Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films

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.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

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.

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.

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

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?

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!

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

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.