@law: The filmmakers I know are quite fine with this issue. Maybe it’s cause they know they can’t get Le pont du nord or Rogopag in Singapore through legal means.
This has explained: it is up to filmmakers, not up to you
One of the problems is no one has anything other than a personal “I can’t get it” credo – there is no system for determining which are the neglected master pieces and no proof that viewing helps those films, a system to determine when it is okay to be illegal
@ ralch my post was e.g. about the rule of law, not about you self-righteous platform as far as the purity of Uncle Sam’s business strategies
I did it at one point, got caught and got sent a cease & desist from NBC/Universal… it’s just not worth it. If you want to watch something online, okay, but don’t download things, because then YOU’RE liable as opposed to the poster of the content.
You…COULD also buy shit?
Being a jobless, carless fifteen year-old, I torrent quite a bit.
Though it’s usually because the streams are horrible quality.
Been trying to buy more music, when I’ve got the money,
(interestingly enough, p2p users buy more music than people who don’t download.)
Dimitris, How about you don’t celebrate when a frequent poster leaves?
I like buying DVDs I have a plenty of them but I still download films. Why? Most of the films that I want to watch aren’t available on DVD (at least in my country). If I am doing something illegal this is because studios and distribuition companies arent’t able to satisfy me as a consumer.
Anyway I think that making a copy for private use should be legal.
I like buying DVDs I have a plenty of them but I still download films. Why? Most of the films that I want to watch aren’t available on DVD (at least in my country). If I am doing something illegal this is because studios and distribuition companies arent’t able to satisfy me as a consumer.
Anyway I think that making a copy for private use should be legal.
“there is no system for determining which are the neglected master pieces and no proof that viewing helps those films, a system to determine when it is okay to be illegal”
such a naive comment…
“my post was e.g. about the rule of law”
the "American law once again?
I download a handful of films and I see no problem with it for two reasons:
1) If I like a film enough, I’ll buy it on DVD. Simple as that. This system beats the hell out of blind-buying something awful.
2) The most important reason: there are a lot of films that don’t have a proper DVD release or they’re impossible to find. Without downloading, I would never have seen Underground, Los Olvidados or The Working Class Go to Heaven and, frankly, that idea horrifies me!
Also, I think that I should mention something about rentals: when a film is brought to a rental location (i.e. Blockbuster or whatever), it is sold to them and that is all the money the film’s creators get. Basically, the rental and everything goes directly to the renter and not the artist. So, renting and downloading are practically the same thing. Just something to think about.
“I wouldn’t have bought it anyway” is not a convincing justification for theft.
Renting and stealing are not practically the same thing.
“Renting and stealing are not practically the same thing.”
spoke the police chief of piracy control…
Hullo, Dimwitris.
Dimitris – Since you’ve called Robert “naive” in his assertion that there isn’t a system for determining when something is or isn’t illegal, I’m wondering if you could enlighten us as to what that system is.
I’ve already indicated above that I think there may be occasional situations where downloading isn’t a bad thing, but I personally haven’t yet found that hypothetical place. Apparently you know the system of determination well enough to use it regularly, and so I think now is the time to tell us.
@ Nathan, hey why not start in your own backyard? Your own brother is a serial downloader, you say—of studio fare like The Abyss which is readily available in every video store in America. Since that constitutes a clear legal and ethical wrong in your eyes, go ahead take legal measures against him first and then come back on your soap box here.
It’s not a soap box at all. My brother doesn’t have a system, but Dimitris seems to be implying that there is one. I am genuinely interested in knowing how that system works.
“Apparently you know the system of determination well enough to use it regularly”
i think i’ve repeated it countless of times but here goes once again: my “system” is that 95% of the films i watch,including fuckin’ John Ford and fuckin’ Yasujiro Ozu and plenty of other famous idiots (besides the obscure morons) AREN’T READILY AVAILABLE FOR EITHER RENTING OR BUYING,it’s like searching for needles in a haystack here in this country,no freakin’ Netflix and no other free Americana products to see an art-house film as easily as it gets!
so come in my shoes for a minute,should i be buying films every single day in order to enjoy whatever i want to see and start searching for spare cash?
or does downloading looks like the devil and i should be condemning it to the pits of eternal damnation and WAIT like a stupid cinephile a month in order to enjoy anything i want with the available amount of cash?
p.s.: i mostly protest with this “which are the neglected master pieces and no proof that viewing helps those films” Peabody assertion.
Dimitris – Thank you. This discussion becomes a bit tricky when when we aren’t all from the same country, and are therefore dealing with completely different situations. The only situation that I can really speak for is my own, which is in America. Fortunately, we do have tons and tons of great films available at almost a moments notice – and cheaply. So, speaking as an American, I don’t honestly see the need even for illegal downloading.
I do, however, think that Robert raised a good point – one that I sort of alluded to earlier – which is that when we speak of illegal downloading, it often comes with these vague notions of how it’s really actually helping the artists by having their work seen by more people, or whatever. When I read those things, I do wonder how we make that equation. It just seems like it might be easier for some people to justify illegal downloading if they can come up with some convoluted formula for how their stealing equals the artists ultimate benefit.
A few of us here have seen Cao Guimaraes’ Andarilho. It’s clear that none of us would have enjoyed this exposure if not for the existence of a torrent. I don’t believe any of us are copying discs and freely distributing them. For sure, we won’t be seeing this film in a theater any time soon, if ever. We can also say with certainty that a dvd release isn’t high on the list of things to do at our favorite outlets. My hunch is, if we were to email Guimaraes right now and tell him of our experience, he’d be cool with that. Delighted, in fact. I know I would be. Safe to say, we’re not in any way compromising his profit stream. Now I’m not using this as a blanket justification, but in those cases such as what Dimitris suggests, and this one, why should I/we deny ourselves the chance to see important work from obscure artists?
My hunch is, if you sent Guimaraes a cheque right now, he’d be even more delighted. Kidding aside, has anybody thought of developing a practical system whereby people could voluntarily compensate artists for materials viewed for free?
petrocephalon: whoa……..
I can’t wait for the empathetic thoughtful answers in an effort to support world cinema.
I sought a “system” to reign in selfish impulses knowing full well that is what capitalism does.
What we have here is the desire for selfish socialism – a system would be antithetical to the belief that it is all for me and phk everyone else.
This situation is as bourgeois as it gets.
What do you all think of this situation?
A few years ago I was able to see King Vidor’s The Crowd on a VHS loaned from my library. Had it not been for the library, I would never have been able to see this great film. If your library does not have The Crowd, as I’m sure most library systems don’t, you are sort of stuck.
To my knowledge, the rights to The Crowd are owned by MGM (someone may want to correct me here, if they know differently.) But, fifteen years after the founding of the DVD format, MGM has not put out any R1 release of this film for some reason. It’s true that you can get on Amazon and buy a multi-region format DVD for anywhere from $17 to $88, but, if you haven’t seen the movie, that seems like a pretty steep price to pay. Other options include going to the library of congress, scouring the national revival house schedules, or petition MGM and simply wait indefinitely.
Here is a situation where youtube or bit torrent would seem appropriate to me. If more people see the film and like it, it will create a higher demand for MGM to finally release it or at least sell the rights to someone that will. This type of situation is few and far between, but there are other films – Johnny Guitar, The State of Things, Jour de Fete, The Sun Shines Bright – that seem like good candidates for downloading or youtubing. Personally, I don’t have a problem waiting for those films to be released properly (though I am getting mighty anxious to see The Sun Shines Bright), but I can understand where others might see it as a service to the films themselves to see them through these alternative means.
Yes, I was wondering if the small-scale loan system for developing countries that you posted about recently might provide a model.
If more people see the film and like it, it will create a higher demand for MGM to finally release it or at least sell the rights
How? someone monitoring the illegal usage?
Copyright is designed to protect the reduction in value from copying – the illegal use is driving down the value of a release, not increasing the potential of a release.
Evidently Fredo was incorrect when he said: this seems obvious.
If people don’t ever see the movie, how can they know it’s any good? If they see the film, then they know it’s good and might begin to demand a proper release. At the very least, I can say that I have seen The Crowd, and I can speak freely and knowledgeably about it’s quality. Sure, I happened to see it legally, but if you’re living in Marquette, Michigan, where a legal viewing of The Crowd is probably no less than a drive to Washington D.C. away, I think seeing it on youtube increases the value of the product because it adds another person who can speak to the value of it. I’m not suggesting illegal downloading as a way of life, but I would suggest that there may be instances in which, if used sparingly, it could possibly help a product.
Using the example of that particular film, I would suggest that MGM’s choice to not release the film has obviously hurt it’s historical stature. When the great silent films are talked about, The Crowd is getting mentioned less and less because fewer and fewer people have actually seen it (the same goes for The Sun Shines Bright.) If The Crowd is going to regain some of it’s stature and historical value, it will only do so because people have laid eyes on it.
Truthfully, I think all of us are speaking in little more than vague hypotheticals when we talk about how much a download can help or hurt a film. It seems to have the potential to do both. I understand how illegal downloading can (and does) hurt a product that does have a proper release, and how it especially would hurt smaller, independent filmmakers and studios. But, Johnny Guitar might be Nicholas Ray’s best film. No one would know it, because it’s impossible to see.
Kidding aside, has anybody thought of developing a practical system whereby people could voluntarily compensate artists for materials viewed for free?
I’d be all for it. Why not, we already have a peer-to-peer service called Paypal? As I’ve been steadily complaining around here, by now, channels around the internet should have been established as legitimate portals for work whose prospects of distribution are non-existent.
I am going to raise the country issue again. Honestly, you might have Ozu and Nicholas Ray around every corner in the US but there’s no Criterion collection, any release of Tokyo Story, any Ray that is not Rebel Without a Cause here. Filmmakers here too are empathetic to the cause because they are part of it. Besides, they don’t really seem to be interested in making too much money -not more than they are in enjoying films and their lives and allowing others to enjoy their films.
Its a bitch to download, and a bitch to make… no
Do you think this is piracy and she should be sent to prison – or should theater managers have stopped the party and sent her home?
article here
Fair use factors include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
No harm, no foul…
ralch
“I don’t see where Fredo argued what goes on in other countries – the issue is here in the US – which is what makes the US what it is – e.g. we don’t, like the rest of the world allow bribery as a way to do business.”
—Peabody, go to Google or YouTube and write the words “economic hitman” in the search engine. That might be a first step so you get off you self-righteous platform as far as the purity of Uncle Sam’s business strategies are concerned. (A model that is also used by Hollywood in “foreign” markets). It’s also insulting that you forget that the U.S. also became “what it is” thanks to the hard and obligatory work of millions of slaves and a bullying foreign policy that has not stopped and rests upon the continuous selling of weaponry and the selective and convenient vilification and destabilization of governments in other parts of the world, among other teary-eyed wonders. No one denies that the US has had many accomplishments in terms of the stability of its society and economy, but it has been a process far from smooth and often far from benevolent to its own people and even its own artists, as the Hollywood blacklisting will show. Swedes, Dutch, French, Canadian and other peoples can compare and even surpass the US in many societal, economic, governing and, yes, artistic aspects.