Another thread for talking about the morality of downloading films

Tools    





planet news's Avatar
Registered User
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.
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.

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

Nope, lending is not stealing.
Okay.

But then again, copying en masse isn't lending, either.
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.

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'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).

I agree that the theft of intellectual property is a sticky situation and fairly different from the theft of something finite and tangible.
Okay.

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.
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.

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.
Okay.

At that point you need only concede that people should be allowed to "own" their art
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.

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.
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.

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



Registered User
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.



Thoughts?
__________________
I wouldn't steal a car, but I'd download one if I could.



Well, pushing DVD's out sooner can also provide a DVDrip sooner, many people never want to dish out the money.
__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?



Maybe libraries should be illegal as well. They let me read books for free ... and now days you can watch movies for free from them as well.
__________________
"Sometimes dead is better." -- Jud Crandall



A system of cells interlinked
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.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Ah, so you'll be uploading those files back to PirateBay and then deleting them from your hard drive this evening, then?
I've never downloaded or uploaded a movie.

If the library is comparable, your next few actions are clear.
Do enlighten me ... what are my next few actions? Even I lack this knowledge. Got lottery numbers for me as well?



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.
__________________
"I made mistakes in drama. I thought drama was when actors cried. But drama is when the audience cries." - Frank Capra
Family DVD Collection | My Top 100 | My Movie Thoughts | Frank Capra



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.
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.

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.

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



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

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

Usually, yes. But not always. Beside the point. They still have the physical object(s) that people borrow.
True, but so did the pirates of old. And that was still illegal.


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.

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.



"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...



illegal downloads
Not f#cking illegal in my country! And no, I don't try and justify it...I just don't care.
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."



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

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.
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).

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?
Good point.

Of course, you can now apply that train of thought to illegal downloads as well, so have at it...
Ha! No need, I'm content with the outcome of our discussion. Thanks.



"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...

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.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
He used to kill them off every time a television was sold.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



Thought this might be of interest to some of you.

10. Twilight - 8.72 million downloads
Having paid to read all the books and all the merchandise, Twi-hards were probably a bit strapped for cash by the time the movie came out. Downloading it for free was the only option for angsty teenage vampire addicts in order to get their teeth into the feature film. Either that or the fans just couldn’t wait for the DVD and were determined to freeze frame R Pattz’s scenes and swoon ASAP.

9. Iron Man 2 - 8.8 million downloads
Robert Downey Jr’s remarkably acute portrayal of Tony Stark was very well received by lovers of the original comic book and general film fans alike, therefore it’s little surprise that the second instalment has become one of the most pirated film of all time.

8. The Hangover - 9.18 million downloads
The surprise hit comedy went down pretty well with just about anyone under the age of 35. Anyone who saw it couldn’t wait for it to come out on DVD, therefore the fans took to the web to grab themselves a copy and share it with their friends. Then go out on a night of epic partying that resulted in one of them going missing. At least they knew what to do now.

7. Rock ‘n’ Rolla - 9.43 million downloads
We were surprised as you are when we found that ‘Rock ’n’ Rolla’ made the list. The only thing we can think of is that after getting a grilling by movie buffs, those tempted to catch Guy Richie’s latest flick didn’t really want to waste the cash. It probably had the most aborted downloads of all time, but we will save that for another time.

6. Shutter Island - 9.5 million downloads
U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels is investigating the disappearance of a murderess who escaped from a hospital for the criminally insane and is presumed to be hiding nearby. The sequel is set to investigate the disappearance of their DVD sales. Here’s a clue: Look online.

5. Inception - 9.7 million downloads
It seems that Leonardo DiCaprio is pretty popular in the black market. With his second film on the list getting downloaded just shy of 10 million times he is one of the most illegally downloaded stars ever. Hackers used an intricate dream within a dream system to get into the cinema and record the film while the security guards were asleep (that might not be strictly true).

4. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - 10.6 million downloads
Michael Bay’s cinematic version of the popular kids toy was full of mind bending special effects that happened too quickly. Audiences needed a proper look at all the twisting metal and cut-happy fight scenes to really understand what was going on. But they’re not going to pay for it!

3. Star Trek - 10.96 million downloads
The most downloaded film in 2009 has slipped back a few places after the 2010 results were published, but still commands a large chunk of the pirated film statistics. It was pretty popular amongst the geeks, so perhaps it’s not really a surprise that they were able to get round the DVD security systems.

2. Kick-Ass - 11.4 million downloads
A fairly surprising second place goes to the cult superhero flick, ‘Kick Ass’. It was downloaded a whopping 11.4 million times and may go some way to explain why it performed relatively modestly at the box office, with £56 million in worldwide ticket sales.

1. Avatar - 16.58 million downloads
One of the biggest films to grace the silver screen, ‘Avatar’ tops the counterfeit chart with an astonishing 16.58 million illegal downloads. We can’t help but sympathise with director James Cameron on this one. All that time spent making a visually epic 3D flick that will go down in history as one of the best CGI flicks of all time is all null and void when most of the people to see it will have watched in on their tiny computer screen with a blurry picture. Then again it did take over £1.2 billion at the box office. So we reckon he did OK out of it.

Notable absentees
The Dark Knight: (7.03 million), Harry Potter (7.93 million), Transformers (569,259), Pirates Of The.Caribbean: At World’s End (379,749), Knocked Up (509.314).
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blog/arti...ilms-ever.html



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
The push for 3D films being the norm is not for artistic merit, it's to fight piracy.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



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.