Movie piracy, and misconceptions. (not a rant, but still long)
 

This is a stem from the post about razors and advertising in general. It is found here.

I posted this here because it relates to us all, which is why it's not in entertainment or anywhere else. It relates to the quote displayed below.

First, the Cliffs notes- but I really hope you read the whole thing, because these are summaries, and don't explain the reasoning behind them.

1. Stealing is stealing, whether it's from a store or the net.
2. Less revenue means fewer films get made- everyone who works on them gets fucked.
3. Less revenue also means movies get made elsewhere (outside the country) where it's cheaper, which means we get no tax revenues from it's production and, again, everyone who works on the movies are fucked out of work. (by the way, this goes for most every country, not just here in the U.S.)

Now the meat.

I don’t like the commercial either, but only because it sends the wrong message- that if you steal (download) movies, you’re still hurting the “common working man or woman”. The reason I think it’s the wrong message is because people can still justify the piracy because they don’t understand HOW it hurts everyone. Putting a make-up artist or set builder up on the screen is all well and good, but they need to explain better WHY your piracy is so harmful.

The entire movie industry relies on many, many different things to survive. No, I’m not suggesting they’re “just getting by” or anything, but the closer towards profit-loss you push them, the more they have to take away to balance out. It has product and store tie-ins, it has merchandising, and it has the home video market. If you take a Finding Nemo video from a store, you are stealing, yes? How is that any different than plucking it from the internet? Basically the internet is that same store, but without the fancy cameras and security people to knock your stupid ass out when you take something. You’re still getting something without paying for it.

Now, here’s to WHY it’s so harmful. Movie sales are affected by theft, which cuts down on the studios’ profits. If the studios make less money, they SPEND less money- which means many different things:

1. They make fewer films. Films that might otherwise have been the next Godfather or [insert you personal favorite movie of all time here] never get made because the studio can’t afford to spend the money on them. Fewer films means scriptwriters get less scripts picked up, which is their livelihood. It means that all the skilled (and unskilled) laborers, artists, executives, producers, hair and make-up people, light people, sound people, talent scouts (and their agencies), actors and actresses, day players (people in films with small parts, or “extras”), and on and on and ON have fewer films to get work on, which is their direct livelihood. Also, whenever a film is made, a SHITLOAD of taxes are paid on pretty much EVERYTHING in production. Less tax dollars to the government have to be made up from somewhere, and guess who that means? You.

2. They go elsewhere. Right now, because of rising costs, many studios are sending the films to be made in other locations (countries) where the costs are not so high. Example: many American films are shot in Canada, where they can pay the people less, pay a LOT less taxes (a LOT) and less money to the towns in which they film. Here in America, when a film is shot, money is paid to the town in which a film is shot if they have to use any locations in the town, like a street, etc. That’s money directly into the economy of that town, and into the economy of the country via tax dollars. Also, when it’s made in America, they send their people to the location, which means all those carpenters, light people, etc. go along, and have work, and get paid, and can feed their families, etc. When the work is farmed out to other places, they hire local help at a much lower cost, and take as few people from the states as possible. And because they’re making less money, and losing money, they pay THOSE people as little as they can get away with by law.

“But analog, you probably download music, right? So aren’t you casting stones in your glass house?”

The music industry stuff I download gets downloaded because I have no respect for the music industry, and I almost WANT it to collapse. It’s a farce. All the real music would still survive just fine if the music industry went under. It’s corrupt to the point of disgusting, and everyone who works for or under them knows it. You want real music? It’s in your local bar, where there are bands- it’s all over the place. We’re being made to pay WAY more than that shit is worth.

And yes, the movie industry would be just fine without the music industry. Movies have been made for a lot longer than the music industry has been around, and would be more than ok without it again.

Also, just to add- I’d say a good 95% of everything I download is DJ stuff, which they WANT you to download. Techno, trance, dance, etc. They make their money playing in arenas, stadiums, and large clubs, not on their CD’s. If you download their music, and like it, you’ll go see them play, so you can get the full experience of their music. The other 5% is music industry stuff I accidentally pick up on radio (on the rare occasion I listen to radio) and happen to think is good.

So, there it is. Quite stealing, people. It hurts everyone.

Excellent writeup, analog. I do agree completely with your analysis of the situation regarding the movie industry, and also how the music industry is different (and coincidentally, that's the same music I listen to - trance, etc.).

Movies aren't really overpriced (well, if you see them in a theater, they can be very overpriced -- I pay an additional 5$ to see them in a theater here near a large city than I do in an equally-good theater at my parents house), so there's not a huge reason to steal them. I'm no saint, and I'll certainly download movies during the period between "theater" and "dvd", if I want to rewatch them, but then I end up buying them when they come out. The same can't be said for music CDs - little to no benefit of buying, the far better option is to see the artist in concert.

All in all, very good post. I enjoyed reading it.

if i download a movie... and like it... then ill buy it... never would have discovered Pulp Fiction or Quentin Tarintino untill more recently if my friend had told me to download it... since then ive bought his other movies...

for me the downloading takes the place of renting... if i like it im gonna buy the dvd...if not ill prolly never watch it again and will just delete it

To both play devil's advocate and to shadow JStrider, you have to admit it wouldnt be nearly such a problem if not for two things.

A) Americans these days want things NOW. You have to wait six months or more for the home video version of most movies because the movie industry feels the need to give theatres as much time as profitable. A lot of people pirate bootleg versions so they can see movies sooner. Reduce the wait, reduce the need to download.

B) If the movies being produced were quality, people would shell out the cash to permanents own a copy. The problem Hollywood is having really stems from the fact that most of the movies they make these days do not have what we gamers would call replayability. Most movies, you go see it once and you dont really want to see it again. On the other hand, you make a real masterpiece and EVERYONE wants it to be part of their collection. Do you see Star Wars: A New Hope being downloaded and not bought? No. Do you see Star Wars: The Phantom Menace being downloaded and not bought? Hell yes.

Peace be with you,
G

What about movie stars? Do they deserve 100 million dollars pay checks for less than a years work?.. Cut down on the actors pay checks!

And what about us non-americans? Why shouldn't the canadians download it, if that causes more cash flow to canadians city? You've angeled your write-up for the americans only. I don't see a single reason there why I, as an non-american, shouldn't download these movies.

Some of the best movies I've ever seen has been low budget. And I don't think that a decrease in budget sizes will lead to great scripts not being made, but I think Hollywood will be forced to head back to the storyboard, in stead of focusing on special fx's and mindless action scenes.

And as most others, even though I can be considered a movie-pirate I still spend a lot of money on buying DVD's, renting movies and going to the cinema.

shrubbery: Do professional athletes deserve hundred million dollar paychecks? Fuck no, they don't. However, I don't think that anything we can do will change as that, as most of them (both athletes and actors) are incredibly greedy and will fight tooth & nail for their exorbitant paychecks.

And yea, the writeup was slanted to US readers, but didn't seem like a lot that could be done about it.

you were doing decent until you said "but we can all steal music though cause I think it sucks"

stupid.

I agree. If you are going to advocate for people to stop violating copyright, you cant pick and choose what markets they violate that copyright in. THat statement alone completely deflates your otherwise good argument.

Re: Movie piracy, and misconceptions. (not a rant, but still long)
 

Soooo as long as I have no respect for the movie industry and desire it to collapse, downloading films is still très cool? I'll do that and just watch some local movies at the local film school in the university district!

1: False. Stealing IS stealing, but copyright infringement does not deprive an entity of its property. Only the benefits that it should rightfully receive from my use of their creation. Pirating movies from the internet is copyright infringement, this is recognized in law and in logic.
However, should I pirate a movie, dub it to tape, and then sell it to people, I am in fact depriving the company that owns the copyrights of profits that it should be earning. That's a seperate situation, though.

2/3: I don't consider this to be a bad thing. Foreign movies are enjoyable. Also, I could very well argue that an abundance of revenue leads to some fluffer money that will sooner or later end up being used to produce bad movies. If this can be argued, then the opposite can be argued that less revenue can mean (while a lesser quantity) a better quality movie being produced. Case in point: Independent films. But this is all based on taste. Personally I'd sooner watch any foreign independent flick over Corky Romano.

I was listening to you until you rationalized the same thing you're arguing against.

Hypocrite, buddy. Sorry.

You rationalize all you want, I'm not interested in your explanation of how stealing is stealing...unless you have no respect for the industry you're stealing from. That makes it all okay.

I write what I know about and- more to the point- what I CAN write about. I've heard things about foreign movie markets that I don't know for fact, and therefore would not foist my opinion on something which may be completely contrary of the facts i'm stating to back my opinion. I.E.- i've heard that many countries actually subsidize the costs of making films, and some actually make you use the same people at the same cost no matter where you shoot, as per their law.

And when i say "shooting elsewhere" as in, out of the native country, it's not a foreign film- it's a film of your native country that just happened to be shot someplace else. And yes, I love foreign film as well.

So yeah, it kinda HAD to be slanted to the US, because that's what i'm familiar enough with to talk about in this way.

And as far as being a hypocrite, i never said stealing music wasn't stealing- i KNOW it's stealing. I never said it was OK. I was "rationalizing" it on my own part, just to fill you in. I know it's stealing to take music- i just don't give a shit about anyone that industry represents, so _I_ feel justified when _I_ download what -little- music I do. And when I say little, I mean I have probably (counts) 22 songs that I shoudln't have. Oh damn. What a horrible person am I.

Yes, which is depriving them of the revenue their creation would make. If you download a movie and keep it, and never pay for it- regardless of whether you resell or not, you are depriving them of monies that should have been collected from you for them granting you private use copyright. That's why they all have those "for home viewing only- distribution or exhibition of this film is unlawful and protected by copyright..." thing at the beginning.

By PURCHASING the film, you are PURCHASING the right to display it in your private home, and getting a copy of it. The right to simply download it for free does not exist. By downloading it, your are still using it without having permission. The same goes for software. If you get a piece of software, you are buying the right to use it in your home. If you get it for many people to use, like on a network, you have to pay more. If you simply download a piece of software, you have not payed for the right to use it, and therefore you are infringing on their copyright. Again, it matters not what you do with it once you get it, but the fact that you get it at all to begin with.

And actors can make money depending on how much they do. Keep in mind that very few american actors make over 20 million a movie, and MOST make a shitload less than that. After that, you have to consider all the award shows, screenings, etc. they have to go to, which all cost a significant amount of money that eats into what they make, and many of them make fairly large charitable donations on a regular basis. I'm not saying they're living hand-to-mouth, although many actors are, but they definitely have very high living expenses. Not to mention the fact that they have lost their anonymity for the rest of their lives, and pay a premium to keep stupid fuckheads from spying on them all the time.

And I can justify any kind of stealing I want while advocating against another. I don't think it makes me a hypocrite and, even if it does, it shouldn't cheapen my argument. Oh well. Can't please everyone.

Well...no, it doesn't work like that.

What if I feel the same way about the movie industry that you feel about the music industry?

You telling us not to steal movies would be like Bill Clinton telling someone not to commit adultery, but it's okay to just get a blowjob.

I have worked for a media company for 7 years, specifically for cable company, and the parent company. Every industry is looking to reduce operating costs and increase profits. It's not any different for any entertainment company, music or movie. The filming industry didn't setup up shop in Toronto or Florida for the heck of it, but because UNIONS didn't exist there to incur extra costs.

Re: Movie piracy, and misconceptions. (not a rant, but still long)
 

Man you should have PM'd me or something so that I could stand up for my point of view alittle bit more before all the posts were made. Anyway, I seem to do this everytime I get into a debate like this but lets break this down alittle.



Good Lord, I hate that argument more than any that could have been made, my God I am getting sick of it. A: Stealing is not fucking stealing in every situation! What I mean by that is it's not morally wrong to steal in some situations. If your starving for one, or if the thing that you are taking isn't worth anything, or whatever. My post in that thread wasn't so much defending movie piracy as I was complaining about the commericals. Not only have we paid to get in there, but the fact that a corperation or industry is making ad's trying to convince the public to love it, and pay them your money out loyalty to the industry, LOYALTY TO AN INDUSTRY!?!?! What the hell is that? it's capitalism gone horriblely horriblely overboard.



Yes, that is diffinatly true. And thats the worst effect that piracy has, for sure. But the reason that I download movies is that I can't justify spending that much money on the crap that comes out today. How many sequels are coming out for no reason other than to make money and it works. I will watch them but I won't pay them any money to make crap. Just like I still buy CD's from bands and labels that I like, and download the songs I don't want to pay for becuase I hate the label and the CD's are so overpriced that its insane.



How long have movies been made in Canada? Much much longer than the time that the internet as played any role. Also, why is it that it's cheaper to make movies here, here being Canada. Well one, our doller is worth less, but now a days its not even that much of a difference becuase our stupid economy is picking up raising the value and slowing American investing. Other than that, less taxes, because we don't tax the hell out of them, America only does because of the desparate need for money to finance the army. American companies going overseas to get things done cheaper is going on in every single industry in the US. This is a much bigger problem and the piracy of movies doesn't really make that much of an impact because even if the movie makes a ton of money, that doesn't change the fact that its still cheaper to make it in another country, so it's pure busniess, we make more profit if we do it in this country, so they will. Corperations arn't known for that much loyalty to a country.




Not only are they sending the stupidest message, they are trying to boost corprete loyalty, and that I hate.



So, to many taxes? Why whatever could we do to fix this?? hmmmm lower taxes? never!



I think the same thing about the movie industry, I want quality not quantity.

So there it is people, quit stealing because of your love for this faceless industry, because you care so much about the working people that work so hard to bring you "dirty dancing: the sequel" and other worthless money grabs!

thats it... I want stock boys to make more money know... thats right..

anyways

actors/actresses make a nice pay check... if that were lowered then the other people could get more...

i dont download movies.. a friend of mine does.. but he still pays to see it in theaters(sometimes he sees the same one multiple times in theaters) and he still buys them later...

also another thing

take the matrix for example.. you buy the first one... then they come out with 2 more.. one is out to buy when the next is in theaters... so your paying for both... then the triligoy collectors edition will come out and people will get that with all 3 even though they already have 2... sigh

I just want you to understand that I feel, strongly, you're shooting your own arguement in the foot. You can not have your cake and eat it too. Your own anti-movie piracy arguements apply to music.

I very much see you being self defeating here, even though you make some good points.

I didn't want this thread becoming about unions, which is why i never specifically mentioned it, but thank you for pointing it out anyway.

i have, at times, downloaded movies. do i feel bad about it? no. i currently own over 100 dvd's (or close, haven't counted in a long time). if i like a movie a lot, i'll buy. whether i originally saw it in the theater, rented it, got it through netflix, or downloaded it. if i thought it was crap, i wouldn't be buying it, so the only one that's losing money is block buster, cause i didn't rent it from them.

what's the difference between downloading a movie and renting one? i'm pretty sure that the movie industry doesn't get anything from individual rentals...

the one thing i don't do (well, i have once, but i really prefer not to) is download a movie before it comes out on dvd. besides the crappy quality, if it's at the theater, i'd rather pay my money to see it there. once it's on dvd, i'm not taking money away from the studios by not renting.

so, uh... don't download movies before they're out on dvd... :)

Do you think the movie industry would be acting any differently if they had gotten caught with their pants down during the "internet revolution" like the music industry? They would be pulling the same asinine shit like trying to subpeona your ISP's logs to find out if youve been on Kazaa again trading movies. The movie industry would be somewhat more alarmed if your average internet connection were fast enough to download a movie in the time it takes you to download an mp3. And the day will come when that is true, so hopefully they're watching whats happening to the music industry and realizing the old medium for distributing their content will one day be obsolete. They are in the fortunate position to actually plan for it now, and if there's any intellegence left in the industry (judging by most mainstream movies that have come out lately, there isnt) they wont try to litigate their business model out of obsolescence and further infuriate and piss on the consumers that simply want their services in a way they totally fail to provide.

yes, the get a piece of EVERY rental that's done. There is a back end program that tracks all the rentals and they get pennies back for each one.

Which is how Blockbuster and Hollywood Video can come out with HUNDREDS of copies of a movie, because they are tracked, a percentage of them saved for after rental resale, then the rest are destroyed to keep scarcity.

Even the small mom and pop stores have to keep track of the VHS/DVD rentals because that's how the system works. It doesn't work just this way in the US, but around the world.

Actually, i think those are the copies you are always seeing at those stores in the "previously viewed" sections. They buy 200 copies of Matrix Reloaded, then when the rental madness slows down, they sell off 190 of the copies as "previously viewed".

As for the stealing aspect, it's simple. People are fucking cheap. They don't want to pay for anything, so they'll rationalize stealing. And this has only started since the advent of p2p. People feel "safe" about stealing on the internet. They can do it from behind an alias and can feel pretty anonymous. Where were all you industry haters before the internet? Were you out there shoplifting CD's and movies so you could "stick it to the man"? You may have serious anti-music/movie industry feelings, but you're all fucking cowards if your way of "bringing down the system" is to sit on your ass at a computer and download shitty bootlegs of their products.

derwood, you are correct in identifying them as in the previously viewed section.

but they don't keep so many of them, that's why there is a rental price a retail price, and a sellthrough price. The rental price is something rediculous like $79.99, the retail price something more modest like $34.99, and then the sell through which is those huge marketing blitzes, buy it now for just $15.99.

those things take up valuable shelf space, which is why they only keep a precentage of them. Some are liquidated at someplace like overstock.com, but a majority of them are destroyed because it will cause the previously viewed ones to eventually hit a ultra low sub $5.99 price point which is too low for the "bean counters."

the argument was made that by downloading illegal music/ movies from the net, you might find out a wider range than if it wasn't available, however what of things that can't easily duplicated or downloaded, they still sell, and they advertise in the same ways.

Derwoods about as close to the truth as it comes, you take it, because you can. You probably don't shoplift because there is a greater risk of being caught or even thats its more effort.

The consumer won't win, the corporations will, they'll find someway of defeating it, and we'll bear the costs, whether it be higher prices or even more limited hardware.

Before p2p is was software piracy, who knows what'll be next, people just want stuff, the stuff itself changes but the reasoning why always stays the same

Dude, if you think it is crap, don't pay for it. But don't watch it either. What this seems to come out to is that you do want to see it, but only if the cost of entry is low enough (i.e. free because you steal it off of the internet). Your words say that the product is worthless, but your actions (downloading) show that you still desire it. Pick one. Either watch it or don't. If it is too expensive for you, don't watch. But to download instead of renting is to say that your laziness is more important than your desire not to steal. And it is stealing, because you are acquiring something (consuming the product of someone's labor) without paying the asking price.

Analog, I think your arguments against movie piracy are wonderful and solid. However, I believe that they apply just as well to music piracy. Your statements about your personal music downloading habits imply that your rationalizations trump your arguments against movie piracy. I just don't see that as true.

Derwood, right on man! That's telling it like it is.

I haven't come across a movie in years that I would pay $10 to watch, or $20 to buy. I think the movie industry going down would probably benefit the quality of films being produced, not harm them. I don't download movies anymore, but screw the industry.

It isn't just the Unions... it is also the exchange rate on the US Dollar, tax incentives and really good beer that gets productions to leave the US.

Making a film in New Zealand pretty much triples the worth of the US$.

One could use the same reasoning toward the movie industry. The only one in danger of collapsing from downloads is Hollywood. Most of the independent movies that are "cutting edge" and supposedly better than all Hollywood movies would still be made with or without the "movie industry".

You're talking only about the "artist" here. There are still people who need work to produce their cds, to transport them, etc. who are getting screwed.

My personal rationale for downloading movies is that I still rent or buy them if I like them, or even without downloading them. The movies that I download are normally movies that I would never have gone to see in the theatre and probably would not have rented anyways. As far as music, if I like the music that I download enough, I'll go and buy the CD. Downloading music has actually increased the number of albums I buy on average.

The problem is not that people are downloading movies or music. There's no way to adequately copy protect digital media - the industry spends months developing a solution, and a kid says "Hah! I only need to hold the SHIFT key down and it works!". So much for copy protection.

What the entertainment industry needs to do is embrace the new distribution model, and price accordingly. Alternatively, those of us who are into big government can see the benefits of a levy on recordable media that gets collected at the source and distributed via formula to content providers.

Here in Canada, the government has mandated a levy on all recordable media, regardless of who buys it or what they buy it for. The levy is redistributed to the entertainment industry association who ostensibly redistribute it to the artists. QED, and now in Canada it is LEGAL to download music off the 'net, because we've PAID for it. Of course, we still have to deal with the terrorist tactics of the RIAA and the MPAA that try to poison our P2P networks, because their bullshit knows no borders.

Simply - they have fought every distribution revolution since the dawn of time, from radio to the internet. They just need to quit whining about change and adapt.

They have figured it out... it's called Digital Rights Management.

obviously someone at some point in time will hack the encryption but that's with all technology it's an arms race.

Not only are they doing it with thought, but they are also trying to make sure that the government is involved too.

DRM is a big deal. Here's some items about broadcast flag DRM from the FCC.

All the encoding chipsets will fall under this umbrella. According to current FCC encoding rules, these 'expiration flags' would be illegal to apply to first-generation copies of anything except PPV and VOD. Second-generation copies of anything other than OTA broadcasts could be marked with an 'expiration flag' ... but NOT first generation copies.

FCC encoding rules can be found here:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...CC-03-225A1.pdf

One real issue here is copyright and copyright infringment. If I create something, whether it is music, prose, poetry or film, I am the author and deserve a return for my efforts. If you reproduce it without my consent or get my consent by paying me or my agent, I have the ability to continue creating. No-one would think of going up to an employed person and say that they won't be getting paid this week because someone is taking their efforts for free. The people who expend the effort to create deserve to be rewarded and in our society that means being paid. We may choose to argue about the amount a movie star gets for acting or an athlete gets for entertaining, but they do deserve to receive compensation for their efforts. This may be a simplistic arguments for paying for what you get, but as someone involved in writing, I really resent if anyone chooses to photocopy my work instead of buying the book.

Excellent points, but obviously printing your books in light blue ink that won't photocopy is going to affect your bottom line too, because you're going to piss off your customers. This is what the RIAA and the MPAA are doing now, and it's not going to help anyone. Instead, let's come up with a new distribution model that fits the way people want to use the content - give consumers more power and STILL MAKE SURE THE CONTENT PROVIDERS GET PAID. No one is against content providers getting paid - they just want to be able to play their music on their computer and in their car and in their living room and on their pocket MP3 player and maybe one day on their laser-encoded acrylic crystal reader. Why lock up the media or the content? Just distribute it in the forms people WANT it in, and let them DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH IT BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY PAID FOR IT. What's pissing the RIAA off is that even though we all bought their product on vinyl discs, and then on eight-tracks, and then on cassettes and finally in digital format on compact disc, they want to be able to control what we do with it when a new medium emerges. Well, too late, your control is gone. Get over it. Change, adapt and move on or die.

The quality.

I know... I know... That wasn't the point here, but I really can't enjoy those downloaded. crappy copies. A big part of enjoying a film is in the camera and sound work. From the downloaded movies I've seen, too much of that is lost to be enjoyable. I also don't understand the "I don't want to wait for it to come out on DVD" thing. Another thing about enjoying movies that I like is seeing one in a theater with the popcorn and Milk Duds. Even if the concessions and tickets are overpriced.

That's bullshit.
They do NOT lose ANY money at all from me downloading off the internet.

If I'm downloading a movie, it's something I wouldnt have rented, or bought in the first place. They'd make NO money REGARDLESS of whether I download it or not.

Actually, there are quite a few that are in DVD quality. Not to mention the fact that computers have better resolution than theatres AND televisions.
In terms of quality, I'd say the DVD rips are better.

As everyone else has said, Analog shot down his own arguement with his own Music downloading

I Am a proud downloader of movies, games and music.

If it wasnt for the net I would have nevered listen to half the bands i like. If People wanna support the bands they will spend the money to buy the cds, see them live, buy the shirts, etc...

The majotiry of Movies now a days suck shit! Why should i pay to see crap? (Catwoman...ugh...But I wanted to torture myself)

I really hate being in a movie theater and have them playing that damn comercial about piracy, I've obviously paid to see the movie why are u telling me?

How can u blame ppl downloading music or movies, when every year each industry claims record sales and what not?

Piracy is not the problem! Piracy is merely economics: Supply and Demand!
The blame is on the guy working for the game/music/movie industry that is offered some bucks to leak the said finished product.

No That's bullshit;
I own a dvd-store in Belgium and I can say that downloading is becoming a serious problem overhere.

So you buy every movie you want to see? Bullshit !!! Last month I bought 40 different titles which were not released in cinema. Let's say you want to see 10% of them. So you'll buy 4 dvd's this month. Even if YOU do so, not everybody does that.

Do you really think that downloading doesn't affect the movie industry? Stupid !!!! It's affecting everybody in the movie industry.
.

This is 100% true. If my dvd-store is making less money, all the major movie companies are making less money. (but I'm sure this will not bankrupt Hollywood :) )

I've heard that. I haven't seen it, but I've heard it. The only pirated movies I have seen are ones my sister-in-law's jobless boyfriend downloads all day (I could make a whole new thread on that one). When everyone is together and he whips them out to show I generally decline. Not on a moral ground but based on the past experience that the ones he has shown before have little messages that pop up stating that it is property of Universal Studios or the voices don't match the mouth movement.

But I also have to admit most of the movies he has tried to show have been ones I would not likely have watched in the first place.

A very important point to understand...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11662To be honest, I didn't take time to read all of the thread, so that's all I'm going to address right now ;) More to (maybe) come later.

Copy right infrigement is not theft.
Whenever the subject of theft or stealing comes up, people are often tempted to talk about money and monetary value. What people forget, is that theft and stealing has nothing to do with money or percieved monetary value. Theft is the deprevation of property. For instance, if I was in posession of a worthless bucket of slop, and somebody came over and took it from me, that would be theft, even though the bucket of slop is worthless. (wether or not that person would be prosecuted is a different argument)
Theft has to do with physical property. Copy right infringement, is not theft. When I make a copy of something, I do not deprive you of your copy of the work. Thus, copy right infringement is not theft. I may lower the value of your copy of the work, but that does not equal theft. I could similarly create a more popular song/book/movie, thus lowering the value of your work, but that doesn't equal theft either. Theft has nothing to do with value.
Now, a little something about the constitution

The constitution effectly has created a right, called a copyright, by curtailing the people's natural freedom to copy. Read that again. It is natural to be able to copy other's works. It is unatural to restrict our ablility to copy. The Constitution has created a "copyright". In other words, this right is "given" by the Constitution. All of our other rights are "protected" by the Constitution.
Why does the Constitution do this? It's very simple, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". It's the carrot and the stick philosophy. Encourage creators with money, prod them with time-limited copyrights. Are there any other reasons for a short copyright term? Yes, plenty. For more information, read the works of a man named Thomas Jefferson. He wrote very succintly why copyright is a necessary evil, and why copyright should be limited.

Problems with copyright today:
1) People keep calling it theft.
Why do they do this? Because corporations and creators want to make you feel bad about infringement. They want money, and most don't give a shit about contribution to culture and society. So they think that if they call it "stealing" it will make people feel bad and congress will pass laws severly punishing people who do it. But lets face it people. Copyright infringement is distinctly different from a moral perspective than other crimes such as real theft and manslaughter. Why is that? Well, copyrights are not natural rights. However, property rights and the right to life are natural rights. I would argue that infringing on someone's natural rights are more morally perverse than infringing on unatural rights.

2) Copy rights are no longer time-limited. Several years ago, congress passed another copyright extension. This act extended copyright terms to author's lifetime plus seventy years. Furthermore, the extension was applied retroactively. Several consumer advocacy groups filed suit, claiming that this effectively created unlimited copyrights, and was thus unconstitutional. While the Judge found that the act was constitutional, he felt that it was still monumentally stupid.

Does this mean that we should do whatever we want? Download whatever we want? Well, I wouldn't go that far. I feel that people should actively correct others when copyright infringement is refered to as "theft" or "stealing". Its not. I feel that people should actively correct others when copyright infringement is equated on a moral level to "theft" or "stealing". Its not. I feel that people should take a good hard look at the numbers when others say that downloading movies and songs hurts the music and movie industries. It doesn't. There is no evidence whatsoever that in the US, copyright infringement (in the form of downloading songs and movies) hurst the music and movie industries. In fact, profit in these two areas have actually increased these past years.

I hate the new commercials they have started running during the trailers before movies, the one that has the 'real' stuntmen and other behind the scenes people saying don't steal my babies milk money. Especially since everyone in them is really an actor.

I can't believe nobody has commented on this yet. (Maybe because it's just one insignificant flaw unrelated to the main issue, but still.) The music industry was alive and kicking way back in the 18:th century.

On this topic of copyright, I HIGHLY recommend Lawrence Lessig's talk on <a href="http://www.boycott-riaa.com/lessig/">"free culture."</a> It is about 30 minutes long and I recommend the flash version so that you can listen to the talk and watch the visual aides at the same time.

Keep in mind, Mr Wallace, that this was written from an American perspective. I don't know how movie rentals are in Belgium. :)
However, over here in America, the city I live in has 3 Blockbusters, and they are ALWAYS sold out of "Guaranteed In-Stock" New Releases, and shit, there's like 30 or more movies in each store.

I usually go rent movies that I would like to see. I download those that I CANT get otherwise. Like the Fastlane series on Fox, etc...
But the hundreds of millions of people that went to see Spiderman 2 GROSSLY overshadow the 5-600 that downloaded it on their computers. (estimated, of course. :P)

Saying that downloading movies hurts the industry is a bit of an exaggeration.

I do understand that what I do is wrong, whether it's music or a movie does not matter, but I'm well aware of the consequences.

I'm afraid you are partly wrong here Cynthetiq. Blockbuster deals with someone like Rentrak www.newppt.com, They pay 2 dollars per movie and give Rentrak like 50% of the profits, after so many weeks they can sell the movie back to rentrak or put on it their shelves to sell it. That is how they can have 50 of the same movie. The studios may get profits from rentrak or they may just get a one time fee, I'm unsure how it works after that.

Mom and pop stores, like mine buy from places like Waxworks http://www.waxworksonline.com/ We don't even deal with VHS anymore because they are too expensive(50-60$ sometimes) And the only real advantage to ordering from our distributor is the fact that we are guaranteed to get our movies and we get them a few days early. It's actually cheaper for us to drive to Wal-mart and buy them but we can't drive to walmart every Tuesday and they don't always have every movie released that day.

If you have multiple stores, mostly new inventory, and enough shelf space then there's a great advantage to joining someone like Rentrak, but if you have a single location and mostly existing inventory like just about every Mom and Pop video store, it becomes a hassle to keep your inventory seperate from theirs.

Back on topic:
Downloading in place of rental is just as bad as anything else. We bought 10 Shrek 2 dvds and a few VHS, and on Saturday night 3 of them had rented because everyone that came in had already seen a pirated copy.

Copyright Infringement is BASICALLY theft. It's intellectial PROPERTY that has an infinite amount of copies. When you take a copy the owner now has infinite -1 copies of this property. Copyright Infringement isn't any more legal than theft and they are very similar in nature, People say it's theft because theft is more understood than Copyright Infringment.

Copyright Infringement DOES hurt the MPAA and RIAA. Currently the pain is equivilent to a pin prick but the numbers were rising and pretty soon NO ONE would be buying CDs and DVDs. They took action early to stop this. I don't really agree with suing a 12 year old or grandmother for downloading 5-6 songs but some people were trading thousands of songs. I don't really like the way the RIAA does business but that doesn't mean depriving them of profits is any less illegal.

I know I'm forgetting something...

What's interesting is how the MPAA made claims, "Oh, we're losing so much money due to piracy," yet last year was the 2nd biggest income in their entire history ($9 billion), and all this while P2P usage was UP.

I think that just about ends the debate right there about whether or not it hurts them financially. Is it morally wrong? Sometimes. I think it's more wrong for someone to constantly churn out crap and market it to others, but hey, I guess we're all entitled to our opinions. As long as companies are allowed to get away with that, then I have no problems with downloading things.

If you make something good, it will sell regardless of the piracy that goes on. The new eminem CD comes out in a week, right? The damn thing is already available online, but how much do you wanna bet it's gonna sell like crazy?

To make a long story short, downloading any of these isn't the same as physical theft (and I'm sure this point was made somewhere above) and only becomes a problem when you introduce a hypothetical situation like "What if everyone just downloaded them?" Well, what if? Then we'd have a problem, but not everyone does.

There's also a lot of false assumptions that are made when discussing copyright infringement, and a popular one being, "Everyone who downloaded this item would've paid for it regardless." Not true. I've downloaded about 25-30 PS2 games in the past 7 months, and most of them haven't held my attention for more than a few days. I woudln't have rented them either... most I would've paid no mind to. To me, a game isn't worth buying unless it really sucks you in. No $$ lost there. Do I have the right to just up and download it? Nah, but I'll do it anyway considering it doesn't matter either way.

As for movies... the only movie worth seeing last year was Lord of the Rings, and I haven't even seen THAT yet. Oh, and Kill Bill (there might be one or two others, but I can't think of em right now). I've downloaded a LOT of DVDs of movies that came out in 2003, but had I not downloaded them, I wouldn't have cared to see them either way. I might've seen em through netflix, but I pay a constant fee through them. Even during months I don't rent movies from em! No $$ lost there.

I'll always download movies, games, and music. Those that I feel are worth buying, I'll buy, but other than that, I've been suckered into buying too much stuff for far too long only to find out it sucks ass. It's about time the average joe has leverage over the industry, IMO.

The whole thing really doesn't concern me either way. I'm sick of hearing people whine about it. Honestly, the more I hear people whine or complain about it, the more I download :lol:

[edit]
Here's a good article as to why music sales have declined: http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=3329169

Um, no it doesn't. Gross income means nothing without comparing net profit. If costs went up unproportional to income going up, the profits could be much less than years prior, therefore, they could in fact be making less money.

Also, isn't your $9 billion number a collective number? Did every studio increase income? What about profit?

You have to compare net profit over a period of years to make the claim you are making. And even that will only give you a collective answer. Some studios may be getting hurt while others may not, no way to know without comparing several years worth of information for each studio individually.

I pirate games/music/software for 3 reasons.

#1) You buy something that sucks, you can't return it.
#2) Kind of like #1 relating to music, I will not pay $14.99 for a shit album that has 2 good songs.
#3) I generally can't afford $25 movies, $50 games, and $15 CDs because I have to support my kids and wife.

If I wouldn't be spending the money in the first place, where is the "loss of profit"?

fckm just expressed very elloquinly the tension inherent in copyright law. It sould be added that the founders were particularly uncomfortable with the idea of patents and copyrights.

Two quotes from Jefferson. You can skip these if it's too much but I think they're great:

Here, Jefferson states the obvious: intelectual property is a monopoly. If you copyright a song, you can decide who gets to buy it, and at what price, with all the harmful economic effects that monopolies have. He agknowledges the opposing argument: that without monopolies people whould not produced new knowledge and grants that temporary monopolies may be a necessary evil to overcome this. Still he doubts their value. Implicit in his last statemnt is the idea that if you grant limited monopolies, they will eventually grow to unlimited monopolies, something that has been bourne out in fact.

There are two key points. The first is that, as fckm stated, the consumption of intelectual property is nonrrivalrous, that you useing my intelectual property does not diminish your own ability to enjoy the intelectual property. Indeed, everyone can enjoy the same intelectual property at the same time, and this is a good thing because it ensures a limitless diversity of ideas for everyone.

The second is that Jefferson speaks of intelectual property not being property in nature, meaning in an ideal world. In the actual world the property part of intelectual property is a necessary evil, but should be viewed as just that, evil, and should be minimized whenever possible.

So the current state of copyright law is a farce. This doesn't mean that downloading is ok, since artists and comanies should have exclusive rights to a product for a limited time as an incentive to produce. But if copyright only lasted for a suitable ammount of time for this to happen, say five or ten years, I think most illegal downloading would stop. People who really didn't want to pay for something (and probably wouldn't anyway) would wait until it was legal, since that would be a reasonable amount of time not 95 years as under the current law.