So...are you going to download it?

POSTED BY: HanoverFist
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 17:00
VIEWED: 38663
PAGE 4 of 12

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

HANOVERFIST

Monday, October 24, 2005 6:41 PM

If you are buying the RIAA and MPAA line that piracy is hurting profits then you might want to do a bit more research. A handful of people (or even tens of thousands) are not going to hurt this film's bottom line.

So why is downloading something wrong? Because it takes food from the mouths of all the starving artists in Hollywood? Gimme a break. Is it wrong just because it says so in some lawbook somewhere? In Texas, oral sex is still technically illegal. If that is wrong I don't want to be right! Is downloading something wrong because it is stealing? Well, what is stealing then? If I download a movie, the movie is still in the possession of the original owner. I have only made a copy. So am I paying for the priviledge of viewing it; for the experience? So should we then buy licenses for entertainment: i.e. we buy as many licenses as there are people in our family?...because we are paying for the experience, not the actual media and film. Sounds like a mess to me.

Or do you say it is wrong because it runs contrary to your perceptions of how 'your' film should be treated. Trust me, downloading Serenity will do nothing to the bottom line, except possiby help it because it gets the word out. (Viral marketing?) If there are even millions of pirate DVDs in China, it is not like they are buying the movie INSTEAD of seeing it thatrically. They probably would just not watch it at all. How does that help the BDM?

So I propose the question again...Why exactly is downloading this movie wrong if you have paid to see it in the theaters, can no longer see it in a theater, and you are going to buy at least one copy of the DVD when it is released? What is being thieved?

WEICHI

Monday, October 24, 2005 7:25 PM

Responding to HanoverFist. Yeah, I think you do need to buy "a license" to view things - its called a ticket or a DVD.

Look, I do not pretend to know the economics of all this - but clearly some of those who download stuff do so instead of buying a ticket or buying a DVD. So, you must admit that those folks are stealing, right?

So going through the trouble of providing downloads is encouraged by each and every person who downloads - so even the most Robin Hood of theives is making it more attractive for folks to provide downloads, leading to more folks downloading instead of buying.

That is where I see the harm. I doubt either one of us knows the actual costs, but I suspect the Studios have an idea, and they don't seem too pleased that it is going on.

Maybe that is part of the reason Universal is releasing "King Kong" on DVD and in the theaters at the same time? Sell the impatient a DVD before they steal it online.

Its very convenient to claim you have no impact. That way you have no personal responsability.

See how I'm not punching him, I think I've grown!

YORG

Monday, October 24, 2005 8:13 PM

Ok I think I understand what's going on.

If a friend asks to borrow a movie/cd/game that's ok, because you're just lending it to them/sharing.

But if your friend downloads a movie/cd/game it's stealing, because it came from the internet.

If you invite 10 friends over to watch your brand new dvd that you bought, it's a party.

But if 10 people download a movie from the internet, it's stealing.

If you want something that's considered "old" (meaning: not popular anymore), you can go to the library and borrow it for free. And that's ok.

If you want something that's consiered "old" and you download it from the internet; then you're stealing.

If it's a matter of *keeping* the property, then there is still no point. If you download it, you can keep it until you're sick of it.

If you borrow it from a friend you can keep it until you're sick of it, or they ask for it back. And later on you can ask to borrow it again as long as your friend is your friend.

But if you copy it, then you're stealing, because watching/listening/reading something is not stealing, but copying it is.

That's where it's funny. Media is intellectual property. Once you're seen/heard/read it, you've seen/heard/read it. You've already taken in that piece of intellectual property.

Examples:

A car is physical property, if you test drive a BMW, it doesn't mean you own it. You have to pay to own it.

A movie is intellectual property, if you watch a movie, then you own the experience. It's in your brain. The only time you pay, is to view it (theatre/dvd).

So if you experience a piece of intellectual property without paying to view it, then you are stealing. If you borrow it from a friend, it's stealing. If you go to a party and everyone watches a dvd together, it's stealing.

Now . . . do you see how stupid it sounds to say that downloading is stealing?

Not that I'm saying people shouldn't be supporting Firefly. I bought the dvd series and will buy the serenity dvd. I won't be downloading it because I have patience. Some things need people's help to thrive (like Firefly), but other things aren't so worthwhile.

KELLAINA

Monday, October 24, 2005 8:43 PM

First of all, I know you were responding to someone else, but this seems like a good place to jump in, so here I am .

Quote:
Originally posted by weichi:
Look, I do not pretend to know the economics of all this - but clearly some of those who download stuff do so instead of buying a ticket or buying a DVD. So, you must admit that those folks are stealing, right?

So going through the trouble of providing downloads is encouraged by each and every person who downloads - so even the most Robin Hood of theives is making it more attractive for folks to provide downloads, leading to more folks downloading instead of buying.

This is actually what I don't understand about downloading. Who puts the first copy up? Depending on how the film is obtained it doesn't sound easy, and if its being downloaded for free, who is making money off of it?

And yes, it is illegal. I don't think anyone is questioning that, it's more the issue of the harm being done.

Quote:
That is where I see the harm. I doubt either one of us knows the actual costs, but I suspect the Studios have an idea, and they don't seem too pleased that it is going on.

The studio heads are the ones concerned - it's cutting into their huge salaries. If the industry is hurting enough that the regularly paid actors and crew members are at risk of losing money, I'd argue that maybe 30% of a movie's budget shouldn't be going to one actor.

(Does anyone remember those MPAA ads from a few years ago where Ben Affleck talked about how people were being hurt from downloading? It almost made me want to download something, and normally I really like him).

Quote:
Maybe that is part of the reason Universal is releasing "King Kong" on DVD and in the theaters at the same time? Sell the impatient a DVD before they steal it online.

Here's where I disagree completely. Most people who download are going to do so regardless of whether the DVD is available. Why? They don't want to pay for it - at all.

Quote:
Its very convenient to claim you have no impact. That way you have no personal responsability.

In this case, it seems that if you are buying the DVD and seeing the film in a theatre there isn't any impact. The harm/loss to the studio comes from when people download and then DON'T go to the theatre or buy the DVD. 'Cause then they aren't making any money off of it.

Yes, it's justifying something that is illegal, but that's what it is. Same thing if you speed while driving. The majority do no harm. (I realize that the possibility of killing someone is a bit different then stealing a movie but it was the first one I thought of).

Personally, I've never downloaded anything illegally. I like seeing movies on the big screen. BUT I have cause the studios to lose money. Why? Because after years of paying to see absolutely awful movies, I've pretty much stopped going.

So to answer the first question... will I download it? Probably not. But I can understand why many will.

But that's just my $0.02.

And apologies for the rambling.

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/

LIMINALOSITY

Monday, October 24, 2005 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cassandrae:
Some would argue that even making art using images from the show and movie for non-commerical/personal use,( wallpapers/blends/art are not allowed.)

Take 11th Hour's art work(she has a store in cafe press), it's all created from scratch and FF related, so yes, she's allowed to sell and do whatever she wants with her designs.
~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~
MAL: "I'll never understand rich folk. All that money, this is what they do with it."
INARA:"It's art."
Mal: "It's puppets."
Inara: "It's puppet art."--Heart of Gold, Transcript

Thanks again.
I like to be on the side of these lines where I haven't done something to upset the artists, or taken any handsfull of dough that should have been theirs, and I haven't done anything that's actionable by the distributor either.
I may use a quote, or start with a framegrab, but it will be Firefly as reflected off my imagination - as your things.
I especially like High Stakes, Mod Inara and Jayne & Kayllee

the OT pirate

PHOEBE

Monday, October 24, 2005 9:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by weichi:
These download sites must feed egos or make money somewhere, and helping their volume helps them exist for all those "bad thieves" as opposed to you principled ones, folks might-would've GONE to our BDM let alone bought the DVD if you'all hadn't helped them with a plan of the bank.

But its a rich bank, and it ain't any of our money, so nobody raise a fuss.

On the contrary. There are VERY few browncoats who downloaded Serenity until AFTER it went off the cinema, i.e. until AFTER people had the opportunity to see it. In fact, Serenity took a LOT longer to be available online than most movies. That's the strong stance we took AGAINST such piracy.

GROUNDED

Monday, October 24, 2005 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yorg:
That's where it's funny. Media is intellectual property. Once you're seen/heard/read it, you've seen/heard/read it. You've already taken in that piece of intellectual property.

Examples:

A car is physical property, if you test drive a BMW, it doesn't mean you own it. You have to pay to own it.

A movie is intellectual property, if you watch a movie, then you own the experience. It's in your brain. The only time you pay, is to view it (theatre/dvd).

So if you experience a piece of intellectual property without paying to view it, then you are stealing. If you borrow it from a friend, it's stealing. If you go to a party and everyone watches a dvd together, it's stealing.

Now . . . do you see how stupid it sounds to say that downloading is stealing?

Lending a book/CD etc. to a friend is permitted under the first sale doctrine (legal folks correct me if I'm wrong). You can lend the item, sell it on, or dispose of it if you want to, but you're not allowed to reproduce it. Downloading creates a new copy of the original file - a reproduction. And in this case the original was an illegal copy in the first place.

When you pay to see a movie in a theatre you are not buying the right to see that movie as many times as you like in the future. If you were, they wouldn't tear off part of the ticket before you go in...

R1Z

Monday, October 24, 2005 10:59 PM

You folks can rationalize all you want--to quote The Big Chill, "rationalization is more important than sex. When's the last time you went a week witout a rationalizaion?"

Serenity, whether it's a 35mm print, a VHS tape, a DVD or a computer file, belongs to Joss and Universal, and they get to say who gets to watch it. Right now, they say people who buy tickets can see it. You are free, however, to close your eyes and relive the experience as often as you like.

When it comes out on DVD, people who buy or rent the DVD and their guests may watch it. As many times as they like.

It's not a matter of documenting damage to anyone. It's their intellectual property. If they choose to post it on the net for free distribution, you may then download it. Not until then.

If you steal from Wal-Mart, they will never feel the pain, except in the aggregate. If you stage a phoney car crash for the insurance money, no single policy holder will feel any pain. Nonetheless, it's WRONG. It's not yours to take, so get used to it. The courts, the churches and the owners of intellectual property all agree, you can't have it for free. If it was OK, they'd tell you.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

HANOVERFIST

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
The courts, the churches and the owners of intellectual property all agree, you can't have it for free. If it was OK, they'd tell you.

No offense, but the day I start letting the government, the superstitious and the corporations tell me what is right and wrong without a d@mn good explanation is the day I stopped thinking for myself. You will pardon me if I am not satisfied with the "because I said so" argument.

R1Z

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:06 AM

Not all owners of intellectual property are corporations. I just finished threatening to prosecute someone who attempted to steal one of my files. It was/is my work product, created by me, on my premises, on my computer, with software I paid for. I agreed to sell him a printed paper copy, not the file. He tried to get the file from the printer, who refused to give it to him and called me.

I can assure you that the file is my property, and no, you can't download it, either. It's mine, and I get to determine who gets a copy.

(edit)
Oh, yeah, because it's mine, and I said so. Nothing you can rationalize will change the fact that taking another's property without permission is THEFT.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE