
Popcorn Time And Tech's Duty To Do The Right Thing - ztratar
http://zachtratar.com/popcorn.html#.Uynifa1dWex
======
bcoates
Remember that there is no such thing as 'the media industry'.

The Internet killed the music industry because the music industry was
literally in the disc-and-tape business. They were all about distribution,
only doing production as necessary to ensure there was something to
distribute. The only chance the RIAA had was to whine and fight because there
was no place for them in post-CD world.

Movies, on the other hand, are actually in the content production industry.
The Internet and desktop software make movie production and distribution
cheaper, but not by that much. It still takes thousands of people and millions
to hundreds of millions of dollars to make a movie. This isn't likely to
change in the next few decades. This incredible cost of production and large
fixed overhead, combined with vast demand for the product, mean there will
always be opportunities for movie producers to make money, even if the entire
way we distribute and consume movies is turned on its head.

As for the emotional impact disruption: most of the disruption is happening on
the financial side; the alleged reason these people are trusted with billions
of dollars is because they can put on their big boy pants and adapt to
changing business circumstances, because business circumstances are always
changing. For the people in the trenches, stuff isn't changing that much. The
percentage of revenue from PPV vs DVD sales vs Licensing only matters to a
grip if they have a really bizarre contract.

~~~
alex_doom
Nailed it. I felt the article was a bit much on the hand-wringing of constant
technological changes.

~~~
ztratar
*wrings hand

------
nakedrobot2
I appreciate the reflection on morality, but with the RIAA / Hollywood
lobbying to basically destroy the Open Web (as well as other simply horrible
behavior), all bets are off, with these industries. They deserve total
obsolescence.

This is not to say that entertainment itself should become obsolete, of
course! Only that the existing power structures of Music and Movies should be
replaced with something that works, something that does not try to enslave and
prosecute people.

~~~
ztratar
Really? Think about all of the good the industries have brought to the world
and all of the good they still can bring!

Film and music are driving forces for society. We need them.

Their own ignorance and inability towards copyright form sucks. I agree. I
don't think that should doom them into obsolesence. I'll also argue that
wouldn't happen. They would, somewhat righteously, kick and scream until
copyright law tramples on internet freedom.

~~~
Karunamon
We need art. We do not need out of touch, culturally hostile, value-
destroying, rent-seeking middlemen to make art happen.

Every single technological leap has been vehemently opposed by these
dinosaurs. Without fail.

I don't know. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I believe less and less that
the industry cartels' behavior is about simple shortsightedness and greed, and
more and more that their behavior is about control of human culture and
suppression of culture they don't control.

~~~
happyscrappy
>suppression of culture they don't control

What example are you thinking of?

~~~
Karunamon
A great deal of art is iterative, and the copyright maximalists in the
industry groups seem to have no concept of "fair use". Always more
restrictions, always more things protected, always less and less allowed.

Think of it as the cultural equivalent of the patent minefield one steps into
whenever they do something novel with some existing technology.

~~~
happyscrappy
There is plenty of culture that they don't control that is thriving, no need
to exaggerate their power.

~~~
Karunamon
There is plenty of technology that isn't covered via patent, either. That
doesn't mean isn't still easy to step on someone else's copyright (or in some
cases trademark) and your recourse is precisely jack and squat.

I'd think it's ideal to identify and stomp out overreach while it's still a
smaller thing and before it's a much greater thing...

------
sillysaurus3
Technology cannot be suppressed. It's an axiom of history. One way to phrase
it is "change or die," but a more optimistic way would be "change is life."

An important question for the future is how to make it profitable for studios
to create media. If the revenue dries up, then so will the studios. I've heard
Zuck likes Game of Thrones. In the future, there very well might not be anyone
willing to invest money into creating Game of Thrones. Not at that level,
anyway. The visual and epic experience that you're used to circa 2015 might
not be sustainable circa 2035. Would Zuck fund Game of Thrones directly if
needed? What are some ways that such an investment could make sense? Would
crowdfunding make sense? The largest crowdfunding campaign still pales in
comparison to the budgets required to deliver something like 7 seasons of Game
of Thrones. Crowdfunding might not be the answer. There may not be any answer.

~~~
ztratar
I am not advocating for a suppression of technology.

I am advocating for belevolent empathy towards those technology affects. I am
advocating for action that helps people change with the tide, not prevent it.

~~~
sillysaurus3
_We cannot enact change that affects billions of lives and then say “fend for
yourself, figure out the new rules”._

Not only can we, but we did.

It's very natural to feel horrified with the events as they unfold, but
there's really nothing that will stop it. Hacker culture is hardwired to
prevent ostracization of the kinds of people who build Popcorn Time. In fact,
they're considered noble.

What we should focus on is how to find new revenues to fund media creation.
It's not a good idea to try to change the culture.

~~~
maxerickson
A static culture is dead. If you mean you don't think it's a good idea to try
to force change, never mind.

------
res0nat0r
Most movies / tv shows are already currently available digitally or without
DRM (Netflix, Hulu, Apple, Amazon, etc).

I think the point of all of these articles is that they should be available
day one, for $1.99 or some other trivial amount, until then they are just
being ignorant.

This is not going to happen. Early adoptor content will always be higher, just
like it is for many other things. The new Stephen King book is going to be $25
in hardcover for a while before it is $5.00 in paperback because all of his
rabid fans are happy to pay that much to read his new work immediately.

The same goes for media, there is going to be a premium price period, even if
it is digitally distributed, because it makes business sense to do so overall.

~~~
sentenza
> Most movies / tv shows are already currently available digitally or without
> DRM (Netflix, Hulu, Apple, Amazon, etc).

NO. NO. NO. Where did you get this information? It might be that the US of A
is nearing such a state of affairs, but over here in Europe, these services
are either not available or devoid of content.

For instance, I like to follow Continuum, Justified and Game of Thrones. The
only one of these that is available online over here is Justified.

"Watchever", the service that carries it, however, is crippled by weird
licensing deals where seasons of TV series appear and disappear seemingly at
random, because they only get the rights for a limited amount of time. So if I
get a Watchever subscription, I _might_ be able to watch Justified _some of
the time_.

As for the other two, they are just not available online. The poor sods that
can stand to watch it in the dubbed version with commercial breaks will get to
see both series on free TV with a delay of more than a year.

There is no reason to assume that watching Game of Thrones with a one year
delay is problematic in any way. After all, everybody (in Germany) watches it
at the same time, one year later, right?

For GoT there is actually a third option. I can get a subscription with Sky
for 35€ per month, where I'll get tons of sports television and one TV series
of interest: Game of Thrones.

Oh, and that subscription? First time you can cancel it is after 24 months. So
if I want to watch two seasons of GoT, it'll cost me a mere 840€.

Do you see the problem here? If HBO were to shut up and take my money, I'd
gladly pay ten bucks per episode to stream it. But that would be soooooo 21st
century, wouldn't it?

~~~
res0nat0r
All of those shows are created in the USA. Like most content it is going to
take a while to move to other markets, there is no way around this. I really
like watching shows on BBC, I have to wait for them to show up here. This is
the way of life, and price discrimination (because it makes business sense).

> Do you see the problem here? If HBO were to shut up and take my money, I'd
> gladly pay ten bucks per episode to stream it. But that would be soooooo
> 21st century, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately HBO doesn't want your $7/month on Netflix to watch an entire
season of Game of Thrones, then cancel. It costs $6 million/episode. They make
more money by not catering to you as a customer even at $10/episode with no
locked in money like they currently have via subscription model.

~~~
sentenza
The thing is, there is no Netflix here. Neither is HBO by the way (yes, we
_can't_ subscribe to HBO in Germany). There is currently no way for me to give
them any money directly and the indirect methods are all horribly
unattractive, as described above.

HBO is making money over here with licensing deals that cater to old-money
television channels. This is short-sighted, since there are only two options
regarding what can happen:

a) Everybody pirates GoT

b) There is long-term brand damage (to the GoT brand, not HBO), since the
entire country is de-coupled from the viral GoT-hype.

~~~
res0nat0r
They've found they are making more money as they currently stand, than if they
switch which is why they unfortunately haven't. HBO revenue is at an all time
high.

------
joesmo
This is nonsense. If the "media industry" can't survive, it doesn't deserve
to. It's certainly not anyone else's duty to figure out for them what they
haven't figured out for going on two decades now.

The "media industry," specifically the companies involved in lawsuits against
regular people _don 't deserve_ anything but to be gutted and killed. The
situation has been beyond legislation or a decent solution for many years. You
can't expect the same customers who you sued in court to come back and buy
products from you, let alone figure out your industry's problems. The quicker
they die the better for everyone involved.

~~~
ztratar
I disagree wholeheartedly.

If your world was flipped upside down -- say we had AI built tomorrow that
could code. Would you deserve to survive?

I would say it would depend. If you're open to change and new opportunities,
then yes, you deserve to survive. If the rate of change is great enough,
sometimes you need help.

~~~
joesmo
No one has a right to survive in the sense that you mean, especially giant,
useless corporations. If AI came around that made my job obsolete, threatening
my existence, then _no_ , I would not have the right to survive still by
coding especially since the AI would presumably do much better work. Likewise,
media companies do not have a right to survive. When their business model is
superseded, they should adapt or perish like everyone else.

There are plenty of companies whose products are no longer necessary. Do they
have a right to survive? No. Not if they don't adapt and start producing
useful goods. One example would be a company like Kodak who once made most of
their money from analog cameras and film. If they hadn't changed their focus
from their initial offerings they'd be in even worse shape then they are now.
No one who doesn't adapt deserves to survive (in an economic sense, of
course).

~~~
ztratar
Perhaps we have fundamentally different views. To me, it seems that we should
be on the side of doing what is best for humanity.

Companies whos products are no longer necessary? Hollywoods products haven't
lost any value -- they're simply being copied, and thus their value diminished
by illicit means.

~~~
joesmo
I agree that the products themselves (movies, music, books, etc.) have not
lost any value. That isn't what record companies are selling, although it
appears so. What one mainly pays for is distribution, advertising, and
marketing. In that, there is little to no value left. See the artists' cut vs.
the actual price of physical goods (or even digital ones).

------
pasbesoin
For years, I've tried to "do the right thing". Buy my music. Buy or rent the
videos I view. Safari subscription...

The last few days, the Roku is rebooting multiple times per show. Content
seems to be disappearing from Netflix streaming more rapidly than its
appearing -- and no, I'm not interested in the episodes of yet another faux-
reality TV show.

Although its not impacted titles I particularly care about, there has been a
slowly increasing trickle of emails from Safari regarding titles "no longer
available".

The cost of the pipe I'm viewing some of this over continues to rise far in
excess of inflation. And the moment I stop paying my several monthly fees, it
all "goes away" for me.

As much as anything, these and other limitations now primarily serve to _get
in my way_.

So... look out, government-granted and ever-extended monopolies. "The People"
are, I increasingly suspect and directly experience, about to tell you to go
stuff it.

P.S. And on the other end, many of the people I care about seem to be ever
more marginalized. Songwriters and musicians I both enjoy and can actually
afford to see, who all have to hold down one or multiple day jobs. Special
effects artists who, directly or indirectly, win Oscars while losing their
jobs. Writers who... well, "writers" is a broad category, but there have
always been plenty of good ones who live economically marginal lives.

The status quo is a money grab for entrenched interests. I no longer identify
with those.

P.S. I get physical discs from Netflix, as well. Measured against my viewing
habits, they make plenty off of me.

------
sfeng
I very much wish the companies creating TV shows, movies and music would
publish a rate schedule like a stock photo company. Anyone can licence that
content for distribution at the rates published. That way, it would be
possible to create tech companies which deliver this content in a way people
are interested in consuming it with a full library of content.

I have money, I have a job, I'm willing to pay for what I consume, I just am
not willing to wait while low quality video buffers on my TV after struggling
to find a source for the content I'm interested in.

------
skywhopper
If Popcorn Time can do to the TV and movie industries what Napster did to the
music industry, more power to it.

The idea that technology is a threat to jobs is not a new argument. It's true
that things are progressing more quickly now than in the past, but that should
be to our benefit. The problem is not that technology is obsoleting certain
jobs. It's that the profits from the increasing productivity of our economy
are by and large not going to the average worker, but to the Larry Ellisons
and Tom Perkinses of the world. So long as the middle class's income remains
stagnant, so will the economy. Put the record corporate profits into the hands
of the employees who made them happen, and they will jump start the economy.
The richer the middle class becomes, the more jobs there will be. But so long
as we allow the takers at the top to amass all of the rewards of our
technological progress, we'll see high unemployment and stagnant wages
continue at the bottom.

~~~
tttrrr
Oh yes, the problem is not technology! If only we could take money from the
rich and give it to the poor, our problems would be solved! Automation good!
Free market bad!

------
mindslight
> _Every attempt [the media industry makes] to fix copyright protection
> results in proposed legislation that tramples internet [sic] freedom. I
> think there are many people in tech who would be on their side if real
> compromise was put on the table._

The whole post stems from this idea, yet there is actually no possible
compromise. What these companies want is to make piracy hard, if not
impossible. But if we have private user-to-user communication and user-
controlled computing devices, it will _always_ be possible to easily pirate.
If a friend can privately send you a home movie, he can also send you a
Hollywood movie. And if a friend sends you a Hollywood movie but you are
unable to play it, that machine in front of you is either not a computer, or
not _your_ computer.

I believe private communication and computing is the much nobler goal, as this
is the only way the power provided by technology will remain distributed
throughout society rather than centralizing into too few hands. And I believe
this regardless of how badly the resulting piracy ends up hampering creative
production - there is no opting out of technology, and freedom/privacy/self-
determination are simply more fundamental than professional creative works.

So to me, the "right thing" to do is in fact to avoid funding the content
cartel's lawsuits/lobbying to further destroy the Internet. The right thing to
do is to steer clear of anything that encourages the adoption of perverted
technology like DRM. The right thing to do is to abstain from easy services
like iTunes/Netflix, who sell the illusion of progress while recentralizing
the Internet behind the scenes. The right thing to do is pirate and seed as
much as possible, as the only acceptable distribution technologies are those
completely under the users' control. The right thing to do is encourage
adoption of encrypted p2p software amongst the general public, so that ISPs
are less able to differentiate service based on type of traffic. And finally,
the right thing to do is to support artists through ways that are sustainable
in the face of every recorded work being freely available - eg concerts,
public showings, tips, and crowd funding.

------
agentultra
Popcorn Time was exactly the kind of media service we've wanted for over a
decade. It probably wasn't even as good as it could have been had it been
developed in an environment where there wasn't a lobbying industry actively
trying to suppress this kind of innovation.

It almost seems like the entertainment industry is just extracting rent from
the status quo.

I've been curious about volume collective licensing schemes and the like built
into your ISP fee.

There must be a better way forward that doesn't stifle seriously useful
technology.

~~~
ztratar
Extracting rent from the status quo?

Music industry revenue last year = $16B Banking inudstry revenue = $600B+

Entertainment makes money. That is not a bad thing.

~~~
agentultra
Entertainment should make money if they continue providing something people
want.

But it seems like they are extracting rent by using lobbying to maintain
control over the pricing and distribution schemes in order to maintain their
wealth without generating any for anyone else.

Maybe it's not quite the right term, I'm not sure... it _seems_ that way
sometimes though.

~~~
snowwrestler
Let's say entertainment companies do provide something people want. But let's
say that people, even though they want the entertainment, don't want to pay
for it. That is the problem that legal rules like copyright solve.

Without government to enforce fair transactions, sustainable trade and
innovation is not possible. That's not limited to digital stuff--it's true
across the entire economy.

Plenty of people are making money off entertainment. Electronics manufacturers
and ISPs are making very nice livings by selling products and services that
enable digital entertainment.

No one protests paying $200 + $60/month for an iPhone, but ask them to pay
$2.99 to rent a movie on it, instead of BitTorrenting it, and all of a sudden
it's a massive protest issue.

~~~
agentultra
I know what you're saying and I have no problem paying for the media I
consume. I use such services and I believe Popcorn Time demonstrates precisely
how _terrible_ they are. I do have a problem waiting months after a new
release is lucky enough to hit CinemaNow to pay $4.99 to watch a movie within
48 hours. They have the gall to offer the film for "purchase" for $19 first.
Maybe _gouging_ is a better term.

Worse still are the cable companies (some of whom are owned by these very
entertainment companies). I can forget about trying to watch that movie on
CinemaNow in the evenings when my cable company shapes the traffic of
competing video streaming services.

I'm not arguing that copyright is useful. I don't think I have the intimate
familiarity with the various laws to argue that it isn't. I'm just surprised
that things could be better, as demonstrated by Popcorn Time, and yet they are
not so that an industry can continue to extract money from the status quo... a
bar they set themselves with the legislation they create.

------
mattholtom
I didn't get a "don't pursue certain technologies in order to protect certain
industries" vibe from the article. Most here will agree that is futile. There
will always be someone willing to take it a step further for another dollar.

The takeaway in the article is to be mindful of our work, and feel (some)
responsibility towards the PEOPLE whose lives it will change. The collective
"meh" on HN to any person outside the tech industry is disgusting.

------
njharman
Popcorn time is same as releasing a remote exploit bug after the developers
have ignored/disbelieved your previous x warnings.

It's also just as controversial.

The distribution companies, aka Big Media (they don't create content, they
profit over controlling its distribution), business model is no longer valid.
They refuse to change, they deserve bankruptcy.

------
icehawk219
Every time this topic comes up I'm reminded of The Pirate's Dilemma [0], which
is a great read that I recommend. The way the author presents the problem,
using history as a reference, is that when "pirates" come to play and achieve
acceptance by the masses (basically everyone "pirates" sometime at this point
because people like what they're offering) you basically have two options. You
can compete with them and potentially win big like Netflix or iTunes. Or you
can fight against the change to the bitter end. History would suggest that the
first option is always the better one yet the second option seems to be what
the incumbents almost always choose.

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/Pirates-Dilemma-Culture-Reinventing-
Ca...](http://www.amazon.com/Pirates-Dilemma-Culture-Reinventing-
Capitalism/dp/141653220X)

------
dougmccune
I'd love to see someone create a version of Popcorn Time that does its
absolute best to find legal streaming options for movies first, and didn't
actually let you torrent if there was a legal option available to you to rent
(I realize this varies widely by your country). There's definitely a market of
people willing to pay for content, my Amazon rental charges alone prove
there's at least an N of 1 here. But the act of searching 3 times anytime I
want to find an obscure movie or recent release is a bad user experience.
Check Amazon, check iTunes, check Netflix. If it's a TV show it's even worse
because now you add Hulu/Hulu+ into the mix. Give me one place to let me pay
for all available content and I'll use that every time.

------
EGreg
I agree with this article. Who is going to make those multi-million dollar
movies if no one is going to pay for watching them?

What new business models can we offer these guys?

I would say that Peter Jackson's days of making massive flicks are
numbered....

------
bowlofpetunias
We held out our hands 20 years ago, and kept that up for quite a while. We got
laughed at, or worse.

Sure, doing the right thing would probably mean doing it again and again, even
though "they" keep responding with erecting ever more barriers, and lobbying
for ever more repressive legislation.

But personally, I'm tired of it. 20 years ago I believed we could bring them
along, and I put a lot of time and energy into it.

Now I'm just hoping they'll disappear a.s.a.p., before they manage to destroy
our civil liberties with what remains of their power.

------
jack-r-abbit
This morning I was at the grocery store and I noticed they were still stuck in
the 1800s with their stupid shopping baskets and checkout lines with
registers. Dinosaurs. I saw their ancient distribution method and was like
"Fuck. This." I just grabbed things off the self and left my money right there
in its place. They got a shipment last night but had not put the items out on
the shelf yet. I just went into the back room and grabbed stuff from there
too. I'm not waiting for that shit. Fuck them and their stupid choices on how
they want to sell me stuff. Idiots. I know better than them so I'm just going
to do what I think is best. I deserve to get my groceries any way I want...
when ever I want.

Piracy is not a technology problem. It is an attitude problem. Some people
straight up just want stuff without paying. Some people are willing to pay but
don't want to wait. Some people are willing to wait but want it one click
away.

------
etherael
Sorry, they picked this fight, they deserve no mercy.

[http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html](http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html)

When they change their behaviour maybe I could do anything other than play
cheerleader for popcorn time and its ilk, until then bring it on, give them a
quick and merciful death.

------
badman_ting
Who is "we" in this post, I wonder.

~~~
ztratar
The audience ^_^ -- haha.

I targeted the post towards the tech industry. I should probably make that
more clear.

------
lukasm
You cannot expect to get all of millions of programmers out there to do the
right thing. Statically, there are hundreds of killers, thieves (not talking
about piracy) or even people that want to see the world burn.

We need to figure out how society should work in the new conditions.

~~~
ztratar
I agree. It doesn't have to be everyone. It doesn't even have to be in the
thousands. As long as the _right_ people for a given situation are willing to
go out and help, I think that is enough.

10 people can build a rocket engine, but only 1 person is required to explain
how it works and why it's a good thing.

------
Canada
There is a simple solution here. Demand payment up front. Then it won't matter
when bits are copied. Then there will be real social pressure to pay up and
stop freeloading.

------
benched
Ah yes, The Right Thing. A well-defined category if ever there was one. This
is kindergarten morality.

Human beings will never stop creating art. They don't need a Media Industry.

There is no "we", and none of us control the future.

~~~
ztratar
Through iteration and the test of time, the media industry has a way of doing
things that contains value. I think it's hard to argue against that, but
welcome it if you can.

We all control the future. We are the future.

~~~
aredington
The media industry created a way to sustainably undergo the capital
expenditures necessary for high quality studio recording, and the mass
production and distribution of physical media communicating those studio
recordings. It extracted rents in the forms of usurous recording contracts,
hugely divergent pricing from their costs, and avaricious assignment and
stewardship of copyrights.

Technology has reduced the cost of transmitting the information in recordings
to the trivial level that serving someone a glass of water costs.

A combination of technology and prior capitalization has driven down the cost
of studio recording, both lowering the necessary a prior knowledge to record
well, and putting excellent mastering tools in the hands of many at low cost.

What precise value are the members of the RIAA providing today? Please
demonstrate how these members provide an essential value that cannot be
shouldered by individual artists (e.g. Macklemore & Ryan Lewis)

------
waps
The article is both right and very wrong. It's right in all "human" senses of
that word : legally what it's advocating is right. Morally it is the right
thing. From a societal stability point of view you're right. From ... and so
on.

But as you point out, there's one big way you're wrong : reality.

Right or wrong, there's something people don't seem to understand. We have
laws. We have morals. We have society. We have duties. We have rights. All of
those are swept aside when reality wiggles it's toes 10000 km from congress.

Of course, there seems to be one tactic that would be trivial for the movie
industry to adopt :

[https://play.google.com/store/recommended?c=movies](https://play.google.com/store/recommended?c=movies)
(ditto for amazon, iTunes, ...)

Divide all the prices by 100. Stop offering the "buy" button at all. Offer a
per-month total access plan with compulsory licencing. That would help
enormously.

