Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

EDIT: this thread was created from a discussion that branched off in Theater jumping. Onto the discussion:

I would say it's MORE wrong than internet DLs though, because here you're getting the exact same experience as people who paid to go see it and also you're sitting right next to the people who paid. With internet DLs, you're getting this ripped off, usually much lower quality version of the film.

Re: Theater jumping
 

I mostly agree, but you can definitely make a bit of a case the other way. Specifically, that while the film you steal by sitting in the theater is one instance of theft, it doesn't enable anyone else to follow you, while downloading often does (if you're re-seeding a torrent with what you download, for example).

Re: Theater jumping
 

Here's the problem with your words here, man. "Steal" "theft". It's an inferior facsimile of the original. Remember that it's never the thing itself but a copy of that thing. It's like how reverse engineering is stealing. You're stealing the intangible concept of the thing. Not the thing itself. If internet DL is stealing then mirrors are cloning.

I don't wanna hijack this thread and turn it into another discussion about downloading, so if you'd like to continue beyond this reply, let me know and I'll move these posts somewhere more appropriate.

Except that this is the only plane of existence a movie exists on, anyway. The movie is the mere act of collecting the images, sounds, and ideas, so the fact that you're only stealing the right to see them together is irrelevant: that's the entirety of the thing.

There's nothing about words like "theft" that limits them to tangible things like bread. Ideas and art have value -- if they didn't, there'd be no reason to download them to begin with -- thus, they can be stolen. They exist through other people's hard work and ingenuity, almost invariably done with the specific expectation that they would be compensated for it after the fact. That's the totality of the issue; the rest is either semantics, or rationalizing.

Also, the "inferior facsimile" part isn't necessarily true. You can download DVD-quality movies online.

I can appreciate a good play on concepts as much as anyone, but I don't think this is even remotely true. A copy of a movie is not meaningfully distinct from the original, because you're not selling a physical thing, but the experience of watching it. A reflection of a person, on the other hand, is dramatically different from an actual person.

Appreciating value does not always have to be filtered through the master signifier of capital.

For example, I don't want any money from my blog. I just want people to read it. That makes me feel good. I don't need to profit from it. I don't want to. That cheapens it. Then I'm writing for money, not for the sake of writing something insightful.

Art especially is meant to be appreciated, not purchased. People who purchase art are millionaires and they only do so, because I valuable piece of art is like a valuable piece of real estate.

Do you think Warhol deserves to be worth as much as Picasso? No. It has nothing to do with ability, hard work, or genius. Unless you want to commoditize such things. Artists only want money so they can make more art. Grants for instance. These pay for living expenses so the artist can think about only art and not work ten part-time jobs to feed his talent. Capital is not the only way to repay someone for their work.

Think about it this way. I'd rather have someone write a detailed reply to my post than simply up-thumbing it.

That's why you do it, but obviously plenty of other people expect to be paid for their work. Or the people who paid to make the work possible expect to make money from it. Either way, the person putting their time or money on the line gets to decide if they want something for it. The fact that you write something you don't expect to get paid for obviously doesn't allow you to decide for others whether or not they should.

I also don't think I buy the idea that there's any mutual exclusivity between writing "for money" and writing "something insightful." Plenty of writers are paid to be insightful. But we're already going off topic.

People who purchase art that costs millions of dollars are millionaires, but luckily there are other ways of consuming art. Films are art, and millions upon millions of people pay to experience those.

But this is all far too abstract, and only addressing one part of my post, anyway. The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter if someone steals only a "copy" of a film, because the experience of watching it -- original or not -- is the entirety of the thing. Movies offer experiences we cannot create for ourselves, and thus comprise something of value that can be legitimately sold, and therefore stolen. The fact that they're not as zero-sum as something like food doesn't change that.

We need to continue this sometime later then somewhere somehow. I'm sure it'll come up again. I think this is probably the most obscene kind of capitalistic thinking there is. Insight is not something that is the result of capital. Abundant capital motivates only in freeing the mind from having to deal with capital. For example an artistic grant. It is really the opposite. Artists are paid well so they don't have to deal with accruing capital as if accruing capital is antithetical to making art, which it usually is unless you're a hack fictionalist who exploits proletariat sympathies by romanticizing them. Absolutely disagree that this is exists or makes any sort of sense. If it is true, humanity is then definitively a cesspool.

Don't forget that the "experience" also includes unwrapping the box, removing the plastic seals, opening the box, prying out the disc, putting the disc in the DVD player, going through the menus, and hitting play. These are the real things that cost money. I don't ask for them, don't pay for them, and don't get them. The only transaction is the "soul" of the DVD, the content. If you believe in the conception of the soul, you understand that it doesn't even weigh 21 grams.

Re: Theater jumping
 

I can't even recall what it (they) may be called, but there is at least one thread on this subject and probably many more which go into it in more than a little detail. It's probably one of the political threads. planet hasn't even seen those yet. Oy vey.

Re: Theater jumping
 

I'm not going to be the one to bring up some old thread just to rant in it.

I know I'm fighting a losing battle here. As much as I try to wiggle free, I'm ultimately embedded in the system, and the system tells me that I'm doing wrong. This isn't some childish "me against the machine" either. I totally accept the system. I also totally accept what I'm doing. I embody the contradiction here is what I'm saying.

Ha. We gotta keep PN away from those threads, or he'll REALLY start pissing people off! :)

Re: Theater jumping
 

The other board I post a lot on completely bans all political or meta-political discussion.

I'm surprised the same hasn't happened here.

Then again, they've had a lot fiercer flame-wars... maybe... I don't know what went on here in the dark ages before the shoutbox.

I've actually seen a few surprisingly politically driven threads here. I remember one in particular that asked if Darwin was a racist, and it turned into a whole debate over the definition of racism, its inception, its applications in society today and throughout history, etc...

I've also read many posts about things like gun rights. I'd say MoFo's aren't afraid of voicing their opinions and hearing others'.

Re: Theater jumping
 

I've seen the thread, but never read it. My psychotherapist told me to walk away.

Was your psychotherapist by any chance Sigmund Freud? Is that Freud in your avatar by the way? I've never really given it a close look. I just assume it is.

Re: Theater jumping
 

Yes. Yoda says it looks like George Bernard Shaw though. It does, I won't deny it.

But IMO, you can't understand Hitchcock without understanding Freud.

Freud's theories were so influential-or maybe just so vague-that you could pretty much apply his ideas to any great director who repeatedly reworks the same themes.

Well, heck, you could've saved me some time if you'd mentioned this before. I was pointing out that there was, in fact, a contradiction/lapse in logic/whatever. If you acknowledge it, I don't have much else to say. :)

I think this is a very good point.

Wow, Yoda. I wasn't conceding. I was only explaining where I was coming from. There's no lapse in logic in my argument. There's a lapse in logic in why I'm arguing, because there's a contradiction in my existence as a communist within a capitalist universe.

Now only you can possibly understand this, but some have argued that capitalism isn't just part of our Symbolic Order, but is actually part of The Real. Not only is capitalism everywhere, it takes on different forms wherever it goes and works the exact same way in any of the forms it takes. It's like capitalism is part of the invisible grooves of The Real itself. Quite a devastating idea, but you have to remember that The Real is a very indifferent place. Only in the Symbolic Order do our concepts of ethics and justice exist.

I will continue this argument anytime anywhere (doesn't have to be now or here). It's not like you've exactly beat me or anything. :laugh:

---

>influential

Yes.

>vague

No.

>any great director

Probably, but this only lends credence to his influence.

Also, Hitchcock fits so beautifully, the reinterpretation is almost a work of art in itself.

---

Thanks for the move, Yoda.

My mistake, then. On we go:

That's awfully dramatic. Humanity is just motivated by comfort and wealth. How many of Shakespeare's works did he create specifically to make money? It's my understanding that some of his best work was written to appeal to a broad audience, to "sell."

Also, artistic grants are not always fundamentally different from art-for-hire. Instead of writing or painting to please buyers, you're probably just writing or painting to please the people who award the grants. We have to, one way or another, do something that the world values. The steps along the way can be more or less direct in this sense, but in the end, that's what it comes down to.

The idea that art is this separate thing completely compartmentalized from the concerns of the real world, like money or food, doesn't ring true to me. It's making art out to be some kind of idol. But people create great art on a deadline, or on commission, or to pay their bills, or even as a result of concerns about money. It's not this island of human experience that must be shielded from everything else.

And yet you download films that don't have any of this part of the "experience" (which is completely dwarfed by watching the film itself), so clearly they have value beyond this, or you wouldn't do it. That makes this yet another ancillary issue.

The ideas here are pretty straightforward, and we're dancing around them needlessly: films have value because we value watching them, and because not just anyone can make them. They constitute an experience that requires time, skill, and money to create. Watching a film without paying for it -- even if it's a "copy" -- is clearly theft because you're stealing the experience. which is the only thing really being sold. So the idea that you're only stealing a "copy" is a meaningless defense.

The fact that it's not physical or tangible is irrelevant, because the people who pay for it honestly aren't really getting anything physical or tangible, either, unless you actually want to try to tell me that opening a DVD or walking into a theater is on par with watching the movies themselves. But I don't think you believe that.

I don't have much to contribute to the Freudian theory talk, but on the morality of downloading I think I do.

The media industry has strengthened copy-right protection too much. In American is gives 95 years of protection, while patent protection is just 20 years. If the industry was fairer I would say downloading was bad, but the industry wants to force us to pay them to watch the same content over and over, and its usually the same content because why would they make new, if the old is still protected? This is why movie libraries like MGM are/were so sought after because they are suppose to provide reliable cash flows. The Economist wrote about it like this:

"Nor does the advent of digital technology strengthen the case for extending the period of [copyright] protection. Copyright protection is needed partly to cover the costs of creating and distributing works in physical form. Digital technology slashes such costs, and thus reduces the argument for protection.

The moral case, although easy to sympathise with, is a way of trying to have one’s cake and eat it. Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work, not a property right. From 1710 onwards, it has involved a deal in which the creator or publisher gives up any natural and perpetual claim in order to have the state protect an artificial and limited one. So it remains.

The question is how such a deal can be made equitably. At the moment, the terms of trade favour publishers too much.[i]"


Even though I don't download, it's just a way around a unfair law anyway.

[i] Economist. “Protecting Creativity: Copyright and wrong” London: The Economist. April 8, 2010.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

I wish they'd scrap the regions on the DVDs. Loads of movies aren't available on Region 2 (ironically some of them are British but available only on Region 1!).

Also, in these cash-strapped times, people are a little more dubious about investing their money in a product they haven't seen. Cinema tickets are about the price of a DVD and DVD rental is dying out (unless it's a free rental list, where you aren't guaranteed that the film you want to see now will turn up now).

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

This wouldn't be an issue if game consoles that played dvds were region free..or if dvd players were. I never understood the concept of regional products, is there any logic to it?
Hence piracy. However, there are people who steal it and never buy it, which is the problem. I see no issue whatsoever with stealing it for a preview and buying it if you like it, deleting it if not.

It's about the money, I think, so people can't buy them cheaper from another country. But it's still stupid.

If I can find a way of getting the movies in high quality (and I have) then I will certainly not feel any extent of contriteness at downloading content that is freely available online. I suppose my personal justification of this comes down to the reality that paper-thin morals don't help me sleep at night nor do they add mass to my wallet. No one is going hungry over my decision to do this.

People who pay for their movies get some advantages such as dvd cases, extras, hard copies etc. None of these thing matter to me, so I don't intend to pay for them.

& You've joined MovieForums just to let us know that..
Thanks.

Well this thread caught my attention so I made it my first post. I'm not quit sure how you've managed to ascertain that my first post is the only reason I've signed up to this this board, presumably all members must make a first post somewhere and I choose not to have strangers greet me with generic and incoherent comments like "great to have you here". I prefer that I get to know users in time as I discuss with them.

Anyway, I assure you that your physic abilities will be fallacious as soon as I find another topic I'd like to post in.

Your welcome by the way, and thank you for the sarcasm. I can tell were going to get on like a house on fire.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Glad to know your second post was something like that..

I was expecting something like this in an another thread...

Watch Inception in HQ here


Already had 2 of those today... Yes I am waiting to see you set the house on fire.. :cool:

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

I really dislike downloading films. I would rather wait for the DVD to a movie.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

I love downloading films.. if it wasn't for downloading filsm I would have been one of those people who only enjoy Michael Bay, James Cameron & Judd Apatow movies.

But I also buy my movies... But I am just grateful for downloading.
Else I would have been ignorant like most.

Thanks for explaining, I just assumed you were rude. :)

You have issues with Spam around these parts?

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

I am never rude, though we do have some rude people around here.
I am nicest of all..

Yes, we just hate spammers... I think if most of us are smart enough to find a movie forum site, then we can find our movies online as well..

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Halloween os coming up. Here are some public domain horrors you can download and not get sued.

Horror Hotel
Black Sunday
White Zombie
Night of the Living Dead
Dementia 13
House on Haunted Hill
Carnival of Souls
The Most Dangerous Game

This is just a slightly dressed up way of saying "hey, it doesn't hurt me, so why should I care?"

You can justify stealing almost everything widely produced and distributed with the same logic.

Regardless, the statement isn't even accurate to begin with; you don't just hurt some faceless executive when you steal from a studio. If enough people cumulatively hurt their bottom line (and they must, given how common this is), they will produce fewer films, or spend less on them, thereby resulting in fewer jobs in the film industry.

Not that theft is okay if you're doing it from someone rich enough...but even if it was, they would not be the only ones affected by it.

People who buy DVDs aren't paying for those things; they represent a miniscule fraction of the cost. The overwhelming majority of the cost is a) to produce the films in question, and b) the risk associated with producing the films in question.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: I'm not trying to pretend this is some unspeakable crime. Intellectual property is a sticky, cart-before-the-horse kind of issue that requires a long-term view, be it in regards to movies or patents. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking it's perfectly okay, or victimless. It doesn't bug me that much that people do it, but it does bug me when they try to rationalize it.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Every film that I have ever downloaded, I own on DVD.

I don't download anymore, I stream :p

To be honest though, if I really want to see the movie, I'll go to the theatre or buy it on DVD. If it's something that I'm iffy on and just want to pass the time, internet is here for me. Although a lot of sites I use to visit are down, so it looks like Netflix for me soon.

Downloading movies is wrong, because it's like, against society! I'm cured!
Hallelujah!

http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/a...picks/alex.jpg

The market sets the price.

So long as Studios continue to release bare bones "rental" copies, followed by a never-ending stream of special edition, collectors edition, ultimate edition and Anniversary Editions, it serves em right.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

I think I downloaded ten films in the last 24 hours.

I don't follow that logic. Releasing deluxe versions of movies in no way entitles anyone to get bare bones versions for free. If anything, it's the opposite: they're offering cheaper "plain" versions for people who don't feel like paying for extras.

Not that it's possible to really "ask for" theft in a way that excuses the person stealing.

Charlatan.

I want your internet!!

Slow connection? Worried about the Man?

I'm suggesting if they Released deluxe versions from the get-go at a reasonable price, the DL would be noticeably reduced.

$30 isn't reasonable. The market reacted.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

But aren't the downloaded versions usually without the extra features? It seems like it should be the opposite of what you're suggesting: people download because they just want the film without paying for extras. That was the argument being made by the previous poster, which is what I responded to, which is what you in turn responded to.

This is putting aside whether or not it's even plausible to have deluxe versions out "from the get-go." By definition, extras take more time, thus they won't be done before simpler versions. So what do they do...not release the plain versions, which some people will clearly want right away? As long as they don't mislead people into thinking the plain version will be the only one, I see no problem.

If $30 isn't reasonable, the market's reaction should be to not buy it, not to suddenly get it for free, anyway. Whater angle you're taking on this (and honestly, I'm not clear on that), it doesn't change the moral aspect.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

since when did morals have anything to do with free market capitalism?

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Well, the title of the thread is "Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films." Going a bit off-topic is fine, but you responded specifically to a post of mine about the morality of downloading films in a thread about the morality of downloading films, so I assumed you meant it as a rebuttal to what I was saying.

That said, if you don't think morality has anything to do with capitalism, legality sure does, and it's wrong that way, too.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

oh sorry, i should have read thread title closer.

my bad.

carry on

Certainly not. It's not a case of saying "hey, it doesn't hurt me, so why should I care?", its a case of saying "I have two options, one will cost me £15 and the other will cost me nothing, Which shall I choose?".

It's not as easy as saying that. I agree with your principle that stealing is stealing, whether it's something tangible like a pair of Nike trainers or not. With that said, I stand firm with my opinion about wafer thin morales and that I don't chose to sleep on them. My point being I don't commit crime because the law punishes criminals, if punishment is not an option, I'm not going to piss my wages via the goodness of my heart.

The situation currently stands that Internet service providers in the UK are indifferently offhand when it comes to monitoring their customers ways (put simply, they are understandably protective of their customers ....because we're their customers). Not that I'm filled with the warm feeling of love from my ISP. Put intelligibly, production companies (and all related parties) are losing less from illegal downloading than they would lose paying ISPs in the UK enough incentive to monitor their users usage and ISPs gain more by having customers who aren't involved with criminal convictions and internet bans etc. In the States it's slightly different.

The point of that being when it really starts to hurt production companies, they'll do something about it. All there doing rite now is picking at individuals and making an example of them, this is the odd person you read about on the news.

Wrong. Fewer, cheaper films and fewer job opportunities will only come about as a result of box office failure. Cinema taking are at an all time high. I'm a regular visitor to the cinema and I'm happy to pay for that experience. It's £15 for a DVD I refuse to pay rite now simply because I don't have to, not at the moment anyway.

Box office taking pay for the production and more, its's the DVD sales that line the pockets of those faceless execs you were referring to earlier.

I don't see any meaningful distinction between my phrasing and yours. They both boil down to you doing something that takes from someone else simply because you can get away with it. 90% of your post is just a rephrasing of this fact.

If you agree that "stealing is stealing," then the morals aren't "wafer thin" at all, they're quite clear.

And saying "via the goodness of my heart" makes it sound like charity. People who make movies don't piss away their time and money out of the goodness of their hearts, either.

And the fact that the law does not have the means to catch and prosecute you doesn't mean the behavior isn't criminal. That's some really kooky logic.

That's the "doing something about it." They don't do more because it isn't always plausible. It's a logistical nightmare, in fact.

This is a logical fallacy: the fact that movies are making more money wouldn't mean they're not being hurt by illegal downloading. The comparison is not between what they made before and what they make now, but between what they make now and what they could be making now. Making more profits and losing profits to illegal downloading are not mutually exclusive.

There's also the issue of whether or not your claim is technically true to begin with; I'm pretty sure ticket sales are only at an all-time high in nominal terms, and not adjusted for inflation.

Exactly: you do it because you can get away with it. Not because it's morally different, or okay; just because you can. So why all these convoluted quasi-rationalizations to try to make it sound better?

Which is why they're willing to spend so much on the films to begin with. Movies represent a huge financial risk, and people are willing to take that risk because hit movies can offset many failures.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

No, no! This is all trash. Trash everywhere.

I will not have you sit there and convince everyone that there is no difference between walking into a store and taking out a DVD and getting a copy of a file of the film from that DVD online.

The tangibility issue is important, as is the fact that a product, once purchased, is free to be used by the purchaser up to certain point (FBI warning).

Are you telling me that if I lend you a DVD to watch, you are stealing from both me and the studios (and the DVD manufacturers)?

Thou shalt not steal does not mean thou shalt not share.

>what they could be making now

As long as they are capable of making films, I would actually prefer not contributing to the obscene profits of the people involved. This is from my strictly, semi-contradictory anti-capitalist stance.

As for your capitalist stance, did you know that MGM is basically up a certain creek and paddleless? Interesting how they also haven't managed to pull off a hit in a while, theater-wise. Unless everyone is DLing only MGM films (because they've just been cranking out the megahits lately), I cannot accept your claim that filesharing is THE CANCER SLOWLY KILLING MOVIES.

You've obviously misunderstood the point of my first sentence so I'll try again. I'm not 'taking' from someone else simply because I can get away with it, I'm 'giving' to myself (via preserving my cash where I can), simply because I can get away with it. The outcome is the same of course and thats the bottom line, but I guess I'm seeing that I'm looking out for myself and you're choosing to see me shiting on other peoples heads. 90% of my post is the same because I only have one belief on the matter and that belief is consistent.

Acknowledging that stealing is stealing doesn't attach a particular ethical or moral value to the term at all and it is therefore not clear. My principles come from my beliefs that involve looking out for myself as best I can, this of course includes not breaking a law that involves punishment. Your implying that the law is rite and breaking the law is wrong, if you believe this then the morality is indeed crystal clear. I don't.

No, you've misunderstood again. Saying "via the goodness of my heart" had nothing to do with 'charity' towards film makers, I was referring to the fact that I'm not going to pay because I'm supposed to believe thats the 'rite' thing to do. The recurring theme is that I'm a selfish git who looks out for himself and your choosing to believe I'm doing so to **** on others. I know you'll argue the outcome is the same and it is, but the one principle I've claimed is that I look out for my best interests and in this case that involves not paying for **** I can get free of charge online.

It's actually just a cooky exception to a rule that involves not breaking the law when you can get punished. Can you think of any other instances where the same applies? People don't get an awful lot of opportunities to demonstrate their morality for the sheer sake of it.

By logistical nightmare you mean there choosing the lesser of two evils (least expensive). With data signature mapping is actually very easy for ISPs to determine what your downloading without invading your privacy until its clear your breaking the law. Youtube uses similar technology to block content that is protected, usually music on Ytube without anyone having to even look at the content. There aren't 310,000 John Smiths blocking every numpty that uploads a version of airplanes - b.o.b feat Hayley Williams. The production companies just refuse to pay ISPs to do this. I should mention what they're doing now is pointing out (quit rightly) that the ISPs service is being used to break the law and it should be said company that pays to have the service policed not the victims of the crime. This is completely logical and when it happens you'll see a big clamp down on illegal downloading, it's just funny how long the most logical principle in the world can take to go through a court of law.

Of course, but I don't care about big shots making money. The box office takings take care of the artists and unless your name is James cameron or you wear a suit while your 'making' movies, you shouldn't worry about DVD sales.

"Convoluted quasi-rationalizations". I'm probably just rambling because I only really have one point and you know what that is. As long as I can get this **** online for free, I will.

I download films, but only because the films cost too much

Well, obviously both can be (and are) true. You're giving to yourself, which happens to come at the expense of others. Sounds like we're on the same page here.

The only thing I'm implying is that theft is wrong, and that people are entitled to do what they want with the art they create. If your personal code of conduct is only concerned with what's good for you, personally, without regard for how it affects others, then there's not much else to say here. We can certainly establish that what you're doing is stealing, but I certainly can't prove to you that stealing is wrong. I can only point out that you would be upset if it happened to you, but if your own interest is your primary concern, that might not mean much.

Of course I'm not suggesting you do it because you like taking from others. Almost nobody who does something wrong does it for the sheer perverse pleasure in harming someone else -- it's always just an example of putting their own desires ahead of other people's. All badness is like that.

I'm still confused by this "paying ISPs" thing. I'm not aware of any ISPs being paid for this. YouTube monitors itself, I believe, to fend off potential lawsuits. Nobody has to pay websites or ISPs to uphold the law, they just have to (sometimes) threaten legal action when they don't.

Anyway, it's probably true that increased file-sharing will lead to increased pressure on ISPs, but there are legal hurdles, too. But the logistical problems with stopping file-sharing don't really have any bearing on whether or not it's right or wrong, and the fact that Hollywood might be reluctantly putting up with some of it for the moment isn't terribly relevant.

But, again, if the film industry makes less money because of file sharing, less movies get made, and certain ordinary people (grips, technicians, etc.) will have less work available to them.

File-sharing doesn't have to have a HUGE effect for this to be true. This happens even if file sharing has even a modest effect on the industry. At any given moment there are tons of films vying to be put into production. There will always be films that are just shy of getting made, and or just barely getting made. Anything which moves that line at all will inevitably change the fate of those potential films that lie right on the margin. As long as there are films teetering on the edge of getting made, this will be true.

It's not as if a film's box office is isolated from its DVD sales; it's all factored into the initial deal. The potential for DVD sales helps determine the budget and salaries for all involved from the beginning. It's not some kind of after-thought that's treated separately, it's a factor in the initial negotiations and determinations about what does and doesn't get made, and by whom, and for how much. If DVD sales go down because of file-sharing, that will be reflected in negotiations going forward, because there will be less potential for new films, and thus studios will be willing to risk less because the potential payout is less. Movies are money-making bets. If there is less upside to success, less money will be risked initially.

That's what it comes down to: it's not that nobody loses when you do it. It's not that it isn't theft. It's not that it doesn't harm others. It's just that you can get away with it, and it benefits you, so do you do it. That's been just about my only point here.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Well downloading sure saves me money. When my netflix queue can't be bothered and there's something I want to buy but haven't seen, downloading is the way to go. My own rule is if I like it then I delete it and buy it, but if I don't then I delete it and write a scathing review. I would say I do the same with music but I find WAY more music than films for my wallet to keep up.

There is very, very little difference. If you had mentioned the difference between stealing an apple and downloading a film, I'd agree that there's a difference, but the raw materials involved in pressing and distributing DVDs are of small concern compared to the cost of creating the film in the first place.

I'll just assume you compared it to something more finite like food, though, for the sake of argument.

Nope, lending is not stealing. But then again, copying en masse isn't lending, either. This is obviously an area where the law is unable to keep up with technology, but I don't think that changes the moral component of the situation.

I agree that the theft of intellectual property is a sticky situation and fairly different from the theft of something finite and tangible. But I don't think this makes it fundamentally different, provided you accept (as I'm sure you do) that art has value and does not merely create itself. We both love film, which means we both recognize how hard it is to create a great film, and how valuable a great film is. At that point you need only concede that people should be allowed to "own" their art -- if you do, then we've clearly established that the theft of intellectual property is morally the same as the theft of tangible property.


See the longer of my responses in the previous post. "Capable of making films" isn't the issue, because the situation isn't binary. It's not as if a studio either makes films or doesn't; they make more or fewer films, too, and those films can be given larger or smaller budgets. They can take more or fewer chances on unusual types of films, too. Studios that do well make more movies with bigger budgets, start sub-studios like Fox Searchlight to spotlight smaller films, and take more chances on riskier projects.

I'm not sure I made that claim; I only claim that it makes some kind of difference, and that it'll probably become a bigger problem over time. This doesn't mean that I attribute all studio problems to file-sharing. A well-run study will probably still stay afloat and a poorly run one probably shouldn't blame file-sharing for its demise. For now, at least.

Yes we are :)


This is a good point. For the sake of this topic, obviously I've been exaggerating my principles, hopefully you understand that and why I would do this. I'm not a bad guy, I live in the real world like the rest of us on here and try my best to 'treat others as I wish to be treated'.

In its most simplified form the justification behind my decisions to download films is quit simply that its so damn easy, free and I won't face any criminal convictions (at the moment). How can it possibly feel like I'm breaking the law? I can assure you that 90% of the people that download films haven't given the concept even a single second of thought enough to realise it's obviously stealing, we all know this deep down, but I guess if you can't comprehend the damage or fear the punishment, there is very little to deter you. If I stole my neighbours car I'd be wallowing in guilt, feeling bad about his lose and wondering how the poor bugger is going to get to work. I'd also be terrified of getting caught, the punishment, shame etc.

While we agree that stealing is stealing, ignorance is bliss and an awful lot of what you've said just doesn't go through people heads when they're doing this. This topic is the only time I've ever debated the morality of illegal downloading.

Agreed

Legal action is really only taken against conspicuous parties. Torrent sites like (A naughty website here!) are constantly involved in legal lawsuits that usually result in the sites being closed. In terms of stopping things like this, it's quit easy for the law to continue closing down resources like this.

The problem comes with P2P file sharing (Peer too peer) where really its only the ISP that can stop it (and they don't have to, not yet anyway).

http://www.insideireland.ie/index.cf...9/category/905

Threaten an ISP with a lawsuit because someone used their service to break the law? Thats like me threatening Ford with a lawsuit because someone used one of their trucks to run me over.

Anyway, your rite, thats isn't really relevant, its just restating that 'how easy the law is to break' has to be a factor and it's very easy at the minute.

Your rite again, just another thing most people don't think to care about. I'll credit you with opening my eyes to the truth about the subject anyway.

Same. Unstoppable force - Immovable Object.

Well, I have to give you points for consistency. It probably sounds like I'm coming down pretty hard on all this, but I'm honestly not. It's a pet peeve of mine if people try to pretend it's not stealing, or there's no moral issue with it, etc., is all.

I particularly sympathize with how easy it is. Obviously it's on each of us to try to do right regardless of how tempting doing wrong is, but it certainly doesn't help that the law and the movie industry have been so slow to counteract the ease of piracy. I do think, over time, it'll come to be more like the music industry, wherein it's so cheap and easy to buy music that it barely makes sense to pirate it. I use iTunes and Amazon's MP3 store pretty regularly and can't remember the last time I tried to obtain readily available music some other way. The cost is low, the download's lightning fast, the quality's usually better, and it's much quicker than trying to track a copied version down, so why not? I think piracy will take a hit if and when movies get to that point, though I think it'll always be an issue.

You're correct, of course, about the ISP issue; thanks for clarifying that a bit. P2P is probably impossible to stop, and it'll only get worse. It may be conspicuous now if you're downloading things left and right, but once there are legal avenues to download new movies instantly, it's going to be harder to tell, just by looking at bandwidth totals, who's doing it legitimately and who's not.

Honestly, it is much easier for me to grab an album from a torrent site (or just as easy, is probably the better phrase). The cost is free, the download is still lightning fast, I have never noticed a difference in quality of digital files (whether bought or torrented), and time is just as quick as using iTunes.

The only time I really buy albums are if they aren't available in a quick query on my favorite torrent site with plenty of seeds and positive comments, and that is very rare. I don't go into in depth searches for albums on torrent sites.

It's worth noting that buying an artists full discography can be rather expensive, but given the artist isn't too obscure, they are readily available for snatching on torrent sites.

EDIT: Also, I don't mess with stealing films as I rather enjoy collecting them. I will download one every now and then if I am on the fence about buying it and want to see if it is worth it and what not.

I understand and in many ways I agree. I considerably respect the purity of your argument and that you tackle the issue from the corner of the entertainment industries employees (the film makers) and point to the fact that in the long run we are depriving ourselves of the best possible movie experiences in the future. This is a fair and effective argument, probably one that should be used more often as apposed to 'don't steal'.

:) The theory is interesting, let us hope it's realised. I too use iTunes for fast downloads and outstanding quality, I wouldn't think to do it any other way oddly. When I can't be bothered to wait 300 years for a movie to download I just buck up and pay the £9:99 on iTunes. It certainly is becoming easier, cheaper, faster, more secure and the quality is of a higher grade. I mentioned earlier that I only download when the quality is great, it's becoming harder to get good quality via torrents and I've always preferred paying for a movie the way it was supposed to be seen than being someone who squints his way through an under exposed pirate copy for the sake of saving £9.99. As far as I'm concerned these people are stealing the rite to be pissed off, they're certainly not enjoying the art form.

P2P is also unfortunately the most enticing in a certain respect (quality) since some people chose to just dump their movies in a shared folder. There's also less of a risk since on torrent sites, its about how quickly you can get your compressed ass version up so 10 people can download it before its taken down. P2P on the other hand is a forum without moderators if you like, a chilled heaven where you don't have to be shady and discrete. This includes Joe Black who buys 2001: a space odyssey from iTunes for £7.00 and then dumps the multi-gig (full quality) file in his shared folder. If I leave my computer on overnight, I can have the film the next day free of charge and just the way I would have bought it off iTunes. P2P is the train that needs to be stopped I guess.

=====

Given that P2P is the real problem. How do you guys feel about lending DVDs to mates to rip and bringing DVDs over to your friends to watch etc. This is essentially the same as being the person who dumps the file in a shared folder, the dealer if you like? Wrong in your opinion?

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

I want to make one bit clear. the movies that i download, are either already on DVD..or for whatevr reason have not yet been released on dvd (I'm not talkking about movies in the theatres. I'm talking about older tv shows, and movies that i had on VHS but they have not released on DVD)


I also belong to a few Exchange groups IRW where we pass about Albums, books and movies.

I've never felt the least bit bad about shelling out $30 for a John Grisham novel, reading it, and passing it along for someone else to read when I'm finished, (and reading a baldacci that they spent 30 bones on..and so on and so on).

Should i feel bad?

I think the rationalization behind downloading movies etc, is the aggravation folks feel towards big companies and their greedy marketing schemes. How many times did you want one simple item, but could not buy it because it only came bundled with a bunch of other useless stuff. Or buying a 99$ cel phone in a Verizon store, and walking out wondering how you ended up paying $300. It seems to be the way companies are forced to do their pricing. For most films, I really don't care about a snazzy DVD cover, the booklet, the directors' commentary, subtitles in 6 different languages, and all that. I don't believe downloading is morally right, but I can certainly understand the rationalization behind it!

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

off topic just slightly, i remember having a similar conversation about a decade a go when the dawn of the mp3 was upon us.

I maintained at the time, that the best set-up for everyone (consumers, business and artist) already existed.

Buy the Album for $8-12, purchase a box of maxell or basf tapes, record mixed tapes for the car and camping and stuff.

Plus, because albums were being churned out every couple of years (or sooner) by the bands of the day, go to the Concert $30ish but a concert Tee ($15-25).

everybody wins.

What the movie studios should be doing is what the record companies did withe the recordable tape industry.

Not sure what "little difference" means. I wouldn't tend to think morality is very black and white in general. Ethics is so interesting precisely because of the subtleties involved. It might very well be the case that the "little difference" you see between the two acts is the key that makes one of them permissible.

Don't assume this, since its unreasonably inaccurate. I think it's easy enough to model what's involved in downloading a film.

[I will try to draw a schematic about this "model"; there are many levels of interaction, so it is not so intuitive as it may appear]

Okay.

Now wait a second. The begs the question... at what point does lending become en masse? I'm being careful to avoid the continuum fallacy when I ask this question. Yes, at a certain point, copying en masse certainly does become something other than lending. I will not attempt to argue that there is no limit to lending. However, I guess what I am trying to clarify here is that it is not so simple to just affirm a distinction; it is necessary to identify the point at which something permissible becomes something impermissible. When does lending in itself become impermissible? It would no doubt occur when the negative, harmful effects to the makers of the product being lent outweigh the positive effects to the borrowers of the product being lent. The moment that this point occurs is, I claim, attached to the statements below about the collective solubility of the studio system.

I've often wondered about this. I don't think it's that way at all, unfortunately. For example, you can see my IP address, and so can just about anyone with the right software; you can be sure that "the law" has this kind of software. How easy it would be for one of them to simply access any number of the bit torrent websites and round up clearly guilty IP addresses. A huge list of names would appear, and all that would be needed next is a ground police crackdown. Maybe not even this, consider the fact that certain software can actually remotely access computers through the internet (or something like this). In other words, it is not akin to the war on drugs---i.e. a futilely bombastic struggle against vast, unconquerable forces---but rather, it is, as of current, a non-prosecutable issue. I would say much of this is due to the pettiness viewed in the "crime". We can again return to the question of whether one download is a crime (one act of lending and borrowing) as opposed to, let's say, hundreds of downloads (en masse).

Okay.

Again... while above you identify your clear perception of an ambiguity, here you assert that there is none; at least, fundamentally, which must be the level that we work upon.

Okay.

I can't concede this at all based on my understand of what you mean, which is not clear. What people? The filmmakers or the audience? I take this to mean that the filmmakers should stake claim to their artwork as property. The dialectic between art having value solely in its relation to the audience and the inherent value bestowed upon a work due to the work put into it seems complex to me. I have homework tonight (physics), so I won't go into it, but I think this is yet another important issue.

As a quick counterexample, I only need to bring up the accepted notion that all artworks, after a certain amount of time, are supposed to be released into the public domain, thereby acquiring a collective ownership.

I'd also like to bring up something radical and anarchistic that will not seem so much so when only applied to art; namely the notion that all property is already theft.

A company is either soluble or insoluble. MGM was heading on a downward track for a long time, but nothing became certain until they declared their mission of an independent future impossible. So, maybe through this logic we can never "know" of a studio's capability until their admission of incapability, which, unfortunate as that seems, might be the only practical way of going about this issue when considering the nature of the film industry as composed of large, discreet projects. I'm sure a studio could be, in a binary sense, one film away from bankruptcy or massive rebirth. Imagine if MGM had released Avatar (barring all worldly oddities in realizing this notion). Everything for them would have changed. To me this does seem binary.

The idea of "for now" is yet another interesting one. How do we know that "for now" is not the limit of the problem? Filesharing has been around in some form or another for at least 10 years now (happy anniversary! :laugh:), I believe, so perhaps this is its limit? I think this is important, because it brings up the question whether or not "lending" will ever become "en masse", assuming that it is not proper to describe the current state of affairs as "en masse".

Do you guys remember Tim Burton trying (and succeeding) to push for 10 weeks between cinema and DVD release for Alice in Wonderland? (as apposed to the ordinary 17 to 20 weeks) His (Tim Burtons) logic was that whilst the later stages (weeks 15 to 20 in particular) were fantastic for cinemas as this is when they're contractually obliged to take larger portions of any takings, this stage can be terrible for the actual film. One of the reason he stated was that the longer you wait before pushing the DVD out, the more likely people are to download a knock off version of the film.

I really agree with Tim Burton here and I think pushing DVDs out sooner would help the situation a lot. As I mentioned before, I'm starting to put a lid on my downloading where I can but occasionally if I want to watch a film again such as Inception which I've already seen in cinema (Paid to view obviously). I download simply because it isn't out on DVD yet, I'd be happy to pay for a hard copy of it provided it has a at-least a few extra features that are enticing.

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/1...01101at200.png

Thoughts?

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Well, pushing DVD's out sooner can also provide a DVDrip sooner, many people never want to dish out the money.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Ah, so you'll be uploading those files back to PirateB@y and then deleting them from your hard drive this evening, then?

If the library is comparable, your next few actions are clear.

I've never downloaded or uploaded a movie. ;)

Do enlighten me ... what are my next few actions? Even I lack this knowledge. Got lottery numbers for me as well? ;)

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Your next action would be to return any files you have downloaded back to their source, since you are comparing downloading movies to using a library. A library has one copy of an item that people borrow and return. Pirate sites have files that are copied to other computers, making more copies. It is not the same thing.

Wrong, my next action was to answer my phone. Again, I've never downloaded any movie. I was merely pondering out loud, so that others could comment if they wanted. I was playing the devil's advocate if you will. Not sure how my saying what I did equates into I must be downloading files.


Actually libraries carry multiple copies. And they are just as easy to use to make more copies if a person decided to.

Usually, yes. But not always. Beside the point. They still have the physical object(s) that people borrow.

Yes, but the library does not provide you with a ready-made illegal copy. You have to do it yourself. Still not the same thing.

First, I want to thank you for dropping the finger pointing of assuming I download movies. I appreciate that.

True, but so did the pirates of old. And that was still illegal.



I agree the intention is not for you to copy it, but it can be and does get done. I guess I just find it bizarre that you can watch it for free if a library gives you a copy. The studios lose money there too, why do they not try and stop this as well?

I know authors hate libraries due to the loss of money. Many forwards in books will contain something from the author saying how they want you to buy their book not borrow it from a friend or get it at the library. But, again nothing gets done about it.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

"You" doen't neccessarily mean you specifically. It's a general "you," meaning whoever. (You seem to have a guilty conscience about something though. JK)

Libraries were developed to aid in the spreading of knowledge. There hasn't always been a Barnes & Noble within spitting distance of wherever you are. Libraries were essential for learning and for keeping historical records. While not as essential as they were in the past, libraries still serve as valuable tools for learning.

Yes, some authors dislike libraries due to not making money from every person who reads their book. Many recording artists also dislike that radio stations let people hear their music for free. Really, how big an audience would there be for either without the other?

Of course, you can now apply that train of thought to illegal downloads as well, so have at it...

Not f#cking illegal in my country! And no, I don't try and justify it...I just don't care.
http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/w...statscreen.jpg

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Ahh yes, I'm guilty of many, many things. ;)

Hell ya they do, I love my libraries. It is kinda sad to see them not used as much as they once were. People seem to have no interest and/or time in reading anymore. It's a shame really. Most of the people you see in them now are our younger generation using the free internet (probably to download stuff LMAO).

Good point.

Ha! No need, I'm content with the outcome of our discussion. Thanks. :)

Can't speak for anywhere else, just here in the UK and I imagine in the rest of the European Union too, authors receive a PLR (Public Lending Right) fee everytime a book of theirs is borrowed. Ok it's only like 6p per borrowing to a max of £6600 but it's something.
Also recording artists are also paid every time their records are heard on tv or radio or played in public spaces. This is funded by licences: PRS for Music collects the licence fee on behalf of song writers, composers and publishers. PPL collects the licence fee on behalf of the performers and record companies, so the recording artists don't lose out.

He used to kill them off every time a television was sold.

Thought this might be of interest to some of you.

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blog/arti...ilms-ever.html

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Interesting mix of totally predictable and fairly surprising.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

The push for 3D films being the norm is not for artistic merit, it's to fight piracy.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

I downloaded 7/10 of the movies HK listed. One of them you couldn't pay me to download, one I hadn't even heard of, and one I actually paid to see in theaters and felt like I was ripped off.

now that most people have Netflix where they pay a flat rate every month for basically an unlimited amount of movies, i don't see how downloading films can really be seen as 'stealing'. whether or not i download films, i'm still paying the exact same amount of money out every month for watching films that i otherwise would have.

what i'm trying to say is i don't download films to save money. i'm still paying every month the exact same amount i would have. i download films for two main reasons: 1-so that i can maximize my viewing pleasure, and 2-because a lot of what i want to watch is not available on Netflix.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

This seemed like the most recent thread on this topic...

'Miramax CEO: our biggest threat is online distribution monopolies, not piracy'

Some paraphrasing going on here, so I'm not sure what his actual quotes on piracy are. The cited site brings up an 'untrusted' warning for me so I've not gone trawling (and the vid is mammoth). Possibly some kind of cyberwar started by Warner ;)

I mostly agree, but you can definitely make a bit of a case the other way. Specifically, that while the film you steal by sitting in the theater is one instance of theft, it doesn't enable anyone else to follow you, while downloading often does (if you're re-seeding a torrent with what you download, for example).

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

I'm more for the cinema experience. Although I have to say there were times when I was seriously mislead by trailers and I would had rather downloaded the damn thing to see at least the first 30 minutes, so I won't make a trip to the cinema and get really bored or ashamed someone known could spot me seeing that movie.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Why care what other people think? if you end up not liking the film, tell the person who spots you. If you ended up liking the film and everyone else hates it, would you be embarrassed to own up to enjoying it?

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Here's a question: I just recently on another thread remembered a movie that I saw a long time ago, the only way to get it is to pay close to 50 dollars for a used VHS copy because the movie has never been released on DVD and it's not a old movie or anything like that, is it morally okay to download this movie, which by the way I can't even find it to download it so this is all just hypothetical.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Morally, it's the same as if it was a new release you couldn't be bothered to wait for/see at cinema/whatever, but morally I don't have a problem with people d/ling and even less so when it's in the situation you've described.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

If the creator(s) of that film aren't twits, they would want you to see it. It sucks for them and you there is no distribution for it at the moment but that cannot stop one from viewing it. I can't buy Svidd Neger because no Region 1/0 exists, doesn't mean I'm not gonna download it as opposed to buying a new dvd player as well as expensive shipping.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

not to change the subject, but you should invest in a multi-region DVD player. they're really handy.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

What's better is a multi region Blu-ray player and it can play your different region DVDs on too. Perfecto. :D

You don't need to buy another player, just hack the one you have.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Not true HK, not true. There's a few players that can be made to "fool themselves" into playing anything but those players still won't play a PAL formatted disc if they are from a NTSC region. They can't handle the frame rate adjustment.

Region free players are just as cheap as regular players and a must have for hardcore movie fans that like to put everything onto a disc like I do.

Wow what a bummer for you US film fans. I've hacked five UK bought dvd players to region 0 now, and they play everything. Slight drop in frame rate from NTSC to PAL, but the difference is negligible to the casual viewer. You really do have it good in the US for dvd availability. Here in the UK we either get budget priced dvd's with crap transfers, mid-priced dvd's with no extras, or extortionately priced special edition dvd's.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Is that right? How funny, so a player in England can play NTSC discs but not the other way around? I guess that makes sense because the PAL frame rate is a bit faster so maybe its easier to get a PAL player to slow down but not so much for an NTSC player to speed up. I know there's going to be guys that come in here and say they've gotten theirs to play PAL discs and that may be true but I bet there won't be a lot of them.

6 of one and a half dozen of the other is true though UF, as yeah, we have DVD's coming out of our eyes here.

That's a good point. Netflix selection of streamable movies is rather limited and their ques for newest releases are enoromous and too lon a wait. Also, they have a relatively small sample of Asian movies.
Have you ever tried Cinflix? They are out of Denver and specialize in Korean and Chinese movies.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

As long as ridiculous things like "regions" for DVDs exist, people should have the right download all the movies they please.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

Uh, no, that's ridiculous.

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

i wouldn't use internet without piracy :) really

Re: Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films
 

A lot of dvd players can be hacked in the UK especially now, it was harder to get one when they first came out though. I've had two dvd players over time and both could play any dvd region, and now I have a blu-ray player and it plays any region dvd and any region blu-ray disc which is excellent because a lot of blu-rays from America are cheaper than here or not avaliable on blu-ray here but out in America(Natural Born Killers: Unrated Director's Cut for example, it's only avaliable on DVD here)

If you have multi region player, this isn't a problem. Don't know where you are shopping but special edition dvds are not extortionately priced last time I looked. It's blu-rays that are 'extortionately priced' if you shop offline, HMV are disgusting for it.

I'm refering to older cult movies and expensive UK labels like Arrow Cult Labs, Salvation/Redemtion, Network, Shameless (new releases), and Odeon Entertainment. These labels are not cheap, and by that I mean a tenner plus on Amazon for newer remastered special editions.

Often budget editions (labels like Prism, The Roger Corman Collection, Film 2000, Boulevard Entertainment etc etc) of lesser know cult flicks are available in the UK but have awful unmastered pan and scan transfers - not to mention BBFC cuts i.e. they were released on dvd either before the BBFC waived cuts on the film, or they're derived from a pre-cut MPAA transfer.

I don't think we watch the same kind of movies for the most part so you probably haven't experienced the same problem- at least not as often. As an avid collector of cult cinema I naturally have multi-region equipped dvd players.