General Discussions

So...are you going to download it?

POSTED BY: HanoverFist
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 17:00
VIEWED: 38663
PAGE 7 of 12

GROUNDED

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HanoverFist:
Is it wrong for me to download a copy of a song that I already own on CD?

The difference is you don't already own the right to have a copy of the film.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Nope, doesn't make you any sort of criminal at all... You simply exercised your fair use right and right to make an archival copy of your purchased DVD - out of order.

Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:
I downloaded "Team America, World Police."

Then when the movie came out, I bought it (it was only fair).

Does that make me a criminal? Technically yes. But did I do harm? Nope.

I very much doubt fair use applies retroactively.

JASONZZZ

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:49 PM

The studios have absolutely no clue on what's going on. Their entire idea of the economics is that everyone who made an 'illegal' d/l could have bought their product instead and thus subtracted from their profit base. That's just bunk. The fact is they haven't lost a dime. Independent studies have shown that they actually get a better sale from albums that have gone viral and from being sampled. Once word got out, people tried it, and liked it, they bought more.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:
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?

Leaked from the studio or insider is the most common form of these kinds of "piracy"... Most percentages of copies come from within the studio or the distribution chain itself.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:

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).

That's why they've switched the ads over to the clerks and stagehands talking about how you are taking money out of their children's mouths. Sympathy points from blue-collar to blue-collar.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:

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.

So, then here's where to logic is twisted. Did you really take any money away from anyone at all? If some of these d/l'ers never intended on making a purchase at all in the 1st place. No money was lost or stolen to begin with. The cost of the opportunity was 'ZERO'. Now, what if I were to show you independent industry studies that said that albums that had people d/l'ed actually made better sales from folks who tried it and liked it? What does that say?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:

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. S

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JASONZZZ

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:53 PM

And these people have a lot to learn about what IP rights mean in the new digital world and these new digital market places. These old market ideas of IP rights need to go out with the dinosaurs. Changes are happening all over the place and the people who hold on to old ideas with their dear lives will lose everything when those ideas become era of the bygone.

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
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

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

JASONZZZ

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:55 PM

Except for all of the prior permissions already afforded for fair use.

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
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

GRAVY

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:58 PM

I don't think this will hurt Serenity that much. Considering that it's a rather small movie, a good word around the net could actually boost DVD sales.

It's just pisses me off because I haven't seen the movie yet =/

JASONZZZ

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
Quote:
Can't support your opinion without trying to come across as a condescending asshole?

Actually, I don't have to TRY, I can do it in my sleep. Calling me names is not going to change the fact that what you advocate is wrong.

Well, it's illegal according to the most current interpretation of the various laws and how the courts are enforcing them from the various media corp/thugs. But I think wrong is the matter of opinion here.

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:

Quote:
Downloading the movie due to a lack in patience isn't morally wrong, it's life. People aren't perfect, we break down.

Implicit in your statement is an admission that bootlegging intellectual property is WRONG. No one says, "Buying brussels sprouts isn't morally wrong, People are human, we break down." You know it's wrong, you implicitly concede you're wrong. What you're doing here is seeking peer group approval and justification for doing WRONG. Sorry, you ain't gonna get it from me.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, the government can shove off.
This not the statement of someone who feels that the government's position is indefensible. It's not even a well-reasoned rebuttal, it's just defiance.

Quote:
we need our fix just like every other addict on this planet.
No, you don't even "need" it, you just "want" it. There are no documented symptoms of Firefly withdrawal, except anecdotally in your rationalizations. By saying this, you trivialize the lives of people who have real, medically documented addictions. Further, no one makes the case that a documented heroin addiction is just cause for taking another's property without consent.

Nothing I can say/type is going to change your mind, you clearly are gonna do what you're gonna do, much like any two-year old defying his parents. Your posts are just sticking your tongue out for a little ego boost.

Rebut this if you can: Joss and Universal OWN Serenity. Nowhere on the Serenity site, nor on the Universal board is there a button labelled, "Download Serenity for free." If they wanted you to have it for free, there would be.

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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By the way, is this quote by Heinlein considered a fair use within some kind of context? or did you just rip off Heinlein? if so, I think that's all kinds of wrong *and* ILLEGAL too!

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

R1Z

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:03 PM

Quote:
And these people have a lot to learn about what IP rights mean in the new digital world and these new digital market places. These old market ideas of IP rights need to go out with the dinosaurs. Changes are happening all over the place and the people who hold on to old ideas with their dear lives will lose everything when those ideas become era of the bygone.

Not so strangely, it seems to be the creators of the intellectual property at issue who seem to be "hold(ing)on to old ideas with their dear lives." Odd how artists still seem to want to exercise control over the dissemination of their creations.

I know how I felt when someone tried to take possesion of a file I created witout my permission (pissed off is how I felt, for those of you coming in late), and it would be a real stretch to call it an "artistic creation." It was, however, my work product, created on my premises with my computer on software I paid for. Wholly and entirely my creation.

I wonder how you would feel if it was your creation/work product/IP that others were going to remove from your control and disseminate across the web. I suspect that, if you place any value at all on your own work, you'd join their camp.

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

SEP7IMUS

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:08 PM

I jsut want to reiterate my post from above. It seems to me that, no matter which way you look at it, you're screwing someone over by downloading the movie (either the creators/owners of the movie or the people who run the P2P software).

(Sorry if it's poor form to quote myself. The thread's moving pretty quickly, and I felt like this got skipped. If you feel like ignoring it again, that's fine and I won't bring it up again. Heck, I won't be online for a while, anyway, so even if you DO respond, I won't be qable to respond back.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Sep7imus:
It seems to me that there are two approaches to justifying downloading the film, and it seems to me that both of them lead you into, at least, morally questionable ground.

First of all, I'm assuming that this DLing is being done through some sort of peer-to-peer system (Kazaa, Limewire, BitTorrent, etc.). If you download it from somewhere else (like someone has a webpage with it up) that might be different.

So, assuming you're considering P2Ping it:

OPTION 1: You download it and share it with other people via P2P (inevitable with BitTorrent, optional with Limewire, etc.).
-PROBLEM 1: If you share the movie with others, YOU might not be taking money from Joss et al. (if one accepts the "I've seen the movie a lot and will defintiely buy the DVD" argument), but you can't guarantee that that is the case for those with whom you share it. So, you're still screwing Joss et al. out of profits that they might have gotten from people seeing the movie in theaters or buying the DVD.

OPTION 2: You download it and DON'T share it withother people via P2P.
-PROBLEM 2: This is generally frowned upon in the P2P community. If there is a code of ethics among P2Pers (and there sort of is), it's based on shared access to information/property and the idea that sharing is a good thing. If you don't share what you've downloaded, you're "leeching." This is also morally bad. (If you don't subscribe to the idea that leeching is morally wrong, then it hardly seems fair that you exploit the moral stance that others have taken by sharing stuff...)

Finally, if you get it some other way (like from a friend online who P2Ped it or something), you're probably still implciated in the same P2P economy.

So, so far as I can tell, there's not a morally justifiable way to be downloading the movie.

KELLAINA

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
Quote:
Is this really worth telling someone that they are going to go to hell for it (even the special one)?

I still don't see how it's ripping off anyone if no money is being lost. Yes, I see how it's illegal and wrong, but not 'ripping off' someone.

Per Shepherd Book, the "Special Hell" is reserved for child molesters, people who talk at the theatre, and folk who take sexual advantage of wives they didn't actually marry.

Yeah, I know what the 'special hell' is, I was objecting to your use of it.

Quote:
You concede it's "illegal and wrong", either of which is reason enough to NOT do something for a moral person. In my canon of sins, theft of intellectual property is about halfway between child molestation and talking at the theatre, thus placing the offender squarely in the special hell. Your canon may differ.

Just because something is illegal, it doesn't make it immoral. I think it's wrong that downloading is the only way some people watch movies or listen to music - they are 'ripping off' the artist/producer/technicians etc. But for a person who will buy the DVD, they aren't technically depriving them of anything.

And yeah, my canon differs. Child molesters deserve a special level of hell that talking at the theatre doesn't come close to approaching.

Quote:
Maybe it's just the fact that I live in Nashville, where we have a special sensitivity to the ripping off of someone's hard work. You can't heave a brick in this town without hitting a performer or songwriter who's been bootlegged. And yes, it is ripping someone off. It's depriving them of control over what they've done.

I agree it's taking away their control over their product, but the only way to avoid it entirely is to never release it in the first place. But to me that's a different issue. Maybe we're differing on what 'ripping off' means (probably means different things in different regions). I'm thinking off it in purely economic terms.

Quote:

Quote:
Is it wrong for me to download a copy of a song that I already own on CD?

Quote:
No, it's not. You bought a license to REPEATEDLY listen to the content of the CD when you purchased the CD. You did not purchase a license to copy and distribute the content, nor even to broadcast it over the airwaves, or play it for public amusement. Radio stations and jukeboxes pay royalties.

However, you don't already own Serenity. The ticket you bought was a limited license to view the film ONCE. You can't use the same ticket to get back in a week later. You certainly can't use the license you bought by buying a ticket to copy the film and view it repeatedly elsewhere, nor can you disseminate copies of it.

I don't remember buying any DVDs that came with a note on them saying I could download a copy.

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/

R1Z

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:10 PM

Quote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By the way, is this quote by Heinlein considered a fair use within some kind of context? or did you just rip off Heinlein? if so, I think that's all kinds of wrong *and* ILLEGAL too!

I belive an attributed single line quote is acceptable fair use, but I could be wrong, and it's an interesting point.

Anybody got any hard data on subject?

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