DBSTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Bad news for Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon, etc

14K views 145 replies 63 participants last post by  vestaviaScott 
#1 ·
Up until recently, I've been using Netflix and Blockbuster for most all of my movie viewing, with some films being bought from Amazon, especially HD DVD.

I've not used the D* PPV or premium movie channels, removing all of them from my favorites list, since D* standard def is horrid. 480x480i AFTER a lossy decompression is garbage for viewing on an HDTV. Looks like a video tape (and I've given away nearly all of mine). I have not used D* PPV in about 5 years, and never will for SD Lite.

Now, however, instead of 2 good HD movie channels (HBO and HDNet Movies) plus Showtime, and a couple weak PPV offerings (all a bit overcompressed), we have 4 Starz channels, MGM, 2 SHO, and about 12 PPV channels added, all in MPeg4. And the promise of about a half dozen more HBO channels soon.

I find I am no longer renting movies. Unless I _need_ a new movie Right Now, I have plenty available on DirecTV. The HD format war enhances that effect, especially since MGM won't publish on HD DVD. So I buy fewer as well.

As DirecTV adds VoD HD movies and TV shows (not interested in ANY D* SD content until they go back to a 640x480 non-lossy format), this effect will multiply.

People keep talking about HD downloading overtaking Blu-ray and HD DVD "someday." I'm seeing the beginnings of that right now. Someday is nearly here.
 
See less See more
#128 ·
Paul Secic said:
Movies are repeated over & over HBO & AMC and such.. You do realize this board is public, don't you?
You do realize DVDs yield better picture quality then HBO and AMC, don't you?
 
#129 ·
I have Netflix and love the service... occassionally however I do run out of movies or something I want is on "long wait". For me, $4.99 is cheaper than driving the the video store (12 mile round trip) and driving back to the video store to take it back. At > $3 a gallon for gas plus the Hollywood charge... I use PPV occassionally.

I could really go for unlimited PPV at $20 a month from D* though. My guess is that will never happen. Probably violates some contract with HBO.

I'm still waiting for pay per everything... I'd like the $2 per channel per month please. Outside of broadcast and premium channels, I only watch about 5. D* could keep about 200 of their channels. I'm tired of bill creep on the garbage I don't watch.
 
#130 ·
Steve Mehs said:
Again not because had a change in heart, but for quality reasons.
Ahh well, you're still going to the devil then.

Just kidding! :icon_peac

btw, here's what I originally said that you never responded to...

So what you're saying is someone has to be an angel or a goody goody in order to be able to resist stealing someone else's property or respect a contract these days?

That's pretty sad...
 
#131 ·
And btw, yes, many people consider willful breach of contract without just cause to be morally or at least ethically wrong.
The population of the United States is approximately 300 million people. 1% of the total population works out to be about 3 million people. While that's "many people" it's hardly representative of the nation.

I stand by my comment that in society (as a whole) there is an asymmetrical response/reaction - a hypocrisy if you will - to the individual corporate directors and corporate officers who directly cause a corporation to breach its contracts (and to engage in other ethically/morally questionable actions) in a business setting and an individual who breaches contracts and the like in his personal dealings.

The corporate officers generally escape societal censure, while - as your posts demonstrate - the individual in a non-business setting does not.

Without going to the Internet, I'd bet less than 20 people could name just ONE Ford executive involved in the decision to go forward with the manufacture of the Pinto despite it's known design flaw (the infamous exploding gas tank) - much less than entire management team. I further bet that none of those Ford executives personally actually suffered an actual hardship - either financially or socially because of it.

I neither "condone" it nor "abhor" it. . . anymore than I "condone" or "abhor" oxygen in the atmosphere. I simply state that the asymmetry (or hypocrisy) exists. And that it is very, very large.

Therefore, I am neither surprised nor shocked when individuals - especially those who do not inhabit the corporate boardroom or the executive washroom - see such hypocrisy by those who do inhabit the corporate boardroom and executive washroom and, therefore, feel unencumbered by ethical/moral rules . . . particularly those ethical/moral rules decided upon by the same types of hypocritical people who inhabit corporate boardrooms and executive washrooms.

DirecTV3059
 
#132 ·
I can't name anyone currently on the FBI's most wanted list either. What the heck does any of that prove?

I'm not too fond of the "it's ok, because everyone else does it" defense. Is that what you're trying to say?

There are all sorts of justifications for breaching a contract, but that particular one is pretty much morally void.
 
#133 ·
Cut the BS?

Please show me where copying of library materials as you have described is a permitted exception to the copyright law under the Fair Use doctrine?

Yes, you are allowed to tape radio and television programs for the purpose of "time shifting". That exception does not apply to rented or borrowed material.

The right to "backup" items is only for computer software and does not apply to music, tv shows, movies, etc.

-----
As for your theory on Society casting aspersions...

Corporate executives may not get "shunned" by their neighbors for what they do in business mostly because those people have no idea of that person's involvement.

Those people however do build a reputation within their industry and with their customers/vendors. They will meet with tougher dealings, blackballing, etc. from people in the industry who know how they have acted.

Individuals breaching contracts are hardly condemned or shunned. Not even close.

It's a matter of degree. The HDNet/DirecTV case is barely news in the business world...much the same as the thousands and thousands of cases filed each month by credit card companies against non-paying individuals. The only reason it was reported at all is because DirecTV is a public corporation.
 
#134 ·
Ken S said:
Cut the BS?

Please show me where copying of library materials as you have described is a permitted exception to the copyright law under the Fair Use doctrine?
Show me one court decision that says it's not.

Yes, you are allowed to tape radio and television programs
So, I was right.

That exception does not apply to rented or borrowed material.
I didn't say it did.

I just said that "fair use" doesn't require you to *own* the source material that you want to copy. I don't, for example, "own" a radio or television broadcast program . . . yet, as you agree, I *can* legally copy a broadcasted radio or television program (including the music thereon) for my own personal listening or viewing.

And the "fair use" doctrine certainly applies to "borrowed" materials from a library . . . academia could harldy survive without it. We are most familiar with "fair use" in the realm of printed text . . . there is no rule suspending the "fair use" doctrine solely because the what I borrowed from the library is digital media instead of printed text.

So, just because the material you want to copy is "borrowed" doesn't per se exclude the application of the "fair use" doctrine (which is what, apparently, you'd argue). The same can be said for "renting" (i.e., "fair use" is not per se automatically excluded just because you rented the material you want to copy).

Now, the *application* of the fair use doctrine to digital media "borrowed" from a library is subject to a great deal of debate. The generally accepted practice has been to extrapolate from the principles discussed and analyzed in text cases and to apply those principles as best as possible to digital media. But the devil is in the details.

Now, I think most lawyers would agree - but maybe you wouldn't Ken - that if I copyied ONE article out of last week's "Time" magazine for my own "personal study" that my one copy of that article is perfectly legal for me to have under "fair use."

Now, extrapolate that to digital media - does "fair use" permit me to copy one song from a CD I obtained from the library for my own "personal study"? Some argue yes (no different than copying an entire article from Time) . . . others suggest I'm limited to just a "portion" of the song (say the first chorus). No one really knows for sure who is right . . . and, being lawyers, the default advice is "be conservative." But, "being conservative" doesn't flesh out the full extent of "full use" as applied to digital media Ken . . . it merely defines the smallest thing you can do that everyone agrees upon.

I agree that under either approach just mentioned, it's probably not going to be considered "fair use" by a court for me to copy the whole CD . . . at least not in one fell swoop (except under certain conditions where the CD is out of print and not available "used" for a reasonable market value).

But, there's also a different way of approaching the "fair use" question when it comes to digital media . . . and that's to ask - more generally - what's anticipated? what's the expectation? An approach that doesn't merely try to extrapolate from text principles.

It goes something like this:

Congress - via the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) - has implicitly "blessed" the notion that Americans can make ONE copy (at least, one copy at a time) of audio recordings. Nothing in the AHRA says you have to own the audio material that you want to copy. Congress is also aware that libraries exist . . . and that libraries loan out digital media. Heck, Congress has access to the largest one, right?

Connect dot A (the wide availabilty of recording machines) to dot B (libraries with digital media) factor in the financial feasability of copying digital media (cheap media) isn't what's "fair" what everyone expects - and knows - happens anyway??

Isn't it really"unfair" to say here's a library chockful of CDs and here's a machine that will make copies of them for you and, by the way, it's affordable . . . but you're a criminal if you mix the two together?? Especially since there is no effective way for entities like the RIAA to stop people from doing going to the library, borrowing the CD, ripping it to the hard drive, and going along merrily.

One COULD ask: what's the point in saying someone's a criminal when (1) you don't ever prosecute them (ever HEAR of the RIAA bringing suit against a libary patron??) and (2) you cannot -as a practical matter- bring an enforcement action?

Yep, I'm arguing that "fair use" evolves . . . in much the same way that our understanding of "due process" or "cruel and unusual punishment" evolves.

Given this, it's no wonder the recording and movie industries threw in the towel and STOPPED trying to fight the battle on "fair use" grounds. The DMCA doesn't alter "fair use" doctrine one iota or stop it from evolving. Instead it completely shifts the battle to encryption/decryption. Doesn't matter whether your copy WOULD be "fair use" . . . DMCA simplies puts the source material in a "vault" and make it unlawful to break in.

Corporate executives may not get "shunned" by their neighbors for what they do in business mostly because those people have no idea of that person's involvement.
And why is that Ken? Why don't those people have an idea of that person's involvement?

If such moral/ethical breaches were RARE, then they WOULD be newsworthy and their neighbors would know and act accordingly.

But they're not rare, there common and mundane . . . almost banal.

A lot of "lip service" is paid to morality/ethics in this country, but not a whole lot actually happens to back the talk up.

Just look at the politicians - of both parties - who espouse "family values," but have numerous ex-wifes by divorce, engage in affairs (both straight and homosexual), etc.

I'm saying the "talk" doesn't match the walk, Ken . . . and, imo, the walk is always more important than the talk.

Those people however do build a reputation within their industry and with their customers/vendors. They will meet with tougher dealings, blackballing, etc. from people in the industry who know how they have acted.
Oooohh, I'm sure they're so scared of "tougher dealings."

If society truly ACTED like we believed "immoral" or "unethical" businessmen and politicians were worthy of being rebuke for their "immorality" and lack of "ethics," shouldn't we "walk the walk" and stop doing business with - or voting for them - at all??
 
#135 ·
JonW said:
I'm not too fond of the "it's ok, because everyone else does it" defense. Is that what you're trying to say?
Nope, not at all.

Let's try it this way. Traditional Japanese culture has a "code." You break that "code" there are all sorts of consequences and repurcussions from your job, your business contacts, your personal life, your family, etc. Traditional Japan is a "group culture." Everyone (well, pretty much everyone) takes the "code" seriously" and vigorously enforces breaches of the "code." They don't TALK about their morality and ethics much - the "code" is understood - but they ACT on it with vigor.

(BTW, I recognize this is all broadly overstated, but this is an internet discussion forum so I'm allowed some leeway, right?)

In the US? Our "group identity" is weak to non-existent. We admire the personality traits of individuality and non-conformity. We TALK a lot about ethics/morality here, but what do we (society) really DO when someone actually crosses a moral/ethical boundary?

Well, number 1, being individuals, we don't always agree where the moral/ethical boundary is.

Then, number 2, we don't strongly and uniformly sanction morality/ethical breaches from all points (personal/business) - even when there is broad agreement that a moral/ethical breach occured. Where's Bill Clinton (intern in the Whitehouse) today? Where's Rudy Guiliani (mistress in the mansion) today?

It's NOT "everybody's doing it" . . . it's more like "it's clear that our society almost always lets it slide when somebody DOES do it."

If that's the case - and it certainly appears to me to be so based on the evidence -why get so worked up when the moral/ethical boundary is crossed? It's not like we're actually gonna DO something to/about that person that has a real, lasting effect.

Follow?
 
#137 ·
DirecTV,

You've written a nice fairy tale for yourself. Changing the discussion to feed your latest theories. First it's a discussion of copying movies rented from Netflix to you have the right to copy anything in a library...but wait...you then bring up academia which has nothing to do with this discussion, but is a stated basis for Fair Use.

When you can't counter an statement you find it necessary to throw out comments like "Oooh, I'm sure they're so scared."

Rather than continue and waste your time on educating me on the copyright law, Fair Use and society in general I'm going to bow out of the discussion.
 
#138 ·
Ken S said:
DirecTV,

You've written a nice fairy tale for yourself. Changing the discussion to feed your latest theories. First it's a discussion of copying movies rented from Netflix to you have the right to copy anything in a library...but wait...you then bring up academia which has nothing to do with this discussion, but is a stated basis for Fair Use.

When you can't counter an statement you find it necessary to throw out comments like "Oooh, I'm sure they're so scared."

Rather than continue and waste your time on educating me on the copyright law, Fair Use and society in general I'm going to bow out of the discussion.
So you've got nothing. Bye bye.
 
#139 ·
JonW said:
So you're going with the "it's ok because it's unlikely anyone will bother to catch me at it" defense?

That's arguably even more heinous...
Rather than worry about whether it's "heinous" or "not heinous" why don't you ask yourself if it's true and accurate description of our society?

If it's true, it's a *description* . . . not a "defense" (because truth doesn't need a "defense").
 
#140 ·
JonW said:
So you're going with the "it's ok because it's unlikely anyone will bother to catch me at it" defense?

That's arguably even more heinous...
And, once again, you've either missed my point or willfully misstated it.

It's not "unlikely anyone will bother to catch me at it" . . . because in a land where 1% constitutes 3 million, somebody might bother to catch you.

Instead, it's "if caught society (in general) will not rebuke me." Sure, you might face sanctions under the law, but not face the "informal" sanctions that can be meted out by society like being ostracized.

Chuck Berry has a conviction under the Mann Act (involving a 14 year old prostitute) AND a conviction in connection with evading federal income taxes. He was also civilly sued by nearly 60 women who claimed that Berry furtively videotaped them in the restroom of his restaurants. These were ALL well publicized events.

I think we can conclude: (1) that Berry is morally/ethically "challenged"; (2) that he has been caught numerous times; and (3) he's served prison time and paid out over $1 million (to settle the civil case).

And yet despite all of this being well known and documented. . . numerous rock 'n roll "legends" showed up to "honor" him on his 60th birthday (documented in the video "Hail, Hail Rock 'n Roll"), that concert was sold out, and he continues to pack concert venues. And - I've personally seen this - when he IS in court on whatever type of case . . . people are FLOCKING for his autograph before he even gets out the courthouse doors.

Rather than being a detraction, the ethical/moral lapses and convictions seem - in society's view - to have "added" to his "legend." At a minimum, the convictions and lapses caused little or no long term damage to it. People still pack his shows at Blueberry Hill where he plays regularly.

Where is society-wide indignation at Chuck Berry??

That, my friend, is but a microcosm of where we are as a society. Lather, rinse, and repeat for thousands of "Chuck Berry's" - and less well known people - across this country.

And if THAT's where we as a society - if a CONVICTED pervert and tax evader doesn't earn a society-wide rebuke, calling out, and distancing, well . . . pardon me if I can't work up the spit to chastize someone whose ethical/moral "lapse" is he that he made a copy of "Shrek 3" from his Netflix account.

Put differently, if YOU - personally - aren't going to "pick-off" the easy targets who are doing extremely morally/ethically challenged things like Chuck Berry, Britney Spears, Rudy Guiliani, Bill Clinton, etc. ad nauseum . . . why are you taking shots at an anonymous poster on an internet forum who is doing something that is - in terms of moral/ethical lapses - a merely a "misdemeanor"???
 
#141 ·
I wasn't aware we were discussing Chuck Berry, Britney Spears, etc, etc.

What I am taking issue with is the presumption that people cannot take personal responsibility for their own acts without having to be an "angel" or a "goody goody".

But hey, if you really want to understand why *some* people still pack Chuck Berry's shows I suggest you ask someone who actually attends them.
 
#143 ·
DirecTV3049 said:
And, once again, you've either missed my point or willfully misstated it.

It's not "unlikely anyone will bother to catch me at it" . . . because in a land where 1% constitutes 3 million, somebody might bother to catch you.

Instead, it's "if caught society (in general) will not rebuke me." Sure, you might face sanctions under the law, but not face the "informal" sanctions that can be meted out by society like being ostracized.
Brave words Mr. NoName.
 
#145 ·
Its too bad this thread degenerated into a completely different discussion on fair use and copyright rights. I will try to get this thread back on track with my experiences.

I just got a nice 52" HDTV and I love HDTV from Directv. That being said, I haven't subscribed to any movie channels. I used to, but instead of paying for movie channels, I went for using Netflix instead. I still use Netflix to this day. Its much better for me to rent the movies I want to watch and not have to pay for HBO, Showtime, Starz, and so on. I find paying for channels like that to maybe find 3-6 movies a month for $12-$13 a month to be a waste whereas I can rent double the amount of movies I want to watch in that month for about the same price.

I don't have a HD DVD or a Blueray player yet. I just can't justify paying for a player that won't play all HD format. I will be waiting for a standard or a player that can play both formats to be affordable.

That isn't stopping me from considering Starz for their HD movie channels. Right now, that is all I am going to consider at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top