BT ordered to block Newzbin2

[MoBiUGeArSkIn]

But like Cow said, if there's a way of getting it for free... they'll get it for free. Do you think the people who currently use sites like Newzbin2 are suddenly going to start paying for content if Sky etc developed new ways of distributing it? Naaaaaaaaaaaaah

[Born2beSlicker]

All pirates remain pirates? They never ever convert? None of them?

Naaaaaaaaaaaaah.

[MoBiUGeArSkIn]

Oh please. As if.

EDIT - To enforce this point, Avatar became the most pirated film ever in 2010. 16.5 million illegal downloads, apparently. Now I'm not saying that everyone that downloaded the film DIDN'T pay for at least one cinema ticket. But why would Avatar be pirated? Because it was so difficult to see legally? The highest grossing film ever, which ran and ran and ran and ran for months in both 2D and 3D? Launched on DVD, Blu Ray in both theatrical and extended editions? Available through Box Office and every other On Demand service that currently exists? Can also be seen on Sky Movies every other day?

Most pirated films, via Torrent Freak...

1. Avatar / 16,580,000
2. Kick-Ass / 11,400,000
3. Inception / 9,720,000
4. Shutter Island / 9,490,000
5. Iron Man 2 / 8,810,000
6. Clash of the Titans / 8,040,000
7. Green Zone / 7,730,000
8. Sherlock Holmes / 7,160,000
9. The Hurt Locker / 6,850,000
10. Salt / 6,700,000

None of these films had limited distribution. Many of them grossed millions at the box office alone. They're easy to get to, have been for yonks. Still, they are pirated.

That's exactly how you would kill (most) of the US TV studios' problems overnight. The studios spend so much type hyping their series' up, that their fans then go online to chat about it. Only, the internet is worldwide, and if the fans in the UK wait until it's broadcast six months (or even a week) after it was shown in the US, the story will have been spoilt.

That's why hardcore fans of the series download it. And I bet they account for 80-90% of those downloading US series from the UK and rest of the world. Evidence? The UAE used to have a huge problem with this. Then one of the local providers – a company called OSN – did a deal with Fox to show all of its series an hour after they were broadcast in the US.

The result? We get next episodes of US series almost immediately (those of us who are hardcore fans have started watching it before the first person has been able to post a synopsis), so piracy sank through the floor.

I also remember seeing figures that said shows that had staggered release schedules in the US (i.e. East Coast 8pm EST and West Coast 8pm PST (so three hours after it was first broadcast in the US) have much higher rates of piracy than those shown at the same time (i.e. 10pm EST, 7pm PST).

So if they did a deal with, say, Sky Atlantic, to show the same episode no longer than 24 hours after the first showing in the US, then I bet you'd see piracy of TV shows in the UK fall away.

Interesting stuff about the UAE. Good point about online discussions, too.

I do think you're right that TV piracy would decrease if stuff was shown here straight after it was shown in the US. It wouldn't go away completely, but I think it would go down.

The TV companies do seem realise this, as some of them (e.g. Sky) have been moving towards showing US series promptly, and it's most likely because they know if they delay it will hurt their ratings. But it needs to go further - it's no use just having a few things on Sky 1/Atlantic only a day or whatever after the US, they all need to do it and with more content.

A recent example of a TV channel still being stupid about it, though, is the BBC with Torchwood. The current series of Torchwood is a co-production with Starz (only way it could get made, due to funding issues). As Starz is providing the bulk of the budget, it has the first-broadcast rights. The BBC has the right to show it immediately after Starz, but... instead it chose to schedule it to be six days behind. Result? Many fans are just downloading it on a Saturday, instead of waiting until the following Thursday to watch it on BBC1...

But even with Sky showing loads of things "the day after the States" people still pirate them because they refuse to pay for Sky ("it's too expensive, if it was £4 p/m then it'd be fair" and other nonsense arguments) There's always another excuse ready for why people download rather than watch legitimately.

Of course. There'll always be people who simply refuse to pay anything, and just come up with another stupid excuse.

But there will be people who would pay up.

Some people still pirate music, but plenty of others buy tracks from iTunes or pay for Spotify, etc.

Nice ideas, but surely if it were that simple these companies would just do it? There must be financial reasons why these things (obvious things) aren't available/being used?

Two reasons, I think: 1) Stupidity & 2) Greed.

Look how long it took for the music industry to start to wake up...

The industry needs to get with the fucking times, realise how & when people want to view its content, and change its distribution models.

[MoBiUGeArSkIn]

But distribution for something like that is going to cost money, which leads right into Cow's point again...

people still pirate them because they refuse to pay ("it's too expensive, if it was £4 p/m then it'd be fair" and other nonsense arguments) There's always another excuse ready for why people download rather than watch legitimately.

Not as if the films I listed up there are hard to come by if you're willing to pay for them. Never were. Unless they were being downloaded by Bin Laden in his bunker. I doubt The Hurt Locker was released out there, and I doubt he lived near a cinema anyway. There is that element to it.

I still don't see people who are willing to download something they have access to are going to suddenly decide they'll pay for it. Not paying for it is the whole point.

But distribution for something like that is going to cost money, which leads right into Cow's point again...

people still pirate them because they refuse to pay ("it's too expensive, if it was £4 p/m then it'd be fair" and other nonsense arguments) There's always another excuse ready for why people download rather than watch legitimately.

Not as if the films I listed up there are hard to come by if you're willing to pay for them. Never were. Unless they were being downloaded by Bin Laden in his bunker. I doubt The Hurt Locker was released out there, and I doubt he lived near a cinema anyway. There is that element to it.

I still don't see people who are willing to download something they have access to are going to suddenly decide they'll pay for it. Not paying for it is the whole point.

Yeah but as you've pointed out the films you mentioned still grossed massive profits. So the fact they were extensively pirated didn't stop them making money.

You'll never stop all piracy but I have had to resort to downloading things when I have had no legal way of obtaining them. I'm a fan of both Treme and the Closer, both of which are over a season behind the states with no dates on when these series will air or even if they will at all.

I have a very extensive DVD and Blu Ray collection and would happily pay for these things if a reasonably priced legal route was available. There are other things like Top Gear US which Uk viewers can't obtain by any means other than file sharing. The industry needs to realise that the world is no longer divided into convenient little regions.

I have not downloaded a single album via torrents since getting Zune. If there was a similar service for movies no doubt I would also do it. I do still buy some films but I can't afford to buy every single film released so do torrent others. A decent subscription service with films and tv shows on demand would be great. I'm hoping Zune gets expanded to have music, films ad tv shows all in one

Don't get me wrong, as I said in the first post every knows my stance on piracy. It's not good.

But this is the MPAA closing the gate 10 years after the horse bolted and is now halfway around the world. The movie studios have banded together for this pointless action when they'd be better off getting together and working out a true solution. If they all got together they could easily make a fuck ton of cash, a spotify of movies/TV with totally studio support and every film ever would dominate (as Netflix has started to do). But instead they waste time doing this. I'd pay £20-30 a month for movies which are just 2-3 months out of the cinema. I'd pay £50 a month for a cinema matched release schedule. If Apple or Google or Amazon or whoever does the whole thing, music, TV, Film and maybe throw in book and comics all you can eat for a monthly sub. I'd be there with £100 monthly. They need to give people options, ad-supported, mobile, HD, pay per view... and let the people decide how they want it, because not everyone wants the same thing.

A prime example it the other week I wanted to watch Star Wars, in HD and I was willing to even pay to watch it, but there was no way I could get it legally. One of the most popular films of all time not available anywhere. That's the problem right there.

Anyways, this is a great article on piracy that changed my outlook on it: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/05/piracy-again.html

Agreed with this sentiment entirely. The onus is on the studios to make what they offer unique and versatile enough to make it a worthwhile spend for the consumer. A quality streaming service at reasonable price would be fantastic in my opinion. If the movies were regularly updated and the site itself offered a unique experience people would be willing to pay instead of going on the illegal sites. I currently have lovefilm account and the Watchonline section has a lot of potential. Before the influx of the internet the quality of a pirated VHS was usually far inferior to the one you bought in the video shop. It's time for the studios to raise the bar again and enter the digital world.

Piracy won't stop. I download pirated films quite often and won't stop till the prices are dropped considerably to say something like £2 for a HD film. This would save me the trouble of having to unrar films, re-download films with missing files etc. I very much doubt this would happen though, like it was said earlier, studios value their product more than their customers do (Well alot of them at least).

A year or 2 back I ended up getting sued for £500 downloading a hard to find indie film via torrents. Fair enough, I learnt my lesson and went to newsgroups.

Newzbin got closed, newzbin2 came along. BT ban access the newzbin2. What is that going to do? Do the studios think people who are able to download NZB's are unaware of proxies and VPN's? Just another pointless court case.

I'd also like to point out I go to the cinema more than most, I go at least once a week, often more. That offsets any slight guilty conscience I have for ripping off studios.

I find it odd that the movie companies have only gone after one ISP. I appreciate that BT are the largest supplier (or at least have the highest subscribers) but if you combine the 2nd and 3rd place ISPs (virgin and talktalk), they far out weight BT's subscriber total.

It's odd they've only gone for newzbin as well. There are so many other nzb sites out there and so many tools to do searches with (which is ultimately what the site provides). I personally use newsleeacher which is a usenet bit of software with an inbuilt search. BT couldn't block that (or it'd be pretty tricky to and legally so so grey).

From my point of view, and I openly pirate most things, the movie industry needs to get a grip. They've been dicking about for over a decade and even now, things aren't rosey. I haven't downloaded a single MP3 illegally since subscribing to Spotify. Why? Because it's a sensible platform, good value and is available when I need it. I've yet to find a HD (true 1080p HD with minimum 5.1 sound) which a) exists b) would be value for money and c) have a decent stock.

My feelings are that the movie industry needs to get a grip, stop suing the world/blocking the net and come up with a sensible, cost effective solution that works for both consumers and the production houses and stop being greedy bastards.

I use Spotify (and pay for it) so rarely if ever download any music. I'll never download a movie as I hate shitty quality films and prefer to pay for the cinema 'experience'. On the other hand, I download LOADS of TV shows because it nearly all cases, I have absolutely NO OPTION to watch these. Firstly I like US TV shows which aren't shown here yet or very far behind, or they aren't on terrestrial and I cannot pay for Sky Digital (I'm in the Army, can't get it). I'm not saying certain piracy is 'acceptable' or whatever, but I'm not saving myself money by downloading these shows, I'm not withholding my cash because it's free online, there is no way I can even pay for this shit, so I see what I do as having absolutely no consequence.

So, am I justified in what I do, have I an alternative option or must I go without?

[Born2beSlicker]

You know you can torrent DVD and BluRay rips right? I wouldn't download a cinema shaky-cam, that's just crap. Though it doesn't take too long for a movie to come to DVD in America and I hate cinemas.

I pirate TV shows but buy the box sets. I also download movies but buy what I enjoyed. Music is the one I just don't buy, but Spotify is a great alternative. I won't pirate games because I respect the industry too much. I did for the DS, but stopped playing altogether on that system.

I don't try to rationalise, I'm doing something wrong. However when a Nettlix service comes to the UK and it's as good as the US one, I'll switch no problem.

I also don't pirate games. I know you can download full on DVDs and Blurays but for some reason I am not interested. It's not even my morals stopping me, I just don't do it and I still buy DVDs if I want to see a movie.