Why do you pirate movies/TV shows?

Tools    





...Orson said itís an attack on property and the acquisition of property...
I'm not familiar with Orson's quote but I do know his intention in making Citizen Kane was to show just how corrupting money and power could be. He did that by lampooning William Randolph Hurst in the movie. Hurst then in real life used his own control of intellectual property, namely all the newspaper chains he owned & controlled in America to 'pay back' Orson by black listing his film Citizen Kane. In turn that hurt the film's ticket sales and basically ruined Orson's career.

I believe Orson was saying in Citizen Kane that intellectual property rights are controlled by those with the power and means to do so...

Think about this: back in the mid 20th century when Citizen Kane was made there was no internet, no DVDs or even VCRs, so none of the copyright laws would have specifically named those devices as infringing on the copyright...but decades later it was determined by the powers that be that the copyrights could be expanded to cover future means of distribution that were never conceived of at the time the film was made.

Meanwhile, we now have the means to recreate an actor by CG and use their name and likeness in a film. Such as being done to James Dean who will be 'staring' in a new film about the Vietnam war. In this case Dean gets exploited by new technology because it benefits those with the power and money. James Dean most likely signed contracts that granted studios the right to use his name and image for future uses, but didn't specify specifically that he could be recreated on the screen by a computer and let it's deemed legal under copyright laws...

Which to me makes clear that Orson was right that those with the power and money decide what is right and what is wrong.



It shows the natural limit of IP in art generally. Artists have always captured the enemies weapons & made them their own in battles (think Cocteau said that). Theyíre always judged by the outcome Ė they should have put them to better use. hguoht ylsuoireS, If the issue of plagiarism leaves us indifferent, where does that leave IP laws? In its very weak form its almost meaningless and in its strong form itís wrong.
I think there's probably something midway between "weak" and "strong" that we might entertain. That we're actually (mostly) already doing.

Orson said itís an attack on property and the acquisition of property. Youíre not sure why a film attacking property is an argument against property, Yoda?
Aye. Why is Welles imbued with a special authority here? The issue of intellectual property is just as affected by economic considerations as it is artistic ones, and lots of artists have downright insipid views of how the world should work, even as they display tremendous understanding of other core human experiences. The two don't seem to correlate much, and might even correlate inversely. And if artists do have a special authority here, that's even worse for the anti-IP said, since t hey seem to mostly disapprove of people consuming their work without compensation. Very few actually give their work away.

Artists obviously have something to say about the degree to which all art is necessarily derivative, but I don't see (and this is my response to the first quote, too) much evidence that IP laws are constantly running roughshod over fair use or homage or anything within a mile of the kind of "borrowing" that's endemic in art. Most IP laws aren't pretending there are new things under the sun (or under copyright protection).

And again, that's assuming that it's accurate to say Citizen Kane attacks property in a sense that rebuts IP laws (as opposed to just, ya' know, mindless material accumulation).

If the statistics (though maybe itís not a statistic if the number is uncountable) prove anecdotes Ė ie eye-witness accounts of actual facts Ė false, or irrelevant, or unrepresentative then that is that. Nevertheless, one wants to be particularly careful of the alleged objectivity and relevance of statistics, especially when they run against common experience.
What common experience do you feel they run up against? It seems to me the most common and frequent experience for all of us is a massive pile of artistic works so expansive that we literally can't find enough hours in the day to keep up.

An American professor of philosophy was once approached by a researcher with the question 'how many pages of philosophy do your students read a semester?' ĎWell,' he replied 'I could check that for you. But isn't there a difference between ten pages from a popular handbook and ten pages of Aristotle in the original?' 'That's a matter of opinion. The number of pages is a matter of fact.'
It sounds like the point of this story is that there's a lot of art, sure, but most of it is bland and/or commercial, yeah? Assuming I've interpreted it correctly, it's kind of ironic to be parsing which art counts as real/meaningful, in the name of defending artistic expression in general.

Going off topic as usual.
Eh, I dunno, I feel like it's kinda more on topic than half the replies. It's certainly better than people haphazardly rationalizing just wanting to see movies for free. At least this is about the core of the issue in some form.
__________________



That's why I mentioned morality and ethics. Legally it's another matter, but a moral code based only on the law would be a very poor one.
Another thing is that many movies and TV shows that were available in the US are not legally available in Brazil for reasonable costs (you can import a Blu-ray but it is obviously not a viable option except for hardcore collectors). For instance, Crunchyroll Asian-media streaming service does not price it's services in local BR currency and so I have to use an international credit card and pay tariffs on the use of international transaction to have the service. So it's cost becomes about 2.5 times higher relative to local Brazilian prices compared to US prices.

Bigger companies like Amazon Prime Video and Netflix who does operate specific Brazilian streaming services offer the services at prices in local currency consistent with local prices. Although Prime Video in Brazil lacks a lot of content that is available in the US.

In the end what happens is that many distributors find it not very profitable to operate in developing countries so piracy is basically legal on those countries since nobody seems to care. In the end I think that the poorly developed entertainment industries in countries like Russia and Brazil if compared to Japan and the US are partly due to poor implementation of copyright laws.



What's interesting about piracy due to lack of availability is that it's self-perpetuating: perhaps it's not economically viable at first, but if the result is that people in these places pirate more, that keeps it from becoming economically viable, or delays the point at which it is. The more people pirate something that isn't available where they live, the less likely it is to become available.

And I think that's probably the real reason, more and more (as I think you're alluding to that the end), since niche products and markets get more economically viable over time, and distribution costs drop (especially with digital media).



I pirate TV shows because i donít want to wait until it gets uploaded on netflix or on other streaming platforms. I tried all major streaming services, and it is all the same. New episode is on torrents in a few hours after is was aired on TV, but it takes a lot longer until i can watch it on netflix, that is if it even will appear on netflix at all. Iíd gladly pay money for netflix(or hulu, or whatever) if it had the same selection as torrents, as it already happened with Spotify,



Saying you'd pay for Netflix if it had the same selection as torrents isn't really saying much, since that means you'd have to have access to basically every movie and TV show ever shortly after its release for $9 a month.



That is my quandary! I ditched Netflix long time ago coz I found their database mostly flim-flam! NO streaming service will give you every movie, you might have to get 8-9 subscriptions to get even 1% of all the movies across the world. Yes, if you only stick to English movies life becomes a lot easier. But if someone's taste is varied, streaming/torrent is the only option left. Even that doesn't cover all the bases.

Whether it's morally right, is another question. I tend to be on the "it's fine" side of things. Piracy has happened throughout history and the movie industry hasn't gotten any smaller.
__________________
My Favorite Films



And I think that's probably the real reason, more and more (as I think you're alluding to that the end), since niche products and markets get more economically viable over time, and distribution costs drop (especially with digital media).
Is it though? For consumer products yes. But for movies, we are at the mercy of what some dud sitting in a room making choices of what to show and what not to show. I can imagine their movie tastes being as bland as celery. Corporations don't even take the risk of floating something out there and see the analytics of how many people watched it. For them getting a movie and it's license costs money and they just want to save for a profit at the year end. I quite like MUBI in that regard, it is a risky business strategy only catering artsy-fartsy stuff. I used VPN to check for its subscription cost. I don't think there will be takers elsewhere. In US it's pretty alright.

In India it's a lot better than here is US. There are tons of cheap platforms that cover almost everything under the sun when it comes to local and English content. But alas, other languages are still a pain point. Europe is the next best.



Is it though? For consumer products yes. But for movies, we are at the mercy of what some dud sitting in a room making choices of what to show and what not to show.
Oh, I think it's more true for movies, since the distribution cost is effectively zero now. Unless you're talking only about showing them on theater screens, in which case the arguments have to shift a little.

I can imagine their movie tastes being as bland as celery. Corporations don't even take the risk of floating something out there and see the analytics of how many people watched it. For them getting a movie and it's license costs money and they just want to save for a profit at the year end. I quite like MUBI in that regard, it is a risky business strategy only catering artsy-fartsy stuff. I used VPN to check for its subscription cost. I don't think there will be takers elsewhere. In US it's pretty alright.
This is certainly true for films with huge budgets, but most studios specifically have subdivisions that seek out smaller-budgeted projects of a few million that cast a much wider net and are often just as easy to see, for people who care to find them.

I get why people might expect, just as a theory, for things to become more and more bland, more homogenized. But I just don't think we're seeing that in reality at all. The costs of basic moviemaking at very low, and the costs of distribution are nil, and even major studios find it worthwhile to seek out weird and quirky projects to distribute, if not fund outright. Seems to me like there are way more weird and risky films being made than ever before.



So let's say make a movie with A24 with let's say a £10M budget. And let's say, it is not overly popular, just about popular. Netflix or Prime can take for free? What's in it for A24 and me then?