Make Your Picks

Why do you pirate movies/TV shows?


...Orson said it’s 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.

"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."

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). They’re always judged by the outcome – 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 it’s 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 it’s an attack on property and the acquisition of property. You’re 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 it’s not a statistic if the number is uncountable) prove anecdotes – ie eye-witness accounts of actual facts – 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?' ‘Well,' 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).