The ethics of illegal downloading - opinions please

[Libertine]

I'm in the mood for a good comedy tonight. So, I figured I'd watch Superbad.

Unfortunately, as I just found out, it won't be in cinemas in my country for another month or so.

Being a complete movie addict, I have unlimited memberships to both a local cinema and a video store, meaning I can watch whatever I want without paying extra. So, if I were to download it and watch it, it wouldn't take a single cent away from the movie industry.

Would downloading it still be a bad thing to do? Thoughts please.

[WarChild]

I'm downloading your contenzzzzzz from my torrent site yo.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by WarChild

I'm downloading your contenzzzzzz from my torrent site yo.

That is exactly why I'm thinking about this, and why I am interested in the opinions of people in the industry on situations such as these.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Libertine

That is exactly why I'm thinking about this, and why I am interested in the opinions of people in the industry on situations such as these.

Who fucking cares what the collective herd of morons in this industry think? I mean, seriously. Decide what YOU think, and then tell everyone else to fuck off.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Who fucking cares what the collective herd of morons in this industry think? I mean, seriously. Decide what YOU think, and then tell everyone else to fuck off.

I know what I think.

The reason I'm asking is not to decide what I'll do, but to get the opinions on illegal downloading of people in an industry currently being damaged by illegal downloading.

With everybody (verbally) attacking torrent sites, it's an interesting question where people would draw the line in their own online behaviour.

[who]

Seems like, in USA, it's not the downloader who's responsible for the crime, but the owner of the site where he found the link to the torrent... So, go for it.

[WarChild]

I'm too busy downloading from torrents to come up with a longer respone.

TORRENTS FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pr0]

Originally Posted by Libertine

I know what I think.

The reason I'm asking is not to decide what I'll do, but to get the opinions on illegal downloading of people in an industry currently being damaged by illegal downloading.

With everybody (verbally) attacking torrent sites, it's an interesting question where people would draw the line in their own online behaviour.

Well if it makes you feel any better, i saw all 3 kids from superbad on Leno & they were being complete little bastardy annoying, elitist fucks. So i wouldn't mind seeing their residual checks being hit by .00001 cents.

[D]

Only since you asked...

I'm thinking that you're walking the gray line.

Those that own the movie have made the choice to not make it available in the location you currently live for one reason or another, and as it's their property, they're entitled to make that choice without your consent being necessary to do so.

Utilizing a torrent service might not be directly taking away a single cent from the movie industry, but it is indirectly (though arguably insignificantly) working toward the promotion of the torrent site, and lessening the impact your region has toward the movie's success.


I guess if you must push forward - ignoring the rights of the owner - making certain you don't click on any sponsored links, and making a point to grab the movie via your cinema membership in a month or so for a second viewing (being sure to grab some popcorn ) might be a way to potentially counteract any negative karma you might have injected into the universe.

Personally, though, I'd just wait the month.

Again, these are just my own thoughts... offered to you at your request.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by D

Those that own the movie have made the choice to not make it available in the location you currently live for one reason or another, and as it's their property, they're entitled to make that choice without your consent being necessary to do so.

And that's the point I'm in doubt about.

Do copyrights give one the (moral, not legal) right to completely control all forms of distribution?

Movies, music and books are all basically information. To what extent can the flow of information be regulated or restricted based on the rather abstract concept of intellectual ownership? Moreover, is such regulation justifiable?

Remember the original argument for the implementation of copyrights: to promote the production of intellectual works. Basically, some rights were taken away from the populace in order to serve the greater good.

Since then, however, copyrights have been expanded immensely in both width and duration, and seemingly, they are being used not merely to protect the production of intellectual works, but more and more to enforce marketing strategies (such as globally staggered releases of movies).

To me, it seems as if current copyrights might be overreaching, up to the point where they directly conflict with what should be basic civil rights (like the right to resell goods wherever you want, the right to lend things owned by you to others, etc).

I have a suspicion that that is one of the reasons for the popularity of torrents - to escape the legal stranglehold media companies have over intellectual property.

[CurrentlySober]

I dont really think that the mainstream movie biz and the porn biz are that similar.
After all, porn is a 'throwaway' pleasure. Movies, or good ones can stand the test of time. Fav movies will be watched again and again for years. Porn? Once or twice...

Yes theft is theft. No denying it. But if i were to download screener copy of a movie and really liked it, i would then go get the full version on DVD legally when available.

Although I dont download porn (Obviously... Don't exactly need too) I cant imagine someone saying 'OH XXX Asian Fuck Nurses Vol 34 was so good... I will buy the DVD in a months time so I can watch it every year at Xmas'...

Dunno if the above makes total sense. Im typing this while doing other things but I'm sure the gist is in it, so Ill post anyway...

[Humpy Leftnut]

Piracy isn't all bad either. It's pretty horrendous for our industry (because essentially only retarded and ethically pure people pay for it) but I'd say our industry wouldn't be what it is without piracy.

Microsoft is one of the richest companies in the world because of piracy. Without it, an "internet year" would be more of a normal year, instead of a 1 month window. Piracy is like a virus, and the popular/important works get spread around faster than any single form of media is capable of providing. Would you all be using Photoshop if it weren't for piracy?

No grade 9 students can afford to buy Photoshop, yet when they reach the age they can buy it, and/or work for a company that bought it, they're well educated and experienced with the program.

The same goes for any high end piece of software such as 3DSMax, AutoCAD, Mathematica, and many more. Windows especially. The reason it's so dominant: Piracy.

GOOD musicians and indy film makers have also benefited greatly from piracy, by allowing them to reach the masses without the budgets of the big companies. There are thousands of artists available in stores today that WERE NOT available in stores when people started pirating their music. I'm talking had 3 albums out before they had any kind of record or distribution deal, but were given one from their "piracy popularity".

Face it: a great many of you are using an illegal version of windows, with illegal software, downloading illegal music and movies, as you read this. I know it hurts when it hits us in the pockets, and surely I've seen the decline in my numbers - but let's not forget those numbers got so big on the backs of other industries being pirated! Without it, we aren't what we are today.

[tehHinjew]

you dont have to torrent it

you can just stream it lol

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by tehHinjew

you dont have to torrent it

you can just stream it lol

Link?

[tony286]

I decided if I dont want it done to me I cant do it to others as tempting as it is sometimes.

[tehHinjew]

Originally Posted by ThatGuyInTheCorner

Link?

ive paid for this movie twice and i streamed it once
ill also buy the dvd when it comes out

part1 http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1079677an47E8yA
part2 http://www.veoh.com/videos/v10820052aXGtjDr
part3 http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1082071e3ebPsGT

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by tehHinjew

ive paid for this movie twice and i streamed it once
ill also buy the dvd when it comes out

part1 http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1079677an47E8yA
part2 http://www.veoh.com/videos/v10820052aXGtjDr
part3 http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1082071e3ebPsGT

Nice one !

Thanks dude

[Sands]

Movies, music and books are all basically information. To what extent can the flow of information be regulated or restricted based on the rather abstract concept of intellectual ownership? Moreover, is such regulation justifiable?

Information, yes, but remember that you're not paying for (nor are they creating/releasing) something that can so easily defined as just "information". I believe that definition is too simplistic, and that it doesn't take into account the packaging of that information, the aggregation of that information... the finished product that is built from that information.

This might be, in retrospect, a bad analogy but it was the first thing that popped into my mind as I'm writing this:

1) Universities conduct experiments in psychology, and then they publish their findings. Now, their findings are more toward what I personally would define as "information"... it's raw, and relatively unpackaged (it's somewhat packaged because the experimentors have to interpret data and such, but this isn't a perfect analogy).

2) Studies about a particular subject amass and create a field of study, or a large body of information about a certain phenomenon. As an example we'll use anxiety disorders.

3) An author spends time and money to sift through this huge body of literature with the intent of writing a simple and easy to understand book on anxiety disorders, or perhaps a textbook. He publishes his book, and it is, at this point, what I consider "packaged".

4) Now, someone illegally downloads his ebook. They aren't getting access to just information. They're getting access to information and packaging, and illegally at that. That downloader would have been able to access the information (the research papers) in the same way the author did, would have been able to read them over and aggregate information in the same way the author did, but he didn't.

So, in summary, information may be free, but effort isn't. To say that a finished product is just information neglects the production process.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by Sands

Information, yes, but remember that you're not paying for (nor are they creating/releasing) something that can so easily defined as just "information". I believe that definition is too simplistic, and that it doesn't take into account the packaging of that information, the aggregation of that information... the finished product that is built from that information.

This might be, in retrospect, a bad analogy but it was the first thing that popped into my mind as I'm writing this:

1) Universities conduct experiments in psychology, and then they publish their findings. Now, their findings are more toward what I personally would define as "information"... it's raw, and relatively unpackaged (it's somewhat packaged because the experimentors have to interpret data and such, but this isn't a perfect analogy).

2) Studies about a particular subject amass and create a field of study, or a large body of information about a certain phenomenon. As an example we'll use anxiety disorders.

3) An author spends time and money to sift through this huge body of literature with the intent of writing a simple and easy to understand book on anxiety disorders, or perhaps a textbook. He publishes his book, and it is, at this point, what I consider "packaged".

4) Now, someone illegally downloads his ebook. They aren't getting access to just information. They're getting access to information and packaging, and illegally at that. That downloader would have been able to access the information (the research papers) in the same way the author did, would have been able to read them over and aggregate information in the same way the author did, but he didn't.

So, in summary, information may be free, but effort isn't. To say that a finished product is just information neglects the production process.

Doing original research without as much packaging might cost as much (or more) effort than packaging it in an easy-to-read format, so the effort-argument doesn't really work, in my view.

Moreover, let's compare two very similar things: songs and poetry. Imagine that you sent your girlfriend a beautiful poem you just read in some book. Chances are that that poem cost as much time to make as a random hit song. Yet sending the poem to your girlfriend, or even your entire mailing list, would hardly be seen as stealing by most people.

[Sands]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Doing original research without as much packaging might cost as much (or more) effort than packaging it in an easy-to-read format, so the effort-argument doesn't really work, in my view.

Moreover, let's compare two very similar things: songs and poetry. Imagine that you sent your girlfriend a beautiful poem you just read in some book. Chances are that that poem cost as much time to make as a random hit song. Yet sending the poem to your girlfriend, or even your entire mailing list, would hardly be seen as stealing by most people.

I'm not sure I understand your first statement. With "original research", do you mean on the actual experiment level, or on the level of the author who researches through published literature? If it is the former then I would say that the revenue model for a university, and creating budgets for research projects might be different from the standard "make something and sell it to people" process. If it's the latter, then the cost of research, both time and money, is considerable... and that's part of the production process (the effort). The author can easily get a decent return on his investment by selling to the finished product to hundreds, thousands, or millions of people.

If he can't sell it then he's not getting a return on his investment of time and money. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you've said.

As for your example, it's a good one and certainly not easy for me to answer. Does the poet expect a return on his investment? Do the publishers? Is distributing this single poem going to create an unacceptable fiscal drain for either?

However, I'm a bit uneasy comparing a single poem with a single hit song, especially songs that are professionally produced. You don't need a recording studio for a poem, or a marketing team, and so the costs of creating and publishing a hit song are massive compared to a poem. It is in my opinion that one poem vs. one professionally produced song is comparing apples and oranges when considering the production costs of both.

This is a great discussion, and I look forward to your reply.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by Sands

I'm not sure I understand your first statement. With "original research", do you mean on the actual experiment level, or on the level of the author who researches through published literature? If it is the former then I would say that the revenue model for a university, and creating budgets for research projects might be different from the standard "make something and sell it to people" process. If it's the latter, then the cost of research, both time and money, is considerable... and that's part of the production process (the effort). The author can easily get a decent return on his investment by selling to the finished product to hundreds, thousands, or millions of people.

If he can't sell it then he's not getting a return on his investment of time and money. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you've said.

Well, not all research is done by universities. There are many different research institutes, bureaus, etc. In many cases, research is an actual product.

However, as soon as their findings become public, anyone is free to cite their work, and include their findings in new papers.

Originally Posted by Sands

As for your example, it's a good one and certainly not easy for me to answer. Does the poet expect a return on his investment? Do the publishers? Is distributing this single poem going to create an unacceptable fiscal drain for either?

However, I'm a bit uneasy comparing a single poem with a single hit song, especially songs that are professionally produced. You don't need a recording studio for a poem, or a marketing team, and so the costs of creating and publishing a hit song are massive compared to a poem. It is in my opinion that one poem vs. one professionally produced song is comparing apples and oranges when considering the production costs of both.

This is a great discussion, and I look forward to your reply.

I'd think that poets and their publishers hope to make a profit, especially if they're professionals.

As for the costs of production... I actually know poets who spend weeks on a single poem, so the costs in terms of labor of that would be huge. Plus, remember that quite a few bands manage to create fantastic music on shoestring budgets.

Marketing costs and the inflated costs of professional production, meanwhile, to me seem to simply point out that music is a more profitable industry than poetry. However, that doesn't exactly justify a greater degree of protection for the music.

Moreover, music has alternative streams of income. Aside from recordings, there are shows, t-shirts, advertisements, etc.

But even if you ignore all that, you can still look at something else: mixtapes. Making a mixtape for friends used to be quite common. Should that be considered "illegal violation of copyrights"? Should someone who makes a mixtape for his girlfriend be fined or thrown in prison?

[Sands]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Well, not all research is done by universities. There are many different research institutes, bureaus, etc. In many cases, research is an actual product.

However, as soon as their findings become public, anyone is free to cite their work, and include their findings in new papers.

If I'm not mistaken their findings become public when they submit them to research journals or something similar for publication. They are, from the very beginning, allowing their product to enter the public domain. I'm not knowledgable in how exactly research institutes go about getting money, but I suppose they're given grants or private funding to explore certain topics.

I feel that this again is apples and oranges since these research institutes are paid for their work beforehand, and they don't depend on the distribution of their findings for operating funds. This is in stark contrast to a porn producer who invests in a project with his own capital and expects a return on his investment. The money he will make is after, and not before his product is released.

Originally Posted by Libertine

I'd think that poets and their publishers hope to make a profit, especially if they're professionals.

As for the costs of production... I actually know poets who spend weeks on a single poem, so the costs in terms of labor of that would be huge. Plus, remember that quite a few bands manage to create fantastic music on shoestring budgets.

Marketing costs and the inflated costs of professional production, meanwhile, to me seem to simply point out that music is a more profitable industry than poetry. However, that doesn't exactly justify a greater degree of protection for the music.

So you mean to say that increased costs do not justify increased protection? I would have to disagree. The more money I spend on a product, the more I want to ensure that everyone who has it has paid for it. If this is not what you meant, please correct me.

Originally Posted by Libertine

Moreover, music has alternative streams of income. Aside from recordings, there are shows, t-shirts, advertisements, etc.

These all follow from a recording company's or an individual musician's effort. If there is no capital or time spent on nurturing a band, then there are no shows, t-shirts, advertisements, and etc. I see these as further fruits of a producer's labor, and not excuses to diminish the value of their initial product.

Originally Posted by Libertine

But even if you ignore all that, you can still look at something else: mixtapes. Making a mixtape for friends used to be quite common. Should that be considered "illegal violation of copyrights"? Should someone who makes a mixtape for his girlfriend be fined or thrown in prison?

Tricky tricky. Should that be considered "illegal violation of copyrights"? Yup. They're distributing a product that they don't have the legal right to. However, asking me if they should be thrown into prison is a misleading question since it draws comparisons to other crimes that are prison-worthy, and also because you and I both know that incarceration isn't the only way to punish a criminal or to dissuade potential offenders.

The distribution of mix-tapes may (and I'm not quite sure of it) lend to a recording company's favor by further promoting their product. If such is the case, then I doubt they'd want to try and press charges on every single person who has made and shared a mix-tape. However, I believe that comparing a mix-tape to the breadth and scope of content piracy nowadays just won't work. Where back in the good old days of casettes a single song was pirated from an album, you can now visit a torrent site and download, for free, an artist's entire catalogue.

This can be financially devastating, certainly does little to promote the production of newer "information", and only serves to mobilize production companies toward ludicrous lengths in stopping the hemorrhaging (such as urging harsher legislation for offenders).