How governments and corporations encourage piracy

[Holo]

Author's note: This thread is not meant to extol the virtues of piracy, but merely outline how roles of institutions are sometimes the cause of it.



All this talk about how pirates are thieves allows some interesting points to be lost that damn the industries and government as an agent enticing and even forcing citizens to be content pirates. Two ways this is done:

1: Censorship

Perfect examples are Chinese and Austrailian governments. Piracy runs rampant thru China due to the extreme controls on content that don't jive with the ideals of Communism. The citizens who don't want to be censored are forced to buy things from illicit markets or download it from non-blocked sources. Only place they *aren't* getting it is from a retail store due to bannings. Oz created a huge illicit demand for entertainment such as GTA3 and Ken Park after banning both, making them mainly available online instead of honest purchase. Just because content is deemed obscene or doesn't jell with a gov's ideals it's banned...however the people want the content anyway and seek other methods to procure the content. Given that the only avenues left to them are illicit means, citizens will engage in criminal behavior to procure these items anyway, making the ban effectively an incitement to steal.


2: Content withholding

Media Giants are to blame for this one. The biggest offender? Disney. They make available older titles for a limited time to generate sales in a crucial period and then remove the item from legit circulation for a period of 10 years by putting it back "in the vault". Some very good points against this are made here.

A personal anecdote:

I went to Suncoast Video, a retail chain, to inquire about buying Eddie Murphy's standups Raw and Delirious. I was told flatly that they were taken off the market deliberately so Eddie's current films would be paid attention to, and probably also in an attempt to clean up Ed's rep for his newer family film roles, much like Bill Cosby in the 70's. They told me they couldn't even order it for me. So in order to enjoy his vids again I had to download them, since I don't rent movies at all



Now I know some will say it's their right to remove the content and it's their property bla bla bla. Thing is ppl don't give a shit...as the linked debate above says parent's don't want to wait until 2012 to show their kid Snow White when she's 14 and won't give a shit about kid's films. They want their kid to enjoy it now whiile the film can be a magical fun experience. This "vault" shit just causes many parents to miss giving their kids movies they enjoyed at that age or to get the flicks off alt.binaries.usenet.groups and never buy them at all. What's the point in paying for something in 2012 when your kid won't want it anymore? No point at all. Good marketing stratagem Disney..I know you lost my $$$.



Your thoughts?

[Kaos]

You couldn't be more correct about Disney. I even saw a commercial today from Disney telling people to go out and get a movie (I can't for the life of me remember which one) that will soon be put "In the vault"

Absolutely rediculous.

[Great Penguin]

Very true.

Nice avatar too. It takes some cajones to use a Sauvstica as an avatar.

[cchris]

Yes spot on about Disney there especially when they are pumping more and more out now for "only through cinemas".

And just on a side note is there any reason that Hoffa is not available on video?.Well at least here in Australia it aint because I have tried the three or four major chains and been told that it will not be re-released.
It used to be available but not anymore.
Any Aussies want to correct me if this may not be the case?

[mrbuck12000]

Originally posted by Kaos
You couldn't be more correct about Disney. I even saw a commercial today from Disney telling people to go out and get a movie (I can't for the life of me remember which one) that will soon be put "In the vault"

Absolutely rediculous.

ah capitalism...you gotta love it.

mr b

[jets]

Isn't Disney like...rich? Obviously it works for them otherwise they wouldn't do it. I think it's smart because it adds prestige to their line of films. Why dosn't Ferrari build 1 Million Enzo's instead of less than 1000? Disney likes to separate themselves from the crowd and they do it well.

Only problem is that it's not easy to get a movie whenever you want.

[Tirian]

I'd like to add one here....

Charging more $$ for a product that consumers know to have cost less to produce than the previous version.

Cassette to CD audio for example.
or VHS to DVD for a second.

We consumer know and understand that this media is less expensive to produce, but the companies charge twice as much. Just another factor that helps drive piracy in my opinion.

[flamingdog]

i like how one guy in that link calls disney communists

[aarchaon]

Since when was GTA3 banned in Australia? It was re-released without the banging-prostitues-to-get-health option.

[j8ear]

What a load of crap...someone else is to blame as you are FORCED to pirate their products.

A thief is thief, and you, I and everyone else who downloads shit we didn't buy are thiefs.

Regardless of underlying causes.

Get a grip, and stop rationalizing your crimes. I have zero sympathy.

-bear

[Cynthetiq]

things go into moritorium because of manufacturing costs. This is true for books, CDs, VHS tapes, DVDs and even other durable goods.

Because I want an original 1984 128k macintosh to have my kids "experience" what I did doesn't leave the manufacturer beholden to continue to manufacture it. I like the Z3, I don't want a used one, but that's what I'll have to buy because they don't make new ones anymore.

Same holds true for media.

[Holo]

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
things go into moritorium because of manufacturing costs. This is true for books, CDs, VHS tapes, DVDs and even other durable goods.

Because I want an original 1984 128k macintosh to have my kids "experience" what I did doesn't leave the manufacturer beholden to continue to manufacture it. I like the Z3, I don't want a used one, but that's what I'll have to buy because they don't make new ones anymore.

Same holds true for media.

but these movies aren't subject to technological progress like that Macintosh was...and if you really really wanted to you could run that Mac in Basilisk (an emulator) to give them that experience and it's legal all the way up to System 7 IIRC.

I'm saying some ppl want their kids to see these classics NOW when they're young enough to enjoy them, and to be honest many of the Disney classics are 100x better than the crap that's done today. I'd rather watch Peter Pan 10 times than Emperor's new Groove once. To lock better movies away as a marketing stunt is shitty to those who would buy it if it were available for purchase. What if you miss the deadline and you wanted to buy it? What if an Ebayer wants $200 for it? Would YOU pay that much if you couldn't get it otherwise? Or would you just make a few clicks and get it for your kids to enjoy at the age level they will like the film(s). Like I said I'm not advocating dling things if they are available. Thing is they aren't and they aren't for a dumb reason, and I don't fault those who resort to less legit methods to procure these things.

I was corrected at another forum about GTA3...it was rsled but it was watered down considerably from what I was told by an Aussie I know. My point still remins...what adult wants to play a neutered game? Let me ask this...do you condemn those who bought a censored version and then dled a full version? Do you consider that wrong? Or if the person bought a copy when "the vault" was reopened, but dled a copy now when they wanted to show it to their children? Is this still stealing if they follow thru and buy the media when it becomes available again? I call it "Future backups" :P

[Baldrick]

Originally posted by Holo
[BI went to Suncoast Video, a retail chain, to inquire about buying Eddie Murphy's standups Raw and Delirious. I was told flatly that they were taken off the market deliberately so Eddie's current films would be paid attention to, and probably also in an attempt to clean up Ed's rep for his newer family film roles, much like Bill Cosby in the 70's. They told me they couldn't even order it for me. So in order to enjoy his vids again I had to download them, since I don't rent movies at all [/B]

I've been in the home video business, doing marketing and sales for several studios for about twelve years now, and I've heard just about every "theory" that have absolutely no basis - just like these. Don't believe everything you hear, and if I were you I'd never go back to a store that blatantly makes stuff up like this to tell their customers.

Paramount owns the rights to both Raw and Delirious, and several of Murphy's older titles (Beverly Hills Cop and 48 Hours). In fact, the last Eddie Murphy film that Paramount made was Vampire in Brooklyn, and they don't have a new Murphy film on the horizon. Why would Paramount care whether Murphy's films he makes for other studios do well? And if they aren't releasing any new Murphy films in the near future, and in fact their older films are all more "adult oriented", would it not be counter-productive to Paramount to promote the Eddie Murphy of today as "family friendly"?

Thousands of films are not available on video/DVD today for many reasons. Rights expire. Special Editions are being worked on, so they want to clean the market out of the older releases and build up some demand for the re-release. Titles are pulled to be re-promoted in the hope of increasing sales (yes, it's evil capitalism at work). Hell, the most common reason is that the studio would love to have it released, but their release schedule is already full for the near future - and yes, this is important. Retailers would revolt if all of a sudden there were five hundred new releases a week. They don't have the buy dollars or the shelf space to keep up with it. You think you can't find what you're looking for now. Retailers, and yes even consumers, are already complaining about too many releases flooding the market between all of the major and independent studios.

Sorry, this is a little off topic, but it is an example of why you shouldn't believe everything you hear. I got into an argument with some chucklehead yesterday about WKRP in Cincinatti - a TV series that is much talked about in the industry because of the difficulty in getting it released. There isn't a studio out there who wouldn't LOVE to get clearance on this, but because of the music that is played in the background, nobody can afford to, or get clearance from the music labels on every song! It would be simple to release it with the original Rock 'n Roll replaced by canned music - but kudo's to the studio, they won't do that. The music is just as important a character in that series as the actors themselves! New Video did get clearance on a few episodes, enough to put out a "best of" set a few years ago, but not on the whole series. But this clerk at a very prominent retailer argued with me, and told me - and several of his customers - that he knew that it was because Howard Hesseman was blocking the release. Huh?!? How??? I can only imagine the crap he's telling the average consumer about other titles in order to appear that he knows what the hell he's talking about.

Bottom line is that the studios aren't charity houses. They do this to make money, just like every other business out there. And if Disney can make more money because advertising a ten year moratorium on a title will create a purchasing frenzy with the consumers, why shouldn't they do that? No matter what, that does NOT give thieves the right to steal the movie.

Sorry, this is a touchy subject to me. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll back slowly off the soap box so I don't twist an ankle...

[Lebell]

Originally posted by j8ear
What a load of crap...someone else is to blame as you are FORCED to pirate their products.

A thief is thief, and you, I and everyone else who downloads shit we didn't buy are thiefs.

Regardless of underlying causes.

Get a grip, and stop rationalizing your crimes. I have zero sympathy.

-bear

Technical note:

They are guilty of copyright infringement, which is not the same as thievery. (It's true. Look up the definitions.)

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[j8ear]

Originally posted by Lebell
They are guilty of copyright infringement, which is not the same as thievery. (It's true. Look up the definitions.)

Gracias, kind sir.

I still feel like a thief when I down load something I know I should buy.

-b

[Baldrick]

Originally posted by Lebell
Technical note:

They are guilty of copyright infringement, which is not the same as thievery. (It's true. Look up the definitions.)

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

While technically true, I believe that's splitting hairs. The ramifications of downloading copyrighted materials are the same as theft. You are taking money from the "owner" of the product. In fact, it's probably even worse, because ask anyone in the music industry how many jobs have been lost because of the state of the labels. I won't directly attribute 100% of that to piracy, but it is a great portion of the problem. Those jobs that are being lost aren't the presidents/upper management. It's the warehouse picker/packer, the junior sales reps, and the customer service team that get downsized.

Sorry Lebell. I know you didn't mean that by stating the difference in definition, you were either condoning piracy or not.

[j8ear]

Actually I think technically copyright infringement is civil and theft is criminal. I don't think you can be criminally prosecuted for downloading tunes or flicks. You can be sued civily.

Still, it's splitting hairs to be sure ;-)

-bear