Jump to content

SOPA - PIPA. What you think?


Martin Hong

Recommended Posts

First of all, apology for those who got tired about talking SOPA/PIPA bills over internet. But as most of the member on Cinematography.com are from the filmmaking/audiovisual industry, one of the biggest victims from the online piracy, I thought I'd like to hear what you guys have to say about this two bills that had become viral and so controversial.

 

For those who hasn't learned what SOPA/PIPA is about and why it cause big fuss, here's a brief explanation of why it's not welcome by the internet users.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzqMoOk9NWc

 

I personally support the anti-piracy act, but not this way, those bills are very bad written, and in extreme stupid way, that affects to those who has nothing to do with the piracy. I mean, if you want to fight piracy you gotta fight it smartly, not use extreme lethal force that cause big collateral damage, that could even slow the economy as the internet business receives a big block, and that is called, restriction to the freedom of speech....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not read up on it - say someone in another non-US country were to have a non-US based/hosted website deemed against this US law...

 

What would happen:

 

~in the US ... for people wanting to access that site

 

~to the rest of the world - for people wanting to access that site

 

~to the people who ran the website

 

lots of iterations...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Like many of these things it's best considered in two parts:

 

- Its overt intention, which is to make it more difficult for mass internet piracy to be facilitated, which is fair enough in essence, and

- The actual implementation, which appears to do its level best to turn the MPAA into a sort of global enforcement organisation with armed intervention squads ready to rappel in through the windows of every fifteen-year-old who ever watches a Justin Bieber video on YouTube.

 

More seriously; the problem with this bill, as with many others in many countries which have tried or actually implemented similar things, is twofold:

 

- It potentially makes people like Vimeo and Wikipedia responsible for policing what their users upload. This is something that has traditionally been strongly resisted, because it puts the costs of enforcement of copyright on people who don't make any money out of it, which is unfair. It's also resisted because it is probably impossible for these organisations, at least with reasonable cost and effort, to actually do it effectively, and because we don't blame British Telecom or AT&T for piracy when they're really just as involved in moving pirated content about as YouTube. This is a difficult one. People pick on Google and others because they're the least-bad place to try and form a choke point, which is technically true, but the degree of effort required to try and implement something that probably won't work very well is terribly disproportionate and misdirected.

 

- It makes it much, much easier to issue takedown notices on websites, whether that's an actual takedown notice to a US service provider, or a DNS blacklist which will make it very slightly more difficult to access the site. The problem with this is that making takedowns easy risks abuse of the system by large, rich organisations (like the MPAA or Big Movie), or in fact any other large, rich outfit or individual who might want to suppress information for any number of legitimate or illegitimate reasons. This is the principal issue people are really worried about. Also, the DNS blacklist won't work very well for technical reasons which are clearly not understood by the people who wrote the law (this is actually downright embarrassing).

 

Neither of these are particularly new; other US law and other countries' legislation have attempted similar things in the past. It has rarely actually been done because of the appalling side-effects.

 

My view is that it's really impossible to know what impact piracy is having on the film industry. Industry bodies (by which I mean American industry bodies representing the big studios, and nobody else) often publish statistics indicating that every download is a lost sale, which I consider to be completely spurious. People download things they would never, ever have paid for and it is difficult to characterise this as theft. I'm not even sure how they gather these statistics as I don't think that every BitTorrent client is submitting a list of what it's downloaded to the MPAA.

 

That said I think it's hard to argue that piracy isn't much, much more widespread than it was before the internet, and before fast internet in particular, and that something may need to be done about that. On the basis that a large part of the value of the internet is its immunity from national control and the likelihood that the proposed legal safeguards could cause significant collateral damage, I don't think that this sort of legislation is the right way to fix the problem. This is not particularly a principled stand; I wish the law could fix this, but I don't think it reasonably can. The best idea I can offer is that the studios should be selling stuff online for very cheap with little or no DRM. It is an extremely low-cost business model which I suspect the studios will, in the near future, be kicking themselves for not exploiting sooner. Doing that would preempt the currently-valid excuse that there is no legitimate internet-based alternative to piracy for many titles in many parts of the world, and doing it cheap enough would certainly suck away a lot of casual pirates from the torrents and sharing sites.

 

Oh - edit - if these bills should pass, I don't think that the practical fallout will be anything like as bad as the worst-case fallout, simply because as a practical matter it will be enforced about as well as the rest of copyright legislation - ergo not very well. However, I don't think it's reasonable to give big companies such enormous amounts of power just on the basis that they'll probably be nice about it, or at leas they'll be nice about most of the things that we as individuals care about ourselves. Hoping a big corp will act reasonably and fairly is hopeful at best, but really, acting reasonably and fairly is the job of the courts, not the corps.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I read both bills yesterday. And the first thing that people need to realize is that this is NOT a First Amendment issue. I get so tired of everyone crying "censorship" and saying that their rights to free speech are being violated every time a law is being enforced. People need to realize that NOT ALL SPEECH IS FREE - in this case, namely movies and movie clips, musical performances, trademarks, etc. All of that is protected under U.S. copyright and patent law. This is nothing new. This is copyright law finally being enforced on the internet and I think that is a good thing for people in our fields. After all, how many professional, semi-pro and student phtotgraphers/cinematographers DON'T have their portfolios or reels online, nowadays? As a filmmaker, I fully support the parts of the bills that say they will combat online copyright infringement.

 

However...

 

The SOPA Bill (HR3261) goes way beyond protecting online copyright infringement. It gets into some very shady areas with a lot of vague language that attempts to legitimize everything it proposes under the guise of "Homeland Security."

 

I see good and bad points in these bills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely support SOPA.

 

Those thieving little bastards have stolen both of my feature films and made them available for download on dozens of sites. If someone walked into Walmart and stole a Dogfather DVD we call that theft and the person can be arrested. What's the difference between that type of theft and watching my movie for free via a on-line piracy site?

 

The problem is so out of control that to sit and do nothing is inexcusable. I realize people have concerns over SOPA, but the days when the web was the wild West and anything goes are coming to an end. It needs to be regulated just the same as TV, radio, and print are regulated. We accept regulations on other mediums, why not the internet as well?

 

Everyone here should be concerned about on-line piracy, it makes it that much harder for producers to get projects into production. Especially lower budget shows that many people on this forum need to get their feet wet in the industry.

 

I don't understand why people are calling SOPA internet "censorship." How is preventing people from stealing someone else's property censorship? We don't call the laws preventing someone from stealing my car censorship.

 

Additionally, several of these off shore sites I have dealt with have offices, staff, and make a fortune selling adds around the links to the torrents. All the while they argue, "well we're like Google, we just show people where the content is, we don't host it."

 

Gimme a freakin' break, these people know exactly what they are doing, and they know they are clearly profiting from illegal activity.

 

One company I contacted suggested I add a Pay Pal link to his site and ask his members to pay a dollar or two before they watch my movie. Because the problem was so out of control he could not stop his own members from re-uploading my movie every time he took it down.

 

What a freaking joke! So "thieving little bastards" may sound harsh. In my view I should be calling these people a lot worse!!

 

So go SOPA!

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested though in if it's being framed with arguments for and against '1st amendment' rights and 'homeland security' and so on. As a non American citizen maybe for the sake of illustration I should try on for size that it's a good thing that the US shoots itself in the foot like this.

 

...as you say Phil, the actual technical implementation will be worked around anyway - making it a bit of an ass, but potentially opening the door for a more prolific non-US-wide-web?

 

Unless I missed some Canadian sarcasm, we have one non-US individual for it here wink.gif

 

Again, disclaimer, I haven't read the bills, but I'm 'reading' it as a potential corporate/political colonisation of the internet, giving the internet a relative currency for manipulation in that arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely support SOPA.

 

Those thieving little bastards have stolen both of my feature films and made them available for download on dozens of sites. If someone walked into Walmart and stole a Dogfather DVD we call that theft and the person can be arrested. What's the difference between that type of theft and watching my movie for free via a on-line piracy site?

 

The problem is so out of control that to sit and do nothing is inexcusable. I realize people have concerns over SOPA, but the days when the web was the wild West and anything goes are coming to an end. It needs to be regulated just the same as TV, radio, and print are regulated. We accept regulations on other mediums, why not the internet as well?

 

Everyone here should be concerned about on-line piracy, it makes it that much harder for producers to get projects into production. Especially lower budget shows that many people on this forum need to get their feet wet in the industry.

 

I don't understand why people are calling SOPA internet "censorship." How is preventing people from stealing someone else's property censorship? We don't call the laws preventing someone from stealing my car censorship.

 

Additionally, several of these off shore sites I have dealt with have offices, staff, and make a fortune selling adds around the links to the torrents. All the while they argue, "well we're like Google, we just show people where the content is, we don't host it."

 

Gimme a freakin' break, these people know exactly what they are doing, and they know they are clearly profiting from illegal activity.

 

One company I contacted suggested I add a Pay Pal link to his site and ask his members to pay a dollar or two before they watch my movie. Because the problem was so out of control he could not stop his own members from re-uploading my movie every time he took it down.

 

What a freaking joke! So "thieving little bastards" may sound harsh. In my view I should be calling these people a lot worse!!

 

So go SOPA!

 

R,

 

Woa that's personal. But I mostly agree with you i must say. I don't think online piracy will destroy Hollywood but they are definitely harming the independent and upcoming artists in any industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">If someone walked into Walmart and stole a Dogfather DVD we call that theft and the person can be arrested. What's the difference between that type of theft and watching my movie for free via a on-line piracy site?

 

Because they may not have deprived you of anything. This is the oldest argument in the book and unfortunately it isn't a very good one. I've said it many times, but: people pirate things they would never have paid money for. I wouldn't be surprised if that was actually the majority of piracy. The problem is that you are not, I suspect most of the time, actually losing anything. It's not as if people are, in the main, pulling out $10, thinking "hm, I could give this to Richard, or then again I could..." then pirating it. That $10 never exists in the majority of cases.

 

That said, there will be a percentage where you are losing a sale, however small that percentage is.

 

The problem is so out of control that to sit and do nothing is inexcusable.

I don't think it's clear how out of control the problem is. There are, almost by definition, no reliable statistics on how much piracy actually goes on. I suspect most of the stats that are used are generated by seeding sites with bait downloads, letting people download them and tracking those numbers, then assuming they're a reasonable indication, which is probably reasonable. The problem of course comes when the MPAA multiplies that number by the average price of a DVD and claims that's what it's costing the industry, which is horsefeathers.

I think the best way to argue it is not so much that it's costing X or Y amount of money, because those figures are in my view always hopelessly exaggerated. The problem with it is that it is currently extremely difficult to legislate - which is what this entire discussion is about, and that's a technical issue, not a moral or financial one. Online piracy is absolutely not currently ruining the movie industry but it is worth figuring out how to control it, simply becuase we don't know how to right now.

Because of the way the internet works, draconian takedown rules are almost certainly not the answer, for both technical and practical reasons.

Additionally, several of these off shore sites I have dealt with have offices, staff, and make a fortune selling adds around the links to the torrents. All the while they argue, "well we're like Google, we just show people where the content is, we don't host it."

Very few people would argue against that sort of thing being shut down; but that doesn't excuse SOPA.

If the "content industry" were more reasonable, this stuff wouldn't get compeletly shredded every time they try to pass it, as happened to the DMCA. The actual text of SOPA is more or less straight out of the mouth of the Jack Valentis of this world, and is outrageously permissive: for instance, it prohibits site owners countersuing the originators of takedown notices if they turn out to have made a mistake. This is not copyright enforcement, this is a carte blanche for content owners to be arrogantly presumptive and careless when destroying other people's businesses.

Consider that there would probably already be law covering this situation, or at least better law, if the MPAA didn't keep swaggering around asking for the world on a stick.

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they may not have deprived you of anything.

 

Well then you are saying that intellectual property has zero value. Under your argument I could steal the patent for a new widget, make the widget, sell it. And then say, well I didn't deprive the owner of the patent of anything, therefore no crime committed. Doesn't fly.

 

Phil people download movies, burn them to DVD, and then sell them at flea markets. There are a number of sites dedicated to helping these scum bag pirates obtain high quality packaging art so that the bootlegged DVDs look legit.

 

I find it amazing how many mom and pop folk do this, thinking there is nothing wrong with it.

 

I can tell you this, if I find a mom and pop operation selling the Dogfather at a flea market. I am going to spend a whole lot of money prosecuting these "good clean folk." I'll make sure I put them into a real financial bind, I can tell you that!!

 

I don't think it's clear how out of control the problem is.

 

Ok go to Google right now and enter, "Dark Reprieve torrent". How many freaking pages of torrents do you see!! It goes on, and on, and on, there are hundreds of links!! If that's not an out of control problem I don't know what is?

 

This is why I give the benefit of the doubt to SOPA.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well then you are saying that intellectual property has zero value.

It has zero intrinsic value because it can be copied perfectly at nearly zero cost, which is why:

It goes on, and on, and on, there are hundreds of links!!

...may not actually be a very big problem.

You need to separate your awareness of the number of copies made or potentially made, which have zero intrinsic value, from what this is actually costing you in terms of sales. It is impossible to really know what it is costing you because we don't know how many copies were made and how many people who would have bought it were encouraged not to by the availability of the download. The number is bigger than zero, but I suspect it is not nearly as big as the MPAA would like us to believe.

This is not about how many people copied it or how often it is copied, it's about how many people would otherwise have bought it.

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely support SOPA.

 

Those thieving little bastards have stolen both of my feature films and made them available for download on dozens of sites. If someone walked into Walmart and stole a Dogfather DVD we call that theft and the person can be arrested. What's the difference between that type of theft and watching my movie for free via a on-line piracy site?

 

The problem is so out of control that to sit and do nothing is inexcusable. I realize people have concerns over SOPA, but the days when the web was the wild West and anything goes are coming to an end. It needs to be regulated just the same as TV, radio, and print are regulated. We accept regulations on other mediums, why not the internet as well?

 

Everyone here should be concerned about on-line piracy, it makes it that much harder for producers to get projects into production. Especially lower budget shows that many people on this forum need to get their feet wet in the industry.

 

I don't understand why people are calling SOPA internet "censorship." How is preventing people from stealing someone else's property censorship? We don't call the laws preventing someone from stealing my car censorship.

 

Additionally, several of these off shore sites I have dealt with have offices, staff, and make a fortune selling adds around the links to the torrents. All the while they argue, "well we're like Google, we just show people where the content is, we don't host it."

 

Gimme a freakin' break, these people know exactly what they are doing, and they know they are clearly profiting from illegal activity.

 

One company I contacted suggested I add a Pay Pal link to his site and ask his members to pay a dollar or two before they watch my movie. Because the problem was so out of control he could not stop his own members from re-uploading my movie every time he took it down.

 

What a freaking joke! So "thieving little bastards" may sound harsh. In my view I should be calling these people a lot worse!!

 

So go SOPA!

 

R,

 

Richard,

 

I don't know if you have read both bills clear.. I personally support the anti-piracy act, the websites that stream, or provide download to the copyrighted contents should be taken down. However, SOPA/PIPA go beyond than that, let me give you an example.

 

Shane Hurlbut, ASC, the cinematographer, that updates contents to his website and blogs, with his works provides people acknowledges of his works and personal experiences, he sometimes would post some clips/images of the movies he worked on as DOP, explaining what he did there with all the details. Now according to the new SOPA/PIPA bills, he's guilty by uploading those images and materials that, of course he doesn't hold the copyright of them, even he did work on them. By that means, all those studios/productions that support the SOPA/PIPA will automatically sue him, and worse thing is, he can't defend himself, as one section of the bills states.

 

So you see, instead of fighting smartly against the piracy, this one acts more like dropping bomb everywhere till the piracy dies, causing significant collateral damages. Is it effective? i'd say no. Again, i recall, I support the anti-piracy act, but it should hit those place where should be hit, not using a big bomb to see if you get lucky.

 

Of course, its all theoretically speaking, we'd have to see first how it will affect the internet and some other business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

By that means, all those studios/productions that support the SOPA/PIPA will automatically sue him, and worse thing is, he can't defend himself, as one section of the bills states.

 

Can't defend himself? I read both bills and didn't see anything that said the accused would not be able to defend himself (which would be a violation of due process.) If you can find it, I'd like to see the section of the bill you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Part of one of the bills as they stand now specifically limits the liability of the complainant if they're found to have made a mistake. In plain language, they can shut you down on a whim, and you can't countersue even if it's later shown they were wrong. It really is terribly arrogant and unilateral.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Rich says.

 

Phill, sometimes I honestly wonder if you don't run a torrent server farm out of your basement. Not much more widespread than pre-internet, seriously?

 

Before you had VHS and 8mm films on the screen. I won't name names, but there was also the infamous act of renting a film print, making a dupe, then SENDING THE DUPE BACK. Actually have a certain fondness for that last.

 

 

But Rich is right, a bunch of lying slinking, matrix-dressing little bastards, that ought to be snuffed out.

 

 

I don't know about the law, haven't read it. There's potential for abuse with any law. But just as I haven't been locked up as a terrorist, I'm pretty sure Google and Wikipedia are overreacting. If you think about it, arguing against SELF-POLICING COPYRIGHTED CONTENT is the height of laziness.

 

Should they expected to catch all of it? Of course not, but if your site contains millions of pirated images, movies, songs, it's kind of hard to argue about unreasonable demands. They make plenty of money on Google with ads and there are plenty of volunteer editors.

 

Just as a brick and mortar business is liable for events that happen on its grounds, there should be a certain reasonable expectation of at least an *attempt* being made to block illegal content.

 

 

 

Let's use kiddie porn as an example. If there were a law to block KIDDIE PORN instead of piracy, theft, would WIkipedia, Google be up in arms? Maybe that is too extreme, but just because piracy is so rampant, doesn't make it any less legal.

 

I'll admit to having in my possession a good many MP3s I haven't paid for, but not a single movie. I get very ANGRY at people who brag about pirated movies, tell them thanks for stealing money I could be making a-hole.

 

 

 

You had best believe when you can rip off movies for free at resolution better than the theatre and spend the money your parents gave you to "go to the theatre" on some Naddy Light so you and your teenaged buddies can get drunk instead and still watch the movie, your young audience is going to do this 99x out of 100.

 

Just as there are penalties for physical theft, there need to be penalties for piracy. Sure, it's not a matter of taking the only copy, but it is still stealing from vendor's pockets and it DOES have a monetary impact no matter how over-stated the MPAA or other organizations' figures are Phil. You should be ashamed of yourself for taking this outspoken stance that doesn't have a basis in fact.

 

 

You've got a pipe, it's got a leak in it, and you're arguing that there's still a good strong flow of water. It's simple addition and subtraction. You subtract some of your target audience you're going to get less.

 

Howabout this link? Dark Knight Rises

 

I do think the law needs to be reworded, but whether or not these versions will survive, something of this type desperately needs to be implemented.

Edited by K Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—Any entity receiving an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable to any party for any acts reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e), and any actions taken by customers of such enti1ty to circumvent any restriction on access to the Internet domain instituted pursuant to this subsection or any act, failure, or inability to restrict access to an Internet domain that is the subject of a court order issued pursuant to this subsection despite good faith efforts to do so by such entity shall not be used by any person in any claim or cause of action against such entity, other than in an action pursuant to subsection (e).

 

If this is the part of the bill you are talking about (which is part of S.968,) the way it reads to me is that the internet domain that is the subject of a court-ordered action will not be held liable for any continuing infringing activity that takes place, provided that said entity has already made whatever efforts it could to remove the protected material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The US Justice Department said that Megaupload's two co-founders Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and Mathias Ortmann were arrested in Auckland, New Zealand

Interesting!

 

I've met him - weird set of circumstances have meant of had enduring visits to his house over the last few years - Including being involved in making the architectural model of it for the original owners.

 

For a while it was the most expensive in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just adding on from that, I think the whole physical medium is going out. A lot of peoples use of computers including my own is going cloud based, as it's not so uncommon for people to be using multiple systems to access and modify the same work. I think the future of home entertainment is steering towards wireless NAS drives or cloud based storage readily accessible by TV's, mobile phones, laptops and desktop computers. What needs work on is a digital licensing system so that it's more difficult to distribute the media, but equally it's far easier and quicker to purchase HD/3D content. Combined with a reasonable price I don't think it's impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps if Blu-rays and music CD's weren't so expensive in the first place people wouldn't bother downloading illegally. £15 ($23) for 'Killer Elite' or £17.99 ($28) for 'Final Destination 5' in 3D? They're hardly collectibles.

 

Do you realize what a VHS copy of a movie cost in the early '80s?

 

And, if you're talking about Blu-Rays, they deliver almost seven times the image quality as 480P (you can argue it's almost forteen times since SD TV was progressive. Not sure how this compares to PAL which has a higher resolution, but you're still talking 5-6 times time quality I think.)

 

 

I hope you aren't implying that movies should be 99¢ for a download. I agree, we're moving away from "instrumentalities" as they'd put it in "Forbidden Planet," but that doesn't mean the movies should cost any less. What's the cost of distributing plastic BluRays? They're almost weightless, and the high volume produced the price has plummeted from what it was for a CD, DVD fifteen or twenty years ago.

 

I have a feeling the cost you're after just isn't realistic, like an iTunes download. And the studios are justifiably scared, no doubt, now that "freedom from censorship" has given torrent sites and piracy a victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully the seize and take down of MEGAUPLOAD will be a sign of things to come. We only had stupid SOPA and PIPA because the Feds weren't doing their jobs (effectively).

 

Hopefully sites like rapid share and media fire are soon to follow.

 

The only problem I had with the SOPA debate was all the little 15 year olds chiming in on it. There's a reason why a child living in their mom's basement isn't allowed to vote on anything better than a grade school election -- because they have no concept of what it means to actually live in the world where people earn things.

 

There's also this creepy manifestation that seems to be taking hold wherein people are behaving as if the Internet has anything to do with freedom. The Internet has nothing more to do with free speech than does a stripped pole on a party bus. It's completely unrelated. YouTube is a place of business, as is MSNBC.com or my own website. If these websites do not act within the law (or are run by those not acting within the law) then they need to be seized and shut down. But if YouTube is shut down, it has nothing to do with your rights. Megaupload being shut down has nothing to do with anyone's rights except for the site owners -- who are under indictment on a myriad of charges, just one of which is piracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you realize what a VHS copy of a movie cost in the early '80s?

 

And, if you're talking about Blu-Rays, they deliver almost seven times the image quality as 480P (you can argue it's almost forteen times since SD TV was progressive. Not sure how this compares to PAL which has a higher resolution, but you're still talking 5-6 times time quality I think.)

 

I hope you aren't implying that movies should be 99¢ for a download. I agree, we're moving away from "instrumentalities" as they'd put it in "Forbidden Planet," but that doesn't mean the movies should cost any less. What's the cost of distributing plastic BluRays? They're almost weightless, and the high volume produced the price has plummeted from what it was for a CD, DVD fifteen or twenty years ago.

 

I have a feeling the cost you're after just isn't realistic, like an iTunes download. And the studios are justifiably scared, no doubt, now that "freedom from censorship" has given torrent sites and piracy a victory.

I'm not making comparisons with MP3 downloads and VHS tapes or implying films should cost 99 cents, I'm disagreeing that any one film should be priced at £15 or £17.99. I have a cinema membership that I pay £15 a month for that allows me to see any of the films that are showing, unlimited times on a huge screen with 2k projection. Why would I bother paying that money for one film that I'll probably only watch a few times?

 

I can appreciate that a hard copy is often looked upon as being more valuable than something stored on a hard drive somewhere, but it's the way home entertainment is moving, as is evident from music downloads, and illegal movie downloads. I'm not always convinced it's just the "free" part that is driving illegal downloads, it's the convenience.

 

Why not make use of the technology available, and create a legal, convenient and reasonably priced outlet, to cater for and encourage the new 'digital generation', instead of threatening them with lawsuits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...