Film Piracy - Does Anyone Care?

[L2R]

i really don't think the problem is as large as many make it out to be. artists have quite a lot to gain from the easy access to their works. in practice it is kinda like an honour system, but naturally there's bound to be a minority there who abuse the privilege.

speaking from experience, back as a teen I used to pirate the shit out of the SNES (Super Nintendo Entertainment System). I used a box which sat on the cartridge port with a disc drive in it which could, and did, record any and every cart i borrowed. and it didn't take long to realise that I was collecting more games than playing. Funnily, the less I paid for the entertainment, the less I enjoyed it.

It became clear to me why people would still pay $100 to own a game when the could have it for free, and why people are still paying $2-$4 (or more) per single credit in the arcade when they could spend $100 to own the game (or get it for free). The money one puts down to enjoy a piece of entertainment creates a vested interest in experiencing what it has to offer.

Call me cheesy if you want, but i say by not paying for any of your entertainment, you're ripping yourself off.

 

[TheDeceased]

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.

Ummm... If you don't pay anything at all then NOTHING goes to the artist.

There is so much bullshit justification going on in this thread it's insane.

Piracy is not a protest to artists not getting paid enough money.

You are not helping this artists that you are supposedly concerned about.

 

[TheDeceased]

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.

Most of the popular films shared on the net are brand new either ripped off just released DVDs, or straight from the cinema / DVD screener.

These aren't films that are shown on free-to-air television or on the radio.

There is a lot of pirated older material on the net as well, but the main concern (as far as I understand it) is for films that have not yet completed their Box Office run.

Downloading a copy of a film before it's finished playing in the cinema is clearly not the same thing as borrowing a copy of an old film that your friend taped off the television.

 

[Cyc]

So this so-called "piracy" is OK as long as the film has finished its box office run. Fair enough. We've hit a compromise. I can agree to that.

 

[Pander Bear]

Now I realise I'm arguing semantics, and I still disagree with the final clause of Pander's argument - I'd say copyright infringement could at least potentially create a loss.

The word loss, as I'm using it means a physical loss, not a potential financial loss. Further, if this loss is meaningful, then why is home taping of programs permitted under most cases in America?

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.

First, that some agree is really no agreement at all. Second the argument that the publisher has lost revenue is meaningless because its not quantifiable. Arguing in a circle that the publisher has lost 100,000 units worth of sales because the work was downloaded 100,000 times is as absurd as saying those 100,000 units were downloaded by people who would never pay for them in the first place, so there's no real loss.

Moreover, I think that kind of discussion doesn't serve the interests of any party. I'm personally comfortable with "stealing" music because I know who I'm stealing from-- the recording industry-- not artists. I'm paying for payola, for administrative overhead, for advertising, for salaries, and for lawyers. The premise that a compact disc actually costs what they charge for it is ridiculous. I subsidize my favorite artists by going to their live shows, and stopping by the merch table on my way out.

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.

Because people who pirate for personal use are participating in revealing the inadequacy of the current IP regime and the unsustainability and inequity of the recording business. I hope it becomes so unproffitable that the entire idea of a business related to selling music en masse is marginalized.

 

[Finder]

i really don't think the problem is as large as many make it out to be.

It definitely isn't and has been proven a number of times that the "substantial losses" due to piracy reported by the film and record industries are greatly exaggerated.

 

[psood0nym]

Because people who pirate for personal use are participating in revealing the inadequacy of the current IP regime and the unsustainability and inequity of the recording business. I hope it becomes so unproffitable that the entire idea of a business related to selling music en masse is marginalized.

Is there an ethical analogy for this with downloading highly produced pirated films, in whose creation the artist and the industry are typically far more interdependent? I always at least rent a DVD before I possess a copy of its content. Music on the other hand I download, then support the artists I like through various means already mentioned. With music it's more about consumer and artist power and attempting to change a system that doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, the way it is (a bit idealistic, admittedly). Films seem much more ethically sticky than music in this regard. Unless we're all perfectly happy with straight-to-youtube production values being the norm that is.

 

[Pander Bear]

i think that is the case-- the overhead for creating a film is greater, and the studio is a necessary instrument for the kinds of films most people want to watch. I don't pirate films though, so I didn't bother advancing any argument.

Film piracy and software piracy are here to stay, though-- provided the internet remains an open environment. Hopefully free openly-tradable software, and freely distributed films will take off.

 

[TheDeceased]

It definitely isn't and has been proven a number of times that the "substantial losses" due to piracy reported by the film and record industries are greatly exaggerated.

I think it's pretty difficult to determine exactly how much effect piracy has had on film profits but considering how many people chose to download films rather than rent them/go see them at the cinema, it must be pretty substantial.

A lot of the arguments put forward on this thread make sense. Some of the criticisms of the film industry are valid and maybe piracy will force studios to address these and in that sense perhaps it does have an upside.

But you're still taking money out of hard working peoples pockets.

I hope it becomes so unproffitable that the entire idea of a business related to selling music en masse is marginalized.

And then what?

 

[maloxx]

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.

damn, I wish we had signatures so I could quote this

 

[L2R]

hey finder, where can i download your new album, bro? :D

 

[Pander Bear]

And then what?

And then we return to a 19th century conception of what music is-- only artists have the means to produce, market, and distribute themselves with modern technology.

 

[Cyc]

And then what?

And then we won't have to be subjected to horrid shit like Transformer 2 and the Lakehouse.

Good riddance.

 

[Z Y G G Y]

Just a thought for those saying the movie industry is not profitable...every time I go to the movie theater it's totally packed, hard to get a freakin seat anytime of the day...and the prices are ridiculous.

Those caring so much for the movie industry. Please stop. They don't give a shit about u. Most of the people getting big bucks from movie profits probably see u as a necessary evil. If everyone was as selfless as u the world would be a better place but it's not and those who are selfless end up just being slaves for the man. It's just how the world works, how people are, can't change it, at least not now. U can say that just cuz others are selfsish doesn't justify for u to be...sure...but it's people like u who are willing to support this mega million industry with their selflessness that are pretty much saying that it's ok that some people work hard as fuck and get nothing and some work the same and get millions.

I support my local public radio. It's non profit and I love that. Everyone just gets enough to make the shows which are always excellent and make enough to support themselves. What's wrong with that. Why does there always have to be profit. All this profit for what? To change policy, to run the country?

 

[L O V E L I F E]

And then what?

Re-read Atlas Shrugged.

That's "then what."

You want all of the most talented, most passionate artists to finally say "enough is enough" and stop giving out our exceedingly-hard-worked-upon art for virtually nothing (as most of us are doing now), and see how much you end up missing us, and see how much you finally realize that you didn't appreciate just how much utility you got to enjoy over the course of your lifetime, even if DID THE RIGHT ETHICAL THING, and paid, say, ONE DOLLAR for a song you love, or say, TWO DOLLARS for your favorite's comedian's 30-minute Special, each of which, you'd undoubtedly enjoy over and over and over.

In a somewhat related topic, don't you think we'd eventually have better teachers, if, hypothetically, starting tomorrow, we tripled all teachers' salaries?

 

[TheDeceased]

^Well said.

Just a thought for those saying the movie industry is not profitable

I don't think anyone in this entire thread suggested that the film industry is no longer profitable.

The question is not whether the artists have 'enough' money. You can't justify stealing from someone because they are, in comparison to you, rich.

And where does this idea come from that all film-makers are loaded?

I hope it becomes so unproffitable that the entire idea of a business related to selling (film) en masse is marginalized.

And then what?

then we won't have to be subjected to horrid shit like Transformer 2 and the Lakehouse.

If you don't want to watch a film adapted from a childrens cartoon about transforming robots, then don't. There are PLENTY of wonderful films being released all over the world every week.. and personally I don't want to have to download them onto my computer and then burn them onto a disc and watch them on my television. I prefer to get out of the house and wander around a video store or go to the cinema.

What you're suggesting is basically the death of cinema. Transformer 2 and the Lakehouse will dissapear but so will all of the films that you do like, the ones you didn't mention. How is this a good thing?

Am I missing something?

 

[TheDeceased]

Why does there always have to be profit. All this profit for what?

Films cost a lot of money to make.

The money has to come from somewhere.

Film-makers need investors.

The investors will not continue to exist without profit.

There seems to be this perception that profit is evil and that the men behind the curtain are all monsters. But as far as I can see it, supporters of the arts have financially supported the visions of the creatively gifted throughout history.

Why don't you invest some of your money in a film-maker that you admire?

Then you would be contributing to the films that you enjoy rather than sucking the life from them and then saying you did it for their own good.

 

[TheDeceased]

The latest anti piracy campaign appears in cinemas, on DVDs and in DVD rental and retail stores nationally, challenging Australians to consider “what are you really burning?” before they burn, buy or download pirated films.

With the Australian film industry losing over $230m yearly, and illegal DVD’s almost equalling legal copies in circulation (47m vs 52m), film and TV piracy poses a real threat to our economy, jobs and the future of our films.

Movie making is a risky business with only 4 out of 10 movies ever recouping their initial investment. Like every business, the industry relies on its profits to invest in future products. The revenue lost from piracy means there is less investment money available. Less money means fewer films are financed, which means fewer jobs are created, and there are fewer films for us to see.

http://www.afact.org.au/antipiracy.html

Those four out of ten films pay for the other six.

In other words "Transformers 2" (which you have no obligation to see) is one of those four. In order for other 'more risky' projects to exist you have to put up with the blockbusters. So just watch the films that you like and be glad that there are people out there who like Transformer movies because those huge blockbuster films are making it possible for the industry to grow and for other more interesting films to be made.

Nobody here can honestly argue that they only like low budget films.

 

[L2R]

^i don't see how the above (loss) figure could be even remotely quantified. the risks of filmmaking is no different now than it ever was.

the issue is not so black & white.

 

[Pander Bear]

Re-read Atlas Shrugged.

That's "then what."

You want all of the most talented, most passionate artists to finally say "enough is enough" and stop giving out our exceedingly-hard-worked-upon art for virtually nothing (as most of us are doing now), and see how much you end up missing us, and see how much you finally realize that you didn't appreciate just how much utility you got to enjoy over the course of your lifetime, even if DID THE RIGHT ETHICAL THING, and paid, say, ONE DOLLAR for a song you love, or say, TWO DOLLARS for your favorite's comedian's 30-minute Special, each of which, you'd undoubtedly enjoy over and over and over.

BULLSHIT. Real art isn't made for money, LL. Real art gets made in spite of the market. I do, however, invite you to deprive us all of your talents. I'm sure they'd be happy to have you in Galt's Gultch.

In a somewhat related topic, don't you think we'd eventually have better teachers, if, hypothetically, starting tomorrow, we tripled all teachers' salaries?

Great art requires somewhat rarer talent than great teaching.I sincerely doubt there are fantastic musicians who are just waiting for it to become more affordable to do.