Illegal film downloading triples

[Nilfennasion]

I think we can all agree that downloading is illegal for a good reason, but I'd like to address the simple point that the MPAA has given up on trying to nail down the mass-piracy industry and instead elected to go after the little guy.

[aero]

I think we can all agree that downloading is illegal for a good reason, but I'd like to address the simple point that the MPAA has given up on trying to nail down the mass-piracy industry and instead elected to go after the little guy.

yes. and interestingly the RIAA constantly states, and much of the media parrots, that they are suing downloaders, when they mean uploaders. That is to freak the little guy as well.

here is my experience. My kids scratched about a half dozen dvds about a year ago. There went $100 to $150 bucks out the window. I had followed the CSS speech cases, used computers for 20 years and aguely aware of decrytion and backup. Also though as someone who produces IP for a living, albeit in a shop of just myself as it were, I take IP concepts and their benefits very seriously. But I decided to backup the movies I have. And of course what's next? we know it....that 10 a month netflix.

It is difficult to speak to the ethical questions. Here one can see a few people really seem to find it easy to rationalize what they themselves know is stealing. I would say everyone I know has downloaded pirate songs on the net. It isn;t the stealing that is remarkable (I've done it) it is the rationalizations or the denial that it is indeed stealing which crack me up.

I think the practical issues are more fertile and productive ground. the dvd issue is interesting as you can see the triumverate of protection schemes and whether they work. the technical scheme, in this case encrytion, clearly has worked for quite a few years and now can be defeated by a small portion of the most computer literate population. that will grow. then there are the legal schemes, the patent case is strong, the dmca is deservidly ridiculed as draconian. then we have the public awareness campaing. the atricle referenced is really part of a disinformation campaign. the other public campaign, the "just say no" campaign does carry some truth, but isn't resonant.

In my mind the practical protection's missing element (and the nessessary one), is visiting the mchc more sensible moves to changing the tipping point in ip busting for dvds. IE a) PRICE and b) reasonable duplication. on reasonable duplication I don't see css as an evil plot to make me buy Toy Story twice or three times at full retail. But that is the result. On price we have to move toward getting fim content to the consumer with less overhead. For me a total of $5 for the data of a feature film would be a reasonable tipping point. If you take away the media, packaging and delivery costs, including profit by resellers $5 is probably the net to the studios anyway.

[Nilfennasion]

I honestly think the studios should be considering a change in the types of films they make. People would be more willing to pay full retail if the films didn't insult their intelligence (Van Helsing, for example).

In the couple of months that I have had my DVD recorder, it has seen extensive use, and will probably continue to do so. I wish I had known earlier just how easy the encryption is to circumvent, really.

[flaninacupboard]

as morpheus once said
"Welcome, to the real world."

Happily been ripping since the beggining of 2001.

[fritzi93]

I honestly think the studios should be considering a change in the types of films they make. People would be more willing to pay full retail if the films didn't insult their intelligence (Van Helsing, for example).
|

You're an optimist! I'd love to see that, but I'm afraid the general run of humanity is too damn stupid. JMHO

As to the title of this thread: BOLLOCKS. Love that word.

[gitreel]

No, its not okay. Its stealing. And you shouldn't download copyrighted material that you don't have permission to use. But the big companies should be running the way they are either. But that still doesn't make it right to steal.

it is not stealing if the item in question never left your position. I suggest you change your outlook. p2p has been built into the earliest operating systems. downloading is not stealing. I suggest you visit this link.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/lessig.html

Lol. Lessing not some unbiased observer, he is the strongest advocate of freely coppyingother peoples work.

Just so you kow, no serious person thinks downloading a pirate copy of the sopranos isn;t illegal. If you think so you are in the black helicopter crowd that thinks income taxes are illegal.

The things at issue are the politics, how draconian systems can get and where the tipping point is between having the majority of thepoulation observe the rules and or see them as reasonable.

Most people understand that dowloading a pirate copy is illegal and is stealing. Most people (myself included) on the other hand don't see why backing a dvd they purchased should be problematic.

Lastly your statement "downloading is not stealing," is really too general a statement to mean anything. It is like saying 'eating isn't stealing." Yeah, but eating at a resteruant and not paying is.

Aero, There are a bunch of scholars and lawyers that will disagree with every word you have said. The definition of stealing is to take something from you. If I take it from you, you no longer have that item. If you still have it, then how is it stealing? This is not all black and white. This is a gray area. Let's agree to disagree.

[dphirschler]

I just love how they assume that a download equals a lost sale.

1) It may be something they already own.

2) It may be something that they will own as soon as it is released.

3) It may be something that they would never buy, but instead rent. Lost revenue, yes. But not a sale.

4) It may be something not for sale. Some TV shows for example. If it's not for sale, how can they be losing money on it?


Darryl

[gitreel]

I just love how they assume that a download equals a lost sale.

1) It may be something they already own.

2) It may be something that they will own as soon as it is released.

3) It may be something that they would never buy, but instead rent. Lost revenue, yes. But not a sale.

4) It may be something not for sale. Some TV shows for example. If it's not for sale, how can they be losing money on it?


Darryl

Thank you.

[aero]

[quote="gitreelAero, There are a bunch of scholars and lawyers that will disagree with every word you have said. The definition of stealing is to take something from you. If I take it from you, you no longer have that item. If you still have it, then how is it stealing? This is not all black and white. This is a gray area. Let's agree to disagree.[/quote]

That is patently ridiculous and not true. by that logic all patents, trademarks and all copyright would be void.

From your statement you clearly havent the vaguest idea what you are talking about. you are saying it is perfectly ok for a company in china to grab a copy of all the latest released music and movies and just mass produce it.

It isn't a gray area. this is has an accepted legal foundation nearly everywhere.

Why do you make the distinction between it being in your possession? by your logic if I take your car and offer you a nickel it isnt stealing, I gave you a benifit.

My friend people prove future loss. It is alos as old as the bible. If someone negligently kills you they owe your family for your future earnings. Your family has every right to caculate the intangable future earnings.

[Nilfennasion]

They have to prove that they lost something because you made a duplicate of a disc they made. Good luck to whomever wants to prove they lost something because I made a copy of a friend's disc of Glitter or that insulting piece of crap they call a DVD of The Pirate Movie.

[Twizzle]

The definition of theft in the Uk is to dishonestly appropriate property from another with the intention to permanently deprive...

That means you take ownership of the property, ie the film (there is lots of case law about what property is but it includes tangiable and intangiable and there fore can include downloaded data) and by doing that, you permanently deprive them of it.

I know that the film companies produce thousands of copies but you have taken that one copy and permanently deprived them of it and / or any monies they might have made from it.

Basically if you do download a film or music it is theft.... but really only as much as if you copied to video from TV or copied your friends CD. Yes we pay a TV licence but here in the UK ITV, Channel 4 and 5 fund themselves by adverts and NOT our licence fee... that goes to the BBC. So what they transmit is not paid for by us.

I think that the major studios are realising that its all got to change soon. They are going to have to change the way that they work. Change the way they pay perople and produce and distribute film. Im sure that in the not too distant future they will realise that people will always download films illegally, but that over all it won't really effect their profits as theywill be changing the way they distribute etc. If they can still afford to pay the top actors £20 million a film then I am sure I can suggest a couple of ways to cut thir costs

[Nilfennasion]

If they can still afford to pay the top actors £20 million a film then I am sure I can suggest a couple of ways to cut thir costs

Currently, the highest they have paid an actor as an upfront fee, if memory serves, is something like $40 mil US. And that was an extreme case. Typically, the top-billed actors are being paid $10 mil US per film, and given that they usually make one film in a year, with no garantee that there will be work in the next, I don't think that's too unreasonable in light of how much competition there is for their job.

People seem to forget that it is all a case of supply and demand. Look at what actors earn in Europe.

The solution to that problem is very simple, really. Employ people in the films who do not have the workload. They will ask less money, and the bottom line will be smaller. QED and all that.

[BobK]

> The solution to that problem is very simple, really. Employ people in the films who do not have the workload. They will ask less money, and the bottom line will be smaller.

And so will the profit. Why do you think they pay an actor $10 million to make a movie instead of using an unknown and paying $1 million?

[Nilfennasion]

Yes, that is true, but what you are forgetting is that all of these actors who now earn seven-figure salaries once earned five-figure salaries, if that. As a point of comparison, I invite you to take a look at Rutger Hauer's performances in Blade Runner or anything he has appeared in during the couple of years since, and Soldaat Van Oranje or Turks Fruit. An actor does not need to be paid what his native country once had as a GDP in order to turn in a good performance.

[BobK]

> An actor does not need to be paid what his native country once had as a GDP in order to turn in a good performance.

The basis of a 'stars' pay is based on how many people will buy tickets to see them in a movie- it's not predicated soley on a "good performance". The world's best actor would get big movie to star in a movie if his name wouldn't help sell tickets.

[Nilfennasion]

Again, take a look at the European film industry. The highest-paid actors there are not demanding multi-million dollar salaries. In fact, Zwartboek, now the most expensive film ever to be made in Holland, is clocking in at the equivalent of US$10mil. Total. But I am willing to bet I will enjoy it more than Peter Jackson's cinematic abortion that he dares to pass of as The Lord Of The Rings. I'm also willing to bet it has a higher profit-to-cost ratio, too.

[Sillyname]

I'm kinda against downloading videos. Any place on the internet that one goes to do their illegal shite is sort of a proving grounds for viruses. In other words, if you are somewhere you know you shouldn't be whether in reality or on the internet, you're gonna catch something. And spread it to everybody else you come in contact with.

I started "CREATING" content not too long ago but have not made any money from it because I know the channels that I go through would never allow me access if I started charging, so I'm just building an image right now. I'd hate to think that you guys would like things a put out at the same time that you'd be stiffing me... People need your money to know that that's what you like. Otherwise we get buried under an enterainment industry that only caters to those too stupid to download illegal movies and music. Which IS what is happening...

[Twizzle]

[quote]Typically, the top-billed actors are being paid $10 mil US per film, and given that they usually make one film in a year, with no garantee that there will be work in the next, I don't think that's too unreasonable in light of how much competition there is for their job.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You are joking right?!?.... You think $10 million is a reasonable ammount to pay some one.. And no guarentee that they will get paid in the next year being a reason for this! Plus the competition thing.....The more competition should mean that the fee goes down. Its a very simple supply and demand thing.

I earn about the equivalent of $30k a year.. $10 million is considerably more than I will earn in my life. They can EASILY live off the interest that they could make from one payment if they invested it.

Don't get me wrong, im not condoning video piracy, but i do think that the industry has not helped the problem. If they cut the ridiculous astranomical costs of their films and in turn reduced the ammount we have to pay to watch and buy them, i think more people would and there would not be so much of an issue surrounding piracy. I know special effects etc etc cost so much and big names make films but like people have already said, most of these big blockbusters are empty trash. Every one knows a really good film or two that was cheap but made a fortune at the box office. It wouldnt take much for film companies to say NO to the fees and look at any of the thousands of unemployed (and in some cases probably better actors). If I want to watch a film, its becasue the film interests me. NOT because it might have a particular actor in it..