I came across this bit of news today:

New Line Cinema had a deal with the Tolkien estate that stated that the Tolkien estate was due 7.5% of any money that New Line collected from the Lord of the Rings (or other such Tolkien works). This also included an upfront licensing fee of $62,500.

The article (from the BBC) states that the three movies, in its various incarnations, have earned nearly $6 Billion in movie theater attendance, DVD sales, and direct licensing.

How much did the Tolkien estate see from that?

$62,500.

That's right, they didn't see one red cent from the $6 billion dollars that the studio raked in over this. Neither did the director, Peter Jackson. Fifteen actors are suing the company for the 5% cut of merchandising featuring their likeness which was promised, but never paid.

Only when the Tolkien estate sued New Line Cinema for breach of contract (and threatened to revoke the license to The Hobbit, or at the very least tie it up in costly litigation for years), did New Line Cinema give in.

This is not unusual.

Forrest Gump creator Winston Groom was given $350,000 and 3% of the film's profits for Forrest Gump. Despite making nearly $700 million in theatre sales, and god knows how much money in Merchandising and DVD sales, Groom hasn't seen one red cent in royalties.

In probably the most egregious bit of accounting, Gary Wolf, the creator of the book that would eventually become the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" sued Disney for unpaid royalties. Despite the film's complete budget being around $70 million, and making $330 million at the theater, (and again, god knows how much money in DVD and Merchandising sales) Disney somehow claims with a straight face that not only did the film not make any money (and thus Wolf did not deserve any royalties), but Wolf OWED THEM up to a million dollars due to "an accounting error" they deiscovered during the lawsuit.

Lest you all think I'm focusing on the movie companies alone here, let's say the record companies are just as bad if not worse. Hidden accounting rules the day here, with the record companies finding loopholes under every rock and bit of dirt.

For example, this decade, they were ordered to disburse $50 million of unpaid royalties that the RIAA companies had swore on a stack of bibles that they had made a good-faith effort to find the people that earned them, but gosh darn it, they couldn't find them to give them their hard-earned money, so they will keep it till they can one day find these poor souls (or their estates) and give them what they deserve.

Poor souls like Dolly Parton. Or Alabama. Or John Mellencamp. The Dave Matthews Band. Frank Sinatra. Elvis Presley.The list goes on and on.

Frankly, every time I see a new story in that list, it makes me understand more and more why people see file-sharing (or piracy, whatever folks want to call it) as a victimless crime. No, you're not stealing from the artists. You're cheating the cheaters, that's all. Before the record companies and movie studios try to claim the moral highground, they may want to clean up their own acts more.

I will admit, I do support a blanket licensing fee in the digital age. Heck, it's apparently going on in some European nations already, where a fee is added on to ISP charges and media storage units, but private, non-commercial file sharing (I.E., Peer to Peer, not large scale commercial (file sharing/piracy) is not illegal.

But until these mobsters get their own houses in order, they have no moral rights to tell us what we can or can't do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8245300.stm

blah blah blah two wrongs make a right blah blah blah.

blah blah blah two wrongs make a right blah blah blah.

I'm not saying that (although as I said, I'm beginning to believe there's nothing wrong in cheating a cheater). I'm saying that the hypocrisy of these companies is sickening.

I'd also support the end of "hollywood accounting" Get rid of the distinction between net profits and gross profits (where a company can hide the money in a shell game, by charging itself a grossly overrated fee). Stop trying to tell us all that a movie that made over a billion dollars is somehow a net loss.

When a person steals its a crime. When a company steals its good business.

blah blah blah two wrongs make a right blah blah blah.

I'm not saying that


I don't see how you could possibly be trying to say anything BUT that? That's precisely what you're saying, to the letter.


But until these mobsters get their own houses in order, they have no moral rights to tell us what we can or can't do.

Pretty sure piracy is about the law, not moral rights. They're two different things, are they not?

You do realize that you're just banging your head into a wall here every couple weeks as you try to tell everyone here why stealing is ok from a different angle? we ought to have an alright boyz style RIAA/MPAA containment thread for you to post this shit in.



Its really too bad you went out of your way to frame this story as a justification for stealing, because its a pretty interesting and noteworthy story in its own right.

Just to chime in, there are other reasons that it matters whether or not a show is bootlegged. My job and my salary, as well as those of my friends, depends entirely on the ratings of the shows we work on. I get paid more to do a second season than I do a first and a second season is also a virtually guaranteed job. Yeah, the higher ups can be jerks and take money they dont deserve....stop taking my paycheck away from me in order to get back at them.

In the cases mentioned here I'd say the record companies/movie studios are worse but I have no idea how widespread that kind of behavior is across the industry as a whole.

Weinstein is notorious for creative accounting. A good book called "Down and Dirty Pictures" is about the rise of independent film, and he is easily the villain of the book.

Just to chime in, there are other reasons that it matters whether or not a show is bootlegged. My job and my salary, as well as those of my friends, depends entirely on the ratings of the shows we work on. I get paid more to do a second season than I do a first and a second season is also a virtually guaranteed job. Yeah, the higher ups can be jerks and take money they dont deserve....stop taking my paycheck away from me in order to get back at them.

I'm sorry, that's at least partially crap. A very large percentage of the audience couldn't count for ratings if they wanted to. Programming that's not available in other countries is a large percentage of TV shows traded online (Note, I don't know how much).

Actually, the TV networks get it most of the big three (Music, Movies and TV). They make their programs available online with reasonable restrictions (through network sites, and places like joost and Hulu) and get a higher quality audience (they apparently can charge more per watcher because it's a dedicated audience.

Record Companies looking good in pretrial

They all suck.

Of course these stats don't take into account the difference between the gross at the theaters and the money that actually makes it back to the studio. I don't know what the typical percentages are, but saying "took in $300 million at the box office" does not mean "studio earned $300 million from the theatrical release".

Just to chime in, there are other reasons that it matters whether or not a show is bootlegged. My job and my salary, as well as those of my friends, depends entirely on the ratings of the shows we work on. I get paid more to do a second season than I do a first and a second season is also a virtually guaranteed job. Yeah, the higher ups can be jerks and take money they dont deserve....stop taking my paycheck away from me in order to get back at them.

good stuff

They all suck.

Of course these stats don't take into account the difference between the gross at the theaters and the money that actually makes it back to the studio. I don't know what the typical percentages are, but saying "took in $300 million at the box office" does not mean "studio earned $300 million from the theatrical release".

From what I have been told, it actually does. For new releases, the theater keeps very little to nothing from the ticket sales. All their money comes from concessions.

What you don't hear are promotion budgets. The 'cost to make' numbers thrown around usually include salaries, sets, costumes, music etc., but not promotion. Its got to cost quite a bit to keep us completely immersed in 'Sorority Row' ads.

Its really too bad you went out of your way to frame this story as a justification for stealing, because its a pretty interesting and noteworthy story in its own right.

Exactly. The lengths at which people go to justify their stealing is laughable. There is absolutely no reason that the record/movie/whatever exec cannot be blood-sucking scumb bags AND the dirty little thieves be dirty little thieves.

Some of the practices of the record/movie/whatever companies is deplorable.

Stealing is deplorable.

They are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand what the news story has to do with illegal file sharing. Other than I guess to loosely tie two different types of crimes into one story. The Link at the bbc site doesn't mention anything to do with illegal file sharing at all.

I don't see how you could possibly be trying to say anything BUT that? That's precisely what you're saying, to the letter.

Pretty sure piracy is about the law, not moral rights. They're two different things, are they not?

You do realize that you're just banging your head into a wall here every couple weeks as you try to tell everyone here why stealing is ok from a different angle? we ought to have an alright boyz style RIAA/MPAA containment thread for you to post this shit in.

Its really too bad you went out of your way to frame this story as a justification for stealing, because its a pretty interesting and noteworthy story in its own right.

I don't get it at all - it's illegal to steal, even if the victim is not a little old lady who goes to search. Even if the victims are not sympathetic, or rich.

I find the justifications worse than the the crime somehow. People actually convince themselves (and try to convince others) that they bootleg stuff because of how evil the record companies and movie studios are.

Everybody bootlegs because because they want stuff for free. That's it. That's the only reason. Why is this so hard to admit?

It's a crime with very little enforcement, so lots people do it. I've committed this crime myself. So I certainly can't condemn others morally for breaking it, but I clearly broke the law, as others clearly are.

One can disagree with the law, or any law, but laws don't apply only to those who agree with them. We live in a government system where people are supposed to follow the laws, even if they disagree with them.

I am with the "stealing is bad" crowd, but I have little sympathy for the RIAA and MPAA. I meet with their reps from time to time and it would be hard to find a group that is more consistently tone deaf. Ironic.

I also have little sympathy for RIAA and MPAA. Having said that, justifying stealing or any other criminal activity because someone else does it on a larger scale is ridiculous. If I go steal meds from a little old lady because the pharmaceutical companies are scumbags, is that still not wrong?

If I go steal meds from a little old lady because the pharmaceutical companies are scumbags, is that still not wrong?

Although downloading music/movies/TV shows/games is illegal and morally wrong I think physically stealing a product like that is morally worse because you're taking away something from another person instead of just getting a copy of it.

Every time the argument gets clouded by poor analogies from both sides.

The distillation of the issue: Is piracy theft, and if so, how do you morally justify it? I've never really seen this answered directly by the (poor words, I know) pro-piracy side, just obfuscated.

From what I have been told, it actually does. For new releases, the theater keeps very little to nothing from the ticket sales. All their money comes from concessions.

What you don't hear are promotion budgets. The 'cost to make' numbers thrown around usually include salaries, sets, costumes, music etc., but not promotion. Its got to cost quite a bit to keep us completely immersed in 'Sorority Row' ads.
Bingo. One of the reason concession prices are higher is because that's how the movie theaters make their money during the theater runs. Movie splits vary between exhibitor and the movie studios, but typically run on a split. Summer blockbusters typically have a 4-week guaranteed run at theaters, depending on the number of prints. During that 4-week, the split could be anywhere between 80/20 studio/exhibitor to as bad as 99/1. I've seen that one. So, most theaters rely on a percap, Concession $ vs patron. On a good weekend night, you hope for as close to $4 as possible. On a weeknight during the fall, sometimes you're lucky to see $2.50. Sometimes studios get absurd when it comes to concession dollars too and that's when you might see a bigger chain not carry a movie during its initial box office runs, ie Road to Perdition, which a major movie chain decided not to carry because of the Movie Studio demanding a percentage of the concession sales during the first 2 weekends.

I don't see how you could possibly be trying to say anything BUT that? That's precisely what you're saying, to the letter.




Pretty sure piracy is about the law, not moral rights. They're two different things, are they not?

You do realize that you're just banging your head into a wall here every couple weeks as you try to tell everyone here why stealing is ok from a different angle? we ought to have an alright boyz style RIAA/MPAA containment thread for you to post this shit in.



Its really too bad you went out of your way to frame this story as a justification for stealing, because its a pretty interesting and noteworthy story in its own right.

One commits piracy, the other commits fraud...

One of the reason concession prices are higher is because that's how the movie theaters make their money during the theater runs.

Does anyone ever question that theory? I'd never, ever buy concessions at a movie. If the costs were reasonable, I'd definitely by soda and popcorn every time. But I'm not throwing down $10+ on top of the $10 movie ticket.

Just to chime in, there are other reasons that it matters whether or not a show is bootlegged. My job and my salary, as well as those of my friends, depends entirely on the ratings of the shows we work on. I get paid more to do a second season than I do a first and a second season is also a virtually guaranteed job. Yeah, the higher ups can be jerks and take money they dont deserve....stop taking my paycheck away from me in order to get back at them.

How about 5 years after the fact, do you still get paid for the show then?

Everybody bootlegs because because they want stuff for free. That's it. That's the only reason. Why is this so hard to admit?


winner.

I'm sorry, that's at least partially crap. A very large percentage of the audience couldn't count for ratings if they wanted to. Programming that's not available in other countries is a large percentage of TV shows traded online (Note, I don't know how much).



Very true, Top Gear is one of the bigger shows traded on the intarwebs, but the BBC doesn't think the rest of Earth's population deserve to see the full 1 hour show.

Very true, Top Gear is one of the bigger shows traded on the intarwebs, but the BBC doesn't think the rest of Earth's population deserve to see the full 1 hour show.

That's their choice, not the consumer's. They don't have to justify that reasoning to you. They're no legal entitlement to consume any show/movie you want to. I can think of plenty of reasons for this kind of decision, but it's really completely irrelevant to the legal issues.

Well, to play devil's advocate a bit here, the OP didn't, I don't think, suggest that file sharing is not illegal. He was trying to suggest a moral equivalency between the two. Which despite the protests it sounds like most here agree with, that both are immoral acts.

I want to chime in about record companies and the music business in general and say it is a very very very dirty business. The amount of people who are fucked over in the process of making a hit record and making an album is mindbogglingly. Thank God for the internet because good people can just promote themselves now.

That's their choice, not the consumer's. They don't have to justify that reasoning to you. They're no legal entitlement to consume any show/movie you want to. I can think of plenty of reasons for this kind of decision, but it's really completely irrelevant to the legal issues.

Oh yeah I agree, but if you hold a product from someone that wants to watch it, eventually the person that wants to watch it will find a way.

mind blogging

I can't decide if this is a horrible butchering of a old, commonly used phrase, or an ingenious twisting of same into a brilliant new phrase.

The title of this thread should be "(Opinion) What worse, file-sharing or the Record Companies/Movie Studios?". You're going to start screwing up the newbies.

I can't decide if this is a horrible butchering of a old, commonly used phrase, or an ingenious twisting of same into a brilliant new phrase.

Wow. My mistake.

I can't decide if this is a horrible butchering of a old, commonly used phrase, or an ingenious twisting of same into a brilliant new phrase.

I kindof like it as a new play on words :)

SI

How about 5 years after the fact, do you still get paid for the show then?

Personally? No, my paycheck ends when the show finishes because im strictly a post-production person. There are people who do get residuals for a very long time though.

I'll admit to bootlegging "Killshot" which was a blockbuster only dvd rental. And there are no blockbusters within a reasonable drive near my house. I suppose I could have spent 20-30 dollars to legitimately obtain a canadian DVD, but whatever(ie 20-30 times the average cost I pay to rent a movie). Sometimes they make it hard to be a good person.


And yeah, Molson, it's utterly dumb that concessions cost so much. I'd buy them if they were expensive instead of being unreasonable. Like I could go 2 bucks on a fountain drink(roughly 75% profit), but 4 dollars(88% profit roughly) is unreasonable.

Personally? No, my paycheck ends when the show finishes because im strictly a post-production person. There are people who do get residuals for a very long time though.
Great i don't feel as bad now after watching both Buffy and Angel from copies I downloaded on teh intarwebs so my wife could see them. Besides I already watched the advertising back when the shows were originally on...

Typically the only time I download a show is when I miss it for some reason. If they provided an inexpensive way for consumers to get shows and (here is the kicker) watch them on their TV I would do that instead of the process I use.

I refuse to watch a TV show on my computer, I bought a 40+ inch TV for a reason.

These companies have done everything they can to stifle technology and innovation that would allow them additional ways to make money, all on account that they want to control the content. I'm glad we are starting to get to a point where they are starting to see the light on the current technology. Too bad once the next innovation comes they'll be against it as well...

Great i don't feel as bad now after watching both Buffy and Angel from copies I downloaded on teh intarwebs so my wife could see them. Besides I already watched the advertising back when the shows were originally on...

Typically the only time I download a show is when I miss it for some reason. If they provided an inexpensive way for consumers to get shows and (here is the kicker) watch them on their TV I would do that instead of the process I use.

I refuse to watch a TV show on my computer, I bought a 40+ inch TV for a reason.

The selection is limited, but Netflix streaming to a TiVo (or Roku) is excellent at this.

The selection is limited, but Netflix streaming to a TiVo (or Roku) is excellent at this.

I agree. I have a Netflix account and love the recent Xbox360 update that provided the ability to see the library from it instead of having to log on my computer or use an iPhone app. But that doesn't solve the problem of me missing a show. Once an episode has aired there should be an ability for me to watch it on my TV after the fact, in some legal for or another and until that happens consumers will find other ways...

Great i don't feel as bad now after watching both Buffy and Angel from copies I downloaded on teh intarwebs so my wife could see them. Besides I already watched the advertising back when the shows were originally on...

The only shows I download are ones that have not reached the UK. If it is being screened in the UK at the same time as the US I prefer to watch the UK broadcast as the picture quality is far better on my 40" TV.

I have bought a few US import DVDs after originally being introduced to a series by downloading episodes online.

A huge number of TV show downloaders will be based outside the US. If the networks can figure out an ad or subscription supported way of allowing worldwide viewing of their programming online, they could make a packet.

Once an episode has aired there should be an ability for me to watch it on my TV after the fact...

Why?

That's a serious question. Why should you be entitled to this? Do you realize what this would do to advertising revenue?

Why?

That's a serious question. Why should you be entitled to this? Do you realize what this would do to advertising revenue?

more importantly, do we CARE?

(the answer to that is no, btw)

more importantly, do we CARE?

(the answer to that is no, btw)

Yes, you do. Without advertising revenue if shows are offered for free online, there's no way to fund creating the show.

more importantly, do we CARE?

(the answer to that is no, btw)

That's fine that one doesn't care, though the law doesn't make the distinction between those that care and those that don't. As a democratic society, we've enacted laws that say we care. Individual dissention doesn't change that.

It's just a silly justification, the sense of entitlement. "It'm not really breaking a law because I DESERVE this" - that's actually what all criminals think. Obviously, this is a much lower level of crime, but it's the exact same mindset.

The horse and buggy whip makers approve of your last paragraph. If that was the case, then DVR's just as much "piracy" with the 30 second skip. Or the fast forward button...

Evolve or die. Advertising is trying to do the former, so it won't do the latter.

As I said, ABC/NBC/CBS have the right idea. Post it quickly (no later then day after or at most couple days afterwards), Post it in high quality.. and you can target your advertising.

The next step is to have it playable on a TV somehow. On Demand services through cable do pretty good, but now, the problem is that they only keep a limited selection of episodes.

Put it this way.. Get someone interested on late season episodes. If the show is available in high quality and easily accessible, you have a chance to set your hook (and keep them viewing your show and the related advertising).

Not available quickly, easily, legally? Then one of two things happen.. either that person fades away and you lose your chance. Or, if they're knowledgeable, they'll go to (insert site of choice) here, and download it anyway.

Get what you can out of it, at least. TV is no longer something you do as an appointment. You don't sit down to watch Cosby, Cheers, etcetera and make a night of it. It's something you do when you have the time, no matter what time it is.

Why?

That's a serious question. Why should you be entitled to this? Do you realize what this would do to advertising revenue?

Because I'm a viewer and me watching their show is what makes them money. It's they job as the content provider / producing to figure out how they are going to make money from it. I want the content, now provide it to me in the format I wish so I can enjoy it. Broadcast television needs to learn new tricks to keep their viewers and one of those tricks is not only broadcasting...

Yes, you do. Without advertising revenue if shows are offered for free online, there's no way to fund creating the show.

I never said I wanted the show for free online. I want to pay for it, but they need to learn not to screw me with advertising if I'm paying for it already.

Because I'm a viewer and me watching their show is what makes them money. It's they job as the content provider / producing to figure out how they are going to make money from it. I want the content, now provide it to me in the format I wish so I can enjoy it. Broadcast television needs to learn new tricks to keep their viewers and one of those tricks is not only broadcasting...

Easy way: charge you.

(which...I do see you arrived at as well)

Every time the argument gets clouded by poor analogies from both sides.

The distillation of the issue: Is piracy theft, and if so, how do you morally justify it? I've never really seen this answered directly by the (poor words, I know) pro-piracy side, just obfuscated.

Why does morality even have to enter into it? Physical possessions don't need or deserve a moral code protecting them. The law is the law and morality can keep the fuck out of it. Is there a moral requirement not to spit on the subway? It's against the law and therein lies why you shouldn't do it not because you're morally a bad person if you do. That just obfuscates the true issue.

Same with these anti theft laws. Whenever I hear the moral argument bandied around all I can think of is someone's got some money tied up here and wants to shame people in order to protect it. That's hitting below the belt to me.

Fight legal battles in court and leave morality to whatever higher power you want to follow. I can't think of one major moral figure in history that would be a property rights advocate though I'm sure some of them would privately support them as practical issues but not major moral issues.

I can't stop corporations/powerful individuals from ripping off those they do business with. I can stop myself from stealing property that I have no legal right to.

So bad comparison.

Stealing from thieves is still stealing, but it's a victimless "crime". Seeing how the people I would be "stealing" from do not deserve the money they are receiving.

It's more moral, in my opinion, to make copies of movies than to buy them and allow any form of my money to help the thieves. The law be damned -- perhaps when they change the current laws that allow movie studios to steal money for those who earned and deserve it, then I will start obeying the laws that protect the thieves.

To me, it's not about the 20 dollars I could spend buying a movie. It's ALL about the morality.

I can't stop corporations/powerful individuals from ripping off those they do business with. I can stop myself from stealing property that I have no legal right to.

So bad comparison.


But, those who break the laws eventually effect change that help everyone. Big business doesn't just go out of business when they're attacked like this; they adapt.

Thanks to the pirates, I get to listen to Rhapsody for roughly a price of a CD every month. I've paid this for years. I'm totally happy with the deal and the record companies have to be too. I used to buy maybe a CD a year and now they get me buying about 12 of them that I don't really own. As long as they cut in the musicians it's a win all around.

I'm not supporting pirates ( they're not producing anything of value after all ) but the activity of piracy causes companies to adapt to their circumstances and they explore alternative methods of making money off their product which benefits me. I like Netflix on demand too.

Stealing is stealing and I don't know how you can say one is worse than the other.

I think one of his points has been missed. He's not just arguing that stealing from thieves is not stealing or piracy is better than the behaviour of the publishers but also making the point that if the companies do not pay the royalties then you're not stealing from the artists because they don't get any of your money anyway.

He's trying to answer the anti-piracy argument that piracy steals from the artists not just the rogues running the film/music companies.

Two problems with this:

1) Even if some are, not all artists are ripped off and therefore these will be the victims of the piracy crime

2) those who are ripped off at least have the legal opportunity to sue for their royalties and their claim would be based on turnover. Piracy will reduce that turnover and therefore the claim, and also justification for the claim, made by the artist.

In either case the artist is a victim.

If people cared so much about protecting the artists from the parasitic record companies, etc, then they should put their effort into raising awareness and making legislation preventing the great theft that the record companies are perpetrating rather than just saying "Fuck it, I don't want to pay."

Stealing from thieves is still stealing, but it's a victimless "crime". Seeing how the people I would be "stealing" from do not deserve the money they are receiving.

It's more moral, in my opinion, to make copies of movies than to buy them and allow any form of my money to help the thieves. The law be damned -- perhaps when they change the current laws that allow movie studios to steal money for those who earned and deserve it, then I will start obeying the laws that protect the thieves.

To me, it's not about the 20 dollars I could spend buying a movie. It's ALL about the morality.

By your logic, you would then have no problem if I were to come over and steal your movie collection. I mean, it's a victimless "crime" and I would just stealing from someone who doesn't deserve the movie he receives.

"It's ALL about the morality" - give me a break.

Ya, this is not the right way to form a coherent argument. I'm all for the vicious disembowelment of record companies and movie studios, but opposed to piracy, I say if you are truly moral find ways to take over the market. If the artists are being shanked by the executives, create your web-based distribution solution, do your best to get artistic talent at your door, and publish them fairly and take a cut for yourself.

Innovation over deviation is how you get change. Freeloaders or criminals don't have a good track record on promoting their causes.

Ya, this is not the right way to form a coherent argument. I'm all for the vicious disembowelment of record companies and movie studios, but opposed to piracy, I say if you are truly moral find ways to take over the market. If the artists are being shanked by the executives, create your web-based distribution solution, do your best to get artistic talent at your door, and publish them fairly and take a cut for yourself.

Innovation over deviation is how you get change. Freeloaders or criminals don't have a good track record on promoting their causes.

Damn, I said I am moral but I'm not that motivated. What now?

But, those who break the laws eventually effect change that help everyone. Big business doesn't just go out of business when they're attacked like this; they adapt.

Thanks to the pirates, I get to listen to Rhapsody for roughly a price of a CD every month. I've paid this for years. I'm totally happy with the deal and the record companies have to be too. I used to buy maybe a CD a year and now they get me buying about 12 of them that I don't really own. As long as they cut in the musicians it's a win all around.

I'm not supporting pirates ( they're not producing anything of value after all ) but the activity of piracy causes companies to adapt to their circumstances and they explore alternative methods of making money off their product which benefits me. I like Netflix on demand too.

For me, you hit the nail on the head. Do I think piracy is legal or morally redeeming? No, but I do support the inevitable change it will bring about. Piracy is the result of inefficiencies in the market, whatever they may be, and piracy is the driving force that makes companies change and close these inefficiencies.

You're all just kidding yourselves if you think there is any model other than "free" that will make a very large portion of pirates stop pirating.

Supreme Court upheld the $675,000 fine for illegally downloading 30 songs

Supreme Court won't reduce student's $675,000 fine for illegally downloading 30 songs | syracuse.com (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/supreme_court_wont_reduce_stud.html)

As much as I think this was excessive, I would demand full payment solely for this comment by the downloader.

"I can't believe the system would uphold a six-figure damages amount for downloading 30 songs on a file-sharing system that everybody used,"

No, not "everybody" used or did such things.

Maybe Louis CK can do a benefit show for this guy.

Wow. $675K is pretty crazy. But then you get to the "During the trial, Tenenbaum admitted he downloaded and shared hundreds of songs by Green Day, Nirvana, The Smashing Pumpkins and others. His lawyer suggested the damages should be as little as 99 cents per song, about the same amount Tenenbaum would have to pay for a legal online song purchase."

The problem is, it's the speeding argument: "Officer I was only doing 10 over, just like everyone else around me". Yes, he was breaking the law. But it seems like a reverse lottery: "sorry, you got picked this time and now you're down more money than you'll ever see in your lifetime". I'd rather the penalty be $1000 and 675 people get caught than 1 at $675K.



SI

The lesson is clear: don't fuck with your feudal lord.

I would gladly pay to see game of thrones, but not 3 or 4 bucks an episode. I would gladly get HBO, but I can't afford to pay 70 bucks a month for cable and satellite isn't much cheaper or really that viable an option due to the startup costs. I would gladly buy DVD's, but I can't afford to drop 30 bucks on every movie I want to see and waiting and watching for a sale is something I don't have time for.. Same with music. I would love to buy the CD's I listen to, but I don't have a disposable income at the level it would need to be in order for me to purchase the albums I want to hear. If I made 40k a year, I would own a legal copy of probably 75% of the media I consume. If I could get HBO Go in my area I would. Same thing with Fios or any other streaming media option out there. For me, its a matter of not being able to afford things rather than trying to stick it to the man. I did pay for the Louis C.K. standup however, and hopefully the success of that will serve as a notice for "The big wigs" that there are other more viable and cheaper options these days to sell and promote your product.

Supreme Court upheld the $675,000 fine for illegally downloading 30 songs

Supreme Court won't reduce student's $675,000 fine for illegally downloading 30 songs | syracuse.com (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/supreme_court_wont_reduce_stud.html)

As much as I think this was excessive, I would demand full payment solely for this comment by the downloader.



No, not "everybody" used or did such things.

Minor nitpick--and likely stems from his quote--but the Supreme Court didn't really "uphold" this decision. It hears relatively few cases every year, so a denial of cert tells us little about the merits of the case. You need more than a wrongly decided ruling from a Court of Appeals to get to the Supreme Court.

It's good to see that nearly ten years after they lost the war, the media companies are still fighting. I like the dedication of people who stick to their guns in spite of the reality.

Minor nitpick--and likely stems from his quote--but the Supreme Court didn't really "uphold" this decision. It hears relatively few cases every year, so a denial of cert tells us little about the merits of the case. You need more than a wrongly decided ruling from a Court of Appeals to get to the Supreme Court.

The AP always words that in a confusing way too. Either they don't understand it, or they're trying to make it seem like bigger news than it is.

Meh. He'll just declare bankruptcy and the music industry's public perception grows even worse. Well done guys.

Eh, people hate the music industry anyway, that's why they download songs in the first place, remember? It's not because they want free music, it's because they're making moral statements against the industry or something. We've had a lot of threads on this.

I would gladly pay to see game of thrones, but not 3 or 4 bucks an episode. I would gladly get HBO, but I can't afford to pay 70 bucks a month for cable and satellite isn't much cheaper or really that viable an option due to the startup costs. I would gladly buy DVD's, but I can't afford to drop 30 bucks on every movie I want to see and waiting and watching for a sale is something I don't have time for.. Same with music. I would love to buy the CD's I listen to, but I don't have a disposable income at the level it would need to be in order for me to purchase the albums I want to hear. If I made 40k a year, I would own a legal copy of probably 75% of the media I consume. If I could get HBO Go in my area I would. Same thing with Fios or any other streaming media option out there. For me, its a matter of not being able to afford things rather than trying to stick it to the man. I did pay for the Louis C.K. standup however, and hopefully the success of that will serve as a notice for "The big wigs" that there are other more viable and cheaper options these days to sell and promote your product.

So wait...I don't understand. You currently go without these things, or you download these things anyway?

I mean, I would "gladly" buy a BMW, but I don't have the money.

It's good to see that nearly ten years after they lost the war, the media companies are still fighting. I like the dedication of people who stick to their guns in spite of the reality.

It reminds me of those Japanese soldiers they'd find on some remote island in the Pacific 30 years after the end of WW2, still keeping guard.

I would gladly pay to see game of thrones, but not 3 or 4 bucks an episode. I would gladly get HBO, but I can't afford to pay 70 bucks a month for cable and satellite isn't much cheaper or really that viable an option due to the startup costs. I would gladly buy DVD's, but I can't afford to drop 30 bucks on every movie I want to see and waiting and watching for a sale is something I don't have time for.. Same with music. I would love to buy the CD's I listen to, but I don't have a disposable income at the level it would need to be in order for me to purchase the albums I want to hear. If I made 40k a year, I would own a legal copy of probably 75% of the media I consume. If I could get HBO Go in my area I would. Same thing with Fios or any other streaming media option out there. For me, its a matter of not being able to afford things rather than trying to stick it to the man. I did pay for the Louis C.K. standup however, and hopefully the success of that will serve as a notice for "The big wigs" that there are other more viable and cheaper options these days to sell and promote your product.

Because the cost of producing Game of Thrones is the same as the cost of taping a Louie CK standup act.

Also, the CK special is $5 for a 62 minute show (12:24 per $1). An episode of Game of Thrones is $4 for a 55 minute show (13:54 per $1)

Dont bring logic into this. Theres no way to argue against "i want it free and i can get it for free so nyah nyah nayh to those who want my money" by using logic.

Oh this seems like a harmless conversation. Should be full of reasoned and rational discussion. :popcorn:

But more seriously, pirating is unreliable and a ton of work that I'd prefer not to invest. So I'd just always prefer access to the content that I'd gladly pay for. Continual innovations in this arena have been wonderful from Netflix to other things. Otherwise, I'll look for other solutions. It's that simple. I don't ever torrent for things anymore, because between iTunes/Redbox/Netflix and Amazon among other sources, I can usually find what I want. I'm more of a music guy, so it'd be different I think if we were in the Luddite-leading world that still wasn't ready for a Spotify/Rdio/Rhapsody scenario where I can get access to music in gobs.

But yes, let's use this discussion as a chance to talk about the beauty and wonders of strong arm statism and how we should always defer in favor of the hegemon.

But more seriously, pirating is unreliable and a ton of work that I'd prefer not to invest. So I'd just always prefer access to the content that I'd gladly pay for. Continual innovations in this arena have been wonderful from Netflix to other things. Otherwise, I'll look for other solutions. It's that simple. I don't ever torrent for things anymore, because between iTunes/Redbox/Netflix and Amazon among other sources, I can usually find what I want. I'm more of a music guy, so it'd be different I think if we were in the Luddite-leading world that still wasn't ready for a Spotify/Rdio/Rhapsody scenario where I can get access to music in gobs.


This.

But mostly, I think it just means that we're older and lazier than we were five years ago and make twice as much money, DC.

I consider myself a moral person. I have and will continue to download music, tv shows, movies, games etc until the day it becomes impossible not to and I don't feel the slightest bit bad about it.

Piracy is pretty simple. It takes about 3 seconds to set up a show to auto-torrent. Not to mention the myriad of websites that have tv shows just sitting on them. Heck, I have plugins on my XBMC install that let me just click to thousands of shows and movies in seconds.

That being said, my Tivo means I can record 99.9% of the shows I watch, Redbox/Blockbusterexpress means I can rent movies with promo codes (I haven't intentionally paid for a movie in 3+ years), and Pandora/Spotify means I get pretty much any music I want for $10 a month (and I have everything else I think I want that isn't available on there).

Counting cable/Tivo/Spotify/Redbox, I pay right at $100 a month for pretty much any movie, music, or tv show I want.

The pirating industry must be really suffering with all these legal options for things.

I don't think regular consumer-pirating is any kind of big deal in a moral sense at all but I'm not taking the next step and anointing them as techno-patriots who deserve credit for technological innovations. The smarter, better run companies can evolve and survive but that doesn't morally justify the acts that bring that on. At the end of the day, those who pay are still subsidizing the entertainment for those who don't. Which isn't a big deal either, shit isn't that expensive, and it's just entertainment anyway, our "pay if you want to model" isn't the worst thing in the world. I just wish people weren't so disingenuous about it.

Edit: And I've actually found that I enjoy stuff more if acquire it legally. There was examples in previous threads about this about "that guy" from college who made it his life ambition to burn EVERY movie ever, but never even seemed to watch them. I think there's something to that.

I consider myself a moral person. I have and will continue to download music, tv shows, movies, games etc until the day it becomes impossible not to and I don't feel the slightest bit bad about it.

Well yeah. A person who consider themselves amoral would probably be tough to find, period, no matter what laws they break.

This.

But mostly, I think it just means that we're older and lazier than we were five years ago and make twice as much money, DC.

Hahaha...basically.

Oh this seems like a harmless conversation. Should be full of reasoned and rational discussion. :popcorn:

Sorry, ill flat out admit i have a small amount of trouble not being a smartass about this stuff. To at least explain i should point out that I work on tv shows, virtually none of which i can imagine people bothering to pirate, and my brother works on films that certainly do get pirated which directly affects his paycheck since the films gross is directly tied into his possible year end bonus.

Well yeah. A person who consider themselves amoral would probably be tough to find, period, no matter what laws they break.

Humans are incredible at justifying their behaviors. It pretty much takes a sociopath to continue to do an activity they fully recognize as immoral. Even rapists and murderers tend to see their actions as the product of drugs, or a bad upbringing, or society, or 'she was asking for it". (I'm not comparing the actions of murders and rapists to pirates, of course, pirating is more like not paying a parking meter when you know there's no chance you'll get caught, it's just amusing to me to see the criminal mindset at that lower scale.)

That's the rub. I don't consider what I'm doing to be immoral. I have reasons why I don't feel bad about it, but there isn't sense in stating them because if you think pirating=stealing=bad then there isn't anything I could say to you to change your mind.

Sorry, ill flat out admit i have a small amount of trouble not being a smartass about this stuff. To at least explain i should point out that I work on tv shows, virtually none of which i can imagine people bothering to pirate, and my brother works on films that certainly do get pirated which directly affects his paycheck since the films gross is directly tied into his possible year end bonus.

How many of those films get pirated because it costs $13 to see a movie for people in NYC? FTR, I don't pirate movies...and I go to a movie theater maybe twice a year.

How many of those films get pirated because it costs $13 to see a movie for people in NYC?

Whats your point? How many TVs get stolen from electronics stores just because they cost hundred of dollars? How many people steal cable just because its too damned expensive? We could do this all day with increasingly ridiculous examples but it doesnt make it ok to take something just because you think its too expensive. people could always wait a little while and see it at a cheaper theater.

How many of those films get pirated because it costs $13 to see a movie for people in NYC? FTR, I don't pirate movies...and I go to a movie theater maybe twice a year.

Things like movies in theaters, boxing/wrestling/mma PPVs and computer/video games definitely "seem" more expensive than they should be. But I understand the mentality and what the higher price points work. You're trying to sell a product to someone who could get the same thing for free. So the people who are actually paying, are, for whatever reason, choosing to pay. If they're willing to pay $8 instead of $0, or $30 instead of $0, they're probably willing to pay $12 instead of $8 and $45 instead of $30. That only goes so far, of course, but you got to get the money from somewhere, and it goes to my point about the paying customers subsidizing the non-paying customers. Which, is, ultimately the choice of both. And ya, maybe if everybody chose not to pay, the old ways would collapse more quickly, and there would be some benefits to the consumer to that, but you could say that about almost any kind of theft.

Let me ask you a question. I pay $100 a month for cable. I watching NOTHING on tv except for live sporting events. I would gladly pay a reduced fee for a specific set of channels but I don't have that option. Is it fair for me to even things out on my own?

I'm essentially paying to watch college football games since I could watch NFL OTA, (I pay for the Baseball package and pay gladly), and a select few NBA & NHL games come playoff time that aren't available OTA. Is that worth $1200 a year? No it's not. But I have no other option so I pay it. My money is out there, it's going in somebodies pocket. There's a reason they don't want to offer packages where you can pay $2 or $3 a month for a certain channel, because they'd stop making money hand over fist. And that's fine. But I'm not gonna feel bad about downloading 50 or 60 movies a year instead of spending $5 to order or rent them. Same goes with TV. I pay for cable, I am not gonna feel bad about downloading a tv show instead of watching it.

I dont get it, if you pay for cable why are you downloading tv shows instead of watching them on your tv? It sounds like you do watch tv shows other than sports so why NOT watch them legally since youre paying for the ability to do so?

Because I don't want to be limited to watching a certain show at a certain time. It's so much easier for me to sit down every evening, download the shows I want, and watch them whenever right off of my computer.

Million dollar idea: recording devices built into your cable box that allow you to digitally record shows and watch them at your leisure. Maybe you could even program which shows to record ahead of time.

Who is in?

Also, last time I went to Subway, I didn't eat the last three inches of my five dollar foot long, so this time, I just took some chips to even it out.

Because I don't want to be limited to watching a certain show at a certain time. It's so much easier for me to sit down every evening, download the shows I want, and watch them whenever right off of my computer.

Get a DVR, theyre not expensive, and watch things the easy way. I get home from work between 9 and 10pm every night and i still get to watch stuff on my nice TV instead of my laptop monitor.

What difference would it make? Oh yeah, I'd be paying them an extra $120 a year.

Million dollar idea: recording devices built into your cable box that allow you to digitally record shows and watch them at your leisure. Maybe you could even program which shows to record ahead of time.

Who is in?

I'm sure if they had such mystical devices they would a) cost too much money b) be too much of a hassle to use or c) any other excuse that justifies stealing.

I watch them on my computer because it's easier for me and it's the way I like to do it.

What difference would it make? Oh yeah, I'd be paying them an extra $120 a year.

The difference would be that you're not stealing and you're not risking a $675,000 fine for downloading 5 seasons of Gossip Girl.

What difference would it make? Oh yeah, I'd be paying them an extra $120 a year.

I think your honesty on this is refreshing and I don't have any huge moral problem with it or anything, but this definitely does put a dent in others' justification that "if only there were a legal/convenient means to get something we'd pay for it."

It's interesting to me too that that the justifications for piracy have evolved. We've definitely had threads here where people have strongly argued that piracy has no impact on anyone's business because they wouldn't have bought the stuff if they didn't pirate it. I don't see that argument as much anymore. Now, the bigger argument seems to be the opposite, inconsistent one, that not only does piracy impact the entertainment industry, but it impacts it in a positive way for the consumer, and it even helps propel content delivery technology forward. And then there's a few people being honest like you who can admit, "this way I spend less money".

Also, last time I went to Subway, I didn't eat the last three inches of my five dollar foot long, so this time, I just took some chips to even it out.

Subway isn't charging you for a meal that you know you're only going to eat 1/1000th of with no place else to get food.

Subway isn't charging you for a meal that you know you're only going to eat 1/1000th of with no place else to get food.

I don't know of any other restaurant that serves a 9 inch sub. That's what I want. It's easier for me.

What difference would it make? Oh yeah, I'd be paying them an extra $120 a year.

In all seriousness, have you shopped around for a better deal? Youre paying a LOT for cable you claim to not be using for anything other than live sports. If youre paying that much for cable tv without internet youre getting ripped off.

The difference would be that you're not stealing and you're not risking a $675,000 fine for downloading 5 seasons of Gossip Girl.

Again, I payed for Gossip Girl when I payed my cable bill.

Subway isn't charging you for a meal that you know you're only going to eat 1/1000th of with no place else to get food.

But there are other places to get food. Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Itunes, etc.

Again, I payed for Gossip Girl when I payed my cable bill.

No you didnt. In all honestly thats just not how television works. you paid for that broadcast of Gossip Girl not all of them.

That's the rub. I don't consider what I'm doing to be immoral. I have reasons why I don't feel bad about it, but there isn't sense in stating them because if you think pirating=stealing=bad then there isn't anything I could say to you to change your mind.

So you're just fine getting the stuff I work hard on, spending overtime and the like, with no compensation back to me? You're right, you'll have a very hard time making me believe you're not stealing from me, since you feel entitled to enjoy the fruits of my labors for absolutely nothing.

I get the "it's too expensive" and "I hate the company" lines, but the easy answer is: don't consume it at all. You're not entitled to it no matter what you think.

Itd be like me trying to go see the Avengers again for free because I already paid once. Or trying to get a new Mazda for free because I bought one years ago. Both things Id love but thats just not how things work.

Again, I payed for Gossip Girl when I payed my cable bill.

Maybe you should have payed for spelling lessons! BURN!

In all seriousness, have you shopped around for a better deal? Youre paying a LOT for cable you claim to not be using for anything other than live sports. If youre paying that much for cable tv without internet youre getting ripped off.

DVR rental is $12 a month. What exactly is the difference between DVRing something to watch later or downloading it to watch later? Other than the desire for other people to control where or when I watch something. And don't say I'm shorting the cable company. If I bought one at a store would I still be stealing from the cable company?

The older I get the more insane I think it is that a starving poor person who steals a loaf of bread will get prosecuted but we have large swathes of people who manage to justify stealing something that is just for their entertainment. I like the Subway reference, it's a good one.

DVR rental is $12 a month. What exactly is the difference between DVRing something to watch later or downloading it to watch later? Other than the desire for other people to control where or when I watch something. And don't say I'm shorting the cable company. If I bought one at a store would I still be stealing from the cable company?

How about this: Youre shorting ME and my friends and coworkers. Our jobs depend on people watching shows legally, either live or through DVR. If everyone watches our shows illegally were out of work. My current job got me healthcare by the way, i would like it to get a 2nd season so i can keep that.

DVR rental is $12 a month. What exactly is the difference between DVRing something to watch later or downloading it to watch later? Other than the desire for other people to control where or when I watch something. And don't say I'm shorting the cable company. If I bought one at a store would I still be stealing from the cable company?

Other than the fact that one is stealing and one isn't you mean? What's the difference between taking something and paying for something? If we have trouble with that basic concept I don't think there is much hope for this discussion

But there are other places to get food. Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Itunes, etc.

This is a fair point. But my rationale again is this, if I'm paying for cable, why on earth should I go to ITunes and pay for last nights episode of Mad Men. Does the fact that I delete it when I'm done make it better? What if I had a VCR or a DVR, would it be ok to keep it then?


No you didnt. In all honestly thats just not how television works. you paid for that broadcast of Gossip Girl not all of them.

Same question.

DVR rental is $12 a month. What exactly is the difference between DVRing something to watch later or downloading it to watch later? Other than the desire for other people to control where or when I watch something. And don't say I'm shorting the cable company. If I bought one at a store would I still be stealing from the cable company?

Because advertisers pay for their ads to be watched during a broadcast, which happens if you watch it live or watch it on DVR. If you watch it during one of the other legal methods I pointed out above, then they pay for that as well.

In fact, writers recently initiated a massive strike so they could get portions of revenue from ads and/or purchases of online content. I'm sure they're glad to know that you don't really care whether they receive that or not because it's not convenient for you.

How about this: Youre shorting ME and my friends and coworkers. Our jobs depend on people watching shows legally, either live or through DVR. If everyone watches our shows illegally were out of work. My current job got me healthcare by the way, i would like it to get a 2nd season so i can keep that.

What compensation would you get if you produced a show that aired on ABC and I watched it via antenna? What is the trickle down? I'm assuming you got paid to do your job. If I pay a cable bill, and your show is available, is it my job or my responsibility to inform your bosses that I watched it and how?

Because advertisers pay for their ads to be watched during a broadcast, which happens if you watch it live or watch it on DVR. If you watch it during one of the other legal methods I pointed out above, then they pay for that as well.

In fact, writers recently initiated a massive strike so they could get portions of revenue from ads and/or purchases of online content. I'm sure they're glad to know that you don't really care whether they receive that or not because it's not convenient for you.

This.....all of this. If youre not watching it through one of the intended distribution methods then youre not helping anyone but yourself, in fact an argument could be made youre hurting someone.

This is a fair point. But my rationale again is this, if I'm paying for cable, why on earth should I go to ITunes and pay for last nights episode of Mad Men. Does the fact that I delete it when I'm done make it better? What if I had a VCR or a DVR, would it be ok to keep it then?


If you had your own "moral piracy code" where you only pirate things you've had legal access to in the past, I'd say that's definitely a lot more restrained than a lot of other people's own "codes", but you've also said you pirate 50 to 60 movies a year, which seems like a ton when there's so many cheap options now. Isn't the fact that Mad Men shows up on your cable somewhere really just a coincidence? You wouldn't have a problem downloading it even if it was on a premium channel you didn't get.

What compensation would you get if you produced a show that aired on ABC and I watched it via antenna? What is the trickle down? I'm assuming you got paid to do your job. If I pay a cable bill, and your show is available, is it my job or my responsibility to inform your bosses that I watched it and how?

There are systems in place to track who watches shows and how, as long as they watch them legally. I may not think theyre all very effective methods and i may think theyre using methods other than what theyre telling people about but thats a whole different discussion and its pretty irrelevant here. If you pay your cable bill and watch my show then they know and I can get rewarded by keeping my job.

What if I close my eyes during commercials? Am I breaking the law? Was it illegal to use a VCR? Surely everyone here has taped a show and fast forwarded through commercials. Did you break the law?

I'm pretty sure Suicane is not stealing anything. He might be infringing on copyrights, but stop comparing it to stealng a physical object.

Further, if Suicane watches something he was not authorized to do so, it is not taking money out of anybody's pocket if he wasn't going to pay for it in the first place.

What he is doing is wrong and illegal, but more on the level of smoking a joint and not stealing a BMW.

What if I close my eyes during commercials? Am I breaking the law? Was it illegal to use a VCR? Surely everyone here has taped a show and fast forwarded through commercials. Did you break the law?

Actually the whole concept of the VCR went before the supreme court. It was determined that it was legal and in fact beneficial to both the viewing public and the people making the shows because they could watch whenever they wanted and still were seeing the advertisements, even in fast forward. Its the same as a DVR.

Seriously though, it costs you $12 a month to make all of this a moot point. its easier on you and the shows get their money. everyone wins and nobody will ever get sued for it.

What if I close my eyes during commercials? Am I breaking the law? Was it illegal to use a VCR? Surely everyone here has taped a show and fast forwarded through commercials. Did you break the law?

Nope, but that's all accounted for when advertisers pay for ads. Viewers that watch via time shifted methods do not count as much as viewers that watch live, but they do count and advertisers pay for them.

So if I see the Kraft logo in the blurry lines of a fast forward it's ok, but if I don't see it all I'm costing you money. That's bullshit. I know it's bullshit, you know it's bullshit. It's all so stupid. Again, my money is going somewhere, don't be pissed at me because you aren't getting what you think you deserve out of it.

Dude, if you want to circumvent the entire business model for an industry feel free....just dont tell me it doesnt mean anything and that youre not part of the problem.

For TV shows, I either use TiVo or a Windows Media Center. Tivo for cable, WMC for 95% of the network shows.

I then run an automated scan to cut commercials, convert it to a smaller size, and throw it on my NAS.

90% of the time it works flawlessly and I never see commercials.

I know I count as DVR for the things I record on Tivo (even though I never see commercials), but am I counted as DVR for things I record on Windows? I don't believe they're relaying back what I record. And since I cut out commercials, I can't be considered a person who is putting money back into the hands of the entertainment industry in this instance.

The only show I watch Live (aside from sports) is How I Met Your Mother. Every other time I watch TV randomly, I never sit through commercials, I just flip it to something else.

So if I see the Kraft logo in the blurry lines of a fast forward it's ok, but if I don't see it all I'm costing you money. That's bullshit. I know it's bullshit, you know it's bullshit. It's all so stupid. Again, my money is going somewhere, don't be pissed at me because you aren't getting what you think you deserve out of it.

What about the 50 or 60 movies you download a year? Do you include those in your cable bill too? That $100/month cable deal is starting to look like a bargain!

Nope, but that's all accounted for when advertisers pay for ads. Viewers that watch via time shifted methods do not count as much as viewers that watch live, but they do count and advertisers pay for them.

Then maybe they need to change the way they do things. Is it required of me to watch the advertisements in my "contract" with the cable company? Is it ok if I simply don't watch them live but not ok if I don't watch because I downloaded a show and they weren't there at all?

Then maybe they need to change the way they do things. Is it required of me to watch the advertisements in my "contract" with the cable company? Is it ok if I simply don't watch them live but not ok if I don't watch because I downloaded a show and they weren't there at all?

They did change the way they do things - there's DVR technology, Hulu plus, Netflix and Amazon instant streaming, i-tunes, cable and satellite stuff on demand.

What about the 50 or 60 movies you download a year? Do you include those in your cable bill too? That $100/month cable deal is starting to look like a bargain!

$5 for 50 movies a year (and that is a high guess) is $250. Do I think the cable company gets WAYYYY more out of me than that for shit I'll never use, yes.

And maybe this does matter, maybe it doesn't. But I don't keep shit so I equate it more to renting than to buying. Again, these are my specific reasonings.

They did change the way they do things - there's DVR technology, Hulu plus, Netflix and Amazon instant streaming, i-tunes, cable and satellite stuff on demand.

Again, you're asking me to pay for something I've already paid for.

How would you prefer they figure things out? how can they POSSIBLY track whos downloading shows illegally? They cant just say "this many people pay for cable" because theres no way of knowing what show theyre watching and splitting up the money accordingly. Advertisers are the backbone of the industry

So if I see the Kraft logo in the blurry lines of a fast forward it's ok, but if I don't see it all I'm costing you money. That's bullshit. I know it's bullshit, you know it's bullshit. It's all so stupid. Again, my money is going somewhere, don't be pissed at me because you aren't getting what you think you deserve out of it.

Your argument seems to be that your money is going to the cable company, so it doesn't matter that the network or show isn't getting anything. That's a ridiculous argument.

It's like buying bread, ham, and cheese and then stealing from Subway because it's too inconvenient for you to make it yourself.

Unfortunately, you lose the benefit of the doubt once you go and download things that you in no way were paying for. With a lot of things, there is certainly some sort of fine line when it comes to being moral, justifiable, warranted, whatever word you want to use. But downloading a movie over choosing to pay $5 for it kills the rest of your arguments.

Should it really matter if Suicane steals TV shows since he isnt likely a Nielsen family?

$5 for 50 movies a year (and that is a high guess) is $250. Do I think the cable company gets WAYYYY more out of me than that for shit I'll never use, yes.

And maybe this does matter, maybe it doesn't. But I don't keep shit so I equate it more to renting than to buying. Again, these are my specific reasonings.

But if you don't watch it on your cable system, then the people who make movies receive less money for TV rights. And they receive less money for the rights to the many other legal formats we've mentioned since you're bypassing all of those as well. So you are stealing from them.

Should it really matter if Suicane steals TV shows since he isnt likely a Nielsen family?

I still say yes, because if he watched it via one of the other methods, then they'd still receive money even if he wasn't a Nielsen family.

Unfortunately, you lose the benefit of the doubt once you go and download things that you in no way were paying for. With a lot of things, there is certainly some sort of fine line when it comes to being moral, justifiable, warranted, whatever word you want to use. But downloading a movie over choosing to pay $5 for it kills the rest of your arguments.

You're right. You're absolutely right. In my mind I say to myself, I'm being forced to overpay for one thing, and I'm evening it out somewhere else. Quite frankly if I pay Ed Snider $500 more a year than he deserves to get from me and Sony studios $50 less, then fuck em. I'm ok with it and I won't lose a minutes sleep.

Also, last time I went to Subway, I didn't eat the last three inches of my five dollar foot long, so this time, I just took some chips to even it out.

If you want to compare it to what's actually being discussed, you found Subway's recipe and used it to make a Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki yourself at home.

If you want to compare it to what's actually being discussed, you found Subway's recipe and used it to make a Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki yourself at home.

Suicane is downloading scripts and reshooting the episodes he watches at home?

If you want to compare it to what's actually being discussed, you found Subway's recipe and used it to make a Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki yourself at home.

"...and that's why Subway started putting dark tint on the sneeze shield, Billy."

Suicane is downloading scripts and reshooting the episodes he watches at home?

"...and that's how we know Suicane isn't stealing porn, Billy."

Gosh I love a lively debate.

Ugh. Reading this depresses me.

Suicane is downloading scripts and reshooting the episodes he watches at home?

I think this actually happened on Portlandia (available on Netflix streaming, BTW).

If you want to compare this to something involving a physical location, it'd be like him taking a laptop and scanner into a Barnes and Noble, scanning in all of the books he wants to read and then going home.

And then his rationale would be "Well, they'd let me read them there, so it's fine if I copy them and read them at home." or "I over pay for my cable bill."

Except it's not like that at all.

Edit: At what point in your scenario did I actually pay for anything?

Actually the whole concept of the VCR went before the supreme court. It was determined that it was legal and in fact beneficial to both the viewing public and the people making the shows because they could watch whenever they wanted and still were seeing the advertisements, even in fast forward. Its the same as a DVR.

Seriously though, it costs you $12 a month to make all of this a moot point. its easier on you and the shows get their money. everyone wins and nobody will ever get sued for it.

Let's not gloss over why this went to the Supreme Court. The VCR was killing the movie and television industries. No one was going to watch movies because they could just copy them to watch at home and give to their friends, everyone would record TV and skip through the ads. People who worked on TV and movies would lose their jobs or miss out on bonuses because sales would fall short, advertisers would leave TV because no one would watch their ads, and the entire industry would collapse.

*rant incoming*

The older I get, the more I don't fucking care anymore.

Both sides are fucked in the head. One side will jump through hoops to come up with any justification necessary to download stuff. The ass goblins who love piracy generally have the logical skills of a banana and the same old tired reasons just keep getting more exhausted. I don't care if you think you paid for it, couldn't afford it, are sticking it to the man or anything else. Stop justifying it. Man up to the bar, drink your Colon Blow and say "I'm a cheap fucking asshole who loves to wallow in the stink-pit of moral relativism when it suits me and my pocketbook." Fucking man up and have the goddamn balls to admit it.

The other side is run by a bunch of assbags who want to fine Grandma $50,000 for downloading an episode of Golden Girls but don't want the consumer to get any rights to content they already paid for (see: DRM, software "licensing", trying to stop used console game sales, etc.). There's a special level in hell reserved for these fucking pricks. They have no problem denying everyone else their money (artists, licenses, etc.). They have no problem illegally fixing prices to fuck over the consumer. They have to get dragged kicking and screaming into every new technological advance. But woe be the person who suggests that these shitsicles go fucknuts if they even think someone is getting something in a way they don't like.

Both sides have retreated into their respective foxholes so deeply, stayed there so long and shit all over themselves so much that both holes are brimming with fecal matter. You can't even see the point anymore with all the shit flowing around. There's no moral high ground anymore. It's flooded with all the diarrhea of the absurdity that is this issue. The best you can do is find some fat log that someone squeezed out to hold on to while the colon cannonball river keeps moving downstream.

So I'll do what I damn well please, whether I choose to torrent a DVD, fund a kickstarter or buy something at full retail. I'll do it on a case-by-case basis depending on how the mood strikes me. Because I just can't muster a fuck anymore.

*rant over*

Except it's not like that at all.

Edit: At what point in your scenario did I actually pay for anything?

Where did the downloading games part of this come in? How did you pay for those before you downloaded them?

If only this was Talk Like a Pirate Day...

Games are a different issue. The last game I pirated was Madden 08 or 09 I think. I just don't play games much any more. I've never downloaded a game I would have bought. It doesn't make it right though, I stole em. I have pirated games and then bought them or the next version to support the developers. There are some games out there right now I could have easily pirated but I payed for them instead. There are games I never would have payed for if I hadn't pirated them.

Ugh. Reading this depresses me. Cheer up dude, every thing is ok.

IMO there needs to be more content available on it´s own merit, not tied to tons of other content people have absolutely no interest in... If i want to watch the german Bundesliga (soccer) i have to pay a package that basically contains 95% content i have no interest in, but have to pay for anyway.

I also think that to a certain degree a couple things could and should be done about certain content being difficult to legally obtain. You wouldn´t believe how often i am ready to buy something only to find out that i´m not allowed to, since they allready sold the right to sell it to someone else who may or may not ever use that right ...


I actually think the music industry is doing a halfway decent job with this nowadays and the combination of legal preview streams, give-aways and much lower prices in online shops (when buying whole albums, not the per-song deals) has not only given me access to tons more content than ever before but has also made money off me.
If an album or a song is available anywhere on the world, chances are pretty good that i can buy it the second i find out about it.


With all the different interests that go with movies but especially Television content, i don´t feel anybody has any real idea of what to do with the whole problem though. There are a few things they try (like offering content that aired in other way, like rewatching on the website or mobile devices) but it´s just a very, very complex business model that depends on so many different factors and has so many different interests in the background.
And it doesn´t end in the US, either, but continues on to Europe where there is a whole other group of interests (i don´t have a number, but if i had to guess i´d say that 75-80 % of the content on german TV isn´t produced in germany).

A good example is american TV shows for Europeans (Game Of Thrones is actually an ecellent example, there was a big discussion on it recently), especially globally. I would gladly pay the producer/creator money to watch the shows, but since german companies might (eventually and years down the line) pick them up for their own programs, i can´t . And even if they do pick them up, it´s not available in english (let me tell you that comedies are not translating well). For that i have to wait for the DVDs (again, maybe eventually and if so then a while down the line), before that i am not allowed to become a paying customer.
I want to pay the producers and the artist, but often i only get to pay the "middleman" in a sense without knowing what i´m actually going to receive (or when i´m going to receive it). I don´t really want to go to the supermarket and buy "food for 40 bucks" and don´t get to choose what food that is ;)

And i get that i am not entitled to entertainment content and that it isn´t nescessary for my well being, i do. But in the global environment we live in nowadays, it does strain my patience a lot if i have to wait months and years for certain content to be available for me. Especially when i see that in different areas i can do that (like music)
That wasn´t a problem 10 years ago when every new show on german TV was new to me but today it is. Not an essential problem in the bigger picture, but it´s there ;)

Also, i have friends working in big electronic stores and the sales of series DVDs especially has gone up a lot in recent years (and the number of series available as well, meaning it pays well enough to be worth the cost) and it wouldn´t be the case if it weren´t for people being able to see them (and get to know them) beforehand. Game of Thrones for example was the most sold series when it came out, depite the fact that it never aired in Germany and to my knowledge got no exposure outside the internet.
Doesn´t it stand to reason that the sales wouldn´t be that high if it weren´t for people downloading it and then either still buying it or getting their friends interested via word of mouth (or word of the internet) ?


Another example that irks me personally : I´d actually expect that if i buy a book that i´d at least get a seizable discount on the e-book version over someone who didn´t buy the physichal copy. I mean, it is merely a secondary product of the same content, no ? I understand paying for the process of digitalizing it and i also get that the price isn´t that much cheaper compared to the print edition because the content is the same. But the reason i have to pay twice is plain and simple that they want to make more money and it´s not a whole ton of different people making money off it but basically the same group of people simply making more money.

Heck, even some film studios by now offer a digital copy of their product to go with the physichal one (Warner Bros f.e.)

ok, i messed that post around so much that i´m afraid it won´t make much sense for everybody and would like to apologize for that.

Another example that irks me personally : I´d actually expect that if i buy a book that i´d at least get a seizable discount on the e-book version over someone who didn´t buy the physichal copy. I mean, it is merely a secondary product of the same content, no ? I understand paying for the process of digitalizing it and i also get that the price isn´t that much cheaper compared to the print edition because the content is the same. But the reason i have to pay twice is plain and simple that they want to make more money and it´s not a whole ton of different people making money off it but basically the same group of people simply making more money.

The nice thing about big publishers overpricing their e-books is that I've discovered and supported some decent new sci-fi authors who have priced them very reasonably. You just decide you don't want to pay that much, then look around. At $3 or $4, I can handle the occasional dud in return for saving money and still finding some pretty good reads.

The nice thing about big publishers overpricing their e-books is that I've discovered and supported some decent new sci-fi authors who have priced them very reasonably. You just decide you don't want to pay that much, then look around. At $3 or $4, I can handle the occasional dud in return for saving money and still finding some pretty good reads.

certainly true and do that as well, i have found and read books of so many authors since getting the kindle it´s getting ridiculous (and i have to be really strict with myself to not spent too much)

One of the many reasons i´m glad i got interested in english eventually also is that english speaking books are a lot cheaper than the same books translated to german, print as well as now e-books.

To give you another example of how screwed up some things are in certain industries :

The first 4 books from Song of Ice and fire cost me a total of 15 Euros (5 for each, 15 for all those 4 in a pack on amazon). The german edition splits every book in 2 and you pay 10 euros for each of then 8 books :banghead:

They allways argue that they split them in 2 because they are too thick as german books are printed on thicker paper and bigger lettering (a 400 page german print is propably 700-800 in english).

Fine, you do that. But keep that up for a freaking e-book ? Screw you ...

to summarize :

english = 15 (20 if bought individually)
german = 80

Damn, if only i´d have become a translator, they must make crazy amounts of money :)

I don't really 'pirate' stuff anymore, as for the most part its not worth the effort. I do prefer to pay for things and support creators, distributors, etc.

That said, the movie situation in Canada totally sucks. All of the decent video rental places around me have closed because people are moving to digital methods. But our Netflix content is still terrible, we can't get Hulu, iTunes is a rip off... it sucks. I used to be able to get used DVD's from places like BlockBuster for $10, now if I want to buy my kid a copy of the Bee Movie it's like $30 at Wal-Mart. We rented it once via our cable On Demand for like $7 and he loved it, but I've told him he has to learn not to shit himself before he can watch it again so that we can skip buying diapers and afford a mediocre animated film. I really miss being able to buy used DVD's.

I don't really 'pirate' stuff anymore, as for the most part its not worth the effort. I do prefer to pay for things and support creators, distributors, etc.

That said, the movie situation in Canada totally sucks. All of the decent video rental places around me have closed because people are moving to digital methods. But our Netflix content is still terrible, we can't get Hulu, iTunes is a rip off... it sucks. I used to be able to get used DVD's from places like BlockBuster for $10, now if I want to buy my kid a copy of the Bee Movie it's like $30 at Wal-Mart. We rented it once via our cable On Demand for like $7 and he loved it, but I've told him he has to learn not to shit himself before he can watch it again so that we can skip buying diapers and afford a mediocre animated film. I really miss being able to buy used DVD's.

Might be a bad example, but amazon.com has Bee Movie for $6.23 on DVD.

I will say that when it comes to viewing things that are unavailable in your country I see things a little differently. On a related note...is Sherlock available on netflix streaming?

As for watching stuff widely available in the states, i just dont really get it. Almost everything on television is available in some legal way at this point, you just may not get to watch it the same day or the day after. The only exception would probably be channels like HBO where you have to have cable to even get HBOgo. You are not entitled to every program on tv at any moment just because it is possible to have it.

This particular forum seems to love the show "Community". I honestly wonder if any of the people who are so upset about Dan Harmon being fired were pirating it. Or those who were upset about Veronica Mars being cancelled, or Firefly, or Chuck, or any of the dozens of shows people bitch about being "cancelled before their time".

I also can get almost any DVD series at UK stores for half the price of what i´d have to pay in Germany. Just recently bought the first 4 Big Bang Theory boxes in a pack.
Buy them individually in the cheapest german online store (german online stores don´t do packs...) and you pay about 75 for all 4.
In the UK, it cost me about 38 euros and that includes shipping and an aditional Tax.

I don't really 'pirate' stuff anymore, as for the most part its not worth the effort. I do prefer to pay for things and support creators, distributors, etc.

That said, the movie situation in Canada totally sucks. All of the decent video rental places around me have closed because people are moving to digital methods. But our Netflix content is still terrible, we can't get Hulu, iTunes is a rip off... it sucks. I used to be able to get used DVD's from places like BlockBuster for $10, now if I want to buy my kid a copy of the Bee Movie it's like $30 at Wal-Mart. We rented it once via our cable On Demand for like $7 and he loved it, but I've told him he has to learn not to shit himself before he can watch it again so that we can skip buying diapers and afford a mediocre animated film. I really miss being able to buy used DVD's.
Bee Movie DVD, 2008, Full Frame | eBay (http://www.ebay.ca/ctg/Bee-Movie-DVD-2008-Full-Frame-/64272121?_catref=1&_dmpt=US_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray&_pcategid=617&_pcatid=1&_refkw=bee+movie&_trkparms=65%253A12%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1%257C72%253A5521&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14)

Bee Movie DVD, 2008, Full Frame | eBay (http://www.ebay.ca/ctg/Bee-Movie-DVD-2008-Full-Frame-/64272121?_catref=1&_dmpt=US_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray&_pcategid=617&_pcatid=1&_refkw=bee+movie&_trkparms=65%253A12%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1%257C72%253A5521&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14)

Ack! Full screen is even more evil than theft!

Ack! Full screen is even more evil than theft!

I agree.

Sorry here is the Widescreen option. :)

Bee Movie DVD, 2008, Widescreen | eBay (http://www.ebay.ca/ctg/Bee-Movie-DVD-2008-Widescreen-/64295130?_catref=1&_dmpt=US_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray&_pcategid=617&_pcatid=1&_refkw=bee+movie&_trkparms=65%253A12%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1%257C72%253A5521&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14)

The first 4 books from Song of Ice and fire cost me a total of 15 Euros (5 for each, 15 for all those 4 in a pack on amazon). The german edition splits every book in 2 and you pay 10 euros for each of then 8 books :banghead:

They allways argue that they split them in 2 because they are too thick as german books are printed on thicker paper and bigger lettering (a 400 page german print is propably 700-800 in english).

Fine, you do that. But keep that up for a freaking e-book ? Screw you ...

I have the first two books (well, the first, "A Game of Thrones") for the series in German (Sadly, my German is not good enough to read them yet. I can read Charlotte's Web though....mostly.). It's no joke, these things are pretty big and the font is very large (of course, paper size and font size are well within their control, unless there's some weird regulation that says they have to be this big). But I don't get how the first book had to be split in two, but the 3rd book, which is much longer than the 1st book, is simply split into 2 as well, instead of 3 or 4. I haven't seen them, because after buying the first two ("A Game of Thrones"), I just bought the eBook versions. Saved me a ton on shipping.

But you know what's even worse? The German audiobook for each German book for ASoIaF is again split into two. So to listen to the audiobook for "A Game of Thrones" in German, you have to buy 4 audiobooks. Granted, they're cheaper individually, but all together they are not that much longer than the English version (I think around 5-10 hours longer), and they are ~3x as expensive all together (unless you are using Audible.de, but it's still a bit more expensive, and for 1/4th of the book on Audible (9,95 €), I can buy a complete book for the same price.).

who still downloads shit? you can stream anything. i'm streaming a shaky cam version of battleship! from a latvian theatre right now.

i am being entertained. for free! you'll never see a dime from me hollywood! hahahhahaha

i stream everything. well, except porn. i pay full price for porn. people that stream porn are animals and deserve to die.

This particular forum seems to love the show "Community". I honestly wonder if any of the people who are so upset about Dan Harmon being fired were pirating it. Or those who were upset about Veronica Mars being cancelled, or Firefly, or Chuck, or any of the dozens of shows people bitch about being "cancelled before their time".

Just to play devil's advocate, you bring up an interesting point. If my moral responsibility is to the cast and crew making a living off that show, does my responsibility diminish as soon as that show is canceled/finished? As far as my extremely limited understanding goes, in the great majority of cases, the people getting paid in the case or re-runs, syndication, rentals, and purchases are the executives, producers, and studios. I watched Veronica Mars and Firefly on demand, but long after they had been canceled. Who's reaping the rewards, and stealing from the cast and crew at that point? It's certainly arguable that any money going/not going into the studios will effect the quantity/quality of future productions, and therefore watching old series through 'proper channels' serves an indirect purpose, but it's not like the grip from Arrested Development is living off royalty checks tied to his points on the international rentals.

What about buying used DVDs/TV series? Morally, there's seemingly an obvious difference between buying a pirated DVD on a corner in Chinatown, and buying a 'real' used DVD from some guy on ebay, but in reality the only difference is which particular individual gets my money. The used DVD peddler isn't paying for any more 'rights' than the guy in Chinatown, and neither prospective sale is going to trickle down to anyone involved in the production, at that point. If I download something, but I make sure to note to myself that I'm using my download to steal a prospective $1 sale from an individual at a pawn shop, rather than $19.95 from the source, have I lessened or raised my moral debt?

...shitsicles...

This is the single best word I have ever seen. EVER!

Just to play devil's advocate, you bring up an interesting point. If my moral responsibility is to the cast and crew making a living off that show, does my responsibility diminish as soon as that show is canceled/finished? As far as my extremely limited understanding goes, in the great majority of cases, the people getting paid in the case or re-runs, syndication, rentals, and purchases are the executives, producers, and studios.

What about buying used DVDs/TV series? Morally, there's seemingly an obvious difference between buying a pirated DVD on a corner in Chinatown, and buying a 'real' used DVD from some guy on ebay, but in reality the only difference is which particular individual gets my money. The used DVD peddler isn't paying for any more 'rights' than the guy in Chinatown, and neither prospective sale is going to trickle down to anyone involved in the production, at that point. If I download something, but I make sure to note to myself that I'm using my download to steal a prospective $1 sale from an individual at a pawn shop, rather than $19.95 from the source, have I lessened or raised my moral crime?

Wed have to go a bit more down the theoretical path but not all that far. I do believe that the success of shows on DVD directly influences not only whether the creators of those shows will get a new show of their own but also whether or not similar shows will be made. For instance I think that if, for example, Pushing Daisies suddenly became a HUGE dvd seller then you would see a network try to make a similar show even though it was not very successful in its initial run.

The only concrete example I can really think of right now is a show like Firefly where DVD sales played a huge part in getting the Serenity movie made which likely helped a lot of its actors get other jobs like Nathan Fillion on Castle.

Again this is where things get far more theoretical and youd need to look at things over a longer amount of time to know. I can say that buying a dvd is certainly MORE helpful to the people you care about on the show than pirating one but i cant put a really concrete cause/effect relationship to it.

As for Used DVD sales....i doubt they matter much. Like you said, the person selling it to you is the only one getting the money. I dont think youll see TV and Films trying to limit used DVD sales like the games industry does though, i think they just take it as an acceptable loss built into their business plan.

This.

But mostly, I think it just means that we're older and lazier than we were five years ago and make twice as much money, DC.

Awesome but with more than a grain of truth

SI

Wed have to go a bit more down the theoretical path but not all that far. I do believe that the success of shows on DVD directly influences not only whether the creators of those shows will get a new show of their own but also whether or not similar shows will be made. For instance I think that if, for example, Pushing Daisies suddenly became a HUGE dvd seller then you would see a network try to make a similar show even though it was not very successful in its initial run.

The only concrete example I can really think of right now is a show like Firefly where DVD sales played a huge part in getting the Serenity movie made which likely helped a lot of its actors get other jobs like Nathan Fillion on Castle.

Again this is where things get far more theoretical and youd need to look at things over a longer amount of time to know. I can say that buying a dvd is certainly MORE helpful to the people you care about on the show than pirating one but i cant put a really concrete cause/effect relationship to it.

As for Used DVD sales....i doubt they matter much. Like you said, the person selling it to you is the only one getting the money. I dont think youll see TV and Films trying to limit used DVD sales like the games industry does though, i think they just take it as an acceptable loss built into their business plan.


Another example is Babylon 5, which made so much money on DVD sales that it allowed for a direct to DVD product to be made.

Didn't Family Guy get rebooted because of strong DVD sales?

Didn't Family Guy get rebooted because of strong DVD sales?

Yeah, same with Futurama.

Both of those are animated, which I'd assume is much easier to pull off.