Movie Piracy

[wideawakewesley]

It's official statistics like this...

http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/usboxoffice.jpg

...that really make me wonder why the MPAA is so bloody scared about people who download movies. I guess they're just not getting their pockets lined enough.

;)

Wes

[deegraww]

I don't get it either

[godmode]

MPAA = If there was less piracy, that number would be higher!

[blooper]

I know why they're worried about it. They made commercials about it. By downloading things for free.. you're funding the terrorists.

[deegraww]

MPAA = If there was less piracy, that number would be higher!

Me to the MPAA = Stop making shit remakes or shitty movies in general and you can have my effing 9 bucks to sit in a shitty theater, where people have no common courtesy to leave their 2 years olds at home and shut their fucking cell phones off!

[gglynn00]

Me to the MPAA = Stop making shit remakes or shitty movies in general and you can have my effing 9 bucks to sit in a shitty theater, where people have no common courtesy to leave their 2 years olds at home and shut their fucking cell phones off!

Amen Brother!!!

[jasonpoon]

No matter how much they earn, movie piracy is theoretically illegal and that's why they should scare about it. Just like Bill Gates are billionaire doesn't mean he need not to care about those pirated copies of Windows.

Also, that number could be varied due to different blockbusters released in that year. What super blockbusters we got in 2007...Transformers? Die Hard 4?

[gonzooo]

I think they are scared because they haven't yet developed a model that both harnesses the power of the net for distribution and sufficiently packs their pockets full with green.

[deegraww]

What super blockbusters we got in 2007...Transformers? Die Hard 4?

Wow +1 for my point.

[betaflame]

No matter how much they earn, movie piracy is theoretically illegal and that's why they should scare about it. Just like Bill Gates are billionaire doesn't mean he need not to care about those pirated copies of Windows.

Also, that number could be varied due to different blockbusters released in that year. What super blockbusters we got in 2007...Transformers? Die Hard 4?

The loophole in that is that movies that get pirated a lot tend to do just fine in the box office. Case in point, spiderman 3, It broke the record for day 1 profit and yet was heavily pirated BEFORE it even made it to the theaters.

[johnnysix]

The biggest joke is when the MPAA comes out with their figures of how much money the industry lost due to piracy. I fail to see how you can automatically equate a downloaded movie to a lost ticket sale or dvd purchase. Just because somebody downloads a film doesn't mean they had any intention of paying money to see it at the cinemas. In fact, I would argue that in some cases, downloaded movies actually increase movie sales. The barrier to seeing a film is massively reduced when you don't have to pay for it. This means that a lot of people would probably watch films they would never normally see because they downloaded it. This in turn probably leads to DVD and HD sales. Theres also the word of mouth generated.

I seriously doubt that thousands of people downloading Uwe Bolls latest piece of shit Dungeon Siege movie would have chosen to see that film at the cinemas.

[jasonpoon]

The loophole in that is that movies that get pirated a lot tend to do just fine in the box office. Case in point, spiderman 3, It broke the record for day 1 profit and yet was heavily pirated BEFORE it even made it to the theaters.

Yes, just like what johnnysix said, not all the people who downloaded the movie will go to cinema if they are not allowed to download. But undoubtedly, it still do harm to the box office, also DVD sales may also be affected.

And another issue is, even they find a good way to provide legal movie download service like the iTunes Store / Amazon Unbox (no matter you like DRM or not, these are still convenient and enjoyable ways to get a movie. I don't see they gonna remove DRM anytime soon), people will still get what they want from bit torrent.

[spookyttws]

@jasonspoon: Your last sentence made absolutely no sense.

[jasonpoon]

@jasonspoon: Your last sentence made absolutely no sense.

:D
I rephrased it, what I mean is a good and legal video-on-demand service won't stop people downloading movie illegally. (some people may try to use these services but most will stick with bit torrent. Once they have a choice to download it for free, why would they pay money to the studio?)

[-mk-]

Ok - I'll be that guy (puts on flame-retardant suit):

First of all, I can count on one hand the number of times someone I've known downloading something illegally then turning around and paying for it because they liked it. That idea is just a joke, and so is the idea that the MPAA is responsible for your overall experience as a theater-goer based on the quality of the movie and the crying kids in the audience. For crying out loud...that's like saying "you know, I had the WORST time in this grocery store purchasing this mediocre beer. It's so cold in here, there's a mom with her whiny kid that got on my nerves, so I'm just gonna steal it. You don't like it? Brew better shit."

The way I see it: If I like a movie and pay to see/rent/purchase it because I like it so much (and support it in hopes the studio does more like it), then Joe Downloader comes along and doesn't pay a damn cent but downloads and consumes the movie anyways, I feel I should be allowed to go over to his house and kick him in the nuts.

Basically, he's voiding out my "yes" vote (in dollars) and the votes of the other happy (paying) consumers. In the long run it's going to get to the point where movies, albums, games, etc. won't be made because of the lack of incentive to do so. It's already happened many times in music already. Sure, already HUGE bands like NIN and Radiohead can sell their own shit and score millions of copies, but not the up-and-comers who actually keep music fresh.

If you're interested enough in a movie to search for a torrent of it, find a place for it on your hard drive, convert it, burn it, and watch it, then you should scrounge around for change in your car's floorboard and rent the damn thing. Calling the MPAA (or RIAA) shit, griping about the state of movies/music in general, then turning around and downloading the products anyhow = hypocrisy, which has its own special place in hell IMO.

You don't like a movie's idea or trailer, fine...then don't watch it. If you want to see it, STOP BEING A CHEAP BASTARD and at least rent the damn thing. Why is it practically the whole fracking Internet thinks they have a right to free shit because they have a high speed connection and consider themselves disgruntled about the state of the media industry? :rolleyes:

[gonzooo]

Semi-rant
I won't argue that paying for what you watch isn't obviously the "right thing" to do, but please don't equate downloading a movie illegally with stealing a physical product. I can't think of a good analogy, but I honestly don't think there needs to be one.

There are better arguments for why people should pay for what they watch, play and listen to.

Also, while I understand most of the people who download stuff illegally do so without thinking anything like it, the whole process does send a message. It sends a message both to big organizations and to the makers of the product that there needs to be change. I think many artists (in particular) could make their stuff available through online services and live off of the natural hype, provided they don't get screwed by, say, Apple (for iTunes).

The people with the power probably know damn well they could turn pretty much everything around by introducing solid alternatives to illegal downloading. That they haven't already (for every medium) kind of stumps me, because it's not like they don't have the resources.

In short: I don't think you can say there is a clear "right" side in this matter. Obviously, people should get paid for what they do if people get the chance to enjoy it, but obviously there's something very broken about the system as it stands right now. Taking the "moral" high ground and saying everyone that downloads stuff illegally is a douchebag and an idiot is equally as wrong as saying downloading stuff illegally and not caring about the creators one bit is right.

[jdk]

Yes, that little Excel graph can be quite misleading. First, there is still inflation which this graph probably didn't take into consideration. Movie ticket prices have gone up since 2002, not to mention theatre prices on concession and what have you. Fix that ratio and I'd bet the bars would be a little more even. Also, 2007 was an extremely good year for blockbusters overall. 300 plus all those crazy summer sequels simply dominated last year's screens...

The movie theatre experience is exactly the same as it was 10, hell 20 years ago... with more cell usage. People still talked in movies and babies still cried. You can't really blame this on the industry as some people here are trying to do. You also can't say this is a viable excuse for downloading a film.

The point in that people who download a movie may not have intended to see it anyways is utterly inane. If you were interested in a movie, but the internet was like it was in 1998... what were you to do? You'd go to the theatre, pay for it and watch it as there was no other choice. Yeah the picture itself could suck, but that's part of the gamble. There aren't bots roaming the BT sites just so the UL/DL looks pretty so the MPAA gets paranoid. Say you work at the theatre and could get yourself and your buddies in for free at a whim. Pretty much the same concept as downloading a movie... and that's a ticket sale lost.

Fact is this: piracy will always be a problem no matter what. It won't go away but that doesn't make it an innocent crime.

The biggest joke is when the MPAA comes out with their figures of how much money the industry lost due to piracy. I fail to see how you can automatically equate a downloaded movie to a lost ticket sale or dvd purchase. Just because somebody downloads a film doesn't mean they had any intention of paying money to see it at the cinemas. In fact, I would argue that in some cases, downloaded movies actually increase movie sales. The barrier to seeing a film is massively reduced when you don't have to pay for it. This means that a lot of people would probably watch films they would never normally see because they downloaded it. This in turn probably leads to DVD and HD sales. Theres also the word of mouth generated.

I seriously doubt that thousands of people downloading Uwe Bolls latest piece of shit Dungeon Siege movie would have chosen to see that film at the cinemas.

So, you're saying that same people who complain that the theatre experience is completely not worth at all... will see a movie because they downloaded it and thought it was good? If the theatres suck so much, what difference does it make if you knew the movie was great before going in? These are very conflicting points among the contingent who defend ILLEGALLY downloading stuff off the internet.

There are very clear cut sides on the piracy issue... one side could potentially land you in jail and the other won't. I don't see how we are straddling a line of grey here.

[jdk]

I'd also like to add that it's not downloads... it's bootleg sales. People actually buy that shit if you can believe it or not. When I was in Iraq the past year, I really didn't have a choice for my summer films so I admit I did buy a few CAM bootlegs for Spider-Man and the like. These little shops made freaking BANK off these sales. Spider-Man 3 was sold out for weeks.. and we're talking $4 for a DVD-R pressing that cost less than a fourth of that... and hundreds of these flying off the shelves a day. That was just one shop in one small location. I can only imagine what bootleg sales are like world-wide.

[gonzooo]

I'd also like to add that it's not downloads... it's bootleg sales. People actually buy that shit if you can believe it or not. When I was in Iraq the past year, I really didn't have a choice for my summer films so I admit I did buy a few CAM bootlegs for Spider-Man and the like. These little shops made freaking BANK off these sales. Spider-Man 3 was sold out for weeks.. and we're talking $4 for a DVD-R pressing that cost less than a fourth of that... and hundreds of these flying off the shelves a day. That was just one shop in one small location. I can only imagine what bootleg sales are like world-wide.
The reason no one is discussing this, I believe, is because no one think it's even remotely "right". For people to actually make money off of others works like that is extremely hard to defend. This probably isn't the piracy the average Joe is engaged in either.

[autodas]

You think laws are what make the earth rotate. Piracy is not the problem, it's the failure of Hollywood to adapt to the internet. I paid to see There Will be Blood because I liked the movie. Piracy is not depriving anyone of any property unlike your free beer proposal. Just because someone downloads a game, song, movie, or software does not mean they would have got it. Artists on the rise would benefit greatly from a model like Nine Inch Nails because they can set their own price and have to make sure all of their music sounds good in order to sell well. Once the media industry stops thinking their customers as thieves then the internet will stop complaining.



300 was a movie that generated a lot of buzz from the internet and was one of the most downloaded movies of that year yet you say it was still a good year but I thought pirates butchered these people?
Piracy is a victimless crime so the law is wrong here and you should not be jailed for downloading.



Who thinks people should profit off of piracy? The reason why the rest of the world sells bootlegs is because they have to wait to see them before the left over rolls of film are sent to their country and when it's there they usually can't afford it.

[esophagus]

Sorruy, but I've yet to here a good argument on why piracy makes sense. It is stealing. Someone give me one good reason to believe that it isn't, and you will have my attention and respect.

"People see it anyways" is not a valid reason. "They make a ton of money anyways" isn't a valid reason. "I just want to see if I like it before I pay for it" isn't a valid reason.

When I go to a store and pay for a pair of jeans, the store is paid for them, the chain of stores is paid for them, the company selling them is paid, the people that manufactured them are paid, etc. Much like it works with a movie. When I walk out of the store with them, I am arrested for stealing. Explain how this is different from pirating a movie. People may see it anyways. Other people also buy the jeans. This does not mean that you should get the jeans for free. What one person has to pay for, everyone does. They may make a ton of money on the movie. The Gap also makes a ton of money on their jeans, but I'm not walking out of the store with them. It's illegal. You may claim you're just going to see if you like it, but what happens when you don't like it? You have still seen the movie free. I don't steal a pair of pants to go back and buy a pair if I like them. And before I get a horde of arguments saying "but they let you try them on!", most movie theatres will refund you your money if you walk out in the middle and tell them the movie was shitty.

You think laws are what make the earth rotate. Piracy is not the problem, it's the failure of Hollywood to adapt to the internet.I do agree that studios need to adapt to the internet, and we're starting to see them do so, with iTunes, etc. It needs to be improved if they would like to eliminate piracy all together, but a simpler answer is for people to stop being idiots and realizing they are stealing.

I paid to see There Will be Blood because I liked the movie. Piracy is not depriving anyone of any property unlike your free beer proposal. Just because someone downloads a game, song, movie, or software does not mean they would have got it. Artists on the rise would benefit greatly from a model like Nine Inch Nails because they can set their own price and have to make sure all of their music sounds good in order to sell well. Once the media industry stops thinking their customers as thieves then the internet will stop complaining.To refer back to my jeans example, if I paid for the jeans, I am not insured that the workers in Asia or where ever are being paid proportionately or at all for their labor, but that is not a reason to steal it. If I don't like the practice I think is going on, in this case artists being paid for their works, then I shouldn't see the movie. I shouldn't do something equally as wrong.

300 was a movie that generated a lot of buzz from the internet and was one of the most downloaded movies of that year yet you say it was still a good year but I thought pirates butchered these people?
Piracy is a victimless crime so the law is wrong here and you should not be jailed for downloading.Lets say I am selling lemonade. It costs me five cents a cup to make, but I sell it for ten cents. I sell twenty cups, but fifteen cups are stolen. I still made a slight profit, did I not? Does that mean that I shouldn't be upset at the people who kept taking my product without paying for it? No. That's not the way business, or any moral conduct, operates.

Who thinks people should profit off of piracy? The reason why the rest of the world sells bootlegs is because they have to wait to see them before the left over rolls of film are sent to their country and when it's there they usually can't afford it.I'm not sure I understand you, but I'm going to assume you mean that people in a lot of companies make bootlegs because they are slow to get the movies. And? Wait. The same countries are slow to get a lot of things, not just movies, but they don't fly over and steal it. For some reason piracy seems to fit into this little hole where people can't seem to see it as a product because it's something they watch not hold, or use, or wear.

please don't equate downloading a movie illegally with stealing a physical product. I can't think of a good analogy, but I honestly don't think there needs to be one.This is the vacuum I'm talking about. Movies are a physical product. When you buy a DVD, you get the case, the packaging, the disc, and everything else. When you go to the theatre you pay for the service of them showing you the movie in a nice environment. Much like paying for a carton of milk, or a person to park your car. Where is this difference I'm apparently not seeing?

The people with the power probably know damn well they could turn pretty much everything around by introducing solid alternatives to illegal downloading. That they haven't already (for every medium) kind of stumps me, because it's not like they don't have the resources.I think they know damned well, just like you do, that a viable alternative won't stop anything. If you regular pirate movies, you are regularly watching free movies. When someone comes out and says "Hey! See that thing you are already doing? Well now you can do it through us, but for $5!" no one is going to go for it. You're already set in the decision that what you are doing isn't wrong, so why would you start paying someone else, the same person you are willing to stiff on their money now, to help you with it. You can say all you want that if an alternative was given you would take it, and in fact you might be telling the truth, but the general population would not follow that guideline.

Obviously, people should get paid for what they do if people get the chance to enjoy it, but obviously there's something very broken about the system as it stands right nowWhere is it broken? They let you go see the movie at the theatres if you pay them for what they've made. When the theatre stops offering that service they give you that same product on DVD if you are willing to pay them for what they made. And now, you could even go to iTunes and buy it. Sure they could improve ways for you to get it on the computer, but that might take time. Where are you benefitting from owning a pirated copy versus seeing it in theatres or owning/renting the DVD? Because you can send it to friends? Watch it on your computer screen? You can handle the wait.

Just because somebody downloads a film doesn't mean they had any intention of paying money to see it at the cinemas.This argument bugs me. "Just because I downloaded it doesn't mean I would pay to see it in theatres". And? "Just because I stole these pants doesn't mean I would have paid for them". That doesn't make it right. It steals means that you own a product you didn't pay for it. If you are willing to pay for it and don't, it just makes you that much more of an asshole. In fact, I would argue that in some cases, downloaded movies actually increase movie sales. The barrier to seeing a film is massively reduced when you don't have to pay for it. This means that a lot of people would probably watch films they would never normally see because they downloaded it. This in turn probably leads to DVD and HD sales. Theres also the word of mouth generated.Trailers also make money. Word of mouth caused by trailers make money. Advanced screenings make money. Positive review make money. Advertising makes money. Franchises (toys, posters, etc) make money. All of these are legal. Why should studios decide that giving away their product for free makes more sense from a marketing standpoint then doing any of those things? They shouldn't, because it doesn't.

The loophole in that is that movies that get pirated a lot tend to do just fine in the box office. Case in point, spiderman 3, It broke the record for day 1 profit and yet was heavily pirated BEFORE it even made it to the theaters.Had it not been pirated, it still would have done fine. That's just rationalization.

Me to the MPAA = Stop making shit remakes or shitty movies in general and you can have my effing 9 bucks to sit in a shitty theater, where people have no common courtesy to leave their 2 years olds at home and shut their fucking cell phones off!If they are only making shitty movies, then what are you pirating? There is obviously some movie out there that you feel is worth your time. If you don't like theatres, wait for DVD. Not liking the people in them is no way to justify stealing.

[Ph30nix]

well, now that stage6 is shut down...and Joox is pretty much gone - there's one less movie pirate out there...

[gonzooo]

I do agree that studios need to adapt to the internet, and we're starting to see them do so, with iTunes, etc. It needs to be improved if they would like to eliminate piracy all together, but a simpler answer is for people to stop being idiots and realizing they are stealing.
Why with the "idiot" thing? You're not winning anyone over by calling them idiots. You're about as smooth with this as the men in charge.

I shouldn't do something equally as wrong.
Do you honestly believe stealing pants is as bad as paying people in sweatshops next to nothing for working in the worst work environment there is? I agree with you that stealing isn't the way to go, but for you to say it is equally wrong just makes you seem too detached to rant about this. Honestly, it makes you seem like you're the son of an exec or something, with no connection to reality whatsoever.

This is the vacuum I'm talking about. Movies are a physical product. When you buy a DVD, you get the case, the packaging, the disc, and everything else. When you go to the theatre you pay for the service of them showing you the movie in a nice environment. Much like paying for a carton of milk, or a person to park your car. Where is this difference I'm apparently not seeing?
You completely missed the point. A movie, in its downloaded form, is a digital copy: That is not a physical product. Being that it is a digital copy, you're not stealing a copy from a store or anything. Please, stop it with all the stupid analogies; it's as if you're rehashing every stupid, old, tired argument you can find on some MPAA website. Bring forward your other points (of which there are...?) if you want to make any kind of difference in this discussion.

I think they know damned well, just like you do, that a viable alternative won't stop anything. If you regular pirate movies, you are regularly watching free movies. When someone comes out and says "Hey! See that thing you are already doing? Well now you can do it through us, but for $5!" no one is going to go for it. You're already set in the decision that what you are doing isn't wrong, so why would you start paying someone else, the same person you are willing to stiff on their money now, to help you with it. You can say all you want that if an alternative was given you would take it, and in fact you might be telling the truth, but the general population would not follow that guideline.
Yes, because iTunes didn't change A LOT? I myself recently found a swedish equivalent to NetFlix, so I added a lot of movies I'd like to see instead of downloading them. I have accounts on several trackers, where I could probably get 90% of these movies (DVD quality) in a day, but I don't, because I found a good alternative. You're not going to get anywhere by just being a cynic in this matter.

Where is it broken? They let you go see the movie at the theatres if you pay them for what they've made. When the theatre stops offering that service they give you that same product on DVD if you are willing to pay them for what they made. And now, you could even go to iTunes and buy it. Sure they could improve ways for you to get it on the computer, but that might take time. Where are you benefitting from owning a pirated copy versus seeing it in theatres or owning/renting the DVD? Because you can send it to friends? Watch it on your computer screen? You can handle the wait.
The music industry is broken in that it has to deal with too many middle-men who all want a part of the cake, without doing much. An Internet-service for music could act as a better middle-man for most of these artists.

The movie industry is broken in that it simply doesn't have any good alternatives for illegal downloading. You either have services that send you DVDs or services that send you files but has the smallest movie library on earth.

All in all I think you need to lay off the stupid analogies and try to find some other argument. As it stands right now you're probably not going to win anyone over with your jeans-argument.

As for me? I am content with watching this whole circus from the sidelines. I don't think illegal downloading is good, but I think it's a good method of stimulating change at this point. I think that's what needed to make the industry wise up. As with any major change, people will get stuck in the middle somewhere; some should and some shouldn't. You just have to hope the fuckers with no business being there fuck off and the rest stay and do their best.

[bruce-leroy]

I did hear a stat, I think it was on G4, which stated that ticket sales are actually down from last year by like a million, and the increased profits are entirely due to higher ticket prices.

I personally agree that piracy is probably morally indefensible, though I'm not exactly innocent of it. My beef with the MPAA is the bogus smear campaigns they run against piracy.

1) Movie piracy does not financially hurt anyone below the line on a movie. The commercials showing a grip complaining about how piracy only hurts "the working man" and not the "Hollywood fat-cats" makes me laugh out loud every time. Piracy hurts profits, and no grip or gaffer is getting a percentage of the profits. They've all been paid, and paid quite well, way before the movie comes out.

2) Copyright infringement is not stealing. Stealing deprives someone of the use of their property. You have an ipod; I don't. I take your ipod. Now I have an ipod, and you don't. I gain something by depriving you of something. That is stealing. Now, say you make a movie. I watch that movie without paying for it. You still have the movie. All I've deprived you of is whatever I might have paid you for seeing the movie. Calling copyright infringement "stealing" is propaganda.

My only justification is, there are lots of ways to watch a movie without paying for it. Before I ever downloaded a movie, probably about 70% of the movies I saw I did not pay for. I watched them at a friends house, who either had cable or had netflix. It's the same way with comic books. Comics are ridiculously expensive, so even before downloading them became popular, I didn't pay for the majority of comics I read. I'm lucky enough to have several friends who are "completists", who buy nearly ever DC and Marvel monthly comic, from whom I borrowed liberally. And there is no way I would have ever bought half of the stuff I read this way, because I couldn't afford it.

One more point, while it's fair to say that most people would have paid to see some of the movies they illegally downloaded, it is also fair to say that people download a lot more movies than they would have paid for in the theater. For instance, I have downloaded movies that I was so uninterested in that I ended up not watching them until they were on HBO, which I pay for. So in the end I only deprived myself of bandwith I could have put to better use. Who do I sue?

[poltah]

Ok - I'll be that guy (puts on flame-retardant suit):

First of all, I can count on one hand the number of times someone I've known downloading something illegally then turning around and paying for it because they liked it. That idea is just a joke, and so is the idea that the MPAA is responsible for your overall experience as a theater-goer based on the quality of the movie and the crying kids in the audience. For crying out loud...that's like saying "you know, I had the WORST time in this grocery store purchasing this mediocre beer. It's so cold in here, there's a mom with her whiny kid that got on my nerves, so I'm just gonna steal it. You don't like it? Brew better shit."

The way I see it: If I like a movie and pay to see/rent/purchase it because I like it so much (and support it in hopes the studio does more like it), then Joe Downloader comes along and doesn't pay a damn cent but downloads and consumes the movie anyways, I feel I should be allowed to go over to his house and kick him in the nuts.

Basically, he's voiding out my "yes" vote (in dollars) and the votes of the other happy (paying) consumers. In the long run it's going to get to the point where movies, albums, games, etc. won't be made because of the lack of incentive to do so. It's already happened many times in music already. Sure, already HUGE bands like NIN and Radiohead can sell their own shit and score millions of copies, but not the up-and-comers who actually keep music fresh.

If you're interested enough in a movie to search for a torrent of it, find a place for it on your hard drive, convert it, burn it, and watch it, then you should scrounge around for change in your car's floorboard and rent the damn thing. Calling the MPAA (or RIAA) shit, griping about the state of movies/music in general, then turning around and downloading the products anyhow = hypocrisy, which has its own special place in hell IMO.

You don't like a movie's idea or trailer, fine...then don't watch it. If you want to see it, STOP BEING A CHEAP BASTARD and at least rent the damn thing. Why is it practically the whole fracking Internet thinks they have a right to free shit because they have a high speed connection and consider themselves disgruntled about the state of the media industry? :rolleyes:

Agreed.

Quality has nothing to do with it. If you want to watch a movie, you should pay for it. Doesn't matter if the movie is good or bad.

The other thing is that piracy is still a relatively new thing. Even though a lot of people do it, it's not everybody. I know a lot of people my age (which is 20) who just recently discovered this internet-piracy thingie. In 5 years, 10 years, what will happen when EVERYBODY is downloading stuff?

[cut_la_rock]

1) Movie piracy does not financially hurt anyone below the line on a movie. The commercials showing a grip complaining about how piracy only hurts "the working man" and not the "Hollywood fat-cats" makes me laugh out loud every time. Piracy hurts profits, and no grip or gaffer is getting a percentage of the profits. They've all been paid, and paid quite well, way before the movie comes out.



I completely disagree. Budgets have been tightening in the tv/film industry for years now and its directly related to the bottom-line, even more-so with how corporate the entertainment industry has become. Production companies expect a lot more for a lot less money today vs. 5-10 years ago, with the prospect of getting a big-money gig being dangled in front of workers as incentive to do more for less. There are a handful of jobs in the industry where people are getting paid as well as you imply, with the majority of people grinding it out for a lot less then you think.

While piracy affects the "Hollywood fat-cats" first, they turn around make up for corporate loss by using the same "down-sizing" and restructuring in their production budgets that the rest of corporate America has practiced for years. Eliminate a job and make 2 others absorb their responsibilities. Its happening more and more.

And btw, copyright infringement is stealing, plain and simple.

[esophagus]

Why with the "idiot" thing? You're not winning anyone over by calling them idiots. You're about as smooth with this as the men in charge.I'm not calling anyone who pirates an idiot. I'm calling anyone who can't admit that doing so is wrong an idiot. I stand by that.
Do you honestly believe stealing pants is as bad as paying people in sweatshops next to nothing for working in the worst work environment there is? I agree with you that stealing isn't the way to go, but for you to say it is equally wrong just makes you seem too detached to rant about this. Honestly, it makes you seem like you're the son of an exec or something, with no connection to reality whatsoever.It doesn't have to be as bad to still be bad. You can't tell me that stealing those pants is justified by them having sweatshop workers? Not buying the pants at all is.
You completely missed the point. A movie, in its downloaded form, is a digital copy: That is not a physical product. Being that it is a digital copy, you're not stealing a copy from a store or anything. Please, stop it with all the stupid analogies; it's as if you're rehashing every stupid, old, tired argument you can find on some MPAA website. Bring forward your other points (of which there are...?) if you want to make any kind of difference in this discussion.There isn't another argument. It is the physical product. You are watching the movie for free that they are charging people to watch. You are stealing that digital copy. Just because you didn't walk into a store and walk back out with it, doesn't make it a legal copy. They've asked you not to do something, you're doing it anyways. You're breaking the law. If you can't understand that, this argument is in no way worth it.
Yes, because iTunes didn't change A LOT? I myself recently found a swedish equivalent to NetFlix, so I added a lot of movies I'd like to see instead of downloading them. I have accounts on several trackers, where I could probably get 90% of these movies (DVD quality) in a day, but I don't, because I found a good alternative. You're not going to get anywhere by just being a cynic in this matter.I commend you for that. You aren't everyone though. There will still be people who pirate when a legal alternative is available, because it's free. I don't care if 75% of people stop pirating when a legal alternative is available, that still means they have that large 25% stealing from them.
The music industry is broken in that it has to deal with too many middle-men who all want a part of the cake, without doing much. An Internet-service for music could act as a better middle-man for most of these artists.Then send the artist ten dollars, or start a petition, or something. Stealing the music doesn't help or solve anything.
The movie industry is broken in that it simply doesn't have any good alternatives for illegal downloading. You either have services that send you DVDs or services that send you files but has the smallest movie library on earth.They also don't have flying cars. I don't sneak onto planes to "fix" that problem. Patience is a virtue.
All in all I think you need to lay off the stupid analogies and try to find some other argument. As it stands right now you're probably not going to win anyone over with your jeans-argument.I know I'm not going to win, because for some reason people seem to think that because you got it on the internet, and not from a store, it is somehow okay. Its not.
As for me? I am content with watching this whole circus from the sidelines. I don't think illegal downloading is good, but I think it's a good method of stimulating change at this point. I think that's what needed to make the industry wise up. As with any major change, people will get stuck in the middle somewhere; some should and some shouldn't. You just have to hope the fuckers with no business being there fuck off and the rest stay and do their best.Whatever. You may have good reasoning, but that doesn't hold up in court. Not saying people deserve to be jailed for this, just that it is a law. No matter what your reason for breaking a law, you're breaking it. As long as you can own up to that, feel free. There are plenty of better ways to do something about it.

[jordanm85]

I've never downloaded a movie that I would have paid to see. I believe Alex said the same thing on Diggnation before. They aren't losing any money from me. And many times I'll watch, or listen to music.... Enjoy it and then buy it on DVD/CD when it is released. So they are actually making more money from me than if there was no download, because in that case I would have never seen the movies/heard the albums.

[stubadub]

Most people I know do not pirate anything. Those that do tend to pirate well beyond their ability to consume. If this were not so easy they would be spending more than they currently are, but not much more. The "every movie/cd downloaded is money lost" equation doesn't work out to actual losses.

It bothers me that these arguments usually come down to such basic arguments, A yields B without considering any of the other factors. CD sales go down, so the only culprit is said to be piracy. During this same time DVD sales shot through the roof. People tend to have a fixed amount of their income that is disposable. Wouldn't this be a contributing factor as well? If I'm spending more on DVDs I'm spending less on CDs. During this same time there has been a push for record labels to drop marginal acts, encourage producers to create albums more accessible, thereby slowly eleminating the qualities that made these musicians stand out in the first place. Radio stations have been mostly aquired by Clear Channel and tend to play the same things in rotation every few hours on every similarly themed station they own throughout the country, and MTV has almost entirely quit playing music videos.

At this point in time more people have HDTVs and 5.1 sound systems. Movies are coming out on DVD within 3 to 5 months of theatrical release. Most people can enjoy a reasonably comperable experience to that which they would have received in the theater, and they don't have to wait long after the films are released to have this experience.

At this point I don't think the MPAA has been on the same sue crazy rampage that the RIAA has been on for the last few years, but I think it is just a matter of time. The RIAA has proven so far that this is a viable additional revenue stream. Threaten someone with a cookie cutter lawsuit and most will pay the $2500 to avoid any bigger legal trouble. The RIAA tries to appeal to our sympathies by saying "Think about the Artist you are stealing from", but at this point the RIAA has been keeping most of this cash for themselves. When someone does purchase music legitimately from Itunes or Amazon the RIAA keeps the money because these revenue streams aren't explicitely mentioned in the artist contracts. Artists are actually having to resort to lawsuits against the RIAA to get them to pay any of this money the are supposedly collecting for the benefit of the artist.

[esophagus]

I can't believe the lack of logic that goes into this. "If I didn't steal it I wouldn't have paid for it, so how are they losing money". If you aren't willing to pay for it, don't watch it. Simple.

Also, "that's what Alex says" holds no weight. He holds no more place in this than you or I.

[esophagus]

Also, I don't believe the "every download is money lost" argument either. That still doesn't mean you should download. Every download is product stolen. That's undeniable.

[stubadub]

I can't believe the lack of logic that goes into this. "If I didn't steal it I wouldn't have paid for it, so how are they losing money". If you aren't willing to pay for it, don't watch it. Simple.

Also, "that's what Alex says" holds no weight. He holds no more place in this than you or I.

You are confusing logic with morality. If you don't have the money to spend, or are the type of person unwilling to spend money in such a fashion, it is money that was never theirs and will never be theirs.

People get so emotional about this issue that it sometimes feels like a political discussion. I remember awhile back I bought the DJ Shadow live DVD. A friend of mine was dying to see it and asked to borrow it. I burned a copy for him. I don't like loaning things out because far too often people tend to not take care of it in the same way that I would. They leave the disc lying on top of the tv, or in a pile of discs on the floor, etc. Making a copy eleminates this possibility. When I handed him the disc he said "I can't take that." When he told me why (against piracy) I said "Just throw it away when you're done." "No, can't do that dude. Just let me borrow it." Truthfully I didn't care whether he kept it or not, but how is taking the burned disc and disposing of it effectively any different than borrowing it? You might say that it is illegal to make the copy, but I made the copy, not him. You might say he didn't want to take part in any illegal activities, but he wasn't opposed to speeding or smoking pot. This whole issue has gotten so huge that people have drawn a line through the sand and picked sides and can't consider anything beyond the black and white.

[stubadub]

Also, I don't believe the "every download is money lost" argument either. That still doesn't mean you should download. Every download is product stolen. That's undeniable.

It isn't quite that cut and dry. Theft does imply a loss, and there are definitely situations we can perceive where a download has occured without loss.

Back in the day we would copy tapes for each other and no one ever had a problem with it. Before Napster we would copy each others cds and no one had a problem with it. At that time no one (outside of the record industry) would ever consider either of these things stealing. Now we effectively have the same situation on a much larger scale.

[esophagus]

You are confusing logic with morality. If you don't have the money to spend, or are the type of person unwilling to spend money in such a fashion, it is money that was never theirs and will never be theirs.The case is the same with anything you steal, but people don't seem to see that as a problem with "no right answer".

[esophagus]

Okay, I'm going to pose this question. How and why is having a downloaded movie different than having a DVD? It doesn't matter whether they are stolen or paid for, just what makes the two formats so different that they don't fit into the same argument?

Past that, I don't really care what anyone else has to say on the matter. I'm just getting the same logic over and over.

[jordanm85]

I can't believe the lack of logic that goes into this. "If I didn't steal it I wouldn't have paid for it, so how are they losing money". If you aren't willing to pay for it, don't watch it. Simple.

Also, "that's what Alex says" holds no weight. He holds no more place in this than you or I.

I would say about 50% of all the bands I listen to and own actual CDs/merch from, I heard from downloading first. If I like something, I will buy it, and support it. It is as simple as that. I don't see how what you are saying can be considered logic.. sounds a lot more like personal opinion to me.

If I am not will to pay for it, and then never see it. How is that better than downloading it, and enjoying it... then later on buying it when the DVD is released?

And I only mentioned Alex because I agreed with what he said in that one episode, nothing more than that.

[stubadub]

Okay, I'm going to pose this question. How and why is having a downloaded movie different than having a DVD? It doesn't matter whether they are stolen or paid for, just what makes the two formats so different that they don't fit into the same argument?

Past that, I don't really care what anyone else has to say on the matter. I'm just getting the same logic over and over.

A DVD is a physical object. If I own a DVD and you take it from me, I no longer have my DVD and either have to pay to replace it or accept the fact that I no longer have something I purchased. If I am a retailer I no longer have that DVD to sell and have lost the money that I spent to purchase it and have it delivered to my store.

If you have a DVD and I copy it you still retain your DVD. If I download a copy of a DVD the retailer still has the same physical DVD to sell. If it is a digital distribution method I have not reduced from their inventory the amount they have available to sell.

For the record, I am a media whore, I just don't see these things in the black and white nature in which they are normally discussed. My CD collection tops out over 1500 discs, I've at most times over the last 3 years been a member of Emusic and Audible, I've spent several hundred dollars on Itunes, and I owned a great deal of tapes before that. My DVD collection is over 250, my HD DVD collection at 35 and my Blu Ray collection at 10. Before that I owned a comperable amount of films on VHS. I am currently a Netflix subscriber (using the TRS code to give a little back to the boys).

Additionally, I've done my share of questionable activities online. I have often, though not always, purchased those things that I have enjoyed after "sampling" them. Other times I have become a fan of a band through such sampling, not purchased the album I downloaded, but have been down at the record store on release date to purchase their next album. There are artists in these industries which view this behavior as a promotional necessity for just such reasons.

[stubadub]

I would say about 50% of all the bands I listen to and own actual CDs/merch from, I heard from downloading first. If I like something, I will buy it, and support it. It is as simple as that. I don't see how what you are saying can be considered logic.. sounds a lot more like personal opinion to me.

If I am not will to pay for it, and then never see it. How is that better than downloading it, and enjoying it... then later on buying it when the DVD is released?

And I only mentioned Alex because I agreed with what he said in that one episode, nothing more than that.

It might be a niche example, but I am reminded of Girl Talk. He does mashups of songs from various artists. Within one track you might hear a combination of samples from the Pixies, Nirvana, Steve Miller Band, Notorious B.I.G., etc. No one I know had ever heard of him. He got a great review from Pitchfork so I downloaded the album. I liked it so much I made everyone I know check it out. This apparently happened en niche masse everywhere. Suddenly this guy is in high demand for his live shows. Would this have happened just based on the review? Probably not. Would nearly as many people have been willing to go out and buy the album, which was impossible to find from my incredibly well stocked and quite prolific local record store. It wasn't even really available until after it hit it so big. Now the guy is making good money from live performances, is in demand, and has a bunch of retailers that will stock his next album and plenty of people willing to buy it when it comes out. I guarantee you that is a guy who sees this infringement as a blessing.

[esophagus]

A DVD is a physical object. If I own a DVD and you take it from me, I no longer have my DVD and either have to pay to replace it or accept the fact that I no longer have something I purchased. If I am a retailer I no longer have that DVD to sell and have lost the money that I spent to purchase it and have it delivered to my store. The store is not the only factor here. There are studios that worked on this that get money. If everyone downloads and watches it, they are not getting the money for their labors. If you "weren't going to pay for it anyways", they still aren't getting paid. They're asking for money for something, you are taking the product, but not giving them the money. When I go to a movie theatre, I leave with no physical product. I just got to see it. I still had to pay. Perhaps we should all think of downloading a movie more like sneaking into a move theatre?

The rest of your argument is irrelevant to the question I posed.

[stubadub]

The store is not the only factor here. There are studios that worked on this that get money. If everyone downloads and watches it, they are not getting the money for their labors. If you "weren't going to pay for it anyways", they still aren't getting paid. They're asking for money for something, you are taking the product, but not giving them the money. When I go to a movie theatre, I leave with no physical product. I just got to see it. I still had to pay. Perhaps we should all think of downloading a movie more like sneaking into a move theatre?

The rest of your argument is irrelevant to the question I posed.

You did ask how these situations were different. I answered. This difference is not so subtle that it should be imperceptible to you.

The studio can still make the same amount of money when someone who will not spend money downloads a film as they could when this same person does not download it. There is not a loss of a product that directly results in monetary loss.

Carrying over the "I ain't paying" guy from the previous example, the theater is only losing money if they are sold out, someone realizes there is no seat for them, and requests a refund. Otherwise we have the same situation. An entity which originally was not getting money from "I ain't paying" guy is still not getting money from "I ain't paying" guy.

Sorry, I must have missed the agreement I signed when I created an account that said I could only answer questions posed by esophagus.

[esophagus]

You did ask how these situations were different. I answered. This difference is not so subtle that it should be imperceptible to you.

The studio can still make the same amount of money when someone who will not spend money downloads a film as they could when this same person does not download it. There is not a loss of a product that directly results in monetary loss.

Carrying over the "I ain't paying" guy from the previous example, the theater is only losing money if they are sold out, someone realizes there is no seat for them, and requests a refund. Otherwise we have the same situation. An entity which originally was not getting money from "I ain't paying" guy is still not getting money from "I ain't paying" guy.It isn't a direct monetary loss. That doesn't stop it from beingyou using their product for free without their permission.

Didn't I say previously that I agree that a movie downloaded isn't necessarily a dollar lost? That doesn't stop it from being wrong.Sorry, I must have missed the agreement I signed when I created an account that said I could only answer questions posed by esophagus.Talk all you want, I was just pointing out why I didn't respond to it.

[satori]

It's not just holywood, it's the Television industry as well. It drives me nuts that I can't even pay and DL the TV shows that I want, I end up hitting up torrents... grrrr.

[gonzooo]

There isn't another argument. It is the physical product. You are watching the movie for free that they are charging people to watch. You are stealing that digital copy. Just because you didn't walk into a store and walk back out with it, doesn't make it a legal copy. They've asked you not to do something, you're doing it anyways. You're breaking the law. If you can't understand that, this argument is in no way worth it.
I don't know what part of "physical product" was confusing, but I'll rephrase it: You're not stealing a finite product. The product has been copied and no one is poorer for it. However you want to view the act of watching something you haven't paid for, this you cannot contest.

I know I'm not going to win, because for some reason people seem to think that because you got it on the internet, and not from a store, it is somehow okay. Its not.
You assume that your argument is perfect, and anyone who doesn't "get it" is at fault. It's cute; but that attitude will get you nowhere.

Whatever. You may have good reasoning, but that doesn't hold up in court. Not saying people deserve to be jailed for this, just that it is a law. No matter what your reason for breaking a law, you're breaking it. As long as you can own up to that, feel free. There are plenty of better ways to do something about it.
What holds up in court or not seems highly irrelevant. Also, laws are not my main barometer for morals. Granted, most of them I follow, both because they fit in with my moral belief and because I could expect certain repercussions.

Copyright infringement isn't something I worry much about on a moral level, and also not something I worry about on a legal level, which is why it's so very much easier to commit.

[esophagus]

You assume that your argument is perfect, and anyone who doesn't "get it" is at fault. It's cute; but that attitude will get you nowhere.My argument is not perfect. Nor, is yours, but you're behaving exactly the same way I am.

I'm not calling anyone "morally bankrupt" for downloading movies. I'm telling them that they're breaking the law, and doing something wrong in not following the wishes of the studios who are making movies for you. Download movies all you want, but those two points are undeniable. This is undeniable. I'm done.

[gonzooo]

My argument is not perfect. Nor, is yours, but you're behaving exactly the same way I am.
I beg you to read through this thread again.

I'm not calling anyone "morally bankrupt" for downloading movies. I'm telling them that they're breaking the law, and doing something wrong in not following the wishes of the studios who are making movies for you. Download movies all you want, but those two points are undeniable. This is undeniable. I'm done.
I usually wouldn't do this, but seeing as how you're "done" and all:
You don't know for sure they are breaking the law. For a pretty long time in Sweden we had it so that if you downloaded a copyrighted work you didn't actually break the law. If you sent that to someone else, though, you were breaking the law.

I think that serves to underline the shaky base for the law we have right now.

[johnnysix]

Wow... this thread blew up since I was here last..
My arguement from the start has been that you can not count a downloaded movie as a lost ticket sale or as a lost DVD sale. It's crazy to think that and I've not seen a single arguement here that will change my opinion. We can talk about what's morally right and wrong all day, but the fact is that there is no logical link that supports the idea that every pirated film is lost revenue.
I agree that a proportion of people who download are doing so in place of intending to pay money for the product but there is also a large proportion of people who would not have seen the film any other way. Also, I'm not sure if Americans are insulated and hence do not realise this as much, but sometimes a film will hit torrent sites a full year before the film is released in other countries. I'd argue that these sorts of tactics are feeding movie piracy as much as anything. TRS is a great show, but it's a little harder to watch if you won't see the films being reviewed for a full year after you've seen the review in some cases.
Let's not argue about whether downloading a film is breaking the law or not, because clearly in most cases it is. The interesting discussion on this topic comes out of discussing if the laws are actually right or not, or if it is morally right or not. A person can break the law and still feel morally right in some cases (i'm not advocating anything here people... just a point of discussion).
I beleive using the word "steal" in cases of copyright infringement is completely misleading. I agree that this is an entirely different case to taking somebody's physical property, depriving of that said property. Stealing somebody's car is one thing, making a copy of it is another thing entirely. Let's take a look at the music industry for example, most artists would agree that the reason they started making art is to have it heard. The record companies have built an incredibly profitable industry out of making artists music available to people. With the arrival of modern technologies, it's only common sense that people would question the validity of paying large sums of money for a distribution method that compared to records and cd's is virtually free. My point is, make movies available to download, worldwide, cheaper and you will see a percentage of people stop leeching and start buying. Why should we still be paying for legacy distribution methods?
Also, If I buy the film on DVD or HD, should I be allowed to download it? I can't help but feel a little ripped off every time I pay to have the same art on a different medium. Granted, there are costs involved in producing and distributing physical media, but surely there's a way that rewards people who have already payed? I'm not talking my leagal obligations here either, I'm talking opinion. If I pay for a show on cable, should I be able to download it if I missed the airing?
It's an interesting topic with lots of heated opinon. That's why I love this forum.

[cut_la_rock]

With the arrival of modern technologies, it's only common sense that people would question the validity of paying large sums of money for a distribution method that compared to records and cd's is virtually free. My point is, make movies available to download, worldwide, cheaper and you will see a percentage of people stop leeching and start buying. Why should we still be paying for legacy distribution methods?



But are you paying for the art or for the distribution model? Distribution doesn't account for recordings costs, marketing costs, and the costs involved with an artist's lifetime pursuit of their particular art. Cheaper distribution doesn't make any of these other things cost any less.

You're paying for the art, not the distribution IMO. I would also argue that the cost of digital distribution isn't necessarily any more cost efficient that the cost of a physical product like a CD. CDs, in mass produced form, never cost the labels that much money. CDs cost so much because the labels and retailers were marking them up for a crazy profit margin. Digital distribution still requires infrastructure and bandwidth among any number of other issues, which all cost money.

Legacy distribution only became legacy in about the past 2 years, so you can't really fault that entertainment/record companies for not being up to speed. Look at iTunes. They still don't have the Beatles among any number of other artists. It takes time.

[johnnysix]

But are you paying for the art or for the distribution model? Distribution doesn't account for recordings costs, marketing costs, and the costs involved with an artist's lifetime pursuit of their particular art. Cheaper distribution doesn't make any of these other things cost any less.

You're paying for the art, not the distribution IMO. I would also argue that the cost of digital distribution isn't necessarily any more cost efficient that the cost of a physical product like a CD. CDs, in mass produced form, never cost the labels that much money. CDs cost so much because the labels and retailers were marking them up for a crazy profit margin. Digital distribution still requires infrastructure and bandwidth among any number of other issues, which all cost money.

Legacy distribution only became legacy in about the past 2 years, so you can't really fault that entertainment/record companies for not being up to speed. Look at iTunes. They still don't have the Beatles among any number of other artists. It takes time.

Cool. Agree with a lot that your saying, but if I'm not paying for the distribution or the medium then why am am I paying for it so many times? If I'm paying for the art then let me pay for it once and have it on any medium I want for personal use.

[johnnysix]

Just as a fun aside, when reading some of the arguements here I couldn't help but be reminded of the "I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!" scene from There Will Blood. If you've seen it, you might have a small chuckle :)

[stubadub]

Legacy distribution only became legacy in about the past 2 years, so you can't really fault that entertainment/record companies for not being up to speed. Look at iTunes. They still don't have the Beatles among any number of other artists. It takes time.

Actually they do. Paul McCartney just signed over the Beatles catelog to Itunes for $400 million. I know that wasn't you're point. Just sayin'.

[ubert]

Go piracy! A total overhaul of the whole media industry and I'm going to continue pirating 'til they learn that digital is king and that high prices are teh suxorz.

kind off topic... but it needed to be said.

[darthender]

I concur!

[damnedeyez]

digital is king and that high prices are teh suxorz.


I like my physical media...but I agree on the high prices.