3 ms·

logistical for digital goods should be a nonissue. to my knowledge, legal stuff should in most cases be a nonissue as well. They could put everything behind th

by y4mi 8y ago

logistical for digital goods should be a nonissue. to my knowledge, legal stuff should in most cases be a nonissue as well. They could put everything behind the oldest age bracket (18/21 yrs old), which would probably be their biggest customerbase anyway. and if they did that, its gonna be the responsibility of the account owner. the only reason that actually holds up is strategic. They do want to milk all brands to their maximum after all... but if thats the reason, they don't really have any grounds to complain about piracy. This is coming from somebody who hasn't watched any TV/Movies in ~3 yrs now, because i didn't want to pirate and netflix / amazon video didn't have enough content i wanted to watch.

P_I_Staker 8y ago
> to my knowledge, legal stuff should in most cases be a nonissue as well. Why? I'm confused at how that could be the case; it's a big issue for most businesses. > They could put everything behind the oldest age bracket (18/21 yrs old), which would probably be their biggest customerbase anyway. You simply can't do this when the entire film is banned. This is also bad from a purely business perspective. Even if it's the biggest customerbase, it's a limiting factor which lowers the number of customers that can see it (this is mostly implicit, not legally enforced in the USA). Sadly, many films are being re-cut or re-written, so that they won't receive an R rating (definitely not the dreaded NC-17). That's why we have things like John McClain saying "dagg nabbit" and "gollie gee", instead of swearing. > They do want to milk all brands to their maximum after all... You put this far better than I did. Very succinct and descriptive. > but if thats the reason, they don't really have any grounds to complain about piracy You lost me here. These brands aren't cheap; lots of money goes into them. Businesses want as much money as possible, especially given the high cost and risk. I'm not a big IP fan, but it is their property. Saying I stole from you, because I don't like the way you sell things, and you have no grounds to complain isn't completely reasonable (DRM is the most legitimate gripe I have, but it's still not a perfect excuse). I appreciate your commitment to doing the right thing. Sorry for the dissection, I didn't intend for this to be rebuttal, but it kinda got away from me.
- y4mi 8y ago
  The rating is only required if you want your content on cable TV or want to advertise with the official age requirement brandings to my knowledge. Platforms like Vimeo couldn't exists if it were an actual requirement for all video content. And no, it's not a limiting factor. You're losing 100% of your customers if you don't stream at all in other nations. Even 10% is more than 0%. There are of course political movies that can, theoretically get the content banned in some countries. These are beyond rare in first world countries however, making this a non-issue for almost everything as well. Finally: piracy is not theft. It never was and never will be. It is at best lost revenue and more likely not even that, as most people wouldn't have bought the content anyway. Ask the people that stopped downloading their content if they started buying the stuff instead... Almost everyone I know just gave up on it entirely.
  - P_I_Staker 8y ago
    Hey, thanks for the followup. Right now, in the USA, ratings are extremely important. Theoretically, it's illegal for the government to restrict cable, Vimeo, streaming, ect. Only public airwaves are actually regulated (you can get fines/punishment for indecency on broadcast TV / radio). For everything else, it's the land of the free. The problem is industry conventions, which might seem self-inflicted, but are the result of public criticism. It's legal to show porn on cable, but most stations still heavily self-censor. NC-17 / Unrated movies won't be play in many theaters, or sell in big stores. You simply can't make a very successful NC-17 film in the USA. R rated movies make substantially less money, to the point that they've been trying to make less of them. I can't speak for other countries, but I'm pretty sure they censor, or have similar ratings that are avoided. Lots of stuff you dismiss as a "non-issue" seem like pretty big issues to me.

by y4mi 8y ago

P_I_Staker 8y ago

> to my knowledge, legal stuff should in most cases be a nonissue as well. Why? I'm confused at how that could be the case; it's a big issue for most businesses. > They could put everything behind the oldest age bracket (18/21 yrs old), which would probably be their biggest customerbase anyway. You simply can't do this when the entire film is banned. This is also bad from a purely business perspective. Even if it's the biggest customerbase, it's a limiting factor which lowers the number of customers that can see it (this is mostly implicit, not legally enforced in the USA). Sadly, many films are being re-cut or re-written, so that they won't receive an R rating (definitely not the dreaded NC-17). That's why we have things like John McClain saying "dagg nabbit" and "gollie gee", instead of swearing. > They do want to milk all brands to their maximum after all... You put this far better than I did. Very succinct and descriptive. > but if thats the reason, they don't really have any grounds to complain about piracy You lost me here. These brands aren't cheap; lots of money goes into them. Businesses want as much money as possible, especially given the high cost and risk. I'm not a big IP fan, but it is their property. Saying I stole from you, because I don't like the way you sell things, and you have no grounds to complain isn't completely reasonable (DRM is the most legitimate gripe I have, but it's still not a perfect excuse). I appreciate your commitment to doing the right thing. Sorry for the dissection, I didn't intend for this to be rebuttal, but it kinda got away from me.

y4mi 8y ago
The rating is only required if you want your content on cable TV or want to advertise with the official age requirement brandings to my knowledge. Platforms like Vimeo couldn't exists if it were an actual requirement for all video content. And no, it's not a limiting factor. You're losing 100% of your customers if you don't stream at all in other nations. Even 10% is more than 0%. There are of course political movies that can, theoretically get the content banned in some countries. These are beyond rare in first world countries however, making this a non-issue for almost everything as well. Finally: piracy is not theft. It never was and never will be. It is at best lost revenue and more likely not even that, as most people wouldn't have bought the content anyway. Ask the people that stopped downloading their content if they started buying the stuff instead... Almost everyone I know just gave up on it entirely.
- P_I_Staker 8y ago
  Hey, thanks for the followup. Right now, in the USA, ratings are extremely important. Theoretically, it's illegal for the government to restrict cable, Vimeo, streaming, ect. Only public airwaves are actually regulated (you can get fines/punishment for indecency on broadcast TV / radio). For everything else, it's the land of the free. The problem is industry conventions, which might seem self-inflicted, but are the result of public criticism. It's legal to show porn on cable, but most stations still heavily self-censor. NC-17 / Unrated movies won't be play in many theaters, or sell in big stores. You simply can't make a very successful NC-17 film in the USA. R rated movies make substantially less money, to the point that they've been trying to make less of them. I can't speak for other countries, but I'm pretty sure they censor, or have similar ratings that are avoided. Lots of stuff you dismiss as a "non-issue" seem like pretty big issues to me.