It seems as though the primary use case being discussed and implied is torrenting of media that is not legal (however ethical you feel it may be) to torrent in many countries. Please remember that when you do so, you weaken the case the rest of us have against the same laws you're ignoring, against DRM, against intrusions into our privacy, and against unfair ISP practices.
(a) Those who download stuff illegally instead of paying like 0.01% of their disposable income per year for it whilst making about as much money as those who have created the content.
(b) Those who download stuff illegally instead of having no access at all or paying completely unaffordable fantasy prices for it whilst making only a fraction of those who have created the content.
In which group you fall depends mostly on where you were born. And this is not primarily a debate about inequality as much as it is about infrastructure. There simply is no Netflix in most parts of the world that gives you reliable access to a huge movie library for peanuts.
So when you say "you weaken the case the rest of us" you should be aware of how "you" and "us" can mean very different things depending on who says that to whom.
THIS (b) is the comment I was hoping to see. It's a minority in the world that have Netflix, Amazon Prime Instant Video, etc. The rest of the world has no "legal" access to content... and by legal access I mean, access to the same relative conditions as the US (which is the source of the main content being pirated): price, timing, quality, etc.
The rest of the world hasn't got flat fee video rentals, on-demand TV services, has to wait 1-2 years to get a season already aired in the tv series home market, hasn't got the option to watch it without voice-overs, etc. This is a digital breach that decision and law-makers keep pushing for, and the result is "piracy". Later this media lobby points the finger at countries for downloading their "content". Ironic given that studios/distributors were never planning in providing that content in the timely manner and format customers wanted it in.
Let's not delude ourselves into thinking the people who are in group (b) are the ones who have enough money to afford a high-bandwidth internet connection, a modern computer, and the knowledge to know what torrents and the accompanying technology are.
The vast majority of people will be using this to watch movies they don't feel like paying for. There might be a handful who genuinely can't access it, who have no way to legally pay for it outside of handing over a substantial amount of their small wealth, and they paradoxically also have access to an internet connection strong enough and a computer powerful enough that can handle streaming these movies. However, they do not represent the vast, vast, vast majority of users.
In my part of the world (Eastern Europe) 25 mbps no-quota costs about $20/mo (~2% avg income) in the urban areas. Outside of cities the price stays the same but usually only (A)DSL is available, with bandwidth ranging from 512kbps to ~15mbps.
Accidentally, an average price of a DVD movie is also around $20. So yes, there are places where fast internet is affordable, yet movies are not. Unless you want to watch only one per month and give up your internet instead.
There is also a matter of TV series, which you have to wait 1-2 years for (poorly dubbed) in TV or on DVD.
Of course we are probably in something like the top 10% of wealthy places to live in. I can only imagine that situation in poorer countries resembles the one we had when internet was just kicking off and hardly anyone had connection. There was (illegal) business model of downloading movies (from Kazaa or weird warez forums), burning them on CDs and selling for the locally acceptable price.
Guess what - unless the price of virtual goods is adjusted to the local standards, and the availability increases, piracy will be there.
If a $20 DVD isn't affordable, $20/mo internet isn't. (I'm also fairly skeptical that your average DVD movie is $20, as though that's the absolute lowest you'll ever pay.) Movies aren't a God-given right, so it's not like you deserve a set amount of movies per month.
Even then, while that situation is certainly more excusable, you're still the minority. That site isn't made for the Eastern European lower class who can't afford to buy a DVD. It's made for folks who have the money (which means they can purchase and maintain a computer as well as a monthly internet connection) but who don't feel like spending it.
Plus, I'm fairly sure iTunes has movie rentals in most Eastern European countries.[0]
I have a cheap internet connection (16Mbit, ~$13/month), and I'm not a minority. In my country, having an internet connection that's speedy enough for video streaming is not a luxury. And yet, I can't even buy anything off iTunes, Google Play Store, not to mention Netflix and other similar services. In fact, we even got PayPal only in mid 2013 (and not even the full service - we can only send money and can't receive anything), that's how "open" the internet is to our market.
Also, my country is in southern Europe, not part of the EU yet.
> The vast majority of people will be using this to watch movies they don't feel like paying for.
I think this is highly biased towards your own ideas of how someone could use such service. You are, in fact, projecting[0] your own probable scenarios to large group of people you have never met, living in countries you've only heard of in the news. That, sir, is unfair. You should not stick with generalized opinions and prejudice, mkay?
Actually, I'm not a minority, I know hardly anyone who behaves differently in my country. I also certainly am not in lower class. I hardly ever watch movies and when I do, I go to the cinema, because I don't like storing use-once junk in my apartment. Try to put it in perspective of 2% of income - in US most people can accept $85 broadband but hardly a $85 DVD, even if they are earning much more than average. I would be considered an idiot with too much money to spend if I bought them for myself. The only DVDs I have seen anywhere were gifts, as they are easy to pick and fit in boxes well.
The only reason why broadband may cost that much is because it's localized and one can't simply buy EU broadband in US. There are actually good reasons for broadband prices to be affected by local economy, since labour and materials may have different cost there. That's not the case with DVDs, which cost the same (pennies) to manufacture.
But maybe I should have put more emphasis on the problems with availability rather than money. Having a choice of spending my $20 on cinema tickets or a DVD, sometimes I would choose latter to watch something at home. But here DVDs are released only when the dubbing is ready, often after a year from the original release. I could get to this content earlier online, but I don't have Netflix here, nor Play Movies, Pandora and many others. There were problems with DVD releases that were solved in two ways: by VOD with reasonable monthly fee or by torrents. Saying torrents are for the greedy is just a good excuse to prosecute piracy instead of improving the market.
Your first sentence doesn't make any sense -- There is so much more that you can do with a $20/mo internet connection than a $20 DVD. I would go as far as to say that today, in the developed world, an internet connection is a necessity; DVDs on the other hand are not.
> The vast majority of people will be using this to watch movies they don't feel like paying for.
There's also a huge population of people around the world who get access to movies, TV shows and other media only after a significant delay and use this kind of services to get access to that media on the day it is released. Those living in the US may not realize it but there's no amount of money you can pay to get the hit TV shows on the day they are released in Europe and other parts of the world.
There's a pretty penny to be gained out of these would-be customers if the media distribution companies can figure out how to monetize zero day world wide distribution. It is not a technical problem to solve. Every day that this problem goes unsolved, the content industry loses money.
A little anecdotal evidence: out of the two american tv shows I watch, the other one can not be viewed from my home country at all, the other one will be available with a delay 6-12 months and a horrible dubbed soundtrack. Would I pay a reasonable price to get them on the day they are released instead of the clumsy torrent service I am using at the moment? Yes I would.
Torrents are always going to be more clumsy for media consumption than Netflix, etc. put.io is trying to bridge that gap, but it won't close it completely.
Real, legitimate streaming services are really good. they adjust quality based on available bandwidth. they have clients for every device you own. They provide all kinds of helpful metadata like cover art, actors, content classification, playlist recommendations, watch lists, etc etc etc etc
Torrents are terrible. half the stuff is malware, the quality is all over the map, languages and subtitles are a crap shoot, you use a ton of band width, you have to manage huge files locally, etc etc etc etc
Now, if you like you can work out the intersection with countries that have access to a similarly complete selection of movies at comparable cost to what Netflix offers in the U.S.
You will quickly find out that your "handful" of people is in fact hundereds of millions of people.
That really does nothing to disprove my point that people who can't afford movies (either purchasing, or importing, or renting in iTunes) are also extremely unlikely to be able to afford broadband internet and a modern computer and be knowledgeable enough to handle a cloud-based torrent client.
I've lived in part of the poorest region of Brazil in 2004. Most people I knew in middle class could afford at least a computer good enough to download things on emule or kazaa (BT was just starting to get popular but was still more geeky by then, where I lived) ... And I was impressed by the pirating knowledge... People who barely knew how to use Word and Excel, could download, or had a son who knew how to do it. Yet they couldn't afford to consume movies and music at the normal price. Because of extremly High tariffs, cultural goods where more expensive than in the US or Europe. And yet salary was much lower...
Broadband was expensive too, but 512k was something like 60$... And because internet access had so much more use than just consuming cultural information, people would prefer to get it and save on something else. Like the dvds that they would get by pirating.
Before 2002 when Broadband access was excessively rare... Most people would just buy pirated dvds from the flea market... For 5 $ or less. They where ready to pay for them... but at a lower price than what official goods where... You never bought dvd for youself except if you were wealthy or to give them as gifts.
The cost of providing an internet connection tends to adjust to the market. There's countless testimonies on this thread to that effect. The different regulatory environment, lower cost of labour and less entrenched monopolies in less developed countries mean that connections are cheaper.
Knowledge is basically free. Anyone with an internet connection and a PC made in the last 10 years (not particularly hard to come by, even with very little money) can be knowledgeable enough. Equating wealth with knowledge is foolish.
That's a terribly first-world-centric view to take. I live in Lebanon, definitely a country that does not qualify as "developed" by any standards and people here are in group (b).
Your options here for watching movies are (a) cinema(which doesn't work for TV shows), (b) wait for them to show up on crappy cable services, (c) buy pirated DVDs for 1~2$ a pop and (d) torrent. Buying legal DVDs is possible but extremely hard, not simply due to the cost but also the availability. If I wanted to buy a pirated DVD there are at least 3 different shops within 2min of my home in an eastern Beirut suburb whereas if I wanted to go the legal option I'd need to drive down to Virgin in downtown Beirut(15min drive) and pick from an extremely limited selection.
The only viable solutions if you want timely and not incredibly inconvenient access to movies or shows are (c) and (d). Internet connections are incredibly expensive relative to Europe or the US(50$/mo for 4mb and a 25GB cap) and yet I know a lot of people who go with option (d), mainly because traffic at night isn't subject to the cap. People will simply cue up their torrents and download them between 12am and 7am and watch them the next day. If you keep a buffer of unwatched movies/shows this can work quite well. My personal approach is to torrent to a digital ocean droplet and then download over regular HTTP overnight. Most people are not technically savvy enough to do that but they would be able to use put.io. I happen to use my droplet for other things, but if I didn't put.io would be cheaper as well.
How we treat minority groups is important in part because they are so easily ignored. There are real people around the world who yes, have reliable fast internet (something much more common outside the US) and yet are denied legal access to the media they would happily pay for. Now, you can suggest that they should just not consume content that is not available to them, but that is like saying just don't participate in modern society.
Yes, it is important, which is why affluent first worlders shouldn't hold them up as poster children for their pet cause of not wanting to purchase things.
Media consumption costs are closer to 3-5% of after tax income by my reckoning. Not sure what they are of disposable income, since I haven't calculated exactly what that is for me - I also like to eat well, you could argue much of my food is overpriced or non-essential. It wouldn't be less than 10% as rent is a large fixed cost.
And my media consumption isn't enormous. A few packaged DVD purchases, Netflix account, and the movies - which is very expensive these days.
There is actually a really cool opportunity here. A service like this could put an access fee on certain torrents, collect payment via bit coin and pass the fee on to the content creators.
Technically, it's totally feasible. of course, that only works if the content creators are willing to license the content, and that's difficult for even big players like Netflix.
There's a huge international market for video and bottom disappear prices. case in point: every sketchy DVD store in the third world. there's lots of legitimate money to be made if you were able to sell legally to that market. The real question is: how do you manage the Price differentiation? If a movie costs $10 in the USA and $0.50 in poor, region-excluded country X, how do you keep everyone in the US from buying the $0.50 version?
If put.io solves this problem, it'll become a billion dollar company.
This opportunity doesn't really exist. Even with a much more established and proven business model like Netflix, they still have trouble getting and keeping licenses. The possibility of content owners going from wanting to kill Netflix to outright supporting people who upload their content to random Internet users isn't just distant; it's pretty much nonexistent.
>> "There simply is no Netflix in most parts of the world that gives you reliable access to a huge movie library for peanuts."
True but you can still get movies via DVD or VHS is those places. e.g. If I don't have access to Spotify it does't give me a valid excuse to pirate. I can still purchase through iTunes or buy CD's.
I'd not really consider DVD/CDs as the same thing as digital downloads. I'd love to purchase digital movies/music, but there's no way I'll buy a CD/DVD as they're useless to me.
IMO that isn't a valid reason to pirate it's just a crazy sense of entitlement. They've made it available to you in a reasonable way but it's still not good enough for you because it's not exactly what you want.
1) buy CD/DVDs (except the ones that are unavailable or hard to find) and rip them (assuming this is sufficiently legal) then throw away the useless pieces of plastic you just paid premium for (which in some regions equates your license), or
2) buy CD/DVDs (except the ones that are unavailable, etc) and put up with plastic crap that is bulky, unreliable and slow, or
3) not buy anything
It's ridiculous, this is the 21st century. They can fit a whole season of some serial onto a micro-SD card, but instead you want me to buy a "box set" of cardboard junk and plastic that is larger than the laptop I intend to watch it on? (which, incidentally, doesn't have a DVD drive for pretty much the same reason it doesn't play cassette tapes or vinyl records either)
Five years ago I had a fire, packed salvageable stuff with smoke damage in big cardboard storage boxes. Over the years I've unpacked and cleaned almost all of the items. The box with all my CDs? They are probably fine (I guess), but I never bothered, I just got them digitally and am happy about those things not taking up any shelf space.
Not respecting copyright in 2014 is a moral issue.
It is good when authors can earn money on their work, and thus it used to be that authors had a deal with the government. Tax money is spent to enforce a limited monopoly for a few years, and afterward society could the work to the improvement of all. This deal has now been completely perverted, and all works stays perpetually under restrictions.
Worse, In Sweden, we have a special deal on top of copyright. Every time someone purchase a harddrive, they are forced (through taxes) to pay for the privilege of "private copying". This deal is then again perverted through the use of DRM. Companies that do this are effectively stealing, and here the word is used correctly: They are stealing my money. I paid for something, and the other party is now refusing to give up their side of the bargain.
When asked to respect copyright, I am asked to balance the moral issues at hand. Can I, morally, support the perversion in order to get authors some money, or should I ignore copyright in order to force a change.
Same thing in France. Everything is taxed,cds,dvds,usb keys,hard drives because of the so called "private copying".
I dont mind,the problem is "who's getting the money?why artist A and not artist B".And it's usually the artists that need it the less that get the most of these "revenues".
Here in Uruguay it's a really opaque method that determines how artists get money. It's determined by an organization called AGADU based on things like plays on public stations, etc:
Which collects money from plays and from public performances on behalf of artists.
IMO Local artists probably get more money than they'd have gotten otherwise, while foreign artists are probably underpaid (though Uruguayan revenue is very likely a rounding error for them).
I know of a person that works there, and I don't think they're scammers or mafia or anything, but the model is definitely outdated and I dislike a private organization having that kind of power (not to mention most artists never explicitly gave them representation power).
Just the opposite - every time you buy any content from the evil media mega corps you're funding their war against privacy, democracy and individual freedoms.
Exactly. When SOPA came looming around, I realized my digital buying habits had in effect been indirectly funding lobby activities to make the internet and my life worse. That's when I decided to stop giving them money.
I have several friends and family who live off of that minuscule amount...
You can rent basically any movie on Amazon, or buy DRM free music from a variety of sources. If you choose not to and torrent, you're not performing some sort of noble protest in the name of the artists. I can assure that they don't see it that way.
Note: I'm not saying that people in creative capacities think that torrenting is evil, and yes, they know they are part of a broken system. I just think it's disingenuous when people justify torrenting using this argument. You're torrenting because you think the market price of whatever content you're downloading is too / you don't feel like paying. Simple as that.
Megaupload had more legal use cases than this. They will have to stay under the radar, or else be busted by the feds like so many other torrent related sites. Kind of hard to do, when you'll inevitably end up with people torrenting using public trackers. Most people on private trackers have already figured out seedboxes, so if they do restrict to private trackers, they won't have much of a market. And if and not when they get raided, there will be plenty of incriminating evidence against their client base.
I'm sure their customers are enthusiastically paying $5 a month for fast downloads of their 3 TB of personally customized Ubuntu distributions, and that the numerous references to music and video on this page are all to Creative Commons licensed remixes of Jonathan Coulton songs.
I understand the ethically shady bit but... how does it weaken the case against DRM? Surely it just continues to demonstrate how useless it is as a strategy?
As someone who just got his daily 40min of "TV" interrupted by amazon error AMZP-9, right in the middle of an episode... i'm now regretting not having downloaded a torrent ilegaly. The whole thing with torrent is not about saving money. I already have access to the content for free for paying amz prime. it is all about convenience. I was lied to that instant streaming was more convenient. Well, that until AMZP-9 popups in the middle of an episode and there is not way to watch it for the day.
With torrent, at least i'd know beforehand when setting my 40min* aside, that i will press play and see the damn content. So yeah, it does not weaken the case against DRM. i will agree that it strengthen it. Any engineer worth its salt would CACHE the damn stream. They can't because of DRM and silly contracts out of touch with reality.
(* and that is not counting the 5min that it takes to GET to the content on amazon player... piece of @!#)
In theory what you say makes sense, but then why is there still DRM? There's been strong evidence that it's useless for a long time already, and companies are still implementing it. What do you think will actually convince people to stop that hasn't happened already? I say it weakens the case because more piracy just inspires the knee-jerk reaction of "we have to do something to protect the children from pirated software!" It's like the TSA. Is it actually effective? I don't think so. But the more attacks we perceive the more the average joe and politicians think we need more TSA.
What you say makes sense as well, I guess we're really talking about two different arguments. One logical/reasoned (look, DRM has basically failed) and the other emotional (OMG piracy! We must have more DRM!). They're kind of orthogonal to my mind.
>> In theory what you say makes sense, but then why is there still DRM?
For a whole complex of reasons, some of which boil down to exactly what you say. Maybe if nobody ever pirated anything it would go away, but I doubt it. It's too useful for other purposes - market segmentation, multiple resales for new formats or devices, preventing reasonable backups etc etc.
>> I guess we're really talking about two different arguments
Right, and while I completely agree with your logical reason, my fear is that the emotional one is more prevalent and thus, the only one that will really determine future behavior.
I haven't considered "market segmentation" as a purpose of DRM - that's certainly interesting. I think the concept of market segmentation is unfair and manipulative, so I think this lends more weight to the commenter who suggested they feel a moral obligation to violate what copyright has become. Personally, I still prefer to pay for what I'm getting, and I just avoid products from companies who make that more difficult then it needs to be. But I see the viewpoint better now.
I should say that for market segmentation it appears to work - those that stick to the rules are limited to media from their region. But this is another driver piracy.
He said that doing illegal things with these torrents will only give the corporations/ones in power more leeway into getting politicians to pass laws that require DRM, violate our privacy, etc.
No he said it would weaken the case, I was wondering how.
If piracy stops people will say DRM works and they need more powers to really cement it in place. If piracy continues then people will say they need more DRM to stop it.
I cannot see how the existence of this site (or other torrent services) weakens the case against DRM.
But that's nothing to do with making any case, simply practical consequences. Much like the drug war, DRM and its legal environment are basically self perpetuating now. I don't see.how continuing piracy has any impact at all.
It honestly is not an issue, in my opinion. put.io just seems like a low-cost seedbox. https://whatbox.ca/ has existed for eons and is primarily used to pirate music and it hasn't been shut down.
I think the real case should be against anti-piracy. The music and movie industries punish people because they don't like their business model or their product. Copyright laws were created when books were the medium. This is the fundamental key: I can not create 300,000 physical books with three mouse gestures.
Think about how common piracy is. They demand what? 250k for each song downloaded. Multiplied by the number of songs downloaded illegally per day... they feel they are entitled to 600 trillion dollars per year. Does that sound right to you?
