It's not Piracy they're against, it's distribution for Independents they fear!

[António Fagundes]

Wonderful post Tom. I only wish that everyone had such common sense about these things.

 

[Steve G]

The classic analogy that pirating digital goods is akin to stealing physical property is flawed at best. When you download a movie, you're not taking anything from anyone else, except the potential of a sale - which itself is a potential gain - not a potential loss. There's a big difference.

When people talk about digital piracy, morals end up being what people end up arguing on. Choosing whether you pirate a movie or not rarely comes down to the potential legal consequences, but rather ones own morals. It normally comes down to whether you think the content producer is worthy of your money, and whether you personally think it is wrong to pirate, or otherwise break the law - among any number of other things. Breaking the law could be considered morally wrong, but so can many of the acts of these corporations who operate within the law. Automatically implying that breaking the law is morally worse than the actions carried about by some of these corporations, is unfair, as an example. Laws are rigid. They don't adapt to context. Laws are not understanding or empathetic. Keeping in mind that laws exist for the sake of maintaining order in a social and economic systems, I don't believe there's any risk of breaking the foundations of our social and economic structure by making the digital media industry less lucrative. Breaking the law isn't wrong in any absolute terms, only relatively, and it's of my opinion that relative to current circumstance, pirating a movie isn't any worse morally than making and producing cigarettes - I can use that as an argument.

So when you say pirating movies is wrong, it's still only a matter of opinion. Even whether taking the life of another person is right or wrong is a matter of opinion, despite it seeming that it's absolutely wrong. Is it wrong to kill someone if they undoubtedly threaten the lives of many more? Even that depends on who the people are that this person threatens to kill. It's all a matter of context, circumstance and of course opinion, and that's really the only point I wish to make in this post.

What is amazing, and frankly scary, is that anyone on here who makes their living from producing content, thinks that it is ok to not pay for other peoples content.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

What is amazing, and frankly scary, is that anyone on here who makes their living from producing content, thinks that it is ok to not pay for other peoples content.

It's a shame that every time we get onto an interesting discussion of the complexities of this extremely multifaceted issue, somebody comes along and tries to reduce it back to black and white...

 

[Steve G]

It's a shame that every time we get onto an interesting discussion of the complexities of this extremely multifaceted issue, somebody comes along and tries to reduce it back to black and white...

Which is surely the point. Either you agree with stealing content or don't. The rest is semantics. If you do, and you make your living from being involved in the production of content, then you should be sure that you are happy for others to do the same with your product. Simple choice.

 

[Sergio Perez]

Which is surely the point. Either you agree with stealing content or don't. The rest is semantics. If you do, and you make your living from being involved in the production of content, then you should be sure that you are happy for others to do the same with your product. Simple choice.

If I did something worthwhile, a film that I feel has an important message to share, or a work that I feel is worth watching by a vast audience, I think that if they don't have money they should be allowed to see it. I think that for the others that can pay to watch what I do, I hope what i do has enough value to make them purchase either a ticket or a copy of my work. Whatever I do I intend it to give value to the purchaser. I think one can only answer this with their own personal view of this. The world, and i agree on this, is not black and white. Now if people don't have ethics, don't have morals, this is another issue. This has more to do with education. This is probably were the biggest failure of the "system" is. That is also the main reason many unnecessary laws end up written- Because of the failure of each society's own educational system- its easier to punish and make people obey than to make them see why they shouldn't do certain things.

 

[Jim McKinney]

For my first film, due out in a couple of months, we will be offering 480p, 1080p, 2560 and 4K direct downloads, free of DRM, at a relatively low price, with very fast and secure downloads. To me, that is the future.

Please let us know when it does come out (on a different thread, too!) A lot of us are looking forward to it.

 

[Elsie N]

Is a seat belt law proper? Does govt have the right to save us from ourselves? Fine us for not complying?

With the exception of requiring children to be buckled up, I say no. The insurance companies should have the right to not pay a claim for an accident if the dirver was not wearing one and passengers who weren't buckled up could be considered not covered if they were injured in an accident. That puts risk onto the driver and passengers if they do not comply. But there shouldn't be a fine for not complying.

Make safer cars.

Likewise, to stop unauthorized use of copyrite material, make a better delivery system.

Personally, I think the current copyrite laws are oppressive to creativity. It seems to me new ideas border on the preposterous because you can't create new on the back of something already done. I think this takes away the ability to continue a central theme through generations to form a common thread among the different generations.

An example would be much of what Walt Disney produced... Snow White etc. If after a time that body of work had been put in the Public Domain, then it could have been updated to tell the stories through a different generation's viewpoint. But as it is, something like Barney had to be invented that left older generations and the newer generations without that common ground of a popular story.

I know this has no direct connection to the SOPA-PILLA law (or whatever) but this looks like a good place to rant.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Personally, I think the current copyrite laws are oppressive to creativity. It seems to me new ideas border on the preposterous because you can't create new on the back of something already done. I think this takes away the ability to continue a central theme through generations to form a common thread among the different generations.

An example would be much of what Walt Disney produced... Snow White etc. If after a time that body of work had been put in the Public Domain, then it could have been updated to tell the stories through a different generation's viewpoint. But as it is, something like Barney had to be invented that left older generations and the newer generations without that common ground of a popular story.

This is something I think about quite often and I agree in principle, though I'm uncertain about the example as it is one that has been defeated many times. Ideas are not subject to copyright, and a theme is an idea, so we are "free" to make a film of the same theme. If the plot points and characters are very similar however, then we end up in trouble.

Others hae argued that to make anything with similarities that go beyond general theme are derivative at best and therefore undesirable, of lesser value, yadda yadda, yadda. It's almost inevitable. When the discussion wanders into value judgements I quickly lose interest as I think that discussion of copyright law is no place for value judgement.

So where else can this discussion go and still make your point Elsie?

 

[Antony M]

...Piracy, he says, is most often a service problem, more so than a pricing problem. If I can start downloading a full blu-ray quality movie (30GB file) within 30 seconds at any given moment, with no conditions-of-use attached, then what do you think I'm going to do given that the best alternative is to go the local video rental and rent a blu-ray, for which I need a blu-ray player, and which I need to return to the shop the day after.

... what do you assume will happen if indeed piracy kills off a large portion of the movie industry. Do you think those truly passionate about making movies (most of you) would just stop? No, of course not. At worst, it means trilogies like Transformers used solely as profit turners will no longer be made. While the number of movies released would likely go down, because all of the crappy profit turners are no longer being made, the relative quality would probably go up. Those independent film makers in it for the passion rather than the profit, would also probably benefit from the added exposure.

Totally agree with you, Tom.

 

[Antony M]

What is amazing, and frankly scary, is that anyone on here who makes their living from producing content, thinks that it is ok to not pay for other peoples content.

So you will never listen to the radio, because you aren't paying for it?

You will never go to a friend's house to watch a film, because you didn't pay for it?

 

[Steve G]

So you will never listen to the radio, because you aren't paying for it?

You will never go to a friend's house to watch a film, because you didn't pay for it?

Radio is paid for either through the bbc licence fee, if it is a bbc radio channel, if not, it is paid for from advertising.

I would watch a legally obtained film at a friends house. IMHO, different from downloading, where no money whatsoever changes hands.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

Which is surely the point. Either you agree with stealing content or don't.

Again with the 'stealing' thing? I think the simplest way I can put it - if I take a photograph of a painting, do you consider that I have stolen the painting?

 

[Scott Crawley]

As a closing note, what do you assume will happen if indeed piracy kills off a large portion of the movie industry. Do you think those truly passionate about making movies (most of you) would just stop? No, of course not. At worst, it means trilogies like Transformers used solely as profit turners will no longer be made. While the number of movies released would likely go down, because all of the crappy profit turners are no longer being made, the relative quality would probably go up. Those independent film makers in it for the passion rather than the profit, would also probably benefit from the added exposure.

It's a tempting thought, but the absence of big tent pole films like Transformers (Big blockbuster films I might add, make up a minority of the annual total.) does not necessarily translate into more exposure for anyone else, much less every independent film. To argue that it does pre-supposes that if the big distributors did not have Transformers and the like to promote, that they would be looking for the next best thing... And I'm not sure that would be the case. If big distributors don't have big films to sell, there just might not be any big distributors at all.

The question then becomes can independent producers capture the attention of the masses without using the expensive methods currently exploited by big distributors or how else will they do it? Some undoubtedly will find that kind of success, but they too will be a minority. Therefore a new minority is bound to emerge to take the place of the current minority, the big budget tent pole film.

Where then is the benefit of killing off the big blockbuster?

 

[Elsie N]

This is something I think about quite often and I agree in principle, though I'm uncertain about the example as it is one that has been defeated many times. Ideas are not subject to copyright, and a theme is an idea, so we are "free" to make a film of the same theme. If the plot points and characters are very similar however, then we end up in trouble.

Others hae argued that to make anything with similarities that go beyond general theme are derivative at best and therefore undesirable, of lesser value, yadda yadda, yadda. It's almost inevitable. When the discussion wanders into value judgements I quickly lose interest as I think that discussion of copyright law is no place for value judgement.

So where else can this discussion go and still make your point Elsie?

In looking back, I didn't use the best example to make my point. This is something I pondered a number of years ago and now it's coming back to me what my thinking was back then.

Specifically I was lamenting that no one can use the image of Mickey Mouse without Disney consent and licensing. The mouse, in my mind, belonged more to the public than to Disney. True, Disney made the mouse iconic, and for doing so has been handsomely rewarded. But it seemed to me that others could take the mouse to new greatness with a freedom to create.

At the least, I think it should be o.k. to just say the name or show an image of something within another work without infringement.

Of course big productions can jump through the hoops to meet all the requirements of the law, if a copyrite holder agrees. But the smaller content creator has to invent something completely different to avoid infringement on someone's work, even if it was an ever so slight reference.

ADDITIONAL: I worked as an extra on the movie Friday Night Lights a few years ago. There were people acting as scouts for major universities in the stands wearing the caps of the represented universities. Someone said the reason no one was wearing a Texas Tech cap (a university in the nearby recruiting area of the high school in the movie) was because they asked too high a price for the right to use their "cap". This is a state university and you had to pay just to show their cap in a scene? This has gotten out of hand.

 

[Antony M]

Radio is paid for either through the bbc licence fee, if it is a bbc radio channel, if not, it is paid for from advertising.

I would watch a legally obtained film at a friends house. IMHO, different from downloading, where no money whatsoever changes hands.

But this was not your original argument.

So now you are saying that as long as SOMEONE else has paid for the material, then it is OK for YOU not to?
Whether that "someone else" is an advertiser or a friend?

What about if it is a "friend of a friend" ?
Do you see how this starts to get grey very quickly?

[I thought the BBC Licence fee was only paid by TV owners in the UK. You don't buy a licence in the UK for radio anymore]

 

[Antony M]

Again with the 'stealing' thing? I think the simplest way I can put it - if I take a photograph of a painting, do you consider that I have stolen the painting?

If you take a photo of a person, you have stolen their soul

 

[Scott Crawley]

In looking back, I didn't use the best example to make my point. This is something I pondered a number of years ago and now it's coming back to me what my thinking was back then.

Specifically I was lamenting that no one can use the image of Mickey Mouse without Disney consent and licensing. The mouse, in my mind, belonged more to the public than to Disney. True, Disney made the mouse iconic, and for doing so has been handsomely rewarded. But it seemed to me that others could take the mouse to new greatness with a freedom to create.

At the least, I think it should be o.k. to just say the name or show an image of something within another work without infringement.

Of course big productions can jump through the hoops to meet all the requirements of the law, if a copyrite holder agrees. But the smaller content creator has to invent something completely different to avoid infringement on someone's work, even if it was an ever so slight reference.

How and when is posession of an artistic work transferred to the general public, or a culture? Are you saying then, that copyright should expire with the life of the original creator? Can a company or corporation be considered the original creator? Corporations can theoretically live forever.

Corporations don't enjoy the same rights as individuals. How should their rights be different under copyright law, if at all? How is the public best served?

It is a big, complex can of worms I think.

 

[Steve G]

But this was not your original argument.

So now you are saying that as long as SOMEONE else has paid for the material, then it is OK for YOU not to?
Whether that "someone else" is an advertiser or a friend?

What about if it is a "friend of a friend" ?
Do you see how this starts to get grey very quickly?

[I thought the BBC Licence fee was only paid by TV owners in the UK. You don't buy a licence in the UK for radio anymore]

Not sure what your point is. All bbc radio is paid for through the licence fee. Non bbc radio in uk is paid for through on air adverts.
If I am at a friends house and they are playing a paid for DVD, possibly that is a slightly greyish area. Downloading a film from the Internet for free or buying a bootleg DVD, IMHO, is, if you depend on content production for your income, a bit like crapping on your own doorstep. Hey, we all have our own morals and interests. You have copyright statements on your photo site on your home page. Presumably you value your creative output ?

 

[Elsie N]

How and when is posession of an artistic work transferred to the general public, or a culture? Are you saying then, that copyright should expire with the life of the original creator? Can a company or corporation be considered the original creator? Corporations can theoretically live forever.

Corporations don't enjoy the same rights as individuals. How should their rights be different under copyright law, if at all? How is the public best served?

It is a big, complex can of worms I think.

Scott, this is something I added to that post you quoted, after the fact:

ADDITIONAL: I worked as an extra on the movie Friday Night Lights a few years ago. There were people acting as scouts for major universities in the stands wearing the caps of the represented universities. Someone said the reason no one was wearing a Texas Tech cap (a university in the nearby recruiting area of the high school in the movie) was because they asked too high a price for the right to use their "cap". This is a state university and you had to pay just to show their cap in a scene? This has gotten out of hand.

But now to your questions. I would say ten years is enough time (maybe less) for a copyrite to exist without renewal. Renewals would be at a sliding scale (upward) to encourage a person (or company) to not renew if the material had quit producing revenue. When it is not renewed by the original creator it should move into the Public Domain and any derivative works should also be in the Public Domain. And I would liberalize (and define) fair use to make it less restrictive to include some usage of copyrited material in a new work without license or consent.

Or maybe, after the first renewal, make an even more liberalized fair use doctrine to be in effect.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Scott, this is something I added to that post you quoted, after the fact:

ADDITIONAL: I worked as an extra on the movie Friday Night Lights a few years ago. There were people acting as scouts for major universities in the stands wearing the caps of the represented universities. Someone said the reason no one was wearing a Texas Tech cap (a university in the nearby recruiting area of the high school in the movie) was because they asked too high a price for the right to use their "cap". This is a state university and you had to pay just to show their cap in a scene? This has gotten out of hand.

But now to your questions. I would say ten years is enough time (maybe less) for a copyrite to exist without renewal. Renewals would be at a sliding scale (upward) to encourage a person (or company) to not renew if the material had quit producing revenue. When it is not renewed by the original creator it should move into the Public Domain and any derivative works should also be in the Public Domain. And I would liberalize (and define) fair use to make it less restrictive to include some usage of copyrited material in a new work without license or consent.

Or maybe, after the first renewal, make an even more liberalized fair use doctrine to be in effect.

There are some interesting solutions there which I have never seen suggested before. Good thinkin'!