It consisted of a link to sign up to two separate websites to download a specific player that would stream the video for me on supported platforms only. Also, the HD version might not be available right away.
I checked and the torrent of the HD version had been online for 30 minutes already.
Why do they bother with this bullshit? It makes no logical sense and all it does is hurt them.
When I received my email today and found out it was Ultra Violet, I was quite upset. I emailed the address they have listed on the F.A.Q. site with my complaint.
I backed the Kickstarter, but in order to watch it on my AppleTV I have 2 options: 1. Purchase from iTunes. or 2. Pirate.
The money I spent to back the Kickstarter could have been used for the iTunes copy. Which doesn't need an external player and is easily accessible on my AppleTV. The iTunes version may have DRM, but it's easily strippable if I desire to back it up for example.
Edit: Some spelling.
I backed Shadowrun returns, and I think I got a direct download at first, but I also got keys for both Steam and GOG.com (DRM free, so extra nice). And a DLC that's bigger than the original campaign. Some Kickstarters know how to take care of their backers.
While you could strip the copy protections that's a crime.
In the back of my mind I feared that the digital copy would be Ultra Violet. It was a gamble and understand it was a risk, that I ended up losing. I would buy the iTunes or Blu-ray now, but I don't want to spend more on a movie.
But "do not use Kickstarter as a shop or as a pre order platform" was reasonably common before the veronica mars kickstarter; the changes to tier rewards was before the VM kickstarter (and perhaps Kickstarter needs to implement another change to prevent people offering things they cannot provide).
We need to keep repeating the message that tier rewards are just suggestions of what you might get, maybe, possibly, and that there are many reasons why you might not get that product.
That's a serious problem with Kickstarter - they allow groups to offer tiers that appear to be pre-orders and do nothing when those pre-orders are not delivered.
Kickstarter isn't going to stop doing this despite all the criticism. So people need to keep reminding everyone that tier rewards are menaingless. Maybe you'll get the reward, maybe you won't, but you don't back a project for the reward but because you want to see the project succeed.
Repeating this message may make kickstarter stop projects being dishonest with reward tiers.
It's a funding platform and of course funding does come with the risks of projects failing, founders running away with the money. But, it certainly doesn't have to be a free lunch giveaway as in, "Hey, you wanna start a product/company and be a millionaire? Great! Take my $100 and make merry! No no, I don't want anything in return, I am just doing charity". No thank you sir! If I have to do charity, I know where the drop boxes are.
So, no I am not doing charity on kick starter and if that's what Kickstarter is about, this charity, then it's basically flawed! I don't think I am asking for much! Idea of free lunch is unacceptable to me and I just hope that's not what Kickstarter is about.
There are non-profit ventures that I've supported on Kickstarter and IndieGoGo and I have never wanted anything in return. That's an entirely different story.
If I back something, I want the product they promised given they didn't fail. If they failed, I am fine with it and I wish them luck w/o any expectations that they would return my money.
BTW: Retard is a pointless insult. The people you are calling retard don't care. But the people who have learning disability do care - language like this continues to be used to oppress those people, to the point that even when adjusted for illness they die earlier than the general population because of discrimination.
Please consider using a better insult.
"It's only a crime in fucking stupid countries", perhaps?
In one case, what I actually got was a bunch of private web streams, with promises of downloads "someday in the future when it's all finished".
In another case, I also got a rather poor quality web stream with awful subtitles - eventual pirate versions offered a much higher quality product.
It really is sad that even with things like Kickstarter projects, legal digital video offerings still remain awful compared to what you can get illegally.
I strongly suspect they're the entity responsible for the distribution decisions.
Of course, the fact that Veronica Mars was kickstarted puts a hole in my theory. :) I'm guessing that its stakeholders are still partially in the old guard mindset, and/or they're trusting Hollywood's "best practices" for digital distribution. (They may also be under pre-existing contract restrictions for the Veronica Mars IP.)
What does work is making content that is desired easy to get to and consume (at their own pace without delays before releases etc) at wide scale. People will pay for ease and they do like rewarding the creators of good entertainment and educational services. The better experience will always win, even if it is pay.
Where before content creators wanted everyone tuning in at one time for big ad dollars and network effect, now it is the opposite, they should want consumers to drift through their lands of content at their leisure and not want to leave. This actually distributes traffic and demand as well so there aren't huge funnels of bandwidth hogging false demand schedules (HBOGO recently failed on the last episode of True Detective, where House of Cards people watch more distributed because it is all available at once).
So thanks for your comment, I'm just gonna torrent the movie instead of using my flixster code.
edit: I'm streaming in in Flixster right now, I had no problem (didn't have to download a player).
Same for the news servers. The TV companies could learn a thing or two from the efficiency of the pirate world.
I'd say its a pricing problem.
Right now 'The Wolf of Wall Street' is available from Amazon Instant Video at $20. On your popular torrent site virtually the same product is available for $0 + (riskOfGettingCaught * $1,000,000 fine) = $0.000001 ?
You can either try to increase the riskOfGettingCaught or decrease the legal price.
I think the industry should do what Hulu has done over the past 5 years. Give the product away virtually for free, collect an enormous user base while you starve/kill the demand for the equivalent torrents, slowly increase the price of the service until you find equilibrium, then profit.
But hey, maybe piracy isn't really a problem? The greatest assumption people make is that because someone downloaded a movie illegally they were willing to buy it for $20. Which is false. I'd have to imagine that selling 'The Wolf of Wall Street' for $20 on Amazon is more profitable than selling it for say $19 and capturing a few pirate consumers.
But I wonder if theres a number between $0 and $19 that captures enough of the piraters to be more profitable than $20?
 https://mediacru.sh/cpUO31TIqLpo (abrasive language, but good points)
I suspect there is a ratio between the available price and the perceived value of time from the consumer.
I don't know. On the surface, isn't that kind of an amazing improvement?
Coming back to the "theoretically," the problems I see with Hulu are certainly driven by stupid contractual obligations: they usually only have the last five episodes of any given series, so if you want to start watching something halfway through the season you're out of luck; they sometimes don't have rights to stream things on Hulu Plus that they do on normal Hulu, which is banana crazypants; and of course, there are shows and even whole networks they don't carry. But out of all the issues with Hulu, I'm not sure their failure to give us everything commercial free is actually that outrageous.
It didn't take long for them to stop that practice, which perplexed me - what was the point in getting a basic cable TV package then? You directly pay them and they still cram just as many ads into the timeslots?
Because people would still pay for it.
Since FX took over in S4, their iTunes versions have between sandwiched with ads for other FX programs. ADS IN FULL-PRICED iTUNES DOWNLOADS.
Filled me with such rage.
The future is definitely being able to stream all the shows and movies immediately after release anywhere on the web. The problem is it could take 20 years before we get anything close to that at the pace Hollywood is moving. Something like Popcorn Time could've pushed the move to happen within 5 years or less.
I agree, I wonder though if future Hollywood will be more or less profitable.
Imagine a future where all movies/tv shows were given away for free/stolen, how would they profit?
I think the answer is advertising inside the movie/show. I recently saw this done pretty tastefully in an episode of 'Workaholics' where the group wove some product placement into the story pretty naturally. I was day dreaming about how far they could take this and imagined them freezing the scene and the three of them breaking character/fourth wall to pitch a product and then unfreezing the scene and going back to acting. You could imagine this getting so popular that it eventually becomes annoying and then eventually edited out of any shows/movies.
What I think is even more interesting is the fact that advertising, such a wildly inefficient method, right now props up so many industries.
Imagine if Google released a product tomorrow that was 100% efficient at replacing advertising.. Some sort of beam that just got people to understand/like your product immediately. What would all of these major industries do for revenue?
What makes you think advertising is inefficient? For specific parties it's extremely efficient. It gives the advertiser the power to change the viewer's preference between Brand X and Brand Y. Allowing himself to be convinced to buy Brand X in exchange for content allows the viewer to pay for the content with money out of Brand Y's pocket instead of his own. In many cases this brings more profit to the content provider than that customer would be willing to pay directly out of pocket. The detriment goes almost entirely to the competing brand who loses a sale to the advertiser.
Which is really the trouble for advertisers. Advertising is an arms race. Brand X buys advertising and takes market share from Brand Y, so Brand Y buys advertising to take it back. Repeat until advertising expenses consume a significant portion of the margins for every brand, in all industries across the entire world economy. Kind of a nice business to be in, isn't it? Start an economic war and force all sides to bid against each other to buy your weapons.
> Imagine if Google released a product tomorrow that was 100% efficient at replacing advertising.. Some sort of beam that just got people to understand/like your product immediately. What would all of these major industries do for revenue?
Use the beam to make people like their products enough to pay money for them?
A viewer's time is worth more to the advertiser than to the viewer, and the content provider profits more from arranging that transaction than selling the content directly for money. Content providers could still sell content for money if advertising somehow disappeared, but they would be significantly less profitable because they would lose their ability to arbitrage the time-for-money transaction between the advertiser and the viewer.
so if you were chatting with a friend, and the topic of drinking or gambling came up, wouldn't this ad turn up as part of the conversation? wouldn't the image of the company/brand be on your mind, and so you'd speak about it? Even if you don't personally transact with the company, branding is hugely important to these companies that mainly produce a commodity, but differentiate using branding. Classic example is nike, or fashion labels.
This has been around for a while: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ProductPlacement/LiveA...
There's also a service problem. Why can't I find my favorite movie from the 80s on netflix? It's pretty frustrating.
Not going to happen. The television/media industry is addicted to the ad rates you get from traditional television, and have to put many more ads into online content to receive the same revenue (hence why so many Hulu ads). So the balance is, how painful (# of ads) do you make it before your average Joe figures out RSS + Torrent Client + RSS Feed?
I know there's a reason (traditional ad rates, etc.) - but I don't understand the disparity between online and television advertising rates.
If anything online advertising would seem to be significantly more powerful since you can build customized profiles about the viewers (vs. only having a Nielsen chips in every so many households) and broad TV show audiences.
Compare startups with no revenue getting bought or valued for far more than startups that do. Same concept.
Why wouldn't pirates just go back to pirating when the price increases for the service? If pirating with RSS feed + torrent client is so easy, why would they move to the legit service in the first place?
A Hulu Queue is more convenient than pirating I would think, but once you have to spend greater than X time on ads, you'd rather deal with the hassle of pirating. Just speculation.
Also majors have decided to delay releasing movies here because they think we are the main people pirating movies.
Price counts, but service counts more, IMVHO.
Delayed releases? Pirate. Poor quality? Pirate. Ad-riddled media? Pirate.
I subscribe to so much different stuff right now, but the second a service demands I watch ads over just paying more, it stops receiving money altogether.
I think pricing is a separate, but related concern. I paid ~17 USD to watch Gravity in theatres once, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay anything to watch "the Wolf of Wallstreet". I might watch it for free, though. So in this case, if I were to pirate WoWst -- that wouldn't be a lost sale. It'd be free marketing (if I recommend it to others), or well, nothing I guess. Not a lost sale, because buying wasn't considered.
The thing is, people have different tastes, and for someone that's a die-hard De Caprio fan, WoWst might be worth $20. I might be willing to buy some film others think is crap etc. Now, had I watched an unlicensed copy of WoWst and thought it was ok, I'd probably recommend it to someone who really liked Leo -- even if I wouldn't consider it a great movie. And if did consider it a great movie I certainly would.
I think we're seeing (and have been seeing) a disturbing shift around the ideas of laws with regards to content: anti-piracy (anti-usability ;) groups seem to argue that people want to steal, and only enforcement keeps them from stealing. This disregards the idea that laws are a form of consensus -- there's not a law enforcement department in the world that can work without citizen support. Laws that are regarded as unfair and unwarranted will be broken.
I feel that in general arguing piracy kills music and film, is like arguing libraries kills books.
I'd much rather spend a few dollars and get a DRM free copy, than spend a few minutes on a shaddy ad/malware ridden torrent site to get a free DRM free copy.
Edit: Does searching a dvd count as time spent before being able to watch the movie? Since you can't, ahem, copy dvds to your NAS (they're encrypted with CSS to prevent yarr pirates y'know).
On the other hand I also play PC games occasionally, I just buy them on Steam, GOG, Humble Indie Bundle, ...
n. One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation.
n. A ship used for this purpose.
n. One who preys on others; a plunderer.
Below $0.000001? Assuming everyone in the world buys that movie, it would only make $7000.
I still think it is way too low an estimate, but it might be closer if we assume that people who pirate movies tend to do so with thousands of movies.
But yeah, your chance of "getting caught" is way way higher than the number implied here.
To quote Captain Renault "I'm shocked..."
As an aside, that movie is one of the worst I've seen in a long time. I wouldn't consider it worth my time to watch it again if I was given $20.
Respectfully, I think the authors didn't think much and were kinda dumb. The project had a great potential, it was barely legal, they bought a fight with the media industry, but the cherry-on-top is that they putted their asses on the line. They shouldn't have used their real names. Anonymise your accounts and be happy.
But as I said, it doesn't matter. Everyone already has a fork of their repo (which has over 70 open pull-requests) and any one of these forks may become the new "official". It won't stop. The gears are already running, much like bitcoin. Fortunately.
There is one suggestion I have for those developing the forks further: have an option for downloading through Popcorn Time. For those of us whose connections suck, having Popcorn Time vet the quality of videos with the download option would be a killer feature.
However, for the same file of 1.5GB it took me ~10 mins to download. (Mac)
Either they were going to be shut down by their own choice, or their hand would be forced by outside litigation. Just because something is legal doesn't mean companies won't spend millions of dollars to make your life miserable because of what you built.
Another way of looking at it is that, as things stand now, the legal system is just another weapon the rich and influential can use to crush the little man.
Just because your product is legal, but mainly used for illegal purposes really opens you up to a lot of issues. They should have expected this was coming.
If not, then you were illegally distributing the film while you were watching it using PopcornTime.
The fact that this is still legal is largely historical accident, and is bound to be overturned by one lawsuit or another, or Congressional loophole closing. It's still morally a crime.
Your claim is no more valid than saying if you tell your friend to park their car illegally, you are an accessory to fraud.
What is the possibility that Github was DDoSed by agents working in or for the movie industry because of Popcorn Time, attempting to either disrupt development or access?
I know, I know. It's outrageous. Unlikely. Crazy, even. But to say I'd be surprised this day and age would be a bit of an overstatement...
If they wanted to avoid piracy, I think it might have had some potential going the legal route as well. It would be a nice interface to browse legal movies, documentaries, web series, etc.
Strange decision, I could see a company like Netflix buying them out for a rather large sum of money, within a short period of time.
As far as using it as a stepping stone to future jobs, why wouldn't they run the application longer? They pulled the plug before it became a widespread success. It they waited longer, the name Popcorn Time would actually be recognizable, which would be great for their résumé, kind of like saying you developed Napster. Now, they'll mention they worked on Popcorn Time, and have to explain to everyone it was an app to stream torrents, that had a brief shelf life.
They really should have road this out longer. Even the name was catchy. Someone else is going to fork the project and achieve the success they would have earned.
Really? I think Netflix would "suddenly" have each and every contract broken and no content can be watched on Netflix services ever again.
Well, with the exception of anything that runs on Popcorn, of course.
First off, it's a perfect fit. The Popcorn Time audience streams the latest movies and tv series. This is exactly the audience Netflix wants to target.
Popcorn Time hitting 100 million users doesn't seem far fetched. Netflix pays around $16 for each user that you refer to their free trial. Let's say Netflix buys Popcorn Time, converts it to movies that are in the public domain, and tries to refer everyone to the Netflix trial to continue streaming new films. We'll say 99% of people leave, and 1% take up the trial. That's 1 million trial users, which Netflix would currently pay 16 million dollars for in referral fees.
In short, it could easily grow into an application worth tens of millions to a company like Netflix.
The movie industry would love it. Netflix destroys the most popular service for illegally streaming movies, and they make some money off the Netflix subscribers.
If someone makes a successful fork, maybe we'll see this happen.
1) Build something incredible.
2) Get a ton of cred for it.
3) Release it to the masses via open source.
4) Wait for the lawyers to roll up en masse.
Then simply flee the scene, avoiding any legal entanglements and with steadfast assurances what you've created will now go on without you, and most likely morph into something even more incredible.
Genius I tell you, genius.
It is wonderful how the Internet makes it hard to suppress information.
It did prove once again that demand for easy services is desired but lots of that were also because it was free.
I've had to resort to a lower-tech approach:
* Rent a cheap server
* Run transmission daemon on it
* SSH into server, port forward 9091
* Connect to localhost:9091 and add torrents that way
* When downloads are done, scp them off to my local network
Con: way too many steps involved
Pro: encrypted to/from my local network
I know this is not nearly the same as Popcorn Time, but it would be nice to automate all this.
I have couchpotato running on my VPS. When I add a movie to it, it'll find and drop the torrent file to a directory, where rtorrent will pick it up and immediately start downloading it. When it finishes, it moves the files to a temporary directory, where couchpotato will detect them, rename them and move them to yet another directory, where Git Annex Assistant will add them to its store and sync to a Raspberry Pi in my home through SSH/rsync.
Then I can either copy the file to my laptop or Android by doing "git annex get <file>" or stream it from the Samba server running on the Pi.
Complicated to setup initially, yes, but now it runs smoothly with almost no manual work.
And of course, while I don't consider it a problem where I live, removing the torrenting from your connection to a VPS in the Netherlands reduces the chances of having legal problems.
And the VPS isn't a dedicated seedbox - I'd still use it for my email server (Spamhaus' PBL prevents me from sending from my home connection), Tiny Tiny RSS hosting, website hosting, etc.
The law isn't quite so black and white. There are a lot of different theories good lawyers can come up with. At the end of the day, the only thing that's legal is what a court says is legal.
In Sweden for example, the law is not just the law as it is written in the official book. Any work material related to the creation of law also count as law. In the case of the Pirate Bay trial, this is what the prosecutor had to dug out in order to find something that they could accuse the crew of (The working material described an intent to make it illegal to run a service if it is being primary used for illegal purposes). For example, running a pool bar primary used by a biker gang would make the bar illegal to run.
When it comes to highly political sensitive crimes, it not enough to simply buy a book about the law of the land and read it. Somewhere else, there will be a vague sentence that count as law.
Kafka my friend.. was there first.. saw it, told us
There is a standard for this techno, it's called PPSP  it covers both "free" network (with a DHT tracker) and controlled networks (the one required for distributing protected content). There is even an free software that is based on it  and a c++ library . It is was developed during P2PNext .
During this research some one achieved sub-second DHT lookup and now works at Spotify.
If you are interested in the subject of P2P maybe "P2P virtual network" or "second life P2P" search might interest you.
My interest is for the time being a graph database over a DHT. I am at the very early stage in terms of code. But maybe this might give you an idea of what I'm looking for .
Since you ask...
3rd iteration: It already took me too much time to write this comment.
The code is really not interesting, the implementation of nolang is broken, I did not find time to debug it, not only "I want to do too much things at once" syndrom but I also wanted to mock the idea of some part of the "final" app, in a browser and apply it in the context of Culture&Empire to reach potential dev/users. Since the web is not my primary target, it doesn't really matter in any way but there's still valuable (to me) ideas in the app. This is the most exciting thing that I ever had in mind. It might sound also kind of naive: instead of pushing Pythonium forward and getting a Python framework similar to meteor or derbyjs I will do "no".
The primary application I will build on top of "no" will be something like the venerable delicious bookmark website.
As far as I can think, I would like to be able to boot a computer to be a "no" node with the very minimum. Code & Data will live primarily in the DHT.
 The following link is lying. the exact definition of the compliant mode is "wanna be compliant" or "can be compliant"
 https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pythonium 
Now a technology comes along that in several ways delivers a better service than Netflix to consumers, for absolutely no cost to Hollywood. Is there any reason Hollywood shouldn't just release content to torrents, and sell an unlimited license for $8, $16, $24, or ?? a month to consumers living in countries which respect intellectual property?
I would gladly pay some amount of money to the content creators if it would buy me Popcorn-time service in a legal manner. I would say the vast majority of Americans are in this boat. They want the service that Popcorn Time used to provide, and they'll pay a price for it. It makes absolutely no sense to me that Hollywood hasn't figured out how to make an absolute killing off of this free infrastructure by merely selling legal amnesty in the form of bittorrent-streaming licenses.
- Set this monthly fee
- Work out a way to share the fee among content creators, and get that agreed by those content creators
- Get the data required to support the fee-sharing agreement (e.g. movie plays)
- Protect the revenues through, e.g. legal action against those who use the service without paying, and providing a payment mechanism for everyone else
Think about it from the point of view of an individual content creator. If I were to create the best movie ever, and wanted to maximise my revenue from the money/sweat/risk I put in to get this far, what kind of revenue sharing model would need to exist, in order to persuade me to make the movie available on a service like the one you describe?
It seems to me their only "fault" was making things too convenient.
They also probably got a few thousand notices they would be taken to court.
Their entire goal worked, though - make the app in private, have it blow up, and since the code is FOSS now thousands of people have it and it won't die. Forks can spring up and improve on it just fine - hell, the original developers can work on it still under someone elses repo - but they aren't liable for anything.
Now it's clear there's a demand for similar tools this isn't a tide that can be stopped.
Studios and all assume that people are thieves.
There are a number of cases to think of:
Tim Ferriss teamed with.. BitTorrent to distribute his latest book (4 Hour Chef). He wrote a detailed article on his experience and the correlation between BitTorrent downloads and sales (number driven he is, he tracked that real-time).
The model was the second-shareware model of early DOS games (you get part of the content, and if you like it, you buy the rest). And people bought it. There was an ad on BitTorrent clients. I haven't bought the book yet, but I haven't even downloaded the free content since I'm saving the thing for later.
There was Radiohead releasing "In Rainbows" as a "Pay what you want" which is extremely risky (since you're giving all the content). And yet, I'll let the reader look up the numbers (it ended being pretty lucrative, since a lot of people pre-ordered it).
Studios and Publishers seem to forget that a lot of human beings would pay if it were easy. One of the reasons I got a MasterCard recently is to pay for books I've read. I live in a country where English isn't spoken, so there's no way I can find them in libraries, I tried to buy on Amazon, they told me they can't ship it where I live.
Second: It's ridiculous to expect of me to buy a movie I haven't watched, or a book I haven't read.
Bear in mind that even with content so easily to be pirated, most movies, and I mean like 99% of them, I wouldn't waste bandwidth to download them. I swear that I wouldn't even watch them if I were paid. Why ? Because a movie is 1h30 to 2h minimum and my life is made of hours and minutes and seconds. I don't like to waste my time. It's not like I'm immortal.
So most movies are crap to being with, not everyone is De Niro.
An other reason: Content is hardly accessible the legal way because their platforms suck big time. I give an example ?
Say there's an interview on NBC or CNN (though free).. I wouldn't watch it on CNN or NBC, because their site is so slow, their players are horrible you want to punch your laptop. So I go to Youtube and find that video and watch it without a glitch.
So I wouldn't even watch free content on the platform of the provider of this free content, because his platform sucks !
If your website is straining someone's computer's resources and making the fan go crazy, you got to ask yourself tough questions (and probably fire some people).
I gladly pay for things. I donate on random websites just because I want to, or because I liked something, or because they had a funny thing, etc.
I've heard this argument many times before, but don't buy it (no pun intended).
There are enough professional and user reviews, video clips, etc of everything for sale online that anyone can make an informed decision on whether the product is likely to be something they'll enjoy.
Why not take advantage of all these great online sources? If many films, for example, haven't suited your taste it may be more valuable spending some time on sites that help you find films more to your taste, and reading/watching/listening to user opinions that are more in line with your own.
That said, I do prefer music services that allow the user to preview tracks prior to purchase. Even Youtube has become a popular platform for previewing content. Seems reasonable for such a type of short-form media.
As for accessibility, companies do need to provide better and more open support for customers to consume their content. It's come a long way though, and hopefully it becomes even more consumer-focused in the future.
I mean, people re-read books. People listen to the same music many many times. And I don't know a single person who hasn't watched a movie they really like more than once. Most have seen some movies dozens of times.
I would not mind watching a movie with ads in some crappy streaming service for free if I also had the option of buying a DRM-free copy (an actual copy, including all the rights afforded to ownership of that copy by copyright law and by consumer laws, not a license to access a copy) at a reasonable price that I could then play on ALL my devices at the highest available quality.
That's how music works. That's even how physical books work. I don't buy the argument from big media that movies are special snowflakes and deserve to be protected from us by DRM and kept in bullshit distribution systems (like movie theaters or "pay per view" premium cable services).
Most people have bad taste, or are fan-boys. I didn't like "The Batman Rises". Yes, it's Nolan. The extra (actors) were aweful (some of them were laughing in fighting scenes). The scenes where there was a riot, I've seen extras punch the air, etc. Sometimes, Batman wouldn't even hit somebody for them to fall, or worst, hit someone and someone else falls(scene where he gets attacked by a group at night). This is sloppy. Not to mention that the fighting scenes are basically the guys lining up to get their arse handled to them. Why don't you use your gun and shoot the little bat ?
There are tons of movies that are basically a pump and dump scheme. They go heavy, all the way marketing and amping it before the release... Not to mention include scenes in the trailer that aren't even in the final movie. And then release and try to make a killing the first days, because they probably know people will realize it's a shitty movie.
The rest is DVD's, etc..
How many actors can you say are great ? How many screen-writers write really well ? How long have you not seen a movie as The Godfather ?
Extend that to music, too .. How many artists there are, really ? Most music is junk, it sounds exactly the same and you wouldn't be able to make a difference between two tracks (and I have a good musical ear, I mean, I can sometimes recognize a song playing in somone's headphones by its beat).
Furthermore, a lot of "artists" look the frigging same. Lyrics ? Where are the Queens ? And I'm not biased.
Recently, I watched a video of Miley Cyrus a friend was watching. The video was "Jolene". I was speechless and said "Wow ! This song is great". I mean, the lyrics of it. It's vulnerable, etc. It moved me.
And then I said "My God, this song seems coming straight out from the 70's". The tempo, the style, etc.. I listened to it repeatedly. Until I realized that it actually is a 70's song by Dolly Parton (I didn't know her, sorry).
Point is: Good music isn't bound by time. People still listen to The Stones and watch The Godfather.
How many will still listen to the fad music and movies coming out ?
This is the same with books. Pump and dump. Most books I was reading, I'd skim through and then throw it because it's junk. The point is that it would take me more making sure the content is good before buying it (searching reviews of people who aren't me, possibly biased by the author, fans, haters, affiliates) than actually judging by myself (which is done quickly).
I'm sorry but this is a load of bull and it's a sentiment that people have been relaying for centuries and it's always ignorant. "This generation's _____ lacks substance but look at ____ and ____ from the past generation and how great it was!"
You can look back on any time period and point out the best of entertainment, just like you can pick out the worst. There was as many awful actors, movies and music when the Godfather was released as there is now, and there is just as much great entertainment being put out right now.
Just because YOU haven't looked past top-40 music and the most popular movies doesn't mean great ones don't exist, and just because YOU only point out the highlights of past entertainment doesn't mean the shitty stuff went away.
This is a ridiculous way of thinking.
This is valid for my tastes in music, painting, books(I've been raised with classic french litterature, but read stuff from all over the world).
(I find it amusing when I see hipsters saying they're "eclectic", yet all their bands sing in English..)
So I understand your assumption that "most" people are spot on top of a Gaussian distribution, listen to popular music, watch popular movies.. People do what other people do. I simply not. Not because I'm contrarian (although this can prove useful in this era), but simply because I have a delicate taste and been exposed to many nice things to spoil my senses.
Furthermore, my words have been distorted. There are many young actors and singers I appreciate a great deal.
PS: You can't deny that the number of cool movies has "sort of decreased". When you see the sequel of a movie like 300, and sequels for everything.. I've watched so many movies that I can tell how a movie will go and I'll be disturbingly close. Heck at one time I unraveled the plot of a movie my friend was watching while I was almost asleep and only listening to audio. Good writers, we need more of those.
> If we are to win this war
Oh, I see. This only applies to them.
Look, your basic point is solid but your presentation could use a little work.
Radiohead had earned people's respect, that's why they could pull it off.
It wasn't just a consumer decison based on availability and pricing. People make decisions based on emotions and value systems.
We see this in companies going the extra mile, beyond the call of their duty: For me, it's not business anymore, it's a bond where you become advocate for that company, for life. Where you refer everyone you know. It transcends a purely mercantile relationship.
I pay more because I've had a good experience, I tip when the service is good, when I like the food and the vibe. I increase price when I'm delighted because some people push my right buttons. It may even be a smile that'll make me buy it for a higher price than it is, or not negociate a price.
I know they took the down the download link. People are reporting the app no longer works.
edit Link to new github repo for YIFY:
What the heck does that mean? Four times, eh? You mean you asked four different lawyers? You asked the same lawyer four times? You got sued four times and won? (Obviously not). You 'checked' by googling around for legal information... four times? You asked your cousin who took a class on copyright once? Four cousins? You emailed the MPAA... four times?
I don't think the law works like you think it works.
> Our experiment has put us at the doors of endless debates about piracy and copyright, legal threats and the shady machinery that makes us feel in danger for doing what we love. And that’s not a battle we want a place in.
So, if after your 'four times checking', it still caught you by surprise that there'd be debates and legal threats... I don't think you were checking in the right places.
Popcorn is built on A LOT of immature technology, which makes it very slow. XBMCtorrent on the other hand uses mature, tested, compiled libraries and platforms.
We’ve shown that people will risk fines, lawsuits and whatever consequences that may come just to be able to watch a recent movie in slippers. Just to get the kind of experience they deserve.
And maybe, that asking nicely for a few bucks a month to watch whichever movie you want is a bit better than that.
Popcorn Time is shutting down today. Not because we ran out of energy, commitment, focus or allies. But because we need to move on with our lives.
Our experiment has put us at the doors of endless debates about piracy and copyright, legal threats and the shady machinery that makes us feel in danger for doing what we love. And that’s not a battle we want a place in.
Or do you have a better idea than copyright? If so, by all means let's hear it. I promise you that the person who solves that problem in an accessible way will be the next Mark Zuckerberg, or at least Tim Berners-Lee. Every single artist, musician, movie studio, and producer in the world will beat a path to your door, frantically scrambling for their checkbooks and trembling as they hover over a check with the pen asking "how much?!? how much!??" They will break into your house and shove cash down your throat while you sleep.
I know a good number of writers, artists, and musicians. Do any of you six-figure-earners have any idea how insanely hard it is to even make a living doing anything "creative?" I mean a basic living: food, shelter, occasional transportation. Nothing infuriates these people more than clueless techies with (to them) unimaginable earning power braying on about how they should live off charity or touring revenues so "information can be free." You try it, and no open source does not count. Open source is a resume item that helps you land your next six-figure gig, not to mention the fact that it can be monetized in other ways... ways that unlike tip jars actually work. (Services, training, dual-licensing, etc.)
Oh sure, yeah, the record industries and Hollywood make more than the artists. Everyone knows that. In the past, the record company or the studio made most of the money and the artist got too little. But now with piracy the artist gets zero. Is that a step in the right direction? We've gone from artists having to suck up to shady promoters to artists not even having shady promoters to suck up to.
Why is there so much crappy music on the radio? Because the people who like it are either too young or too dumb to pirate it.
And this is coming from someone who's written peer to peer apps. I am pretty liberal in this area. I do not believe a technology should be interfered with just because it could potentially be used for piracy. If we did that, we'd have to shut down the whole Internet. But there's a difference between designing an app that can be used for piracy and designing one whose entire focus and modus operandi is to promote piracy front and center. It may not be illegal but it's a dick move. Let's see you work for "voluntary contributions," assholes.
To add douche to the nozzle, there's people in here congratulating the Popcorn Time authors on how brilliant they are by leveraging this for publicity. That's wonderful. Now these folks who did little more than hack together some node.js scripts with a front end will go out and make well above $100k while musicians struggle to pay rent for tiny closets in the ghetto. So the MPAA might have harassed them. Boo hoo. Go blow your nose into your hordes of cash.
Maybe the end of copyright as we know it is technologically inevitable. But in the meantime it shows more than a little bit of ignorance, naiveté, and douchebaggery to congratulate each other on destroying peoples' livelihoods en masse. Maybe instead all you hackers could bend your considerable intellects toward trying to solve this problem in a productive way that actually helps creators get paid while also making it easy for people to enjoy their work. You'd be loved, not to mention wealthy and historically legendary.
How much money you have is proportional to:
* How much value you create
* Your ability / willingness to monetize it
Now lets talk about why most artists are starving.
These creatives are in the entertainment niche.
Which is very different from the problem solving niche.
1. Entertainment is not a necessity, it is a luxury
2. Entertainment is a low-cost luxury
3. This is a lot of competition in this niche. Remember how I said there are two types of products: Problem solving and Entertainment? Well the problem solving products only compete with other products that solve the same problem. In the entertainment niche, you are competing with every single other entertainment product. Your dopey little fantasy novel is competing with Call of Duty, 50 Cent, Angry Birds, Reddit, Flappy Bird, Facebook, Hacker News, and sex.
* 4. Given points 1 and 2, that means to make money, you HAVE to scale and be popular to many people. Considering point 3, you have to have great content at the very least.
So I hope you can see why most content authors are starving is due to economics and their value creating ability, and not torrenting or spreading of knowledge.
I'm sure you know that the entertainment industry is a feast or famine one. The people on the top make all the money, and the people on the bottom make very little, simply because the barrier to entry for peoples attention is very high and only the best will get it (point 3).
If you're going to sell music, don't quit your day job unless you're sure you're going to be on the "feast" side of the equation.
* Not necessarily. There is a growing model where you give content for free / low cost, then sell high priced ($1000+) goods to your rich, loyal fans (e.g. exclusive signed CDs, etc.).
The trouble with that is that great art takes a lot of time to produce. If it involves more than one person, which means pretty much any film and most recorded music, then it also costs money or many peoples' time. So if people cannot make a living off it, then they cannot dedicate that time. You will not have any great art.
One irony of all this is that pirates often talk about how they're sticking up for the little guy and sticking it to the big multi-millionaire artists. But that's not how it works. The little guy -- the indy band, the small film studio -- is part of the long tail. When you subtract across the board, the long tail gets hit harder as a percentage of its total income than the big guys.
Edit: realized that the reason the MPAA are the most insane about this is probably because major movies are really big-ticket investments. The risk is a lot larger, and to more people.
To add even more irony, books are among the least pirated things and Kindle is one of the most successful for-pay art markets on the 'net. Yet books cost less to produce than recorded music and much less than movies. Go figure. Even weirder, Kindle uses DRM and yet nobody seems to care.
Well, historically, the arts have often been supported by patrons. Kickstarter, etc is sort of the modern, crowd-sourced, version of patronage.
That is interesting. I would've figured after Movies and Music, Books would be the most pirated things. Sources please? I would like to know more about this.
Also, you can use Kindle to read pirated books.
Then there are the assholes who claim that if you don't torrent your films and games you're not enough of a 'hacker', or that there's no problem with piratical torrenting at all because all the people who torrent would never have purchased the album/film/game legitimately if the torrent hadn't been available (as if even a small fraction of those people would willingly admit otherwise).
I don't know what the solution is. If I ever became rich (not going to happen), I would seriously consider becoming a patron of the types of arts that I enjoy. But that's a pipe dream, and even if it did happen it wouldn't scale.
Let's say we roll the clock back to before DRM was enshrined in what used to be general purpose computing hardware. Let's say we had the option to refuse it. Would you rather have DRM and movies on your now not-quite-personally controlled computer, or would you rather have one less threat vector for pervasive surveillance?
That's the choice. You can hand over control of part of your computer to some very sketchy people and have movies, or you can make the relatively small number of artists who make a living off recorded performances find a different way to monetize.
If I had the time to dedicate I would start with the idea that creative works are non-random pieces of unique valuable information. Then I would delve heavily into information theory, byzantine agreement, crypto currencies, and similar areas and see what I could come up with.
So you make your product, upload it to the Popcoin swarm, the more people who download it as a percentage of the total traffic in that class (1080p hd movies competing with other 1080p hd movies for example, rather than books. If this turns out to be infeasible some other metric for how popular a given piece of entertainment is), the more the address registered for the bitstream receives from the block reward.
Popcoins trade on an exchange for real cryptocurrencies and thus have a market value, artists that make and register content get paid. The more popular and prevalent the distribution mechanism, the more the participants get, so there's incentive to make it viral.
All I was saying is that creating an app that explicitly works to make piracy as easy as possible and to throw as much pirated content as possible at the user is kind of a dick move. It's doubly a dick move if they end up profiting from it. When money gets involved in piracy I think any grey area that might be there goes away. Now it really is stealing, plain and simple. It's worse than any sketchy lawyered-up studio exec.
How exactly does it stink? Apple provides a service and a platform for selling music, and they take a cut so they can continue to provide said service, which obviously isn't free to run.
And if you're unhappy with the size of the cut they're taking, it's not like you don't have options - Bandcamp (my favorite digital music store simply because they have no region locking bullshit and default lossless with a whole bunch of other format options for one price, the same which unfortunately can't be said of most legal digital outlets) only takes a 10% cut, and if you want, you could always sell directly on your website with the likes of Stripe and such (but even then you're going to be paying some fees). Of course, the last one requires the most work on the artist's part, but that's how it goes - you either pay someone else to do it for you (the cuts on iTunes, Bandcamp, etc) or you do it yourself.
Copyright is making a very privileged portion of the world very, very rich. That's completely unecessary. Artists should earn their living, sure. But they don't need to be filthy rich. To be filthy rich isn't really a "need" for anyone, in any time.
Lets take a nice round number. One Million. How many "rich" artists can you name? 500? 1000? 10000? Thats still 0.01%.
>Artists should earn their living, sure. But they don't need to be filthy rich.
Who says they are?
Capitalism. Pay for scarce goods and services on an open market. Since movies / music / etc are digital, and that is a number, and numbers are information, you don't restrict information. Instead, you let the free market handle it - in the absence of copyright, people still want movies, and music, and new creative feats. And those creators want to live off of creating their works.
Hint: keyword is creating.
So as a creator you come before the masses and say "I want to make X, but I need to eat to do so, and you want X, so let us have a mutually beneficial voluntary exchange and I'll make it".
The only other thing you need is some kind of restitution system (I think) to artificially increase confidence in creators, or you end up with a reputation based insular ecosystem of the first few to meet the demand finding all the investment. It could be through investor like protection for failed projects, or it could be some program where the state provides you some stipend to attempt creative endeavors and they can deal with the arbitrage over failed works.
Regardless of how you go about it, the concept is the same - stop the doublethink. Information isn't scarce. In the past, making it more scarce had value because it was still somewhat scarce. Today, information is no longer scarce. I have the means to transmit lifetimes worth of information in months / weeks / days / hours / minutes / seconds depending on your connection speeds. And I think there is something fundamentally different between the inception of copyright (make scarce information slightly more scarce to promote its creation because its creators have to endure the upfront costs of infrastructure to account for the medium scarcity of the end product) and modern information (which isn't scarce, has no investment costs besides the scarce resources that go into creating an original instance of it, and has no deployment expenses).
This doesn't happen today because the short term demand for information creation is satiated by media purchase, because funding new open media would be a long term purchase. So when people have to choose between new media now or new media later, they bend over for copyright. If their choice was free media now and paying for the media they want to see made later, there wouldn't be a choice, and all that capital would (mostly)flow to content creators.
: yes, it is likely in the absence of an artificial market propped up by copyright that, due to subliminal mental effects of marketing and appeal, and the fact hairless monkeys don't make entirely rational purchasing decisions, some of those funds would be redirected towards other immediate scarce goods and services rather than potential future information creation. That only reflects how bad our current system is, though - it means people overspend on media because of the existence of copyright, not through rational process, but because they are manipulated into redistributing their funds through manipulation.
If you want an example of this system, look at the gooseberry movie project. Exactly how the future should be.
Well you say the solution is Capitalism but a government paying you a stipend is the exact opposite of free market capitalism. And so is any investor protection mechanism/regulation.
The system you're describing could exist under any economic model. I don't see how capitalism is relevant here.
I'm one of the people that uses the GPL because copyright exists. Without copyright, companies lose the incentive to close their source, because the binaries aren't restrictable anyway so they can't profit off that. It just means they shoot themselves in the foot by not showing the source to others for auditing purposes. It would also mean decompiling binaries would be perfectly legal, and distributing the results of that would be legal too.
I'd rather live in a world where nobody can tell you how to distribute information than one where I can try (and personally wouldn't be able to fight jack in court enforcing it without the FSF's help) to force openness on others for the sake of freedom while international companies profiteer off artificial scarcity.
It's still going to be a fight, but it will be fought outside of the court rooms without support of the law. To me that sounds like a step backwards, because even more than today that's a fight where a resource heavy megacorp will have an upper hand.
I don't like the idea of someone that creates something great without compensation, put it out for free, only to have the work taken by some large corporation that manages to profit from the work due to large marketing budgets, sales channels and existing customers, while the author remains uncompensated. So it's not an incentive to open source and share personal projects either.
You can easily decompile it, and without copyright nobody can tell you want you are allowed to do with it.
> only to have the work taken by some large corporation that manages to profit from the work due to large marketing budgets, sales channels and existing customers, while the author remains uncompensated
How would you profit from the work if you can't "sell" the work? At best they could seek funding to create derivatives of the work. But this does point out a major reason copyright is broken now - in how many other disciplines do you expect compensation for finite effort for infinite time? It should be that your finite work is compensated for finite money during a fixed time period (in my examples, the development of the work).
I'd like to think you could extend plagiarism in the absence of copyright to cover all ideas - ie, you can freely modify, reproduce, or redistribute a work, as long as you aren't falsely claiming it as your own, and upon inquiry you truthfully say where it came from. That is peripheral to actual interactions with information, it is about how you present yourself in relation to them.
Easy to decompile, is not the same as easy to deobfuscate, understand and create deriviative work from. The entire point of GPL or any license is to tell what's allowed to do, that means you can share source code, and have legal means backing you up.
> How would you profit from the work if you can't "sell" the work?
You are the one who say that you can not sell the work. Of course you can, but it may not be relevant to the question of profits here since we are talking about source code, it may be incorporated in an existing system or service or even in a hardware product just to give some examples.
> in how many other disciplines do you expect compensation for finite effort for infinite time?
It's not infinite, it is restricted to a finite time. You do not get compensation unless you sell a product, selling that product it self takes work and investments. The amount you get paid, and if there are any reoccuring payments depends on the terms you are able to negotiate with who ever it is you sell to. It has nothing to do with copyright.
To put it bluntly. I don't feel one once of remorse for any one in the movie industry, music industry, or any one famous celebrity that charges retarded prices for the work they dare present to us.
Selling albums with 2-3 good songs and 12 garbage ones and then expect us to pay 15 dollars in the 1990s was a rip off, thats 5-7.50 for the 2-3 songs, now you have iTunes, and Google play store averaging .99 - 1.25 for each song. That's reasonable.
Movies you have to pay for, get 2-5 days to watch it, then it's gone... Really? Why should I pay 3-7 dollars for a movie and HOPE I like it, and then it disappears automatically (for those that don't know what to do to prevent this)? Then you pay for it to keep it if you like it, now we are up to $20 for the same movie. Again, back to the 19-25 bucks per movie/vhs/dvd in the 1990s... Sorry but again I don't feel bad. We have been getting ripped off since the beginning, and now you are mad because we are lashing out back at the studios and industry. Get over it. Now if only we can figure out how to lash out against the Gas companies I would be all for it too.
We aren't asking to be wealthy historically known or to be a legend. We want better lives, ease of use, and not be charged an arm, leg, and our unborn child. If it happens by chance or fate then so be it if we accept it. We want to see content when it's released not years or decades later. We want the truth and information at our reach not hidden behind closed doors and manipulated before we see it.
The costs are so high because the studios know they can charge the prices, California movies arent even created anymore because of costs, celebs know this and ask for more cause studios are getting more, and at the end of the day its all greed and we the consumer get boinked at every turn for everything, and you dare condone us for pirating? Hell TV Shows that are great are being cancelled because of your outrageous prices, and the consumer gets screwed out of a showed they spent time watching and now dont see it because its cancelled due to budget issues. Excuse me but if it wasn't for us you as entertainers would have no job, no career, no word of mouth, and guess what, if it wasn't for our word of mouth you wouldn't even be as popular as you are now. You are naivete and ignorant to not think that without us there is no you. And without you there is no studio lol. It all begins and ends with us. Without us you have no paycheck, and that forces you the entertainer to produce quality work that we will WANT to buy with our hard earned dollars. Your hard earned dollars is for what a mere 3-6 months of work a year if you total up the hours of actual working. Ours is week in and week out for the mass majority of us.
We aren't destroying livelihoods, we are bettering our own and the mass majority. The rich celebs you speak of aren't the masses, or the majority, and you have your money and should live within your means, and maybe even perhaps getting with your rich studio executives and figure out a way to bring content to EVERYONE and not just the select few countries with a retarded delay on other countries and everywhere else, AND come up with an affordable REASONABLE price to make content digitally available for download for keeps not temporary, and that way there wouldn't need to be this issue.
We aren't ruining lives, maybe a shady business here and there, maybe cutting into those pockets of those who are making far too much as it is already, but that can all be avoided with affordable reasonable cost for content to be purchased for keeps.
As for congrats on making this public... Well you know what I am happy they did. It makes the studios go back to the drawing boards on re-thinking about all the high end prices they charge for movies and such. Maybe now they will see the wrath of those in other countries not able to see a movie until years-decades later and release content to every country everywhere and not just a select few. Maybe now we will see artist in the US that are well known in other countries and those other countries will see our artist and they can generate more fame and "fortune". It's a two way street. There is always a positive and negative side to everything. This I see only the positive side. You like the movie you buy it after seeing it risk free. If it's a crappy movie you didn't waste your hard earned money and can choose something else. If you were too broke to ever see a movie well now you can. Can't see this movie in your country, well now you can. Win, Win, Win.
Also don't dare say 3D, and blue-ray discs are affordable. That is grossly over priced. I can go on and on, but I will stop here.
Point is make it affordable for purchase and reachable and accessible to everyone or you deserve everything coming your way and then some. We The People deserve to be informed and entertained as much as the next person. This is only the beginning.
How can it possibly just "say goodbye"?
Is this the main developers disowning it or what? I imagine thousands of other devs now have local forks of it on their home machine and can/will continue to develop and release it?
Not in any real detail anyway.
Apparently they patched it after this release so they could shut it down; tested the one above a moment ago and it still works
What? Why do they deserve this?
That's like saying "Sure, we burned down the bank, but we did it for the frustrated account holders."