Entire article? He didn't even read the bold teaser, evidently. That was, indeed, the entire point of the article.
There are a few sites that tptacek will insta-contrarian on HN. Torrentfreak is one of them. You know the xkcd comic about someone is wrong on the internet? Substitute "being wrong" for "generating rageviews with libertarian nerds" and that is tptacek.
"Despite the widespread availability of pirated releases, The Avengers just scored a record-breaking $200 million opening weekend at the box office. While some are baffled to see that piracy failed to crush the movie’s profits, it’s really not that surprising. Claiming a camcorded copy of a movie seriously impacts box office attendance is the same as arguing that concert bootlegs stop people from seeing artists on stage."
I read the entire article; my point is that it doesn't say anything. Did anyone think Avengers cams were what Hollywood is truly concerned about with BitTorrent?
It says that cam recordings are not a big deal. Hollywood claims they are a big deal. This has nothing to do with concerns about BitTorrent - you've introduced a straw man. An article about what they are doing to "combat cam recordings" is linked[1]. This includes sending people to jail for capturing a few seconds on their cell phone[2][3].
> Did anyone think Avengers cams were what Hollywood is truly concerned about with BitTorrent?
They use night vision goggles & special cameras to locate people recording movies, and charge people with serious federal crimes for the act (the kind where you can get 3 years in prison) via a law enacted in 2005 [1]. Those huge, ugly brown spots you see flash on the screen? They exist to track cam pirates. They can also use audio distortions to pinpoint the exact seat the person is in to help them further narrow down the suspects.
Hollywood has a very odd way of showing a lack of true concern about cams.
I'm really curious about the technology behind the brown spots and the audio distortions. Can you cite your source for this stuff so I can read up on it?
I can hold these two thoughts in my head at the same time: (a) that camcording movies for later release on the Internet is illegal and antagonizes theaters, and (b) that camcording movies is not a real threat the movie industry, but other (more popular) forms of file sharing clearly are.
The way you wrote it made it sound like the industry isn't really concerned about camming due to it not being a threat. My point was that the industry is highly concerned about it and goes to great lengths to fight it.
What I think is that if the whole of the file sharing problem was cam torrents, we wouldn't be seeing routine interventions like SOPA and mass lawsuits, because cam torrents aren't threatening. The film industry would certainly continue to do stupid things to react to stuff they don't understand, but it would happen at a slower pace and be easier to counter.
The problem, which this article conveniently ignores, is that the film industry is right about most file sharing: DVD rip torrents are a real threat.
The article ignores it because that is irrelevant to the discussion. Torrenting and DVDs and SOPA and all that are also irrelevant. You are pulling in random other issues related to copyright vs hollywood that the article is not about.
Hollywood says cams in movie theaters are a big problem. Article refutes this. The article isn't about anything else.
What should happen is that they adopt the Crunchyroll model and help their customers give them money. Sadly, it appears that they will be dragged into the future kicking & screaming.
Which sucks, because a lot of good artists are being held back by this.
That was, indeed, the entire point of the article.
What was the point of the article? I read it and came out of it completely perplexed. If I could summarize-
-Really terrible copies of something don't significantly impact the revenue of the something. OBVIOUSLY. Hence why Hollywood is going crazy trying to stop high quality copies (they want you nervously scurrowing in a corner of some dank cinema, fearful of the repercussions. Notice that there are no digital transfers or good quality rips available...piracy fail).
-Small numbers of people downloading something with wide appeal don't significantly impact the revenue of something. Hence why Hollywood needs to continue with lawsuit assaults and fear tactics and site takedowns to ensure that the number of people downloading remains small.
-Huge budget, highly anticipated, mega-marketed movies will do well regardless, so...um...
This piece could have been written by someone actively campaigning for draconian piracy laws. It literally promotes the anti-piracy campaigns.
