dvd distribution via download?

[dvdguy]

Hey filmmakers

Alright, I have a little problemo that needs a bit of attention.

You see, I'm planning on selling my work (dvd's should I call them?) via download. So I have a few questions regarding the matter:

1. Is there anything special I should know about anti-piracy? Is it different?
2. What software is good for downloadable content? (anti-piracy)

Thanks in advance!

 

[sonnyboo]

well played sir

But I don't share their definition. To me, "stealing" or "theft" inherently involve depriving someone of something, and copying does not.

But it DOES deprive the copyright holder of the compensation they otherwise would have if the video was not illegally copied and distributed. The store metaphors are still valid (to me) because it's the loss in profit, less so the physical items that are being lost.

You are making an interesting point, though. I will have to ponder and consider this point of view over time.

In my view, copying illegally and distributing is theft. To you, because it is copying it is not "theft". That is where we are definitely in the place of opinions that are both valid, even if irreconcilable. We will have to agree to disagree because there is nothing more either side can present that change these opinions as they are.

 

[Joe Citizen]

Sorry, Joe, you're analogy is misguided. The emphasis in Sonnyboo's definition should not be on the word "taking", but the phrase "without permission". If you have permission to take someone's intellectual property then it is not theft; if you don't, it is, whether or not they still "have it". The FBI agrees. Argue the semantics with them if you want.

Are we all lawyers now? What does the FBI have to do with anything? Or the law, for that matter? Arguing from authority isn't particularly persuasive. It doesn't matter which word you emphasize, either, since theft is inherently about taking something from someone. It doesn't matter which word you emphasize.

But it DOES deprive the copyright holder of the compensation they otherwise would have if the video was not illegally copied and distributed.

Not inherently; it can, or it cannot, depending on circumstance. E.g., our shack guy with DSL, in which case, the "compensation they otherwise would have had if the video was not illegally copied and distributed" is zero.

The store metaphors are still valid (to me) because it's the loss in profit, less so the physical items that are being lost.

Again, the distinction here is about the inherent loss involved in theft. Illegally copying IP may result in a loss of potential income (rather abstract* compared to "dude, where's my car?"), and it may not. The loss is not inherent with copying; it is inherent with theft.

*e.g., is picketing or boycotting theft, too? That's probably going to cost someone "potential future income," too.

You are making an interesting point, though. I will have to ponder and consider this point of view over time.

It's not really that I want to downplay piracy. It's more that I'd personally rather not downgrade the accusation of thievery. Right now thievery is a serious accusation, so obviously interested parties would prefer that connotation to "illicit copier!" It's not that I begrudge the industry those ads comparing file"sharing" to grand theft auto, either. They've got to make money after all. It's just that I feel that I have a duty to own my own thinking, and calling it "theft" doesn't pass the smell test. It can be theft, of course.

Upshot is, IMO there's a lot of grey in this picture.

In my view, copying illegally and distributing is theft. To you, because it is copying it is not "theft". That is where we are definitely in the place of opinions that are both valid, even if irreconcilable. We will have to agree to disagree because there is nothing more either side can present that change these opinions as they are.

I'd add "necessarily" or "inherently" into the second sentence before "theft," but otherwise, I was going to say pretty much the same thing. I'm not the type of person who has to have everyone agree with me. We're both adults and if we both have fairly good reasons for what we say, then I think we can survive it. I will say this, it's definitely a grey area IMO. E.g., is it really in a movie-lover's interests to see Hollywood go broke and stop making movies? Of course not, so it's not a good idea to get too cozy with the "free movies for everyone" vibe.

 

[Joe Citizen]

In my view, copying illegally and distributing is theft.

Like I said, it's a grey area. I think what's been nagging me in saying it's not theft is that it is #@$!ing around with someone else's property in a way they expressly forbid. Like trespassing, or peeping into someone's windows, or illegal immigration.

 

[Zensteve]

Cool. So is anyone gonna answer the OP's actual questions?

 

[sonnyboo]

Not inherently; it can, or it cannot, depending on circumstance. E.g., our shack guy with DSL, in which case, the "compensation they otherwise would have had if the video was not illegally copied and distributed" is zero.

But I do disagree with this. It is NOT 'circumstantial' or "potential" loss. It IS a direct financial loss. People would NOT have access to the entire movie without the downloading unless it was from legitimate and financially compensated means to the copyright holder (theater ticket, DVD rental or purchase, TV broadcast, video on demand, etc.). That is not hypothetical or circumstantial. People are benefiting from illegal downloads by having access to the movie.

No need to debate the merits of the definition of the word "theft" further, but I don't see how that is circumstantial to anyone. It's pretty black and white, clear cut. Anyone who illegally downloads a movie, your definition of theft or not, is watching the movie for free that they otherwise would not get to see without the copyright holder being paid, directly or indirectly.

How do you define that as being okay or right? What entitles someone to have access to a movie without some form of compensation to the creators or copyright holders of the work? This is the core of the debate to me.

 

[sonnyboo]

Cool. So is anyone gonna answer the OP's actual questions?

The original poster seemed content with the first few answers....

 

[2001 Productions]

Are we all lawyers now? What does the FBI have to do with anything? Or the law, for that matter? Arguing from authority isn't particularly persuasive.

Because the FBI are the ones who investigate intellectual property theft. Read the copyright warning at the beginning of every video. And are you saying that theft and the law have nothing to do with each other? If this discussion is purely a disagreement on semantics, then I apologize for missing the gist of it.

It doesn't matter which word you emphasize, either, since theft is inherently about taking something from someone. It doesn't matter which word you emphasize.

I repeat: if I take something from you with your permission it is not theft.

 

[Blade_Jones]

Because the FBI are the ones who investigate intellectual property theft.

The only time the FBI ever investigates is when there's child porn involved or when an engineer releases Guns n Roses songs before the album has even been released. Otherwise there's no stopping it. How long has PirateBay been going for? 10 years and they still haven't shut that site down. Still navigating the court system after all these years.

 

[2001 Productions]

The only time the FBI ever investigates is when there's child porn involved or when an engineer releases Guns n Roses songs before the album has even been released.

Quite true, Blade. I should probably have said the FBI theoretically investigates. I do agree that the FBI has far more pressing concerns (Mickey Mouse notwithstanding).

 

[Joe Citizen]

How do you define that as being okay or right? What entitles someone to have access to a movie without some form of compensation to the creators or copyright holders of the work? This is the core of the debate to me.

I think I made it clear that I don't define "not theft" as "okay" or "right," just as I don't define "theft" as "not okay" or "not right." Yes, theft is not okay and not right; no, that is not the definition of theft - they're adjectives we use to describe it.

 

[sonnyboo]

I think I made it clear that I don't define "not theft" as "okay" or "right," just as I don't define "theft" as "not okay" or "not right." Yes, theft is not okay and not right; no, that is not the definition of theft - they're adjectives we use to describe it.

All right, you do not think it is theft by your definition of the word, but you do not think illegal downloads are "okay" or "right".

There is still direct financial loss for copyright holders from everyone having access to the movie without paying for it via illegal downloads. Would you agree or disagree?

 

[Joe Citizen]

Because the FBI are the ones who investigate intellectual property theft.

That's like saying I have to take the Inquisition's word on doctrine because they're the ones who investigate witchcraft. Okay, not a great analogy, because I don't mean to challenge legitimacy here. I'm just saying, since when does the FBI define A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G for grownups? No, if the FBI starts calling shit "ice cream," I'm not going to play along. Not even if Congress passes a law. *shock*

Read the copyright warning at the beginning of every video.

That should be edifying, thanks for the tip.

And are you saying that theft and the law have nothing to do with each other?

No. But you seem to be tempted to imply that I am.

If this discussion is purely a disagreement on semantics, then I apologize for missing the gist of it.

Well, it is, kinda. I just don't see it as theft, and I don't see what the FBI or a few hundred frames of copyright warning have to do with it.

I repeat: if I take something from you with your permission it is not theft.

I repeat: I'm challenging the idea that something is actually being taken, at least, necessarily. What did our guy in the shack with DSL take? Keep in mind that taking something means the person you took it from no longer has it. What did our theoretical duplication ray inventor take when he copied the Ferrari?

 

[sonnyboo]

What did our guy in the shack with DSL take? Keep in mind that taking something means the person you took it from no longer has it. What did our theoretical duplication ray inventor take when he copied the Ferrari?

The hypothetical guy in the shack got to see a movie that he otherwise would either have to pay to see or someone would have paid to allow him to see it (IE commercials, or paid for the rights to broadcast it, etc.). What he "took" was the money that the copyright holder would have made if they had seen the movie through any legitimate means. Our guy GOT something for free - a movie, regardless of being a data file or disc or film print.

Again, pure semantics, I don't see that "taking" means physical theft. Intellectual property theft is still theft. It is possible to "steal" an idea, and the first person did not "lose" this idea. They still have it, but now it is worth significantly less because it was stolen. In the same vein, that is what your theoretical duplication ray does. It can "steal" ideas, as in the shape and form of a Ferrari (which is trademarked and also patented) and give away something that is not inherently theirs to give away.

 

[Joe Citizen]

All right, you do not think it is theft by your definition of the word, but you do not think illegal downloads are "okay" or "right".

Nope. And it's obviously illegal, regardless.

There is still direct financial loss for copyright holders from everyone having access to the movie without paying for it via illegal downloads. Would you agree or disagree?

Absolutely. But that still isn't at all the same thing as saying copying a movie is theft. You have to look at individual responsibility; referring to the entire fact of "everyone having access to the movie without paying for it" is a bit of a bait-and-switch here - "theft" is an act a person carries out, a deed for which he is culpable; "everyone having access to the movie without paying for it" is a state of affairs, not a deed for which any one person is culpable. Point being, when Joe downloads that movie, he's not guilty of theft simply because that movie is widely available on torrent sites.

Basically, I think it's stealing if you would (could?) have bought it otherwise. In that case, you have indeed cost someone in "potential revenue." E.g., how about a guy who has 1000 dollars a year to spend, and he spends it all on movies? Then he downloads some movies via torrents. He couldn't have spent more money on movies if he wanted to, so he hasn't actually stolen anything, not even "potential revenue." He has broken the law, obviously. Or how about a guy who makes 30k a year, and downloads Every Movie On The Internet. Does anyone REALLY think ALL the people in ALL of those movies' revenue stream have actually lost anything, including "potential revenue"?

The trouble is, it's way too easy to justify that kind of thing, to "fudge" and say "these movies are all crap anyway, I wouldn't have paid for any of them" when it's a lie. And relying on the honor system isn't going to help studios much.

But IMO, it's way harder to justify real theft, as opposed to copying.

Edit: maybe content-makers should all just get together and buy all the hard drive manufacturers and bandwidth providers.

The hypothetical guy in the shack got to see a movie that he otherwise would either have to pay to see or someone would have paid to allow him to see it (IE commercials, or paid for the rights to broadcast it, etc.). What he "took" was the money that the copyright holder would have made if they had seen the movie through any legitimate means.

No, again, because the guy in the shack didn't have the money to pay with. It was "watch it for free" or "nothing." In both cases, revenue is zero.

 

[trueindie]

All right, you do not think it is theft by your definition of the word, but you do not think illegal downloads are "okay" or "right".

There is still direct financial loss for copyright holders from everyone having access to the movie without paying for it via illegal downloads. Would you agree or disagree?

I think a lot of people will disagree with you. It is NOT a "direct" financial loss if the person downloading it would never have paid for it in the first place. Yes he is enjoying something he should not be able to but he would never have paid for it. So no financial loss, even though somebody is enjoying the product without permission. It may be illegal, it may be many things, but it's not direct financial loss.

 

[sonnyboo]

E.g., how about a guy who has 1000 dollars a year to spend, and he spends it all on movies? Then he downloads some movies via torrents. He couldn't have spent more money on movies if he wanted to, so he hasn't actually stolen anything, not even "potential revenue."

But he HAS stolen... he GOT more movies. That's the point. Whether or not the movie is a physical disc or tiny file on his iPod - he now has movies he didn't pay for. I don't care how much money he can or cannot afford. What does that have to do with the fact that he now obtained a movie illegally that he otherwise would not have gotten? How is that a justification for the lost revenue? He's getting something he isn't paying for, a movie. THAT is the theft!

What about software code? It is possible to "steal" code, but it's a perfect digital copy and the original did not physically lose anything. If I took LARA CROFT and put her in my video game without paying, that is not "theft" by your definition. How can that NOT be theft? Obviously there is a difference between CIVIL and CRIMINAL lawsuits, but this would be classified as "CRIMINAL" because I stole something. They still have Lara Croft. I did not deprive them of her. But would that NOT be theft by your definition? How is that different from a movie?

The movie doesn't belong to you unless you buy it. I know, the same old VHS recording argument can come into play, but.... the copyright holder got PAID for the broadcast, knowing you could record it by that point. The same is NOT true of the DVD being ripped for a movie has not been broadcast yet.

 

[sonnyboo]

No, again, because the guy in the shack didn't have the money to pay with. It was "watch it for free" or "nothing." In both cases, revenue is zero.

But why does The Guy in the Shack get a movie and the copyright holder get ZERO? He should not get the movie for free. The theft is that he gets a movie without paying for it, whether he can afford it or not. It isn't even like he gets to see the movie once for free, he has a copy he can watch over and over again whenever he wants for free and forever.

It is lost revenue because if he didn't already HAVE the movie, he might watch it on TV, on a site with ads, streaming via Netflix, on cable, video on demand, or a host of other legitimate ways. In our Guy in a Shack scenario - why would he watch it on any of these other venues if he already has a copy, a copy that did not financially benefit the copyright holder in any way?

There are a few exceptions, I grant you. Some movies are never released in some countries. That makes "illegal" downloads questionable. If a movie has never been released, that makes it a "gray" area - but from first hand experience on my film HORRORS OF WAR, because it was available on torrent sites, every territory in South America would not buy it from us because there customers already had the movie for free. Direct revenue lost. Now, none of the official distributors will buy the movie from us BECAUSE of the guy in a shack with DSL that downloads the movie.

This goes way beyond the simple "I wouldn't/couldn't have bought it anyway". People are still getting the movie for nothing via illegal downloads and the copyright holders never get compensated for that. The illegal downloads directly affect other revenue streams like VIDEO ON DEMAND, NETFLIX STREAMING, HULU, cable TV, regular TV broadcast, hotel video, airline video, and more. It devalues the MOVIE if people already have it for free as a file and can watch it whenever they want, then it is worth less to these other outlets. So people may not have ever "bought" the movie, but there are still ways they can see it without expending any money which are now worth a lot less because they already OWN the movie without ever paying for it.

I cannot re-iterate enough, if you choose to give away your movie, that is your right. It CAN build a fan base and it can help find an audience for your movies. Downloading someone else's movies without permission is entirely different.

 

[sonnyboo]

I think a lot of people will disagree with you. It is NOT a "direct" financial loss if the person downloading it would never have paid for it in the first place.

But it IS, in my opinion. Someone got their product without paying for it. Whether or not they could or would, does not change the fact that they DID NOT make money from that. Isn't that the very definition of financial loss? Someone got your product without paying for it....

How is this different from "stealing" cable TV from your neighbor? You can't afford it anyways, so why don't they just let the people who afford cable TV pay for it and let everyone else have it for free? Do they give cable TV to poor people for free?

Why isn't everything free for people who can't afford it? Cell Phone service. It's not a physical item. It's not like someone is without cell phone service if we give it to everyone who can't afford it for free. They wouldn't have paid for it anyway. So there's no direct financial loss, right?

How can that possibly NOT be a direct financial loss? Getting something for free IS the financial loss.

See above post for additional loss in revenue on the product of a movie specifically...

This goes way beyond the simple "I wouldn't/couldn't have bought it anyway". People are still getting the movie for nothing via illegal downloads and the copyright holders never get compensated for that. The illegal downloads directly affect other revenue streams like VIDEO ON DEMAND, NETFLIX STREAMING, HULU, cable TV, regular TV broadcast, hotel video, airline video, and more. It devalues the MOVIE if people already have it for free as a file and can watch it whenever they want, then it is worth less to these other outlets. So people may not have ever "bought" the movie, but there are still ways they can see it without expending any money which are now worth a lot less because they already OWN the movie without ever paying for it.

I must admit, that this is again, where it is solely opinion, and one side is no more "right" than the other. I respect your opinions no matter how much I disagree.

 

[Infested Films]

There won't be any movies if people keep downloading them without SOMEONE paying for them. You seem to be mistaking "free" as simply you not paying for it, but the legitimate ways to see a movie mean someone other than you is paying the filmmakers. Bootlegging means NO ONE pays, unless they like it and decide to purchase.

That’s the point, I believe people do, and in my own experience, I’ve made money from that opinion. That’s the point I’m expressing.

Do you honestly think that everyone, everywhere - especially in every 3rd world country that is NOT the United States (think globally and outside of your own experience) actually buys the DVD or Blu Ray once they download it online from a torrent site even when they completely love the movie?

No. But here’s the flaw in your logic, in my opinion. I’m GLAD people in Japan and Russia and Serbia, and everywhere that is a torrenting hotspot is seeing my film. Because if I only released it “legally” it would only get US, maybe Canada, and maybe, by a long shot, UK distribution.
Now, I have millions of potential customers (who use Paypal, just like us) in every country I previously had 0% visibility in. Our films are horror, Norway, Sweden, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovia, Ireland, and England have been where most of our DVD orders came from. Less than 20% were American.
To me, the 2,000 people that will watch my film and not buy it is worth the 20 people that will watch the film and buy it, rather than 0 people watch my film, and 0 people buy it.
Your use of “theft” is what I find hilarious. Yes, under the letter of the law, it’s theft. Under the letter of the law, marijuana is illegal. Does that mean they’re automatically morally wrong? I don’t think so, of course I know many do….

See the decline of profit versus the increase in bandwidth and bootlegging? That's not a hard one to see.

Also compare it to every other avenue of the entertainment business (broadway, for example) and you’ll see it’s part of a general decline in entertainment spending. It’s just a clever business tactic by big studios to say “Hey, our films are fine, it’s the people stealing them that’s killing us!” No, inferior product leads to piracy. Because in the end, any pirate is one thing always: A die hard fan. If they weren’t, why would they waste the time, money, and possibility of loss of freedom for a stupid movie? Because they give a shit. Oh, I’m sorry, that makes them criminals. I forgot.

That's a strawman argument. The mathematical plausibility is that they do not want people to have access to a perfect digital copy of their film without being compensated for it, especially when it is being made available for free to millions of people for free. That's not the same as giving out screeners to reviewers. That's like mailing out 100,000,000 free movie tickets and hoping that the people who like it will pay something at the box office after they see it.

Which, based on recent album sales by Radiohead, leads me to believe you may have stumbled onto the greatest marketing scheme this side of Napster. I truly thank you. If it pans out, I’ll send you a percentage.

It is NOT your right to violate the filmmakers rights as copyright holders to be compensated (by someone) to let you see it.

And that’s the fundamental difference between you and I. That’s you’re belief. You might believe caffeine is morally wrong, but I feel the opposite way when it comes to both matters. The fact that you don’t recognize this as a moral function, rather than a legal function, is hilarious. Have you gone exactly the speed limit every second of your life? Gotten a parking ticket? If so, based on your argument, you are a bad person for failing to heed the laws of your local jurisdiction, no matter how morally unjust or repugnant you may find them. If that’s the case, well, I thought you were a more interesting person than that.

I can make a significant profit on a feature film using traditional distribution - but not as much as I used to even 3 years ago - because of bootlegging.

So the difference, the people that don’t like your films enough to pay for them now, is not what you screwed out of people for a movie they probably hadn’t seen, but rather a difference that should have been paid to you on the sole basis that you made the film? I understand many people are like this, I just don’t share the same moral stance, sorry. If someone walked out of my movie in the first 30 minutes, I’m the type that would refund their money. This business isn’t supposed to be a con job. It’s supposed to be real entertainment, things people will like and remember.

 

[Infested Films]

If someone hasn't put their movie up for free download then it is not within your rights to download it. I only evert download TV shows that I forget to record because I figure I've already paid for them just forgot to Sky+ it.

But that's the thing. Where do you draw the line? I've worked at movie stories for 5+ years and haven't had to pay for a rental (which is why, to me, piracy has been superfluous, if I did it, they would remain unwatched, as I tended to the backlog of 14 rentals a week, which was tough on its own) so if I don't have to pay for a rental, and I can rent a film at any time, what's the difference if I have a digital copy I can watch anytime?

Literally, the only difference is a drive to the store. For you, the only difference is the push of a button on your DVR. So if piracy is allowed for one good reason, who says it isn't good for every reason? The copyright holder?

As a copyright holder, this is what I'm trying to make everyone realize. The days of 90+ years eminent domain (nevermind, Disney is the only place that has these and they'll keep em forever) are dead.

We live in a new world, where copyright simply means authorship. Money is to be gotten as it can be gotten. Complaining about lost sales in piracy is like complaining about rising gas prices. Yes, ultimately, it's wrong, but there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it, it's a simple fact of life, and therefore we should take what advantage of it that we can, while we can.