Movie Pirates Pounce?
from the say-what? dept
Sometimes I wonder how people can be so blind to the lies that the entertainment industry reports about piracy. Then I realize that half the time it's because of the press reporting things as fact. Let's take a quick look at this "alarming" piece from a Minnesota newspaper telling us all about the the horror of movie pirates online. It quotes two Attack of the Clones downloaders as if this is proof that the movie industry is losing money (even though, hidden at the end of the story, she mentions that both of the downloaders she talks to are still planning to see Attack of the Clones in the theater). It ignores studies that point out that people still go to movies because it's a social experience. In fact, the "reporter" announces as "fact" that the reason we haven't stopped going to the movies is because downloading movies takes more "technical finesse" than the average user has right now. She also writes about the "Napsterization" of movies, as if that's a clear "bad" thing. She never once mentions that studies have shown that many people who trade music online end up buying more music. It's these types of articles that help to brainwash the public into thinking they need to support braindead, dangerous legislation like the CBDTPA.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Why does digital content need to be protected?
The "free ride gravy train of the Napster era" according to plenty of sources actually helped the music industry.
Hollywood's fear is more like Hollywood's greed and shortsightedness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
BUMPER STICKER: STOP GLOBAL WHINING NOW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sidestepping the trolls...
These hoaxes had thousands of hosts, so many were duped.
So I'm not sure how many people will use this digital technology to avoid going to the movies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Jupiter studied the market and showed that people do buy more music. Show me the basis for your "facts" and I'd suggest you don't show me a report that was paid for by the music industry.
Even if users don't buy more music, I STILL don't think it really matters. Why should we legislate that the music industry has a right to their business model? The technology has changed the market, and it is UP TO THE COMPANIES to adapt. If they can't, then it's too bad for them.
If I open up a store selling clothing and you open up one next door selling cheaper clothing, would you expect me to run to the government putting you out of business because you're "pirating sales" from me? No, because it's simply not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
You also chose not to respond to the rest of my argument, instead insisting that I rambled.
I'm here to discuss these things, and while I believe in what I'm saying, I'm always open to new discussions proving me wrong. However, you've failed to do more than insult me.
I'm still waiting for a response from you that has some substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Yea, you are a real winner Steve. *yawn*
Come back when you got some actual facts Mk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh no !
Man the digital pirates are just sucking people out of the theaters right and left. *shakes head* It just baffles me that people would think anything (other than a straight DVD-rip) could be downloaded that would be anywhere near the quality of what you get on the big screen.
Wake up Hollywood, dont make us out to be criminals the way the Music Industry has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ethics
There are the odd movies (eg Spiderman, Star Wars etc) that everyone goes to - and my friends will download a copy beforehand - but the vast majority of the movies they download are just movies they want to see, but aren't willing to pay for. And I have a problem with that.
On the flip side though, there's also the angle that in many countries (such as Canada), we pay an "assuming you are pirating movies and music" tax on all of our blank media. So is it still wrong to download music and CDs if you are *actually* paying for it via the levy? I haven't made up my mind yet.
And there is also the argument that the "pirates" are not impacting sales, because they were NEVER buying music and/or going to movies (usually due to lack of funds or unwillingness to pay for the material). Personally, I think this last argument is lame and irrelevant. The point is that for society to work, there have to be some basic rules by which we all play and the basic "I'll create something or do something, and you pay me" exchange is a fundamental rule. I don't think it's justifiable to selectively ignore this rule, and I just don't buy the argument that only people who make something "physical" are entitled to make a living off the results of their work.
However, when all's said and done, I'd rather that no-one was able to download movies and music at all than having the following come to pass: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020516.html.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethics
I personally can't reconcile the ethics of pirating music and movies UNLESS you actually do go see the movie in the theatre
What if you use the downloading of the file to decide which movie you want to watch? Then it's advertising.
How can something be piracy if nothing is lost?
And there is also the argument that the "pirates" are not impacting sales, because they were NEVER buying music and/or going to movies (usually due to lack of funds or unwillingness to pay for the material). Personally, I think this last argument is lame and irrelevant. The point is that for society to work, there have to be some basic rules by which we all play and the basic "I'll create something or do something, and you pay me" exchange is a fundamental rule. I don't think it's justifiable to selectively ignore this rule, and I just don't buy the argument that only people who make something "physical" are entitled to make a living off the results of their work.
I'm afraid there's a huge fault in your logic. There is no divine right to a business model.
Let's say I suddenly started charging for Techdirt. No one is going to pay. Would I then run to the government complaining that you were all denying me my income. Would you suddenly start paying me because I've created something and you have to pay me as a fundamental rule of society? I don't think so.
"I'll create and do something - and you pay me if you find the value and can't find something else cheaper/better/more appealing or can't do without it" is the real rule.
I'm not sure why so many people think that the basic rules of the marketplace change when it comes to digital products.
We're not ignoring the rule that you've come up with... it's just that that isn't the rule. No one is "entitled" to make a living off of their work. No one. If you create something and want to sell it, you have the responsibility for coming up with a business model that works. If the *business model* doesn't work, the market will let you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethics
This is why I added (in brackets) "assuming it provides enough entertainment value to be worth watching all the way through". I guess the point I was trying to make was that there is a line to be drawn - and maybe where you draw that line differs. The movie industry would like to draw the line at the trailer. I'd draw the line somewhere by the time you've watched most of the movie. The point I'm trying to make is that if you watch the entire thing - you've passed the threshold between "sampling" and "receiving the goods". At that point you are morally obligated to fulfill the conditions by which the content provider agreed to provide the content. After all, if you don't agree with the conditions, you don't have to watch the movie...
How can something be piracy if nothing is lost?
It all has to do with your rights as a content producer, not whether or not it is a physical item. Personally, I think people get WAY too caught up in the "but it's virtual" rhetoric. If I create something, I'd like to think I have some moral rights over the work, whether it's a book printed in a store, or "just" in an electronic form. If I decide that I'm willing to share my creation with the world under certain circumstances, and only those circumstances - then who are you to arbitrarily decide that you want my creation under other circumstances? Do you have the right to it? I don't think so.
Of course, there are all those artists who don't have a problem with downloads, but their label does - that's an entirely different issue. And there is the problem of hugely collaborative works (watched the credits for Shrek lately?) where not all individuals involved have the same opinions.
Flawed logic
The point is that the basic rules of the market place shouldn't change when it comes to digital products. If you make something, you should be able to decide under what circumstances you can share it. And in our society, those who get movies and music (in general) created are only willing to share in return for purchases of the CD, going to the theatre or buying/renting the video.
Do you only pay for your groceries if you really like what you picked up? Or after you eat the whole bag of cookies? Or if you can't find something cheaper?
The fundamental principle is the conditions the producer will share it under - not whether the producer will miss it or not.
So if you start charging for Techdirt - that's your right. I'm saying that it is not my RIGHT to receive Techdirt for free, if YOU don't want to provide it for free. (Important, but subtle difference). Obviously I wasn't quite clear enough - it's not that people have to pay in exchange for what I create - It's that if I tell them they have to pay for what I create - then the options are to pay for it, or not pay for it. I personally am not comfortable with Option c (take it anyway), because there are too many ethical issues if you extrapolate it to other areas of society.
Now - I'm not saying that the fact that content providers have a right to decide how their material is distributed is right (we're just not going to get into that) - but I am saying that arbitrarily making up your own rules because you don't like it is NOT right.
For instance, I don't like the fact that my bank charges my business account 300% more fees than a much more active personal account and doesn't even provide interest on the balance. Does that justify me finding some other way to use the bank facilities without paying fees (or finding some way to trick the bank into not deducting the fees)? What about simply creating extra cash electronically and using this extra "money" to replace the fees?
Hopefully most people will think the above would be clearly wrong - but at a fundamental level it's the same issue as the music issue. My non-payment of fees wouldn't really impact the bank, I could just keep it all in a sock and they wouldn't get the fees (this is the "I wouldn't otherwise pay for the music, so whether I download it or not doesn't affect the recording industry" argument). Don't forget that the vast majority of money is all electronic these days. If I add extra money to my bank account, how can it be wrong if nothing is lost???
When it comes right down to it, you have to decide whether your right to access whatever you feel like is stronger than the creators right to dictate terms of use.
Incidentally, I should probably point out that I am partially playing devil's advocate here. I believe (strongly) that the current mechanisms (eg copyright laws, patents etc) to try and ensure this happens are fundamentally flawed. And I further believe that the record and movie industries are shooting themselves in the foot. However, I also really do believe (strongly) that if I create something, I should be able to set the terms by which it gets used/read etc.
Cheers[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethics
Anyway... I wish I had all day to go point by point through your article, but rest assured that I *will* get back to most of this eventually. I just wanted to make one point now, and I'll get to some of the other questions later.
If I decide that I'm willing to share my creation with the world under certain circumstances, and only those circumstances - then who are you to arbitrarily decide that you want my creation under other circumstances? Do you have the right to it? I don't think so.
This is a good point, and one that I need to clarify what I was talking about. I am not, in any way, suggesting that anyone create "arbitrary" rules on these things. I am talking about the market at work.
While you may think you have the right to set the price on a good, you don't. The market does. If I decide to sell shirts for $75 a pop and next door they're selling the same shirts for $50, I'm not going to last.
Now, the rules of the market don't change when a product goes virtual (which is exactly what you say elsewhere). However, why then, do you make the assumption that when a product goes virtual, suddenly market pricing doesn't apply?
Basic economics shows that the price (under perfect competition) will get driven down to the marginal cost. If the marginal cost of producing another copy of the good is $0 (which is almost is with digital products), then the market is eventually going to price the good at $0. My point is simply that as a business, you need to know that this is happening. The market is going to force your price down, and you had better be prepared to deal with it.
So, it's not that anyone is arbitrarily setting the rules here. It's that the market is becoming more efficient. And, like most cases when the market is more efficient, there's actually more for everyone (including more opportunity).
So, while I agree that you can try to set the initial price on any good that you create, once that good is out there, then market effects will take over. A good business recognizes this fact and deals with it. A bad business complains and whines about it. I'd rather see good businesses built on solid business foundations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethics
This analogy doesn't work. How about:
If I decide to manufacture a shirt of my own design for $75, but the store next door copies that shirt design and sells it for $50, I have to sell it for $50 too.
Interesting, though, that the new store didn't have to invest any time or capital in the designing of the shirt, so their ROI is infinite, while the first store needs to charge $75 to get their ROI.
The first store can't complain because no one was going to buy that shirt for $75 anyway, so they haven't really lost anything, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethics
So, if I'm the first store, I actually have a number of options. Either I upgrade my shirt design in a way that's difficult to copy, or I somehow promote the hell out of why you want to buy a "legitimate" shirt from my store (see Prada) for more money. There are a ton of business related solutions I can (and should) do.
Whining and complaining doesn't fix anything.
In fact, what if the second store takes my shirt design and makes it better. I'm all for that. Of course, as a business, it means that I need to be able to adapt and make an even better shirt as well, but that's part of what being good at business is all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethics
But in my world, there are really, really good shirt designers, and the rest suck. As the really, really good shirt designer, I can't afford to be designing shirts for others to just copy and undersell me. Therefore, I stop designing shirts because it just doesn't pay. Result: we all start wearing the same crappy shirt because the incentive to be innovative and/or invent is now gone.
Now, wouldn't it be nice if I knew that there was a period of protection for my design? If I knew that I only had 17 years to recoup my investment in the design, I would price my shirt accordingly to ensure that I made back my investment before anybody and their uncle could come along, copy it, and get fat from the fruits of MY labor.
All that being said, I am a staunch opponent of the Hollings crap, and I am certainly no fan of the hyper-hypocritical Disney Corp. But I do believe that there is a place for intellectual property protection. The fact that it has been bastardized by our anything-for-a-nickel congress is a tragedy. Jefferson had the right idea, but didn't foresee the possibility of such deep-rooted corruption and pandering in our legislating bodies. I think it sucks to lobby to change the rules to vastly favor the shirt designer because he thinks 17 years isn't enough and wants it extended because he likes living high on the hog, and doesn't want to have to go back to the drawing board to design his next innovative new shirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethics
What I don't support is the rationalizations that file-swapping is not illegal, or it is a victimless crime because those sales wouldn't have been made anyway, or whatever. My argument is that it is illegal, and to some degree should be, and people should recognize that. However, given that we as a people don't have the ability to get our congress to sit up and listen to our concerns, we have to grab their attention using other means. I'd say we have their attention now, albeit through the back door, wouldn't you?? The only remaining question is what do we do now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ethics
Analogies are bad for this discussion. Nothing really fits well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would you like some chees with your whine?
Those that download music and never buy it are not avoiding buying it - they never would have anyway! Be it their nature or a lack of money [because they are college students or younger], whatever. What you are crying about is lost desired potential - something that cannot be quantified because if all things were equal, and they content could not be copied, there would be no sales made to make up for the dollars you want to believe are lost.
That does not make it right.
That does not make it wrong.
That is just the real world outcome.
As the studies point out, there is far more "potential" in catering to the adults among us, exposing us to content, because we are the ones with the money and be it lazyiness or the fact that we like to have a tangible piece [an actual CD] of what we payed for, that WILL and DO purchase what we like. Searching and copying is bullshit. My free time is worth more to me than that. I'd rather just sample something and the buy the [reasonably priced] product that *someone else* has spent the time putting together so that I can load & go. And I am not alone. Our economy proves this over and over in too many ways to list here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What ever happened to software pirates?
So file sharing for free seems to me to be the best advertizing ever. If anyone makes money off the file transfers, then maybe the music/movie industry has a legal/moral justification. But if it all remains free, then I agree with Mike, and I don't see how anyone is denied income/profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]