RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings



Message


Cool Breeze -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (2/2/2013 1:08:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Also wonder about something like House of Cards - there it is, for free to watch for a month. But I suspect it is still being downloaded by people which strikes me as odd.


Not really free.You are still paying your monthly subscription for Netflix.Its great that they are getting behind original programming though and the series sounds good so i look forward to checking it out soon.




elab49 -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (2/2/2013 1:16:05 PM)

But anyone who wants to try it can get the first month free on Netflix - so it adds no new cost to people already using the service, and others can sign up to see it for free. Unless there's some oddity about it not being available to free trials.




Dannybohy -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (2/2/2013 4:24:39 PM)

I have both services through my Xbox, Love film appear to Add new titles much more often but Netflix has a better interface. They added the man to with two brains and Near Dark this week! Nice




shool -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (5/2/2013 12:15:53 PM)

I would say Piracy hurts the rental market more than the Cinema market.
It would be interesting to get some stats around that.




Dannybohy -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (5/2/2013 12:47:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I would say Piracy hurts the rental market more than the Cinema market.
It would be interesting to get some stats around that.


I agree. what do we class as rental these days?. I have Netflix and Lovefilm instant via by Xbox, got is about 11 per month for both, I dont get the latest rental releases like I would if I went via post at I assume a higher cost. I generally have enough there to keep me away from the evils of pirate downloads, but I wish Lovefilm would put rentals up on instant so I can see the latest releases as I would if I popped into Blockbusters!.




adambatman82 -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (5/2/2013 12:56:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I would say Piracy hurts the rental market more than the Cinema market.
It would be interesting to get some stats around that.


I don't have any stats, but the rental market is like the wild west these days, and corrupt to hell. Eureka video revealed last year how Lovefilm simply buy retail copies of their DVDs and stick them on Lovefilm, without every compensating the DVD company, or paying any rights fees. In this case I actually think digital rentals are a bit of a saviour, in the sense that it can presumably be policed more easily.




Your Funny Uncle -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (8/2/2013 4:11:54 PM)

quote:

Would anyone here be brave enough to tell the cast and crew of that film some of the stuff on this thread?


I would.

Then I'd ask them how they came to make such a crap movie?!!




Invader_Ace -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (8/2/2013 4:39:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
The problem wih classing i as theft (which im sure isnt, but am happy to be proven wrong) is that i am not denying a sale. If i pop in a shop and nick a blu ray, that blu ray cannot be sold on to another consumer and the profit is denied to the owner. If i download a file from the internet, i am not denying a sale.


Yes, you are.  You are denying the sale it would have taken for you to see it. 
If you download a product the profit is denied to the owner.  Simple as.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
Thing is, the casual movie fans that i know that download regularly, wouldnt replace downloads wih a trip to the cinema, or a lovefilm account or whatever. They would simply go without.


So? Are we supposed to be happy that our work is deemed worth a steal, but not a repayment?




Dpp1978 -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (8/2/2013 7:18:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Invader_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
The problem wih classing i as theft (which im sure isnt, but am happy to be proven wrong) is that i am not denying a sale. If i pop in a shop and nick a blu ray, that blu ray cannot be sold on to another consumer and the profit is denied to the owner. If i download a file from the internet, i am not denying a sale.


Yes, you are. You are denying the sale it would have taken for you to see it.
If you download a product the profit is denied to the owner. Simple as.


It probably isn't theft but, at least under English law, could be: at least at a technical level.

I've done this little demonstration in previous threads, so I apologise if it is old.

The definition of theft comes from the Theft Act 1968 ss 1-6. It is: the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it (s1 of the Act). It has 5 elements dealt with in turn by ss2-6.

First dishonesty. This requires that the act be dishonest according to the standards of a hypothetical, reasonable, honest person; and that the person committing the act believed this to be the case. This does open up what I call the idiot defence: the accused was too stupid or too ignorant to realise he was being dishonest. But I seriously doubt it would ever work. The issue is widely debated and discussed across the mainstream media and across society in general so it'd be very hard to show a lack of understanding or knowledge to a necessary degree without some sort of underlying issue. At this point I defy anyone to fail to realise that piracy is, at least as far as "honest" society is concerned, considered dishonest.

Appropriation is a very wide term at law. Much wider than taking. It applies to any assumption of any of the rights of an owner. An owner of IP has the exclusive right to distribute (or not) their property as they see fit. Making a copy, even if it is merely a digital copy on a hard drive, assumes the right of an owner and should therefore satisfy this element.

This brings us to property. The Act specifically includes "intangible property" such as copyright so there is no problem here.

Belonging to another? Speaks for itself really.

"With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" provides us with the biggest problem but it is not insoluble. The Act, backed up by case law, states that it is enough to treat the property as your "own to dispose of regardless of the owners rights." This means it is immaterial that the owner hasn't lost anything in a physical sense: it is enough that you act towards the property in question in a manner that only an owner lawfully can. Creating a copy of protected IP can only be done lawfully by an owner or with an owner's consent.

So technically it could be argued that piracy is theft, even if it is not treated as such. It, in the main, is treated as a civil matter. But just because the law says something isn't theft doesn't make it any less morally objectionable. Using the law as a barometer of good moral conduct is questionable. Plenty that is lawful is immoral: and vice versa.

As to the comparison with shoplifting: the IP holders would probably prefer it if you did nick their products from the shop. By that time the risk is passed and they will still get paid. This hurts the retailer, and their insurers, not the studio.




porntrooper -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (8/2/2013 8:55:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Invader_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
The problem wih classing i as theft (which im sure isnt, but am happy to be proven wrong) is that i am not denying a sale. If i pop in a shop and nick a blu ray, that blu ray cannot be sold on to another consumer and the profit is denied to the owner. If i download a file from the internet, i am not denying a sale.


Yes, you are. You are denying the sale it would have taken for you to see it.
If you download a product the profit is denied to the owner. Simple as.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
Thing is, the casual movie fans that i know that download regularly, wouldnt replace downloads wih a trip to the cinema, or a lovefilm account or whatever. They would simply go without.


So? Are we supposed to be happy that our work is deemed worth a steal, but not a repayment?


Ok. As an example, I watch The Dark Knight Rises several times using my Unlimted Card. I pay only once, the monthly fee, and no more. I buy the Blu Ray upon release. I also have in my possesion a downloded copy. What have I stolen? I would not buy two copies of The Dark Knight Rises. That is my point. My perception of a theft is that I take something that I have no intention of paying for and I deny the owner of that item payment or the ability to sell that item to someone else. In my example, Ive denied Warners nothing, have I? Your view would likely be that yes I have, but i just do not accept that for one moment. As I've said repeatedly, I have an Unlimited Card, LoveFilm, Sky Movies, a HUGE Blu Ray collection and I consider myself someone that cares and loves the movie industry. Have I downloaded? Yea, is it theft? No, as has been defined by DPP. I see the angle that suggets it 'could' become a theft, however, as of now, to my best knowledge, it is not classed as an act of theft. At least that is what i understand based on what I'm readig here, again, happy to be given propf otherwise.

You also said 'are we supposed to be happy' in your final point, which I guess gives an indication youre somehow involved in the industry, yes? Well, do I think the industry produces product that deserves to be stolen? No, course not, and I dont know where you got that angle from my posts. As I said many times, casual movie goers that download would still not pay for a movie if a free download was not available. It isnt a case of that person deemin the product worth a steal, they would simply go without and think nothing more of it, the product would gain nothing either way. A sad state of affairs, but it's true. Also, as your comment suggeats your involved in the industry, how would you say online downloadin of illegal copied films affets you? How does it affect the indutry really? Cos I'll be honest, as a consumer, as someone that looks at box office and that read the links posted by myself and others in this thread, all stats I see suggest ticket sales and box office are doing really, really well. No one, as far as I can see, has countered that with some real info about how the industry is being affected.

Also, I'll make the point again, I'm not trying to advocate illegal downloads, suggeat theyre a good thing or that thy cause no harm, I'm simply putting forward my side of the argument as someone that comsumes (legally and with a ridiculous amount of cash) a huge amount of the film industry through rental, streaming, cinema visits, soundtracks and home viewin purchases. I also happen to be someone that has downloaded a few films and that considers himself pretty sorted with a decent moral compass.

Question Invader_Ace, where do you stand on the download of tv programmmes before theyre a Avilable to air in the uk, or i theyre only available on pay to view channels? Good recent examples would be The Following, as its only available to those with Sky Atlantic, or Spartacus that is currently being discussed ahead of it's broadcast next week? I, myself, don't see any difference, but a lot a people seem more tolerant of tv downloads than movie downloads.




Dpp1978 -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (8/2/2013 10:38:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

Ok. As an example, I watch The Dark Knight Rises several times using my Unlimted Card. I pay only once, the monthly fee, and no more. I buy the Blu Ray upon release. I also have in my possesion a downloded copy. What have I stolen? I would not buy two copies of The Dark Knight Rises. That is my point. My perception of a theft is that I take something that I have no intention of paying for and I deny the owner of that item payment or the ability to sell that item to someone else. In my example, Ive denied Warners nothing, have I? Your view would likely be that yes I have, but i just do not accept that for one moment. As I've said repeatedly, I have an Unlimited Card, LoveFilm, Sky Movies, a HUGE Blu Ray collection and I consider myself someone that cares and loves the movie industry. Have I downloaded? Yea, is it theft? No, as has been defined by DPP. I see the angle that suggets it 'could' become a theft, however, as of now, to my best knowledge, it is not classed as an act of theft. At least that is what i understand based on what I'm readig here, again, happy to be given propf otherwise.



You missed the point of my post. Perhaps it is my fault for not making it as explicit as I might have.

Even if piracy isn't theft it satisfies all of the elements of theft. So when you state it isn't theft, it is a pretty meaningless statement: at least from a moral standpoint. If I have shown that piracy does fit into the definition of theft it is, at least eminently arguable that it's, as bad as theft however the law chooses to classify it.

This statement invites the obvious and oft-used rebuttal point, "how can it be as bad as theft? If they still own the IP I haven't taken anything from them. Therefore they haven't lost anything. Therefore you're full of shit."

Well my answer to that would be as follows. A film company's primary asset is its IP. They make the bulk of their money by exploiting that IP through various media. The asset's value is entirely based on the size of its respective market at any given time and what that market is willing to pay for it.

Every time a legitimate copy is issued and sold by the company they receive remuneration for it. The size of the market for the product at that time is reduced by one sale. The value of the asset falls in response but that is ok because they have received a reciprocal amount of money so it balances out. When someone makes an illicit copy the potential market for that product at that time is reduced. The value of the asset falls but this time there is no payment to balance the loss. The effect is a net loss. So that is what is taken when a film is acquired illegally: value.

Now I'm not one of those who equates every illicit download to a lost sale. That is silly. The amount the value of the asset is reduced by with each illicit copy is probably less than the price of one sale and I doubt the true loss is calculable. But it is also silly to think of this as a victimless act (not that I am suggesting anyone here does). Any loss in asset value is significant to a company.

If you download films illegally that is a matter for your conscience. It is not for me to sit in judgement. All I ask is that you do it with your eyes open and don't try to justify it with semantics juggling. It may not be theft, but there are many things which are not theft but are as bad as theft.

However, all of this notwithstanding, it is still entirely possible that I am full of shit.




porntrooper -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (8/2/2013 11:32:06 PM)

DPP, i got the point of the post, and you confirmed it again there.... An illegal download is technically not a theft. Does it share some elements of theft? Yea, I'd agree. Is it as bad? Personally I dont agree. But I guess, as you stated, it tchnically isnt theft, so to call me a theif is wrong. I'd say my posts on the subject are done with honesty and with my eyes open. I'm no juggling semantics to justify anything, I'm perfectly comfortable with my actions. All I'm offering ia the counterpoint argument to some of the flimsy 'illegal downloads are terribly bad, people that do it are scum and it has awful consequences for the industry'. I know it's illegal, but as you seem to confirm, it's not theft.

Aside the moral argument, I'm still yet to hear/read any info as to how piracy actually affects the industry.




Darth Marenghi -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (16/2/2013 12:53:18 PM)

This one made me laugh:

[image]https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/539387_471446322909726_1287435734_n.jpg[/image]




OldGrey -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (20/2/2013 9:46:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

DPP, i got the point of the post, and you confirmed it again there.... An illegal download is technically not a theft. Does it share some elements of theft? Yea, I'd agree. Is it as bad? Personally I dont agree. But I guess, as you stated, it tchnically isnt theft, so to call me a theif is wrong. I'd say my posts on the subject are done with honesty and with my eyes open. I'm no juggling semantics to justify anything, I'm perfectly comfortable with my actions. All I'm offering ia the counterpoint argument to some of the flimsy 'illegal downloads are terribly bad, people that do it are scum and it has awful consequences for the industry'. I know it's illegal, but as you seem to confirm, it's not theft.

Aside the moral argument, I'm still yet to hear/read any info as to how piracy actually affects the industry.

There really is no "technically" about it folks, an illegal download IS theft.
You may have a different opinion, but an opinion does not a change in legal statute make !
Look at the definition Dpp 1978 posted earlier in the page, then add to the mix that the Met police actually created a unit to deal with piracy in conjunction with FACT then you can draw your own conclusions . . . .
Plus it is morally a shitty thing to do in any event, consider how you would feel if it was your work, no brainer really .




BoDixen -> RE: is piracy REALLY killing the film industry? (20/2/2013 10:43:47 PM)

Haven't read the preceding pages in much detail.

But my opinion is, that piracy isn't killing the movie industry.

It is in a transition period following technology development.

How is money going to be made in the digital age with big bandwith.

What is the impact of 4k 100" tvs going to effect cinemas?

The music industry suffered with this shift and is still searching for answers - some seem to thrive while others especially the old wastful big business sides (no mountains of cocaine for the non creative leeches anymore).

Books is moving into this and movies sits in the middle.

It's not all good. How do we editorialize - who picks the cherry from the shit and so forth and how do these people get paid for this service.

Never has the amount of content being produced been bigger, but not all of it is any good.

Piracy plays some role, but a lot of people probably most are willing to pay for content they enjoy to the people behind it especially if they know they can reward them directly.

It's not strange the big corporate structures are concerned. They loose control and move to slowly in a new reality that moves very fast.




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875