6 ms·

Legal streams are less available for rentals than a year ago

46 points by tristan_louis 15y ago

gte910h 15y ago
I don't think movie and TV copyright infringement will be solved until there is a compulsory licensing scheme in place.
- delinka 15y ago
  I've said this often. I sincerely believe that this is the only way forward.
- tristan_louis 15y ago
  I'm not sure a compulsory licensing scheme would necessarily work but there ought to be some framework whereas the claim of infringement is related to actual availability. So if a studio fails to make its content legally available online, it should have no standing if it is made available in some other way until the studio decides to make the content available. Otherwise, one could demonstrate that their failure to provide the content in the first place is what led to it being pirated.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    As much as I hate our current IP mess, this doesn't seem like the right answer. I'm saddened I didn't get to see Chuck this season, but it is WB's property. Why should they be forced into giving me their content in a way they don't want to? Would you be OK with the government saying "if a company won't release it's source code, you are ok to hack into their site to get it (obviously not apples-to-apples, but I think it is close enough for this discussion). I wish I was smart enough to come up with an answer, and I really wish I could consume other's content exclusively on my terms (and I'm more than willing to pay!), but it is their content, not mine. They don't have a God-granted right to make money, and I don't have a God-given right to do anything I want with their content. Maybe the problem is intractable. P.S. Most content is available online. People just don't like the terms (I'm one of them!). If this kind of a law came to fruition, it would be trivial for all content to be available. You just have to pay (even more) outrageous fees for it. P.P.S. I am not a supporter of our current IP laws in any way (see my comment history). I just think the argument can't be solved until both sides are communicating and not talking past each other.
    - modeless 15y ago
      Why should they be forced into giving me their content in a way they don't want to? Take a step back: the purpose of intellectual property law is to promote the creation of works. Assigning property rights to ideas is the means, not the end. If we believe compulsory licenses would ultimately promote the creation of more works, that trumps any property rights argument. Would you be OK with the government saying "if a company won't release it's source code, you are ok to hack into their site to get it [...] No, but I would be OK with the government saying "if a company won't release its source code, you are free to reverse engineer it."
      - Terretta 15y ago
        And if you want to reverse engineer Chuck, have at it. Not being facetious -- this is what streaming aggregators like Netflix and Hulu are doing by buying and producing their own content.
      - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
        """the purpose of intellectual property law is to promote the creation of works""" Perhaps the whole problem would go (almost) away if IP terms were made a reasonable length again. No, I don't think so, either, but it should still happen. Copyright started at 14 years in the US. As distribution got better, it should have gotten shorter not longer. Maybe we really are reaching a point that IP should not be protected by law anymore. Coca Cola has kept their formula secret for over a hundred years. Many companies do not patent certain pieces of information, preferring to keep them trade secrets. The fashion industry never had IP protection (beyond trademarks that apply to everybody). This would mean 37 Signals can get angry about somebody using their design (like they (any clothing designer) did) but they would have no legal recourse to do anything. I don't know if 37 Signals has any legal plans, but it would surprise me (a lot...who wants that kind of distracting mess? Oh, wait, Apple seems to). Personally, as much as I love my iPhone, I couldn't care less if Cupertino no longer had a foundation (outside of trademark, which still has value, IMO) to sue over the iPad's and iPhone's design.
    - JumpCrisscross 15y ago
      Agreed. For things like pharmaceuticals, where there are lives in the balance, absolutely. But for all the hullabaloo and crap that the MPAA throws up about its industry, it's still entertainment. Just as nuking the internet isn't an acceptable way to deal with the MPAA's problems, dampening property rights isn't a responsible way for me to insist on watching my TV shows (no matter how tempting it gets).
- angstrom 15y ago
  Funny thing is I search these services first. If I don't find it, I go to usenet and usually find it. Since it's SSL my ISP doesn't throttle it and the downloads only take maybe 30-50 minutes. Unlike torrents I can watch while it downloads. They really should adopt streaming and move on.
  - andrewpi 15y ago
    What program lets you watch during a NNTP download?
    - angstrom 15y ago
      Binreader suffices for most.
  - cas 15y ago
    You can actually watch torrents while they download, its called sequential downloading and many clients support it.
    - angstrom 15y ago
      You're also legally liable for everyone you share with. A usenet client does not redistribute.
  - 286c8cb04bda 15y ago
    Where to do get your newsfeed from?
- nl 15y ago
  I am SO glad to see others pushing the compulsory licensing thing. Everytime I suggest it on HN I get a lot of upvotes, but no discussion. I think it is time for the idea to be circulated more widely.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  Compulsory licensing seems fundamentally broken in multiple ways. First, it provides an air of legitimacy for the claim that purchasing a copy doesn't automatically provide all the "license" you need to do whatever you want with it. It ought to suffice to purchase as many copies as you simultaneously stream; streaming should not require a magic "streaming license", especially not one that costs more than just buying a copy. And second, the concept of any kind of compulsory transfer of rights for a legislatively fixed amount of money seems fundamentally opposed to the concept of a market, and accepting that in the realm of copyright seems like a dangerous precedent.
  - dantheman 15y ago
    It's important to remember that copyright in and of itself is an antifreemarket creation. More specifically, it is a government granted monopoly (about as antifreemarket as you can get). I agree that the idea of compulsory licensing rubs me the wrong way, but pretending that we're actually operating in a freemarket is dangerous too.
    - JoshTriplett 15y ago
      I agree with you entirely; I just think we don't want to set a dangerous precedent here.
wmf 15y ago
It breaks down by studio: Disney, Paramount, and Columbia are purchase-only while Warner, Universal, and Fox are generally anti-Internet. Movies that are available for streaming/rental are indies.
- forrestthewoods 15y ago
  That's not entirely true. Disney is not anti-streaming. They appear to be anti new release streaming. Toy Story 1 and 2 are available for rent. So is Cars 2. Curiously Monsters Inc is not so its still a little random.
GigabyteCoin 15y ago
On the other side of the coin... illegal (free) streams are on the rise! It is 2-3 times easier for me to watch free streaming NBA this season (and 2-3 times better quality) than it was for me last season. I would love to pay for league pass if they didn't blackout every other game.
proofpeer_com 15y ago
Your list does not seem to be accurate. For example, "How to train your dragon" is on sale in iTunes UK.
- tristan_louis 15y ago
  Sorry. I should have specified that the list was based on availability in the US iTunes store. Another oddity someone pointed to is that "Scott Pilgrim vs. the world" is on the iTunes OK store too but when I checked it wasn't in the US one (it's a fact that annoys me as I'd be happy to buy that one :) )

46 points by tristan_louis 15y ago

gte910h 15y ago

I don't think movie and TV copyright infringement will be solved until there is a compulsory licensing scheme in place.

delinka 15y ago
I've said this often. I sincerely believe that this is the only way forward.
tristan_louis 15y ago
I'm not sure a compulsory licensing scheme would necessarily work but there ought to be some framework whereas the claim of infringement is related to actual availability. So if a studio fails to make its content legally available online, it should have no standing if it is made available in some other way until the studio decides to make the content available. Otherwise, one could demonstrate that their failure to provide the content in the first place is what led to it being pirated.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  As much as I hate our current IP mess, this doesn't seem like the right answer. I'm saddened I didn't get to see Chuck this season, but it is WB's property. Why should they be forced into giving me their content in a way they don't want to? Would you be OK with the government saying "if a company won't release it's source code, you are ok to hack into their site to get it (obviously not apples-to-apples, but I think it is close enough for this discussion). I wish I was smart enough to come up with an answer, and I really wish I could consume other's content exclusively on my terms (and I'm more than willing to pay!), but it is their content, not mine. They don't have a God-granted right to make money, and I don't have a God-given right to do anything I want with their content. Maybe the problem is intractable. P.S. Most content is available online. People just don't like the terms (I'm one of them!). If this kind of a law came to fruition, it would be trivial for all content to be available. You just have to pay (even more) outrageous fees for it. P.P.S. I am not a supporter of our current IP laws in any way (see my comment history). I just think the argument can't be solved until both sides are communicating and not talking past each other.
  - modeless 15y ago
    Why should they be forced into giving me their content in a way they don't want to? Take a step back: the purpose of intellectual property law is to promote the creation of works. Assigning property rights to ideas is the means, not the end. If we believe compulsory licenses would ultimately promote the creation of more works, that trumps any property rights argument. Would you be OK with the government saying "if a company won't release it's source code, you are ok to hack into their site to get it [...] No, but I would be OK with the government saying "if a company won't release its source code, you are free to reverse engineer it."
    - Terretta 15y ago
      And if you want to reverse engineer Chuck, have at it. Not being facetious -- this is what streaming aggregators like Netflix and Hulu are doing by buying and producing their own content.
    - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
      """the purpose of intellectual property law is to promote the creation of works""" Perhaps the whole problem would go (almost) away if IP terms were made a reasonable length again. No, I don't think so, either, but it should still happen. Copyright started at 14 years in the US. As distribution got better, it should have gotten shorter not longer. Maybe we really are reaching a point that IP should not be protected by law anymore. Coca Cola has kept their formula secret for over a hundred years. Many companies do not patent certain pieces of information, preferring to keep them trade secrets. The fashion industry never had IP protection (beyond trademarks that apply to everybody). This would mean 37 Signals can get angry about somebody using their design (like they (any clothing designer) did) but they would have no legal recourse to do anything. I don't know if 37 Signals has any legal plans, but it would surprise me (a lot...who wants that kind of distracting mess? Oh, wait, Apple seems to). Personally, as much as I love my iPhone, I couldn't care less if Cupertino no longer had a foundation (outside of trademark, which still has value, IMO) to sue over the iPad's and iPhone's design.
  - JumpCrisscross 15y ago
    Agreed. For things like pharmaceuticals, where there are lives in the balance, absolutely. But for all the hullabaloo and crap that the MPAA throws up about its industry, it's still entertainment. Just as nuking the internet isn't an acceptable way to deal with the MPAA's problems, dampening property rights isn't a responsible way for me to insist on watching my TV shows (no matter how tempting it gets).
angstrom 15y ago
Funny thing is I search these services first. If I don't find it, I go to usenet and usually find it. Since it's SSL my ISP doesn't throttle it and the downloads only take maybe 30-50 minutes. Unlike torrents I can watch while it downloads. They really should adopt streaming and move on.
- andrewpi 15y ago
  What program lets you watch during a NNTP download?
  - angstrom 15y ago
    Binreader suffices for most.
- cas 15y ago
  You can actually watch torrents while they download, its called sequential downloading and many clients support it.
  - angstrom 15y ago
    You're also legally liable for everyone you share with. A usenet client does not redistribute.
- 286c8cb04bda 15y ago
  Where to do get your newsfeed from?
nl 15y ago
I am SO glad to see others pushing the compulsory licensing thing. Everytime I suggest it on HN I get a lot of upvotes, but no discussion. I think it is time for the idea to be circulated more widely.
JoshTriplett 15y ago
Compulsory licensing seems fundamentally broken in multiple ways. First, it provides an air of legitimacy for the claim that purchasing a copy doesn't automatically provide all the "license" you need to do whatever you want with it. It ought to suffice to purchase as many copies as you simultaneously stream; streaming should not require a magic "streaming license", especially not one that costs more than just buying a copy. And second, the concept of any kind of compulsory transfer of rights for a legislatively fixed amount of money seems fundamentally opposed to the concept of a market, and accepting that in the realm of copyright seems like a dangerous precedent.
- dantheman 15y ago
  It's important to remember that copyright in and of itself is an antifreemarket creation. More specifically, it is a government granted monopoly (about as antifreemarket as you can get). I agree that the idea of compulsory licensing rubs me the wrong way, but pretending that we're actually operating in a freemarket is dangerous too.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    I agree with you entirely; I just think we don't want to set a dangerous precedent here.

wmf 15y ago

It breaks down by studio: Disney, Paramount, and Columbia are purchase-only while Warner, Universal, and Fox are generally anti-Internet. Movies that are available for streaming/rental are indies.

forrestthewoods 15y ago
That's not entirely true. Disney is not anti-streaming. They appear to be anti new release streaming. Toy Story 1 and 2 are available for rent. So is Cars 2. Curiously Monsters Inc is not so its still a little random.

GigabyteCoin 15y ago

On the other side of the coin... illegal (free) streams are on the rise! It is 2-3 times easier for me to watch free streaming NBA this season (and 2-3 times better quality) than it was for me last season. I would love to pay for league pass if they didn't blackout every other game.

proofpeer_com 15y ago

Your list does not seem to be accurate. For example, "How to train your dragon" is on sale in iTunes UK.

tristan_louis 15y ago
Sorry. I should have specified that the list was based on availability in the US iTunes store. Another oddity someone pointed to is that "Scott Pilgrim vs. the world" is on the iTunes OK store too but when I checked it wasn't in the US one (it's a fact that annoys me as I'd be happy to buy that one :) )