Marvel, Star Wars Will Go Exclusively to Disney's New Streaming Service

Lol, at the people trying to justify piracy. If a paid service doesn't have what you want to watch then just don't watch it. It's like saying hee I don't habe enough money let me just go to a bank. Just don't do illegal shit. It is that simple.
 
wizzi01 said:
Lol, at the people trying to justify piracy. If a paid service doesn't have what you want to watch then just don't watch it. It's like saying hee I don't habe enough money let me just go to a bank. Just don't do illegal shit. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

And then you have all the people in the world affected by national boundaries in a world connected by an internet without boundaries.

Until content is released in a sane fashion world wide, piracy will always take place.

I have many movies on blu-ray, replacing many with 4k. I have amazon, netflix and hbo.

I go watch movies at the theater.

But regardless, as a person who pays for my content, there can be no doubt a large portion of piracy is being driven by industry stupidity and greed.
 
I will just continue to buy the blue rays in the bargain bins of Walmart and rip them (legally) to my PLEX for my family to stream any time they want. Not going to pay for yet another streaming service.
 
pcgeekesq said:
No, being willing to steal things if you think you won't get caught causes piracy, and lots of other crimes.

I don't care what excuses pirates use. Piracy isn't people stealing food because they're starving.
Piracy is entitled-feeling asshats stealing just because they can, just like the people who smash-and-grab luxury goods during riots.
Click to expand...

I like how you compare digital (non-tangible items) to physical goods. If I download a movie, there isn't one less copy available.
 
Remember once upon a time, the Disney channel was paid tv subscription. Guess they want to try again.
 
gigatexal said:
Fuck Disney. This is a dick move.
Click to expand...
Succinct and to the point. However, some parents have blind (ignorant) faith in Disney as baby sitting channel of choice. I despised Disney offerings as a kid this would have been the 70's, though. There was a condescending insincerity that I couldn't get around. But for others with younger kids, this is an automatic buy.
 
Zepher said:
I like how you compare digital (non-tangible items) to physical goods. If I download a movie, there isn't one less copy available.
Click to expand...

So what's your credit card number? it's just digital right?
 
As soon as I get a new rotor for my antenna I will be able to get all the major networks over the air, then I will drop DirecTV and only have Netflix for a few things I can't get over the air like a few SyFy series I like such as Dark Matter. Over the air I can get Supernatural, Arrow and Flash on CW, Marvel's Agents of Shield on ABC and Black List on NBC, which is just about all I care to watch. The quality of what I get over the air is actually better HD than DirecTV is, and I can't stream full HD with the 1.5Mb down DSL that is available where I live, so over the air will be it for me, and it's free.
 
It'll be interesting to see who buys out who around then. There's been rumors lately about disney getting fruity!
 
Or stop sitting around watching mediocre crap. Find something else to do, read if it comes down to it.

No piracy or bullshit money grab streaming services to worry about. Just the great outdoors or whatever other thousand things someone can do to full their precious and honestly, short time on this planet.
 
the movies will still be available on Redbox so it's fine with me...Redbox buys the movies themselves and puts it in its inventory
 
wizzi01 said:
So what's your credit card number? it's just digital right?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's just a number. But if someone uses your credit card, then there will be less funds available on it, therefore you incur a loss. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp yet some still can't come to terms with it.

Copying digital media only causes "loss" if you assume that the person doing the copying would've without a doubt purchased it if they weren't able to copy it. And we know that to be a false equation, that holds no ground in reality.

This is not justifying piracy it's differentiating it from theft.

The entertainment industry could get rid of the majority of piracy if instead of treating the customer as the enemy, they'd respect them. And that means doing away with DRM, and geolocking. Because let's face it, the pirate groups can capture / download / rip the media regardless of DRM, so it only really affects their paying customers.
 
M76 said:
Yes, it's just a number. But if someone uses your credit card, then there will be less funds available on it, therefore you incur a loss. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp yet some still can't come to terms with it.

Copying digital media only causes "loss" if you assume that the person doing the copying would've without a doubt purchased it if they weren't able to copy it. And we know that to be a false equation, that holds no ground in reality.

This is not justifying piracy it's differentiating it from theft.

The entertainment industry could get rid of the majority of piracy if instead of treating the customer as the enemy, they'd respect them. And that means doing away with DRM, and geolocking. Because let's face it, the pirate groups can capture / download / rip the media regardless of DRM, so it only really affects their paying customers.
Click to expand...

Theft is theft no matter how you want to try and justify it.
 
wizzi01 said:
Theft is theft no matter how you want to try and justify it.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct, theft is theft, piracy however is not theft. No matter how you try to blur the lines it still won't be the same. It is reproduction of a work without permission. Nothing less, nothing more. Even if it is sometimes referred to as stealing in common language, in terms of the damage it causes to society and legally it couldn't be more different.
And the jury is still out on the fact that in all likelihood piracy actually drives sales by acting as a form of advertisement and raising awareness about good quality works. Of course no copyright troll company wants to investigate this, in case they find something they don't like. If anything the copyright trolls cause more damages to society than any amount of piracy could.
 
M76 said:
You are absolutely correct, theft is theft, piracy however is not theft. No matter how you try to blur the lines it still won't be the same. It is reproduction of a work without permission. Nothing less, nothing more. Even if it is sometimes referred to as stealing in common language, in terms of the damage it causes to society and legally it couldn't be more different.
And the jury is still out on the fact that in all likelihood piracy actually drives sales by acting as a form of advertisement and raising awareness about good quality works. Of course no copyright troll company wants to investigate this, in case they find something they don't like. If anything the copyright trolls cause more damages to society than any amount of piracy could.
Click to expand...

Tell that to all the people who've been successfully sued for piracy.
 
wizzi01 said:
Lol, at the people trying to justify piracy. If a paid service doesn't have what you want to watch then just don't watch it. It's like saying hee I don't habe enough money let me just go to a bank. Just don't do illegal shit. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

Not justifying it, just pointing out the reality of stupid company decisions.

Which makes more money? The department store model (high prices, lower sales volume) or the discount store model (high volume, low prices).

If every movie was available on Netflix for $10/month, and if every TV show was available on HULU within a couple weeks of airing for another $10/month, the piracy rates would fall drastically.
 
SecretStash said:
Remember once upon a time, the Disney channel was paid tv subscription. Guess they want to try again.
Click to expand...

It's still a paid subscription, it's just bundled in with your base cable bill.
Beside, they've moved most the good content to Disney XD which requires an additional bundle subscription.
 
And this is why physical media isn't dead and won't be. Streaming will never be as permanent. Even streaming services where you ostensibly "buy" the content (e.g. iTunes or buying videos from Amazon) aren't safe because they can (nd have removed things you have bought before.

I've been saying for years that streaming was going to become Balkanized and that the days of the Netflix smorgasbord weren't going to last. Pretty soon, you'll have to spend $150 a month in streaming services to get everything you do now. Suddenly, physical media will be appealing again because there is no monthly fee to own a bluray.
 
M76 said:
You are absolutely correct, theft is theft, piracy however is not theft. No matter how you try to blur the lines it still won't be the same. It is reproduction of a work without permission. Nothing less, nothing more. Even if it is sometimes referred to as stealing in common language, in terms of the damage it causes to society and legally it couldn't be more different.
And the jury is still out on the fact that in all likelihood piracy actually drives sales by acting as a form of advertisement and raising awareness about good quality works. Of course no copyright troll company wants to investigate this, in case they find something they don't like. If anything the copyright trolls cause more damages to society than any amount of piracy could.
Click to expand...

The FBI disagrees with you. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft
 
We have google play all access (YT Red + Play Music), Netflix, and we activate HBO Now when we want to watch something on it. Never had Hulu, never will, and unlikely to get this. The whole idea of cordcutting is to get rid of a big bill for a huge service you can't take enough advantage of to make it worth it. Every asshole ISP/Media company having their own streaming service isn't somehow going to change this for me.
 
Bandalo said:
Sadly that link is blocked here at work...

I can use this: http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...rth-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes

Now that's a year old, but Netflix consumes 37% of all internet bandwidth in North America. iTunes is another 3%, 18% for YouTube, 3% for Hulu, and random others. So just add those big guys together and you get 61%. And that's a year ago, it's likely increased.

Bittorrent is ~3%.

So total piracy (because Bittorrent includes software, porn, music, games, etc AND movies/shows) is 20 times less popular...so basically "fringe"
Click to expand...
By your own logic, iTunes is a "fringe" service.

Try this link:

https://betanews.com/2017/04/13/millennials-pirate-streams/

If you can't, the punchline is this :


"A survey conducted by LaunchLeap (and shared by TorrentFreak) shows that over half of millennials (53 percent) enjoy streaming media from illegal platforms. This may not sound great, but 70 percent also stream content from legal sources — clearly there is something of a crossover, and there are plenty of people indulging in a mix of legal and illegal content. Nearly half of millennials (47 percent) who subscribed to a legal service said they also use illegal streaming services."

So, a greater percentage of millennials download pirated content than voted in the last US presidential election.

Voting in an election is "fringe", apparently.

In addition, you simply cannot judge something like this based on a bandwidth survey. Streaming from Netflix is an activity that's data intensive for long periods of time, whereas downloading a movie (even in HD), only takes a few minutes. The movie-watching itself is done offline.

This is not even something that is debatable, frankly.
 
Bandalo said:
Sadly that link is blocked here at work...

I can use this: http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...rth-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes

Now that's a year old, but Netflix consumes 37% of all internet bandwidth in North America. iTunes is another 3%, 18% for YouTube, 3% for Hulu, and random others. So just add those big guys together and you get 61%. And that's a year ago, it's likely increased.

Bittorrent is ~3%.

So total piracy (because Bittorrent includes software, porn, music, games, etc AND movies/shows) is 20 times less popular...so basically "fringe"
Click to expand...
Also from your link:

"Apple's iTunes accounted for 3 percent of peak download traffic in 2015, finishing in a multi-way tie for fourth place with Amazon Video, BitTorrent, Hulu, and Facebook."

Bittorrent uses the same amount of bandwidth as two other major streaming services and the world's largest social media network.

Just because Netflix is massive does not make all other alternatives fringe.
 
spinach_chin said:
By your own logic, iTunes is a "fringe" service.

Try this link:

https://betanews.com/2017/04/13/millennials-pirate-streams/

If you can't, the punchline is this :


"A survey conducted by LaunchLeap (and shared by TorrentFreak) shows that over half of millennials (53 percent) enjoy streaming media from illegal platforms. This may not sound great, but 70 percent also stream content from legal sources — clearly there is something of a crossover, and there are plenty of people indulging in a mix of legal and illegal content. Nearly half of millennials (47 percent) who subscribed to a legal service said they also use illegal streaming services."

So, a greater percentage of millennials download pirated content than voted in the last US presidential election.

Voting in an election is "fringe", apparently.

In addition, you simply cannot judge something like this based on a bandwidth survey. Streaming from Netflix is an activity that's data intensive for long periods of time, whereas downloading a movie (even in HD), only takes a few minutes. The movie-watching itself is done offline.

This is not even something that is debatable, frankly.
Click to expand...

Sure, itunes is a "fringe" of the total streaming services available by that data. That being said, it's TOTAL data, not split music/video, and I'm sure itunes streams a lot of music.

Define an illegal stream for me...is that watching a copyrighted video on YouTube that hasn't been hit by a DCMA yet? Watching someone else watching a movie on Twitch or something?

If something is only 2-3% of the total, then yep, it's "fringe". I realize you don't like it, but that's the definition of the word. "something regarded as peripheral, marginal, secondary, or extreme in relation to something else:" So compared to overall internet video streaming, pirated streams are fringe. I'd like to see how that survey was conducted and exactly who they interviewed.

And you can compare bandwidth just by those numbers. Netflix alone is 37% of ALL internet bandwidth, all the time. So you and your compatriots spend a few minutes illegally downloading a movie, thus hitting that 3% for bittorrent. In that same time 12 times as much bandwidth has been consumed by people streaming from Netflix.

And you're right, since bittorrent is a one-time fast download compared to a continuous, low-bandwidth stream, that means while Netflix may be 12 times more bandwidth, it's likely thousands of times more USERS.
 
Zepher said:
I like how you compare digital (non-tangible items) to physical goods. If I download a movie, there isn't one less copy available.
Click to expand...
And if some asshat takes credit for work you did, and gets promoted while you get fired, no physical goods were stolen, right?
So you'd have nothing to complain about, under your logic, right? All they took was your intellectual property, just like pirates.
 
pcgeekesq said:
And if some asshat takes credit for work you did, and gets promoted while you get fired, no physical goods were stolen, right?
So you'd have nothing to complain about, under your logic, right? All they took was your intellectual property, just like pirates.
Click to expand...
The strawman is strong with this one...
 
damicatz said:
The Supreme Court disagrees with the FBI.
Click to expand...
You're improperly interpreting the decision. Even the Wiki article makes it clear that the question the court decided was whether LPs including unlicensed bootleg Elvis Presley recordings were goods "'stolen, converted or taken by fraud', according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute" -- not whether the bootlegs were theft. As the SC wrote:

"The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject good" (emphasis added)

N.B. leave the lawyering to lawyers, damicatz. Or if you are a lawyer, change careers, because it doesn't seem to me that you are a competent one.
 
Last edited:
Bandalo said:
Tell that to all the people who've been successfully sued for piracy.
Click to expand...
Congratulations you just debunked yourself. You can't be sued for theft, since theft is handled by the criminal court, not a civil court. However you can be sued for using intellectual property without permission. That's piracy.
It seems a very simple concept to me, what don't you get about it?
 
M76 said:
You can't be sued for theft ... It seems a very simple concept to me, what don't you get about it?
Click to expand...
Simple but wrong. In America, you can be sued for anything. Google "sued for theft" for proof.
 
pcgeekesq said:
You're improperly interpreting the decision. Even the Wiki article makes it clear that the question the court decided was whether LPs including unlicensed bootleg Elvis Presley recordings were goods "'stolen, converted or taken by fraud', according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute" -- not whether the bootlegs were theft. As the SC wrote:

"The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject good" (emphasis added)

N.B. leave the lawyering to lawyers, damicatz. Or if you are a lawyer, change careers, because it doesn't seem to me that you are a competent one.
Click to expand...

You left out a part :
Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

pcgeekesq said:
Simple but wrong. In America, you can be sued for anything. Google "sued for theft" for proof.
Click to expand...

The term you are looking for is conversion, not theft.
 
M76 said:
Congratulations you just debunked yourself. You can't be sued for theft, since theft is handled by the criminal court, not a civil court. However you can be sued for using intellectual property without permission. That's piracy.
It seems a very simple concept to me, what don't you get about it?
Click to expand...

In the US under current laws, it's not going to get you jail time, but it will instead get you fined for quite huge sums of money. The UK and a few other counties do treat it as a criminal offense (and I wouldn't doubt the US will eventually go that way too)

So, the point is more that you will be punished for piracy, not specifically what the charges will be when you go to court.
 
damicatz said:
You left out a part :
Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Click to expand...
None of which supports your claim that SCOTUS doesn't consider copyright infringement to be theft. It's just not "run-of-the-mill" theft.

It's amazing how people can quote court decisions and then pretend that some words in the quote aren't there.
 
pcgeekesq said:
And if some asshat takes credit for work you did, and gets promoted while you get fired, no physical goods were stolen, right?
So you'd have nothing to complain about, under your logic, right? All they took was your intellectual property, just like pirates.
Click to expand...

Your analogy doesn't fit this situation. That would be like saying the Pirates took the only copy of a movie from the studio, and the studio no longer has it, and the pirates start selling it.
 
grtitan said:
But we the consumers do have the last word.

All we have to do is to stop subscribing to every single one of these damned services and stick with one or two and you will see how quickly we will get the content on only those services.

Sadly, people today are not willing to do any type of temporary sacrifice to send the message.
Click to expand...
Heh kinda like steam for gaming. Many many people will only buy a game if it is on steams systems.
 
Don't like, don't pay.
I don't, and I won't, and can do without Marvel or what ever that thing is that they call StarWars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top