|
Quote:
the point is the cost to stream the video to 1000 people is going to be the same as streaming it to 1. it doesn't matter if it live, recorded or buffered youtube s what being watched now type features will become more prevelent since a tube site will reduce it total bandwidth cost and server more ad views by focusing people into watching groups. btw the usual pause until it buffers completely then hit play is going to be the biggest benefit of this technology. |
Quote:
there is no chance in hell anyone can validate claim such as "more than 50% of all torrent traffic is for content tha people already paid for" you may account percentage of TV shows on all torrents, which again is very doubtful, but there is no way in hell you can actually validate who of downloaders paid for them, many people in 2nd and 3rd world countries don't subscribe to cable, have limited local TV stations and d/l all they can from torrents including TV shows they otherwise have no access too again, I underline - there is no way to validate any number of people who paid for what torrents exploded for one single reason - piracy. stop pushing some twisted numbers w/o backing up your claims with real data - for simple reason - you can not account ALL resources, and you CANNOT validate who paid for what. all your arguments are simply based on some twisted estimations, nothing else. |
another point that you are twisting Gideon, that needs to be straighten
even IF your claim such as "more than 50% of all torrent traffic is for content tha people already paid for" was true.. well damn.. how many copies of software needs to be stolen to beet one single TV show season downloaded legitametly in HD quality? do the math. you're making it sound like piracy is no big deal.. hell with those traffic comparisons it is making huge dent on many industries with illegal downloads, which you're totally dismissing. |
Quote:
if you can't validate it for one then it also absolutely impossible to make the exact opposite arguement |
Quote:
vcr can be used to bootleg movies should we eliminate the right of timeshifting now the answer is the same for that case leave the tracker alone leave the seeder alone leave the leacher with a fair use right alone go after the leacher without the fair use right |
Quote:
|
Quote:
publicly available downloads only explode piracy and have nothing to do with fair use, until there are mechanism in place to validate your purchase of some content license. period. |
Quote:
the research study used the counting principles/allocation principles used for the data used in the anti-piracy cases. if the number and counts were invalid it would be impossible to convict a single person of piracy. the court recognized the validity of the statiticaly anlysis when used as evidence to convict it equally valid when i quote it. btw if the content is not available in a country then no sale is being lost if no sale is being lost the economic damage is no greater then if the "piracy" never occured. which means your trying to justify censorship using the economic monopoly of copyright. Quote:
and the home viewing market which exceeds all other markets combined would never have existed. thank god idiots like you are not responsible for defining what is fair use. |
Quote:
the home viewing market (which exceeds all the revenue combined) created by the vcr can't exist because creators could be paid from the revenue generated blank cassettes. |
dude just buy a vcr and stop bitching about fair use on the internet. internet is not a vcr.
if something laying for free it will be taken regardless it was paid before or not and most likely will be taken by those who haven't paid for it before - nature of a human kind. where is a fair use when it is all available for free without validating who has right to download it? WFT is wrong with you? you saying go after leecher without fair use right - do you have a way to monitor all reasources and new reasources poping up and actually prevent illegit downloads? no? so kindly GFY :321GFY |
50 who gives a shits?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
vcr are illegal too since they haven't found a way to stop you from using them to make bootlegs of movies. |
> if the content is not available in a country then no sale is being lost
that content is available in many 2nd and 3rd world countries, cost to subscribtion may not be justifiable to many in those countries and their logic "why would I spend 20 dollars a month for cable when I can get all of it for free on the internet, those 20 bucks will feed me for a week or a month". so once again you prove of twisting things to fit your baseless claims. laws are behind technology, with every passing day, month and year your piritebays will be pushed out off of a face of internets - no question about it, while you can defend your twisted vcr rights to your very last breath. |
Quote:
That would not be covered by the fair use of access shifting. btw do you want to give a real world example of a country where the cable companies spent the billions in investment necessary to deliver cede content and the standard of living as so low 20 bucks would represent a weeks worth of food. i think it one of those strawmen arguements you guys keep fabricating to trying and justify your insane technology should be held back until they can perfectly prevent any infringment bullshit. |
Uh... If you have 1,000,000 users coming to your tube you are making about 2,000 a day... BW, hosting, some licensing later and you are still over 700 to 1000 a day on top... Who cares about BW?
|
Illegal tube sites - that sucks for the actual content owners. Good luck. Especially the long videos of 30 minutes length high quality content are not good for content owners.
You know, actually, Youtube has been sued for stealing content, too. I use Youtube's embedded music videos in my music fan site, but I like to link back to the original artist's web site, so they get some traffic there, too. I mean users upload interesting content. What about videotaped live concert shows and bootlegs that are not supposed to be there? Maybe the music artists want people to buy tickets, instead of people watching live tapings of music shows on Youtube for free. The peer-to-peer applications such as Kazaa and Limewire have been the subject of much talks, as well. Torrents, mp3, warez, video files, free games, paysite password uploads and downloads - these are all subjects of much discussion and talks. You say it's cheaper running a tube site. I think it is cheaper to run any site, actually. More and more hosting sites out there offer "unlmited bandwidth" for a cheaper price (than before). I don't run a tube site, but I use Youtube's embedded videos. I think it's Youtube's problem if something on Youtube exists that should not be there. Youtube encourages webmasters to place Youtube's embedded videos on their sites. Youtube does not have much porn content. You can get full relatively high quality full music videos and live tapings of concerts on Youtube for free. |
Quote:
there are plenty of countries where people live on $20/weekly for food bills. |
Quote:
cable companies investing in the infrastructure to deliver the tv shows for 20/month AND the standard of living so low that $20 would buy you a weeks worth of groceries. if the standard of living is that low, it not very likely to have fast internet (so they could torrent) and cable infrastructure. |
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yes clearly as you can see here, no one is prepared to PAY for something they can GET FOR FREE. http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress....art-global.png Oh hang on... It looks like they are? |
|
Quote:
I was referencing to the "free culture" crowd specifically, not to the whole world's population in general. For those ppl what I said about them is true. |
Quote:
i have gone back to both places. when a countries standard of living is so low you don't have money for niceties like tv or internet. think about how stupid your statement is the tv that broadcasts the signal you say is happening at 20/month cost 200 that 10 months of food how the fuck would they afford the tv in the first place if the choice was between paying for cable and getting to eat. the fact is you made that arguement up to try and justify using copyright to hold back technological advances. you made up a condition that will never exist the funny part is how fucking greed would you have to be to demand that people give up eating so that they can enjoy your content in that third world country (you made up) |
average monthly salary in Russia and Ukraine is about $500-600 per person
cheapest cable subscription $10-20/m decent broadband connection $10-20/m there are many people there whos weekly food bill is about $20/week I don't know about cable investments, but they do have infrastructure for communications/broadcast/cable as well sell current DVDs and such people do manage to survive there, do manage get TVs, furniture, cars, computers, internet, vacation - although it is game of getting by and survival there for most unlike in the west game of comfy living. keep talking ignorance |
Quote:
even though it airs almost a year later in UK. if that a case then a sale would be lost so, that would be a copyright infringement and NOT covered by access shifting access shifting would only cover the abuse of using the copyright monopoly to eliminate competition for a MEDIUM of distribution. Like the movie theaters do with first run right to a movie. or tv stations do with regional broadcast restrictions. oh and btw you should realize how the communist nature of those countries (when the infrastructure as put in) would effect the investment necessary to provide such infrastructure. look at countries that actually had to get the investment from a captital economy, tv and internet are a community thing, you go to the local rec center to watch tv and to surf the net. only the very rich have tv and internet in their home. |
Quote:
Yes, I read about the Java bittorrent player, and what does that have to do with Flash? If a bittorrent player or system is seen as largely infringing, at least in the US it will face scrutiny: Napster, Grokster, Limewire. And no, while RTMFP can use consuming peers as providers, for video it is much more realistic that the provider peers will be stations set up by the network. It's just more efficient for high bandwidth content like full video. When Adobe talks about reducing bandwidth costs they are referring to build costs associated with scaled networks. It costs much less to build 100 small gateways than one really huge one. The network is still providing the bandwidth, but at much lower cost because the pipes are smaller. As for Adobe developing a general bittorrent video player, anyone who believes that knows nothing about this company, or understands the RTMFP protocol that Adobe is promoting. Adobe wants ALL the money. They have zero altruistic sense. Their aim is to own the platform, own the network, own the rights management that content providers use to secure their feeds. Traditional P2P lets money go to too many other people, so there's no point in them creating such a system. |
Quote:
I always thought it was the STUDIOS that required theaters to sign minimum-length engagements and "must show" contracts, often MONTHS before a picture is even completed. And take up to 90% of the box office receipts on the first weeks. And block-book (was illegal at one time; isn't any more) a less profitable picture in order to get the rights to show a more popular one. With such friendly terms with your studio suppliers, it's a wonder why everyone doesn't want to run a movie theater! |
If you spent as much time working as you do running through legal details of this stuff, you could probably afford to buy some of the stuff outright and not go through the hassle.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Meanwhile openbittorrent was shut down, isohunt was ordered to block US visitors.
Finally some good news. |
I've sat in the sun too much this afternoon so can't provide a decent post on this other than about the Please say Thank You on warez forums.
It hasn't got much to do with actually thanking the uploader. A lot of it is to do with every thankyou gets the thread bumped up to the top again so more views + more downloads + more bumps in a loop. Monetising the free sharing seems to be paid per 1000 downloads on things like hotfile at the moment although it works out at a very low amount per file. Not sure anybody could live off free sharing as a producer. |
Quote:
Gideons approach/suggestion to deal with piracy is to go after leeches with no fair use right. This isn't a bad approach and may work for huge mega corporations What about little guys? small production shops, who are pushing only 1-2mil in revenues? let say there is a stock photo company, let say they release 10-20 CD/DVDs a year, and have generous 50% gross profit. One day someone decides to utilize redundant backup of modern public torrent trackers to store these DVDs. what happens next? almost instantly their content freely available on all pirate resources with 100 thousands of downloads globally. How this small shop can monitor all such resources and go after all leeches without fair use right? - Gideon suggests for this company to use most of their profits to legally pursue criminal offenders. I say it's impossible. Content should be protected and freely accessible illegitimate downloads should be prevented. There is no point for a small shop invest their resources in product and then they have to spend all their profits to go after leeches. next thing Gideon will say to this small company "fuck you, my vcr rights should allow anybody steal anything they want" |
Quote:
Note that most of the premium content trickles from the expert audience to mainstream; they are the ones posting site rips and updates. Some (definitely not all) of those updates are then spread to the mainstream. The distinction is worth while, because the mainstream are inherently more opportunistic, savvy more dedicated yet willing to trade BW + traffic for torrent ratios or money for file hosting subscriptions, then the experts who can justify the effort of obtaining content in the first place. That's an oversimplification, but you can see there are different classes of viewer / downloader, each of which might be convinced or incentivised to pay by different means. Can't convert them all, but with compromise there's definitely room for work. |
Quote:
Just one example: Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yes there are many uploaders who're doing it for monetary reasons only, but they have low (if any) status within communities. That is especially true for old and well established forums like pornbb and saff. They call them "cashwhores" and that's about as respectable as being a sigwhore or a contestwhore at GFY and other adult industry boards. Bitching over the lack of response and not enough "thank you" or ppl not giving "karma" to the uploader is just part of their daily routine - seems funny at first, but then you just get used to it. In general, appreciation of the "hard work" of the uploaders is part of their etiquette, at least in the established communities. And those "thank you" uploaders are the most dangerous ones - cashwhores usually just post some random stuff and are not focused on your niche/sites/content specifically. Not so with the "thank you" crowd - they know their niches, know where to find passwords and where to download stuff from, they're focused on several sites or even on one site that they believe is cool and they believe their mission is to "share" that cool stuff with the rest of the world. When you kill cashwhore links, he'll just go on posting random stuff and is unlikely to ever post your videos again. But "thank you" poster will not give up that easily - he'll reupload, protect his links with some linksave container etc etc. You need to follow him daily, and kill everything he posts - the moment he feels the pressure is off he'll immediatly repost your entire member area again. |
dozey, what I'm suggesting hasn't invented yet although it sounds similar to DRM. I'm all aware of failed DRM attempts.
If Gideon wants to timeshift his favorite TV channels let him go to his cable company and bitch about having all time access for all aired programs that he's subscriber of, ask them do netflix type of online site, ask them implement subscription validated tracker where he and other subscribers can share their recorded shows. Let him demand from Adobe if he uses their products to have license validated tracker where other licensees can redundantly backup their software. He will gladly pay premium for such services. that will be fair use and valid timeshifting. all content freely available for anyone to download is not fair use it is piracy on global scale. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123