# Finally went HD ...



## speedmaster (May 27, 2008)

Just got this Vizio TV ( https://amzn.to/gs4HTI ) and DVR ( ) combo installed, love it!

The Sling feature is pretty slick, can watch anywhere on PC or iPad. It was about time, our TV was a 20 year old 27" CRT. ;-)


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Slingbox also works on most smartphones. The app is $30, but well worth it. I have a slingbox pro HD and HTC EVO from sprint, and have my full comcast channel lineup in my pocket at all times, in streaming high def!!

Congrats on coming to the high def side!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

HD??

I just switched to DVDs!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> HD??
> 
> I just switched to DVDs!!


Don't worry... When you switch to Blue Ray the next thing will come out.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> Don't worry... When you switch to Blue Ray the next thing will come out.


It already has: 3D.

Not that I'm exactly rushing to get one....


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Starch said:


> It already has: 3D.
> 
> Not that I'm exactly rushing to get one....


Luckily, the PS3 (BluRay) is already 3D capable. Don't have to invest in new tech for the media player at least. Just the display.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I'd rather switch back to VHS and Beta.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Howard said:


> I'd rather switch back to VHS and Beta.


Go Old School with Super 8mm!!


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Howard said:


> I'd rather switch back to VHS and Beta.


No; laserdisc is where it's at. Many LD titles came in some incredibly cool collector's editions, the likes of which are rarely seen or duplicated in the DVD world. I think it's really the size as the reason. With a big 12" disc like LD, it wasn't a big deal to make the package a bit thicker and toss in a script book, photo book, story book, soundtrack CD, production notes, and a folded-up theater poster. With DVD, you get a lot more extras on the disc itself (sometimes multiple discs), but nowhere near the level of tangible _stuff_.

Besides, in my opinion, the 12-inch optical disc was so much cooler than the itty-bitty 4.7-inch optical disc...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Go Old School with Super 8mm!!


everything was simpler with VHS And Beta back then.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

JJR512 said:


> No; laserdisc is where it's at. Many LD titles came in some incredibly cool collector's editions, the likes of which are rarely seen or duplicated in the DVD world. I think it's really the size as the reason. With a big 12" disc like LD, it wasn't a big deal to make the package a bit thicker and toss in a script book, photo book, story book, soundtrack CD, production notes, and a folded-up theater poster. With DVD, you get a lot more extras on the disc itself (sometimes multiple discs), but nowhere near the level of tangible _stuff_.
> 
> Besides, in my opinion, the 12-inch optical disc was so much cooler than the itty-bitty 4.7-inch optical disc...


So what do I do with all my VHS tapes?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Howard said:


> So what do I do with all my VHS tapes?


Replace them with LDs, DVDs, or BDs!

Once you have replaced a particular VHS movie, here's how to dispose of the VHS tape. First, cover over the label between the windows of the cassette, as well as on the one edge, then hand-write some random code on the new blank label. Then show up at a political rally, and when you see a politician, start waving the tape over your head while you yell out, "I have the evidence right here, senator! You won't get away with it this time!" (Of course, replace "senator" with whatever is appropriate for the particular politician.)


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

We're still using Video CDs here. I guess we might get a CVD(China Video Disc), DVD, EVD, HD-DVD or CBHD(China Blue High-Definition) player one day.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Luckily, the PS3 (BluRay) is already 3D capable. Don't have to invest in new tech for the media player at least. Just the display.


I've heard that 3D is hyped to be the next big thing. I think it will just be a big flop, just like quadraphonic was in the 70s.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

JJR512 said:


> Replace them with LDs, DVDs, or BDs!
> 
> Once you have replaced a particular VHS movie, here's how to dispose of the VHS tape. First, cover over the label between the windows of the cassette, as well as on the one edge, then hand-write some random code on the new blank label. Then show up at a political rally, and when you see a politician, start waving the tape over your head while you yell out, "I have the evidence right here, senator! You won't get away with it this time!" (Of course, replace "senator" with whatever is appropriate for the particular politician.)


JJ,I have over 70 Wrestling Tapes,A box of porn,movies and film,It'll take forever to do that.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Just doit once in DC. and leave the box on the ground, when the press come to question you. Between the wrestling and the porn, they'll find someone that looks like a congressperson.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Apatheticviews said:


> Just doit once in DC. and leave the box on the ground, when the press come to question you. Between the wrestling and the porn, they'll find someone that looks like a congressperson.


What's DC?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Howard said:


> What's DC?


District of Columbia. Nation's Capital.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Howard said:


> What's DC?





Apatheticviews said:


> District of Columbia. Nation's Capital.


Wow...I knew people from New York City thought they were in the center of the universe, but wow...


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> Wow...I knew people from New York City thought they were in the center of the universe, but wow...


In his defense, I'm pretty sure that Washington, DC is the nation's capital.

Somewhat more in context, it's probably the easiest place to find a senator (or any politician), at least in season.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Starch said:


> In his defense, I'm pretty sure that Washington, DC is the nation's capital.


Uh, yeah, exactly...that was my point. Not sure how confirming what Apatheticviews said is defending Howard, though.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Nevermind.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Apatheticviews said:


> District of Columbia. Nation's Capital.


Thank You.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Starch said:


> It already has: 3D.
> 
> Not that I'm exactly rushing to get one....


Disagree....BluRay is being replaced by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, et. al who all stream HD content. As our data connections get better (read: more bandwidth), everything will happen in the cloud.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Disagree....BluRay is being replaced by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, et. al who all stream HD content. As our data connections get better (read: more bandwidth), everything will happen in the cloud.


That's why the best BluRay players are *also* Netflix & Hulu streaming devices (like the PS3). People are reluctant to give up straight media devices, even if we do like the convenience of streaming. The availability of old/classic/vintage/new/*"specific"* titles via streaming is just not there yet, whereas the media libraries people have built up over the years from DVD/BluRay/Download is just bigger.

Once we have fibre door-to-door, maybe everything will exist in a cloud, but coming from a community where communications crashed constantly, I like having media at my fingertips rather than in a cloud where I can be charged a rental fee per use.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> That's why the best BluRay players are *also* Netflix & Hulu streaming devices (like the PS3). People are reluctant to give up straight media devices, even if we do like the convenience of streaming. The availability of old/classic/vintage/new/*"specific"* titles via streaming is just not there yet, whereas the media libraries people have built up over the years from DVD/BluRay/Download is just bigger.
> 
> Once we have fibre door-to-door, maybe everything will exist in a cloud, but coming from a community where communications crashed constantly, I like having media at my fingertips rather than in a cloud where I can be charged a rental fee per use.


I do not like the cloud movement.

I have had financial problems in the past...heck, I still do now...and have not always been able to afford broadband. I haven't even always been able to afford basic cable. But at least I had a cheap DVD player and a cheap TV.

And what about watching movies away from home? What about airplanes, where one can bring a laptop or specific portable DVD player and watch any DVD they own in flight? What about family cars with build-in TV screens and DVD players? There are dozens or hundreds of conceivable locations or scenarios in which one might want to watch a movie and right now, realistically, a disc, or ripped copy of a disc, is the only means of doing so.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> District of Columbia. Nation's Capital.


What you mean New York is not the capital of America?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

The day I can quickly download or stream a movie that offers the same picture and audio quality as BluRay, I'll consider digital download as an option. However, with a high quality 1080p picture and the high definition lossless audio formats combining to fill a 25/50GB BD disk, it's unlikely. The reason why I don't even buy music downloads is compression. The best iTunes can offer is 256Kbps AAC. Maybe that suits the masses, but not me. The availability of lossless audio downloads are few and far between.

Quality over quantity.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I'm a "property" guy. I like to own it, even if it is at a virtual level (media). I saw a quote the other day that had me rolling.

"My stupid book is out of batteries. The future sucks."

What good is media that you can't access (via the "cloud"). Back in the late 90's we had a lot of higher staff officers claiming that everything needed to go completely client/server based for our command & control structure (& wireless to boot). This would mean that no real information was store at the lowest echelon, but was merely accessed from the very top. In theory it's great. Everyone has one picture. The problem was that technology couldn't support it then (now, and probably not for another 50 years because we don't fight in 1st world countries). The communications & intelligences fields had to fight back hard from both both the top and bottom to make them see reason.

In today's world, thing's like songs are fairly reasonable, but you still aren't getting the quality you would from even a CD. But then again, the media market has had to fight back against the problems they helped to create. When you inflate the value of the product you sell to an astronomical level, without providing additional value as technology gets better (reducing your costs), people start to look for reasons to justify theft. I don't condone piracy, but I also think the various media markets need to revamp their structures lest they find themselves with no markets.

Netflix effectively killed blockbuster. And has started to realign itself for a more "streaming only" oriented view. Change with the times as they say.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> "My stupid book is out of batteries. The future sucks."
> 
> Back in the late 90's we had a lot of higher staff officers claiming that everything needed to go completely client/server based for our command & control structure (& wireless to boot). This would mean that no real information was store at the lowest echelon, but was merely accessed from the very top. In theory it's great. Everyone has one picture. The problem was that technology couldn't support it then (now, and probably not for another 50 years because we don't fight in 1st world countries). The communications & intelligences fields had to fight back hard from both both the top and bottom to make them see reason.


1) Funny!! (I'll never say that)

2) A self powered radio on a land line always works!! (As does semaphore and morse code)

What do you suppose future American POWs will do to communicate with one another??

Text?? :rolleyes2:


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> The availability of lossless audio downloads are few and far between.


thepiratebay.org plenty of lossless audio and good quality HD here.
BTW I'm in China, where downloading content via bit-torrent is legal for private and academic uses. It's probably illegal and may infringe copyright in other countries.

Myself, I would never touch official Blu-ray because of its nasty DRM. Same with buying movies from iTunes.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> thepiratebay.org plenty of lossless audio and good quality HD here.
> BTW I'm in China, where downloading content via bit-torrent is legal for private and academic uses. It's probably illegal and may infringe copyright in other countries.
> 
> Myself, I would never touch official Blu-ray because of its nasty DRM. Same with buying movies from iTunes.


Let me rephrase that - the lack of legitimate, legal lossless audio downloads are few and far between. Theft is theft, no matter the jurisdiction and no matter the commodity - be it the latest from Kings of Leon or the most recent Coen Brother movie downloaded from Piratebay to a stereo system or TV that just happened to fall off the back of a truck.

I will buy BluRay be it bricks and mortar or online retail, because a: There's no better format out there right now, b: I'll have it forever - well for a very long time....

Any HT fans out there? Well, I know there are one or two... But, if you have a quality HT, you'll know what I mean.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Let me rephrase that - the lack of legitimate, legal lossless audio downloads are few and far between. Theft is theft, no matter the jurisdiction and no matter the commodity - be it the latest from Kings of Leon or the most recent Coen Brother movie downloaded from Piratebay to a stereo system or TV that just happened to fall off the back of a truck.


Are you in the USA? The laws about downloading content will be different to China, where I am.



VictorRomeo said:


> I will buy BluRay be it bricks and mortar or online retail, because a: There's no better format out there right now, b: I'll have it forever - well for a very long time....


If i was in the USA and I wanted to play a Blu-ray on my *Linux* powered HTPC.... 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
_"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter."_
....oops!!! I would be committing a *federal crime*. Sorry, you can't legally make a backup of a DVD or Blu-ray either due to DMCA.

This is why anything with Digital Restrictions Management(DRM) is just horrible.

Anyway Blu-ray is unavailable here, so downloading is the only way if I want HD movies.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

MikeDT said:


> Are you in the USA? The laws about downloading content will be different to China, where I am.


It doesn't matter where you are, it doesn't matter what the laws are...Stealing is wrong, period.

That being said, here is something I wonder. My local library system has a pretty decent collection of DVDs which any member can check out for free and keep for a period of one week. In theory I can check out a particular movie as often as I'd like and see it many, many times for free. In theory, I can also check out a movie just once, make a copy of it, return the disc to the library, and watch my copy of it over and over again. Either way, I'm watching the movie many times without ever paying for it, it's just that one way is more convenient for me, but it's also illegal. But it's not illegal for the library to let me take the disc home as many times as I want. As long as it's possible for me to watch the movie over and over again for free, why is it illegal for me to do it in a way that's convenient for me? The studio isn't ever going to get one dime from me, so why should they care if I'm watching a disc I took home for free from the library, or a copy of it?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> Are you in the USA? The laws about downloading content will be different to China, where I am.


Regardless of the weak copyright law in China, you are in essence taking something for nothing. That something costs money to produce and sure, it's by and large produced for profit. And that something costs - in every market globally - money when purchased in hardcopy form.

I'm not here to defend DRM, but it's a necessary evil to prevent illegal copying and duplication. Goes right back to the early days of VCR and the special Macrovision cable one could use to copy tapes. I get why it exists - though I agree, it's maddening. Also, I do appreciate the frustrations when one can't legally view BD on Linux, but as an open source platform, intellectual property cannot be appropriately protected.

I'm in Ireland.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> That being said, here is something I wonder. My local library system has a pretty decent collection of DVDs which any member can check out for free and keep for a period of one week. In theory I can check out a particular movie as often as I'd like and see it many, many times for free. In theory, I can also check out a movie just once, make a copy of it, return the disc to the library, and watch my copy of it over and over again. Either way, I'm watching the movie many times without ever paying for it, it's just that one way is more convenient for me, but it's also illegal. But it's not illegal for the library to let me take the disc home as many times as I want. As long as it's possible for me to watch the movie over and over again for free, why is it illegal for me to do it in a way that's convenient for me? The studio isn't ever going to get one dime from me, so why should they care if I'm watching a disc I took home for free from the library, or a copy of it?


That copy will be supplied with a different end user license agreement. Sort of like a rental copy, the license or distribution rights will support that mechanism.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> That copy will be supplied with a different end user license agreement. Sort of like a rental copy, the license or distribution rights will support that mechanism.


The license doesn't matter, as far as I can work out. It's just a piece of paper (perhaps not literally). Regardless of what the license says, the studio only gets money for the DVD when the library initially buys it. After that, when I take it home _for free_, the studio gets _no money_. Now, whether I return the DVD then check it out again two months later, or if I make a copy of it and watch the copy two months later, again the studio is getting _no money_. If the studio is getting _no money_ either way, what difference should it make to them if I'm watching the physical disc I had to go back to the library to get, or if I'm watching a copy I made for my own personal convenience?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> It doesn't matter where you are, it doesn't matter what the laws are...Stealing is wrong, period.


There's a difference between stealing a pirating. They're both theft of sorts, in that they are denying an owner their financial rights to their products. But it gets really really fuzzy on where you draw the line in the sand.

If you go outside and your car is gone. It's stolen. If you go outside and your car is still there. It's not. If someone made an exact replica of it, and took the replica, did they steal your car? No. If you gave someone permission to make a replica of your car, can the manufacturer complain? They say they can. They say they own the "concept" of the car.

With media, all the way back to Guttenburg and his movable print we have copyright. Media is just an extension of that. The US Constitution forbids infinite copyrights, but doesn't put a real upper limit on them, and has no problem with extending them either.

Using the library example. The library paid for an extended license up front. Basically, it was assumed there would be more than one user, and they "paid" for it. How is irrelevant. Consumers pay for it another way. Rental organizations pay for them in a third way, as do mass media organizations like theaters. Pirates don't pay for the license. They "stole" the license (if anything). They are not licensed users of the product, and have no rights to it.

The law of first use does not apply to the information itself, only the media containing it (the disc, or book, or cartridge), but in most cases, the pirates have no rights to begin with. They acquired the raw data only, and usually via third party sources.

Copyright has to exist. As does Patent. Creators have to be protected and rewarded for the work they create... But that doesn't give them complete licensee to profiteer off everyone. Generally people are lazy. Hate to say it, but people will take the easy solution. If we can download it from itunes or buy in the store for a couple $ we will. If the price is out of line for what it's actually worth, people start looking on .torrent sites for it and pay nothing at all.

If the industry puts out crap music and movies and expects us to pay $20 a CD/DVD for it, they can expect to see a bunch of them sitting on the shelves and wonder why "piracy" is epidemic in America.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I understand everything you're saying, but you're still not answering my question.

On the one hand: A library buys a DVD. The studio gets money. Let's say this library-licensed DVD costs the library $100, just for the sake of argument; I know rental editions can cost that much or more, and have no idea about the cost of library editions, but let's put a number on it just to keep it simple. So, the library now has a DVD, and the studio has $100. Now a library patron comes in and takes home the DVD. The studio still has only $100. The patron watches the DVD. The studio still has $100. The patron returns the DVD. The studio still has $100. Two months later, the patron decides he wants to see the movie again, so he goes back to the library, checks out the DVD again, takes it home, watches it, and returns it, and throughout all this, it still remains that the only money the studio ever received for this DVD is the $100 initial purchase price.

On the other hand: A library buys a DVD. The studio gets its $100. Now a library patron comes in and takes home the DVD. The studio still only has $100. The patron watches the DVD. The studio still only has $100. The patron makes a copy of the DVD. The studio still has only $100. The patron returns the DVD to the library. The studio still has $100. Two months later, the patron decides he wants to watch the movie again, so he gets out the copy he made and watches it. Through all that, it still remains that the only money the studio ever received for the original DVD is the $100 initial purchase price.

On either hand, if you take out all other variables, the studio only ever received $100, and they never lost any money. So again, the question remains: What difference does it make to the studio if a library patron does it one way or the other?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> I understand everything you're saying, but you're still not answering my question.
> 
> On the one hand: A library buys a DVD. The studio gets money. Let's say this library-licensed DVD costs the library $100, just for the sake of argument; I know rental editions can cost that much or more, and have no idea about the cost of library editions, but let's put a number on it just to keep it simple. So, the library now has a DVD, and the studio has $100. Now a library patron comes in and takes home the DVD. The studio still has only $100. The patron watches the DVD. The studio still has $100. The patron returns the DVD. The studio still has $100. Two months later, the patron decides he wants to see the movie again, so he goes back to the library, checks out the DVD again, takes it home, watches it, and returns it, and throughout all this, it still remains that the only money the studio ever received for this DVD is the $100 initial purchase price.
> 
> ...


There comes the situation where *TWO* people can watch the movie at the same time in* TWO* locations, violating the agreement. There was no loss of money, but there was a breach of agreement.

You say I can borrow your car on Tuesday, but want me to return it by Wednesday noon, because you need it Wednesday at 4pm. I return it at Wed 3pm. You are upset at me, because I broke the agreement, even though you didn't lose use of your vehicle (as well is your right).


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> There comes the situation where *TWO* people can watch the movie at the same time in* TWO* locations, violating the agreement. There was no loss of money, but there was a breach of agreement.
> 
> You say I can borrow your car on Tuesday, but want me to return it by Wednesday noon, because you need it Wednesday at 4pm. I return it at Wed 3pm. You are upset at me, because I broke the agreement, even though you didn't lose use of your vehicle (as well is your right).


This is all true. I am upset because you broke the agreement, but what practical harm came to me? None, as you say. I didn't lose the use of my vehicle. So in practical terms, what difference does it _actually_ make to me if you return the car at noon or at 3pm? None.

As for the library's DVD, neither the library nor the studio have any control over how many people watch the _movie_ at any one time. I can go check out the DVD and watch it by myself, or I can invite a friend over and we can both watch it together. What difference does it make to the studio if two people watch the same single disc at the same time in the same location, or if two people watch the same _movie_ on the disc at the same time but in two different locations? What difference does it make to the studio if those two people actually know each other or not?

None. None at all.

No matter what scenario I can imagine, the studio only ever will get $100 from the sale of that one disc, and they will never lose any money. It doesn't matter if that DVD sits in the library and never gets checked out and never watched by anyone. It doesn't matter if I go the library and take that physical disc every time I want to watch it. It doesn't matter if I take that disc home and invite one friend or 50 friends over and we all watch it together. It doesn't matter if I take that disc home and invite 50 strangers into my home to watch it. It doesn't matter if I copy the disc and watch the copy at the same time that another library patron is watching the actual physical disc. If I didn't have that copy, then between me and the other person who wanted to see that particular movie at that particular time, one of us would have gotten the disc first and would be watching it as desired, while the other one wouldn't be watching it all all.

As long as its possible for me to get that physical disc from the library for free, it makes absolutely no practical difference to the studio whether I'm watching that physical disc or a copy of it. None that I can imagine.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Why buy the cow when you're getting milk free??

Exactly!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> This is all true. I am upset because you broke the agreement, but what practical harm came to me? None, as you say. I didn't lose the use of my vehicle. So in practical terms, what difference does it _actually_ make to me if you return the car at noon or at 3pm? None.
> 
> As for the library's DVD, neither the library nor the studio have any control over how many people watch the _movie_ at any one time. I can go check out the DVD and watch it by myself, or I can invite a friend over and we can both watch it together. What difference does it make to the studio if two people watch the same single disc at the same time in the same location, or if two people watch the same _movie_ on the disc at the same time but in two different locations? What difference does it make to the studio if those two people actually know each other or not?
> 
> ...


It's not about the money at that point though. It's about breach of trust. Two separate issues. That's why we have both Copyright & Law of First Use, etc.

Up until last week I worked for Gamestop. They are a company which specializes in the retail, and resell of video games. Software manufacturers capitalize on the first sale of a video game, whereas the retailer makes very little profit comparatively. Gamestop however makes a much larger profit on used/preowned videogames (about 5 times as much as the same new game on release day). Last year, the video game industry was doing everything in its power to get the law of first use thrown out, claiming it hurt the industry. The counter-argument was that when people traded in their games, they bought new games (from first hand experience, this is very true).

Something I also saw from my former employer was anti-piracy practices in play. Microsoft bans Xbox live accounts & "modded" consoles of those who play pirated video games. From a movie standpoint, this isn't a huge issue... but from a videogame standpoint, this is HUGE. When you can have 32 people playing on line with ONE copy of a game instead of 32.... that's a net loss of $60*31= $1860.... If you rent it from a company like Gamefly.. your cost is reduced further.

But back to the breach of trust. When the library bought their copy, their license agreement said they wouldn't make any unauthorized copies. When you got a library card, you agreed to the terms of the library (which probably included not violating federal, state, or local statute). Making a copy of the disc, is the breach of trust with the library. You likely wouldn't photocopy a book. Just because it's easier, doesn't make it more justifiable.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> Making a copy of the disc, is the breach of trust with the library. You likely wouldn't photocopy a book. Just because it's easier, doesn't make it more justifiable.


Absolutely true. But I'm not talking about justifying anything. I'm asking how does it hurt the studio. You've said they get upset about it, and that might be true but being upset about something doesn't mean they're actually _hurt_ by it, just as with the car example, I wasn't hurt in any practical way by you bringing back my car later than we agreed. So I can't think of anything, and it seems that you can't, either. But yes, all the _other_ things you've mentioned are true, even though they don't really show any actual harm coming to the studio.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> Absolutely true. But I'm not talking about justifying anything. I'm asking how does it hurt the studio. You've said they get upset about it, and that might be true but being upset about something doesn't mean they're actually _hurt_ by it, just as with the car example, I wasn't hurt in any practical way by you bringing back my car later than we agreed. So I can't think of anything, and it seems that you can't, either. But yes, all the _other_ things you've mentioned are true, even though they don't really show any actual harm coming to the studio.


If you alone hold onto the copy, _probably_ no harm comes to the studio. If it has no interactive or multimedia features which use the internet, or other people, _probably_ no harm comes to the studio.

But replace your movie with video game I mention above. A movie is watched once (2 hours), whereas a video game can have countless hours of "experience." They are both "entertainment" media produced by a "studio" with writers, directors, actors, etc. In many ways they are interchangeable. A video-game just adds an added element of interactivity, which _most_ movies do not. I say most, because many DVDs/BluRay come with games & content which can be accessed through the web now providing a pale comparison of what video games offer now. But give it 5-10 years.

If your library offered video games for loan, would the argument hold as true? My stand is no. I can show financial proof how it doesn't. The difference is that the movies in your example, the financial proof has become negligible, or incalculable by us (but probably by the movie industry).

Like I said earlier. Piracy isn't stealing. Piracy is however a form of theft however in that it is violation of owner rights. Just because someone isn't directly harmed you infringing on their rights doesn't give someone else the right to do it. If I own land in the middle of nowhere (with plans for that land in 10 years), and someone builds on it, with the justification that I'm no using it now, doesn't make the land theirs to use until I'm ready to.

The "harm" is the violation of rights. *Proof* of harm would be financial damage.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

If everything happens exactly as I've described, there is no harm that comes to the studio. You say the financial harm is negligible or incalculable, but the movie industry can probably show that there is some kind of actual financial harm.

The financial harm they would show isn't real, it's imaginary. It's based on statistics, and is _possible_, but not necessarily _actual_.

The movie industry would say that I, as a library patron with free access to DVDs via the library, might check out a movie once, and if I like it, I'm _likely_ to buy a copy for myself so I can watch it whenever I want. However, if I make an unauthorized copy of the library's DVD, I will never need to pay for a copy, therefore the studio is losing the profit from the sale I _might_ have made. So the loss is hypothetical.

But if I am committed to never buying that particular movie, if I am committed to only ever watching it at no cost to myself by getting the DVD from the library for free, then the studio will _never_ get any money from me, and whether I keep going back to the library to watch it for free, or if I watch a copy of the library's DVD that I made, either way the studio isn't losing a sale because the sale was never going to happen in the first place. Not in the specific scenarios that I have described, which were all specifically written _about me_ and not in some hypothetical "suppose a random person" kind of way.

Everything I have said about a DVD movie is equally true about console games, including the _fact_ that no actual real harm comes to the game publisher if I keep getting the game from the library for free vs. making a copy of the game and using that, rather than going to the library to keep getting it for free. However, this is only true if the game is a self-contained experience, that does not require any kind of connectivity to play. If the game involves online interactivity, then yes, you are absolutely correct that now there is a very real potential for harm to come to the publisher, or whatever entity is involved in providing that online connectivity. If I'm playing an unauthorized copy of the game and access online features, and someone else is simultaneously using the actual game disc from the library, then there are _two_ people using those online features which means more bandwidth and server resources are being used. The actual value of that for one case for a limited time period might be extremely small, but multiplied over many illegal copies for long periods of time, can become a real problem for the publisher or provider.

In response to your final sentence, I just want to make it clear that all this time when I've been talking about "real harm" or "actual harm" I've been referring to _tangible_ harm that can be measured. A company getting upset that something was stolen from them, or that an unauthorized copy was made, isn't tangible, thus in my opinion is not real, or actual, or true harm. It's like your example with the car, you may have brought it back late and I may have been upset about it, but because you still got it to me in time for what I needed it for, I didn't actually lose anything that can be measured. The only real or actual harm is the harm that, as you say, can be proven, which is financial.

All that being said, I realize why the movie industry cannot allow copies to be made of DVDs that are checked out from libraries. They cannot very well say something like, "If you think you might one day pay for this movie, then you are not allowed to make a copy of it, but if you're never going to pay for this movie, then you may as well make a copy of it because it won't matter to us anyway." If they said this, then everyone would claim that they never had any intent of ever paying for it, and everyone would just make copies of DVDs from libraries.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> Netflix effectively killed blockbuster. And has started to realign itself for a more "streaming only" oriented view. Change with the times as they say.


That's why Blockbuster is going out of business,the computer age is taking over.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

@JJ.

That's the trick. How do you measure financial harm? If I profit off something that belongs to you, without you gaining, do you take a loss? This of course is all theoretical, but the lawyers will argue that you did indeed lose something. The opposition will state that you may not be entitled to gain from my profits.

_*Media Piracy is nothing more than Copyright violation.*_ It's just been updated for the 21st century. Same thing different era. The owner (creator/publisher/distributor/retailer/etc) of the data is still just as entitled to profit from his work as he has always been. The consumer (not necessarily a purchaser) is inclined to get the best deal he is able. The law protects the owner, while modern technology currently supports the consumer. When media was more expensive to copy, the balance was shifted the other way.

My personal opinion is that the media empires were profiteering off the public for a little too long, and milked the cow a little too hard. "What the market will bear" is a nasty little phrase when it comes to media based entertainment. It's flat out outrageous what we pay for it... but we do so willingly. Bread & circuses, so they say... But with cheap "blank media (including TB+ harddrives)," low cost bandwidth, file share sites, and people getting fed up with paying $20 for 60 minutes of music that costs $0.20 (at most) to stamp out, it's no wonder people have no problem justifying piracy. I've personally hit the point that if it doesn't come one over the radio (or already in my personal collection), I'm probably not going to listen to it. I see maybe three movies a year, if they aren't on TV or Netflix, because I'm too cheap to pay for what's coming out and/or willing to wait for it.

I'm all for studios getting their cut, but I'm not going to go out of my way to hand them my money if they aren't going to give me a worthwhile product.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Howard said:


> That's why Blockbuster is going out of business,the computer age is taking over.


Netflix killed blockbuster because people are lazy, and cheap. $15 a month ($9 for the basic plan) gets you 3-4 movies a time, which you can keep as long as you want, drop in a mailbox when you're done, and get some more in 2-3 days with stuff you have pre-programmed from a list. Takes 15 minutes out of your day on the days you pay attention. Blockbuster costs you $15 for 3 movies which you had to return within 5 nights or be charged a late fee. You had to think about what you wanted. Hope they had it. Spend 15 minutes in your car going there. Listen to the wife complain because you got a crappy movie. Return them. Etc, etc. Blockbuster also had to deal with customer facing employees, store hours, retail locations and all other manner of garbage.

A full Netflix Distribution Center (call it a state) could probably be ran by 3 college kids with the right auto-sorting mail processing machine and a big enough warehouse.

Cheap & Lazy > All.

Whoever set netflix up was a bloody genius. It's efficient, cheap (to run), and makes its competition obsolete, and did it in less than 10 years. Even without the computer age.. They would have won outright. With the onset of steaming media, they are just making sure they aren't the next dodo bird. a fondly remembered exhibit of some forgotten era.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I still don't like streaming media.

The last time the power went out at my house for more than a couple of minutes, know what my family did? We watched a movie together. At home, with no power, because I had a charged-up laptop and a physical disc I could put in it. And power failure be damned, my family had a good time together that night.

Try watching a streaming movie in a power failure.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

There was a time 20-25 years ago that you could take a walk to your nearest video store and rent a film or 2,no one does that anymore.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> I still don't like streaming media.
> 
> The last time the power went out at my house for more than a couple of minutes, know what my family did? We watched a movie together. At home, with no power, because I had a charged-up laptop and a physical disc I could put in it. And power failure be damned, my family had a good time together that night.
> 
> Try watching a streaming movie in a power failure.


I agree.

-"My stupid book is out of batteries. The future sucks."

I like hard media (even the iTunes variety) for exactly the reasons you mention.

Myself & my wife both have computers in our living room (they actually face the TV). We use them as part of our nightly entertainment. As it stands now, one of us can stream, while the other web surfs, but even with highspeed connection we can't both stream or use higher intensity bandwidth like flash games without interfering with the other. When my son gets more school related in his internet use, his computer will get unlimited access as well. Right now, DSL/Cable just don't support for the speeds my household needs. I can't see myself as that far outside the norm, especially when you have other devices in the house are beginning to use bandwidth as well.

The stuttering, sputtering, and waiting for my movie to catch up because of the internet, just breaks the feel.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Howard said:


> There was a time 20-25 years ago that you could take a walk to your nearest video store and rent a film or 2,no one does that anymore.


I think Redbox fills that niche now with new releases. If it's older, walmart is often a simpler option for a comparable price. Why pay $5 to rent, when you can pay $10 to own?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Apatheticviews said:


> I think Redbox fills that niche now with new releases. If it's older, walmart is often a simpler option for a comparable price. Why pay $5 to rent, when you can pay $10 to own?


Apathetic,I think society has gone lazy,people don't want to take walks to their nearest video store anymore,we now point and click.


----------

