean an encrypted DCP of that title was 'cracked'. But, wait, you didn't say 'cracked' but 'decrypted'. Yes, I can decrypt a DCP on my 10 year old notebook in a few minutes.
If you give me the key.
- Carsten
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 04-04-2017, 11:27 AM:
Quantum computing will change everything... and it's here.
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-04-2017, 12:55 PM:
You mean everything is going to change...again?!
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-04-2017, 05:19 PM:
quote: Dennis Benjamin
Quantum computing will change everything... and it's here.
First of all, it's not entirely here *yet*, at least not in a way that would harm any commonly used and generally accepted encryption schemes.
And while it would be a major problem for RSA and DSA, AES would only be weakened, quite severely weakened on paper, but maybe not so in practice.
So, the key exchange itself would be broken, unless it would transition to a quantum-safe algorithm (which there are), but AES256 itself still needs to be brute-forced, which can be highly optimized using a quantum computer, but it would probably require so much quantum computing resources that it would probably be cheaper to do on conventional GPUs or highly optimized ASICs.
In the end it's also how much it actually worth. Why would you ever spend for example millions worth of computing resources to decrypt a DCP?
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-04-2017, 05:56 PM:
Would be cheaper to bid on the distribution rights to get a hand on a copy...
- Carsten
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 04-04-2017, 07:22 PM:
quote: Carsten Kurz
Would be cheaper to bid on the distribution rights to get a hand on a copy...
We already do that.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-05-2017, 06:55 AM:
With regards to cracking encryption, I always think back to what a professor once told me back in engineering school:
"If man can make it, man can break it."
If you wanted to make it a lot more difficult to crack encryption, you could design a system where each receiver of the file was given a different decryption algorithm as well as different encryption key. This would require every location (in the case of movies) to have a copy custom encrypted. Then, they'd get the algorithm by one delivery method and the key by another.
Now, to break the code by brute force you'd have to try every possible key on potentially thousands of different algorithms. It is still breakable but would take a lot of time.
As far as the torrent site issue. You will probably eventually see the studios filing lawsuits against purchasers of "easy piracy" devices. Years ago, DirecTV did this. Theft of their service was running rampant through modified access cards as well as software based emulation of access cards.
As sellers of the cards or hardware to facilitate the software emulation were being caught, they would get the customer information of the people that purchased. They used this information to file lawsuits.
Even though the defendant could beat the suit, at the very least it required a few grand in fees to a lawyer.
I don't think they care all that much about the piracy that requires expertise to find and download or people surfing the "dark web" for stuff. They do care when people can get free content easier than they can pay for it.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-05-2017, 05:52 PM:
quote: Lyle Romer
"If man can make it, man can break it."
Not to discredit your old professor, but this often heard statement might be a bit of an oversimplification. There's no scientific proof that man cannot design and build something that's essentially "unbreakable" as such. I'd say there's sufficient empirical evidence that designing something that is "unbreakable" is generally speaking, pretty hard.
quote: Lyle Romer
Now, to break the code by brute force you'd have to try every possible key on potentially thousands of different algorithms. It is still breakable but would take a lot of time.
The number of encryption algorithms considered to be safe, are somewhat limited. It takes quite some effort by quite a lot of people to develop a new algorithm that's considered safe. The reputation of an encryption algorithm also matures, once it becomes increasingly clear that it is a hard to solve problem and that the amount of shortcuts that can be found are limited. You need quite a lot of research to get this right.
Also, it would not make anything any safer at all. You can still try to brute-force your uniquely encrypted DCP and you can copy it as often as you please. As a matter of fact, I think you're even opening up yourself more for failure this way.
Different encryption protocols might have different weaknesses. If you encrypt the same content with different protocols, there might even be the possibility to do a cross-protocol examination of certain aspects of your encrypted data. It might possbily help to limit your search domain considerably and thus weakening the encryption overall.
I think you should generally follow Bruce Schneiers advice on this one: Don't roll your own encryption. Encryption isn't a simple problem and lots of research is needed, before we can reasonably state that something can be considered secure.
Furthermore, the potential weakness of DCI isn't in the DCP encryption itself, it's in the key exchange and in the simple fact that this key has to be loaded into memory in unencrypted form, at least somewhere inside the media block to do the actual decryption.
quote: Lyle Romer
I don't think they care all that much about the piracy that requires expertise to find and download or people surfing the "dark web" for stuff. They do care when people can get free content easier than they can pay for it.
I think there's another problem here that needs addressing: Finding the content that people actually want to pay for...
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 04-05-2017, 10:14 PM:
With the current state of computation, cracking DCP encryption is just too hard.
DCPs are encrypted, as Dennis notes, with symmetric AES with a 128 bit key, and every disk is encrypted with the same key. So all one has to do (all! ha!!) is to get a copy of that key, and then every disk for a title can be decrypted. One can get a copy of that key either by opening a KDM message, which is again computationally hard if one doesn't have the matching IMB, or by filching the key from the place where KDMs are encoded. Which is a problem that could be solved.
Hmmm.... I assume DCP titles here (as in NZ, so really, Aus) are encrypted with a different AES key as the US releases... Our KDMs are genned by Deluxe in Ausland, so I muse their keys will be entirely independent from keys used in the USA simply because there is no need for them to be the same, and transporting these keys internationally is a risk that doesn't need to be taken.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 04-11-2017, 01:55 PM:
Browsing Facebook, stumbled upon a meme of Jack Black "Saluting the person who actually pays for Netflix while the rest of us use their account"
Check out this comment thread.
Aurra Sing Why not just download Showbox, not use other people's accounts, and get the same movies for free? Less hassle. No theft.
Surprised that people are still even falling for this mess.
But then again, monkey see monkey do. "Netflix and chill" must be such a popular pastime.
Like · Reply · 7 · April 5, 2016 at 7:02pm
Shane Vestnys Show box is littered with ads and is annoying. I used to use it but all it is. Is pirated stuff streamed . Which you can easily just download and avoid the ads and non sense if you are going to go that route
Like · Reply · 3 · April 6, 2016 at 3:33am
Elizabeth Houts I use to use gingle but their site is all screwed up and directs you to nothing but ads. Can't download anything from there anymore
Like · Reply · April 6, 2016 at 9:17am
Aurra Sing There's a drawn gun at the top of of your facebook page, and your profile picture looks like a mug shot of a twelve year old. Obviously, no one cares about you either.
Like · Reply · 3 · April 6, 2016 at 3:17pm
Aurra Sing It's actually not. I watch all of my films on Showbox, ad free.
Also, all of those films you talk of downloading are coming direct from the same source as the films showbox has. So really, it's a three step process. Download showbox, type in film and play said film.
Instead of continuously searching for, getting redirected from places like Putlocker to some random site, refreshing, playing the film again and finding out you're unable to fullscreen the film.
Like · Reply · 1 · April 6, 2016 at 3:22pm
Aurra Sing Never heard of Gingle. That's a funny name though.
Like · Reply · April 6, 2016 at 3:23pm
Naishmarie Lucas I use showbox all the time, but it only works on android devices. iPhone users don't have that option lol
Like · Reply · 1 · April 6, 2016 at 3:49pm
Aurra Sing It works on multiple devices. My Kindle also, for instance. Tablets, etc.
Like · Reply · April 6, 2016 at 3:55pm
Aurra Sing Perhaps, don't buy an overpriced cell phone that isn't even compatible with a simple application? Seems like a waste of money to me. A smart phone. That does stupid shit.
Hmm.
Like · Reply · April 6, 2016 at 3:57pm
Aurra Sing No shade. Just sarcasm lol.
Like · Reply · April 6, 2016 at 3:58pm
Nathalie Squigly Aurra obviously Chris cares enough to comment, but not enough about his education since he couldn't even spell "no one" correctly.
Like · Reply · 2 · April 6, 2016 at 6:44pm
Aurra Sing Sure it was, young one.
Go do your homework.
Like · Reply · April 6, 2016 at 10:58pm
Grace Seleyman Peter So much judgement lol.
Like · Reply · 4 · April 7, 2016 at 6:52am
Nate Slezak You're downloading a streamed video that the seeder most likely does not have the rights to do it. Not exactly legal
Unlike · Reply · 4 · April 7, 2016 at 11:17am
Aurra Sing Better than stealing someone's Netflix account.
Like · Reply · April 7, 2016 at 1:34pm
Aurra Sing Hey, talk shit. Get shut down.
Little kids should know their place.
Behind a desk with a book. Speaking when spoken to.
Like · Reply · April 7, 2016 at 1:36pm
Nate Slezak There are better apps than showbox
Like · Reply · April 7, 2016 at 2:05pm
Aurra Sing Like?
Like · Reply · April 7, 2016 at 2:11pm
Aurra Sing Open to ideas.
Like · Reply · April 7, 2016 at 2:11pm
Meagan Fish Cnfstudio.com
No downloading (: just instant steaming. Yes you get an occasional pop up.. Just close it out.
Watching a movie now lol. Has new movies, old, tv shows.. Love it! ...See More
IMovieMax.Se - Watch Full Movies Online Free
imoviemax.se
Like · Reply · 1 · April 7, 2016 at 2:42pm
Aurra Sing I'll check it out. Thanks, Meagan. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Like · Reply · April 7, 2016 at 8:35pm
Melissa Metler Just tried it, it's wanting my debit card info to "validate" my account.
Thanks but no thanks, I'm not that stupid.
I had showbox, but I ran out of patience with that one. To many ads, freezing all the time etc
Like · Reply · 1 · April 9, 2016 at 11:19am
Nate McCooey "Better than stealing someone's Netflix account."
Says the person using an app to watch pirated movies. Hypocritical much?
Unlike · Reply · 4 · April 9, 2016 at 9:37pm
Aurra Sing Which was asking for credit information?
Hmm. Showbox never freezes on me. That's weird. I literally deal with way less adds then people say they get. Like, one every two weeks or so. That's less of a hassle then YouTube lol.
Like · Reply · April 9, 2016 at 9:39pm
Aurra Sing Pirates films are something I'm unable to control. But I CAN control not purposely hacking into and stealing someone's account that they pay for with their hard earned money.
With as many people posting about the shit online, if the government wanted to shut it down, they would. But they don't. They let it continue. Probably watch it themselves too.
Use logic.
Like · Reply · April 9, 2016 at 9:42pm
Aurra Sing Some of you are legitimately remedial.
Like · Reply · April 9, 2016 at 9:43pm
Aurra Sing Doesn't the government normally shut down (meaning, shut down the operation of something) something they deem to be illegal?
Thought that was pretty self explanatory. Kind of a stupid question if you ask me.
Like · Reply · April 11, 2016 at 1:16am
Nate Slezak That's false look at the piratebay you can download illegal games, movies, songs and anything else. All people who own the rights do is go leach a download and save the logs. That way every single person who was downloading at that time will be busted. You get a few warnings where they just shut down your internet though. Think what you want but using your friends netflix account isnt illegal. Owners already got paid to allow netflix to stream it. But they dont make any money off of people using other apps or sites like showbox. Idk how you came up with it being more ok than using someones account
Unlike · Reply · 1 · April 12, 2016 at 5:49am
Aurra Sing This post isn't about "using your friends netflix account", genius. It's about hacking into, and using another's service whom you don't know, but may have either left it available by accident, or wasn't aware that some little shithead was going to hack them and use it.
When it's "free" to the public, it's better than hacking and theft. We aren't the one's operating the site that downloads the videos (showbox, etc)
We're merely watching it because it's available, and we don't have to struggle to find it online. When it comes to movies, they should be public viewing anyhow. They over price movies at the theater, and online. Some have even used people's information when they type it in. The movie industry isn't any different from any other industry that robs the people blind, using their desires against them. If you disagree with that, you're arguing just to argue.
You sound more foolish than anything I've said. Real shit.
Like · Reply · April 19, 2016 at 2:20am
Aurra Sing The government does not shut down, or even incriminate people the way you claim that they do. Millions of people have yet to be taken in. Argument invalidated.
Like · Reply · April 19, 2016 at 2:21am
Kai Okami I'm pretty sure it's not theft if Netflix already knows about it and LETS you do it.
Like · Reply · April 9 at 12:29am
Aurra Sing They don't let you do it. They simply cannot send out task forces find those that do so.
Like · Reply · April 9 at 8:27am
Buck Wilson Aurra with all due respect, you are DEAD WRONG. At least Netflix properly licenses/pays for/distributes the content. You, watching a stolen copy of a movie on Showbox, are no better than the person "hacking" into someone else's Netflix account. Theft is theft. By watching a movie without paying for it, you stole. It doesn't matter if it was "available".
____________________________
This has everything. The ignorance, the cluelessness, and even the "fuck the man" mentality mentioned earlier.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 04-11-2017, 02:52 PM:
I've said before that there is a huge number of people who genuinely and sincerely believe that these pirate movie and tv show boxes are legitimate and legal. When I was in the hardware store here the other day I noticed that they are selling an "android tv box" (that's exactly what the sign on the shelf said) for $279 that allows you to "watch the latest movies and television programs for free!!"
Some time ago a woman that works at my accountant's office told me that she had purchased a tv box of some kind and "now I don't have to go to your theatre to see the movies." I told her that it's actually pirated material on her box and she assured me that it's not. I haven't actually seen her here at a movie since then so I guess her box must work; she used to come to all of the chick flicks.
I suspect that 99% of the people with those boxes genuinely believe that it's completely legitimate. I've even had people coming to a show here tell me that "I"ve watched this on my tv last week but my buddy Joe here wants to see it now too."
I've come to the conclusion that it's a waste of time to tell people that what they are doing is illegal or illegitimate; if you do they think you're just pushing a case of sour grapes and it makes you look bad. So I just smile and say "That's nice" whenever something like that comes up.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2017, 06:41 PM:
Buck - you'll have to update this thread if you ever hear back from "Aurra Sing." She (?) comes off as a real know-it-all piece of work. (I had a different word there but I changed my mind because decorum and all.)
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-11-2017, 10:58 PM:
Reading that exchange (or most any sting of Youtube or Twitter posts and there's no question in my mind -- the nation is doomed.
quote: Lyle Romer
Now, to break the code by brute force you'd have to try every possible key on potentially thousands of different algorithms. It is still breakable but would take a lot of time.
By then it will be out on video!
How robust is this watermark of which we speak? I mean, does it give just general information perhaps about the location, theatre, etc. Or is it more robust. In other words, does it have enough of a digital DNA to make it a real deterrent, and when not a deterrent, is it legally strong enough to get people caught and prosecuted?
Of course, if Academy members were required actually go out see movies in real theatres like the rest of the real people instead of being coddled with those Academy screener copies, you know, the least secure link in that piracy funnel out to the land of the bootleg stream, then maybe there wouldn't be such herculean efforts needed at the IMB. It might not stop ALL piracy, but it certainly would plug up a significant amount.
I say there sure seems to be a lot of near brain surgery-level effort going it to encryption at the projector end of the business and not nearly enough security in all those computers and laptops that the big execs and middle-management honchos carry around and have way too easy access to pre-release content. I am sure I mentioned it before, that I was at a party in which an assistant editor was proudly showing off the big blockbuster movie he was working on, playing it on his laptop which, much to my amazement, he only had a password to start the OS, nothing more than a few keystrokes; no protection at all for the movie file itself. And to my even further amazement, that laptop sat unattended after the screening with lots of people milling around, many I am sure he had no idea who they were. That big blockbuster was a thumbdrive away from being sold to China and duplicated on millions of DVDs. Of course studios want get all the algorithms and KDMs and super high-tech digital security protocols in place, but they need to look to the alarm systems in there own house.
As an IT once told me, sure you need to convince Users to come up with more secure passwords, but even before that, tell the dolts to lock their damn office doors.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-11-2017, 11:26 PM:
quote: Aurra Sing, International Idiot
When it comes to movies, they should be public viewing anyhow. They over price movies at the theater, and online. Some have even used people's information when they type it in. The movie industry isn't any different from any other industry that robs the people blind, using their desires against them. If you disagree with that, you're arguing just to argue.
You sound more foolish than anything I've said.
I think Aurra Sing needs to practice what she preaches and do what ever the fuck she does for a living for zero pay. These shit heads who think piracy is acceptable still expect to collect a pay check for their own work. When these morons can miraculously figure out how to work and survive for no pay then I might be able to have an ounce of respect for their bullshit rationale.
quote:
I've said before that there is a huge number of people who genuinely and sincerely believe that these pirate movie and tv show boxes are legitimate and legal. When I was in the hardware store here the other day I noticed that they are selling an "android tv box" (that's exactly what the sign on the shelf said) for $279 that allows you to "watch the latest movies and television programs for free!!"
Those same gullible people are why computer malware is still so prevalent. They're not the slightest bit street smart when it comes to Internet use.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 04-11-2017, 11:52 PM:
I think part of it is the ubiquitousness of those boxes. If they are available for sale on the shelf of your friendly local hardware store and from a website that you do a lot of online shopping for other stuff from, why would the average person think "This isn't legitimate."
There's no skull-and-crossbones on the package; the unit and its box and its advertising card and the way that it works when you get it home are just as slick and professional as what you expect from any laptop or television set, tablet computer, name-a-gadget, so most people wouldn't even consider that there's any more to it than that.
I distribute promotional information and take the odd order for the local cable tv/internet company. Nobody has ever questioned the legitimacy of the information that I give them or the fact that I am an "authorized dealer", and why would they?
I think these boxes play off of the same mindset. They look legitimate and are sold in reputable locations; therefore they must be so.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-12-2017, 01:04 AM:
It's surprising that "reputable locations" are allowed to sell these things that are set up to do illegal activity. Although, I guess it's no different from a store selling "rolling papers" knowing full well the customers are going to roll illegal substances in those papers - the crime isn't being committed in the store.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 04-12-2017, 02:05 AM:
That's exactly the point. Reputable locations are selling this device, so it's obviously legitimate.
End of debate, as far as 99% of the people who bought one of those things are concerned.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-12-2017, 03:33 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
It's surprising that "reputable locations" are allowed to sell these things that are set up to do illegal activity. Although, I guess it's no different from a store selling "rolling papers" knowing full well the customers are going to roll illegal substances in those papers - the crime isn't being committed in the store.
There's a distinctive difference between selling "rolling papers" and those *free lunch for all* boxes. The outlet selling those "rolling papers" probably isn't selling the (illegal) goods that could go into them. So, it's up to the customer if he just rolls a mighty big cigarette or puts in something different.
It's the same as somebody selling me a generic Kodi box. Kodi is a free piece of software and there's nothing illegal about it. It becomes illegal or at least doubtfully legal, once I start installing certain plug-ins or other extensions.
Now, if I would buy an otherwise generic Kodi box and it had installed one of those plug-ins installed by default, it would still be doubtful but probably still bordering the legal, as long as the feature wasn't advertised.
If those boxes are sold and marketed as being the box that allows you to watch the latest movies and series entirely for free, it will quite obviously becoming illegal. You're actively marketing an illegal activity as one of the main selling points of this box.
I think the problem of those boxes will more or less solve itself though. Many of those boxes will stop working, once the infrastructure they run on, gets shut down. Once a particular piece of pirate-automation-software gets sufficient attention, it will eventually be taken down. The boxes connecting to it will stop working.
That's also why you're pretty darn stupid if you run an outlet selling those things as "free premium all-you-can-watch" boxes. Not only are you exposing yourself to litigation, your often unknowing customers will get back pissed at you, once their box stops working...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-12-2017, 11:16 AM:
quote: Frank Cox
I think part of it is the ubiquitousness of those boxes. If they are available for sale on the shelf of your friendly local hardware store and from a website that you do a lot of online shopping for other stuff from, why would the average person think "This isn't legitimate."
Everyone has heard of things too good to be true. A box that lets you watch Hollywood movies for free definitely falls in that category. Any reasonable person should be suspicious when seeing the product. I think anyone who would immediately believe at face value those piracy boxes are legal is either a gullible person who can be easily had in any con game or the person is just plain lying to himself and lying to everyone else after buying it.
If we want to watch Hollywood movies legally we have to pay. There is no free & legal way to watch movies anymore. Deep down these Kodi Kustomers must know this. Movie theater tickets aren't free. Cable/satellite TV service is not free. Subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and other streaming services aren't free. DVDs and Blu-rays at the store aren't free. Logically it wouldn't seem like movies on these Kodi boxes would be free either, but gullible people are making the leap in logic anyway.
The only truly free way to watch movies was on over the air broadcast TV channels. 30 years ago it was common for national broadcast networks and local affiliates to play movies. They would use movies to fill odd programming blocks like late night. At least one or more nights of the week the national networks would air a movie in prime time. Those days are long gone. Those odd programming blocks are now filled with infomercials, news programs, reality TV shows, etc. Now it's a very rare thing for a national broadcast network or local affiliate to show a movie. ABC still shows The Ten Commandments on Easter weekend. Outside of maybe a couple other movies aired during big holidays that's pretty much it.
quote: Mike Blakesley
It's surprising that "reputable locations" are allowed to sell these things that are set up to do illegal activity. Although, I guess it's no different from a store selling "rolling papers" knowing full well the customers are going to roll illegal substances in those papers - the crime isn't being committed in the store.
At least with rolling papers you could put regular tobacco in them. My mother's father was a Navy veteran who rolled his own cigarettes. He died of lung cancer too, kicking the bucket the same week as Elvis.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-12-2017, 12:09 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
A box that lets you watch Hollywood movies for free definitely falls in that category. Any reasonable person should be suspicious when seeing the product.
That's because you and me and all the other members here know how the industry works. Laymen don't have a clue. I can tell you the thought process people go through.
- People keep seeing news reports that some movie "raked in" $140 million on its opening weekend. Tickets cost over $10 at their local theater, and popcorn is even more expensive, so they think the industry is just rolling in money. Nobody thinks about "cost of doing business" unless they're actually in that business.
- People see Redbox renting movies for a dollar, and they can get hundreds of movies streaming over Netflix for $8 a month, so that lowers their perceived value for the movies. In their minds, the video industry is just gravy for the movie studios.
- People are paying for their Kodi or their Movie-O-Matic or whatever it's called, so they think they ARE PAYING for the stuff that plays through it - they just think they're getting a bargain, because the industry has so much money that they don't mind selling these boxes at a bargain price. Plus, they don't differentiate between the maker of the boxes and the studios, theaters, etc. - to them, it's all "the movie industry." They figure the the industry will sell MILLIONS of the boxes, therefore they'll "rake in" plenty of money that way.
Remember, this is basically the same "public" that heard Orson Welles on the radio and was convinced the aliens were attacking.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-12-2017, 01:01 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
If we want to watch Hollywood movies legally we have to pay. There is no free & legal way to watch movies anymore. Deep down these Kodi Kustomers must know this. Movie theater tickets aren't free. Cable/satellite TV service is not free. Subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and other streaming services aren't free. DVDs and Blu-rays at the store aren't free. Logically it wouldn't seem like movies on these Kodi boxes would be free either, but gullible people are making the leap in logic anyway.
Thing is, the way movies are sold on these other platform like Netflix -- the consumer pays their 8 bucks and then everything they watch on Netflix is "free" or perhaps they think of it as "paid for." Now here comes this other box that they buy for $159 bucks and they then also think that they PAID for the movies they can watch on it, same as they paid for the movies that stream on their paid-for Netflix.
I think Mike is right -- the industry has devalued the product to such a serious extent and has blurred the lines by rushing content to video that lots of these consumers may not even consider that the film is still in the theatre..."It's two weeks old; it must be on video already isn't it? That's how we get it on the FireTv thing." They see On Demand services like Optimum which has many titles they claim to be "Same time that it is in the theatres." Do you really think the average consumer is going to be able to figure out a movie's multiple release schedules...when it's On Demand, when it's streaming on this or that service...when it's on DVD or when it's available for $1? And even if they pause for a moment to ponder the ethics of why they can watch it on their hacked device, it would only be a fleeting fraction of a second because that studio has taught Joe Movie Consumer that movies are dirt cheap anyway...they are on sale for a buck at Redbox. Even if he might think it's probably not 100% legit, it barely rises above petty theft. Movie are worth a dollar.
And if the movie is more than a week or two old, the studio has already bragged about the fact that they have made millions more than it cost to produce the film, first weekend it opened. It's all perception and the studios, mostly in their greed to surpass their last quarter at any cost, are losing the perception game with the public.
Cheapening the product by rushing it out to lower priced video markets, not holding it back so it's ANTICIPATED by the public, selling it for less than a cup of coffee..it all adds up to a devaluation that the public will then translate into this dismissive attitude toward watching pirated movies that we are all lamenting.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-12-2017, 03:55 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
People are paying for their Kodi or their Movie-O-Matic or whatever it's called, so they think they ARE PAYING for the stuff that plays through it - they just think they're getting a bargain, because the industry has so much money that they don't mind selling these boxes at a bargain price.
They may approach it with that understanding, but it's still really stupid, faulty logic.
When you buy a computer the only software bundled with it is usually crap-ware. You have to buy the applications you'll use to get work done. Depending on the industry the software can cost as much or even more than the computer running it. When someone buys a CD player the box doesn't include any music CDs. The same goes for DVD players, Blu-ray players and Ultra-HD Blu-ray players. Legal video streaming devices like the little Roku box, Chromecast, Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, etc. don't come bundled with lots of free stuff. You gotta pull up the various streaming or cable TV apps and log into them. Unlike those Kodi boxes, the cable and streaming applications have revolving monthly charges.
I've never messed around with any of those Kodi boxes, but I'm wondering if they allow both legal and illegal streaming apps to run on them. If someone's legal Netflix account can run alongside the illegal piracy apps it would be laughably crazy for anyone to enter any login information into the piracy box. I can just imagine these Kodi boxes harvesting all sorts of user information and sending it off to organized crime rings if the user is stupid enough to enter any of it.
quote: Frank Angel
Thing is, the way movies are sold on these other platform like Netflix -- the consumer pays their 8 bucks and then everything they watch on Netflix is "free" or perhaps they think of it as "paid for." Now here comes this other box that they buy for $159 bucks and they then also think that they PAID for the movies they can watch on it, same as they paid for the movies that stream on their paid-for Netflix.
Again, the difference with every legit streaming service or cable TV app (like HBO GO) is the customer has revolving monthly fees that never end. The customer also has account information that must be established and maintained to activate the account on the device and log in successfully. I can't believe people are stupid enough to think there is such a thing as a "buy once and you're done with monthly fees" service.
quote: Frank Angel
Cheapening the product by rushing it out to lower priced video markets, not holding it back so it's ANTICIPATED by the public, selling it for less than a cup of coffee..it all adds up to a devaluation that the public will then translate into this dismissive attitude toward watching pirated movies that we are all lamenting.
Another thing that has cheapened the product is Hollywood studios are putting in the least amount of work into items like movies on DVD and Blu-ray. Home theater industry critics are giving harsh reviews of Star Wars: Rogue One. The image and sound quality are great. But the disc doesn't have extras that are worth a damn. It pales in comparison to the effort put into previous Star Wars DVD and Blu-ray discs. It's as if the movie studio doesn't even want to sell movies on disc.
I've never bought a movie via download or to virtually own in the cloud. I probably never will do that. If I have to buy what seems like an even lesser quality version of the movie I'll just stream it on Netflix or catch it on cable.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-12-2017, 04:27 PM:
Let's stop calling them Kodi boxes. It makes Kodi look bad. Kodi itself is just a free open source media center and a pretty decent one. It's not a piracy tool. It's also being sponsored by some big brand names like Alienware/Dell and Nvidia. Some of those auto-piracy-boxes are based upon Kodi and most often Android. You wouldn't associate Android with piracy.
I'm pretty sure many people out there don't have a clue about piracy regarding those boxes. They paid something north of 100 bucks for it and it should be ample compensation to watch this stuff for free...
Also, don't expect too much sympathy for Hollywood from the average public. They don't see that they're also hurting the normal man. But like Frank already pointed out, they see studios boasting about how succesful a movie is. How they earned the entire movie back on the opening weekend. Furthermore, they see A-list stars living the good life, owning expensive cars and big houses. They don't see a failing movie theater.
I'm afraid Hollywood really made their own bed. The perceived value of a movie is near zero for the average public. They diluted their own strong brands and franchises by massively overfeeding their own consumers and their own reputation is that of sleazy, greedy bastards... It's still no excuse for rampant piracy, but they're currently not helping themselves and the industry they support.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Again, the difference with every legit streaming service or cable TV app (like HBO GO) is the customer has revolving monthly fees that never end. The customer also has account information that must be established and maintained to activate the account on the device and log in successfully. I can't believe people are stupid enough to think there is such a thing as a "buy once and you're done with monthly fees" service.
I think you can divide them about 50/50 into "just stupid" and "just ignorant". There might be also a substantial group falling into both categories, but let's just call them "just stupid" for sake of simplicity.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Not my words...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-12-2017, 05:52 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
the disc doesn't have extras that are worth a damn. It pales in comparison to the effort put into previous Star Wars DVD and Blu-ray discs. It's as if the movie studio doesn't even want to sell movies on disc.
They DON'T want to sell movies on disk. They'd much rather do away with physical product altogether. That way they not only wouldn't have to produce it, ship it, etc. and they'd also save on the production costs for those "extras" people expect on disks.
The only reason they still make disks is because there's still enough of them being sold to warrant it, and of course Netflix still mails a bunch of them around. But if they had their druthers, disks would be gone, the same as film is mostly gone.
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 04-12-2017, 07:59 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I've never messed around with any of those Kodi boxes, but I'm wondering if they allow both legal and illegal streaming apps to run on them.
Yes, yes they do.
The Kodi software natively knows how to connect to things like a NAS on your LAN, or a DLNA, but one can also install addons, and there are popular addons that connect to a multiplicity of sources, some legal, for example, a YouTube plugin, and some not so legal.
If you've not seen Kodi in action, have a look at this video on YouTube, for example. There are many others.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-13-2017, 10:29 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Let's stop calling them Kodi boxes. It makes Kodi look bad. Kodi itself is just a free open source media center and a pretty decent one. It's not a piracy tool. It's also being sponsored by some big brand names like Alienware/Dell and Nvidia. Some of those auto-piracy-boxes are based upon Kodi and most often Android. You wouldn't associate Android with piracy.
If the piracy apps are pre-loaded in the box and retailers are selling the boxes as supposedly legitimate products it's a piracy box as far as I'm concerned. Whenever I hear the term "Kodi" I automatically think "piracy box." I absolutely know I'm not the only person who see Kodi in that image.
If the box is coming pre-loaded with piracy apps, I wonder what else might be pre-loaded. This kind of device would be perfect malware bait for unwitting suckers. How would anyone know if it was infected with all sorts of spyware? If the device asks for any personal information, particularly any credit card of banking info one would have to be really idiotic to enter any of that info into the device.
I can just see a gullible user getting had by a device like this and then going to the police to complain about all the money suddenly lost. Then they get hit with the double whammy, finding out what they were doing was illegal. And then they lose even more money in fines, court costs, etc.
Android may be a more flexible platform than iOS, allowing users and developers to do more with it. But most Android users are smart enough to download any new applications from Google Play, where the apps are screened for malware.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I think you can divide them about 50/50 into "just stupid" and "just ignorant". There might be also a substantial group falling into both categories, but let's just call them "just stupid" for sake of simplicity.
I think it's fair to call anyone using these piracy boxes who thinks the box is a legit and legal device "stupid." I have another label for most of the people using these devices: "thieves." Deep down they know the piracy apps they're using are illegal. They'll vomit out some bullshit to rationalize their illegal activity, like "Aurra Sing" in the discussion thread Buck quoted. Whether or not anyone listens to the bullshit they know they're still in the wrong.
quote: Mike Blakesley
They DON'T want to sell movies on disk. They'd much rather do away with physical product altogether. That way they not only wouldn't have to produce it, ship it, etc. and they'd also save on the production costs for those "extras" people expect on disks.
I'd like to know how many download versions of movies Hollywood studios are selling versus the movie sales on physical discs. I've never bought a download version of a movie and have no desire to do so. But that's just me. I'm under the impression the sell-through numbers for movie downloads are puny compared to retail disc sales. I mean, why bother buying a download of a movie when streaming it gives you the same experience?
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 04-13-2017, 10:33 AM:
http://bestforkodi.com/install-exodus-addon-kodi/?
There appear to be dozens of sites showing people how to do it. And because "streaming films online is becoming more risky everyday", this one even has links on something called "IP Vanish" (Bitcoin accepted) on how to make your IP address disappear so that the "government and authorities can't spy on you".
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-13-2017, 07:11 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
If the piracy apps are pre-loaded in the box and retailers are selling the boxes as supposedly legitimate products it's a piracy box as far as I'm concerned. Whenever I hear the term "Kodi" I automatically think "piracy box." I absolutely know I'm not the only person who see Kodi in that image.
If we keep calling it that way, more people will see it in that way. The point is, it's entirely unjustified and almost a form of discrimination for an otherwise legitimate project. It's a very open, extensible and free platform, that's why it's often being used for those piracy boxes.
quote: Bobby Henderson
If the box is coming pre-loaded with piracy apps, I wonder what else might be pre-loaded. This kind of device would be perfect malware bait for unwitting suckers. How would anyone know if it was infected with all sorts of spyware? If the device asks for any personal information, particularly any credit card of banking info one would have to be really idiotic to enter any of that info into the device.
The irony is, that you can't entirely be sure with the "good guys" either those days... So much shit is phoning home to someones servers out there, without even having the decency to inform me about it. But indeed, those kind of boxes might offer an easy backdoor right into your living room. Additionally, I doubt the manufacturer of such a box will keep good care of it and it will most likely never receive any security updates.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I can just see a gullible user getting had by a device like this and then going to the police to complain about all the money suddenly lost. Then they get hit with the double whammy, finding out what they were doing was illegal. And then they lose even more money in fines, court costs, etc.
It will depend on your local police station, but I think in most cases they will just have a good laugh and be done with it. There aren't really any set fines for things like this and since copyright infringement is largely a civil thing, it would require the content owners or their legal representatives to start a case against such a piracy-box user.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Android may be a more flexible platform than iOS, allowing users and developers to do more with it. But most Android users are smart enough to download any new applications from Google Play, where the apps are screened for malware.
Android is open source, everybody with sufficient knowledge can customize it to their needs. There's no need to go trough Google Play if you pre-load those apps on the box.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I think it's fair to call anyone using these piracy boxes who thinks the box is a legit and legal device "stupid." I have another label for most of the people using these devices: "thieves." Deep down they know the piracy apps they're using are illegal. They'll vomit out some bullshit to rationalize their illegal activity, like "Aurra Sing" in the discussion thread Buck quoted. Whether or not anyone listens to the bullshit they know they're still in the wrong.
Not everybody involved in illegal activities is inherently stupid. You could say that you're inherently stupid if you don't know what you're doing is illegal though. This "Aurra Sing" figure knows full well that whatever she/he is doing, isn't legal in any way. They just look for excuses to downplay the situation.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'd like to know how many download versions of movies Hollywood studios are selling versus the movie sales on physical discs. I've never bought a download version of a movie and have no desire to do so. But that's just me. I'm under the impression the sell-through numbers for movie downloads are puny compared to retail disc sales. I mean, why bother buying a download of a movie when streaming it gives you the same experience?
There's also not much difference between streaming and downloading. None of the official outlets offers DRM-free downloads of entire features. So, your download is often locked to just a few devices.
There should be no compelling reason why a product that's being delivered "virtually" should be worth less, than the product delivered physically. Still, I think the lack of something tangible also has an impact on the perceived value of your product.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 04-13-2017, 09:22 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
There should be no compelling reason why a product that's being delivered "virtually" should be worth less, than the product delivered physically.
Really?
No materials, manufacturing, warehousing, shipping, returns and damaged or surplus goods at any level.
None of these reasons are compelling?
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-13-2017, 10:32 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
There should be no compelling reason why a product that's being delivered "virtually" should be worth less, than the product delivered physically.
There is at least one very big reason. Intellectual property sold to consumers on physical media (be that books, audio recordings, video recordings, you name it) can be disposed of by the initial purchaser as (s)he likes. DRM-laden downloads cannot. If I buy a book or a DVD, I can lend it, sell it, give it away or leave it to someone in my will. If I buy an album on iTunes, I cannot: their terms and conditions state that I cannot do any of these things, and that my ownership of it dies with me.
Some celeb (can't remember who - sorry) was threatening a lawsuit against iTunes, wanting to be able to pass on his or her digital music collection in their will.
Personally I feel that this makes digital downloads of significantly lower value to me than physical media, and would only buy them if the price reflects that.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-14-2017, 01:16 AM:
quote: Frank Cox
Really?
No materials, manufacturing, warehousing, shipping, returns and damaged or surplus goods at any level.
None of these reasons are compelling?
It might sound compelling, but no. The physical medium and the whole chain from raw materials to a disc in the store always was just a fraction of the price of the actual product. This whole chain amounted to less than a dollar per sold medium on average.
Also, keep in mind that digital distribution isn’t free either. People often think that it’s free, but the infrastructure needed to make it happen doesn’t come free. And if we’re talking video, we’re still talking about a considerable amount of bandwidth, especially for high end HD and UHD content.
quote: Leo Enticknap
There is at least one very big reason. Intellectual property sold to consumers on physical media (be that books, audio recordings, video recordings, you name it) can be disposed of by the initial purchaser as (s)he likes. DRM-laden downloads cannot. If I buy a book or a DVD, I can lend it, sell it, give it away or leave it to someone in my will. If I buy an album on iTunes, I cannot: their terms and conditions state that I cannot do any of these things, and that my ownership of it dies with me.
If you could get it without DRM, you could essentially do the same. The problem is, would you lend out a digital download by actually giving away the original or just make a copy? The former probably isn't even possible and who would destroy his own copy? In the latter case, you and the one you lend it to could both benefit from it at the same time. So in this case, the digital download would actually be worth more than the physical copy. Whether or not this is still fair use is highly debatable, off course.
DRM certainly reduces the value of the product you’re getting, especially if it locks your content to a certain device. Interestingly, most Blu-Rays and especially the UHD variant come with pretty strict DRM too. And if you buy a computer game on a physical medium, you’re often buying not even more than just a license key. The DVD or Blu-Ray they might put in the box is often just for show. The code that’s on there is already outdated when it hits the press and in many cases your computer or console will just download it, instead of installing it from DVD.
Still, I’m pretty convinced people associate more value to physical things, even if this thing might essentially be as limited or even more limited than the pure digital alternative. Many people tend to spend more when paying with credit or debit card than with physical cash money too.
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 04-16-2017, 03:54 PM:
quote: Dave Bird
And because "streaming films online is becoming more risky everyday", this one even has links on something called "IP Vanish" (Bitcoin accepted) on how to make your IP address disappear so that the "government and authorities can't spy on you".
You might like to google the term "seedbox"...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-17-2017, 11:44 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Not everybody involved in illegal activities is inherently stupid. You could say that you're inherently stupid if you don't know what you're doing is illegal though. This "Aurra Sing" figure knows full well that whatever she/he is doing, isn't legal in any way. They just look for excuses to downplay the situation.
When it comes to topics like being street smart online and laws regarding intellectual property a great deal of the public is very ill-informed, if not stupid about both. I have certainly encountered many cases of people seeing no value at all in original artwork just in my own line of work. That especially goes for any artwork created using a computer, no matter how many hours were spent creating the artwork. The assholes just think people like me should be doing our jobs for free since tasks like graphic design and illustration are more of a leisure play time activity than "real work." Some of these people are gullible enough to believe a little $100 modded box will give them free Hollywood movies for life legally. They probably open emails containing attachments and even scripts without a second thought either. Some may even not bother protecting their computer with anti virus software, thinking that's just a waste of money.
There are others who do know how to be cautious online and do know the value of intellectual property yet violate the laws anyway. Those people do deserve to be called thieves and criminals.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
It might sound compelling, but no. The physical medium and the whole chain from raw materials to a disc in the store always was just a fraction of the price of the actual product. This whole chain amounted to less than a dollar per sold medium on average.
Also, keep in mind that digital distribution isn’t free either. People often think that it’s free, but the infrastructure needed to make it happen doesn’t come free. And if we’re talking video, we’re still talking about a considerable amount of bandwidth, especially for high end HD and UHD content.
The cost of setting up servers for download purchases is pretty small compared to the potential cost savings of cutting out brick and mortar retail store partners. In most cases the movie studios and music companies aren't even running their own virtual online stores. They're partnering with Amazon, Apple and Google to let them do the virtual store leg work while paying less money to them than they would a brick and mortar store.
Packaging for retail movie and music discs is somewhat cheap, but its production and other costs (shipping, inventory, etc.) eats up a substantial amount of the overall price. There are more people, companies and jobs involved in creating physical retail products and the packaging that wraps them. Album cover art used to be great with 12" vinyl LPs were popular. There's no need for an elaborate album cover if it's just a 600px X 600px thumbnail image for somebody's phone display. Movies and music have been very commoditized in recent years. Those products can't maintain their introductory prices for months or years on end like they did in the past. Movies go through a pretty rapid cycle from new pricing to bargain bin pricing.
I'm pretty concerned about the trends of online merchant growth. It's cannibalizing bigger segments of the brick and mortar retail economy. The biggest jobs segment of the US economy is in businesses that have a retail store front. Manufacturing is about 1/16th of the US jobs base, yet it gets all the political attention. Video stores and music stores have been devastated by online merchants. Now it's badly wounding or killing mainstream retailers like Sears and JCPenney. Online merchants hire far fewer people than a real retail operation. So with enough online "growth" America's economy is going to go completely to hell. Murdering movie theaters will only speed up that death process.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Still, I’m pretty convinced people associate more value to physical things, even if this thing might essentially be as limited or even more limited than the pure digital alternative. Many people tend to spend more when paying with credit or debit card than with physical cash money too.
If I'm going to buy a movie or music album I still prefer to buy it on a physical disc. The main reason is the product is still better compared to the download version. The Blu-ray is going to contain a much higher quality audio-video encode of the movie. The music CD will be uncompressed Linear PCM. The download version is a lower quality, lossy compressed version in either AAC or MP3 format. There are some online outlets that sell lossless music, even at better than CD quality levels. But the product variety is very limited compared to what you would see at iTunes, Amazon or Google.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-17-2017, 12:40 PM:
Nothing is static and technology is always morphing into things we never thought would become part of the equation. For all we know, bandwidth will continually expand and become even cheaper and there very well may be streaming technology that allows quality beyond anything we have now. Did anyone think data could travel at speeds we are accustomed to today? Remember when we were communicating over telephone modems? Point being, even though it may well happen that all the concerns about quality differences between streaming vs. the uncompressed audio and 4K video quality of BR discs (maybe even 8K or more, who knows), that difference may evaporate in the future. For all we know, streaming might even surpass the quality of physical optical discs, but I STILL want to have that physical disc that I can put on a shelf and know that when I get the whim to see it, I don't have to rely on some third party to have it available on THEIR shelf. Yah, blockbusters will probably always be available, but I can guarantee, the more off-the-beaten-track titles are likely NOT to be maintained in some cloud server. Server space, no matter how massive, is not free. Keeping a title will have the same economic pressure that studios had in keeping film prints on the shelves at National Screen Service -- bandsaw them as soon as they are not making enough money to offset the storage costs. Not to mention that companies come and go, all those intellectual property rights, which happen to be quite complicated, shift and change hands and many times can entirely stop titles from being seen. Will I ALWAYS be able to find this or that personal favorite title available on Netflix? The Netflix and Amazon libraries, and I am sure all the others as well, seems to be in constant flux. What you watched a year or a month or even a week ago many be gone the next time you go looking for it. Having that irrefutable copy in my hand assures me that they can't control my access. There is something very powerful to be said for having your own library.
Maybe in decades to come when the general population becomes accustomed to never having the physical entity in hand, this won't mean much to them -- attitudes change as much as technology -- but for now, I think there is a whole swath of the population that appreciates the idea of HAVING the works that we love able to be accessed at will.
Then again, maybe the quality of what Hollywood spews out and the way they market it will be seen as so much throw-way trash that
no one will care much to put it up on a shelf nor would they be concerned if they can't access it. Yah, I guess I am conjuring the E G Robinson character in SOYLENT GREEN.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-17-2017, 01:04 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Manufacturing is about 1/16th of the US jobs base, yet it gets all the political attention. Video stores and music stores have been devastated by online merchants.
What's the alternative, though? We can always manufacture more stuff, or build stuff in this country as opposed to overseas -- the trick is getting people to buy the stuff. With shopping, it's different - most people don't care where something's made, so they are looking for price and selection, mostly. And changing people's shopping habits back to "the way it used to be" would take a complete culture shift backwards, and that ain't happening.
The trick is evolving your own particular model within the parameters of what works for that model -- if you can.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-17-2017, 03:09 PM:
quote: Frank Angel
Nothing is static and technology is always morphing into things we never thought would become part of the equation. For all we know, bandwidth will continually expand and become even cheaper and there very well may be streaming technology that allows quality beyond anything we have now. Did anyone think data could travel at speeds we are accustomed to today?
My home Internet service and mobile phone service both have bandwidths that can easily support uncompressed LPCM audio and Blu-ray quality video. But am I getting that through streaming services or virtual download products I can buy? No. The content providers prefer selling reduced quality products in their download versions. They treat that as an extra level of copy protection.
quote: Mike Blakesley
What's the alternative, though? We can always manufacture more stuff, or build stuff in this country as opposed to overseas -- the trick is getting people to buy the stuff. With shopping, it's different - most people don't care where something's made, so they are looking for price and selection, mostly. And changing people's shopping habits back to "the way it used to be" would take a complete culture shift backwards, and that ain't happening.
Despite the fantasies some lawmakers have on the topic, there is no way the United States is going to have a boom in manufacturing jobs to bring that jobs sector back to where it was 40+ years ago, just before Japan started laying waste to our auto and consumer electronics industry. Computer technology, robotics and automation are eliminating more and more bolt turner jobs. So even if politicians can move a lot of factories back to the United States the new plants will offer few opportunities to traditional blue collar workers.
What's the alternative? Revamp the sales tax code nationwide or just eliminate it. Sales tax is the main reason why brick and mortar retailers are getting killed by online merchants. When a customer has to pay upwards of 9%-10% sales tax on a purchase made locally that tax can add up big for any significant purchase. They go online, order the product tax free and even get free shipping to boot. If the playing field was level in terms of taxation the problem of "show rooming" would quickly become a thing of the past.
I don't enjoy paying taxes, but I don't enjoy seeing local retailers go out of business either. Local businesses who have a store front help keep me employed. The online guys don't employ anybody in my town at all. And they sure as shit don't buy any signs from me either. So I'm all for that tax free shit with online purchases going away ASAP. That's a poisonous situation for our economy.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-17-2017, 03:17 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Revamp the sales tax code nationwide or just eliminate it.
Totally agree, but given that sales taxes are local (we pay state, county and city, for instance) changes just can't be done on a national level. A different Congress may someday make it easier for States to apply and collect taxes from online retailers, but until all of the local yokels are willing to "raise taxes" it's not happening.
Theoretically, we are supposed to self-report on our Alabama income tax returns and pay the state sales tax. Who keeps those records, especially if you do pay sales tax on some items? The state is unlikely to audit you unless you are skipping out on hundreds of dollars in sales tax.
And as long as Amazon can afford lobbyist, I don't see too much changing on the national level.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-17-2017, 03:21 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Sales tax is the main reason why brick and mortar retailers are getting killed by online merchants.
I'm sure that has an impact, but the MAIN reason? Doubtful. Montana has never had sales tax, but our retail sector is getting killed just as dead as the states with sales tax.
I'm not saying the tax has no impact, I'm sure it does, but I'll bet if you asked random people why they shop online, they'd say:
- Price (of the item, not including the sales tax)
- Selection
- Convenience, being able to shop from home
- Speed (some people live miles away from stores)
- Being able to find exactly what you want and not have to settle for some "other" brand or type
...these are all reasons I ever buy stuff online. For me, mostly the last one listed.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-17-2017, 04:18 PM:
quote: Martin McCaffery
Totally agree, but given that sales taxes are local (we pay state, county and city, for instance) changes just can't be done on a national level. A different Congress may someday make it easier for States to apply and collect taxes from online retailers, but until all of the local yokels are willing to "raise taxes" it's not happening.
When enough major brick and mortar retailers fail and enough people are affected directly or indirectly by the problem then changes will take place. Until then, we're in "race to the bottom economics" mode.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I'm sure that has an impact, but the MAIN reason? Doubtful. Montana has never had sales tax, but our retail sector is getting killed just as dead as the states with sales tax.
Show rooming wouldn't even be a thing if the sales tax issue wasn't so widespread. People go to a retail store like Sears, Best Buy, etc. to check out a big ticket item like a HDTV or computer in person and ask questions about it. Then they go home and order the product online, free of sales tax and even free shipping.
Many retail items like TV sets, computers, video game consoles, etc. all have Minimum Advertised Prices. I can order a Playstation 4 online for $299 and pay $299 for it. If I buy the PS4 at a local store I'm paying close to $330 for it. The difference scales up big for things like TV sets, computers, DSLR cameras or anything else costing in the thousands of dollars.
Even big chains like Walmart and Target are struggling with certain product categories over this issue. They have their own online stores, but must charge sales tax in nearly every case since they have a physical presence in every state.
There is a certain level of convenience in being able to shop from home or even order something from your phone while you're on the go. But you have to wait for the product to be shipped to you, even if it is just 2 day free shipping wait via Amazon Prime. When you buy something at the retail store you take home the product immediately. I try to buy locally when possible, but even I have to order some graphics or photography related items online since there is such a limited market for that here in my town.
Since Oklahoma's state government has such a horrible budget situation its lawmakers temporarily abandoned their no taxes ever mindset to ink a deal with Amazon to start collecting sales taxes at the time of purchase. By law residents have had to declare the dollar amount of purchases made online on their state tax returns. It's what they called the "use tax." Well, next to nobody goes along with that. The state's only hope of collecting that money is making it happen at the time of purchase instead of a whopping sales tax bill at the year's end. The deal with Amazon might make a small dent in the state's budget issues. But they're going to have to re-examine all the big tax cuts and tax deals to the oil and gas industry to get to the root of the problem. Our public education system is getting demolished over the budget crisis.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-17-2017, 05:29 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Show rooming wouldn't even be a thing if the sales tax issue wasn't so widespread. People go to a retail store like Sears, Best Buy, etc. to check out a big ticket item like a HDTV or computer in person and ask questions about it. Then they go home and order the product online, free of sales tax and even free shipping.
Many retail items like TV sets, computers, video game consoles, etc. all have Minimum Advertised Prices. I can order a Playstation 4 online for $299 and pay $299 for it. If I buy the PS4 at a local store I'm paying close to $330 for it. The difference scales up big for things like TV sets, computers, DSLR cameras or anything else costing in the thousands of dollars.
Even big chains like Walmart and Target are struggling with certain product categories over this issue. They have their own online stores, but must charge sales tax in nearly every case since they have a physical presence in every state.
That's all well and good. I would still guarantee you that if the government started charging everybody their state's prevailing sales taxes on their online purchases, most people would still be buying online in droves, because they're happy with that experience. If not, brick-and-mortar merchants in Montana would be thriving more than our surrounding states since we don't have sales tax. But stores are closing left-and-right here, too. Heck, you can ask our UPS guy....I've been in his truck and seen the stacks of Amazon boxes in there.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-17-2017, 06:54 PM:
Either way, brick and mortar retailers and online merchants need to have the arrangement regarding sales tax. It's only fair. The online merchants have an unfair advantage under the current sales tax model. And that's on top of the other advantages they have over retailers, among those being far less staff and few if any retail store fronts to maintain. Brick and mortar retailers provide a far more positive impact to local economies.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-17-2017, 07:35 PM:
While the sales tax situation in the U.S. is certainly complicating stuff for brick and mortar stores, I can tell you that the problem isn't uniquely isolated to the United States.
Many retailers in "Western Economies", most of which don't have state-specific sales taxes, suffer from the same pandemic, where whole chains go up in smokes, one after another. The only concepts seemingly still going strong are those focusing on absolute bargains (cheaper than on-line) or luxury and "experience".
If I look at my own situation, we do most of our shopping on-line nowadays, for exactly the reasons Mike listed.
There are just a few compelling reasons why I would still go out to an actual brick & mortar store, the ones I can come up with now are:
- I want to see it before I buy it, maybe I want to compare it visually with the alternatives.
- I really need it NOW and same-day shipping isn't available, too expensive or still not sufficiently "NOW".
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-19-2017, 01:12 PM:
I agree that, in concept, there should be some sort of Federal Sales Tax to level the playing field with retailers that must charge local sales tax, but that issue must be significantly smaller today than it was even a couple of years ago.
I'm one of those who actually pays my state's Use Tax each year, so I have to keep track of online purchases and whether or not sales tax has been charged. Very little this year fell into that category (much much less than in past years). Amazon is the single biggest online retailer and it charges sales tax in Wisconsin. A quick search resulted in a 2/1/17 CNBC article that says that Amazon now collects sales tax in 39 states, leaving just 6 that have a sales tax but Amazon does not collect it for them. That makes the online vs. local issue in regards to sales tax more insignificant with every passing agreement.
As a small business owner, I am sensitive to the issue of supporting local businesses. However, there is a limit.
For example, if one looks at a TV in a local Best Buy and it is priced at $1,200, and the same TV is $900 on Amazon, people are naturally going to lean toward Amazon because of the price difference. Best Buy now price-matches, which is a very good thing, as I would much rather buy the TV locally and avoid the possibility of shipping damage and the hassle of replacement if the TV is damaged or faulty in some way.
I'm even willing to pay a little more than what's available online for the convenience and desire to buy locally, but that has its limits. For a $1,000 TV, would I pay $100 more? Not at Best Buy, because they are a large chain and their level of support both pre- and post-sale is low. However, I have done that at a local specialty retailer because I know that they offer more of a service.
Retailers hurt themselves by not being any better than online competitors. I can't tell how many times I've gone into a Best Buy and asked a question, only to have the blue-shirt read off the label on the shelf, as if I was unable to read it myself. Now I do it more for the entertainment factor than anything else.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-19-2017, 03:29 PM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
I agree that, in concept, there should be some sort of Federal Sales Tax to level the playing field with retailers that must charge local sales tax, but that issue must be significantly smaller today than it was even a couple of years ago.
Online merchants just need to collect the right amount of sales tax at the time of purchase for each customer depending on where that customer lives. That's easier said than done since there are thousands of cities and towns across the United States with different sales tax rates. However, every online merchant of significance is already doing far more complicated things regarding their customers. They're maintaining account info and ordering history on many thousands or even many millions of individual customers. And they're constantly advertising products to customers through email and targeted web banner ads. Operating a sales tax database would be child's play compared to that.
If individual states and/or cities are throwing up any road blocks due to outdated, analog tax revenue collection systems then they need to modernize ASAP since it's costing them and local businesses money.
quote: Scott Jentsch
As a small business owner, I am sensitive to the issue of supporting local businesses. However, there is a limit.
What I've personally observed, especially in the last few months, is most people truly don't care the slightest about supporting their local economy. They'll spout flag-waving fake patriotism, like shouting, "I support the troops!" But when it actually comes down to paying for our way of life, they don't want to contribute anything at all. They selfishly want everybody else to pay for it and get a free ride themselves.
I saw that play out very clearly when Oklahoma's governor, Mary Fallin, announced the state government made a deal with Amazon to begin collecting sales taxes March 1. People were bitching about it to no end on local Facebook forums.
That kind of gets back to this issue with movie watching free-loaders buying modded media players and visiting torrent sites. The freeloaders figure institutions like movie theaters, retail businesses, government services, etc. can all survive just fine without their money. When confronted about the accumulating harm free-loading does when enough people are doing it, they just vomit out some political sounding bull crap to rationalize the activity.
quote: Scott Jentsch
I'm even willing to pay a little more than what's available online for the convenience and desire to buy locally, but that has its limits. For a $1,000 TV, would I pay $100 more? Not at Best Buy, because they are a large chain and their level of support both pre- and post-sale is low. However, I have done that at a local specialty retailer because I know that they offer more of a service.
Every retail operation has a much higher overhead than an online merchant. Some of that overhead has to be built into the product prices. Certain manufacturers enforce the use of Minimum Advertized Prices as a means to protect retailers. Online merchants absolutely do take advantage on pricing when they don't have to use MAP. I thought music CD and DVD prices were absolutely ridiculous at mall stores like fye and Sam Goody. But then I found out what they were paying for mall rent and then the super high prices made sense. Nevertheless, those stores went bye bye fast. Hastings tried to compete on pricing but still went out of business anyway. Why buy a CD or DVD when you can just stream it for nothing or next to nothing on Spotify, YouTube or Netflix?
In the end one big fact remains: online merchants hurt local economies far more than they help. They're constantly working to find new "efficiencies" (read: run effectively with fewer and fewer employees). They don't do shit to support a local economy. It takes people with jobs earning money, buying stuff and paying their taxes for our way of life to even be possible. If online business is really the future of retail in the United States then our economy will be in the toilet. At some point the blood-sucking online merchants will eventually see their business go to shit as well. They're not immune from a severe economic recession or depression. I know if I lose my job I sure as hell won't be buying anything from Amazon much less anyone else!
quote: Scott Jentsch
Retailers hurt themselves by not being any better than online competitors. I can't tell how many times I've gone into a Best Buy and asked a question, only to have the blue-shirt read off the label on the shelf, as if I was unable to read it myself. Now I do it more for the entertainment factor than anything else.
I don't think customer service is any better online. If anything, the person web browsing is pretty much on his own to figure out everything for himself. The customer has to read lots of different things in different places if he wants to even bother trying to do any research. More often they'll just blind-buy the cheapest version of the product they want. Online reviews and Q&A forums can be every bit as misleading and uninformative as anything blabbed by a customer service rep in Best Buy.
Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 04-19-2017, 03:55 PM:
Sales and Use taxes are interesting. I've heard of an online service that handles these for retailers. It knows all the tax rates throughout the country, collects the appropriate amount, and files the taxes with the state.
On our personal income tax return, we're supposed to report purchases where use tax was not collected. This is a pain since some retailers collect and some don't. It would be useful if each online retailer sent a report to each customer at the end of the year reporting how much they spent and what taxes were collected on those purchases.
Harold
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-19-2017, 09:27 PM:
If the customer has to pay the "use tax" for online purchases at the end of the year on his tax returns an itemized report from the merchants would help. But I think the merchants would be doing the taxpayer an even bigger favor by collecting the sales tax at the time of purchase. That makes the payment a whole lot more simple and far less painful for the customer.
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 04-20-2017, 10:42 AM:
Bobby, the part about most people not caring about supporting their local economy is bang-on. As a guy who sold a generational (60 year) family grocery business, but also someone who remembers a time when people bought their tv, appliances, hardware, building supplies, feed, food, car, tractor, whatever from a local family who quite often employed full-time staff who earned a real living as a "clerk" or salesman, and all of this in a town of less than 2,000 souls, I can remember when they did support their own.
Now, I really can't be sure it's because they had a desire to do so, it's just how things were set-up. If you drove down to the "city" (40,000), most of those places were also family-owned businesses too. They hadn't had their buildings, infrastructure or indeed, their taxes heavily subsidized to such an extent that they could undercut the family businesses much. On volume? Sure, but as you say, a slight difference was worth it for the service.
Eventually, as the Wal-Marts and online took over, it sure hurt when they'd ask you to sponsor the local little league team, but when you sat down for dinner, you were eating food they'd paid the people in Bentonville, Ark. for.
Not too many truly "protected" sectors for the "brick and mortar" little guy anymore. Consumer goods and food is gone. Little guys did a great job seizing the home video and music market for a good long while, but that's gone. The car dealers have done a good job in adapting to a model that protects them fairly well, they make little to no money selling you the car but cars need service and Amazon can't do that.
So if you're still a little guy, and despite all that goes on in the movie biz, if your glass is still half-full, you realize that it's these "experience" type things where you might still find a niche to operate. A little theatre, our drive-in, restaurants.....all facing very tough challenges for sure, but also just outside the box of what the big box and online entities can do.
If there was a time machine, would we choose to go back? I guess I would, but I'm biased. I'd like to think we would at least make the choice NOT to massively subsidize the large entities that killed the locals. Let 'em compete on even ground. That initial bump in jobs was always offset when construction was over and the many local businesses closed later, leaving a lower-paid workforce and the profits sucked away from the community.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 04-20-2017, 12:28 PM:
People didn't travel like they do today, either. When I was a kid, we lived in a town of 2000 people and it was exactly 60 miles to a city of about 110,000 people at the time. I think we went there maybe once in two years, at the most, and it was a huge adventure for everyone.
Everything that you needed, you bought in the town where you were because how else would you do it? The Eatons and Sears catalogues were well used by everyone, though.
Now, driving from a town to "the city" is something that many families seem to do routinely, even daily, and online ordering for just about anything is just a click away. I can easily find out if something is on sale for $10 cheaper somewhere else and even if I have to phone for information that's effectively free to do as well. Remember when a long distance call to ask a question or make an appointment would cost you a day's wages for five minutes?
The world is smaller today than it used to be.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-20-2017, 02:29 PM:
Whether it's TV's, appliances, or movies, I think it really comes down to value. People need to see value in what they're purchasing in order to go through with the purchase.
There are times when something becomes a commodity and the only differentiation is price. A brick and mortar operation will lose that battle nearly every time, but so will any online retailer or streaming provider if that item can be had for free. I don't think anything can be done about piracy-minded people aside from an education campaign so that people realize that these services are illegal. That won't convince everyone, as there has always been a percentage of the population that are very willing to steal cable, hack a cable box, or download movies/music, and there is not much that will change their behavior short of them getting stung by a virus or owned by a malware-infested box.
Putting a bug in the local news outlets' ears about a potential story wouldn't be a bad idea. Local TV news operations would eat that kind of stuff up if you can hold their hands through the process of understanding it.
How can a theater add value to attract more people, especially in the face of pirate services on the low end and cheap streaming services like Netflix?
You can't compete on price, that's for sure. A movie ticket costs more than an entire month of a Netflix subscription. They can buy a 24-pack case of soda for less than the price of a 32 oz soft drink at most theaters. Same goes for the 12-pack of microwave popcorn.
Find the places where those competitors can't compete with you. Hire people who love what they do and love what they're selling. Make sure they know about the product they are selling and can answer questions without looking it up. Make sure they look happy, like they want to be there.
Going to the movies is an experience. If I go to a theater and the staff is surly and the workers look like they would rather be home, then their customers are going to think that they should have stayed home too.
Far too much emphasis is being placed on reclining chairs and in-theater dining options, IMO. I guess chairs are easy, because they're something that someone can buy, and it has a tangible result that can be seen. Measuring true customer satisfaction is much harder. But people can stay home and sit in a recliner.
Serve them with a smile. Make it easier to see a movie in the theater than it is to watch it at home. Someone wanting to see The Fate of the Furious right now at home would have jump through some hoops to do so, but many local theaters have showtimes starting every hour. Introduce the movie in person and provide some interesting trivia, a la Robert Osborne on Turner Classic Movies.
Make sure the presentation is perfect in a clean auditorium. When people have a soundbar under their 65" TV, that can't compare to a 65-foot wide screen with a kick-ass Atmos sound system.
Make sure that misbehaving people don't ruin the experience with their disruptions. Then, thank them when they leave. A Kodi box can't do all those things. Neither can Netflix. Neither can Redbox.
My guess is that you'd spend much less than the cost of converting just one auditorium to powered reclining seating, and you'll be providing much more value and creating much more customer satisfaction.
But what do I know? I don't own a theater and have never worked in a theater. But I have been going to movies for more than four decades, and running a web site that caters to the moviegoing public for more than 20 years.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-20-2017, 04:40 PM:
quote: Dave Bird
Not too many truly "protected" sectors for the "brick and mortar" little guy anymore. Consumer goods and food is gone. Little guys did a great job seizing the home video and music market for a good long while, but that's gone. The car dealers have done a good job in adapting to a model that protects them fairly well, they make little to no money selling you the car but cars need service and Amazon can't do that.
More Americans work in businesses with brick and mortar store fronts than anything else. The trades span across retail, leisure & hospitality, professional & business services, financial services and other kinds of services. Over 80% of America's 150 million jobs base is in "services-providing" occupations. Over 15 million jobs are just in retail alone. That's more than the 12 million in manufacturing and 6 million in construction.
Many millions of service industry jobs are vulnerable to elimination by growth of automated, online-based businesses. Every one of those jobs that are eliminated equals a customer & taxpayer that is taken out of the economy as well. With enough job losses any business will see its customer base shrink to painful or even fatal levels.
It's clear a lot of people are enamored with the "modern" approach of buying things online. Far more than that people love saving money on a purchase (or getting it free if possible). It's also clear most Americans are taking our economy and way of life for granted, as if things will stay hunky-dory no matter what. Our economy, investment base and tax base are all in a balance that is more delicate than most people realize.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Far too much emphasis is being placed on reclining chairs and in-theater dining options, IMO. I guess chairs are easy, because they're something that someone can buy, and it has a tangible result that can be seen. Measuring true customer satisfaction is much harder. But people can stay home and sit in a recliner.
I don't mind the recliners other than wonder what kind of negative hit they inflict on the bottom line. The seats are more expensive than regular theater seats, take up more space and probably have higher maintenance costs from normal use and vandalism.
Theater chains should probably limit their use of the dine-in theater format. Running a restaurant effectively is really difficult. Customers are very picky and bad word of mouth can spread and kill a restaurant's business pretty quickly. Theater operators should probably concentrate more on putting on high quality presentations rather than be distracted by all sorts of optional business ventures in the lobby. Many theaters are located in or near shopping centers and restaurant rows. So if they're going to bother with a dine-in theater concept the food had better be pretty damned good and priced to compete with nearby dining options.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-20-2017, 05:16 PM:
quote: Dennis Benjamin
Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning people doing illegal things. But if someone choses to watch "Guardian's of the Galaxy Vol 2" on thier tablet rather than see it in a movie theatre or at a Drive-In, then they don't sound like someone that I'd get along with anyway. They are completely missing the point of the Hollywod movie experience.
OK, I get that, but it's not about who we get along with or if we personally wouldn't be caught dead watching a movie on a cellphone or tablet or even on a computer monitor; it's about how many people decide NOT to pay for a theatre ticket. If more and more of them don't buy that $12 ticket in lieu of all the other devalued presentation platforms available to them and they think watching it anyplace BUT a theatre is just a fine and dandy way to experience a movie, then I am afraid your position in the theatre industry, at least if it's on the exhibition side will be at serious risk.
Then even if you were able to stamp out the many new ways people can choose to see cheapened versions of movies, that wouldn't stop the erosion of box office sales -- not cash sales, but asses-in-the-seats sales. A significant cause of that errosion, is the fact that the theatre experience itself has been slowly eroded over decades by the big chains doing everything to save a buck and making that "strangers gathered in a dark room to communally experience a movie" not the great come-on experience it used to be.
For a long time now, that supposedly powerful incentive to see a movie in a theatre is what has actually driven people these days to wait (you know...that shorter and shorter wait) to watch it at home and create an experience much more to their liking.
For half my life I never ever heard anyone say what I began hearing once single screens began to be sawed in half and twined and then triplexed, i.e., the birth of the utilitarian, soul-less, cookie-cutter, assembly-line, characterless multiplex -- before that cinema evolution, I never heard anyone say, "I HATE going to the movies." Never heard my parents say it...never heard any of my friends say it. You said, let's go see this or that film and everyone jumped at the chance. You can lay the "I HATE going to the movies" phenomenon right at the feet of exhibition; it's not just the studios' penchant for day&date. It's all about exhibitors trying to save a buck. "Who needs ushers to make sure those strangers that everyone raves about as why you should sit in that dark theatre, behave like decent, civilized human beings?" asks the penny pinching bean-counter at corporate.
Fact is, when I see a movie in my own house, I rarely see it alone; I've got family...I've got plenty of friends and I can invite as many as I want and they ARE decent, civilized human beings and I know that in ADVANCE, plus, they are wise enough that they don't dare take out a cellfone or talk during the film. Quite frankly, I get all the "communal experience" I need. Not to mention, I know my comfortable couch and recliners are bed-bug free...I know there are no varmints running under foot and I know my popcorn and snacks are fresh and won't require that I take out a second mortage to pay for them.
Point being, there are many factors that are constantly pushing the general public to not feel the need to see movies only in theatres -- it's not just bootleg copies available in this or that format. You can still easily find guys roaming around with rows of bootleg DVDs pinned inside big trench coats. And they will happily tell you which titles are pristine copies (7 bucks each, 2 for $10) and which are off-the-screen cam copies (2 bucks a pop).
Amazon can put tons of all that jailbreak hardware in a car compactor and it won't stop people from NOT going to the multiplex; that has long been the handwriting on the theatre wall.
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 04-20-2017, 05:38 PM:
Oh, I believe there are still huge numbers of people working in brick and mortar outlets, just far fewer making a true living at it. It's a lot of part-time, no benefit stuff. Doesn't help that all these people are pretty much forced to consume from the cheapest possible sources, whether that's putting them out of work or not. I watched it happen. We were slower than the rest, but you went from mostly full-time/benefits people working your stores, to a handful of those supervising a small army of part-time and part-time student staff.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-20-2017, 08:08 PM:
70% of the economy in the US is driven by consumer spending. Consumers need to have jobs good enough to give them some spending power in order for them to spend. I think lots of investors and executives at companies whose stock is traded publicly either forget that fact or don't care about it.
Plenty of retail companies have down-graded many positions in their work force to part time and no benefits positions. Lots of other sectors in our economy are guilty of price gouging, making people who are already struggling struggle even worse. College tuition inflation is just about as bad as health care cost inflation. New car prices have grown ridiculous. Housing prices are ridiculously high in many markets. Even in my town, which has an arguably flat to worsening real estate picture, has a pretty bad shortage of decent yet affordable housing.
All of this crap is going on, and meanwhile online businesses are gaining momentum at cannibalizing lots of brick and mortar retail jobs. The retail sector is taking a beating. Even higher end stores like Neiman Marcus are in trouble.
quote: Frank Angel
For half my life I never ever heard anyone say what I began hearing once single screens began to be sawed in half and twined and then triplexed, i.e., the birth of the utilitarian, soul-less, cookie-cutter, assembly-line, characterless multiplex -- before that cinema evolution, I never heard anyone say, "I HATE going to the movies." Never heard my parents say it...never heard any of my friends say it. You said, let's go see this or that film and everyone jumped at the chance. You can lay the "I HATE going to the movies" phenomenon right at the feet of exhibition; it's not just the studios' penchant for day&date. It's all about exhibitors trying to save a buck. "Who needs ushers to make sure those strangers that everyone raves about as why you should sit in that dark theatre, behave like decent, civilized human beings?" asks the penny pinching bean-counter at corporate.
To be fair, movie theater companies are having to spend quite a bit more on their facilities than they did in the past. D-cinema projectors cost a lot more than film projectors did. The prices of laser projectors can be pretty extreme. It's standard to at least have 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound in every auditorium. New "immersive" formats like Atmos cost a fortune to configure and install properly. Many theaters in the past had no surround sound. Stadium seating is standard now. That costs more than building a standard sloped auditorium. Expensive recliners are replacing the smaller standard seats in many theaters. The theater screens have at least been getting taller, if not bigger in every dimension.
Meanwhile the window of theatrical release is getting shorter and shorter, which kind of devalues the investment in all that theater hardware.
One area where theaters are being cheap is their staff. They have many employed part time with no benefits. Salaried managers aren't paid all that great either, but since they're on salary they get to work crazy marathon schedules basically doing their job and the jobs one or more employees could be doing. It's cheaper to make the salary guy work much longer than hire more people. In this environment customer service has the potential to go to hell. If the theater company turns its theater jobs into shit jobs why would the employees care if the customers are having a good theatrical movie viewing experience?
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2