17 ms·
> Commenting on the release, Sebastian Haselbeck of Tarantino fansite Tarantino.info says that while he’s not a fan of piracy, he believes that a failure to ser
by yRetsyM 10y ago
> Commenting on the release, Sebastian Haselbeck of Tarantino fansite Tarantino.info says that while he’s not a fan of piracy, he believes that a failure to serve the market is the real problem.
> “I strongly condemn piracy and find it generally damaging, but it is a symptom, not the source, of market failure,” he told TF.
That's it right there. Music piracy took a long time to sort out because it was inaccessible. Now through Spotify/Apple Music/Youtube I struggle to find anyone who pirates music in my peers (it was prolific). It's not perfect yet and I think there's still some change to come but it's certainly ahead of the film industry.
- kalleboo 10y agoWorth noting is that YouTube was (and is) piracy in many cases
- ljk 10y agoyup, there are a lot of re-uploaded videos and also command-line tools for downloading youtube videos
- gioele 10y ago> yup, there are a lot of re-uploaded videos and also command-line tools for downloading youtube videos The former _may_ classify as copyright infringement. The latter definitely does not.
- Houshalter 10y agoIt violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists.
- ekianjo 10y ago> It violates YouTube's terms of service Yes > and hurts the artists. Evidence required.
- spiderfarmer 10y agoThey get reuploaded to Facebook, where they go viral without crediting the author. If you're a content creator trying to build an audience, it definetly hurts when people already saw your content elsewhere.
- pluma 10y ago> reuploaded To quote your ggp: > [re-uploading videos] _may_ classify as copyright infringement. [downloading YouTube videos] definitely does not. And your gp: > [Downloading YouTube videos] violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists. And your parent: > Evidence required. So... why are we talking about re-uploading again as if downloading was the same thing?
- spiderfarmer 10y agoI never said all downloads are hurting content creators. I am saying if it was not possible to download them, the creators would be better off.
- pluma 10y agoSure, and if companies wouldn't have to pay taxes, they would make more money. If perfectly legal, permissible, expected and ethically justifiable behaviour hurts your bottom line, your business model is broken, not your customers.
- tekromancr 10y agoNo, because if it were not possible to download them, it wouldn't be possible to watch them in the first place.
- davidiach 10y ago@spiderfarmer, the author can credit himself, all he has to do is put a "follow me on twitter @author" or something like that.
- creshal 10y ago> hurts the artists , because?
- Houshalter 10y agoBecause people will download it for free, who otherwise would have paid for it. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?
- pluma 10y ago> hurts the artists ... only if you use the version of youtubedl that comes with the knife-wielding robot.
- StavrosK 10y agoWhy wouldn't you? It's free.
- Asooka 10y agoOh, didn't you hear? Researchers found that via quantum tunnelling entanglement, each time you download a video from youtube, a number of random artists (not necessarily involved with the media in question) feel an unexplained momentary sharp pain in their back. A similar effect happens when you drunkenly sing the latest pop song - an egregious copyright violation by any measure - in which case several successful artists feel a passing, but deep, existential dread about the quality of their work. Further research into the effect has been postponed due to ethical concerns. The researchers note, however, that shortening copyright terms would drastically reduce its impact.
- kalleboo 10y ago> The latter definitely does not Depending on what country you live in.
- DanBC 10y agoUploading a video to Youtube if you don't have permission of the rights holders is a very clear breach of copyright. Downloading that video (whether by watching it on Youtube or by using a tool to download the video to watch offline) is, if you don't have the permission of the rights holder another very clear copyright breach. There's some narrow exceptions for free use, or public domain content. I'm surprised you think it isn't. In what country would that be true?
- dozzie 10y agoE.g. in Poland. Don't be surprised, because it's not an absolute truth that you breach copyright watching something published.
- DanBC 10y agoPolish law is harmonised with the Copyright directive, which implements the WIPO treaty. Watching a video on Youtube is only lawful if the rights holder has given their permission. Here, the rights holder hasnt given their permission and isn't getting compensation, thus it's not lawful in Polish law. It might be useful if you provided a cite the the Polish law that gives this exemption. The person uploading the video is clearly breaching copyright, and if they monetise the video that becomes criminal in most of EU. But the person downloading the video is also breaching copyright, albeit not criminally.
- zielmicha 10y agoWatching already published videos is fair use in Poland. Art 23 Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych > 1. Bez zezwolenia twórcy wolno nieodpłatnie korzystać z już rozpowszechnionego utworu w zakresie własnego użytku osobistego. (...) > 2. Zakres własnego użytku osobistego obejmuje korzystanie z pojedynczych egzemplarzy utworów przez krąg osób pozostających w związku osobistym, w szczególności pokrewieństwa, powinowactwa lub stosunku towarzyskiego. translated: > 1. Free usage of the already published work for personal use is allowed without a permit of authors . (...) > 2. The scope of personal use includes the use of single copies of work by a group of individuals in personal relationships, in particular blood relation, kinship or a social relationship.
- dawnerd 10y agoyoutube-dl has actually been really useful for backing up my own channel. Simply passing it a channel url and it will download everything in the best quality available.
- balac 10y agoShouldn't you already have the source videos for you channel?
- semi-extrinsic 10y agoBacking it up from Youtube is likely a better solution since he doesn't have to upload everything twice on a (probably) slow uplink ADSL line.
- dawnerd 10y agoOh I have gigabit, so that's not an issue. But I can totally seeing that being an issue.
- dawnerd 10y agoFor most of them no. A lot were school projects that only existed on youtube or smaller things that were uploaded from my phone etc.
- lern_too_spel 10y agoGoogle Takeout downloads the originals, which is better than the highest quality reencode.
- bluedino 10y ago>> I struggle to find anyone who pirates music in my peers (it was prolific) Music piracy is still huge. Any top 40 album is going to have THOUSANDS of seeders, who knows how many people have downloaded from them.
- viraptor 10y agoIf you meant thousands literally, I think it's a relatively low number. There's always going to be a large group of people seeding popular files to improve their ratio on a specific tracker. They're probably not even interested in those specific files. It's just for better reputation on the site. > who knows how many people have downloaded from them BT trackers do. And with enough seeds / pretend-seeds you can get a fairly precise numbers of downloaders. There's still a number of countries where Spotify is not exactly cheap. Or where you can't get easy access to a permanent connection for streaming. But those places aren't huge record label customers either.
- petra 10y agoOne could say that piracy's biggest effect is indirect - by changing the power dynamic in the industry - most users choose ad-based music services.
- user5994461 10y agoThousands is not much. The top movies are getting ten of thousands of seeders. They get thousands in each of their localized version (French, German, Spanish...). Go to one of the "current-best-streaming-site-of-the-moment.inwhatevercoutry" [1] Some of the streaming sites publish the "views per video" (or downloads per video for DDL site). The top 10 videos are all in the hundreds of thousand of views. The English streaming sites are in the millions of views per top video. They get more audience because of the language. In comparison, it seems to me that music is not very popular for streaming/DDL/torrenting. If anything, it should concentrate all the views in a few places only because songs exist in a single version in a single language. [1] easy to find in the "top 100 most visited site per country" with alexa.com :D
- ChildOfChaos 10y agoI am a huge music lover. I rarely would buy an album because it was such a pain in the ass and I would end up not liking or registering to most albums anyway. So i pirated almost every album I listened too for about ten years. Now i simply pay my subscription to Deezer and couldn't be happier.
- tw04 10y agoWell, there are two issues as I see it: 1. Most people have no desire to go to a theater anymore, so making people wait months to see a new film means they're going to try to find a way to see it sooner. If they released streaming alongside movie theater releases I would imagine you'd knock out 90%+ of the piracy out there. 2. People like me who are on extremely limited bandwidth connections can't watch anything in high fidelity via something like Netflix. Need a way to buffer the whole movie locally ahead of time. Let me queue it up the night before so I can watch it when I get home from work and you'll have my dollars.
- kenperkins 10y ago> Most people have no desire to go to a theater anymore, so making people wait months to see a new film means they're going to try to find a way to see it sooner. If they released streaming alongside movie theater releases I would imagine you'd knock out 90%+ of the piracy out there. Aside: Saw Pets with my kids this week; Large Soda is now more than a Bud Light at a Football game ($8). Consider me among those who would gladly stop going to the theater.
- vocatus_gate 10y agoIt always amazes me how people talk about theater snacks like they're mandatory or something. How about just......don't buy them?
- Slump 10y agoWell to be fair, I think many people consider the snacks (soda, popcorn, candy) to be part of the movie going experience so it's hard to resist the urge to splurge. You're not wrong but there is a lot of years of marketing and persuasion behind "lets all go to the lobby..."
- jessaustin 10y agoLots of people just sneak in their own sodas. This is discouraged by authority, but it doesn't seem immoral. At least, it isn't more immoral than going without soda entirely, so long as one doesn't throw the empties on the floor.
- coretx 10y agoHowever much i do not like to spoil your party due to sharing the sentiment; please note that your example is an pyrrhic victory. Sure, services who uphold basic principles such as listening to a market demand and adjusting prices to it exist nowadays; yet the root of the problems; it being impossible to define a marginal price; still exists. Some of the monopolistic effects are not felt by the masses, yet they surely do exist. Think about market entry for example, virtually impossible. We have to raise the level of the debate i'm afraid....
- Esau 10y agoTo me, the only enticement of torrenting a movie is that it will be DRM-free. Please note that I don't mind DRM when used in streaming but I find it onerous when I "purchased" something.
- djsumdog 10y agoI go out of my way to buy DRM-free. I buy on Humble/GOG over Steam (and often filter games my DRM-free), I prefer bandcamp and buying real physical CDs at bars. eBooks are problematic because finding DRM-free stores for current titles is near impossible and I hate that my notes and the book are tied to a B&N/Google/Amazon account unless I use tools to extract them (books + notes). I'm essentially paying near the same price as a used copy of the physical book, but I'm renting the book. If Amazon of Google ever give up their books service in a prolific blaze of fire, customers lose all those purchases.
- rconti 10y agoYup. I just bought a 4k TV, and I bought a 4k switching receiver last year. I'm not about to spend $800 on a 4k/UHD BluRay player only to find out that I can't play content because my virtually-brand-new top-end receiver doesn't support HDCP 2.2.
- hsod 10y ago> If Amazon of Google ever give up their books service in a prolific blaze of fire, customers lose all those purchases. I highly doubt Amazon would delete all the books off my Kindle if they were shutting down. I wouldn't be able to re-download them if I lose my device, but then again Barnes and Noble doesn't ship you a new book if you leave it on the bus.
- Esau 10y agoThis is why there needs to be a law requiring sellers to support their DRM systems for a required number of years (after last using it making a sale). Either that, or require them to unlock the DRM for affected customer. As it stands now, sellers can sunset a DRM system with no consideration of its users.