Film Piracy - Does Anyone Care?

[Busty St Clare]

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.

Not sure I really understand your logic here. Recording an album obviously has an economic cost to the artist - even thought costs are coming down. Equally, that same recording has a value to you - you enjoy listening to it. Doesn't that seem like something that you should pay for? If it's not at all valuable to you, why even have it?

[As an aside: what of artists who can't tour, or don't want to? (Because of sickness, say). What about the people who only worked on the album - producers and engineers? A good producer has a huge impact on the quality of the album. How do they get paid in your model?]

[As a second aside, licensing of songs (to ads or films or games) is one of the main sources of artist revenue. If you're not going to pay for their music, at least let them sell it to someone who will]

The producers role is to reign in the artists cocaine consumption during recording thus reducing inflated production costs.

Picasso is a great artist. He paints a masterpiece and this is sold at a profit. Now I see this masterpiece and think I'd like one of my own so I paint it myself using a paint brush. If it's rubbish no one cares, I'm not arrested for copyright fraud. If it's pixel perfect should I be charged? What if I record myself singing and playing an instrument to reproduce an artists song. If it is a note perfect reproduction should I be charged if I am only enjoying it at home and not making money from it? What if my instrument happens to be a lap top and not an electric guitar? Suddenly I have reproduced Pink Flloyds Dark Side of the Moon. Should I be arrested because I created it myself?

For too long the music industry has been making obscene profits by simply "printing" cd's. It shouldn't cost hundred of thousands to produce an album. I'm happy to pay for a live performance but inflating profits by selling a cd that costs mere cents to create is a bit rich. I feel for the artist, but the only people who have their noses out of joint are the executives and middle men that have made the bulk of the profit for the best part of 50 years. This industry didn't exist 100 yrs ago, it's time it faced up to the hard truth that it won't be raping and pillaging the public much longer.

Do I say this to justify downloading movies/music etc? Not really, I take illegal drugs, occasionally speed and masterbate when God's not looking. I'm going to hell and have made my peace with this. I just want to listen to some quality tunes before I get there.

 

[Cyc]

There is no question that the record industry has gotten absolutely bent over from file sharing.

Oops, didn't mean to smile at the end there.

 

[Khadijah]

So, if my friend buys a movie and makes me a taped copy of it so i can watch it for free, is that stealing?

If I watch that copy, and then share it with another friend for them to watch, is the idea of them accepting something that been shared with me, stealing?

Just because the person who has the source material aint a friend or somebody that I kno, its stealing if they give me a copy of it to watch by puttin it online for me to download? Somebody has to buy the movies that get pirated to share them with the internet in the first place.

how is the friend---->me--->my other friend transfer of the movie, any different than someone buying a movie, puttin it online, and letting others pass it from person to person?


Is it stealing if i read a magazine in the store from front to back and without buyin it and then leave it on the rack when Im done for someone else to read? Oh no, the words are gonna disappear now that they been seen by my eyes.

 

[TheDeceased]

If you take the magazine and photocopy all of the pages, then reprint thousands of copies of it and distribute it for free - then yes, that's stealing. If you pick up the magazine and read some of it and then put it back down, that's not stealing.

It's really kind of obvious isn't it?

Somebody has to buy the movies that get pirated to share them with the internet in the first place.

So because somebody else initially bought it, that means you (and everyone else he distributes it to) should get a copy for free?

Does the same apply to literature?

Maybe only one copy of each book should be sold and then we could just replicate the original and distribute it to the rest of the world. Nevermind that eventually there won't be any books left to make copies of - due to poor sales - and then we won't have anything at all - original or duplicate. Fuck that! We need it now, for free! Fuck investing in the future of literature or in the future of the film industry. Artists have enough money. They're all rolling around in big piles of cash.

I was genuinely curious about whether or not people care about film piracy and I pretty much have my answer. The general conclusion seems to be that most of you don't think that stealing a film qualifies as stealing.

Someone even mentioned that they were too poor to watch movies and asked whether or not it was "fair" for poor people to have to go without entertainment.

Film is a luxury. It is not an essential element of survival. If you don't have enough money to go and see the number of films that you wish to, then re-organize your budget or get some more work... or... Don't watch the films!

As alasdair said above somewhere, it is not your right to have something simply because you cannot afford it.

 

[alasdairm]

So, if my friend buys a movie and makes me a taped copy of it so i can watch it for free, is that stealing?

it is definitely copyright infringement and, for some people, that's stealing. for others it's not stealing.

as with many things, this can come down to a simple definition of terms. some choose only to describe an act as stealing if the owner is physically deprived of something. for others, the taking of something of value without the owner's permission is stealing.

Is it stealing if i read a magazine in the store from front to back and without buyin it and then leave it on the rack when Im done for someone else to read? Oh no, the words are gonna disappear now that they been seen by my eyes.

some would argue that the publisher of that item put a great deal of time and effort into generating and presenting that content. the content has certain value for which they are entitled to charge a fee. i.e. if you pay the fee you are entitled to enjoy or be informed by the content. why should you (2nd plural) get to circumvent that system and enjoy the benefits of that content for nothing? what makes you so special?

of course the words are not going to disappear but, as we've discussed, real world analogies rarely fit or are rarely useful when discussing these issues. put simply, it's a two way street - they create the content and you pay to enjoy it. they've kept their side of the bargain, why don't you keep yours?

is it because that "information wants to be free"?

alasdair

 

[captainballs]

piracy is just a natural force in this market. the people who work hard and spend tons of money producing any digititally distributable content are just going to have to be innovative to turn it into a huge gain instead of a sizeable loss.

 

[alasdairm]

i know this analogy is a dismal fit but how would you feel if you came home and burglars had stolen everything you own? how would you feel if all your friends had to say was "stop moaning and look on it as an opportunity"?

i agree that this issue requires some new thinking and that the powerful disintermediating force of the internet changes everything but i also think that a lot of people just want something for nothing and nothing will get them to pay (directly) for something they can get for nothing. perhaps that's the answer...

alasdair

 

[L O V E L I F E]

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.

Where the fuck do you get the audacity to think that you deserve to obtain something of value without exchanging something of value in return?

As alasdair aptly noted earlier, if Person X takes that which is not his, without paying for it, then it can be reasonably inferred that Person X values said song/movie/joke/orange/Madoff's "investor's" money at an amount GREATER THAN ZERO.

Keep justifying to yourself that stealing is OK if you wish.

Madoff did it, Ebbers did it, and you are doing it.

The difference between stealing billions of dollars from investors and from stealing one solitary song from your favorite artist is merely one of degree.

Bet you can't wait till your employer starts paying you in exchange for you doing absolutely nothing in return, too.

Because that's what parasites do, no matter how they choose to justify their despicable behavior to themselves.

 

[Coolio]

You can't take intellectual property, it's not a physical object. Only physical things can be stolen, as the dictionary and legal definition of "theft" or "stealing" is to deprive the owner of of their physical property.

 

[wizekrak]

I think there are two parallel ideas going on here. The first is whether it is legal to pirate, and the second is whether it is ethically/morally correct to pirate.

Everyone will have their own moral compass regardless of what the law dictates. Those who believe it is ethical to pirate regardless of legal status will continue to believe so regardless of what they are told, just as those who think it is wrong will continue to think it is unethical to do so. It all comes down to the individual's moral and ethical code.

The legal argument can be resolved by looking at which ever legal statutes cover copyright law in your country. Intellectual property is protected by law in its own way. Do I believe that individuals should be able to protect their intellectual property? Definitely. But if the law isn't there individuals will exploit it. People are efficient and want the most resources for the least amount of energy expended and least amount of risk involved. Call me a hypocrite if you like.

 

[alasdairm]

You can't take intellectual property, it's not a physical object. Only physical things can be stolen, as the dictionary and legal definition of "theft" or "stealing" is to deprive the owner of of their physical property.

you keep falling back on that...

i checked a few dictionaries and came up with these definitions:

dictionary.com: "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force"

(same dictionary defines property as "that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner")

m-w.com: "to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice"

(same dictionary defines property as "something owned or possessed")

the oxford english dictionary (the definitive record of the english language) defines steal as "To take dishonestly or secretly."

so none of these sources makes any mention of the thing being stolen having to be physical to be stolen. which source are you using to define the term? can you provide a link?

further, your idea fails the idiot test at the first hurdle.

try this. go get your car washed. seriously, go spend $300 getting it fully detailed inside and out. then, when they're done, just drive off without paying. have you stolen something? damn right - you have stolen a service. you have stolen somebody's valuable time.

when you're up in court, just tell the judge that your innocent because the thing you stole wasn't a physical thing.

alasdair

 

[wizekrak]

I think the problem here is that we are looking at a legal issue without using the correct and accurate legal definitions.

 

[alasdairm]

^ in that case, what's the legal definition of stealing?

i'm no lawyer but i'm just trying to point out that coolio is sticking to a very specific, and as far as i can tell made-up, definition of stealing, to justify what he's doing.

i carried out a brief search on the internet of "legal definition of stealing" and the first 4 or 5 hits i checked made mockery of coolio's definition also.

alasdair

 

[Pander Bear]

that may well be, but words like stealing and theft still aren't good fits for end-user piracy, because they dont create a loss on the owners side.

 

[alasdairm]

i agree that real-world parallels are rarely a good fit here but some agree that there is a loss. other people pay for the enjoyment (or education or whatever) of the content so the publisher has lost the revenue they would have made had this person balanced the equation.

so that brings us to the "well i wouldn't have paid for it anyway" but in the physical world, if you wouldn't have paid for it, you would not have enjoyed the benefits.

i guess what frustrates some people - myself included - is this idea some have that they are somehow entitled to enjoyment of this content for nothing and nobody has really tried to explain why they feel they should have something of value for nothing when others are prepared to pay their part.

coolio has given us "content wants to be free" which is great if you feel you're entitled to free content...

alasdair

 

[Coolio]

that may well be, but words like stealing and theft still aren't good fits for end-user piracy, because they dont create a loss on the owners side.

Correct.

From m-w.com,

theft noun 1 a: the act of stealing ; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

 

[Coolio]

you keep falling back on that...

i checked a few dictionaries and came up with these definitions:

dictionary.com: "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force"

(same dictionary defines property as "that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner")

m-w.com: "to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice"

(same dictionary defines property as "something owned or possessed")

the oxford english dictionary (the definitive record of the english language) defines steal as "To take dishonestly or secretly."

so none of these sources makes any mention of the thing being stolen having to be physical to be stolen. which source are you using to define the term? can you provide a link?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft

Sorry I didn't look up "steal" before saying that. I only looked up "theft" and because of the way they phrased it, I thought their definition of "steal" would be the basically same.

 

[Cyc]

so that brings us to the "well i wouldn't have paid for it anyway" but in the physical world, if you wouldn't have paid for it, you would not have enjoyed the benefits.

In a purely utilitarian sense, if you truly weren't going to pay for it anyway, then piracy is the more beneficial outcome, since the work is enjoyed by one party rather than nobody getting anything.

i guess what frustrates some people - myself included - is this idea some have that they are somehow entitled to enjoyment of this content for nothing and nobody has really tried to explain why they feel they should have something of value for nothing when others are prepared to pay their part.

I think it has been explained in page 1 of this thread. People feel there is a separation between their money and the artist due to the inefficiencies of the entertainment industry and the methods used to bring this content to the consumer. The best way to remedy that is to bring the artist and the consumer closer together through technology. As it stands, people don't feel as if enough of the money they pay is going to the artist, so they opt not to pay anything at all.

In other cases, people truly would not have gained exposure to an artist if not for file-sharing. There is an undeniable benefit to gaining this exposure. Aside from the relatively few who are already at the top, (and it could be argued that they don't need more money) I don't know of any artist who doesn't appreciate the extra notoriety that file-sharing has given them. Some people can attribute their entire career (think Lemon Jelly or Tay Zonday) to exposure alone. There are also artists, Danko Jones for example, who are signed to labels who restrict their distribution methods, but openly support file-sharing. Should we stop because Sony/BMG might lose a few bucks, even though the artist is OK with it?

I don't think people feel entitled to enjoy the content, as much as they're entitled to their justification. This is a complex issue. Some would make it out to be cut and dry (It's stealing - The End). There are many more realities to consider.

Personally, I don't get why people can't understand the difference between a physical piece of property, and the experience of hearing or seeing a digital copy of someone's original work. Whether it's pulling up a Google image of a painting that could otherwise be paid for to see in a gallery, or listening to internet radio that could otherwise be paid for on CD, this is the product being disseminated without the artist getting any sort of commission. What people who oppose piracy often fail to do, is define the product's value in a meaningful way, within the confines of what is available to the consumer. I'm sorry to say, as long as this ambiguity exists, and as long as there is inefficiencies within the industry, there will always be ample justification for free downloading. Simply moralizing the issue isn't good enough, nor does it address the myriad of issues.

It does need to be said that there is a world of difference between experiencing someone else's work without paying for it, and profiting off of it. I believe the latter to be orders of magnitude worse of an offense.

 

[captainballs]

Originally Posted by alasdairm
i agree that this issue requires some new thinking and that the powerful disintermediating force of the internet changes everything but i also think that a lot of people just want something for nothing and nothing will get them to pay (directly) for something they can get for nothing. perhaps that's the answer...

I think it's an exciting challenge for the companies that own the content and pay the artists/produce the films. If you take a good hard look, the world is just brimming with people who really just want free shit and that's the extent of their philosophy - everything else is paper-thin after that. The floodgate is open, and I think the only reason the music industry and film industry are still alive is that if you ask around (which I have) "what is a torrent" absolutely zero people seem to know the answer, and if you try to show them they look super-confused and would rather just go rent a movie or download and pay for an album here and there from their handheld devices.. But still the floodgates are open and I'm sure it's a lot of hurt for movie producers. So they better get on the ball because people will continue to steal from them - that's a practical, non-esoteric fact. But ime if you know something that is going to happen tomorrow, the next day, and the day after that then you already have the most important piece of the puzzle solved. Tomorrow's newspaper is valuable, and they have it.

 

[wizekrak]

^ in that case, what's the legal definition of stealing?

i'm no lawyer but i'm just trying to point out that coolio is sticking to a very specific, and as far as i can tell made-up, definition of stealing, to justify what he's doing.

i carried out a brief search on the internet of "legal definition of stealing" and the first 4 or 5 hits i checked made mockery of coolio's definition also.

alasdair

I don't think "stealing" per se is a legal term. Theft refers to the removal of physical property. There are specific laws and terms which apply to intellectual property (patents, information, likeness rights, etc..) because those instances are specific and deal with non physical substances which one can lay claim to and which can be used to generate an income.

The closest thing you could use instead of the word 'piracy' or theft, would probably be some form of copyright violation based on a narrow definition. Laws vary from country to country so how each defines probably varies greatly.

As far as I know, this stems from two big instances. People are allowed to tape songs off the radio and disseminate them legally, and people are allowed to tape shows of the television and distribute them legally, both so long as they are not for profit. The argument is that file sharing is akin to this but on a much grander scale. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an american, but I've been told that those two instances played a big part in the brewhaha of filesharing.

It isn't theft because you aren't taking a physical object, it isn't robbery because you aren't taking it from a person. I know it all comes down to semantics, but the legal system is based on semantics and narrow defined definitions. To me, saying it is 'stealing' is more of a moral argument/judgment than a legal one since it isn't tied to a specific statute violation.

After all a crime is only such if it is codified by law. Otherwise its just a moral judgment call. At least in my opinion.