File Sharing & Piracy
 

Okay so I've just been looking at a documentary about file sharing and piracy. After watching it I was kind of two sided on the issue and a bit dumbstruck at the reasoning being used at times. Thus I thought I'd make a topic and see what other people were actually thinking about this.

You can view the film here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yIk8...eature=related

Some of the points addressed in this film are:

1. The internet is build for the sole reason to share files, it's also human nature, why shouldn't we do it?

2. Can big media producers really charge 30 bux for a DVD which cost 15 cents to make? And more importantly, should they be the only one to distribute it?

3. The media is meant as a way to create things, not to make profit.

4. Everyone should be able to take something someone else created and do with it whatever they please, including redistibute it or alter it.

While I have to admit I am a first class pirate, some of these points just make no sense to me at all and I hope I'm not alone in that. If someone can watch that film and genuinely say these people are right in what they claim I would like to hear an explanation as to why because I can not wrap my mind around why someone would be so extremely naive and arrogant in today's world.

First and formost, and I say this as an artist, I write for my own entertainment. I place my stories out on the internet where everyone can read them because I want to share my stuff with others so they can enjoy it. I do not ask money for the stories I write because I don't deem my stories worthy yet to ask money for. But the day I finish a 500 page novel I have worked three years on I would like to get at least some credit for my work. If only I'm paid for the effort by those who are interested and want to thank me for it. Of course writing a novel is something different from making a movie but the same principle applies.

If you made something for others to enjoy that cost money to produce it is well within your right to ask money in return to cover the expenses. However this is where my two sidedness comes in. Creating a Hollywood movie can cost millions to produce. Sets, crew, actors, equipment, it drains money just to give us something to watch. I don't blame anyone for trying to get that money back and maybe making a little profit, this too is human nature, but when a movie that cost 150 million to produce makes 200 million worldwide in theater tickets it's a little arrogant to start selling DVD's for 30 bux a piece on top of that to try and make even more money. In that aspect I can understand this film's point of view but is it just me or are some of them completely retarded?

Discuss away, this should blow away that annoying boringness hanging around the forums lately.

As far as I'm concerned, it depends on the Pirating.

If it's for an old game that's not being produced anymore or on a console that isn't, I', fine with it.

The Anime I watch? It's from shows which haven't got a liscensced distributor outside of Japan, so it's legal for Fansubbing groups to distribute it with their own subtitles. Of course, they have to cease as soon as the series is liscenced in the US or whatever.

I have no real problem with piracy, except sometimes it gets a bit ridiculous when if a movie comes to cinemas on the 26th, that it's up for torrent by the 28th.

Human nature is a bit of a stretch of an excuse though.

I do pirate a lot of music, but if I actually like it I'll buy it. I'm cool and go to shows/buy merch which gets artists money more directly.

I found a very interesting article on the ethics of downloading music specifically, I'll edit this post when I find it

I wouldn't even consider that a viable excuse. Why do I pirate music? Because it's free.

But then again the eventualities of piracy really are quite nasty.

2. Can big media producers really charge 30 bux for a DVD which cost 15 cents to make? And more importantly, should they be the only one to distribute it?

Keep in mind the huge amounts of cash it takes to produce though, a few million sometimes (as with most games) and then the wages of all those people in the creadits? Thats a lot of dosh...
Anyhow maybe DVD's n such will be downloadable like mp3's and some games in the near future, although I doubt it..
Steam is the only thing I can think of thats a good distribution system thats somtimes faster and cheaper.

Overall I don't think anyone really gives a damn about piracey, not unless its them who are being affected directly by it.. or movies or whatever stop being produced cause they're out of business.

That's ridiculous. It'd be on torrent before release if it's a big picture.

I'm not a piracy fan, but I'm fairly hypocritical, and I have different ideas for different things.
For example, TV shows I have no problem downloading, because I only end up watching them once, so it seems to me no different than watching TV, which I don't actually do. For music I have no problem downloading singles, in fact I think these days they should be free, because no one is buying them. For albums, I rarely download them, it's only if I'm really not sure if I'll like it, and if I do I usually buy it or delete it if I don't. For movies I get them off my friends (who download them) and that's the main one I feel bad about. I try to see movies in the theatre if I can, but I can't always afford it, and sometimes miss the chance to see them with a busy schedule. I don't tend to rent things, although I should. I buy DVDs of my favourite movies, but usually wait til they come down in price. Oh, and computer programs, I pirate quite a few, but it's only because they're so expensive. Don't really play games anymore, so no comments on that.

Its funny you say you pirate them cause they're expensive, thats usally is the reason why they are so expensive :p (until they go out of business that is)

They've always been that expensive; even before the internet brought piracy on a huge global scale

Dude it costs about 15 cents to press one DVD copy of a movie. The movie industry doesn't lose a DIME over copied DVD's no matter what they want you to think. The entire argument of artists losing money isn't valid to begin with. Every big movie always makes more then it cost to make. Music, same thing. The few thousand dollars it takes to rent a studio or whatever is no match for the couple of million the CD makes when it hits the stores.

It's got nothing to do with the price of the hardware, it's the intellectual property that is being stolen. And yes, when it is only one person the loss is insignificant, pursuing the issue is more costly than the money never earned. But the most damaging attitude in the world is "I'm one person I won't make a difference". Firstly, because you do make a difference, albeit a small one, and secondly because a million people making small differences tends to conform to the effect of a million small differences. Which, on a financial scale, is a very large difference.

independant artists? they still get leeched. few thousand dollars for studio renting, another for equipment, then a few hundred (possibley) for pressing of about 700 cds, 150-300 of which will get purchased, yet it will get downloaded 400+ times.

A lot of big bands can handle the loss (Metallica, fucking whiney bitches) but those just starting out can get kind of royally fucked

Rubbish. Most films these days lose money. The studios only make money on huge blockbusters and the occassional small film that does better than expected.

The only companies I hear complaining are the huge companies like Universal or MGM. Sure there are smaller studios too but piracy has been around for years and if they are not certain they can make a decent profit from it they should not attempt to get into the industry in the first place. Piracy is something which will always exist not matter how hard MPAA tries to ban it. So what the movie industry must think about is that if they make a movie their need to be sure it makes money or otherwise not even start. On that note, they could start with lowering the idiotic high salary's of the people starring in those movies. Any movie star asking more then a million to star in a movie should be shot on sight. Sometimes the actors cost more then the freaking sets all together!

Also, there should not exist such a thing as intellectual property, this is one thing I do agree with on that documentary (though I don't exactly agree with the reasoning they put behind it). Movies or music should be handled like anything else. It is made, it is distributed and it is bought. Whatever is done with it from that point on is up to the person who bought it and that should be final.
Surely if I buy a 30 euro movie in the store it is mine? It's MY movie and I can decide what I want to do with it. If I buy it, it's no longer property of the artist, or the distributer, it's mine. Just like when I buy a painting. The moment I pay money for a painting it becomes my painting and is no longer the artists. The moment I pay for a new monitor it isn't property of LG anymore, even though they came up with it and made it.

If I put a DVD on my computer that's my business. If I want to share MY movie with other people then that's my right. Whether you share it or not depends on your own morals of course, but you should be able to do with it what you want. It is after all your legally purchased copy of a movie.

You can't reverse-engineer the LG monitor, make a cheap knockoff that infringes on their patents then sell it to whoever you like for half the price of the original.

Ultimately, if there is absolutely no contol over IP, people will stop producing things.

Finally found the link I was thinking of a while ago.

It talks a little about the death of OiNK, but it adresses piracy issues. A little bit anarchist-y though.

Okay, I read all that whole thing, and it raises some good points, but it focuses too much on attacking the industry, and not on the artist side. My other problem is this:

People don't. I know with my own friends, whether it's Metallica or some obscure prog-metal band who still have to hold down regular jobs, they won't buy any of them. They can download them, so they will download them, there's no distinction. For example, a friend of mine said to me, when I asked him if he'd pay for my band's music, "Yes, because I know you". That's the only reason he would.
Another example is the Radiohead thing. 60% of their fans paid nothing for it. I know that article goes into this, and says about the lesser quality of it, but a friend of mine reports that it was 320kbps vbr. While not CD quality, that's pretty good for a download, and the band had always planned to release it in CD form later. People have a problem with the labels making so much money from sales, well here was a chance to basically donate straight to the fucking artist, and few did. People will make up as many excuses for downloading/filesharing as they want, but even if they are offered a solution, I'm pretty sure the people doing it won't ever take it, because it's so much easier to acquire the music for free.

Lots of people don't, but I'm guessing 1 out of 30 people who download music regularly would. But yes, it is quite attacky, hence my use of the word 'anarchist-y'.

That being said, the RIAA are too active and do too much.

It was my dad who introduced me to the wonderful world of downloading music and whatnot. Every time I asked him for a game or a CD that I wanted, he'd get angry and tell me that I could just get it free online, instead of wasting money. I felt bad doing it, but I did it. Then all my friends started downloading too, so it seemed less normal, and I also learned more about the risks and stuff.

Now, I'm kind of confused about what to think of it. I download, but I also buy. I like buying my CDs. I like having the original CD case, and any idiot who belittles me for wanting so("But why would you waste money on a piece of plastic and some paper, when you can get it free"), can kiss my ass.
I download because I don't have money, but I love music. Without music I'd probably slip in an endless depression. I try to buy it whenever I feel I have the money for it. But with rents to pay, and food to buy, suddenly I don't have all that much money. I probably buy one or 2 CDs each month, or something else.

But there's so much wrong with the music industry these days... The label companies getting too much money. But I read somewhere that things are kind of changing. Many artists earn more money on concerts that Albums. So the label companies are getting upset over this, and now they want a bite of the concert money too! Greedy bastards. They call it unfair that they aren't getting anything.

But honestly I don't know what can be done to stop this piracy. I think it's all a matter of keeping the price on CDs balanced... Not too expensive because then people wont buy it... Specially the students who are all broke. But it shouldn't be too cheap either, as the artists need a profit too.

I get prouder and prouder as my CD collection gets bigger and bigger.... Maybe the answer to all this is to make original CDs a trend... Make it a popular thing to buy the CDs instead of downloading.

This sounds like the beginnings of an NA confession. Baby steps, lady. Baby steps and that stem will fall out of your mouth yet.

I'd say 95% of my music is purchased legally. I too enjoy buying CDs - I like having a collection. I also like the little lyrics booklet that comes with it.

Alcar...

I have, at maximum, about 30 or so songs altogether. Half of it is J-pop, the other half Techno. I got it 50/50 Bittorrent/CDs.

The rest I just find on Youtube if I want to hear it.

This. I mean, I even keep a list on my computer of real albums I own, that's how proud of my collection I am.
I currently own 164 albums. I used to buy almost one a week, but I had to cut down being a poorer student, and I also have less time to listen to it, considering my study, etc. usually involves me playing instruments.

If I can possibly get with minimum fuss I buy, however seeing as my music taste took an unexpected turn about a year ago after I listened to some amazing German power metal and now I find the conformist majority market that is HMV wont stock my particular brands of music (I be a small town boy and HMV has a monopoly, there really is nowhere else to go) I am forced to procure my wares in a more illegal way.

I do much prefer getting CDs however and if I really like a few downloaded songs I buy the album off the nets and I agree with Alcar. The lyric booklets rock. (I would have missed out on about 25% of the experience had I downloaded Paradise Lost by Symphony X off the internet)

HMV is actually surprisingly good now by the way, the online store I mean, the real shop is rubbish.

10% discount for me!

I hate HMV, they're selling everything for the most inflated prices this side of GAME.

Honestly, I am all for illegal downloading and piracy, but only so much.

HMV exists in Canadia? Ace!

It exists in Australia, too, Charlie :p

Yes! Another claim to civilisation!

Alcar...

Multi nationals get my socialist senses tingling.

I download music because of the inherent flaws that exist within capitalism.

That sounds just about trite enough to be valid. :)

I don't like to spend my small amount of funds on something I can Limewire.

Go pirating!

The problem I have with piracy, torrents and P2P networks is that more people need to use it! I can't always find the files I want! Argh!

I have acquired music online, mainly via my brother. However, that is usually enough to get me buying the disc to see what else they have done.

There is something satisfying about exchanging money in a financial transaction and receiving your desired goods in return. You just don't get that illegally.

No, but it costs a hell lot less.

Just imagine in the future when we'll be able to download alcohol.torrent streams. I fear I'll be long gone, though.

That and a tiered Internet.

Alcar...

In the future, the creepy future,

small girls will have wiring-tentacles.

wha????????????

ghost you are creepy

I just know he means it too. Ghost would love nothing more then a 14 year old girl with big slimy tentacles just sliming and slippering away in his pants with one of those tentacles going up his you know what.

Don't be ashamed Ghost! Share your vision.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle3261591.ece
Wow...

Ha! We win. :fuzcool:

I was going to post that you llamagoose!

The way I understand it so far is that the record labels get money according to how many times a track from an artist is played. http://www.qtrax.com/

I'm pretty skeptical about it myself.