Film Piracy - Does Anyone Care?

[L2R]

the recent film "xmen origins: wolverine" was famously leaked a month early and a huge number of top quality, albeit an earlier version (some incomplete effects and sounds), was downloaded all over the world. ironically, the download hit mega proportions when the news sprung onto the news.

and yet despite this, it still topped the charts upon release and made a profit.

 

[Zzyzx]

Many years ago I download a System of a Down album, I wouldnt have paid for it, but I liked it, and in the follwing years paid to see them live, 3 times. If I didnt have downloaded the album in the first place I would probably never have paud 60$+ on 3 occasion to see them.

Same goes with movies, I cant even remember the last time I went to a movie theater (those are the real thieves imo)

But if I like a movie alot, I will buy it in DVD (most often used)

The industry has to cope with it, they just have to adapt or die, as do anything in the universe. They seem to think that somehow the rules don't apply to them and that they should be able to sell you a cd with 12 tracks (only 2 good ones) for 20 bucks

 

[Coolio]

If you spent six months of your life working 15 hour days, seven days a week to make a film and then a large portion of the profits

Profits are not a right, and unrealized profits aren't property. They're just a concept. You can't steal what doesn't yet exist.

 

[TheDeceased]

You can steal what doesn't exist. If you steal an orange from a supermarket then you are taking the profits that that orange would have generated for the company. If you chose to take anything without paying for it then you are depriving someone of profit.

There are different types of theft. Just because this is copyright theft, doesn't mean that it isn't theft.

If an engineering company copies the blueprints of a prototype from a rival company, leaving the original intact - then is that stealing?

 

[Coolio]

You can steal what doesn't exist. If you steal an orange from a supermarket then you are taking the profits that that orange would have generated for the company.

Fundamental flaw in your logic. An orange does exist, and that's what is stolen in the example. Only the orange is stolen, not the profits. The profits never exist because the thief deprived the owner of the orange before any sale could be negotiated.

 

[TheDeceased]

You seem to be suggesting that nobody who watches pirated films would pay for them if the free alternative wasn't available, which isn't true. The supermarket analogy can't be taken so literally. I'm trying to make a point. I realize that there is a difference, but the outcome is similar.

The theft of an orange and the distribution of pirated film both result in less profits for the people trying to sell them.

What about the engineering firm analogy? You didn't respond to that - maybe because it's an undeniable example of stealing something that does not yet exist.

 

[Cyc]

What about the engineering firm analogy? You didn't respond to that - maybe because it's an undeniable example of stealing something that does not yet exist.

You engineering firm example is flawed because you're using an example of stealing intellectual property to make a profit, not to deprive someone of a theoretical profit that they aren't entitled to in the first place.

Your analogy would be more analogous to someone pirating a film for the purposes of making burnt DVD's and selling them at a flea market. That is, and should be, considered theft.

 

[TheDeceased]

Why aren't they entitled to it?

 

[Hops]

I use this picture because its true
I don't see anything wrong with downloading movies music or tv shows for free, plus it good for the environment :D

 

[alasdairm]

there's a lot of useful discussion in the other thread to which i linked. i know for some, a mouse click away is a ton of effort so i paraphrase myself here.

i feel that when an artist creates something - for example a song - they have the right to set the (initial) price of that song in a free market. if the market decides the song is worth it, they pay the price. if not, they don't. perhaps the artists sells no songs so he drops the price. in that way, the market decides the worth of the song. this process is iterative and also bi- or multi-lateral. seems fair enough to me.

in the view of others, the consumer has the right to decide unilaterally that the song has no value and can therefore be copied without giving the artist anything. if this song has no value, why do they want it in the first place?

the fact that they want a copy explicitly places some value on the song. it's doublethink - not to mention arrogance - of the first order.

it's clear that this issue is a very divided one and, in my experience, there's no convincing those who feel it's ok to violate copyright and steal (for want of a better term) music/software/whatever.

further, i think the more interesting discussion is how the music industry in general is responding to changing times. i think there are some real opportunities for the middlemen to do some new thinking and create value but it may already be too late. that, and the powerful disintermediating potential of the internet, means we live in interesting times.

i can see a vision of the future where the middlemen are gone and the commercial relationship is a straight line between artist and audience. even then, i'm sure people will continue to steal the music because, ironically, they feel the artist has no right to profit from their own music but those who copy feel they have some right to get something for nothing.

alasdair

 

[Coolio]

I look forward to a day when artists make money solely by putting on a good live show, and things like royalties and licensing go away.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

related reading: why paying for movies/games/audios?

alasdair

I'm sorry. I can't be arsed to actually read another thread....I'll just wait for the mods to merge these


Personally, I got over the morality of pirated films a long time ago. Right about the time it started costing more than a meal to JUST SIT in a theater for 2 hrs and watch a film. Yeah, if something is wholly kick ass and I feel the overwhelming urge to see something on a giant screen (at least, bigger than the one at home :D ), I will consider paying for it at a theater. But you know what? I'm still burnt by thier jacked prices and will prefer to wait for it to arrive at the cheap theaters months later if I need that big screen effect.

Moreover, movies don't fit into my life all that much, at least I don't have much time for them anymore. So, in waiting for them to reach the cheap theater, I end up forgetting and only 'remembering' them once I come across them in pirated opportunities. Now, I then compare the rental of such a DVD to the piracy of downloading (either burning and throwing away, or simply watching on a PC).....and I'm not against a $2-3 rental, especially considering how rarely I watch a film. But then, I've got the hassle of going to the rental store AND returning it (yeah, I'm lazy, in case you haven't figured that out). So again, I fall back to piracy as my prefered source.

That said, here's how I ge tto justifying my use of pirated movies: I watch damn few films a year, so they aren't losing much from this individual. Of the ones I watch, if I like them enough, I actually DO purchase the full retail DVD as I do enjoy the extras (commentary, etc) and WILL watch it a few more times for different perspectives (often with the commentary).


Do I view piracy as theft? Yes. But I get over it easily enough in light of the overcharging the industry does for it's films. Stealing from thieves is not so bad, IMO. That their business model is so far out of whack (mega-million actor contracts, restricted releases, etc) ... that's their fault and their problem. I could wait for the $2 bin sales, and they still don't get the money from me - so pirating isn't hurting them, in my case.

 

[mariacallas]

Those in favor of a poll, say aye.

 

[wizekrak]

The industries aren't losing any money on me. Anything I 'acquire' I wouldn't have bought otherwise, it isn't a lost sale. I don't have the money to spend on movies (DVD) or music (CD) and would go without if free downloading didn't exist. If I do find an artist I like I will pay to see them live if they come through town, and probably pick up a T-shirt or something if I like the design.

There are a handful of movies I will see in the theater if I'm interested in them.

I think one of the big flaws in the anti piracy argument is that pirates are depriving the industry of revenue. There is nothing that guarantees that someone who downloaded an album or movie for free would have otherwise payed for it if free downloading weren't an option.

Right now the economy is pretty crappy and there is growing competition for the entertainment dollar. CD's and DVD's are over priced for what you get (in my opinion) so people are voting with their dollar and spending their money elsewhere. The industry is realizing that the market value of their product in the eyes of their consumers is not what they see it to. If music and movies were sold at a much discounted rate, say $5 a disc or so the volume of sales would likely increase. The problem is that the industry refuses to adapt to market forces, they are used to making X number of dollars per unit sold and will not tolerate making less money.

Art has no intrinsic value (aside from the materials used to make it), and like everything else it is worth only what its purchaser is willing to pay.

 

[L2R]

to the piracy of downloading (either burning and throwing away, or simply watching on a PC).....and I'm not against a $2-3 rental, especially considering how rarely I watch a film. But then, I've got the hassle of going to the rental store AND returning it (yeah, I'm lazy, in case you haven't figured that out). So again, I fall back to piracy as my prefered source..

use net based video stores. i use quickflix (only for the blurays), they send them from my preselected list to my mailbox with a return postage paid envelope with no return due date. very convenient.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

^^involves effort. Can you send them to me?

 

[alasdairm]

The industries aren't losing any money on me. Anything I 'acquire' I wouldn't have bought otherwise, it isn't a lost sale. I don't have the money to spend on movies (DVD) or music (CD) and would go without if free downloading didn't exist.

from the other thread (linked earlier):

further, the single most predictable thing pirates/thieves will come back with is "i would never buy it anyway". what are the chances that, of the millions of pirates/thieves who copy music or software, not one single one of them would have purchased the product if, say, it wasn't possible to steal it. somebody's lying...

now, before you jump, i'm not saying this applies to you. obviously i don't know you - it's a more generalised comment.

i guess a large part of the frustration that this issue causes me is my own inability to understand this whole "i'm entitled to this for nothing because i wouldn't buy it anyway". it's a sense of entitlement i simply don't get...

alasdair

 

[wizekrak]

Yeah, I know. I can only speak for myself. As far as I know downloading is still legal in my country, there has been a lot of international pressure, so the law may have changed in the last little while.

I don't personally feel entitled to free stuff (unless I can do so legally), but I do rationalize my choices just like every other human. Is it a grey area? Definitely. Do I know I may be harming an industry? Yeah, but I can live with that.

 

[Cyc]

Wizecrack, I think you're in Canada like me. The legality is still somewhat of a grey area. The courts here avoid the issue like the plague due to its inherent complications. Since Canada is also relatively free of the super mega billion dollar corporations that plague the US, we also don't have to deal directly with their influence on policy.

Although to clear up the confusion, as of 2003 it's legal to download, but illegal to upload. source

 

[wizekrak]

Wizecrack, I think you're in Canada like me. The legality is still somewhat of a grey area. The courts here avoid the issue like the plague due to its inherent complications. Since Canada is also relatively free of the super mega billion dollar corporations that plague the US, we also don't have to deal directly with their influence on policy.

Although to clear up the confusion, as of 2003 it's legal to download, but illegal to upload. source

Yeah I'm Canadian. That's what I thought the deal was with regard to legality. Considering Canadian film and music gets so little publicity relative to American, even with the Canadian content laws. Piracy probably gets more Canadian music and film into its citizen hands than do the radio and TV.