This argument is too practical and realistic to get any traction.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I got hooked on Neil Gaimon’s books the old fashioned way – my sister lent me a paperback. After reading that book and a borrowed ebook, I got hooked and have purchased others.
The heroin dealer in Live and Let Die was no fool – with the right product you can give the first hits away for free, and the customer will line up to buy the next ones…
I teach professional engineering courses and I freely give away all my notes and papers. This has increased attendance in my clases significantly. One of my competitors who does not do this is struggling. Just one data point…
It is likely you are smart and confident.
My worst teachers seemed to want to hide information for some reason. Like they were a member of some kind of cut-throat society. I went to a scrappy state university (in the US).
I wish the internet was available when I was working on my degree. I would have enjoyed it more, learned more quickly, and probably would have gone further just to enjoy more of the learning process. I’m not the brightest person, but I do enjoy developing real working knowledge.
Assuming it’s all about money, why doesn’t the MPAA and RIAA understand this message?
Because if they adopted that message, they’d lose all their relevance and go out of business.
Because the RIAA and MPAA are lib-tards who have the same mindset as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs!
You also just know that “Mister Bill” and “The Jerk” hate people like this too.
the RIAA and MPAA are lib-tards
Are you implying that Cary Sherman (chairman and CEO of the RIAA) and Chris Dodd (chairman and CEO of the MPAA) are liberals?
They’re ex-politicians and ex-lawyers. (Slimy millionaire 1%ers.)
Warren Buffet is a 1%er and he’s an Obama backer. Can’t get more liberal than that.
What’s your point?
Don’t believe in intellectual ‘property’.
Gaiman, not Gaimon
I can walk into a library and read one of his books for free. It’s government sponsored file sharing. The internet is just the world’s biggest library.
Bingo. Good point.
And the bull horn renters want to stamp out the institution of the public free library in the worth way.
Fuck UNESCO, fuck the “Shoulders of Giants” and fuck the poor.
They want our money, all of it.
I think Radiohead’s in Rainbows would also be a good example of making a profit by giving away your product.
Louis C.K. selling his show at $5 a pop and raking in a million bucks in profit on $200k expenditures is an even better example…
“This argument is too practical and realistic to get any traction.” /// What is practical and realistic about one person’s experience? What about people who find their IP sales declining?
Every “rule” has exceptions in practice and its near impossible to “prove” one theory/approach over another.
As he did demonstrate EVERYONE who wants to give their stuff away for free may do so. Seems like he is making an issue where none exists? What about addressing “THE LAW” and what the alternative should be?
If the IP is going stale, it’s time to get a new one. Innovation — it’s one hell of a thing.
As for the law… what about it? His point rather seems to be that if the IP holders stopped obsessing about every last petty law-breaker and instead see them as impromptu advocates, they could put their money and effort into going after the actual large-scale operations (which, as luck would have it, won’t require any society-crippling legal change since you are no longer trying to bring down the hammer on even the tiniest of nails).
He’s suggesting that they are creating an issue where none exists, which causes all kinds of unwanted side-effects.
One person’s experience? Cory Doctorow, and others, have been saying the same thing for years.
In the early days of personal computing, I never bought a software program before I had stolen it, errr “borrowed” it and tried it out.
And this model seems to be working for a friend of mine who writes apps for Android. You download it for free and it works. If you like it, maybe you want some other of his apps that cost money. The point is the same: a loss leader. Get people interested, get them in the door, and they will eventually spend money.
Music? Well, we don’t go buy a CD published by Columbia but we’ll buy music by a particular artist. Paul McCartney has a new album out. Old standards (and I mean “old” – 1930s?) and, quite honestly, the vocals are pretty weak. (The album is titled: Kisses on the Bottom. No, it’s not about analingus.) So why don’t his publishers (Sony?) drop a couple of his old albums that are no longer selling well, to perk interest in this new, not very good album? They’d make millions. Well, it is McCartney so they’ll make millions, anyway. But many small bands release directly to the internet in hopes that someday people will pay for their music.
It’s a smart adaptation to business in a modern world.
You just know that if Microsoft had taken this approach early on that the Linux projects probably wouldn’t even be as popular as they are. In fact, I contend that Linux probably wouldn’t even exist!
Stifling oppression never works! Maybe it does for a generation or two. And it may even last for a few hundred years too. But oppressing anything always costs someone something in the end because oppression always eventually fails! History and even nature teaches us this over and over. So just when will we ever get that through our stupid arrogant monkey brains?
Some would argue that they pretty much did that for quite some time, and that that’s why DOS (and later Windows) caught on: because there was nothing to stop people from pirating them en masse and aside from some angry remarks from BillG in the very early years, they didn’t lift a finger to pursue that piracy. As a result, it became the de-facto standard because that was what everyone got (for free, included in a computer sale, or otherwise).
Photoshop (at least up until the CS versions) is often pulled out as a similar example of how it was the one everyone “tested” at home and became used to, even though the early years had a huge number of similar programs.
Stifling oppression never works! Maybe it does for a generation or two. And it may even last for a few hundred years too.
Yeah when will those that amass fortunes for a hundred years by oppression learn. Damn suckers.
The man is right but ignorant people like Rupert Murdock aren’t going to get it. All he sees is some body read, watched, or listened to something he owns the copyright to and he can’t stand it and will spend billions to stop it. That he could make more money going the other way is irrelevant.
I only own one page of the “News of the World”.
The last one that was printed before Murdoch was forced to shut it down. (The law in Britain isn’t quite done with Rupert and the douche-bag staff though.)
His minions may be held to some account but Murdoch will never feel the pain.
People that steal, will steal. People that pay, will pay.
Stealing a free sample is not stealing.
Paying for a free sample is donating.
Donating is love.
No Agenda Show Donation Page
They imagine that everybody is just like them. (Well except for having millions of dollars stashed in a tax haven somewhere. [We the poor 99%ers, operative word poor, and that’s just unforgivable.])
That’s why they have absolutely no faith in people. They’d rob each other blind if they could so they figure we must want the same thing.
To them its a dog eat dog world and nature is long in tooth and red in claw.
They figure anything they produce isn’t really formica on a dog turd so it must be worth stealing, and if their sales are down it must because we’re stealing it.
Dudes, face it, your sales numbers are down because your shit isn’t worth buying and your profits numbers are down because you’re listening to your own accountants.
100% correct!!!!!
That is exactly how They see life.
My theory is that the producers of quality content, the Neil Gaiman, Louis C.K., and Twits of the world, are going to be just fine. The majority of people enjoy and respect quality work, and actually want to support the producers of such work.
The ones that are going to suffer are the producers of mediocre work. People are no longer willing to buy a whole album for two good songs or buy a movie ticket because it’s the only new movie in the theater. I think production companies used to get away with charging a premium for access to content because there was relatively little media available, and this allowed mediocre work to still make money. But now media is ubiquitous, so access has no value.
Correct.
There was a time I paid for cable TV. But it kept becoming dumber and dumber. If I’m in a hotel, I’ll watch it. Otherwise, I use YouTube baby!
Tippis and Animby==you both avoid the two major points raised:
1. One, two, three, 15, 46, 300, 756, 1145, or 4000 examples of individuals who benefited from piracy DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNIVERSE. What about all the good folks who had IP sales declines?
2. ANYONE who wants to give their stuff away as a sample are free to do so. IP lawsuits are only brought by those who wish to enforce their rights. What about them?
Pro’s and Con’s to all we do. NO MATTER WHAT THE RULE IS, some will benefit and others will suffer harm. The purpose of the law is to try and weight these contesting values and strike a balance. You think it is out of whack or not needed at all?==Fine, many will agree (as I do) but nothing is as one sided as you both present here.
Don’t be simple minded. Its as bad as copyrights with sequential term extensions. To identify a problem yet have/offer no solution is to flunk the relevance test.
For myself, I think a return to the terms and conditions/the law of copyrights as initially passed would go a long way to balancing the equities===and again, why not have a market place where the artists can decide whether or not to give their product away? I agree the good artists will survive, and the marginal will be damaged. Very little “right” or “wrong” about this. Just the way it is/will be.
Everyone a god in their own little constructed imagination.
Same as it ever was.
“What about all the good folks who had IP sales declines?”
What about them? IP sales decline for the same reason all sales decline: because it’s no longer worth buying. Why can’t they use the solution everyone else uses in such a situation — come up with a new product (or repackage the old one and market the hell out of it)?
“IP lawsuits are only brought by those who wish to enforce their rights. What about them?”
They can do so, and that is the real point here: the laws are entirely adequate for the purpose of going after the criminal elements that might actually cause a loss of income, and the point Gaiman is making is that there is no need to go after anyone else because they do not generate any loss. What IP holders are trying to do (without realising it) is to outlaw the discovery of their own products — it will only ever serve the exact opposite of what they hope it will.
SWOOOOOOSH!!!!!! –the opposing argument/facts/law/history/dialogue passing over your head not responded to.
I downloaded maybe 20 or so works of art that had I lost them I would have seriously considered paying for a replacement copy. But why should I?==I just downloaded it again. I think that happened with the soundtrack to Fifth Element. I loved that aria the smurf sang. Album remains one of my favorites.
So there you go: at least one example of lost revenue from a pirate.
Carry on.
If you purchase a CD of music and you failed to create a backup copy and then you lost the original CD, what makes you think you have a right to steal a backup CD of the music you purchased originally?
Stealing is stealing, even if you had purchased the original CD and subsequently lost it.
When you lose a CD, that is your fault and not the fault of the publisher. It is your responsibility to make backup copies to prevent the loss of your investment.
I agree with everything you posted.
How is it relevant?
“SWOOOOOOSH!!!!!! –the opposing argument/facts/law/history/dialogue passing over your head not responded to.”
…because it’s not relevant to the point being made beyond the fact that the IP holders are trying to break the legal system to pursue a problem that only exists in their own heads.
The fact of the matter is, the publishers of IP do not know if they sustain losses because of piracy because there is no way to know how many copies were stolen, duplicated and passed around, and there is no way to know if someone would have paid for a copy if a pirated copy was not available.
It is reasonable to assume that some kind of loss occurred if pirated copies are easily available anywhere in the world.
The difficulty is determining the extent of the loss.
How is the IP holders’ enforcing their rights under the law “breaking the legal system?”
You are so wrapped up in your personal desires, you have lost the difference between shit and shinola, assuming you have ever had that distinction in mind.
Imagine a Universe where somewhere, on some issues, other people DISAGREE WITH YOU?
Then imagine that NEVER confronting their position and simply repeating your own desired conclusion does not an argument make.
Just imagine that.
Go!!!!!1
“What about all the good folks who had IP sales declines?”
Name one, please.
Last I heard, the RIAA was rolling in dough.
The MPAA claims viewership is down but, somehow, they seem to be swimming in cash, too.
Publishing? Jeez. James Patterson seems to be putting out a new book every week and every book site has a thousand new books a month. Somehow, I doubt they’re publishing for fun.
Just name one that can prove they’ve lost money due to piracy. I’m of the opinion that when ViaCom claims it’s “lost” millions of dollars in sales, they’re actually including all the people who would never have purchased the product. That’s not “lost” revenue, that’s a failure to price product at a salable point.
When someone goes to the internet and diagnoses their own medical problems, maybe, just maybe, I’ve lost revenue. If the AMA starts suing these idiots, maybe I’ll start paying my dues, again. After all, at least two of those articles on Web MD were written by me. If someone treats themselves, they may have stolen my diagnostic expertise.
Name just one.
Oh Animby==you too? I expect you to be wrong half the time but not baseless. There is no IP in “ideas” or knowledge until formulated in a protectable form. The copyright of an algorithm for wiping your ass with banana leaves or a monkey would be such a situation. Once YOU informed me of this procedure, I am free to develop my own techniques, but I cannot “borrow” your procedure and list it as my own. Think about that on your next wipe.
And its not about “losing money” but losing individual sales. Whoever publishes/sells the Fifth Element soundtrack got stiffed by me so theres $12 lost income right there. Thats all the law requires to show legal injury. Not net/net but rather each unique instance.
Silly for you to post as if you were this ignorant.
Speaking of ignorant–I actually still have the Fifth Element CD. I just got caught up in the fervor of the argument and spoke expansively you understand. Only difference between me and you all is—-(Like America and its support for Unity and Not Class Warfare)—I’m right, and you are wrong.
I only wish I could copyright it. Then you would all rue the day you post most of what you do.
Ha, ha. – – – Oh Look>>>Its the Weekend. Time to ice down that 6 pack.
“The copyright of an algorithm for wiping your ass with banana leaves”
Prior art…
“Prior Art” goes to patent law not copyright law. Did I ever mention I have large feet too? Not as large as banana leaves, but walking down the road can still be awkward, or is that only when wearing someone else’s shoes?
Here I think is a common sense analysis of whats going on with piracy law today (short two page self centered downloader: “because I want it and I can do it.”): ((Note: ha, ha–rare even for me to get 4 punctuation marks in a row. ==I’m a rolling!))
http://extremetech.com/computing/114493-why-i-pirate
….and thats just why I “used to” pirate: because I wanted the stuff and I could. Like our hero, I too would never had bought the stuff so the real loss to IP Holders was ZERO yet meanwhile I was paying $100’s to Sony for computer upgrades, blank dvd’s, and to Comcast for faster connections and so forth. The deal with Sony always rankled me a bit given they were getting my money one way or the other===why couldn’t they let me make them rich in the way I wanted to?
There is a kind of FREEEEEEDOM in violating the law. Another just as valid in total enforcement of the law. No truer statement made than if you want a law to be changed, fully enforce it.
Sucks how unfair life is.
I too would never had bought the stuff so the real loss to IP Holders was ZERO …
If you would never had bought the stuff then why did you take the time to steal it?
Obviously, you stole the material because you wanted it. When you want something that is offered for sale, you are expected to pay for it.
If a retail store has a display of tennis shoes on the sidewalk, thereby making it very easy for you to steal a pair, will you snatch a pair of tennis shoes and then claim that you never would have bought them in the first place, or that you are simply replacing a pair of tennis shoes that you wore out or lost?
Where is that sidewalk display? I could use a new pair of tennis shoes. Hard to find size 14 here in the land of little people.
I guess the analogy escaped your comprehension, or you are being facetious.
I will send you a pair of size 14 tennis shoes for a small fee plus shipping and handling.
Or you could check on eBay.
Orchi–Animbus is either just demonstrating is ample good will or very subtly letting us know he has big feet==and we all know what THAT means. Actually, you’re right===he’s just a braggart. He probably has a rack of spare shoes, and a detachable penis.
Orch–I downloaded many songs because I wanted them. I wanted them only if they were free, not including the cost of having the tech to do so. I found many new bands this way Sisters of Mercy being the chief one that I would never have come across at $15/per CD in the Store.
If you want to discuss market place transactions, how does the subtlety of a “price point” elude you? Any reading in this area will further inform you of the difference between “theft” and “infringement” rendering your sneaker reference totally irrelevant.
Some vague tune by AC/DC is running in the back of my mind, can’t quite remember it, and quite can’t name it. Like 99% of what I downloaded, I never even listen to it beyond the first 15 seconds to see if it was as advertized.
Thank you, Orchiectomy. I was only trying to introduce a little lighthearted banter. I stock up on shoes during my rare visits home.
Bobbo: Detachable??? No. Inflatable, yes.
I am playing the devil’s advocate.
The arguments I laid out are the same issues that confront IP owners.
We have a large body of IP laws in the United States and Europe that emulate the arguments I have outlined.
The question remains, should intellectual product be treated as property, with a body of law that protects the rights of the property owner, or should intellectual property become public domain with no property rights?
If intellectual product is treated as public domain, then where is the incentive for producers of intellectual property to create their product?
The rights of property owners are the issue.
Orchi==let’s dither:
I am playing the devil’s advocate. /// How so the devil? Where is the advocacy? I only note some repetitious dithering and restatement of what was obvious the first time. …Let the devil argue his own case, they are capable enough.
The arguments I laid out are the same issues that confront IP owners. /// What arguments? That the IP Owners don’t know if IP violations provide a net income or loss to themselves is NOT THE ARGUMENT they make or care about “if” they sue to enforce their rights. Relevant yes if they want to make more money by letting their copyright be infringed.
We have a large body of IP laws in the United States and Europe that emulate the arguments I have outlined. /// No, we don’t.
The question remains, should intellectual product be treated as property, /// Thats not the question==the law is that it is, thats why “property” is even in its name.
with a body of law that protects the rights of the property owner, or should intellectual property become public domain with no property rights? /// Yes, you can circuitously get to that issue, and if ever you do===what would be your argument yea or nay, devil or otherwise?
If intellectual product is treated as public domain, then where is the incentive for producers of intellectual property to create their product? /// I thought your emulated devils position was that original artists can make more money by people feeling a moral obligation or gratitude to support the original artist?
The rights of property owners are the issue. /// No–the rights are clearly spelled out in law. The issue, if one there be is whether or not original artists would be wise to consider foregoing their legal rights and rely upon the public to support them in gratitude.
But I dither as well…….
The issue, if one there be is whether or not original artists would be wise to consider foregoing their legal rights and rely upon the public to support them in gratitude.
When you spend thousands of dollars to produce a work of art, and then you forego your legal rights with the expectation that the public will support you out of gratitude, please let me know how that works out for you.
As it stands, there is indeed a body of law that protects the IP of producers, so it is not unreasonable for the producers of IP to pursue their rights under the rule of law.
…..and?
I think it really depends on the content that is being used. This is a poor example as it is not media content but rather print content. Copyright none the less. But don’t you think posting a illegal copy of a movie or music recording is much different. I doubt it will bring people to buy more movies. Maybe I am wrong, but when someone can download movies for free. Why would they turn around and buy them? I think too if your willing to allow people to use your work without permission I guess that’s your option. Just as its other right to exercise their option to stop you.
@#41—Bobbo
If the RIAA had their way, you’d better not be running that AC/DC tune in the back of your mind… that might be considered a thought crime à la “Minority Report”. Memory storage through biological means is ipso facto an illegal “backup copy”.
You need to be listening to the actual legally bought & paid for CD in a sound proof room somewhere, where no one else but you, the legal purchaser of the media, can listen to it.
After listening to CD, please proceed/submit to memory wipe procedure…
Tune–that sounds so silly “but” as I recall some of the suits I’ve read about like average home owners for playing their radio’s that can be heard outside their homes, or tv show rooms displaying whats on the broadcast airwaves, I have to stop and wonder if I made those up because they are that bizarre.
Yes, the rich pass laws that could be the opposite or not at all and then have authority funnel the cash their way. Then they tell everyone they worked hard for the money.
Still, pro’s and con’s to every system devised. I do value a system of simple to understand laws that have overwhelming support that can be uniformly enforced. That leaves out most of intellectual property. I think the arguments “for” them have been superseded. But thats just me.
Well, Bobbo – I don’t recall the outcome but there was the dry cleaning shop that was told when a customer came in they would have to turn off the radio because it constituted a public performance…
Wasn’t even Florida…
I don’t think the argument is that there might be positive side effects to people pirating your work. That is arguable and there’s no real way of knowing either way. There are some content creators who like it and some who don’t. I just think that it should be by choice. I’m not in favour of SOPA and PIPPA, but I am in favour of shutting down real piracy. If an author wants to give away his book for free because he thinks of it as advertising, that’s fantastic! I just don’t think we should mandate this sharing of work on behalf of authors. You can call an author who doesn’t want his work copied and passed around “short sighted” or “old fashioned”, but remember that not everything is or should be a democracy. If you like what the guy is selling, then buy it. If not then don’t… But don’t steal.
Isn’t is amazing that the SOPA/PIPA bills getting shelved and the DOJ attack on MegaUpload came so close together? The connection is simple. The Hollywood guys are pissed about the White House going against SOPA, and they threatened to cut off funding for Obama’s reelection. Well, we can’t have that, now can we? So Obama threw them a bone by having the DOJ attack MegaUpload. Ain’t life grand?
Animby==we have some loose threads.
first==let me apologize for saying you are wrong 50% of the time. I was too generalized. Fact is, you are 100% correct on your facts, and therefor a resource to all who post here, moreso for myself as I often play horseshoes laying a punji pit for those anxious if not just willing to jump in. Its only on the conclusions you thereafter draw that earns you a 50% return. So conservative you alarmingly are. I was thinking that should mean you are right 75% of the time, but now I’m swinging back to 50%. Facts are one thing, conclusions drawn another. Usually conclusions can be fixed by correcting facts, but if the facts have been agreed upon……… I’ll give it more thought.
Two:
Artist: King Missile
Song: Detatchable Penis
Lyrics:
I woke up this morning with a bad hangover
And my penis was missing again.
This happens all the time.
It’s detachable.
[background singing begins: “detachable penis” over and over]
This comes in handy a lot of the time.
I can leave it home, when I think it’s gonna get me in trouble,
or I can rent it out, when I don’t need it.
But now and then I go to a party, get drunk,
and the next morning I can’t for the life of me
remember what I did with it.
First I looked around my apartment, and I couldn’t find it.
So I called up the place where the party was,
they hadn’t seen it either.
I asked them to check the medicine cabinet
’cause for some reason I leave it there sometimes
But not this time.
So I told them if it pops up to let me know.
I called a few people who were at the party,
but they were no help either.
I was starting to get desperate.
I really don’t like being without my penis for too long.
It makes me feel like less of a man,
and I really hate having to sit down every time I take a leak.
After a few hours of searching the house,
and calling everyone I could think of,
I was starting to get very depressed,
so I went to the Kiev, and ate breakfast.
Then, as I walked down Second Avenue towards St. Mark’s Place,
where all those people sell used books and other junk on the street,
I saw my penis lying on a blanket
next to a broken toaster oven.
Some guy was selling it.
I had to buy it off him.
He wanted twenty-two bucks, but I talked him down to seventeen.
I took it home, washed it off,
and put it back on. I was happy again. Complete.
People sometimes tell me I should get it permanently attached,
but I don’t know.
Even though sometimes it’s a pain in the ass,
I like having a detachable penis.
[background voices continue to sing “detachable penis” for
a while, then out]
Its really only the “idea” that is worthy. Song itself is a bit boring, but haven’t you ever gone out on the town and wished you could leave your penis at home? No? Ha, ha.
C–Copyright and Fair Use
Yep, my company got a notice to pay Hollywood for the musak we ran in our elevators and hallways so we did for a month to avoid litigation and finally pumped in royalty free music from some source. So–no free advertising for all those starving artists, only the dead will profit.
Pragmatism==cuts thru a lot of this. Even if a law is well motivated==like IP law, or drugs, or marital infidelity, or cursing, or working on the Sabbath, and on and on as morality will, does it make any sense to pass laws that can only be variably, partially, and hypocritically enforced?=====THATS why Newt Gringrinch should have been asked. Total FAIL by our leading politicians and the press who is supposed to call them to account. Looks like we don’t need/profit from IP law nor do we from the media.
Rats.
A few years ago Jane Siberry went to a self determined policy for her music from her website. Her suggested price, if you’d like to pay, is 99 cents per song but you can pay whatever you feel is fair including “A Gift from Jane” which is free. No strings attached. No DRM. No EULA. No Nothing.
To date she makes more than 99 cents per song.
Neil Gaiman is right at this point in time, but when the world adjusts to reading books on e-readers as people listen now to music on ipods, there will no longer be a major difference between the paid for version or the pirated version.
Yet, copying CDs digitally has been pushbutton simple for over a decade, as has downloading the music from any number of pirate web sites. Yet online music sales continue to increase!
Your premise is that everyone would be a criminal if there were no benefit to not being one. That’s just not true and how this has played out with music proves this. The overall revenues are still declining in the music industry – but the pace is slowing and online sales are gaining faster. Why? Because, finally, things are changing for the better: usage restrictions (like DRM) have been relaxed; the “cloud” makes use much more convenient for people. The file you paid for is finally as good as the one you could get for free before. (With DRM, it wasn’t as good – you couldn’t easily copy it to any device or share it with a friend to turn them onto something new).
When the product is offered at a reasonable price, and is as convenient as getting it free, most people will choose to just pay for it. This is a lesson that the content providers can’t seem to learn.
How can I pay to “rent” any old movie online? You can’t. The distribution wars make that impossible. Your choices to see new movies are: pay way too much money for movie channels; rent through the mail from Netflix; rent from Red Box; rent from your cable provider.
The last one costs a buck fifty. Netfix via mail takes a couple days. Movie channels suck and you have no control over what you see. The last one assumes you get cable TV; they are offering that movie; and it’s at least 4 times as expensive as Red Box.
Why is there no legal way to get this content online for a couple dollars, which is the right price point for a one time rental?
If there were, online downloads would be out of business in no time.