Fighting Piracy
Monday 3rd December, 2007 23:04 Comments: 4
After watching Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, I was thinking about piracy and how to combat the illegal distribution of TV shows (and movies).
Firstly, I admit that a lot of the DRM/Windows only issues are less of a concern for me and my almost entirely Windows based environment, but it'd be nice to see a DRM free solution, as I do have Linux machines (I've even got XviD running perfectly on my copy of Slackware) and I wouldn't want to tie myself to a device. Given that virtually all DRM formats have been broken, it's more of a nuisance than anti-piracy measure.
So here's the big question: if illegal downloads are faster, higher quality and less restrictive, what's the incentive to be legal?
The delay between episodes airing and episodes being available on the players (iPlayer, 4oD) is too long. The first step would be to make the digital download appear immediately after the show has aired. That way people will watch it first on TV, where you have full control over what they are watching, and can display adverts to bring in some revenue.
But that's more like putting a plaster over a gaping wound. What the broadcasters need to do is reevaluate their business model. They should probably assume that a show will be watched by millions of people for free, and that they can't assume they'll make money on selling digital downloads.
They could still charge a premium for a retail copy (DVD/HDDVD/BluRay, in a nice box) for people without the internet or to give to people as presents. They could charge a nominal fee to cover bandwidth costs for legal downloads in the country that you broadcast (and perhaps, for the UK, restrict it to UK based credit/debit cards?). You can assume that a lot of people in the UK and across the rest of the world will trade the files over P2P networks, but that won't affect bandwidth costs, and if you never assume you'd make money on internet downloads them you're not losing money through piracy. You can still go after people like you are now, but hopefully providing a decent legal alternative will reduce the number of people you'd need to go after.
So how do you counter the loss of revenue? You can make some money from "subtle" advertising in the show (e.g. product placement, and not the obvious kind like you see in the Bond movies), and stick to the traditional advertising model when you show it on screen. The BBC can worry less about this as they have the licence fee money that means they don't do adverts. And as their original business model didn't include the internet, it shouldn't matter if they're putting the existing content onto the net for a nominal fee.
The final step would be to provide your own teaser clips from the show on sites like YouTube, so people can legally embed/link to things, which would stop people having to illegally upload their own versions if they want to link to that clip of Gareth's stapler in the jelly.
And what do you do about movies? Pretty much the same. You make your money in the cinema, with the big screen, the experience, the popcorn, the crowd. You make more money on the DVD/HDDVD/BluRay sales for people that want physical copies (perhaps include decent physical promotional items such as a booklet with behind the scenes photos, or even an exclusive cuddly toy?). You charge a nominal fee for the electronic version, which you release - for example - four weeks after it's out in the cinema. You also abandon this silly idea of different dates for different countries, and release things at roughly the same time all across the world, not 6-12 months later. It might cut into your margin a little, but think of it as an incentive to make decent movies, instead of all those remakes and expensive sequels that often rely upon expensive and extensive CGI sequences. Perhaps this is why Collateral turned out so much better than the remake of Miami Vice (even though both have Jamie Foxx and Michael Mann).
Firstly, I admit that a lot of the DRM/Windows only issues are less of a concern for me and my almost entirely Windows based environment, but it'd be nice to see a DRM free solution, as I do have Linux machines (I've even got XviD running perfectly on my copy of Slackware) and I wouldn't want to tie myself to a device. Given that virtually all DRM formats have been broken, it's more of a nuisance than anti-piracy measure.
So here's the big question: if illegal downloads are faster, higher quality and less restrictive, what's the incentive to be legal?
The delay between episodes airing and episodes being available on the players (iPlayer, 4oD) is too long. The first step would be to make the digital download appear immediately after the show has aired. That way people will watch it first on TV, where you have full control over what they are watching, and can display adverts to bring in some revenue.
But that's more like putting a plaster over a gaping wound. What the broadcasters need to do is reevaluate their business model. They should probably assume that a show will be watched by millions of people for free, and that they can't assume they'll make money on selling digital downloads.
They could still charge a premium for a retail copy (DVD/HDDVD/BluRay, in a nice box) for people without the internet or to give to people as presents. They could charge a nominal fee to cover bandwidth costs for legal downloads in the country that you broadcast (and perhaps, for the UK, restrict it to UK based credit/debit cards?). You can assume that a lot of people in the UK and across the rest of the world will trade the files over P2P networks, but that won't affect bandwidth costs, and if you never assume you'd make money on internet downloads them you're not losing money through piracy. You can still go after people like you are now, but hopefully providing a decent legal alternative will reduce the number of people you'd need to go after.
So how do you counter the loss of revenue? You can make some money from "subtle" advertising in the show (e.g. product placement, and not the obvious kind like you see in the Bond movies), and stick to the traditional advertising model when you show it on screen. The BBC can worry less about this as they have the licence fee money that means they don't do adverts. And as their original business model didn't include the internet, it shouldn't matter if they're putting the existing content onto the net for a nominal fee.
The final step would be to provide your own teaser clips from the show on sites like YouTube, so people can legally embed/link to things, which would stop people having to illegally upload their own versions if they want to link to that clip of Gareth's stapler in the jelly.
And what do you do about movies? Pretty much the same. You make your money in the cinema, with the big screen, the experience, the popcorn, the crowd. You make more money on the DVD/HDDVD/BluRay sales for people that want physical copies (perhaps include decent physical promotional items such as a booklet with behind the scenes photos, or even an exclusive cuddly toy?). You charge a nominal fee for the electronic version, which you release - for example - four weeks after it's out in the cinema. You also abandon this silly idea of different dates for different countries, and release things at roughly the same time all across the world, not 6-12 months later. It might cut into your margin a little, but think of it as an incentive to make decent movies, instead of all those remakes and expensive sequels that often rely upon expensive and extensive CGI sequences. Perhaps this is why Collateral turned out so much better than the remake of Miami Vice (even though both have Jamie Foxx and Michael Mann).
Robert - Tuesday 4th December, 2007 01:40 SPOILER ALERT!
I did some digging around (mostly to look into POTC4) and came across this explanation of the ending of POTC3 (for those of you that stayed to the end/watched after the credits, there's a lovely scene that is actually even more lovely than I'd originally thought). It sounds like several scenes were cut, or trimmed down, which made it a lot less obvious.
It sounds to me like Calypso might have been to blame, others have pointed out that she said it was in her nature, and not that Davy Jones was at fault for his fate. However, Terry replied with:
Terry also clarified that: "he can step on land but once every ten years, and that at any time, if he finds a love that is true (this is part of the original Flying Dutchman opera by the way) then his attachment to the ship is broken". Further info can be found here: http://kaellana.livejournal.com/47483.html
I did some digging around (mostly to look into POTC4) and came across this explanation of the ending of POTC3 (for those of you that stayed to the end/watched after the credits, there's a lovely scene that is actually even more lovely than I'd originally thought). It sounds like several scenes were cut, or trimmed down, which made it a lot less obvious.
Ted and Terry (the writers) explained the ending for those of us who didn't really get what happened.
The green flash, in general, signals when somebody who was once dead, returns to the land of the living and becomes living themselves. (Green flash happened when Jack & Crew came back to the land of the living because Jack was once dead, and now living again. Notice the Green Flash NEVER happened when Davy Jones popped up out of the water.)
As for the curse of Davy Jones (and now Will), was that he was supposed to ferry the dead who die at sea to the afterlife and help them find peace and he could step on land after 10 years of honest service to be with his true love (for Davy Jones, Calypso; for Will, Elizabeth). If he did not corrupt his duty and if his true love was still waiting for him after 10 years, the curse would be broken. He would no longer be bound to the Dutchman.
Davy Jones corrupted his purpose long before his 10 years was up, he became a monster with every sense of the the word. That is why Calypso did not wait for him, or at least one of the reason's she did not wait for him. If you remember when Davy and Calypso had their little heart to heart on the Pearl, Davy said "I did the duty you charged me with for ten years and after ten years when we could finally be together, you weren't there." Calypso's response was basically that he corrupted his purpose so he in fact did not do the duty she charged him with. He changed the purpose of the duty. So he betrayed her first, long before he bound her in single form.
As for William Turner, he is everything Jack Sparrow said he was when he was telling Davy Jones about Will Turner. He's Noble, Heroic, Worth at least 4 souls. (maybe 3 1/2 lol) and he was in love. So, being the Noble, Heroic, Honor bound man, he dutifully ferried the souls lost at sea from this world to the next and he did not corrupt his purpose. And Elizabeth waited for him. So when William came back after ten years of honorable service to the Dutchman, and Lizzie was still there waiting faithfully. That green flash you see, is Will returning from the dead, to become alive again and he is released from the duty he was charged with to the Dutchman.
Apparently we [the audience] were supposed to be able to infer that from the green flash and the conversation between Davy Jones and Calypso. Ted and Terry said that they had written in all the explanation about the curse so that it was clearly laid out in exposition, but it hit the editing room floor due to time constraints. But if you listened really closely and paid attention to all the little details, you'd be able to figure it out on your own although it would be very difficult to do so.
The green flash, in general, signals when somebody who was once dead, returns to the land of the living and becomes living themselves. (Green flash happened when Jack & Crew came back to the land of the living because Jack was once dead, and now living again. Notice the Green Flash NEVER happened when Davy Jones popped up out of the water.)
As for the curse of Davy Jones (and now Will), was that he was supposed to ferry the dead who die at sea to the afterlife and help them find peace and he could step on land after 10 years of honest service to be with his true love (for Davy Jones, Calypso; for Will, Elizabeth). If he did not corrupt his duty and if his true love was still waiting for him after 10 years, the curse would be broken. He would no longer be bound to the Dutchman.
Davy Jones corrupted his purpose long before his 10 years was up, he became a monster with every sense of the the word. That is why Calypso did not wait for him, or at least one of the reason's she did not wait for him. If you remember when Davy and Calypso had their little heart to heart on the Pearl, Davy said "I did the duty you charged me with for ten years and after ten years when we could finally be together, you weren't there." Calypso's response was basically that he corrupted his purpose so he in fact did not do the duty she charged him with. He changed the purpose of the duty. So he betrayed her first, long before he bound her in single form.
As for William Turner, he is everything Jack Sparrow said he was when he was telling Davy Jones about Will Turner. He's Noble, Heroic, Worth at least 4 souls. (maybe 3 1/2 lol) and he was in love. So, being the Noble, Heroic, Honor bound man, he dutifully ferried the souls lost at sea from this world to the next and he did not corrupt his purpose. And Elizabeth waited for him. So when William came back after ten years of honorable service to the Dutchman, and Lizzie was still there waiting faithfully. That green flash you see, is Will returning from the dead, to become alive again and he is released from the duty he was charged with to the Dutchman.
Apparently we [the audience] were supposed to be able to infer that from the green flash and the conversation between Davy Jones and Calypso. Ted and Terry said that they had written in all the explanation about the curse so that it was clearly laid out in exposition, but it hit the editing room floor due to time constraints. But if you listened really closely and paid attention to all the little details, you'd be able to figure it out on your own although it would be very difficult to do so.
It sounds to me like Calypso might have been to blame, others have pointed out that she said it was in her nature, and not that Davy Jones was at fault for his fate. However, Terry replied with:
1) What exactly does the curse include? Is the curse not being able to step on land except once every 10 years, or is the curse being the Captain of the Flying Dutchman, Ferrying souls to the after life AND not being able to set foot on land?
I think the movie implies that if you don't do the job of ferrying souls, you end up corrupted, in body and mind, like Jones. Jones decided to not do the job, so in theory Will has that same choice. But neither can step foot on land.
2) If the the curse being broken for Will means that he is no longer bound to the Dutchman as Captain and no longer has to ferry souls to the after life, and can now be with Elizabeth forever, my question is... If the Dutchman must always have a Captain, and Will is now no longer Captain, Who becomes Captain of the Dutchman? Bootstrap? Somebody else? What becomes of the Dutchman and the Crew?
The movie does not state where the next Captain comes from, who picks the next Captain, or what happens to the crew. But I think the movie implies -- strongly -- that Calypso would be involved in the choice. Probably whoever it turned out to be would have 'a touch of destiny.'
3) If Will is no longer cursed, and can live with Elizabeth forever now, no longer bound to the Dutchman, does he get his heart back, or is it still locked away in the dead man's chest?
The movie doesn't address this question at all.
4) This is a question about Elizabeth, I know at the end Jack (sorry, CAPTAIN Jack lol) drops her off on some big huge island that appears to be deserted. Cut to 10 years later, she has new clothes, a 10 yr old son, and she's still on the same island.
It looks to me like a different island. I don't think the location of shooting was the same. It sure looks different to me, sand and rocks vs. grass and hills.
I think the movie implies that if you don't do the job of ferrying souls, you end up corrupted, in body and mind, like Jones. Jones decided to not do the job, so in theory Will has that same choice. But neither can step foot on land.
2) If the the curse being broken for Will means that he is no longer bound to the Dutchman as Captain and no longer has to ferry souls to the after life, and can now be with Elizabeth forever, my question is... If the Dutchman must always have a Captain, and Will is now no longer Captain, Who becomes Captain of the Dutchman? Bootstrap? Somebody else? What becomes of the Dutchman and the Crew?
The movie does not state where the next Captain comes from, who picks the next Captain, or what happens to the crew. But I think the movie implies -- strongly -- that Calypso would be involved in the choice. Probably whoever it turned out to be would have 'a touch of destiny.'
3) If Will is no longer cursed, and can live with Elizabeth forever now, no longer bound to the Dutchman, does he get his heart back, or is it still locked away in the dead man's chest?
The movie doesn't address this question at all.
4) This is a question about Elizabeth, I know at the end Jack (sorry, CAPTAIN Jack lol) drops her off on some big huge island that appears to be deserted. Cut to 10 years later, she has new clothes, a 10 yr old son, and she's still on the same island.
It looks to me like a different island. I don't think the location of shooting was the same. It sure looks different to me, sand and rocks vs. grass and hills.
Terry also clarified that: "he can step on land but once every ten years, and that at any time, if he finds a love that is true (this is part of the original Flying Dutchman opera by the way) then his attachment to the ship is broken". Further info can be found here: http://kaellana.livejournal.com/47483.html
Sensible suggestions there, but we are talking entrenched interests mixed up with a healthy dose of greed and stupidity. The movie industry wants too much control so that they can make generous levels of profit on each film. They don't understand the internet or how to make money out of it, thus they fight what is looking like an increasing losing battle.
The best thing about the Beeb is the fact that the bulk of its revenue comes from the licence fee. It means they can risk a few experiments, put the low profit quality product out as well as the chaff and push the boundaries of what industry will accept. It will be interesting to see how well their digital download system works.
The best thing about the Beeb is the fact that the bulk of its revenue comes from the licence fee. It means they can risk a few experiments, put the low profit quality product out as well as the chaff and push the boundaries of what industry will accept. It will be interesting to see how well their digital download system works.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/04/white-flag-music-industry
Warner and Sony are going to follow EMI and Universal and start issuing music in MP3 format without DRM. EMI and Universal have been making a killing supplying DRM-free music and Warner and Sony have been missing out. The Labels told Bill board that they have been watching the success of an MP3 test that Universal Music Group began in August. The label flogs 85 percent of its current catalogue as MP3s and is set to permanently embrace that digital format.
Hopefully not too permanently, I'd like to see a move to other formats at some point, perhaps AAC, and maybe eventually a lossless format.
Warner and Sony are going to follow EMI and Universal and start issuing music in MP3 format without DRM. EMI and Universal have been making a killing supplying DRM-free music and Warner and Sony have been missing out. The Labels told Bill board that they have been watching the success of an MP3 test that Universal Music Group began in August. The label flogs 85 percent of its current catalogue as MP3s and is set to permanently embrace that digital format.
Hopefully not too permanently, I'd like to see a move to other formats at some point, perhaps AAC, and maybe eventually a lossless format.
Amusingly, I read an article today in the Guardian online which also suggests that this approach should be encouraged because music in mp3 (or other) format is more environmentally friendly than CDs. Not quite convinced of that argument although the potential is there.
Plus I reckon that online downloads compensates for loss of CD sales by opening up a bigger market eg. anyone in any country can buy your music. You don't have to lose a cut to middlemen.
Plus I reckon that online downloads compensates for loss of CD sales by opening up a bigger market eg. anyone in any country can buy your music. You don't have to lose a cut to middlemen.