Chances they will actually go to trial are so very small, particularly if you make it clear their case is junk. Lawyers like to turn this kind of thing into a war of attrition, but if you have the time and education to represent yourself, it becomes asymmetrical warfare.
Yeah, lots of video is easily available online as long as you’re willing to pay their inflated prices or deal with absurd viewing restrictions. And creating price tiers with SD or HD options? Fuuuuuuuck you, content owners.
Maybe piracy wouldn’t be such a problem if they didn’t make watching legally as painful as a pineapple up the ass.
But no, clogging up the legal system with bullshit lawsuits makes way more sense!
Libraries, too. Thank you for playing.
TIL that legal cease and desist / demand notices = blackmail letters. I am shocked that I haven’t been prosecuted for all the blackmail I have perpetrated during my years as an IP attorney. Guess I’ve been lucky so far.
And this is why we can’t have nice things. The complaint used to be that video was unavailable online. Now, the complaint has shifted to price, usage, and regional licensing issues.
Rationalize much?
“regional licensing issues” == “that video is unavailable online”
[quote=“mysterr, post:7, topic:63611, full:true”]And this is why we can’t have nice things. The complaint used to be that video was unavailable online. Now, the complaint has shifted to price, usage, and regional licensing issues.[/quote]Price: When it’s more expensive to get a digital copy than a physical one, despite having no packaging costs, negligible delivery fees, and a smaller cut going to the shop/middleman (if there even is one!), then yeah, you’re right I’m going to complain about the price gouging!
Usage: I’m not allowed to use what I purchased as I see fit? With screwy validation servers, I may not be able to use it at all? You want to use Kinekt or similar devices to make sure I don’t have “too many people” watching with me? I can’t freely watch whenever on whatever devices I want, but only a limited number and/or those from a specific list of companies? You want to install driver-level spyware on my system in order to get the “privilege” of watching what I’ve paid for? Yeah, you’re damn right I’m going to complain about that.
Regional Licensing: So, I can buy it, but I can’t actually watch it because I’m in the wrong place? Yeah, that’s totally fair.
The reason we can’t have nice things is assholes like you refusing to let us have them, then blaming us for the shit you shovel our way.
There can be any number of reasons. What if an artist I respect is being fleeced? Then I can steal the music, pay the artist in person, and throw a brick through their label’s window. Everybody wins!
Well yeah, because they fucked up the implementation. Just because they did what customers were asking for doesn’t mean they become immune to criticism.
Why does buying a digital version of a single season of Game of Thrones (in HD) cost $40, when I could drop $15 on the HBO streaming option and binge watch every single episode? Why does physical media cost the same $40? Why am I not allowed to download an episode with the $15 streaming service for offline viewing, when I could record the episode to my DVR as it’s broadcast live, transcode it to any format that suits my fancy, and watch it on any screen I have available?
The limitations are stupid and inconsistent and the pricing is insane.
Sure, call me an asshole – your ad hom doesn’t detract from your arguments at all, nope.
This is something that I completely agree with. Most of these issues are due to existing licensing arrangements, and of course, sheer inertia. I expect that in time, these issues will be moderated to something approaching reasonableness.
Nevertheless, it is evident that there exists a significant group of consumers who will employ any excuse, no matter how convoluted, to justify and rationalize their infringing actions. Suppose that tomorrow, every major media company decided to offer all video content worldwide for $1.00 per title, viewable anywhere on any device at any time, in perpetuity, within 90 days of initial theatrical or television release. Is there any doubt that there would still be people pirating that content? “Oh, $1.00 is ridiculous, I don’t wanna wait 90 days, fuck big media!” Come on, you know that it would happen.
But are these same people that will find any excuse causing a lost sale? Many may just go without if piracy was not an option. It’s almost impossible to tie piracy to lost sales given that. The pirates that grab the stuff before 90 days may well go ahead and buy it for a dollar after 90 days for better quality or other reasons.
[quote=“mysterr, post:12, topic:63611, full:true”]
Sure, call me an asshole – your ad hom doesn’t detract from your arguments at all, nope.
[/quote]Calling you an asshole had nothing to do with my arguments. It had everything to do with your dismissive, blame-redirecting posts.
[quote=“mysterr, post:6, topic:63611”]
my years as an IP attorney[/quote]
Satan’s little helper.
[quote=“mysterr, post:13, topic:63611, full:true”]Suppose that tomorrow, every major media company decided to offer all video content worldwide for $1.00 per title, viewable anywhere on any device at any time, in perpetuity, within 90 days of initial theatrical or television release.[/quote]Then I would likely download it within the 90 day period, and buy it once available. For popular shows, it can be impossible to avoid spoilers for even one day, let alone 90, and I don’t want any reveals ruined.
Suppose that five dollar bills grew on a special genetically modified strain of cherry trees. Would you pick them?
And you called out an ad hom above.
Every time I have to sit through an anti-piracy advert when I’ve paid for a movie, I issue myself a free movie ticket.
Testify!
