DVDGuy’s Blog @ Digital Digest

A very very short one for you this week due to a combination of lack of news, and me being too busy with a myriad of other things. So this WNR is going to be fairly short, but that may not be a bad thing. The weather here is beautiful today, and while it may not be the case where you are, it’s still a Sunday and probably a Sunday that’s better spent than reading too much of the WNR.

People’s love for piracy may be due to their hate for the alternative

Australia is relatively new to this streaming thing, with our first subscription VOD streaming service only coming live earlier this year. But even with the short time legal streaming has been available, it’s already having an effect on piracy, according to one of Australia’s most outspoken copyright lobby groups.

A small decline in the piracy rate among 18 to 24 year-olds, one of the most “problematic” groups when it comes to piracy, has been warmly welcomed by Australia’s IP Awareness Foundation, although the foundation’s executive director Lori Flekser says that defeating piracy will be very hard because piracy is just too easy.

Piracy being free, Flekser says, means it’s always going to be easier to illegally download than to pay. Paying usually means registration, login, or at the very least, inputting your payment details, and this means more work for the consumer (although I would argue that trawling the net for working torrents and download links, and setting up a download client, is also fairly troublesome). If we accept this as a fact, then it becomes even more important for the rest of the viewing process to be as simple as possible, whether this means being able to watch your content on multiple devices, or a smooth and fast download/streaming process.

Take Hollywood’s UltraViolet. Even though it’s largely being offered to consumers via free redemption, the process of actually watching an UltraViolet movie is anything but simple. Just figuring out which app you need to watch UltraViolet movies on the device of your choice, is an ordeal in itself, not to mention the fact that you’ll need to remember at least two sets of login details. Typically, Hollywood self interest got into the way and what could have been an easy to use app, became what it is today (film studios had the right to use their own distribution app, which meant the need for a two tiered system: one for redeeming and storing the user’s collection information and another for the actual download/playback of the content).

Then there are things like release windows, exclusivity deals, and greedy behaviour such as double dipping (do we really need yet another Wizard of Oz box set? And yet, still no theatrical cut of Star Wars on Blu-ray) – all of this combine to make piracy seem like the better and easier choice, even though piracy isn’t that particular easy or better (pop-ups, malware, fake downloads, and then the trouble of copying files to storage devices that connects to your media player …). It just seems easier because Hollywood is making it too hard, sometimes, to do the right thing.

——

So again, sorry about the brief nature of this week’s WNR. There will be more next week, I’m sure of it. See you then.

I’m back from holidays! I would say I feel recharged, but after a week of catching up on work (got back on Monday), my batteries are edging towards the “please connect your charger” level again.

There’s lots to go through, so let’s get started!

The MPAA wanted to attack Google via an orchestrated PR campaign

It’s not surprising at all to say that the MPAA doesn’t like Google. But even I was surprised at the level of animosity between Hollywood and the world’s most popular search engine, based on the MPAA attack plans that Google has now managed to obtain (via their lawsuit against Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood). The PR blitz included a Today show segment, ad editorial in the Wall Street Journal warning of a piracy induced share price crash, and even getting a major Google shareholder to come out and attack the company’s lack of action on tackling the piracy problem. All prongs in the attack would then reinforce each other to give the appearance that there’s a serious problem with Google, a problem that Google does not want to address.

Except of course, Google is addressing the piracy problem, and doing it at an amazing rate of 18 link take-downs per second. It’s apparently still not fast enough for Hollywood.

This is the kind of well orchestrated lobbying campaign that the MPAA are well known for. If only they devoted their energy and expertise to, I don’t know, actually tackling the reasons behind piracy (lack of availability, lack of user friendliness and perceived lack of value), maybe they don’t need Google to take down more than 18 links every second to stay in business (although business these days seems to be doing pretty well).

CNET under fire again, this time not for offering torrenting tools, but for YouTube stream rippers

Not to be outdone by Hollywood, the music industry is also launching renewed attacks on another well known web entity. The RIAA accuses CBS owned CNET/Download.com of providing downloads for tools that helps users pirate music. Specifically, the RIAA says that Download.com hosts YouTube rippers and other video soundtrack rippers, which can be used to rip the music from legally uploaded music videos.

This, the RIAA says, is simply not permissible, because it would allow users to use content in a way the music industry did not intend them to use. Imagine playing a music video, but with your eyes closed – this was not how the recording industry intended you to use the music video, and therefore, it’s just not on!

But seriously, YouTube and other online videos are not protected by DRM (something the RIAA may want to do something about in the future), and so ripping the audio from them is trivial. And even if there was some way to protect the audio track from being ripped, users can always use the tried and tested method of “home taping” (it’s the method that “nearly” killed off music, once upon a time)that they’ve been using since the day of cassette tapes (ask your parents if you don’t know what they are).

Some hyperbole is always expected when it comes to the music industry and their anti-piracy efforts

But I have to ask, just how much money is the music industry actually losing to YouTube ripping? From the way the RIAA is acting, it does seem like they’re losing an arm and a leg (and other body parts) to the problem, as otherwise why would they bother CNET/Download.com again when they’ve already lost a court case against them over LimeWire and BitTorrent software? This anti-piracy ad campaign by Universal Music, used in Brazil in 2007, provides some insight into how the recording industry views the piracy problem (although one could argue that it’s the record companies are that liberally, but figuratively of course, taking body parts from actual musicians when it comes to money earned from recorded music).

I can’t find the news story now, but I read somewhere that a recent number one recorded hit had the lowest earnings ever. This does seem to suggest that piracy may be having an effect on revenue, but the revenue model for the music industry has changed drastically since the introduction of digital singles (for the worse for them, but better for consumers), any effect piracy might be insignificant compared to this sea change. Change sometimes isn’t good, or at least not good for everyone, and it’s not always easy or possible to adapt. Just ask Blockbusters and Columbia House!

Just when you thought the next-gen codec wars was settled, with HEVC being crowned the winner, along comes another contender, perhaps from an unexpected source. Cisco is very well known for being big in networking, but for video codecs, it’s not one company you would naturally think of. But that may change soon, with the company announcing they’re working on a new next-gen codec to compete with HEVC/H.265 – and best of all, it will be open source and royalty free.

Now, admittedly, we’ve been here before with Google’s VP9 – and if Google with their YouTube and Android can’t get their own codec to be a viable alternative to HEVC, then things are going to be doubly difficult for Cisco. However, Cisco is working with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and their NetVC workgroup, and seem to be following a process that will lead to more community involvement than the process Google went with. So there’s a hope that something more solid, and less tied to the efforts of one particular company (Google), might emerge from all of this and become a true viable open source, royalty free alternative. Fingers crossed.

——

Actually, that wasn’t as much news as I thought. There’s more for Australians streaming fans over at Streambly though. There will be more next week, of course. See you then!