The tricky issue of downloading

[Stubblecat]

As pomised, this thread exists for the debate about the moral, legal and social aspects of downloading.

Everyone here has definitely downloaded at least one song 'illegally' in their lives.
A lot of people here have probably downloaded several songs and maybe a television episode or two.
And maybe a couple of us have downloaded a full-length movie.

So... when is it justified? I pay handsomely for my cable, but on Wednesdays and Thursdays there are three shows on at once and I can't watch them all. So the next day I download the torrents, burn them onto DVD and watch them.

Being Canadian, I can't watch these shows on Hulu or any other U.S.-based website (due to American broadcasters' fears of Canada's copyright laws).
Does my paid-in-full cable bill allow me to download these shows?

Or how about when you seek out torrents of out-of-print and non R1 titles? I love the original U.K. television show Life On Mars, but you can't buy it in an R1 version. Is it wrong it to download the torrent so I can watch the show?

This just scratches the surface. I have yet to discuss theatrical releases. What about the guy living in Nakina, Ontario, who can't see theatrical films becuase the closest movie theater is a 3-hour plane flight away? Can he download a move onto his laptop and watch it?

Discuss...

[molly1216]

you are making a lot of assumptions

i have never downloaded a song or television show or movie illegally.
My reasons are my own
I am not about to tell anyone else what to do.
but if someone where to download something of mine illegally i'd have a fit.

I will buy something 'gray market' if it is not commercially available.

[Stubblecat]

You've never downloaded one single song off the original Napster, or Limewire or Bearshare or any other P2P server, ever?

I find that a little difficult to believe that in 2009. No offense. Really, I mean that.

But I will fan the flames some more... You say that you'd prefer to fuel the illegal bootleg trade via the 'gray market' if given the choice?

Those 5-dollar DVDs you can buy on the streets of New York can be traced back to organized crime, prostitution and the drug trade overseas.

So I when I can't catch Lost because I was watching another show, what should I do? I guess I could wait 6 months for the DVD... Or I could buy a bootleg... Or I could just download the torrent the next day.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound hostile. I mean to spark a little debate.

[Shmoooooo]

You've never downloaded one single song off the original Napster, or Limewire or Bearshare or any other P2P server, ever?

I find that a little difficult to believe that in 2009. No offense. Really, I mean that.

But I will fan the flames some more... You say that you'd prefer to fuel the illegal bootleg trade via the 'gray market' if given the choice?

Those 5-dollar DVDs you can buy on the streets of New York can be traced back to organized crime, prostitution and the drug trade overseas.

So I when I can't catch Lost because I was watching another show, what should I do? I guess I could wait 6 months for the DVD... Or I could buy a bootleg... Or I could just download the torrent the next day.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound hostile. I mean to spark a little debate.

I've NEVER downloaded a single song, movie or television show. I am an I.T. professional and could easily do so if I choose to ... but have a set of ethics that will not allow me to steal content such as that. I have many many friends who choose to do so, I do not judge them for it, but when they ask me why I stupidly choose to pay for something I can get for free I simply tell them that I am not a thief and won't steal what I can pay for.

If something is not available to me via purchase I MIGHT be willing to download it ... but there has never been a time that that question has come up.

I am not a moral nazi by any stretch of the imagination ... but I pay for my entertainment.

Just because you, and probably almost everyone you know, downloads and steals movies/music doesn't mean everyone on this board does. As Molly said, that is quite an assumption.

My problem is that most of the world is like you ... and has no problem stealing your movies. Once bandwidth gets high enough very few people will be buying movies. Where are the studios going to get the profits to continue to make movies??? At least music has concerts ... which is where the majority of their income comes from nowadays ... all movies have is theaters ... and with HDTV's becoming larger and cheaper there is less and less demand for those ... it won't be too long before everyone is stealing movies and watching them at home ... what does that mean to all of us? No more movies! Sure there will be some, but not like today. Movies, as an art form is coming to an end, and it's all due to the pathetic moral fiber of the world as a whole. It's sad really, but who cares, at least you can get your movies for free right now right?

[Steve T Power]

I typically buy. But i will download if the circumstances are right. I consider a download to be a "trial", if i like what i see/hear/play, i give them my money. My thought process works on weird levels though: I typically will not even bother if it's not something I've had some degree of interest in ahead of time, and typically, i just go buy things that i'm interested in. So outside of getting a few things a week or two before release, i don't really download. I VERY seldom bother with TV shows or Movies, i can count how many of either i've downloaded on one hand, and it's usually something that isn't available in our region.

[Stubblecat]

I've NEVER downloaded a single song, movie or television show. I am an I.T. professional and could easily do so if I choose to ... but have a set of ethics that will not allow me to steal content such as that. I have many many friends who choose to do so, I do not judge them for it, but when they ask me why I stupidly choose to pay for something I can get for free I simply tell them that I am not a thief and won't steal what I can pay for.

If something is not available to me via purchase I MIGHT be willing to download it ... but there has never been a time that that question has come up.

I am not a moral nazi by any stretch of the imagination ... but I pay for my entertainment.

Just because you, and probably almost everyone you know, downloads and steals movies/music doesn't mean everyone on this board does. As Molly said, that is quite an assumption.

My problem is that most of the world is like you ... and has no problem stealing your movies. Once bandwidth gets high enough very few people will be buying movies. Where are the studios going to get the profits to continue to make movies??? At least music has concerts ... which is where the majority of their income comes from nowadays ... all movies have is theaters ... and with HDTV's becoming larger and cheaper there is less and less demand for those ... it won't be too long before everyone is stealing movies and watching them at home ... what does that mean to all of us? No more movies! Sure there will be some, but not like today. Movies, as an art form is coming to an end, and it's all due to the pathetic moral fiber of the world as a whole. It's sad really, but who cares, at least you can get your movies for free right now right?

Ah, but now you are makign assumptions about me and my character...

I've paid top-dollar for movie tickets, videos, laserdiscs, DVDs, and Blu-Rays my whole life. Have I recently downloaded some movies? Absolutely. Have I also recently bought Blu-Rays at about 30 bucks a pop? You betcha.

Maybe I'll shift the focus here away from the morality and over to the issue of the business end of things:

In short: Why didn't anyone in the movie business see this coming? The example of the crumbling music industry should have been a clarion call that the studios need to get pay-per-view downloading as part of their business model.

It's 2009. Why hasn't one of the majors toyed with charging for streaming first-run movies? With a DIVX-style (remember that technology?) limited-time download, the studios could theoretically charge, say, 10 dollars for a film which you can transfer onto a DIVX disc or some sort of DRM-protected USB device. You now have 24 hours to watch this movie before it times out.

Sure, people will probably learn to crack a device like this. But I bet the overwhelming number of paid downloads would totally negate the small-but-dedicated group who would always find a way around paying. Look at iTunes: People can always get a song on any P2P site or through torrents, but iTunes can charge 99 cents for a clean, safe download. iTunes is closing in on 6 billion downloads. And it's not just 99 cents a track. In the U.K. it's 79 Pence, or roughly U.S. $1.60 per track. Sure, the music industry is hurting, but that can be blamed first and foremost on how they've tried to run the show with outdated thinking (ie: killing the 'single', not encouraging low-cost E.P.s from their artists, not licensing tracks to third parties for compilation collections, suing their customers...).

This is where I look at the studios crying foul and ask them "How did you miss this?" Of course people will find a way to get your product for free! As long as movie tickets are overpriced, concession prices are ridiculous, theaters are filled with noisy yahoos, young pretty faces get paid 10 million dollars to star in insipid PG-13 romantic comedies, studios hand out DVD screeners indiscriminately to anyone even remotely related to the business and computers exist... the problem will remain.

If there was a legal, affordable means for me to watch first-run movies on my home theater while my kids are upstairs sleeping and I can pause it if I need to use the washroom, then I would be the first in line to buy it.

[Stubblecat]

I've NEVER downloaded a single song, movie or television show. I am an I.T. professional and could easily do so if I choose to ... but have a set of ethics that will not allow me to steal content such as that. I have many many friends who choose to do so, I do not judge them for it, but when they ask me why I stupidly choose to pay for something I can get for free I simply tell them that I am not a thief and won't steal what I can pay for.

If something is not available to me via purchase I MIGHT be willing to download it ... but there has never been a time that that question has come up.

I am not a moral nazi by any stretch of the imagination ... but I pay for my entertainment.

Just because you, and probably almost everyone you know, downloads and steals movies/music doesn't mean everyone on this board does. As Molly said, that is quite an assumption.

My problem is that most of the world is like you ... and has no problem stealing your movies. Once bandwidth gets high enough very few people will be buying movies. Where are the studios going to get the profits to continue to make movies??? At least music has concerts ... which is where the majority of their income comes from nowadays ... all movies have is theaters ... and with HDTV's becoming larger and cheaper there is less and less demand for those ... it won't be too long before everyone is stealing movies and watching them at home ... what does that mean to all of us? No more movies! Sure there will be some, but not like today. Movies, as an art form is coming to an end, and it's all due to the pathetic moral fiber of the world as a whole. It's sad really, but who cares, at least you can get your movies for free right now right?

Ah, but now you are making assumptions about me and my character...

I've paid top-dollar for movie tickets, videos, laserdiscs, DVDs, and Blu-Rays my whole life. Have I recently downloaded some movies? Absolutely. Have I also recently bought Blu-Rays at about 30 bucks a pop? You betcha.

Maybe I'll shift the focus here away from the morality and over to the issue of the business end of things:

In short: Why didn't anyone in the movie business see this coming? The example of the crumbling music industry should have been a clarion call that the studios need to get pay-per-view downloading as part of their business model.

It's 2009. Why hasn't one of the majors toyed with charging for streaming first-run movies? With a DIVX-style (remember that technology?) limited-time download, the studios could theoretically charge, say, 10 dollars for a film which you can transfer onto a DIVX disc or some sort of DRM-protected USB device. You now have 24 hours to watch this movie before it times out.

Sure, people will probably learn to crack a device like this. But I bet the overwhelming number of paid downloads would totally negate the small-but-dedicated group who would always find a way around paying. Look at iTunes: People can always get a song on any P2P site or through torrents, but iTunes can charge 99 cents for a clean, safe download. iTunes is closing in on 6 billion downloads. And it's not just 99 cents a track. In the U.K. it's 79 Pence, or roughly U.S. $1.60 per track. Sure, the music industry is hurting, but that can be blamed first and foremost on how they've tried to run the show with outdated thinking (ie: killing the 'single', not encouraging low-cost E.P.s from their artists, not licensing tracks to third parties for compilation collections, suing their customers...).

This is where I look at the studios crying foul and ask them "How did you miss this?" Of course people will find a way to get your product for free! As long as movie tickets are overpriced, concession prices are ridiculous, theaters are filled with noisy yahoos, young pretty faces get paid 10 million dollars to star in insipid PG-13 romantic comedies, studios hand out DVD screeners indiscriminately to anyone even remotely related to the business and computers exist... the problem will remain.

If there was a legal, affordable means for me to watch first-run movies on my home theater while my kids are upstairs sleeping and I can pause it if I need to use the washroom, then I would be the first in line to buy it.

[molly1216]

You've never downloaded one single song off the original Napster, or Limewire or Bearshare or any other P2P server, ever?

I find that a little difficult to believe that in 2009. No offense. Really, I mean that.

But I will fan the flames some more... You say that you'd prefer to fuel the illegal bootleg trade via the 'gray market' if given the choice?

Those 5-dollar DVDs you can buy on the streets of New York can be traced back to organized crime, prostitution and the drug trade overseas.

So I when I can't catch Lost because I was watching another show, what should I do? I guess I could wait 6 months for the DVD... Or I could buy a bootleg... Or I could just download the torrent the next day.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound hostile. I mean to spark a little debate.

you want to spark debate?
<please insert at least three vulgar epithets here>

NO I HAVE NEVER EFFING DOWNLOADED ILLEGALLY.
and NO i don't buy $5 DVDS from organized crime
If i buy a copy of something from another movie freak or on R0 from outside the country
that is not offered for sale here in the US.
then technically I am not depriving a studio of any profits = greymarket
and when it becomes available i replace it with the better copy.
and organized crime is busy selling pirated copies of Watchman on street corners THAT is blackmarket.

i suggest you keep your ASSumptions to yourself and only discus ethics and theory.
or i will lock this thread.

[molly1216]

has anyone mentioned that downloading that much crap from the internet fills up your hard drives?
cause it does and then you wonder why you downloaded all that crap in the 1st place.

[Stubblecat]

Okay, I don't mean to anger anyone here.

I'm just trying to open a dialogue about downloading. It does happen, and people do do it all the time. I like to present rhetorical questions about the nature of the entertainment business and the way people get it.

How about buying used DVDs? No artist gets paid if after I buy a movie, it gets sold 6 more times to other people over its lifetime. I just came back from a used-CD place and sold a small bunch of DVDs and Blu-Rays. I got $130 for my discs. And now if that store sells them all, they'll probably pull in about $600 after markup.

To me, that could be perceived the same way some people look at downloading.

Again... Obviously this is a sensitive subject for some people. I'm not endorsing downloading nor am I commending or damning anyone for what they do.

Does anyone else have any thoughts about the studios, movies and the unstoppable influence of the internet?

[Dunnyman]

I'm in several categories of downloading here, so let me give my reasons for each:
1)Music, as a musician, I'm not thrilled with people out and out stealing music. On the other hand, certain titles, I consider myself to own the living hell out of them, like the Beatles catalog. I bought every single release on vinyl, cassette and CD (still have a few 8 tracks, too), I could have spent hours ripping all the CD's to MP3, but why? I merely downloaded them to save me some time. I also have some downloads of Beatle bootlegs. They're simply unavailable elsewhere. If the Beatles would put these out I would certainly buy them, but they won't, and as a musician and songwriter, listening to the genesis of Strawberry Fields Forever taught me a helluva lot about writing. I also download music on a trial basis, when researching some new stuff, I downloaded some Sloan. I loved it, and bought 5 CD's over the next three weeks. I'll also download a single in anticipation of buying the CD. The death of the "classic single" makes buying it useless, it's one song, that you will get on the CD, so in actuality, you're buying it twice. I snagged Tinted Windows new song, because I will CERTAINLY buy the CD the second it's out, I will go see them live as many times as possible, and buy anything else they put out. What harm in it? Then, I've replaced things that have gone missing, stolen CD's, lost cassettes, etc. I've bought it once, why should I have to buy it again? Especially when I've bought a gazillion t-shirts, bumperstickers and concert tickets of these bands. I also tend to buy a lot of used CD's and these are perfectly legal, yet put no cash in the artist's pocket, should I not buy them then?

2.TV, I pay for my cable, but the hassle with my Tivo, getting it to work right, not cut off things, etc was more trouble than it's worth. If I'm not home to watch, I get home later, and download the episodes I missed. About all I'm missing is the commercials, and while they do pay a huge amount of money to help support the shows, I have never been influenced by a commercial in my life. I don't care how funny the Coke commercial in the SuperBowl was, I don't drink their product. Mercedes can tell me how great their cars are all they want, I'll never, ever buy one. I look at skipping the commercials as a time saver, and how is watching a commercial-less show any different than fast forwarding through the commercials? I also download sporting events I cannot see due to work, trying to record a sporting event is tricky with extra innings, overtime, rain delays, etc. As long as no one tells me the score, I get to cheer my team on. (Note to Casey at my work, if you ever blurt out a score of my Sharks again, I'll brain ya!)

3.Movies. I download stuff I can't get here. R0's, R2's, make them available, and I'll buy them. I saw and very much enjoyed While the City Sleeps, but it's OOP on VHS and has never been released on DVD, but someone got a great TV capture of it so I downloaded it. On old movies I'm stoked to be able to buy collections and boxed sets, but if they're not for sale? I'll also snag a copy of something recent (usually a cam job) that I really enjoyed, and I usually buy the DVD. Take Zack and Miri. I saw it three times in the theater, downloaded a ratty copy of it because I couldn't convince my brother to go see it. He dug it, went to the theater, and upon it's release I bought two Blu-Ray copies of it. I'll bet if you asked Kevin Smith, he'd be cool with that. Why the ratty copy then? To convince others to try the film, to show a better version of the trailer to someone who might not have given the film a try, to refer to certain plot points or dialogue when writing about on some DVD board I belong to... Have I ever downloaded something I didn't see at the multiplex? Yes, but 99.99% of the time it's something I would never, ever go to the theater to see. Like Valkyrie, I snagged a good copy of it, realized in the first ten minutes that it sucked big time, and was thrilled I hadn't wasted 10 bucks on it....I deleted the file because I didn't care to see it. I consider that no different than sitting in a chair at Barnes and Noble to read the first ten pages of a book to decide if I like it.
'Tis but my two pence....

[Stubblecat]

Well said!

The television point is extremely poignant. Last night I let my kids stay up late and I ended up not watching Lost, Life On Mars and Being Erica (2 of which were on at the same time). I don't own a VCR anymore, and I don't really watch enough TV to justify buying a TIVO and paying a monthly subscription for it.

However, I do pay my monthly cable bill.

So This morning I downloaded the torrents for those 3 shows. Waiting until the Summer to see them in reruns isn't viable, and Life On Mars won't even be replayed, as it's cancelled in April. I downloaded them and I'll watch them with my wife (who was out and couldn't see them) at our convenience.

I'm not stealing anything, as I pay for my cable. And I'd go to Hulu.com, but as I mentioned before it's illegal for Canadians to watch American television online.

[molly1216]

How about buying used DVDs? No artist gets paid if after I buy a movie, it gets sold 6 more times to other people over its lifetime. I just came back from a used-CD place and sold a small bunch of DVDs and Blu-Rays. I got $130 for my discs. And now if that store sells them all, they'll probably pull in about $600 after markup.

To me, that could be perceived the same way some people look at downloading.

Then you are ill educated

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. That means that copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule".

[Steve T Power]

How about buying used DVDs? No artist gets paid if after I buy a movie, it gets sold 6 more times to other people over its lifetime. I just came back from a used-CD place and sold a small bunch of DVDs and Blu-Rays. I got $130 for my discs. And now if that store sells them all, they'll probably pull in about $600 after markup.

To me, that could be perceived the same way some people look at downloading.

Then you are ill educated

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. That means that copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule".

I don't think he meant from a legal standpoint. More of a moral thing. Who makes the cash off of a used DVD sale? Certainly not the studios or filmmakers. This issue is a HUGE one right now in the games industry.

[Shmoooooo]

Ah, but now you are making assumptions about me and my character...

I do not believe I have made any assumptions ... I am making a judgment on your character by what you have written. You have stated that you download illegally, you have stated that you believe everyone does it (which is quite a revealing statement in it's own right), you agreed that it's wrong to download independent movies and not so much with studio movies, you have made arguments as to why you don't agree with the law (how American studios don't allow Canadians to download their content) and why you should be allowed to break it. You just stated how you find it inconvenient to wait if you missed an episode so you steal it. I had no opinion on whether or not you have ever bought movies or blu-rays ... and your statements haven't changed my opinion.

The tricky issue of downloading is simple ... it's not tricky. If you download illegally then you are breaking the law. It's quite black and white. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right. Just because it's easy to do doesn't make it right. Just because it's inconvenient or expensive to do the right thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. I don't blame you for wanting to steer the direction of this debate away from the morality of downloading ... because deep down I think you know full well that is a debate you won't be able to win.

[mkiker2089]

It is a complex debate and if you think it isn't then you aren't thinking deep enough. Some points off the top of my head

1- the record industry has sort of brought it on themselves with albums full of crap and one good song combined with escalating prices. However no one "needs" a song so they legally should do without before pirating

2- most people who do download only download fringeware. By that I mean stuff they wouldn't buy anyway that is insignificant to them. For example I may download a catchy disco tune that I heard on the radio but I will never buy a Gloria Gaynor cd. while that strictly speaking is illegal Gloria Gaynor would have never had my money so in the end who is hurt? Isn't hurting the artist the ONLY reason why downloading is illegal / wrong?

3- and some piracy does lead to purchases. Not nearly as much as people claim, but some really does. I know that I myself heard a song on a friends XM, downloaded a few from the artist, then bought the CD.

4- the used market is in my opinion legal piracy. I buy used but I know that the used market is hurting the gaming industry, now more than ever. Gamestop in a way is killing the publishers by pushing their consumer base so heavily towards used. Is that balanced out by the fact that people will buy new knowing they can trade it in later, I don't think it is but I could be wrong.

5- piracy often is a way for people to get stuff they wouldn't be able to otherwise

6- is it piracy if the content is free? If I download House is that piracy? Do I need to download it with commercials?

[Gobear]

The tricky issue of downloading is simple ... it's not tricky. If you download illegally then you are breaking the law. It's quite black and white. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right. Just because it's easy to do doesn't make it right. Just because it's inconvenient or expensive to do the right thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. I don't blame you for wanting to steer the direction of this debate away from the morality of downloading ... because deep down I think you know full well that is a debate you won't be able to win.

"If you download illegally then you are breaking the law" is a tautology and conveys no useful information. And you have failed to notice that Stubblecat is a denizen of Canuckistan, where the laws are different from ours. As difficult as it may be for some people to understand, US law does not apply to other countries.

For me, the moral issue is: am I hurting anyone? That's why I don't download movies that are in the theater or on DVD, and I don't download current music. Artists and studios should be recompensed for their work. However, I will download new Dr. Who epissodes with a clear conscience. I'm an American who doesn't want to wait 6 months to watch the crappily edited version on Sci-fi. I'm not stealing from anyone because no revenue has been lost. And I delete them after I watch them.

[Stubblecat]

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. That means that copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule".

I'm Canadian.

Every country has different copyright laws, but what Steve was saying was the point I was trying to make. It's hard to take one firm moral stance when there are so many variables.

[molly1216]

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. That means that copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule".

I'm Canadian.

i don't remember you adding that as a parameter for the discussion

Every country has different copyright laws, but what Steve was saying was the point I was trying to make. It's hard to take one firm moral stance when there are so many variables.

no it's hard to take a Legal stance when you are talking apples and oranges
taking a moral stance is easy.
downloading illegally is. . .well, illegal.
and not everyone does it.

and people wonder why RIAA gets crazy in the head....

[Stubblecat]

Ah, but now you are making assumptions about me and my character...

I do not believe I have made any assumptions ... I am making a judgment on your character by what you have written. You have stated that you download illegally, you have stated that you believe everyone does it (which is quite a revealing statement in it's own right), you agreed that it's wrong to download independent movies and not so much with studio movies, you have made arguments as to why you don't agree with the law (how American studios don't allow Canadians to download their content) and why you should be allowed to break it. You just stated how you find it inconvenient to wait if you missed an episode so you steal it. I had no opinion on whether or not you have ever bought movies or blu-rays ... and your statements haven't changed my opinion.

The tricky issue of downloading is simple ... it's not tricky. If you download illegally then you are breaking the law. It's quite black and white. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right. Just because it's easy to do doesn't make it right. Just because it's inconvenient or expensive to do the right thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. I don't blame you for wanting to steer the direction of this debate away from the morality of downloading ... because deep down I think you know full well that is a debate you won't be able to win.

Sigh... I don't want to pick fights here, as I'd like to keep this civil.

Yes, I'm sure I could win a debate about the morality of downloading. In fact, the 1996 Canadian Copyright Act does that for me. I can legally go out and rent a movie and make a copy of it for my own personal use if I want. Totally legal.

Saying that anyone who has downloaded a song is somehow immoral is a rather bold statement, as you're painting a LOT of people with broad strokes. It's immoral and illegal to run a red light or drive after you've had 2 beers or park at a meter and not put money into it. But everyday people do it every single day. It doesn't make it right, but it does happen.

Which is where I would like to take this thread...

Downloading happens. Get over it. How should the industries adapt, since obviously the morality police can't arrest every teenage girl who wants the radio edit of the latest Beyonce single?

I envision that the studios will eventually have to go the on-demand streaming route at some point soon. The bandwidth to make this plausible is almost in place, and hard drive storage is completely ready.

I think the general consumer would be more that happy to watch first-run movies at home and pay a reasonable price for that priviledge.

Okay... So without further emotion... Your thoughts...?

[Stubblecat]

And the RIAA is an American organization, so obviously nationality does come into play. As stated before, most downloading is technically legal in Canada, which is why U.S. broadcasters don't allow their programming to be access online in Canada.

[Stubblecat]

And from this point forward, I 'd like apologize to anyone I've offended in this thread.

This is obviously a very sensitive issue, and I'm not interested in getting myself banned over a difference of opinion.

Let's try to go this route:

- Downloading is here to stay, and the movies studios have been slow to react. How, in the 21st century, can the studios thrive once again when the majority of their product can be accessed for free? Should they fight it? Should they incorporate it?

Discuss.

Nicely.

Please!

[mavrach]

I don't illegally download anything, but honestly I wouldn't have a problem doing so because I add far, far more money to the film and music industries than the average person. I'm a collector, and I might use downloads to experiment a little to see where I might devote my money towards later on. You can use this sort of thing to feel the arena out. Otherwise you're forced to make only "safe" choices and not really branch out. I can only see this as helping out the little guy, whereas somebody not willing to risk their money will just stick to the summer blockbusters.

In the days of Napster, I amassed a couple thousand MP3's that I paid nothing for. Flash forward 8 or so years, and here I am with an iPod full of 4300 songs that I purchased legally. It really can add to the eventual profits to the film companies. And again, anybody who downloaded one of these can show them to somebody who will purchase them outight.


Bootlegged DVD's off the streets - If you really need to see a movie filmed with a handheld camera, which includes all of the talking audience members, cell phones, and sillouhettes of people going to the bathroom, be my guest. I can't beleive that this could ever hurt the film industry. These people can't hang on to these copies any far longer than when they hit DVD.


I think the industry will adapt to this. Downloads still have to be only a minority of the overall


Some logistical problems of downloading -

- Molly already brought up hard drive space. These files take up an awful amount of space, so one truly couldn't amass any decent sized collection without running into this wall, right?

- How many people are really willing to watch movies sitting in an office chair at their computer desk? I'll still buy them and enjoy them on my couch in my living room, cuddled up to my fiance and cats, watching my 42" LCD and surround sound. Downloads aren't at this point yet.



I also really don't understand why anybody is really getting offended by this topic. I think Stubblecat is just trying to pose some philosophical what-if's and not directly suggesting that a couple of posters here would do evil things. This is one of the more interesting topics I've seen in a while (along with Stubble's other topic the Baker's Dozen), so kudos to you and keep these threads coming please!

[HGervais]

I'm just trying to open a dialogue about downloading. It does happen, and people do do it all the time. I like to present rhetorical questions about the nature of the entertainment business and the way people get it.

Just because people do things does not make those things right or legal. I can honestly say I have never illegally downloaded a song. I can say I have never purchased a bootleg DVD or CD. The only possible exception for me is the bit torrenting of material I can't purchase here in the states and nine times out of ten if I have enough interest in bit torrenting it I usually end up buying the region 2 disc if and when it is released. People have a choice. You can either do the right thing because it is the right thing or you can chose to do the wrong thing and justify actions you know to be wrong or illegal by saying "well, everyone else does it." At the end of the day it is a cop-out and it takes money away from the creative people who spent many hours, months and sometimes years working on a project. That is the only end result that matters, it's stealing. We can dress it up all we want, call it any number of different things but it is still theft. Pose all the rhetoricals you want but that fact is a constant.

[Dunnyman]

- Molly already brought up hard drive space. These files take up an awful amount of space, so one truly couldn't amass any decent sized collection without running into this wall, right?

- How many people are really willing to watch movies sitting in an office chair at their computer desk? I'll still buy them and enjoy them on my couch in my living room, cuddled up to my fiance and cats, watching my 42" LCD and surround sound. Downloads aren't at this point yet.

Where have you been lately? In torrenting TV material, I've seen full on screeners in Divx or Xvid less than a week into release. In those formats with a solid Phillips Divx capable player, they'd look quite good on my 37" HDTV, and of course, you get them there via simply burning them to a blank DVD or CD depending on what you want to watch, three half hour sitcoms fit perfectly on a CD like the Fox sunday lineup of American Dad, Family Guy and the Simpsons. Once burned, you're only storing a disc, or even better, if I know I'm not going to watch it again, I copy it to a USB memory stick and plug that into the player. The sound is nowhere's near perfect, but the video looks just fine.
Quality is not an issue anymore.

[molly1216]

I also really don't understand why anybody is really getting offended by this topic. I think Stubblecat is just trying to pose some philosophical what-if's and not directly suggesting that a couple of posters here would do evil things. This is one of the more interesting topics I've seen in a while (along with Stubble's other topic the Baker's Dozen), so kudos to you and keep these threads coming please!

I am not offended by the topic, not in the slightest. I was and am offended by Stubblecats assumptions that everyone does it
and must be lying when they say they are not. Dismissing other people's values offhand is not a good way to start a discussion of ethics. However cooler heads than mine have prevailed and taken this thread into a good direction.
Perhaps it is an eye opening experience to discover that many of Stubblecats assumptions about the JR members are incorrect. We are quite an assortment.

[SmokestackJones]

Hey Stubb,

My stance: if it's available in R1, I buy it. If not, it's fair game. I'm tired of waiting for the studios to get around (or wait until enough people yell loud enough to tell them there's a market for it) to release something stateside that should have been out long ago. When said films/TV shows/whatever become available for sale, I buy it. I want to show I support the studios decision to release it and I'm pretty sure it'll be a much better print than what I've been watching.

-SJ

[SmokestackJones]

- How many people are really willing to watch movies sitting in an office chair at their computer desk?

(raises hand) I would. Then again, I'm 51 and I tend to fall asleep if I sit down on our comfy couch and watch something. Watching on a PC keeps me awake.

-SJ

[Stubblecat]

I wonder how long it will be before the studios and the A/V hardware people get their poop in a group and work on an on-demand download system for new theatrical movies.

Here's a notion (and keep in mind this is all theoretical):

A new movie is coming out today (let's just say something like Watchmen). You go to whatever site and pay some set amount (let's say $10). The movie downloads and you can either watch the movie on your computer or you can transfer it to another medium to be watched on your home theater.
I see 2 options at this point: Either it's a DIVX-style disc, where the file can only be played a certain amount of times or the file goes onto an iPod-style device which them connects to your home theater. Again, the movie would have a time limit (say 24 hours) and have some sort of copy-protection built-in.

I see only 3 obstacles to this becoming reality:

1. Technology & storage space
2. Bandwidth
3. All the legal stuff


-On point 1, the storage space is sort of a non-issue. My iPod holds 80GB and it's considered primitive. Standalone hard drives are now commonly holding over 1TB of information and getting smaller all the time.
That leaves the rest of the technology. Most if it is in place now, but it would just be a matter of coming up with a common system without competing technologies.

-So how about bandwidth? That's a harder one to manage, but bandwidth is gradually increasing and I see a breakthrough in download speeds in a few years. Right now, even from a direct server, it would take far too long to download a high-quality movie. Especially if we're getting HD films, then you're pushing the 50GB point. Or would the films be lesser quality to make things easier? Like perhaps a 9 GB dual-layer DVD-quality picture instead?

-And then all the legal stuff... Who gets a cut of what? How do you make a copyright code that can't be cracked (short answer: You can't)? What are the viewers' rights? Can the disc (or device) only be played in one specific player?

But think about it... We should already be at this point. If the movie studios really opened their eyes about a year ago maybe tonight I could have watched Watchmen in my own home.

Thoughts on this idea...?

[HGervais]

Thoughts on this idea...?

It's already being done. Steven Soderbergh's outfit is poineering the business model and it's something I have been talking about on this board for several years now. Same day release of films on home video/theatrical/downloads is the future and it will probably happen a lot sooner than most people think.

[Stubblecat]

I was wondering when things would get rolling. Glad to see it already is.

With music becoming a completely intangible property, I figured people would be chomping at the bit to make an iPod-style device for movies. I'd like to see something that emulates the DVD experience, as in menus and special features and stuff.

[Steve T Power]

Have you heard of a video format called .MKV? I'm not sure about the science behind it - but i do know that file size is typically under 5 gigs, it's in high definition, and has a DTS soundtrack. It's out there in the wild now, typically as blu-ray rips on pirate sites.

It's easy to manage, fairly quick to download on a standard connection, and streamable to PS3's. I've experimented a few times, and the quality is pitch perfect.

This is what H-wood should be looking into.

[Shmoooooo]

The tricky issue of downloading is simple ... it's not tricky. If you download illegally then you are breaking the law. It's quite black and white. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right. Just because it's easy to do doesn't make it right. Just because it's inconvenient or expensive to do the right thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. I don't blame you for wanting to steer the direction of this debate away from the morality of downloading ... because deep down I think you know full well that is a debate you won't be able to win.

"If you download illegally then you are breaking the law" is a tautology and conveys no useful information. And you have failed to notice that Stubblecat is a denizen of Canuckistan, where the laws are different from ours. As difficult as it may be for some people to understand, US law does not apply to other countries.

Don't know if you noticed Gobear ... but under the picture of the dancing white blob with a mustache it clearly states I'm in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It's not very hard for me to understand that US law doesn't apply to my country. I am simply not taking Stubbie's word on it that Canadian law states that anyone can download anything without paying for it and it's legal.

"If you download illegally then you are breaking the law" is indeed redundant, as it was intended to be. Frankly, I think it's obsurb that people think download illegally isn't theft ... and that they aren't doing anything wrong ... so I used a redundant statement to emphasize the obvious.

[Shmoooooo]

Well, I just looked it up (which means I did a search on wikipedia) ... apparently the music industry got the Canadian government to put a "tariff" of 20-25 cents on each blank tape, because they were used to copy original recordings. Since that was done it was then made completely legal to copy any song, even if you don't own the original ... and since we are in the download age this now means that the studios don't get that tariff anymore, since there are no more tapes.

Seems insane to me, but that's the law. It's a bullshit law in my opinion, but it is the law. Not sure, however, if it also applies to film though. If there was no fee added onto black VHS tapes, or blank DVD's then I don't see how it would apply.

None of this changes the fact that you are taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it. But, in Canada apparently, it's perfectly legal.

Crazy country I live in.

[Shmoooooo]

Upon further investigation, while it is legal to download copywrited material, it is illegal to distribute it. So while it is legal to make a copy of a rented or borrowed disk, and while it is legal to download a movie ... it is illegal to upload the same content. Which means that if you are using BitTorrents then you are breaking the law. Because you are making the content you are downloading available to be uploaded at the same time.

[Paul Kile]

I'm with Smokestack Jones on this one- there are a number of movies that the studios have not seen fit to release in R1, or even in the DVD format anywhere, so I bought what might be construed as a "bootleg" copy of these so I could at least see them a few times before I die. Actually, these are DVDs from an outfit that obtains the films from TV libraries, and I get a DVD copy in all its grainy, unrestored glory. That was the only way that I could see to find copies of things like Slattery's Hurricane, A Gathering of Eagles, and Sole Survivor (the TV movie about the ghost B-25 crew in the desert). The only true E-bay bootleg in my collection is a DVD of Strategic Air Command, and I think it was a direct transfer from a commercial VHS copy, which is OOP anyway so I can't see how I am gypping anyone out of royalties there.

Now if the studios ever take their heads out of their collective a$$es and decide to release these films, I will buy them at full retail and have them in my collection in a heartbeat. I did that with The High and the Mighty and Island in the Sky the first day the DVDs were out, and I am about to shell out for the new Natalie Wood collection just to get Bombers B-52.

I'm getting too old to sit around and wait for the studios to release some of my favorite movies, since my demographic is rapidly dropping off their radar. Now tell me how my behavior is unconscionable....

[Shmoooooo]

I'm with Smokestack Jones on this one- there are a number of movies that the studios have not seen fit to release in R1, or even in the DVD format anywhere, so I bought what might be construed as a "bootleg" copy of these so I could at least see them a few times before I die. Actually, these are DVDs from an outfit that obtains the films from TV libraries, and I get a DVD copy in all its grainy, unrestored glory. That was the only way that I could see to find copies of things like Slattery's Hurricane, A Gathering of Eagles, and Sole Survivor (the TV movie about the ghost B-25 crew in the desert). The only true E-bay bootleg in my collection is a DVD of Strategic Air Command, and I think it was a direct transfer from a commercial VHS copy, which is OOP anyway so I can't see how I am gypping anyone out of royalties there.

Now if the studios ever take their heads out of their collective a$$es and decide to release these films, I will buy them at full retail and have them in my collection in a heartbeat. I did that with The High and the Mighty and Island in the Sky the first day the DVDs were out, and I am about to shell out for the new Natalie Wood collection just to get Bombers B-52.

I'm getting too old to sit around and wait for the studios to release some of my favorite movies, since my demographic is rapidly dropping off their radar. Now tell me how my behavior is unconscionable....

While it probably would still be illegal in the States to copy those movies I can't see a moral issue ... if the movies are not in print and can't be purchased from the studio, and as long as you did purchase them when they did become available ... I might do the same myself ... maybe. The exception, of course, being movies that are still in the theater or were recently and haven't been released on DVD yet.

[Dunnyman]

Well, I just looked it up (which means I did a search on wikipedia) ... apparently the music industry got the Canadian government to put a "tariff" of 20-25 cents on each blank tape, because they were used to copy original recordings. Since that was done it was then made completely legal to copy any song, even if you don't own the original ... and since we are in the download age this now means that the studios don't get that tariff anymore, since there are no more tapes.

Fast forward to now, and go buy a some blank CD's, if they say MUSIC on the package, then the manufacturer is indeed paying off the record company in the form of a small tax. If they don't say music, no tax is paid, which ensured that I never bought the ones with music on the label, because why should the record company get money for me buying CD's to store my data backup files?

[Stubblecat]

Yeah, that was the argument here, too: How do you assume that every piece of blank media will be used to duplicate copyrighted material?

I've noticed those "Music" CD-Rs kicking around, too. Seems kind of desperate.

I'm glad the topic of bootlegs and out-of-print titles came up, because that's where I wanted to go next.

Here's a title: Let It Be by the Beatles. It is unavailable on DVD. And it's been out-of-print on video for years. If you have a copy of it nowadays, you're probably watching something that was sourced from an old laserdisc.

I'm a huge Beatles fan, and I've never seen Let It Be, because I couldn't. In the past I shelled out coin for videos, laserdiscs and DVDs of their other films, and I would have paid retail for Let It Be.
So I downloaded it. You could say the same of Magical Mystery Tour as well, which had a DVD that went out of print about a decade ago.

So this leads to a definite moral grey area (even Shmooooo admitting such) about ownership of art.

Here's a question:

Who owns a work of art once it's been released to the public?

Before you answer with whatever your knee-jerk opinion might be, reconsider your thoughts on two of the words in that question:

owns and art.

Who owns the Effiel Tower? The French, sure. But I've seen it in movies, pictures, books, paintings and television.
How about the Mona Lisa? Who 'owns' it? The descendents of Leonardo Da Vinci? The Louvre? The French Government?

Could an argument be made that there are some things that belong to the world, and cannot be taken away even if it's copyrighted material?

What if (to use an example again) everything by the Beatles was pulled from shelves? No more CDs, movies or vinyl. Anything music-related was thrown back into the vaults.

Assuming the secondary market immediately dries up, I'm guessing that a lot of people would see no problem in downloading their music.


Next point: How about bootlegs? Stuff that was never made for sale and never will be. Audience recordings, both audio and video. Outtakes and sessions. Alternate versions and mixes.
I was a bootleg trader for a few years and amassed loads of rarities. Of all the discs, I only paid the cost of blank CDs and the postage (in the world of bootlegs, he who sells them is he who should be wiped off the face of the Earth).

I think certain arguments can be made for the exsistence of some bootlegs, and it falls under the category once again of 'who owns art?'

Before I let you folks respond (and possibly attack. Who knows?), I give you this anecdote:

Frank Zappa was an amazing live performer and rarely did two shows ever have the same setlist. The bootleggers went nuts pressing vinyl copies and selling them illegally, basically taking money out of Frank's pocket.
What did Frank do? He decided to make some money for himself.
He bought the bootlegs and released them himself on CD, with the exact packaging as the original vinyl copies. The bootleggers did all the work for him.

Pure brilliance. I wonder why more artists haven't gone this route..

[mavrach]

How about Ebay and other methods of reselling a DVD?

A lot of people are saying they can't buy something that's out of print, so they have no choice but to download it. Why don't you Ebay it, you will find just about anything there. But those methods don't make the studios any money either. It just goes to a random seller.

Used and previously viewed DVD's are the same when you get them from stores too right? At least a third of my collection was bought this way. You get your DVD for a third of the price, and the store gets the entire profit and doesn't have to share anything with the studios. This is common practice for DVD's, CD's, and video games nowadays. Steve touched on this for the games.

[Stubblecat]

It's a question of supply though. Just to beat my example like a dead horse, I checked ebay for Let It Be, and I can buy a VHS copy for either $22 or $220 dollars (I no longer own a VCR), or I can buy any number of bootleg DVD editions for about 20 bucks apiece.

Since I refuse to pay for a bootleg, no matter how nicely packaged it might be, downloading the torrent was the only option that seemed plausible. A good chunk of OOP CDs and DVDs on eBay are bootlegs.

This coming from someone who once sold his original MPI DVD of A Hard Day's Night for over a hunded dollars on eBay. Ah... Supply and demand...

I frequent used places all the time as both a buyer and seller, but you not likely to find rare and OOP items in your average store, and even when you do they've put some ridiculous price on it anyway.

[Steve T Power]

How about Ebay and other methods of reselling a DVD?

A lot of people are saying they can't buy something that's out of print, so they have no choice but to download it. Why don't you Ebay it, you will find just about anything there. But those methods don't make the studios any money either. It just goes to a random seller.

Used and previously viewed DVD's are the same when you get them from stores too right? At least a third of my collection was bought this way. You get your DVD for a third of the price, and the store gets the entire profit and doesn't have to share anything with the studios. This is common practice for DVD's, CD's, and video games nowadays. Steve touched on this for the games.

I'd just like to add one thing before i quit this asinine thread (not your fault Stubby). All of you morally superior people who refuse to download and never have, are committing the same atrocity when you buy second hand. Hell, you're even worse! Some business owner is lining his pockets with scratch while the artists who slaved over the product in question get dick. Ask around, i'm sure anyone in the music, games, or film industry will tell you that used sales have much more of an impact on their margins than downloading does.

Just because "It is written" that THOU SHALT NOT DOWNLOAD, doesn't make it morally right.

[Stubblecat]

No offense taken, Steve. I agree it can be exhausting when two groups of people disagree about a topic and are unable to find a solid common ground.

I do think we've made a bit of headway though, so that's nice.

[molly1216]

hey guys...this didn't devolve into name calling..so i think it's all good.

[mavrach]

Steve, just for the record I actually agree with you. I was bringing reselling up as a point that is never brought up as being like piracy, but acts the same way to these industries. Basically I was trying to get you to say that without pissing you off. I just justify my previewed purchases with all of the direct purchases that I make


The worst offender has to be Gamestop. They sell otherwise $60 new games for $55 used. People are saving $5 and putting the entire price to the store itself. nothing to the game companies. At least DVD & CD resellers have the decency to lower the cost to about half price.

But considering this, do the retailers have to resort to selling used to keep their businesses afloat?

[Stubblecat]

On that same topic, up here in Canada both Future Shop and Best Buy are now both selling previously played games. And Sunrise Records sells used CDs and DVDs.

[Steve T Power]

Steve, just for the record I actually agree with you. I was bringing reselling up as a point that is never brought up as being like piracy, but acts the same way to these industries. Basically I was trying to get you to say that without pissing you off. I just justify my previewed purchases with all of the direct purchases that I make


The worst offender has to be Gamestop. They sell otherwise $60 new games for $55 used. People are saving $5 and putting the entire price to the store itself. nothing to the game companies. At least DVD & CD resellers have the decency to lower the cost to about half price.

But considering this, do the retailers have to resort to selling used to keep their businesses afloat?

Hey Mav, I realized after the fact that i quoted you - sorry about that Bud, i didn't mean to make it look like i was snapping in your direction.

Aside: I'm a morally reprehensible person - i buy used crap all the time. But i just don't give a fig.

[mavrach]

Hey Mav, I realized after the fact that i quoted you - sorry about that Bud, i didn't mean to make it look like i was snapping in your direction.

Aside: I'm a morally reprehensible person - i buy used crap all the time. But i just don't give a fig.

It's all good, don't worry about it.

[Steve T Power]

But considering this, do the retailers have to resort to selling used to keep their businesses afloat?

DEFINITELY.

[mkiker2089]

Steve, just for the record I actually agree with you. I was bringing reselling up as a point that is never brought up as being like piracy, but acts the same way to these industries. Basically I was trying to get you to say that without pissing you off. I just justify my previewed purchases with all of the direct purchases that I make


The worst offender has to be Gamestop. They sell otherwise $60 new games for $55 used. People are saving $5 and putting the entire price to the store itself. nothing to the game companies. At least DVD & CD resellers have the decency to lower the cost to about half price.

But considering this, do the retailers have to resort to selling used to keep their businesses afloat?

I'm going to throw out a prediction here. Gamestop rules the roost right now because there is no competition. When other's come along, they will suffer fast. Not on a Circuit City scale, but they will have to change their ways.

They charge way too much for a used game. I realize a used game plays just like new, that's not the point. The point is that the store is pocketing way too much money and charging way too much for used. It's not that often that new games get price cuts that drop them below what the used title is at on the old price scale.

Someone out there will realize the gold mine they have, and steal it from them.

The only thing that keeps me going back is a close friendship with a few employees there so I know a few tricks to maximize my money. I rarely sell games back but when I do it's in groups of whatever number is hot, currently 5, to get the extra percentage and I buy games after a few markdowns.