Internet Pirating

[Brian]

Have you ever downloaded a mp3s or movies from the Internet (i.e. file swapping)? I just want to get a consensus on this file swapping issue. Is it really costing jobs? Is it really hurting the movie and record industries (money-wise)? Is it morally wrong? Is it wrong to do it even just to "preview" the material? Sound off!

This topic was inspired by a news-bit from JediNet: "Lucas in Commercial to Fight Piracy." (http://www.jedinet.com/miscellaneous/#15925,20030305,5571)

[Lord Rocha]

I have no moral authority to talk about this issue. Half of all my music came from Winmx

[Javen]

Have you ever downloaded a mp3s or movies from the Internet (i.e. file swapping)? yes

Is it really costing jobs?no

Is it really hurting the movie and record industries (money-wise)?no

Is it morally wrong? Not sure on that.

Is it wrong to do it even just to "preview" the material?no

Sound off!The rich are getting richer with or without me downloading!

[Justin]

I am totally against bootleg videos in any form. I think it's totally wrong, mostly because it cheapens the material.

I don't care how you slice it, movies that you download from the internet or that have been videotaped directly from the screen don't look as good as they were meant to.

If nothing else, it's a slight to the artists.

I know that MP3s can sound just as good as the real deal, though.

[Jors_Dedon]

Morals? What are those?
I'm a pirate! Argggg!

[FerrisWiel]

Look, when you download "pirated" data off the internet, the quality is cheapened, but at the same time, if the artist put out a quality product you'd be willing to lay down the cash for it as long as you're charged fairly for it, right?

I mean, Ben Harper summed it up best when he said all you need are good art, good music and a reasonable price and you'll have no trouble with pirates. The same is true for films, a good film you're going to see once in the theater and if you liked it enough, it comes with good extras and the price is right then you'll buy the DVD, too. What's so hard about it?

Here's a solution as well: Were the licensing groups to set up sites where you could get a subscription for a few bucks a month, I would pay to get any of the songs I want guaranteed, virus-free and quickly downloaded, that's for sure.

--FW

[Smeghead]

They actually have some sites like that, but as with many things, there's some fine print. Namely, you can only download a limited number of files, you can only burn a couple tracks a month to cd (and on some sites, can't burn any at all), and the files that you download are "crippled" (meaning that they either dissapear after a month, or after your subscription lapses). But the biggest problem is that each label has it's own site, so much of the time you can't d/l music by all the artists you want, unless you have subscriptions to multiple sites.

This is something the music industry has been working on for some time now, ever since they realised that Napster and its spawn werent just going to go quietly into the night. The problem is that they think they can just throw a half-assed solution to the problem, and it'll go away. If I wasnt a poor-ass college student, I'd gladly sign up for a site that let me download music quickly and without restrictions on what I could do with it after I paid for it. But until then, I'll stick to the occasional pirated song (I've downloaded maybe 6 songs since January), my CD collection, and the occasional freebie from my friend at the radio station.

[Das_Funked]

I download anything and everything.

I don't think twice about doing.

I sleep happy at night.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Justin@Mar 5 2003, 07:25 PM
I don't care how you slice it, movies that you download from the internet or that have been videotaped directly from the screen don't look as good as they were meant to.


I have a bottleg copy of The Fellowship of the Ring, it was taken from a screening copy, it's ever bit as good as it was in the theatre, I payed for that bootleg, as most people that download bootleg movies have to, I also bought both FOTR dvd's when they came out.

Why did I do that?

Because I'd already seen the film in theatre's three times and I was wanting to watch it more than I was wanting to pay $8 everytime I weant to see it.

Movie theatres rob the customers, I should get my money's worth.

$5 dollars for a medium fountain Coke? $8 for a matinee!!! That's outrageous.

The truth is that the business is a billion dollar industry, but even so, movie studios and theatres are not losing moeny, and no one is out of a job.

And there are plenty of artists that put their music on the internet so you can download it for free or alot cheaper than in stores.

Why I ask you would they do that?

Because the artists realize that people listening to their music is more important than them making money of of it.

[AlanRJ]

I have no qualms about downloading movies off the internet. The main reason I do it is because the movies are not available to buy. I had AOTC downloaded for a time but as soon as it came out on DVD I bought it the next day and deleted the movie off the PC. Downloaded movies are poor quality, but watchable. I have never downloaded a movie and kept it instead of buying it so in my eyes I am not ripping off anyone. If they released it earlier then I wouldn't even need to download it.

[Master Cephus]

$5 dollars for a medium fountain Coke? $8 for a matinee!!! That's outrageous.

wanting to pay $8 everytime I weant to see it.

I have a friend who is a manager at a theater and he told me that the reason for the high prices is that the theater has to usually give between 30% and 60% (I can't remember which one) of the gross of the movie back to the people they get the movies from. So the only way they really make money at the theater level is through drinks and candy. I still think it is silly to sell it so high, but you do have people buying them so....

I think downloading copyrighted material is stealing therefore morally wrong. That being said, I download stuff all the time. I like to say that it's because the prices are so high. BUT I bet if music CDs where only $3 a piece I still think that there would be a very high pirating rate because lets face it, free is better than $3 style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[FerrisWiel]

Well, that explains why TPM was such a "high-grossing" film, then. With the higher ticket prices it's easier to generate larger gross revenues.

In the future:
Guy A- Well, the film grossed $300 million it's first weekend, a new record!
Guy B- But it only played on 20 screens!

--FW

[kopernikuz]

I'm not big into music all that much... but for example... Eminem has put out maybe three songs that I've considered worth listening to. They're on three different albums. Am I gonna pay 15.99 or even 12.99 per CD to listen to 3 songs? Hell no. I either won't listen... (which I don't) or I'll just download a few of the ones I like. Does Eminem lose out? Well let's see... at 12.99 times 3 that's 38.97 I'd be spending on his music... but since I can't stand him other than those three songs, he ain't getting my 38.97 regardless... even if there were no downloads. So either way, he's out. If I'm an Eminem fan, am I going to be satisfied downloading? Possibly not. And if he were a better artist (in my opinion) I'd consider his work more worthy of my dime. And it isn't just Eminem... he's just my example... it goes on.

Norah Jones won multiple grammies. I like two of her songs. The others I could take or leave. So guess what... I leave. Norah Jones is a talented and gifted artist. But she won't be getting my 12 to 15.99.

The artists I do love... well, those people will get my money.

If the music industry wants to challenge the downloading industry... they gotta challenge the Buy/Sell/Trade industry as well and Ebay... why? Well, while they made their money on that CD once... they only made it once. I buy most of my music used from trading places. So most of these artists never see my money anyway. Arguably they made the money once. But if it wasn't offered used, they'd make it twice because I'd have to buy it new to get it. And not just me... millions of people would rather pay used prices than new. How much money is the music industry losing because of used stores? When I lived on campus at OSU, there were like twelve used stores up and down High Street. They were busier and more productive than most mall stores dealing in new merchandise. Some people will never buy a Cd new... are THEY robbing from the record companies or the artists?

As far as movie downloads... I've done this several times. Nothing I've ever downloaded has been something that I didn't purchase the day it came out on DVD. I'm just impatient. I would NEVER download a movie rather than see it in the theater or on video. It's just not as good. You lose the experience too. I doubt anyone would download AOTC that hasn't seen it or won't see it in the theater. What's the loss? I download because I'm too impatient to wait for the DVD... it lets me enjoy it a bit longer while I wait. But I've always paid for these... I just get extended viewing at home.

Again... what about rental places like Blockbuster? I've worked in several video stores and managed two... there are numerous customers who NEVER go to the theater. They figure, why? It costs too much and it'll eventually be on HBO, Payperview, or DVD... I'll just rent it for four bucks and my whole family can watch. The movie industy makes piddly from video rentals... just the purchase from the stores who rent them out. Does this affect the movie industry's bottom line? Sure, it's not free... but it still cuts down on who might have paid to see it in the theater. It hasn't hurt the movie industry yet... in all these years? Why do you think? Because on the whole, people would still rather enjoy a night out watching it on the big screen. It's just not the same at home... except to a minority of people.

I'd like to meet the guy who doesn't go to the theater, buy a dvd, or rent a dvd and gets all his movie entertainment from KaZaa. I would wager that guy doesn't really exist. These people are still spending their money out there. He'd be missing out on the movie's real quality otherwise. And it's a pretty lame entertainment choice.

And all his people said.... Amen.


Ultimately... I believe that the download of this material without intent to purchase or otherwise support it outside of this download is not right. Like I said. I never download anything I don't intend to buy.

[Lonesabre]

I dont really download much music. Thats just because I can never know any real good sites for doing it {Anyone know any? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif } The quality I get is usually too poor. I have no qualms about doing it though. Some of the points above are very well made. If I really like a song or movie then I'll buy it. If I dont like it, I wont buy it. But, if I sort of maybe like something, then I'll look to download it.

In another case, Im a poor student doing a multimedia course, through out the course of the two years I use 10 different programs ranging from 90 - 400 pounds. Now how do they think I can afford things like that. Things I HAVE to have? Theres only one way I can do it. I dont really like it but, thats just the way it is.

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif

[vodo]

no because I want to see movies around in the future

[Krogenar]

Have you ever downloaded a mp3s or movies from the Internet (i.e. file swapping)?

Yes, I have.

Is it really costing jobs?

Quite possibly. When companies lose money, they look for ways to reduce their overhead. That might mean letting some people go. Downloading pirated material from the internet cuts into profits.

Is it really hurting the movie and record industries (money-wise)?

Yes, it is. If I steal $1 from you, or $100 dollars from you, is there a significant moral difference? It's still stealing. If I steal $1 or $100 from someone who has either a lot of money, or only a little money, is it still theft? Yes, it is. The wealthy haven't done anything to deserve becoming the target of our moral ambiguity.

Is it morally wrong?

If you are 'stealing' the music for your personal enjoyment, and you have no intention of buying it - and the music is being sold by the manufacturer - then yes, it is theft - which is morally wrong. This is not a case of stealing food to feed your children - this is theft of entertainment.

Consider this: one of the reason's for America's success is the fact that you can come here, to this country, with a great idea. And if that idea is salable (valuable) you will receive the copyright and/or patent rights to the idea/goods/services. That means you profit from your ideas. This is a powerful incentive for people to develop new ideas, products and services. If that is infringed upon, and the government fails to act in defense of those rights, then why produce anything of value? Some people would still create things of value - but only out of pure altruism, or creative whim. In the process, Americans would lose a valuable right, and America itself would lose out on many wonderful (and salable) ideas.

Is it wrong to do it even just to "preview" the material? Sound off!

Some musicians allow for public downloading of their music. For them, getting their name out there is more important than making money right now. That's completely moral. If you preview the material, decide you like it, and then go out and buy the CD, then you've done the right thing.

[Brian]

Okay. Some interesting arguments here. Another question:

Is it wrong to download a movie after you've seen it multiple times in the theatre just to watch at home until the DVD/VHS is released? Keep in mind that you (or whom ever) will purchase the movie on DVD/VHS as soon as it's released.

[Lord Rocha]

I have never downloaded a movie...but i would not waste my time and memory in downloading a movie that i havent seen yet.

And i never buy VHS or DVD movies, i only have 5 movies,the SW Saga ,at home.

[Master Cephus]

OB Gates, I did just that with Ep. II. I went to see it opening day, then downloaded it to tide me over until the DVD came out. I really don't think this is wrong....IF you plan on buying the DVD when it comes out, problem with it is that how can you take a promise from everyone? The whole downloading was just one of those inevitable things that consumers couldn't wait to happen and what big time companies like RCA and Paramount were calling D-Day. It's hard to say. I think one day that we will have to come to a happy medium on what we call copyrighted material. I mean the big companies are not going to stop trying to stop pirating and the people responsible for pirating won't stop either....

[Das_Funked]

Originally posted by O-B-GATES@Mar 7 2003, 11:14 AM
Okay. Some interesting arguments here. Another question:

Is it wrong to download a movie after you've seen it multiple times in the theatre just to watch at home until the DVD/VHS is released? Keep in mind that you (or whom ever) will purchase the movie on DVD/VHS as soon as it's released.
I have done that and I do it.

[SithWitch]

If only STARWARS.COM would offer the film ONLINE
at the same time they show it on the screens...

I mean, why FORCE people into going to smelly
old sticky seat sniffling candy rattling crowded
theatres far from home? If you WANT to see a
film on the big screen, go for it. But why not just
charge $8 per view ... or perhaps require people
to purchase a DVD for $20 that allows four viewings.

Unless LUCAS offers something of better qualilty
and/or convenience to the bootlegs, I have no
problem with the accepting the only alternative.

I downloaded CLones the day it came out, and
I still saw it WEEKLY in the digital theare for the
whole run. I like the big screen, for STar Wars,
anyways. Even saw it twice on IMAX and three
times at a non-digital screen. Even with this fix,
I still also watched it daily on bootleg.

So gimme everything or don't gimme hell when
I go find it for myself.