Piracy & outdated distrubition : A Debate...

[Spatula]

Clive, I'd love to work for free, but I don't have that option, as I would have no place to live, no electricity, and no food to eat. When I cannot charge for my work, I will simply have to quit working and forage for food.

Yeah, but how many people pirate YOUR stuff?

Clive nailed this mutha... "Once you accept people viewing movies for free is inevitable then you have to look at how the industry can adapt to the new world order."

Exactly what I've been trying to say. I'm sure painters bitched about when the camera was invented, and singers bitched about recorded formats, but each time the industry adapts... and will again. The point is, if you make a quality product that garners the RESPECT and WANT of the audience, it will sell no matter how many download it.

Last night I was playing online risk with a kid from Saudi Arabia... doesn't have a cinema or movies in his town because of the culture, but he's got internet, so he downloads films. Good for him.

 

[mr-modern-life]

Clives point about free...

I was happy for my film LEFT FOR DEAD to be available ILLEGALLY because a) people got to see it and in turn it has raised our profile and b) York refused to give me the US rights back and as they have paid us nothing so to be honest fuck em! More people are seeing this way.

Rob you are right we dont. But actually if we can change teh system and force studios into acting to solve the problem we would all benifit as the result. Sales agents would take less, studios could pay more and MAYBE just MAYBE the whole thing comes down on the artist side for once instead of the studio.

But if we sit there and take it nothing will happen. And we THE FILMMAKERS will get screwed.

Copying and borrowing are two very different things. Yes they are and have you NEVER borrowed a CD and added it to your Itunes (thus breaking (c)).

Have you ever shown a film (espeically in the UK) to a group of 2 or more people? That's breaking (c) by the strictest sense. As is TECHNICALLY lending a DVD to someone.

We all at somepoint have breached (c) ... some of us just can be honest and admit it.

I ask you this. If a film was made and was teh best film EVER, everyone said how good it was and it would change your life forever but you know if was ONLY EVER available in another country and unless you went there you could NEVER see it would you not HONESTLY try and get a copy to watch?

 

[DeceptionA]

"Piracy is wrong. It is illegal and it is stealing. "


It's illegal and hurts the copyright owner. But, it's not stealing. It's pirating.

There's a difference. The candy bar example is faulty logic. Someone at the candy store will check his inventory and realize he's one candy bar short. If you pirated the candy bar, you'd get all the taste and enjoyment from the candy bar, yet there'd still be a candy bar on the shelf.

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

People do pirate my software, and I lose real money every time they do. I suppose I could spend the rest of my day harping about how it's unfair that one person has to pay, when another person chooses not to. I suppose it is meaningless to add that there would be no updates or follow-on products if only a few people paid the license fee. The law is irrelevant, as I'd have to actually catch the perpetrators and spend a lot of money in legal fees to punish them, and that still wouldn't end the piracy. What matters is people's perception of what they are doing. If they don't perceive piracy as theft (which it is from my point of view, because I've got thousands of dollars invested in the production of that product which will be lost, if I cannot sell it), then nobody will see a need to pay, and people like me will look for other ways to make money.

Sure, it's easy to make a technical breech of copyright, but that surely doesn't justify wanton violation. People find ways to justify murder, but that doesn't make it Ok. If you're going to take the profits of my labor, then you may as well move into my house and eat the food out of my fridge. Actually I'd rather you did that, then I can look you in the eye and know who you are.

This is my last post on this subject. This has already taken too much of my valuable time, and it's like trying to convince a serial rapist that his victims aren't asking for it.

 

[clive]

I'll put my hands up and admit that all I've got to give in this debate are my gut reactions and personal feelings.

I also recognise these aren't really that important... so I did a little bit of reading and found this:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=1903

When I try to second guess trends in the movie industry, I always look to the music industry, simply because we're more data heavy and therefore tend to lag behind a couple of years, whilst the technology catches up.

What's interesting in the above article is the mention of the Harvard Studies, which suggested that file sharing DIDN'T have a negative economic impact on the industry... but rather, that those who used it spent more, and on a wider selection of products than before.

As indies, that is GOOD news, rather than bad... because one of the biggest hurdles standing between most of us and distribution are the conservative tastes of distributors.

I know it's counter-intuitive to see "stealing" as a potential positive force... but that's because we attach the perjorative term "stealing" to it. Which in a strict legal sense it is. However, the laws regulating copyright were written before this phenomenon existed... and as the industry still doesn't understand its true impact, why should the law be any different.

However, all of this is by and large irrelevant... saying you don't approve of file sharing is like saying you don't approve of cancer... disapproving doesn't make it go away and doesn't recover any of the money lost.

Like oakstreetphoto said... there is no way to pursue the losses, therefore the legal aspects are not important: a law is only as relevant as the ability to enforce.

That leaves us with two potential debates: how to secure the data to prevent file sharing (technical fix), alternative strategies to increase revenue flow from downloads (Darwinist approach to business fix).

Personally, I've always favored Darwin over the technical... because every evolution in technology closes down some businesses and create opportunities for others.

 

[knightly]

The law says it's theft, regardless our stances on it. I have children, at the point when my child asks me how much I paid for a piece of software and I said nothing...I had to re-evaluate the obvious flaw in my thinking. My 5 year old asked me if I was stealing it then. I had to respond yes. I deleted the copy and worked out solutions to the dilemma. I hadn't stolen any media, I'd downloaded it and used commonly available serial numbers (statute of limitations makes me secure in talking about it now...as do my actions once the realization was made).

I was brought up in the world of computers, it was a new frontier. The Apple (first personal computer in the industry) was released when I was 7...I'd been using computers before that (the big full room monstrosities with monochrome terminals - there were some cool old games out for them). The culture at the time was very "free information exchange" to the extent that giving software to your friends was quite common. I'm not just talking about the kids either. This was before copy protection existed, so nothing was being illicitly "hacked" per se, just copied and traded and given away.

If you disagree, there are really 2 courses of action. You can protest in action or in debate. Protesting in action tends to be illegal in nature for the point of proving your point. More legally safe protest consists of organizing protests, boycotts and petitions. Complain loudly, but as soon as you cross the line into illegality, you become a different type of activist. I'd gladly consider signing petitions for this type of thing. Our town in the 4th largest population center in MN and yet we're not getting "Sweeny Todd", a movie I'd gladly pay to see...but can't, I'll have to drive an hour and a half to see it.

In your arguments, you keep stating downloading the movies is ok because it helped you. As the IP owner of your films...you have the right to think it's OK for your films to be downloaded...they're yours. If you want to change the world...self distrubute for free and ask for donations. Change the world not by becoming a criminal, but by being revolutionary in your actions. Be hugely vocal everywhere about your new distribution model and state that it's specifically to show the big studios that there's a different way to look at their business...however,

as they are making billions, we as consumers are kind of proving that they're right. To get the distribution morals changed, you'll need to get numbers behind you, by the look of this thread as a small cross section, the numbers favor the studios model. You've got a ways to go to make the changes, bet we're filmmakers...if we'd stopped when people said we were crazy, we'd have gone into finance.

Soldier on, but being a martyr in this cause won't get your point across to the public or the industry.

 

[Spatula]

To get the distribution morals changed, you'll need to get numbers behind you, by the look of this thread as a small cross section, the numbers favor the studios model.

What numbers? Like I said before, there is no ACTUAL loss of product. Only the loss of a POTENTIAL sale... there's a difference between "asking for donations" and accepting that a percentage of people just won't pay to see a movie but DO anyway. Let me put it this way... you've got Microsoft Office and the OPEN OFFICE... one is like $400, and one is FREE... You'd expect that Microsoft would be run off the edge of the world for making people PAY for something anyone can get for FREE, but hey, Microsoft Office still SELLS. They both do essentially the same thing, only Microsoft has more services, tech support and quality features.
In the same respect, downloading a movie and buying a DVD have the same argument.. for the DVD, you get all the EXTRAS and QUALITY assurance from the source, whereas by downloading, you may not even get a full movie, or maybe it's dubbed in Hungarian or something...
All I'm trying to say with this is that when people LIKE and WANT a product, they'll buy it. If they don't, they won't... but no one will turn down something that's FREE.

Hence, why I own 3-5 copies of EACH Evil Dead film on VHS and DVD... and NO copies of the two Spiderman sequels (though I admit to seeing number 2 in the cinema... blech...).
If there's a movie that looks like it may be on par with the quality of Spiderman 3, I most likely will NOT pay for it... but if someone were to lend it to me and I end up enjoying it, I may change my mind and purchase it. Clive explained this better, citing the "positive" effects of exposure through Piracy. It's like a DEMO, or a TRIAL.... sure not an "authorized" one, but whatever... at least they downloaded the film and didn't STEAL A DVD, so you're out nothing but an imaginary sale.

If they don't perceive piracy as theft (which it is from my point of view, because I've got thousands of dollars invested in the production of that product which will be lost, if I cannot sell it), then nobody will see a need to pay, and people like me will look for other ways to make money.

Yeah, but that's software piracy. Different story. Software is a PRODUCT. A film is ART that is distributed AS a product. When people pirate a film, they are stealing the art (which should be free) and there is no loss of PRODUCT.
And if NOBODY sees a reason to pay, that means you're only advertising your product to people who don't WANT to pay for your product. As Knightly said, if this thread is any reflection of market trends, MORE people WILL PAY for a product than illegally download it.
Therefore, if EVERYBODY is stealing your product, there are only two answers:
1) Your product isn't good enough to make people justify the cost
2) You're not advertising the product in an effective way to the market that WILL buy it.

Solutions:
1) Make the product better and offer incentives to buy it (lower cost, free upgrades, etc)
2) Change your methods or venues of advertising. The internet is notorious for being "free". Maybe try some print ads? TV commercials? Cold Call some businesses... I'm willing to bet you market your software online... I've NEVER purchased software online, because even if I NEED it, there usually is several programs with free trials. If I LOVE the software and want to use it ALL the time, I'd buy it then. But NEVER before trying it for free.... hmmm...

I ask you this. If a film was made and was teh best film EVER, everyone said how good it was and it would change your life forever but you know if was ONLY EVER available in another country and unless you went there you could NEVER see it would you not HONESTLY try and get a copy to watch?

And just on that note, I mentioned earlier that I was chatting with a Saudi boy (13-14 yrs old, he was) who said his town didn't even have a cinema... part of that, he said, was due to the culture of Arabia... but he downloads movies... who knows? Maybe one day, he'll download a movie that will inspire him to start a cinema in his town which plays Hollywood movies? That in itself could make a good film...
Logline: When a young Saudi pirates an inspiring movie, he embarks on a quest to bring the magic of North-American style cinemas to a region where movies are taboo... until the lawyers from major studios find out that the cinema is displaying illegally downloaded movies and send a task force to ELIMINATE him! Now, with both the American film industry and the Saudi cultural police tracking him down he must recruit the help of the Sweedish Pirate Industry to save the day!

But Clive said my point better... since the industry really doesn't KNOW the true effects of piracy, how can the "law" know? And if there are positive effects, can't that cancel out the negative effects?

Has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

 

[clive]

And just on that note, I mentioned earlier that I was chatting with a Saudi boy (13-14 yrs old, he was) who said his town didn't even have a cinema... part of that, he said, was due to the culture of Arabia... but he downloads movies... who knows? Maybe one day, he'll download a movie that will inspire him to start a cinema in his town which plays Hollywood movies?

I was working in Ghana last year and found exactly the same thing... there are no legitimate cinemas, so in the big cities you find these weird "cinema clubs" where you can rent a room, which has its own home cinema and nice sofas. You choose from a selection of DVDs... all of which are obviously pirated. Which makes sense, because you can't get legitimate DVD's in West Africa.

What's interesting about this, isn't the fact you can watch Hollywood movies, but that you can also watch home grown, African movies as well. In fact, most African's prefer the home grown DV movies, to the Hollywood blockbusters... and guess what, they get pirated as well.

There are two other points I want to make about this:

1) Every business knows that a certain percentage of their stock is going to be lost via theft. It's called shrinkage in the retail industry and it's just seen as a normal condition of trade. I don't see why the film industry/software industry or music industry feels that it should be exempt from that.
The truth is the gains in digital distribution and production have far outweighed the downsides. The vast majority of the industry's profits are now created from the very products that have left them open to piracy.

2) Theft is an interesting concept... it's easy to take the stance "all theft is bad" and believe in doing so you are taking the moral high ground... because after all, it is wrong to steal.
But, I question that belief. Which is the more immoral... a person stealing food when they are hungry, or a store preventing a hungry person from eating, because they don't have money?

The very idea of theft presupposes the idea that it is moral to own things. In a world where some people have excessive luxury and others don't even have clean, safe water, I'm not too bothered by immorality of file sharing.