MPA Has Big Plans To Crack Down on Movie Piracy Again (theverge.com) 88
The Motion Picture Association is going off on piracy again. During CinemaCon in Las Vegas, MPA CEO Charles Rivkin announced that the organization plans on working with Congress to pass rules blocking websites with pirated content. The Verge: The MPA is a trade association representing Hollywood studios, including Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Disney (it's also behind the ratings board that gives you an R if you say curse words too often). It has long lobbied for anti-piracy laws, but it seems the battle is heating up again. In his speech on Tuesday, Rivkin highlights what a major problem piracy in the US has become, saying it costs "hundreds of thousands of jobs" and "more than one billion in theatrical ticket sales."
It's true: piracy has gone up in recent years. A report from piracy data analytics company Muso revealed that video piracy websites around the globe received 141 billion visits in 2023, making for a 12 percent increase when compared to 2019. The US and India made up most of these visits. But at the same time, the price to subscribe to a streaming service is higher than ever, and so is the cost of a movie ticket. The solution to stopping piracy, at least in Rivkin's eyes, is to prevent users from accessing piracy websites altogether.
It's true: piracy has gone up in recent years. A report from piracy data analytics company Muso revealed that video piracy websites around the globe received 141 billion visits in 2023, making for a 12 percent increase when compared to 2019. The US and India made up most of these visits. But at the same time, the price to subscribe to a streaming service is higher than ever, and so is the cost of a movie ticket. The solution to stopping piracy, at least in Rivkin's eyes, is to prevent users from accessing piracy websites altogether.
Same old, same old.... (Score:2)
Same old, same old:
pass rules blocking websites with pirated content.
After all those years, they still don't know that the content isn't on websites...
sounds like an 1st case that the USSC will stop (Score:2)
sounds like an 1st case that the USSC will stop
Bandaid Solutions are still Solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution to stopping piracy, at least in Rivkin's eyes, is to prevent users from accessing piracy websites altogether.
Yes, clearly they'll be able to crack down a couple websites and that'll solve their profit issues!
People stopped pirating movies because Netflix and others provided better service for a reasonable cost. Now that streaming services are fracturing and getting more expensive, piracy is looking to be a more convenient option.
Like it or not, they need to compete with piracy, not play whack-a-mole with movie sites
Re:Bandaid Solutions are still Solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, it's weird to say that the music industry has something figured out but in this case, by comparison, they absolutely do. I can subscribe to any number of competing services and they all pretty much have like 90% of the same content that I want so I can shop by features and service and other factors than just exclusivity.
And really the price overall for a music subscription is low enough that I haven't considering pirating music in years and years, it's just not worth it. I imagine for music piracy it's majority the real hobbyist type, like the FLAC collector crowd rather than just your average person just looking to grab the latest release or listen to an old album.
The fact that music licensing has a long precedent of "pay the fee, get access" also helps. I think movies more than anything else need that enforced if they won't do it. Why shouldn't Netflix be able to stream Friends if they are willing to pay a fair license cost for it? I don't think Peacock or whoever should be allowed to hold titles like that hostage to their services, IE you *have* to license content out to willing parties (probably with a timed exlcusivity for new releases).
Hell I would bring the Paramount Decree for the 21st century and say "you can either make content or distribute it, not both"
Re: (Score:2)
...have you thought about running for office?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Schwarzenegger did it, but I credit Arnie with slightly more brains than Johnson.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
somewhat more intelligent than Reagan was too.
A bag of air is more intelligent than him. He is one of the worse things this country has produce. Which is saying something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Trump is at the bottom of the list as well, but a spot or two higher since he has had only one term so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Schwarzenegger did it, but I credit Arnie with slightly more brains than Johnson.
The thing is, you don't need D "TR" J to be a genius, he just needs to be smart enough to listen, especially to those who know a lot more on the subject than he does. Understanding the limitations of your own knowledge is a key part of being smart.
Just look at the damage politicians who believe they're smarter than they really are capable of.
Re: (Score:2)
He'll have to wait in line behind Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, professional wrestler & media personality. I'm not joking. Apparently, Johnson's actually considering it & getting a lot of support. Idiocracy?
Rock's been running his own campaign through a sitcom for a few years already. The second that show started, where it's literally a documentary crew following around "candidate" Dwayne Johnson as he talks about his childhood in a wrestling family, I knew it was meant to be a stealth long-term real campaign. I'm a fan of the guy in some aspects, but see nothing that screams politician about him. Except the ability to tell people what they want to hear. Oh, well, I guess he's qualified after all.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been hearing about Johnson's political aspirations for like 3 Presidential cycles already, I don't think he's actually interested in jumping into the political sphere.
Just the same every time a major Texas election is coming up people have been talking about Matthew McConaughy jumping into poltitics but it never happens. I think celebrity folks can see the appeal but the risk is huge if you flame out and your best case reward is a hard job where half of your fans end up hating you.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been hearing about Johnson's political aspirations for like 3 Presidential cycles already, I don't think he's actually interested in jumping into the political sphere.
Just the same every time a major Texas election is coming up people have been talking about Matthew McConaughy jumping into poltitics but it never happens. I think celebrity folks can see the appeal but the risk is huge if you flame out and your best case reward is a hard job where half of your fans end up hating you.
McConaughy at least has the rambling nonsense part of being a politician down. Johnson still sorta makes sense sometimes. I said 'sometimes.' Give him another few years in the public eye and he'll get just as rambly and silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine for music piracy it's majority the real hobbyist type, like the FLAC collector crowd rather than just your average person
There are some great services that provide lossless or 'audiophile' quality music. I think Tidal does up to 192kHz 24-bit which is fantastic for a streaming service.
It's just much more trouble than it's worth to download/manage music files rather than just streaming them whenever you actually want to hear them. Plus it means all new releases are in the same interface without any more work.
If we went back to like 2017-2018 era Netflix for film and TV I would absolutely pay for it again, even at curren
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I just know like back in "the day" there were the music only private trackers like what.cd where people just wanted to collect high quality recordings. Like you said, it's a lot of trouble when a subscription just works and works everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
"Yes, clearly they'll be able to crack down a couple websites and that'll solve their profit issues!"
Clearly they were successful with ThePiratebay..
Re: (Score:3)
Piracy is the smallest contestant here.
The much bigger one is people that just don't buy or pirate the movie and pretend they don't exist because they can't be bothered to deal with the mess either way.
This is massive and you can't pass laws to force people to buy things to fight it in this idiotic way
Re: (Score:2)
I used to enjoy superhero movies, but they've been recycling plots for about 20 years now. Star Wars jumped the shark a long time ago, and the last Star Trek series I happened to catch was just appallingly written.
Re: (Score:2)
The last Hollywood movie that I saw in a theater was 20+ years ago ...
... and the quality of that movie (based on comic book characters) was lacking in script & plot quality, nothing to keep my attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really, which is the reason why hollywood is mostly doing remakes now.
Along the way they forgot how to do good movies that sell well, and now all they can do is rerash what sold in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
People stopped pirating movies because Netflix and others provided better service for a reasonable cost. Now that streaming services are fracturing and getting more expensive, piracy is looking to be a more convenient option.
This.
Parent post nailed it. The greedy pricks saw how successful Netflix was, and wanted a bigger piece of the pie. So they fractured the streaming services by pulling their titles and offering them as exclusive content on their own services, not realizing that they were driving us right back into the arms of the pirates.
Sadly, we're not working with sensible people here. They're still using the assumption that every pirated movie is a lost sale. A family in poverty is not going to spend $10k/yr o
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that coverage by Netflix et al is often slow and limited.
I'm happy to go see something in a theater. If the theater screen isn't smaller than my TV, and they actually have showings, instead of 20 theaters all showing the latest Fast and Furious.
Victims of their own greed? (Score:3)
And then the various big companies started getting greedy and wanted to launch their own streaming service, and it got to the point where if you wanted to watch a variety of shows, it would end up costing as much, if not more than cable TV?
And then the big companies started cheating on their contracts and terminating the streaming rights of multiple shows and movies so they wouldn't have to pay the writers/actors/etc a share of the streaming rights?
It was right about then that video piracy started seeming like a good idea again.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone remember the good old days when there was ONE video streaming service and you could pay one monthly fee and watch almost everything you wanted?
I don't ever remember Netflix truly letting you watch almost anything you wanted. Their streaming catalog always had a lot of holes in it, and it took forever for them to get anything new. Yeah, they used to have a much larger selection of various crap you could browse through and pick, but if you had something specific in mind, such as some iconic popular 80s comedy flick, forget it. It would tell you to subscribe to their DVD-by-mail service.
In the old days, the only single destination I remember where
Re: (Score:1)
The best thing about Blockbuster wasn't the new releases - those tended to be a bit expensive, and I would generally have watched most of the ones I wanted to see at the cinema - it's all the older movies and TV series you could find and watch for only a buck or two.
Re: Victims of their own greed? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Biden doesn't seem to have met a copyright restriction he doesn't like. Just one article... To be fair, I guess, I don't think it's come up during his present term, so we can only go based on his record in Congress.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech... [cnet.com]
Harris hasn't had a chance to do much as that's all federal, so she could be good or bad.
Re: (Score:3)
The best part: this outcome was widely predicted. Basically this is the timeline as I see it:
1. media distributors pull their content from popular 3rd party service, in order to start their own service to try to make more money
2. many media consumers regard their greed as not presenting reasonable value, so they don't subscribe. In addition, the previous service they were using isn't presenting the value it used to, so it may be cancelled as well. Returns on your media distribution catalog goes down.
3. m
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone remember the good old days when there was ONE video streaming service and you could pay one monthly fee and watch almost everything you wanted?
No because those days never existed. That ONE service was better, but it didn't have everything I wanted.
Histrionic much? (Score:4, Informative)
Each instance of pirating does not cost the industry the full value of an $18 movie ticket, a $15 small popcorn and an $7.75 soda. And if they want to be taken seriously, they should show proof of real damage.
Most of these people doing the pirating wouldn’t spend a penny more. I’m not a fan of pirating content. Generally, people and companies who create good entertainment should be compensated for their work. But piracy of infinitely-copyable content isn’t a black-white issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Hundreds of thousands of jobs? Um.. no.
Exactly, even with his made-up numbers it doesn't check out:
Even if that "one billion" in ticket sales was DIRECTLY paid to employees (no middlemen, no profit, just jobs) then each of his theorized jobs (call it 200,000, the lowest possible value for "hundreds of thousands of jobs") would only be paid $5000 each (1,000,000,000/200,000). The billion dollar loss is pure fabrication and even if it wasn't then it wo
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't even work that way.
Film concept or script manages to get approved for production.
Investors are invited to participate.
Deals are set up for production, marketing, distribution.Those are the names you see in the credits at the start. "A bigblue production" "in association with" 3, 4, or more other investors, acting through a film production company.
Cast & crew are sought/auditioned.
Cast & crew sign contracts
Production happens (pre-production, shoot, post-production)
Cast & crew are paid
Re: (Score:2)
And if they want to be taken seriously, they should show proof of real damage.
They don't even show proof of real profits. #HollywoodAccounting
The only stuff I pirate (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, "originals" get pulled when the content-maker rights expire.
Re: (Score:2)
I just got an OTA to USB tuner. It's atsc 1.0 because 3.0 seems to be still in flux. There's one OTA atsc 3.0 tuner that can decode without being on the internet, but I want to see if the internet connection can change the algorithm or key or something so that box stops functioning. And I don't have atsc3 broadcasts right now.
So the obvious solution to me is record everything I want to and fast forward through the commercials using myth TV or something like that. And when they put in 3.0 broadcasts, I'll ch
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind that it's pointless anyway. If you need an internet subscription to watch broadcast TV, most will just forgo broadcast TV and stream instead. That's before you get into the fact that many areas have been under an effective broadcast TV blackout in the US since 2009, (Due to poor reception quality and DTV's all or nothing design.), and that most have moved on with no intent of turning back as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
The only stuff I pirate, as of late, are the streaming platform's "original" shows that get removed (Future Man, Westworld, etc.).
Awhile back I bought an Elgato capture device and a generic HDMI splitter from Amazon which removes HDCP. If I can watch it, I can record it.
Most of the time it's really not worth the effort to manually record things when there's still the high seas, but I like having it as a hedge against this sort of bullshit in case one day the studios eventually do succeed in creating a "you'll own nothing and be happy" future.
Re: (Score:3)
The only stuff I pirate, as of late, are the streaming platform's "original" shows that get removed (Future Man, Westworld, etc.).
I've started pirating the stuff streamping platforms are legitimately fighting over. E.g. when Netflix has John Wick Chapter 2, John Wick Chapter 3, and John Wick Chapter 4, but doesn't host the original, you can be damn certain I will source it from the high seas.
Downloading films is stealing (Score:2)
You wouldn't steal a handbag. You wouldn't steal a car. You wouldn't steal a baby https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Checking out films from your local library, however, is not stealing.
It isn't free of course, you pay for that with your tax dollars whether you use the service or not.
So...why not?
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't steal a car.
No, but I'd totally 3D print a Cybertruck.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't steal a car.
No, but I'd totally 3D print a Cybertruck.
Which would be IP theft since you're not authorised to do that. "You wouldn't steal a handbag. You wouldn't steal a car. You wouldn't steal a baby..."
Re: (Score:2)
Which would be IP theft since you're not authorised to do that.
Yeah, it would be, but it's still an interesting thought experiment. Imagine we've got Star Trek-style replicators that can spit out cars, but the law says we can't use them for that unless we pay the IP holder for each car we've replicated. Deep Space Nine did actually depict this with Quark selling replicated food and drinks (and then claiming that what patrons were actually paying for was the the social atmosphere of being able to enjoy them in his bar).
Morally though, I'd have no problem with replicat
Re: (Score:1)
Once I bought the car, you wouldn't take it back without warning or recourse because the company you bought it off doesn't want to let you distribute them anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Once I bought the car, you wouldn't take it back without warning or recourse because the company you bought it off doesn't want to let you distribute them anymore.
Uh, yeah, about that. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, I'm stealing the car too then.
Re: (Score:1)
(Of course in this instance the cars in question weren't sold, but rather leased ... which actually *reinforces* my original argument).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even borrowing since in the case of media, the publisher retains full possession of the media regardless of who downloads it.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you shoot a policeman and then steal his helmet then go to the toilet in his helmet then deliver it to his grieving widow then steal it again?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't know the reference, then look it up. Though it might not be funny if you weren't around for the contemporary anti piracy ads that used to be in the cinema and on DVDs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Y'all can keep the baby though. Why would I steal something useless and annoying?
Trade ya! (Score:2)
How about we don't complain about this and let the law pass... in return for a proper law with severe punishments against takedown process abuse? Like, knock an innocent person down with your automated complaint algorithm, and you just decided you're going to pay all damages including any future lost income due to subscriber loss (current or future potential subscribers)?
And how about for every hour it takes to get someone to reverse an inappropriate takedown, there's an additional penalty that starts at $
Re: (Score:3)
Or, better yet, just prosecute whoever signed the takedown notice for perjury?
Or, if you want to go the financial route, assign punitive damages of on million times the actual amount in dispute. Falsely accuse someone of pirating a $20 movie, once they prove it in court, the damages are automatically $20 million. Every. Time. And if the studio can't afford to pay it, auction off their assets, starting with their copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all piracy matters (Score:1)
Hmm wonder why? (Score:1)
Hydra (Score:1)
The harder you squeeze the more sand slips through (Score:2)
MPAA == MPA (Score:2)
Piracy = lost sales is wrong (Score:2)
The myth perpetuated by Hollywood that every pirate download means a lost sale is BS. How many of the people who pirated the new Ghostbusters (for example) would have (had piracy not been an option) gone to the cinema to see it? (and therefore do in fact represent lost revenue for the movie studios)
How many of them pirated it, liked it and then went to see it in a cinema after that?
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood is obsessed with making "franchise" entertainment, churning out formu
This hasn't worked, and won't work, because (Score:2)
Or they could make movies we want to watch.... (Score:3)
I watched Oppenheimer last week while flying. Granted the audio quality through airline bud headphones isn't great but I had to turn on the captions to understand what was saying against the odd hums and whines that were part of the soundtrack. The repeat nudity did not offend me personally, but it did nothing to advance the plot and made me feel a bit awkward to watch it while a woman I did not know was sitting near me. As a chemist I was also not fond of the glaring omission of the Calutron Girls and their efforts towards the bombs, but that is another matter.
In short we can make better movies.
The math doesn't work (Score:2)
it costs "hundreds of thousands of jobs" and "more than one billion in theatrical ticket sales."
First off, if you assume a round terabuck for lost ticket sales, and a loss of 200,000 jobs, each "job" then works out to be $5,000 per year. A hundred bucks a week? Yeah, I don't think so. It sounds to me like some clown is pulling numbers out of his ass.
Secondly, I question that billion dollar figure, especially since "Hollywood accounting" is a thing. Also, there's nowhere near a 1-to-1 relationship between pirated copies and 'lost' purchases; I think it must be at least 2-to-1, and probably a lot higher
Actually selling consumer a service? (Score:2)
Disney has the solution (Score:2)
Their movies are so bad I donâ(TM)t even wanâ(TM)t to pirate them.
Blocked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do the absolute minimum (Score:2)
The Cox Communications case aside, it's still not an ISP's job to protect Hollywood's meager profits. When these blocking laws appear, ISPs do the absolute minimum, as they should. It leaves plenty of room for someone with a curious mind to defeat these protections.
Re: (Score:3)
>> The Cox Communications case aside, it's still not an ISP's job to protect Hollywood's meager profits
The legal requirement to create such a law with any teeth should be for the studios to *COMPLETELY* open their books for a third-party review to see what they're actually making and determine what the potential loss from piracy is. No "Hollywood accounting" where money disappears between a swarm of subcontractors or losses from movie X are dumped onto prior release Y etc etc. Suspect this idea woul
Enforcement rather than Innovation (Score:2)
Companies - especially media companies - need to learn a lesson from places like iTunes that innovation is superior to these ever-failing attempts to turn off the content spigot. For instance I like to fanedit as a hobby - if I see a movie that I think has a good core but has a character or a bunch of unnecessary side plots that ruin the experience, I'll trim it up in a video editor and save a new copy for my own library.
It's not for everyone but I could see that sort of concept being a huge boon for the f
Why go to the movies if we've seen them already (Score:2)
Every recent movie I've seen is just a rehash of an old idea with a different setting around it. Anything truly original would get shot down as being too outside the mainstream for audiences. I'd rather spend my entertainment dollars on video games (so I have some impact on the narrative) or real world experiences.
Bullshit from a corporate money-grubbing fatcat. (Score:2)
It's also not stealing; nothing of the original is 'lost' so you are not depriving the original owner of their property.
A pirated copy or viewing of a film or TV show also doesn't equate to a 'lost sale' or anything of the sort. Most people who pirate would otherwise... just not watch that content.
No, the MPA should not be allowed to blanket remove websites without any due process or hearings because they like money.
If you have a problem wi