Technique Can Trace Illegal Copies Of Movies Back To Source

[BJ_M]

Sarnoffs Invisible Digital Cinema Watermarking Survives Camcorder Capture and Data Compression

Technique Can Trace Illegal Copies Of Movies Back To Source Of Piracy
PRINCETON, NJ (January 24, 2003)--Sarnoff Corporation today announced a breakthrough approach to digital cinema watermarking that will let a movie studio reliably trace a pirated copy of a film back to its source, even after the copy has been captured by a camcorder in a theater and then compressed at low bit-rates for illegal digital redistribution, such as over the Internet. The technique was presented at the 15th Annual Symposium on Electronic Imaging Science and Technology in Santa Clara, CA, by its chief developer, Dr. Jeffrey Lubin, Senior Member of Technical Staff.

The watermarking technique was developed in part under an Advanced Technology Program funded by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Department of Commerce, with Dr. Lubin and Dr. Jeffrey Bloom, Technology Leader, as co-Principal Investigators.

According to Dr. Lubin, this new technique embeds digital codes in the on-screen image that can identify individual distributors or exhibitors of a film. Tests using expert viewers and Sarnoffs Emmy®-winning JNDmetrix tool for measuring human perception show that these codes are invisible to the human eye.

Just as crucial for studios and other content creators, its almost impossible for pirates to detect and defeat these watermarked codes said Dr. Lubin. If they try, theyll get an image so degraded its likely to be unacceptable to the average viewer.

So not only is it hard for pirates to cloak their identity, the very attempt to do so makes their product unattractive to buyers. Its a double deterrent to piracy

Reliable IDs Invisible to Viewers, Pirates

Dr. Lubin is the principal developer of Sarnoff JNDmetrix tool and holds numerous patents in vision modeling. Dr. Bloom is a co-author of Digital Watermarking (San Francisco: Morgan Kauffman Publishers, 2001), a standard text on watermarking techniques.

The Sarnoff teams innovative approach restricts the watermark pattern to very low frequencies in both space and time. Although these frequencies can hold a great deal of information, and instruments can readily detect them, the human eye is relatively insensitive to their content.

However, adding or removing ID coding within these frequencies can cause distracting visible artifacts in the image. The Sarnoff team found a way to invisibly embed watermarks with a number of local, low frequency carrier functions, and to mask them from detection by analytical instruments.

In tests of three two-minute digital Cinemascope clips, expert viewers could not tell the originals from the Sarnoff-watermarked copies. JNDmetrix measurements also showed changes to be below the threshold of visibility.

The scientists tested robustness by extracting the watermarked information from DV and VHS camcorder copies of the clips, and from highly compressed versions of these camcorder captures. In all cases, even at bit-rates that produced only marginal picture quality, the clips yielded 95% to 100% of the encoded information. Error correction or longer clips would yield even better results.

Finally, the team asked researchers at Princeton University, who had successfully broken the watermarking in the SDMI, Phase II proposal, to attack their approach. The Princeton team concluded that the bit error rates it was able to produce are still well within the range of error-correcting codes, and therefore that the Sarnoff algorithm is quite suitable for forensic applications.

More information is available by contacting:
Tom Lento
Sarnoff Corporation
TEL (609) 734-3178
FAX (609) 734-2040
tlento@sarnoff.com


http://www.sarnoff.com/news/index.asp?releaseID=116

[dphirschler]

Interesting. However, I think they underestimated what is acceptable to bootleg buyers. There is some real crap out there and they wouldn't thrive if people weren't interested in them.


Darryl

[ntserver545]

profanity deleted by moderator

[FoxGarrison]

Big woop. Like the pirates care from where it came? The trick is to figure out who the pirates are.

[Slomer]

I think some of you guys miss the entire point of the article. Not to mention you are very crass. The point is that every distributed copy in early view could easily be given a different code. Each theatre film would have a different code. Each preview dvd or press release copy of any movie would have one as well. On a larger (and in my opinion overlooked) area, this could also easily be done for vital in game movies for PC and console press copies, etc. This would result in the original source being traceable. Who leaked the dvd screener to the pirate groups.. from there who do they know and what are they willing to give up. What theatre's are proving to be troublespots for pirated movie screeners or commercially released pirate ring copies of in theatre movies? If you can trace the original source the source is going to be very reluctant to reveal himself by giving out his copy. Also if you can trace the theatre hot spots you can have people watch these spots to try and spot the insiders at the theatres or in rarer cases the repeated cam suppliers. It is fully feasible to go to multiple theatres, but how many of these guys are willing to drive far enough on every single cam they make to not give away which area they frequent? etc. etc. etc.

For example... lord of the rings 2 towers dvd screener was available online WAY before it was even available for special preretail contests and such. This means someone on the inside loop leaked it. Very bad for business. The star wars movies were on the net in some form or another before premiere, etc. Now if your an insider with access to dvd screeners and you are a leak and you KNOW your leaks can now be traced back to you... how long are you going to leak. More importantly how long could you leak and get away with it.

[pacmania_2001]

It will be interesting to see how long this technique lasts before someone finds a way around it.

This reminds me of a method the movie companies were developing a couple of months ago (never sure if they implemented) were the film print would contain flickers invisible to the human eye but would be picked up on the camera and therefore ruin the 'cam'.

[Cecilio_87]

It will be interesting to see how long this technique lasts before someone finds a way around it.

This reminds me of a method the movie companies were developing a couple of months ago (never sure if they implemented) were the film print would contain flickers invisible to the human eye but would be picked up on the camera and therefore ruin the 'cam'.

Hey umm well im wondering what if you dont sell copys like what if i ripped and copied my own dvds. would that be ok. and what if a friend wants me to back up one of his dvds i guess that wouldnt be ok huh. or what if i borrow a dvd from him and copy it cause its my favorite all time movie i think thats illegal right correct me if im wrong.

[Slomer]

notice how nobody has corrected you

[themichael]

It would be interesting to know if this was for real or just smoke and mirrors. Set up a few theaters that are known hot spots and bust them using the new copy protection.

Chuck in a few "pirate" chats on some of the IRC movie trading servers and the source of new movies will dry up a little.

just a thought.

Mike

[Don2050]

Hey umm well im wondering what if you dont sell copys like what if i ripped and copied my own dvds. would that be ok. and what if a friend wants me to back up one of his dvds i guess that wouldnt be ok huh. or what if i borrow a dvd from him and copy it cause its my favorite all time movie i think thats illegal right correct me if im wrong.

Not necessarily 'selling' them but distributing them over the internet. Which means no more downloading screeners or cams, cause what guy on the inside is going to leak them if he knows they will trace it back to him ?? So if you download movies this will potentially effect you greatly. From what I understand this will be hard encoded into the film, making it probably just as hard to remove as hard coded subs.

<sigh> the begining of the end of another frontier

[pacmania_2001]

I'm not sure how feasible this protection method is when a movie is in general release. I can see it's advantages when used on early screening prints and tapes/dvd's because of the limited number of ID's needed.

I recently read an article published on the internet stating that most movie studios were reluctant to implement these digital ID's as the cost per film print would rise an estimated $80 (American). For a general release were tens of thousands of prints need to be made this would substantially raise their cost of distribution.

Then again the studio's may be willing to invest that sort of money into the technology if it can significantly impact the rate of piracy. Why spend millions in court cases trying to stop the flood of P2P piracy when you can simply turn off the problem at the tap?

[BillyB]

What's interesting to me is how the media companies are willing to spend countless millions to develop and enforce copy protection on their products, but they don't take simple steps such as lowering the retail price of their products which would probaly have more effect on piracy and not upset their customers.

Digital watermarking is nothing new and this new method sounds much like the watermarking used on still photos. How do you scramble that up so it can't be read?.... you resize the original image to half it's size and render it, then expand it back to it's original size. How do you disable the famous Sony audio CD copy-protection... you use a black marker on the outside of the Disc.

Your new watermarking technique will fail.

This is obviously *yet another* scare tactic devised to scare off the uneducated. Explaining the new technique in a press release should be the first clue they'd like everyone to know this *secret* code is embedded in everything you view and they're gonna bust YOU (the consumer) for ripping them off.

I'd like to know what they plan to do when they actually find these codes in a downloaded movie on Kazaa or some other file-sharing network. Are they going to monitor every user and track down each successive copy so they can ultimately bust some kid and haul him off to jail and CNN readies their "War on Piracy" graphics. They're tracking me right now as I write this.

The truth is that movies like LOTR- The Two Towers or Spiderman show up on the internet in advance and STILL do record-breaking boxoffice even during a downward economy. That's proof that even the big studios would have to admit to.

[Don2050]

Billy, as an agreeance to your point about lowering cost.....this was taken off www.doom9.org site on the DMCA Analysis section:

You might also want to read the following holiday message by Disney boss Michael Eisner. He says:

Our fifth initiative is economic. History has shown that one of the best deterrents to pirated product is providing legitimate product at appropriate prices. In the music industry, we have already seen that people will gladly pay fair prices for legally-produced product even when it can be easily reproduced and unlawful copies can be easily acquired.

Damn right Mr. Eisner. I couldn't say it better myself.

BillyB wrote:

This is obviously *yet another* scare tactic devised to scare off the uneducated. Explaining the new technique in a press release should be the first clue they'd like everyone to know this *secret* code is embedded in everything you view and they're gonna bust YOU (the consumer) for ripping them off.

I'd like to know what they plan to do when they actually find these codes in a downloaded movie on Kazaa or some other file-sharing network. Are they going to monitor every user and track down each successive copy so they can ultimately bust some kid and haul him off to jail and CNN readies their "War on Piracy" graphics. They're tracking me right now as I write this.

yes, they are trying to 'scare' people....but that means by putting a few in jail. And they already have the laws in place to do so.... read up on the DMCA and the NET laws, if they want to, the law is on thier side....and if it doesnt comply fully with them now they will buy into law whatever they need to stop you( ahhh, good ol capitalism )

I think you can pretty much be guaranteed that like the mob, if the corps dont get a cut of every transaction and find a way to make money off p2p, they WILL find a way to make you pay somehow.

And it is something how with p2p growth now at epidemic levels as they claim they can have record breaking box office movies and record selling albums at the same time ??? Just shows the greed involved....makes you really wonder just who should be labeled Pirate.....

[marvel2020]

Boohoohoo, lets all start shitting in our Pants.

For crying out loud, everytime they bring out these so called Anti Piracy Software, don't they realize that there are People of Equal Intelligence waitng in the wings who's main purpose in life is to break it.

Lets take the Game's console's for instance, i remember when the Dreamcast and the Playstation 2 where release, there was the hype from Sony And Sega there systems would be hard to copy games and play on them.

And within the first month of there release games started appearing on the net and the first Modchips also appeared.

Granted the Dreamcast is now Dead, and the Playstation2 is still selling millions around the world, so piracy actually helps to sell the product and after all thats all Sony care's about.

Now even Bill"I've Got more money than sense and i own microsoft" Gates, Xbox has been cracked and games are wildly available on the net.

And as for Cd protection, who give's a **** about that, i know i don't, because i will not be buying any of the CD's that it's on.

Now lets take LOTR-The Two Tower's DVD-r Screener, yes i downloaded it and i burnt it ot DVD-r, and before your get on your high horse and start flaming me, I DID, let repeat that I DID go and see in the Cinema, and I WILL be buying it when the Special Extended Version is Released.

As i did for the Fellowship of the Ring.

All i can is, i hope the have very big Jails because there gonna need them

[lauroy9]

Buy stock in that company. They are about to make a whole bunch of money selling snake oil to the entertainment industry. Its not about tracking movies...its about selling useless junk to the movie studios. I hope they buy it. lol.

[rhegedus]

Let's see - it's invisible to the eye and is not detected by camcorders etc, but is still there if it's been compressed or rendered, even more so than the film itself......

Sounds to me like an old teacher trick - 'we know who did it, we just want you to tell us.'

i.e. we don't have a clue but we're going to try and scare off the stupid people.

I've seen a screener of Oceans Eleven which has 'PROPERTY OF REVOLUTION STUDIOS' or something like that popping up at the bottom of the screen at various times in the film. Why not just change the positioning and wording according to who gets these screeners - even if someone tried to edit it out, you'll know by where the smudge is on the screen who leaked it.

But this 'invisible' shite? Please......snake oil is a perfect description.

I'm with BillyB on this - reduce the prices and piracy will come down as well. But when high street stores can sell the same DVD for different prices (about £5 / $7) difference without anyone saying squat to protect the consumer, then people will see that they're being ripped off and will continue to pirate.

Regards,

Rob

[bobc292001]

Rhegedus .... you're absolutley right !

If the movie studios were so bothered about screeners, I would have thought that they would produce each one individually with a code that appears on screen. As you say, if the code moved across the screen, or flashed in different areas then it would be pretty hard to mask without ruining the movie.
If the code was unique to each DVD they release to each reviewer then they would be able to track that copy back to the rouge reviewer.
I'm not sure how many screeners get released to be reviewed but I bet the cost of unique numbering would be much less than the cost of trying to stop P2P usage.

[Treebeard]

I dont think that would necessarily stop screener copies either. I am pretty sure it is not always the acadamy member who is pirating the disc. It could easily be taken by somebody in the production facility or shipping department or swiped at the post office, etc..... and then that leaked screener copy would be linked to some person who didnt do anything. I dont think specific codes would really solve much.

[Exothermic]

How hard would it be to take multiple cam recordings and sum them to reduce the SNR or cross-up multiple watermarks. Video is frame based, doesn't seem like it would be hard to keep the frames in sync. Keeping each pixel matched up could be a real problem. (different cam positions zoom settings and such) but I still think a couple good high res DV cam recordings could be processed to get good (S)VCD resolution.

I dont think that would necessarily stop screener copies either. I am pretty sure it is not always the acadamy member who is pirating the disc. It could easily be taken by somebody in the production facility or shipping department or swiped at the post office, etc..... and then that leaked screener copy would be linked to some person who didnt do anything. I dont think specific codes would really solve much.

I agree, it could happen anyplace along the distribution chain.

It is amazing what gets by most people. I used to be annoyed by the switch reel burn marks, most theatres now have all of the reels of the movie edited together, on a big flat reel contraption that reminds me of the old 8 track tapes. I rarely see the burn marks anymore. Everyone, I have ever had with me, never notice / remember them until I point them out. I know people who have watched Fight Club and never noticed the edited in frames before I mentioned them.

Exo

[thxkid]

one thing you all missed here, is that they previwed 2-3 minute shots, why don't they take 500 people and show a 2 hour movie and see what effect it has one them, headaches, flickering, even if this does work what effect will it have on the masses, are the studios geared up for lawsuits cause aunt janie nnow has headaches over watching star wars 3 and has her high priced attorney with the fancey doctors to back up this medical problem, the industry does not relize what other can of worms they are about to open, ha ha to them if it happens.
I am wioth you, if they sold CD's and DVD's for $7 - $10 for ALL, not just the older movies or CD's then more people would buy instead of coping, no all but alot, heck how many people pay even pay $7 to see ONE movie, I bet alot sneek into another movie in these multplex theaters to get their $7 worth. Heck even a maitnee at $4.50 is too much for most of this junk out there. Why spend $20 for 3 people to see a movie and then pay $15-25 later to buy the DVD, gosh no wonder why P2P and DVD Burners are so popular.

[rhegedus]

Agreed.

But it would be just as easy to show the film to 500 or so journos a month before release and not have to worry about DVD screeners being pirated. Of course, the current situation quite nicely distracts from the 'debate' about DVD pricing. In fact, 'losses' from piracy could be used to justify artificially high prices and therefore piracy serves the film studios rather nicely............

Regards,

Rob

[LanEvo7]

This is yet another stupid method to stop piracy. With all the money they spend on this, they should just lower the price. I read an article(I don't remember where), that if music cds were sold for $3-$5 instead of the $13-15, the companies would still be making money. Then less people would go through the trouble of downloading it or the risk of buying a dud from the local bootlegger. Greedy companies want to charge more, so they have to pay more for piracy protection. In the end potential customers just end up getting it for free anyways. As for movies, most big production still do well even if there is piracy. The two biggest reasons are:

1) Pirates are crappy quality - Have you ever seen a movie that was recorded using a camcorder? The quality is horrible. You can barely see the things going on, the audio is fuzzy, and you can see people getting up..

2) The cinema experience - Even if there is a screener out, people go to the movies because you get the cinema experience. Most people do not have a full theatre system at home.

In the end if they stop spending money on piracy, lower the prices of movie tickets and dvd, they wouldn't have this problem. I mean would you spend hours and hours to dl a movie if the DVD was $5.

[jolo]

What exactly is a "pirate". Someone moving their home movies to DVD ?
Someone backing up their movies so they don't get destroyed by toddlers in the home ? The word is offensive.

The points made about all the money that is going into trying to stop technology, rather than embrace it, improve quality and service to their customers, who they treat like the enemy.

All that money going into stupid technology to limit technology, spending millions to lobby politicians and to try to make sharing some music on the Internet more hideous than child pornography or instructions on how to bomb office buildings.

It is pretty simple, customers are much smarter than they used to be. They understand more about the cost of making multimedia products. Customers undertand that spending $20 for a music CD is incredibily overpriced, especially with a bad economy. It isn't like the money is going to the artists !! Many customers also want availability to download off the web.

These are the same people that tried to kill audio cassettes, real to real taping, VCRs, etc.

I just hope that we see more artists creating music on their own, using no studio time and marketing their products via the Internet, directly artist to consumer.

A big cheer to Tom Petty and his banned album The Last DJ who says it like it is about the entire industry. If yo usee bad reviews about that album, it is by one of the creeps sent out undo the credability of someone who actually criticizes the big corporate machine out there.

[BJ_M]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2826111.stm

Slowly but surely the music industry seems to be losing its grip on its most precious asset as illegitimate online services continue to attract millions of its consumers.
New generation of music lovers get it for free
Music is now not just a packaged commodity to be bought with well-earned pocket money on a Saturday morning, but a 24-hour service, available free from hundreds of online sources at the touch of a mouse, albeit illegally.

And when a self-confessed "accused, international internet pirate," such as Wayne Rosso, head of file-sharing firm Grokster is invited to a conference hosted by the Financial Times, then it would seem the music industry's greatest bete noire has definitely gone mainstream.

The music industry is alienating its own customers, Mr Rosso told delegates at the conference.

Legitimate services struggling

I think they deserve to be pirated against. Any business that complacent and arrogant towards the market doesn't deserve the support of loyal customers

Paul Myers, Wippit
"The record industry has become the National Rifle Association of showbusiness. It has declared jihad on its customers who it calls pirates,"

he said.

File-sharing services such as Grokster now boast millions more customers than Napster, the original file-swapping music service, had at its peak.

"Last year, around about the stage that file-sharing was ramping up, there was a huge window of opportunity for the record industry to do something before it became too ingrained but that moment has disappeared," said Mark Mulligan, senior analyst at Jupiter Research.

Jupiter Research's latest study reveals that legitimate internet music services are struggling to get off the ground despite the fact that nearly 40% of Europe's digital music fans are willing to pay for music online.

With the music industry refusing to offer up any but a small percentage of its artists for digital download, millions of music lovers are using services such as Kazaa to swap tracks and build up online libraries of free, if illegal, music.

File-swapping services are becoming almost as easily recognisable as the music labels themselves and boast an enviable number of users.

Free spirits

When those teenagers hit the 20- 34 age group with no intention of paying for music then that is going to be incredibly bad for the music industry

Mark Mulligan, Jupiter Research



Grokster claims to have 5.4 million unique users in the US, with the average users using the service 10 times a month.

No surprise then that Grokster and its counterparts are making money from advertising on their services. And they have spawned a cultural shift in the attitude towards music.

A whole generation of youngsters are growing up with a new view of music, not as a commodity but as a file to be shared with anyone in cyberspace.

"When those teenagers hit the 20- 34 age group with no intention of paying for music, then that is going to be incredibly bad for the music industry," said Mr Mulligan.

Joining the pirates

It is not just youngsters getting involved in file-sharing. Grokster says that 38% of its users are over-45s.

High-speed net access has prompted a revolution in file-sharing with up to 60% of total broadband traffic thought to be some form of file swapping.

Record labels need to get with the tune, suffer some pain now and release their precious catalogue of artists or miss the online boat completely, said Mr Mulligan.

"The major labels are licensing some degree of their catalogues but it is far too restrictive with limited usability," he said.

The frustration for legitimate online music companies such as Wippit is reaching a head.

Chief Executive Paul Myers is considering joining the pirates.

"Three years is a long time to be the good guys. Wippit is three years old next week and offers 60,000 tracks from nearly 200 independent labels but not one tune from any of the majors," he said.

"We have business terms agreed with three of them and have done for a long while but we're finding it very difficult to get any actual music live from any of them. One major label won't even return our calls.

"I think they deserve to be pirated against. Any business that complacent and arrogant towards the market doesn't deserve the support of loyal customers," he added.

By summer Wippit plans to offer major label music, with or without the co-operation of the music industry.

Guarding copyright

The industry is spending way too much time guarding its copyright rather than exploiting it

Wayne Rosso, Grokster
The self-confessed internet pirate on the other hand, would like to be able to offer legitimate services at a realistic price.

Grokster's Wayne Rosso recommends a price model similar to that adopted by internet service providers when flat-rate net access became available.

Around £3 for an evening of unlimited downloads, £8 for a weekend and around £15 for a month's worth of music are the kind of prices he thinks consumers would pay.

The music industry is a long way away from such a model said Mr Mulligan from Jupiter.

"The crux for the labels is they have to be licensing far more proactively and liberally but they are nowhere even near a middle ground," he said.

The record industry is losing touch, not just with the new digital form of music but with its fans.

"Kids don't want to spend $18 on an album with just one or two hit songs on it," said Mr Rosso.

"The industry is spending way too much time guarding its copyright rather than exploiting it," he added.

For its part the music industry admits that it has responded very slowly to the new digital medium.

"Things are happening but it is slow," said a spokesman for the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).

"But it is very difficult to build a legitimate business model when faced with alternatives that are giving away music," he added.

[verchad]

"High-speed net access has prompted a revolution in file-sharing with up to 60% of total broadband traffic thought to be some form of file swapping."

I love when I see or get ads to switch to some internet services ( broadband, dsl, satellite ) and they talk about the fast download times and some even talk about how fast it is to download one song compared to dial up. I know they are trying to have aol, msn, etc. monitor what people download. I don't like that idea. Agreeing with previous posts, if they would just lower the price of cd's, more people would buy them. It's hard to justify $13.00 or more for a new cd when places are practically giving away cdr's. And personally, I really don't care about cover art anymore since it is so small on a cd. So what are you paying for? Someone to line their pockets?

[mpb]

A thought:

Why don't people copy paperback books? I mean, Xerox-style copy machines have been around for decades. In a much less efficient way, one could copy the book word for word with a typewriter, printing press, or (urgh) longhand... and the book would still contain 100% of its content! ZERO loss! And doing it THAT way has been possible for hundreds of years.

But people don't copy paperback books. They buy them. The reason they buy them is because it's CHEAP, convenient, easy, and legal to buy a perfectly printed, entirely portable, 100% complete copy.

In terms of luxury commodities priced so low that people buy them without even considering the price, one is drawn to the example of sports and gaming card packs. At $3.29 each, Wizards of the Coast sells through a seemingly endless supply of gaming card packs. This would tend to indicate that the price point is a good one.

Music CDs could cost $3.29 each and would be bought by the BUCKETLOAD. No more false filenames, bad encodes, and long downloads. People will line up to spend $3.29 to get a perfect CD copy of an album by a band, even if they only like one or two songs. And with CD production costs well under one cent per unit in the volume that Time Warner, Capitol, Sony, etc are working in... there is still much profit.

DVDs are based on movies that cost more to produce, and present a better value overall to the consumer than CDs, so they can cost a bit more. DVDs priced as they are today, $10-20 on average, are currently the most successful consumer product in HISTORY. Lower that just a shade to averages of $6-$13, and DVD copying may well disappear... why buy a burner and spend the time screwing with a movie when you can have the real thing for the price of a meal.

If they make it CHEAP, convenient, easy, and legal for people to buy 100% complete, perfectly pressed, fully portable copies of these entertainment media, people will respond by purchasing heavily. I haven't gone into the cost end of things for the studios, but trust me, I've studied it in detail, and they have given themselves MORE than enough profit cushion to make these ideas work.

It really IS that simple.

[BJ_M]

there is acually a fairly brisk trade in scanned books i seem to recall

[Nelson37]

While there are many good points here, I must strongly object to the concept that stealing a product is OK simply because in your opinion, it is overpriced.

For those of you who work, what if your employer decided to steal your work by refusing to pay you, because he or she had decided your wages were just too high? Or for the college students, if another student stole your 20-page term paper, put their name on it, and turned it in before you because the work was "too hard"?

I, too, believe that most commercial music and movie releases are overpriced, but so are Cars, TV's, Coca-Cola and Big Macs. Either pony up the extra cash, find a reasonable substitute, or reduce consumption. This rationalization of theft because the Big, Bad Corporations are "too greedy" is crap, and dangerous crap at that.

I am not ranting at downloading, I've done a few myself. I do NOT try to imagine myself as Robin Hood.

Also consider the long-term consequences of the end of billable distribution media. $500.00 concert tickets, fewer bands and fewer movies, $150.00 to go to the theater to rent their big screen and speakers.
Probably higher than that if concert and theater tickets are their only source of revenue. Or is making a profit simply evil?

[oldfart13]

"For those of you who work, what if your employer decided to steal your work by refusing to pay you, because he or she had decided your wages were just too high?"

Actually, you could say this happens now with many companies that refuse to give you anything extra for discoveries you make while in their employ. They make Millions and you get a bonus $200? Is that fair? the recording industry itself has been guilty of this in the past, paying their performers squat while the Companies made the REAL money. It's still an ongoing thorn of contention with many musicians. In my own case, the insurance company covered my costs after injury for 3 years. that's the max in my country. Now I'm out on the street with back, neck and other joint problems while they are laughing themselves silly. Is that fair?! Can I sue? Not in this country, where the insurance industry had the laws rewritten so you can't.

"Or for the college students, if another student stole your 20-page term paper, put their name on it, and turned it in before you because the work was "too hard"?"

My father had this happen many times with submitted drawings because other engineers couldn't figure out how to make things work in extreme conditions. Contesting them in court (at the time at least) was considered uncouth and unprofessional. I have no doubt it still goes on...

"I, too, believe that most commercial music and movie releases are overpriced, but so are Cars, TV's, Coca-Cola and Big Macs. Either pony up the extra cash, find a reasonable substitute, or reduce consumption. This rationalization of theft because the Big, Bad Corporations are "too greedy" is crap, and dangerous crap at that."

Dangerous? To whom? You? You have an invested interest then? I have none. I don't DL this crap (as you call it) because it IS crap. I have a movie theatre here in town running films at $2CAD a pop that I DON'T go to because most of these films are just plain bad! I'm sure not wasting my $$ on them, either legally or no...

"Also consider the long-term consequences of the end of billable distribution media. $500.00 concert tickets, fewer bands and fewer movies, $150.00 to go to the theater to rent their big screen and speakers.
Probably higher than that if concert and theater tickets are their only source of revenue. Or is making a profit simply evil?"

It may end up going that way anyway with more people staying home and watching stuff on their widescreen dolby everything home systems.

Making a REASONABLE profit is not bad...BUT when GREED interferes, then what? What is a good profit or is it SUPPOSED to be "the sky is the limit?" When you have big companies telling other companies or other countries what they can produce and for how much, where is the cut-off? Hey, I'm no social scientist but 'm seeing this happen at a personal and nationalistic level in this country every day and it's really pissing me off! But, to YOU...this is a good thing, right?

[mikk]

Either pony up the extra cash, find a reasonable substitute, or reduce consumption.

Yes, a reasonable substitute.

This article is just more scaremongering from an irresponsible industry. Things will continue as they always have...