16 ms·
I clicked "12 years a slave", a movie I have not yet had an opportunity to watch and it started streaming in less than a minute in high quality. I immediately
by cheez 13y ago
I clicked "12 years a slave", a movie I have not yet had an opportunity to watch and it started streaming in less than a minute in high quality.
I immediately quit the application as it should not be so easy to benefit from someone else's hard work without compensating them.
Please, movie people, let me pay for this.
You might kill the cinemas, but you'll still get paid.
- slashdotaccount 13y agoWould you continue watching it if you had an unused ticket for that movie?
- cheez 13y agoAccidentally? Yes. When I'm at work, I only watch TV as background noise. I rarely get a chance to go to the movies proper nor do I get the time to sit and watch a movie at home. This is the only reason I have Netflix. This is specific to me and I wouldn't claim to generalize this to a whole population.
- quadrangle 13y ago> it should not be so easy to benefit from someone else's hard work without compensating them. Nonsense. I benefit from the work of Mozart and feel no need to compensate anyone. There are real issues with funding mechanisms and creative work in a shareable digital world, but we can reject the idea that you should always pay for anything that is beneficial. If you want to give gifts to creative folks you like, you can go ahead.
- minikites 13y agoThe musicians/recording engineers/conductor/support staff don't deserve to be paid?
- meerita 13y agoWell, this is a big debate. I think musicians must be paid by playing live, amd not when every human listen a song, do a cover, or listen it in a bar. I think artists should be credited and pay when others use their creation for commercial use. Staff, as always, they will have jobs. You think the staff is all day working with the records, no, they do sound work on live shows too, as welll producers, designers, print guys, etc. People evolve.
- minikites 13y agoOkay, so what about artists who are unable to play live for one reason or another (e.g. handicap, musical complexity). Recording engineering is different enough from live sound that it's almost two different jobs. And you're suggesting that the staff who do things like set up microphones and haul speakers should get paid to set that up for a live show but not paid to set that up for a recording?
- meerita 13y agoThen it's easier. You cannot live from something you cannot fully profit. It's a dead model, in this case, for you, but not for the rest. Let's say you're just not a musician but you are a genious at the computer. well, you can still sell your music, but in these days, people may be more open to see you on stage and buying a 20$ CD. Most of the movies, right now, are sold in the metro station in Barcelona tagged 1-2 dollars. And legal stores, not those slave-labor dudes with the house-made copycated movies. The industry already kills its own artists.
- chrismcb 13y agoIf that is the case, why would any entertainer allow themselves to be recorded? And who would bother to waste the time and money to make the recording? I don't have the time nor desire to go to a concert, yet I enjoy listening to good music. Therefore I pay for it.
- devcpp 13y agoIf people aren't willing to, nope. This is a slippery slope and we can't afford to pay every employee of dying professions forever. I think utilities and reasonable physical safety and healthcare should be paid for by the people. But for the rest, the free market will work better than an infinity of laws and incentives to put people in a corner to pay up. Money, uh, finds a way...
- speakme 13y ago> If people aren't willing to, nope. The idea behind this comment is that if people don't care enough about the work to bother viewing it, the maker shouldn't be paid. Which I agree with; I hate the idea of government sponsorship of art no one wants. The difference here is, PEOPLE WANT THE ART, THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT. That's a huge distinction. It has value to people, but because they have the opportunity to steal it with no consequence, they do so.
- cheez 13y agoThe performers need to be paid if you want to hear more in the future.
- ctdonath 13y agoYou'll work for free?
- meerita 13y agoPour cast. They can't buy new Ferarris because some kids watch that movie for free.
- JPKab 13y agoI'm a left of center guy, but this kind of thinking is a very ugly slippery slope. Its not that anyone should always expect to pay for things that are beneficial, its the fact that people who very recently WORKED to create the very thing you are benefiting from should be PAID for their work. If everyone followed your logic, we wouldn't have 12 Years A Slave. The props cost money. The costumes cost money. The cameras cost money. The cameramen's families eat fucking food, which costs money. Please, go out and find for me a quality movie that was made by unpaid volunteers. I haven't found one yet.
- Blahah 13y agoquandrangle didn't say don't pay anyone. They said just because something is good, doesn't mean we have to pay every time we consume it. There are other conceivable ways of funding these things. Like crowd-funding, micropayments, whatever. If everyone followed quadrangle's logic, people who wanted to produce movies would find another way to fund them.
- johndavidback 13y agoPlease explain how crowd-funding a movie even makes sense? There are plenty of movies with actors I love that are terrible. Have you seen RED (or worse, RED 2)? For the same reason your boss doesn't pay you for the month you haven't worked yet, you shouldn't expect people to produce movies without any reliable way of getting paid.
- vilhelm_s 13y agoBut there are lots of crowdfunding successes for videogames, even though they present the same problem that you don't know in advance how good it will be. So I don't think the situation is hopeless. Another idea which I think has promise is payment by social conventions. Tipping culture in the US is like this: you are not legally required to pay waitstaff, but everyone does because they would be considered assholes if they didn't. People joke that it's ridiculous that rock bands and web cartoonists make most of their money selling t-shirts, but actually if we are aiming for social pressure t-shirts are the ideal currency---everyone you interact with in your daily life can see that you bought one. So if we got a convention going that "if you regularly read a webcomic you oughta buy the t-shirt", then it would be easy to ostracize the people who violate it.
- chasing 13y agoAh, spoken like someone who has never created anything of value.
- Recoil42 13y ago>I benefit from the work of Mozart and feel no need to compensate anyone. Well, Mozart is dead, for one thing...
- mikkom 13y ago> I benefit from the work of Mozart and feel no need to compensate anyone. Even on legal side you are not required to compensate anyone as it's so old that it's in public domain.
- cscurmudgeon 13y agoAh. This old argument again. It would make sense if people actually support artists. Every time some one brings this up in real life, I ask them for instances where they have actually supported somebody.
- psykovsky 13y agoSupporting them doesn't mean paying for million dollar mansions and vehicles.
- g4m8i7 13y agoJust 2 days ago, I commissioned a work from a local painter. People support artists in many ways. One of those ways is paying to enjoy the things they produce.
- Glyptodon 13y agoCommissions are the same as Kickstarter, IE you pay before it's created. In no way does something like this have any bearing on works by commission, in fact it puts things back on the path of human traditions, which have typically relied on commissions, patronage or performance, rather than ownership.
- ds_ 13y ago
- yojo 13y agoCopyright law acknowledges that the marginal cost is near zero. That's why copyright holders get a temporary monopoly. The goal is to incentivize the creation of these goods so that everyone can (later) get them at near-zero cost. Copyright law does not enshrine the idea that "you should always pay for anything that is beneficial." The idea is that as a society we collectively want to always pay for something that is a net positive. There are many ways this system is currently broken (e.g. copyright lasting 70 years after creators death in US), but the fundamental concept of incentivizing creation of works that ultimately provide public benefit is sound.
- green7ea 13y agoThe interesting thing is that the 'temporary' monopoly isn't really temporary as it keeps being extended before most copyrights expire. In theory it is temporary but in practice it's not (at least so far). To see this in action, look at the copyrights on Mikey mouse and how many times those have been extended right before they were set to expire.
- res0nat0r 13y agoSo do you tell your boss he is free to pay or not pay you based on his mood for the week? And you are Ok with that yes?
- humanrebar 13y agoThere's probably a good analogy somewhere, but that isn't it. I don't have a contract with any movie production studio.
- res0nat0r 13y agoActually you do. You pay the price they ask to consume their content, or you don't consume it. Hence why doing so without paying is illegal.
- humanrebar 13y agoI don't have any continuous contractual relationships with any studios like I do with my employer. Maybe Netflix or HBO would qualify, but they don't charge their customer per unit, so it doesn't really apply here either.
- res0nat0r 13y agoThis really is just a sideshow (excuse) to justify watching movies without paying for them. I don't have any contract with my utility companies whom mail me bills every month for using their services, nor do I have one with Kroger when I go buy groceries. I still am obligated to pay both of them for using their services.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- anonymoushn 13y agoI enjoyed your joke.
- espadrine 13y agoRelated: in the promotional snapshot they use on the front page, all shown movies are in the public domain.
- chasing 13y agoThe sense of smug entitlement in some of the posts in this thread is amazing. "I should just get for free things that other people make because how dare they charge. If they're greedy enough to want to make money for their work, then they should follow a business model I set forth here and only make money by donations or selling other things I'm not going to buy anyway. Because freedom."
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- benched 13y agoThe sense of righteously indignant moralizing at others is just as "amazing" to me. And by amazing, I mean worthy of ridicule.
- quadrangle 13y agoHahahaha. The responses to my comment are hilariously off-the-wall. All I said was that the reasoning in the OP was wrong. The reason to pay for movies has nothing to do with the idea that benefits should always have a price. That's all I said. The rest of my comment acknowledged that the economics and funding for movies is complex. All the copyright apologists are so defensive, it's absurd. It's like you can't accept dropping any of your arguments, even when they are pointed out as plainly wrong. You are so worried that your whole case is ill-founded and won't be able to keep your position if you accept any criticism at all. There might actually be some valid points on the pro-copyright side, but we don't get to see them if you keep defending the obviously invalid arguments…
- chrismcb 13y agoExcept that Mozart had ALREADY benefited from his work. But today many people feel they are entitled to watching movies and listening to music for free. The problem is that quality movies and music are expensive to produce. And rather have one person pay for them, they split the cost up over a lot of people. But if no one chooses to pay, these movies (that people apparently WANT) will no longer be produced.
- mrcharles 13y agoIt blows my mind that it's 2014 and we can't do this. We are locked behind garbage cable boxes, poorly built custom software, and region locking, all of which is from a different era.
- rytis 13y agoWhy does it always need to be about the money?? Imagine giving a candy to a child. You make the child happy, and that is your reward. Or do you expect the child to say something like "let me pay you"?...
- sosborn 13y agoJust for fun, apply that logic to your work.
- meerita 13y agoThey already have been paid. Or you think mr. sound technician guy or lovely ms. Magda the hairdresser will receive money until his last day just because they have worked on a movie. The only one who will have that right is a company, who had nothing to do with filmaking process, they just invested, and for sure, after the premiere they've got, or not, a lot of money. Even the main actors release "rights".
- sosborn 13y agoTo me entertainment is very simple. The person who offers the entertainment presents a value. It is up to me whether or not the entertainment is worth the value. If it is, I'll pay the price, if it is not, then I will move on to one of a million other options. It's really that simple. If you don't like the deal that is offered then move on to the next one. I have no automatic right to any of the entertainment created. It is no different from any other transaction.
- meerita 13y agoThen when your friends are at your home, you kick 'em out if you want to see a movie you pay, rented? wouldn't be fair also make them pay, or will you let them consume for free too?
- sosborn 13y agoWhich rental service requires that each person watching pays a separate fee? If the terms dictated something like that then I simply wouldn't rent from that service.
- jacobbudin 13y ago> Please, movie people, let me pay for this. Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ICSVLPA/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00ICSVLPA&linkCode=as2&tag=foxhe312-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ICSVLPA/ref=as_li_ss_tl?... iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/12-years-a-slave/id740366955?ign-mpt=uo%3D4 https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/12-years-a-slave/id7403669... And many others: http://www.foxdigitalhd.com/12-years-a-slave http://www.foxdigitalhd.com/12-years-a-slave Sony could not have made it any easier to get this film into your living room. (Regardless, I don't think media companies have an obligation to make their content available to anyone, anywhere.)
- szatkus 13y ago"Amazon Instant Video (formerly Amazon Video On Demand and LoveFilm Instant) is an Internet video on demand service offered by Amazon in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Japan." iTunes: I don't see renting option. Fox Digital: "United States Brazil Mexico Canada Italia Australia Deutschland Belgium Holland United Kingdom España France" ARRRR!
- BugBrother 13y agoI was outsourced to Eastern Europe for a project and moved my iTunes account too, because it was a bother to send money to the old VISA card. I have seldom felt so stupid (+) as I did the next time I looked at the empty iTunes store... :-) (+) Cough, without alcohol being involved.
- jasomill 13y agoTo add to your "ARRRR!", it is available for rent from iTunes in the US.
- cheez 13y agoThanks, I watched Harry Potter on iTunes too. Great point. iTunes has won! I guess I will be watching it this weekend :)
- RealGeek 13y agoYou can already pay to watch instantly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuOaTwuzlrY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuOaTwuzlrY
- idoco 13y agoNot really: "This video is not available in your country."
- themechanic 13y agoThe video is not available in certain countries. In countries where it is available outside the United States and Canada, it costs close to 2x the price.
- B-Con 13y ago> Please, movie people, let me pay for this. Pay for what, the ability to stream a movie? Don't we already have a dozen options for that? I don't think this interesting as a feature, it's the backend technology that's interesting. On a related note, Spotify does something similar to get music to listeners by having existing users upload to new listeners.
- just2n 13y agoI missed where anyone gave us the option of streaming new releases online. Movie theaters offer neither convenience nor comfort. It's 2014, not 1914. Further, they are epicenters of disease transfer and otherwise completely and utterly dominated by inconsiderate jackasses who, to the benefit of everyone else, should actually probably stay at home. It's hard to imagine that we live in a world where something so absurdly ancient is still the norm. They want us to endure that AND to pay $13 to watch a new movie. The 400% ROI on the first weekend of release isn't enough, they then want us to pay $20 to "own" the movie at home (and by own, I mean have access to watch it, because they learned that it's really bad to ever give anyone an actual copy of anything, because copyright law actually then prevents them from making even more money later on). Then maybe at some arbitrary point in the future, you can pay to watch a movie once, but for $5. Long after that movie is irrelevant. As a last attempt to extract money from a dead thing, and only as an attempt to make more money. It's in no way about your convenience, nor access to the work. Imagine if music was still the same way. For every new work, radio stations are prevented from broadcasting the music at all. You have to go to an audio theater where you will sit in an uncomfortable chair with food stuffs splattered all over the floor, all the while battered from all directions with ads and menus for overpriced food and drink for "your enjoyment." You will listen using headphones that have clearly not been cleaned in a month, next to a person with a screaming child and another person who just sneezed a fine mist over 40 sq ft, much of which landed all over your face. Now you can listen to the latest and greatest the music industry has to offer. And oh yes, for this fine pleasure you WILL pay $13. No option just to hear the cover, not even at a reduced price. This is, after all, the bastion of decadence, a truly wondrous place where you should feel privileged to have access to the latest and greatest in entertainment! This is how kings live, and you'll like it! Then 3-100 months later, chosen arbitrarily, you'll be given the "option" of having access to listen to that music whenever you wish for a mere $10 fee, and 18-500 months after that, finally, radios can start playing it, but only if they pay enormous sums of money to the copyright holders, which requires them to ask you for a subscription fee. What the fuck? You want to listen to music for free on the radio? LOL. Shut the fuck up and listen to my ads. Clearly that model wouldn't work for music. They tried it, and it failed, so they actually adopted a better model, or rather they got out of the way and let innovators make things so convenient that piracy has become a mere historical oddity. I don't remember the last time I've even heard of someone pirating music. So why do we still have these evil fucks insisting it works for movies? It very, very clearly doesn't. Piracy is a clear symptom of this. What happens when piracy becomes so easy and so simple that the barrier to entry gets lowered to nothing, so that everyone is suddenly able to experience availability as it should be? My sincerest hope is that it kills the profitability of the movie industry as we know it. Maybe then it may be replaced with something that actually places value in the consumer and their interaction with the work, not solely in the work itself.
- ElDiablo666 13y agoDon't use propaganda terms like 'compensation' here. It's not compensation unless you hired someone to do something. The reason the media corporations want you to use terms that don't make rational sense is because it gets you to think, wrongly, that you owe them money all the time and forever. Don't fall for it my friend. No one thinks there's anything wrong with supporting creativity and artistry so let's stop using their bullshit terms together.
- cheez 13y agoHere's the chain of money as I see it when making a movie: 1. Someone comes up with an idea for a movie 2. They approach someone with money to create the movie 3. Monied person gives idea person $X to make the movie with the assumption that they will receive back $X + $Y (ignoring Hollywood accounting). 4. Movie is made. People are paid out of $X 5a. Movie is successful. Monied person receives back $X + $Y 5b. Movie is unsuccessful. Monied person receives back $X - $Z None of this simplified hypothetical happens without the idea or the monied person. The idea person makes an arrangement that allows them to realize their idea and make some coin. The monied person... Well, he just cares about money. So he wants to make more. If movies are perpetually unsuccessful, guess what happens? The monied person ends up investing in something else, leaving the idea person out of luck. I do agree with some of the other people on here that piracy puts pressure on the business people to improve access.
- return0 13y agoThat could be a valid idea for a startup, where movie people can sign up to sell 'virtual tickets' that provide users with the legal right to watch a movie no matter where they got it from. It could even be transferrable, identifiable tickets (... ahem, cryptocurrency, ahem). Most copyright disclaimers allow that already ("without the expressed written consent of the copyright owner" etc). Has anyone ever implemented this?
- jgh 13y agoThere's UltraViolet, which is perhaps similar to what you're talking about (provided you own the content, you can in theory download/stream from any UltraViolet-enabled provider as long as they have that content)
- meerita 13y agoIt is the middleman problem. It is not yours. Movies will never disappear. You think all studios will close, no, they will just evolve or die. There are thousand examples of dead labor, technologies that passed away without much drama, just because consumers wanted a different thing or changed their consuming habits.
- zobzu 13y agoI don't feel any bad for not paying those movies. These guys aren't exactly in need. That said, yes, if the same service was proposed at a decent price and with recent releases (even popcorn doesn't get the freshest stuff), i'd totally just pay for it too. Netflix, prime, etc don't even have stuff that's as recent or of similar quality.. (yes they've some of them)
- User8712 13y agoWhen I visit the cinema, it's usually for the experience, and less to do with catching a new release. For example, I wanted to go see Gravity this week. I could torrent the movie, but I heard good things about Gravity in theaters. Nonetheless, all the theaters within an hour drive stopped playing it, so I'm out of luck. They should allow people to buy and stream new releases online. Then, I think they should use theaters for a mix of new movies, and old movies. Run themes, have 80s week, or classic horror movie week, or Star Wars week, or Hitchcock week.
- meerita 13y agoThat's quite right. You're paying the service, not the work done. The work is already payed. The investors now want to make more money and that's all. If they don't know what the consumer wants, i.e. you want to experience this movie on a theather, then they can't win money. In fact, when you go to cinema, in theory, you're paying the theathers, not the filmakers or the camera man who filmed the movie. Maybe some actors have access to shared profits, but that's pretty rare business nowadays. I'm tired of the same "compensation" history. What is the minimum compensation they want to leave a fair use? You will find the number can't be wrote down. Everyone wants free compensation for life.
- mFixman 13y agoYou can rent 12 years a slave on HD for $6, or buy it for $15 on Google Play. https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/12_Years_a_Slave?id=vuOaTwuzlrY https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/12_Years_a_Slav...
- pantalaimon 13y agoGoogle Play only has an "Add to Wishlist" button for me.
- mwally 13y agoCopyright is such bullshit. I have a personal policy of never going to the theater to see any film, despite how badly I want to. Paying these animals only encourages their deviant behavior. If you value a free and open Internet, you will starve Hollywood until it dies. Hollywood only continues to exist because people like you keep feeding them. Don't feed the animals.