“Digitising a film from a celluloid original and putting it online costs at least three figures per title, even if you go for the absolute minimum quality (i.e. one-light transfer, no chemical or digital restoration or wet-gating)”
Listen, I’m happy that some of my hard earned salary goes towards the archiving of some of the more obscure films the BFI has spent its money on. I might draw the line at the British Transport Films but hey, I’m not grumbling really.
But what I’m talking about is the digital revolution of now and the future. You don’t need to tell me how expensive it is to transfer. Believe me buddy I know! That’s why moving from celluloid to digital has made so much sense.
If what you’re saying is that the processes you describe will end up being so costly that it will be hard to undertake them, I guess the BFI will just have to make its “heritage” case for certain of those titles stronger than other needy parties in order to secure a slightly bigger portion of lottery money. I’m not sure I’d be with them all the way on that one though.
@DCDreams
re: “Maybe companies should make more offerings online and give customers more flexibility.”
I do agree with that. When I can connect my laptop to a TV, and have had enough bandwidth for a few years to have video streamed in, I feel that old media-distribution companies by and large missed the boat. Studios would still like to dictate how you can watch in the face of superior technology. Over the last few decades, they first ignored, then sought to stifle, the VCR, TIVO, and high speed connections. Then, when it is apparent to all that they went down a blind alley, the companies want the no-longer-new technology policed, and try insist on older tech first (“No TIVO! No streaming! How about Bluray? It’s DVD with more colors”). If you aren’t initially playing, stop whining about how you aren’t king of the hill, and everyone should wait for you to climb that mountain so you can be the lord again. You can’t leapfrog over. It is like GM crying about Toyota not sharing hybrid technology.
That said, I like that Criterion is trying pay-for-streaming. I hope it works, though I have doubts in the face of digital copying. The gap between established distributors embracing new technology was long enough that kids filled the space themselves, and are comfortable with the norms that were set up in absence of distributors. The technology was there, and next to nobody was using it commercially. So the norm became DIY distribution. I’m not excusing it, but the resistance there is now trenchant because the technology was ignored, scorned, and late in the day, treated as a new dominion that everyone should give over to offline companies who never earned their lumps online.
I also realize that the film industry gets a bad rap due to the outrageous salaries of many worthless stars, unfunny comedians, and mediocre directors. They are the notable exceptions, and where most of the rancor comes from. Deservedly so. They are exceptions, because viewers don’t think about gaffers, writers, foley artists, programmers, plumbers, and admins in show business who make salaries comparable to their non-Hollywood counterparts. There are far more techs and admins than directors and actors.
And one might argue that these people could get jobs in their respective, traditional industries. That would then lead to every film looking like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, and every television show being SURVIVOR.
And if production companies go out of business and some innocents suffer in the process, then to me it’s just a slightly different version of the Darwinism that die hard western market capitalists have been dishing out for the last half century or more with smug, self-satisfied expressions on their faces.
Maybe you’re right, the proliferation of piracy just might result a more widely spread availability of films. It still doesn’t mitigate the act of stealing intellectual properties. This whole argument isn’t at all about the evolution of the film industry. Look at the original question. IS BUYING PIRATED DVDS JUSTIFIED, ETC.?
If you can justify buying pirated DVDs, that’s your choice. However, many people are affected by your actions. Consumers pays higher prices for legitimate releases and production assistants see shrinking paychecks. When you start looking at an issue like this it is important to keep in mind the effect that it creates.
All of these arguments in favor of piracy are self-serving. It’s so much easier to justify the transgression than it is exercise a little discipline and restraint. The rule of the day is instant gratification and to heck with the consequences. If they don’t give me what I want I’m going to take it. How much more selfish can you get?
As far as I can see, the upshot is barbarism not innovation. All that the movie industry is trying to do now is protect what it already has, not create something new. In a lawless world like the internet the name of the game self-preservation. The movie studios are being spurred by duress not inspiration. How can that ever result in real advancement?
It is very easy to mistake technological advances as innovation. If a movie studio is better able to protect their intellectual properties they’ve really spent their time well. Now nobody can infringe on their rights to distribution and we’re all better off for it. Seems logical, I guess.
Wait a minute though, didn’t actors and directors originally go into the business to make movies? Rudolph Valentino didn’t say to his director, “Hey, why don’t we find a really good way the protect this movie so that nobody can steal it.” He said, “Hey, why don’t we make a really good movie that people will enjoy.” The impulse was to communication an idea that others could relate to through the use of motion pictures not to keep someone else from stealing a film.
Okay, just so as not to confuse anyone, this email should sit between Richards post and Kevin Salyers second post. That’s the trouble about living on the other side of the world – go to sleep and you miss out on all the fun happening at the Auteurs
Ten: We have laws for a reason. Do I agree with them all? – Of course not. You are never going to please everyone as they say. I personally hate laws based on ‘morality’ purely because every person had different moral standards. Censorship is a big issue for me, because I believe that everyone has a right to hear or see what he or she wants, as long as it does not hurt another person. If you think a film is going to offend you then simply don’t watch it. That’s my view. And yet, where I live, we have an Office of Film and Classification Board that sometimes do ban movies that they believe might offend ‘the community’. Well, what is community? And if I don’t find something offensive that a ‘reasonable adult’ would, what kind of person am I?
So yes, opinions on laws will always be debatable, but overall, most of the laws are there to protect people. You argue that copyright has not always existed and have not always been as harsh as they are now. That might be true, but we have come along since wandering minstrels. In fact, the reason we have copyright laws, at least in my opinion, is because of progress, just like civil rights or workers rights. Nothing ever happens over night, and sometimes, things even go backwards. I do disagree that the history of copyright laws has been a tug of war between consumers and business. I don’t think most consumers mind paying for a DVD. They might complain sometimes, but I think most people accept that you pay for something, because essentially you are keeping people in paid employment. If we all downloaded for free, then there would be far less jobs. Ezy DVD is our biggest retailer of DVD’s in Australia, and the only retail chain that sells solely DVDs, and yet it has just gone into receivership. Not only does that mean that all those people are probably going to lose their jobs, but it will also be bad for the industry. But the again, what would those people who like to download for free care?
I have never judged you as a bad person because you decide to deliberately pirate music. If anything, I think it more an act of stupidity. I just don’t think you clearly understand the effects of what you do, or that you might, but you just don’t care. You talk about big corporations lobbying for copyright. I am certainly not a fan of capitalism but I also understand that without these big corporations a lot of people would be unemployed, as we are seeing at the moment, because of the global crisis. It is not just the big corporations and filmmakers that win from copyright protection. Its all the little people involved as well, the people that it takes to put those DVD’s together, and the people that help put it out. Do you think all of that costs nothing?
You are getting into technicalities about the difference between pirating and stealing. Well, if you are taking something from someone, in this case the copyright, then essentially that is still stealing, regardless if you try to convince yourself otherwise. I mean, if you pirate a movie you are leaving the owner without something – copyright, and essentially royalties and income. Pirating leaves the owner unaffected you say? You mean besides the fact that the filmmaker is not getting their royalties because of piracy etc? To try to justify the difference between the two is just petty.
Your justification of copyright being a ‘free good’ is nonsense. First of all, this is just one theory of economics and does not necessarily mean it works. You talk about air being free, and this itself was only thought of as a free good in earlier schools of economics. If you do follow this school of thought then you would probably also include water as free as well, but come to my country where this ‘free good’ is a scarcity, and see what response you get to your opinions. Our government is paying huge amounts to irrigators to buy their water, to put back into our main river resource, because we are almost running on empty. These are the same irrigators that are fighting to keep their fruit blocks, and who need that same water, from the same river. Yes, in theory water would perhaps be a ‘free good’, but in twenty years time, it will be a more valuable commodity than oil in Australia.
You look at DVD’s as being nothing more than a ‘series of numbers’ that can be copied endlessly, without any change to the original copy, and that they have no monetary value. The material that goes to make up those ‘series of numbers’ had to come from somewhere though didn’t they? First someone came up with an idea, they then put that onto film, with the help of numerous other people, and then they put it onto DVD, usually with extras that numerous other people helped with creating. And do you think the computers that allow you to send these ‘series of numbers’ are ‘free goods’ as well? And for all the people who labored for you to have your ‘series of numbers’ for free, do you think that they would agree that their hard work was worth no monetary value? Do you think that the filmmakers would agree that their product is worth no monetary value? Maybe the film industry could just become a volunteer industry for people like you.
So, there goes your theory about ‘free goods’. But as they say, communism is good in theory as well.
Why on earth would you ever support an industry? Maybe so that companies like Criterion can actually afford to continue as a business and release the beloved movies that we enjoy? How is that for a reason? You say you support filmmakers and artists but by stealing ‘their’ work, without their permission, you are not doing any such thing. Yeah, if someone doesn’t mind, but don’t assume that they all want you freeloading off their art. In your comment you are basically saying companies like Criterion profit off others by doing very little work themselves. You obviously have no idea in how much work, and money, goes into releasing these DVDs.
Its great that you don’t mind giving out your art for free and that’s fine, but like I said above, don’t make that assumption for all filmmakers and musicians. Most of them want a wider audience and to do that those businesses have to make a profit. I can’t judge your work because I have not heard or seen it, but basically what you are saying, when a producer from Hollywood rocks up your door one day, and says that he likes your work, and then offers you a million dollars to direct one your pieces, you are going to turn to this person and say, ‘no thanks, I will do it for free, because I don’t believe in copyright and I believe that everyone has a right to see my films for free. And add to that; please don’t worry about paying for staff etc. because I only use volunteers’. Ha, ha. You are having a laugh aren’t you?
Do I think that Fellini and Godard etc sat around talking about their royalty cheques all day? No, I would rather think that they would sit around discussing film. But seriously, I think you will find that if they were doing a film that was going to be released, that they would be expected to be paid. Tarrantino is a huge film fan but I am sure that you will also find that he expects to be paid what he is worth as well.
Michael Brooke makes some good points. You make this argument about the poor people vs. the greedy corporations. But there are many smaller companies doing the same thing, except with fewer resources and less money. Not to mention they are more likely to make less money back. Yet you expect them to put their own money into putting out a product that should be seen for free. Do you think companies like Criterion – or Second Run as Michael mentions – are just in it for the money? You will find that a lot of these companies are doing it for the love of film. But where do you think they are going to cover their overheads and expenses if everyone accessed their product for free? This is something I don’t understand. You have still not covered that basis.
Like I said before, I have a small record label. I don’t care about profit but I still need to cover costs. You say everyone should be able see film or hear music for free, but who do you think pays for the studio for those artists to record their music, so that others can actually hear their music. So, even if I don’t make a profit, its not a big concern for me, as its more labor of love, but I could not continue to run the label at a loss. That’s simple maths.
I think Paul Rankin has summed up some of my views beautifully, especially in regards to confusing morality and legalities.
Ben Simington has also made some very excellent and valid points about the industry.
As for Michael Brook, because of his work, he probably has more understanding from the business side of things than any of us.
And at the end of the day, Ten, I think this is the real problem. You are looking at things from one point of view, and its not that we can’t see where you are coming from, but you are forgetting the other side of the coin. The business side is important though. It is not always about greedy corporations trying to make as much money as possible, because quite simply this does not always happen, especially in the independent market. You don’t seem to grasp the concept that whether a film or a piece of music, these things have to still cost something, and that money still has to come from somewhere. These things don’t just create themselves but usually include the involvement of numerous people, including people like Michael, who sometimes do give their free time for nothing, because of their love for the art.
But imagine if everyone had your attitude and just downloaded for free. Who pays for future music or film to get made? Where is the incentive for anyone? You don’t expect a banana grower to grow his bananas just to give out for free do you? So then to try to reason the same thing with film by your ‘free good’ argument is just ludicrous. You try to make it sound like you know something about economics but no economist is going to back up your argument.
Musycks makes another excellent point about the kids of today, and I think that is extremely valid. A lot of them do think that they are entitled to download free and do not see any consequences. I guess this is a case of trying to educate this generation that pirating is wrong and why it is wrong, though that is a lot harder than it sounds, just from my own experiences.
In regards to the above Richard, your generation is entitled to see movies, but you just have to realise that nothing in life is for free – everything has a cost. Your argument about doing whatever it takes to feed yourself compared to watching pirated DVD’s is just obsolete. Survival is one thing – after all, one needs food to survive. I don’t think you are going to die just because you can’t see your favourite CD. I am not one of the elite you talk about and in fact, I have very little money, but I still believe in paying my way in life. If I cannot afford something I will wait.
Its not my place to say who has a right to visit this site and who doesn’t, I just don’t understand why you do visit the autuer’s with that the attitude you have. Melissa has obviously started this site because of a passion and yes, websites are counted as ‘free good’, but I guarantee that it would still cost something out of her own pocket i.e. web hosting is not free. Seriously, its time to get out of the fairyland and into the real world
I have been going over these post with extreme interest, as I would have thought this initially a rather drab topic with limited scope: ie, film piracy – for it or again’ it. However, I now realize, as a result of all the impassioned responses and debates, that we are covering a vast multitude of problems and issues. First of all, I think everyone here should and must speak openly and honestly about their own particular position and point of view. In terms of honesty, that is the most important product of this site. If we are not free to exchange opinions, however varied and different they may be, with one another, what is the point of the auteurs, except as just another site to post lists or one’s own faves or opinions. Let’s keep the debate flowing, even if it gets heated, and don’t let anyone try to score a knockout punch on their opponent before all the rounds of the bout are over. In other words, keep it honest and respect the other poor idiot’s opinions, even if they are the exact opposite of your own. We come to this site, irregardless of anything else, because we all love films. What this particular debate seems to hinge on is the ethics of free downloading and the consequences to the industry.
I believe that if a good quality product of a film exists where we are, we are not really justified in buying a pirated copy. However, I have continually used copying for my own personal viewing as a means of asccessing films I want to see but cannot always afford. For years I have been copying hundreds of films from TV onto tape, and feel no guilt about this. I have also bought, during this same time, many videos of things I want to own. Now, through the internet, comes another method of acquiring films to view. I haven’t copied anything from the internet yet, because I am too technically ignorant, but I have viewed all kinds of films and film clips, trying to find something I like. Since we are in a revolution in technology, as regards digital distribution, I think everyone can agree we are again in a brave new world where a vast amount of information is out there for us to see, hear, and enjoy. I see nothing wrong with this, just like the advent of video recording from TV. As many have already pointed out here, all film distribution companies, including Criterion, will need to embrace this new technology and its possibilities. It is here, and we really can’t predict where it will all end.
As regards the copyright issue, many here know far more than I re this issue, and have spoken about it with clear articulation. I believe the creative persons responsible for film content own the intellectual copyright to that content. I really only think the companies that distribute this content should concern themselves with giving us a quality product at a reasonable amount. I, for one, will continue to buy these products, because I want the book, the box, and the nice labelled dvd inside with all those extra feature goodies. Also, I clearly support those who give me the quality products I crave, just like I would support the purveyors of fine drugs, were I an addict. Since we are all film addicts, surely this is one thing we can all agree – support those purveyors of the fine films we crave.
Were I in a situation where the film I wanted did not exist in a legitimate copy in my country, or had never been released, I would have no qualms about seeing it in any form I could, always hoping against hope, that someday it would appear released in its proper form so I could have a nice, pristine copy of it – with all those extras we all now enjoy and expect. As I do copy dvds, for my personal viewing, from legitimate sources, too, I see no problem with having some of my films acquired this way. It is convenient, and the prmary copy is always a legitimate one (ie, a library copy or copy a friend has purchased). I buy lots of copies of films and music I do like, and am waiting anxiously for many titles to be released by Criterion, or somebody good, that I can buy that are not now available or in a decent format. Like everyone else, my income is limited, and I can’t buy everything I want, so I have to pick and choose. That’s why I often use the library or the internet to pre-view a film.
What I love about the internet is the ability to see clips, trailers, complete movies, old films – all kinds of movies I can see and experience. I hope no one would want to take that away. So, let the new mediums flourish and let us hope the good companies embrace the exisiting potential. I believe we all must do our small bit to support those distributiors and artists we believe in by buying and promoting their work whenever we can – within our budget, of course. Let’s continue to love and cherise films and the many and varied ways we can view them.
Jumping back into the ring…
Richard – a moderate use of piracy might not lead to the collapse of the film industry, at least yet, but it will dramatically change things. And there are companies, usually the independent ones that are putting the stuff out that we like, that will go under, because of piracy. And how do you decide what is moderate and what is not? And when do you know you have crossed the boundaries of moderate?
You say that you don’t support shitty or mediocre stuff, according to your tastes. But remember that this is your opinion of what is shitty or mediocre. The one thing that I have noticed on these forums is how much people differ in their likes of films – someone will list their favourite movies and then someone says straight away that they hate those exact same films. Admittedly this year has been a slow one, but I usually see between 200-250 movies at the cinema. I know that they are not all going to be good but I still pay for them. So yeah, what you think is not a good product, might be debated by others. As Kevin S. states, a lot of people are not socially conscious and have no intention of paying for movies, even the good ones.
Lachlan Foley: Michael B. puts it straight to the point – what you are doing is still committing a crime and like he says, your argument would just not stand up in court. To many of you are confusing moralities with legalities. You might think it is your moral right to steal but you are still breaking the law.
Carl Cross: I am sorry I did not get to put up my last post up before you responded. But as you will read, I don’t necessarily agree with capitalism, but I also understand, in today’s world, you can’t live without it. We have to buy our clothes from somewhere right? We have to use computers to type these forums or, for some, to steal films. So I might not support the idea of capitalism, but I also understand the importance of it and also realise it is capitalism that makes and puts out those films that I like. I am not going to live in a cave. As mentioned above, I am not talking about ethics, but what is right and wrong. I am certainly not at ‘war’ about it. Piracy is currently against the law in most countries and for good reason.
You say that you believe you represent 75% purely because of the people that you have spoken to. But what does that mean? I was reading yesterday how the Chief Executive of Universal was saying, only a couple of years ago, that going by forums he has read he believed that HD would make Blu-Ray obsolete. We know that was not the case.
Yes, technology will change over time, but not always for the best. For me, I like a physical product in my hand. That might just be me, but at the end of the day, people who pirate are not giving me a choice. Just read the forum about Synapse films, that Kevin provided earlier in the thread. And yeah, there are a lot of people that are not being re-numerated properly, and that is something that, as individuals and as a people, we need to continue to fight. But by buying film, at least these people are getting paid. With piracy, they don’t get anything. So what if you watch a movie and you don’t like it – at least you have still helped to pay for the grip or sound recordists on that movie, which allows them to work on other films that you will like. If a film sucks, well, I can live with that. Do you go to the supermarket and rip open the plastic to a punnet of strawberries just to pick out one or two that might be rotten?
Your redistribution of wealth comment is unbelievable. Like Michael questions: who’s wealth are you actually distributing? This is not a revolution, just a few people who are taking advantage of getting something for free. You can call corporations greedy, but reverse that, and it is exactly the same thing. It has nothing to do with things now being fairer. That’s just a childish notion. And what if the laws change in a few years, and make it illegal for computers to even have facilities to copy or download illegally? What are you going to do then?
Dcdreams – what goes around comes around? Well, that is a great attitude as well, isn’t it? Do you really think it is a reality check for the corporations that simply chase a profit? What about companies like Criterion? Or the smaller film companies like the ones that Michael B. contributes to? Or my small label? Should we all be punished because of that kind of attitude? Just because, we do what we do, because of our passion?
You make a few valid points in your second paragraph but in effect you are highlighting exactly what we are saying. Who do we blame for the stock market crashes? Is it the stockbrokers? Most would argue that it was the greed of the banks, giving out loans to people that couldn’t afford them? In effect this has caused a ripple that has turned it into a ‘global crisis’ as they are calling it. In Australia, our banking industry is highly regulated, and because of this, we are one of the few countries that will probably – at least at this stage – avoid a recession. Now, people might complain about this high regulation, but it has protected us a great deal, and I think even the banking industry here is thankful for these regulations because if not, they could have ended up like many of the U.S. and European banks. And this is why we have copyright laws – to protect the people who own the music or film or what have you, from people stealing from them. Yes, people still steal, because they continue to pirate these things, but we also have laws that say these people will also be punished if they are caught.
As I have said above, this has nothing to do with morals. Not when there are laws in place. If you don’t agree with something, that is fine, but remember that if someone knows they are breaking the laws and still deliberately do it, they are still acting as a criminal.
Carl Cross: I think you are missing the whole point. Like Michael mentioned earlier, YouTube is great for testing something out to see if you like it or not. You don’t need to see the whole film to decide if you want to buy it or not. Myspace is another great example – I love discovering new bands that I did not know about before, and if I like them, I will go chase down their album. But I am not deliberately going out of my way to pirate their music. You will find that if you hear something on a bands page on Myspace, they have normally agreed for people to hear that music for free. After all, it’s a great promotional tool, especially for unsigned bands. In the same way that Itunes will allow you 30 or so seconds of free music of each song, to at least give you an idea of whether you will like it or not. What we are talking about are people who feel it is their right to go out and download everything for free without realising the consequences of doing so.
Michael makes some more good points in response to your next comment Dcdreams. We can’t all have what we want. Michael says that he would like a bigger house, but he is realistic enough to know that he is not going to have that. Personally, I would love to be able to actually own a house in the first place, but I have been priced out of the market over the last few years. Yet I am not going out to break the law just to get the money. Heck, if Michael and I, and others on here teamed up, we could probably create our own site and make a huge profit of pirating movies. But we don’t, because we know its wrong.
Carl Cross: “You can’t argue revolution. It is what it is”. Yeah, does not mean that the revolution is for a good purpose or even turns out well though. Che might be everyone’s hero, but lets not forget that he was also responsible for many, many deaths. And I won’t even mention the American Revolution.
Glad to know to that you are only ripping off some people and not all people Carl. If only we all had that attitude. Imagine a robber saying to the judge, “my crime was okay your honour, because I only ripped off Bank A, not Bank B.”
Dcdreams: you are right about itunes transforming the industry. But we are not arguing against companies like that, because they still charge for those tunes, which part of the money goes back to the record label, who can then pay royalties owed to their artists, and the rest to paying overheads etc. What we are arguing against, are people who download those same tunes elsewhere for nothing. Whether people like it or not, the music and film industries still need to make money to continue. It’s like one big wheel. At the end of the day, I am sure that you would not appreciate making something and then see me selling that same product the next day at the market, while you get sweet f@#k all for it.
Okay, I will leave it here – for now – because I think I see some villagers heading over the hills with their pitchforks. Maybe they’re part of the revolution.
Bob: Thank you for the honesty and simple common sense you have brought into this discussion. Your second paragraph brings a much needed grace. I identified with what you wrote more than anything else written here because it is rooted in the real experience of life that I behold from where I am in the world.
Scarier Than Frankenstein:
“Maybe you’re right, the proliferation of piracy just might result a more widely spread availability of films. It still doesn’t mitigate the act of stealing intellectual properties. This whole argument isn’t at all about the evolution of the film industry. Look at the original question. IS BUYING PIRATED DVDS JUSTIFIED, ETC.?”
The title wasn’t an effective one in the first place. Since the vast majority of people don’t “buy” pirated DVDs; they merely watch them. The two acts may or may not be equally morally reprehensible, but they are different acts to the parties who perpetrate them. I watch pirated movies because I think the entire system (production, distribution and exhibition & viewing) is unfair and should be different and pirating happens to facilitate my reaction. I don’t think the system has a dependable enough conscience and so I behave in accordance with my own. It IS a kind of anarchy before you accuse me of it. I hold my hands up; I’m am a selective anarchist. Where I perceive unfairness and I feel a lot of other people also perceiving it with me, but find myself up against a seemingly unstoppable machine I am prepared to behave anarchistically. ‘Tis said.
Samourai:
“You say that you believe you represent 75% purely because of the people that you have spoken to. But what does that mean?”
It means that when I sit in my office and I eavesdrop on the students talking they say exactly the same things to one another that they tell me. It means that when I sit in the pub with work colleagues (from the film industry!) or with friends, and the conversation occasionally finds its way round to this topic, they all sing from the same hymnbook. It means that when I get together with my family members and we share experiences relating to piracy, theirs are all the same as mine. What it means, Samourai, is primary source data. What it means is the prevalence of what is going on. They are all sharing files. They are all downloading files (software, music, video) and breaking the law.
“This is not a revolution, just a few people who are taking advantage of getting something for free.”
I’m afraid what you’re saying is “unbelievable”. I’m sorry Samourai but not in your wildest dreams is what we’re talking about being perpetrated by “just a few people”. I can’t believe you are so detached from what is happening to suggest such a thing.
You conclude your comment with, “Seriously, its time to get out of the fairyland and into the real world.”
What real world are you living in? In the real world people are copying en masse. If you were to arrest someone every time he/she broke copyright law I would lose practically all the students I currently teach film to part-time. There would be no-one, neither friend nor colleague, left to chat with in the pub. Live by your own words. Get into the REAL world with your argument. People are doing this. They are DOING IT, NOW. Are you simply going to react to all those millions by telling them they’re wrong?
Theirs is a reaction to the way markets have worked up until now.
The value of things in a western market capitalist system is dictated partly by principles of economics and partly by the might of some and the relative weakness of others. Partly we are looking at the “scarcity” principle which underlies demand and supply. Partly we are looking at the fact that some people have the power to say yes and others are not really in a position to say no. If you think that the true value of a grapefruit is what you been so used to paying for it, think again. That’s the western market capitalist economic value of a grapefruit. That may not necessarily be its true value. It’s a convenient value for some and may not be the result of a fair valuation system for others. This is one important thrust of my argument. That’s why I said up above this is an ethical war as much as any other kind of war. It wasn’t waiting for technology to allow it to begin. People have been copying to establish more equity for centuries. It was waiting for technology to enable it to make rapid progress.
Wherever it has been felt that pricing has been dictated by the few and stomached by the many, people have responded with similar behaviour. I think if everyone left this argument who has ever copied a piece of software and broken copyright law in so doing, there’d not be many of us left in it. I fully expect cinephiles to jump up and point out the difference between breaking the law to copy computer software and breaking the law to copy films. It’s breaking the law people. And if you stand so inflexible by such standards you must live by your own rules and words. I don’t know for sure, but I’d hazard a guess, that hypocrisy is rife in this debate. If you have by the way copied a piece of software, I on the other hand, will sympathise with you. Software has been overpriced. If you argue purely in terms of demand and supply, then it has been rightly and justly overpriced. I don’t happen to adopt that stance. If you ask me to understand why in its infancy prices had to be high, because manufacture was just getting going I’d be much more understanding. But then comes a point where the owners realise just how much can be creamed by exploiting the fundamental demand and supply principles of a western market system, and that’s where the problems start. That’s where inequity begins to creep in. That’s the whole problem with a free market. Those with the power to exploit it economically do so, at the expense of those with the need. One reason why I believe certain products have been overpriced is because it has been realised by their creators/owners that they could exploit a basic need in people; not “answer” it, “exploit” it. In the case of computer software, in order to keep up in social terms, people had to learn it. In order to survive professionally they had to be able to use it. Many other reasons. And those selling it new they had the power to dictate, not to ask a fair price, where they would be reasonably remunerated for their efforts, but to ask any damn price they liked. So lots of people at the bottom had a choice: copy Microsoft Word and stay in the game or live according to the rules of western market capitalist economics and fall behind. And basically we reasoned fairness. “Well, big companies who have the money to pay for the software can pay and we’ll rely on illegality.” Now some people here may be whiter-than-white; not many I reckon.
With CDs and DVDs it’s the same situation. They have been vastly overpriced. Now I’m sorry that gaffers and grips are suffering. But people do suffer in a messy affair like this. The culpability lies with those who perpetrated the inequities in the first place. But that’s by the by. People are copying now en masse. Software, mp3s, Video clips, they’re all being piped down to people’s HDs free of charge faster than you can whistle to the authorities about it. Now you can stand like some dusty old judge and complain all you like about it affecting the market or the security of the industry. But once you get through with your complaint, you still have to face the fact that’s it’s there, as wide as the sky above you. And it’s a bit silly to stand looking up at something that big and just keep saying, “You’re being very naughty and what you’re doing is wrong.” I think you need a new thread.
What’s happening with music will probably happen with film. It’s a trend I spoke about in an earlier comment. The trend of downloading mp3s in bulk, listening to them for a couple of weeks, then buying the music you liked and deleting the rest. It’s called selectivity. Unless we move entirely towards a police state, I think you’ll find the trend sticking around for a while. And don’t kid yourselves; it’s not the “few” as Samourai suggests who are following it, it’s the many. It’s called not parting with your money blindly. At the moment the pirates are facilitating it. Shame it has to be that way. Wise companies will simply replace the pirates by adopting a similar strategy.
La Samourai,
My point about iTunes is that movie companies need to learn to harness the power of the internet in a similar fashion, so as to offer the consumer more legal options. I see pirating as a kind of last resort for a lot of people here, even though the master source material very well exists somewhere and is being held on lockdown for some monetary/licensing reason.
Listen, I’m happy that some of my hard earned salary goes towards the archiving of some of the more obscure films the BFI has spent its money on. I might draw the line at the British Transport Films but hey, I’m not grumbling really.
You definitely wouldn’t grumble if you knew how profitable that particular series was! (Train buffs massively outnumber film buffs, and we have the figures to prove it!)
(I’ve only just dipped into this thread for the first time since yesterday, and I’d like to read everything properly before I respond in full, so bear with me…)
Bob Stutman:
What I love about the internet is the ability to see clips, trailers, complete movies, old films – all kinds of movies I can see and experience. I hope no one would want to take that away. So, let the new mediums flourish and let us hope the good companies embrace the exisiting potential. I believe we all must do our small bit to support those distributors and artists we believe in by buying and promoting their work whenever we can – within our budget, of course. Let’s continue to love and cherise films and the many and varied ways we can view them.
I agree with you 100%. Distributors like the Criterion Collection should definitely embrace new technology. As they improve on their ability to make films available everybody benefits.
Having content available on-line is a great tool. It’s very nice to able to log-in to The Auteurs to watch a film. Things of this nature are only going to improve the movie watching experience. I wish that there were more sites like this. It would be foolish to not utilize these new tools and technologies.
I don’t think that there’s anyone here who is not willing to embrace greater availability of content. Everyone who logs in to this website does so in the hope of finding out about films they haven’t seen before. I think that we are all clamoring for greater availability of quality cinema. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if that wasn’t the case. This is one thing that each and every one of us, regardless of our stand on this issue, can agree upon.
DCDREAMS:
iTunes sucks. If you like to download music go to Amiestreet.com. Their prices are much better and they at least have the decency to tell what the quality of the music is before you download it. I know it’s totally off of the subject but, you’ve mentioned iTunes a few times and I figured that would be a good opportunity to give you a heads up. Check it out, you might be surprised by what you find.
STF,
I didn’t say I used iTunes. I just have much respect for how they have changed the way music is distributed on a global level.
Thanks for the recommendation though.
Carl Cross: I completely understood what you meant by your comment, which is why I added the comment about what the Chief Executive from Universal had said. My point is that you are purely going by what you have observed, but if I say that from my observations 75% of people said that the disagreed with piracy, then who’s observations do we go by. Its like with our previous Government and Prime Minister – I am always surprised how they ever got in, especially as virtually 100% of people I talked to, or observed, stated that they hated him, yet there he was for ten years. Basically I learnt that you couldn’t rely on observations of people, or even surveys. At the end of the day, I don’t agree with primary source data because it does only take a small measure of a huge population. And something like piracy can take in many other equations i.e. cultural values. Even attitudes between country-to-country could be completely different.
I apologise for any misunderstanding about quote of ‘just a few people’ – obviously I know it is far more than just a few people. I was using that more as an expression than numeral fact, just like someone would say ‘a few bad eggs in the basket’. Obviously, I am aware that there is quite a large amount of people pirating, and that is why, and others here, are so concerned. As stated above – if everyone pirated for free, then their will be no industry, which means a lot of what we love to see and enjoy will not actually be available in the future.
You say yourself that people are pirating en masse – don’t you honestly see where the problem lies? When the film companies or DVD companies can no longer afford to make or put out movies, because everyone is pirating, who do you think is going to be able to afford put these films out, and where do you think that they are going to get the money from?
Carl, you also make the comment about losing all your students if they were arrested for copyright violation, and thus probably putting you out of a job. Well, that is where we are coming from, when we are concerned about people pirating. I don’t know how you law enforcement agencies take piracy but at least the Federal Police in Australia are cracking down on people pirating, admittedly more so the people making a profit off it, but it is still a start. But I have no sympathy because if you break the law…
Another thing you might not realise is that things are slowly changing because of piracy. In the US, I know that the music and film industry are dropping the approach of suing people, and approaching and working with the ISP companies directly, to filter out illegal piracy. This is probably the best approach.
There are other negatives of people breaking the law, like in Australia, with our Government about to censor our whole Internet service. I don’t mean something like an optional nanny filter on our computers, but through our ISPs. And why? Excuses like protecting people from child porn – though one would normally say that if someone goes looking for that kind of thing on the internet, and thus participating in a criminal activity, they could never make that argument when people pirate film and music, knowing that is illegal, and yet still do it. So some people will even say what’s the difference? – and piracy. Personally I don’t think this will work, but it is going to be introduced early this year. I will also admit that this is probably more a reason for control, after all its already illegal to discuss or search about things like suicide on the internet, but why should I be punished because of the few who do want to get their rocks off on kiddie porn, or people who continue to pirate. If these things weren’t happening, then there would be no excuse or reason for all of us to be censored by our Government.
I don’t think you can bring economics into the equation because I don’t believe DVD’s are over priced. In fact, in Australia, I think they are now under priced. I had at one stage thought about opening a DVD store but there is no way I could compete against the major chains like Target or Big W who sell at prices I could not compete with, just because they lower their prices to bring people into the store. And in this case this is all DVD’s are used for – to sell at lower prices to bring people into the stores, in the hope that they will stop and buy something else. It’s basically a marketing gimmick.
But like Michael B. says, the market usually corrects itself eventually anyway. New releases for example are more expensive, but wait awhile and they will soon be at like a third of their price.
You might be right about saying that prices at real price and market price are different, but where do you stop with this argument. I mean, those producers could make those DVDs even cheaper by have them pressed off shore, like China – but that is putting local people out of work. And that’s part of the problem with free trade. Australia virtually has no manufacturing anymore because, realistically, why is a business going to pay someone $15 an hour to make something in our country, when they can pay someone in China less than a fifth of that price. Just look at our car industry (and in the US) – it is on the verge of collapse because it just cannot compete.
Maybe software is also over priced, and I don’t deny that I cringe when I see something for $600 – and remember because of population, we probably do pay a lot higher prices for everything in Australia – but I still pay for it. If I can’t afford it, then too bad. At the end of the day, if someone thinks its too high, and one or two companies have a monopoly, then they could always develop their own software, though I would personally say don’t bother because people will just pirate their stuff and they probably won’t last long in the market.
But getting back to DVDs and CD’s Carl, I don’t think they are overpriced. Speaking from experience with CDs, it is actually a very low profit margin – I have to pay for pressing of the CD, keeping the cost passed onto the distributor low, to make my product more competitive, especially to compete now with piracy. Then out of these costs I have to take into account advertising and promotion, keeping aside enough money for the next product, paying the band their royalties, shipping and freight costs and now paying for all these extras that kids expect, once again to compete with piracy. Then I have to take away GST and other taxes, pay lawyers and accountants and other daily overheads. What’s left at the end of the day? Not much at all, but like I said, I do it because of the love. Soon I will not be able to compete any longer though, because of piracy.
And it’s not about whether pricing is to high or not, the argument is against those who are going to pirate regardless. Criterion are now using VOD but the prices are obviously lower because they can cut out some of their overheads, but how many people who currently pirate for free do you think are going to start paying for it??? You yourself talk one minute about the prices being unfair but at the beginning of your comment you say that you watch pirated movies because you think the system is unfair and that pirating facilitates your reaction.
But if you do feel this way then why don’t you try to change the system, instead of getting angry about it and going against and pirating stuff. Or maybe you simply don’t care because you are a self confessed anarchist, though I would like to remind you that anarchy does actually mean an absence of government, which means you would probably be out of a job, and also usually means a state of lawlessness, which is more than simple people pirating film and software illegally.
DCdreams: I know where you were heading with your comment, which is why I stated that I have nothing against companies like iTunes. In regards to film, it seems like what you are saying is that both yourself and others are looking at legal avenues for watching film, besides having to buy them on DVD etc. There are options out there, including Criterion who has moved to VOD. These eventually will become more popular as technology evolves and if people want to watch films that way, then that is fine, as long as they are willing to pay for them. I understand that, especially with music, the younger generation do prefer, or are use to doing things this way, though for some people like myself and others here, nothing beats the actual DVD because we want the whole packing etc. So yes, technology will change, has to evolve, but all we are saying is that nothing comes for free.
So yes, technology will change, has to evolve, but all we are saying is that nothing comes for free.
This is the problem, and I do appreciate the argument on both sides – at least up to a point. But what we’re dealing with is a situation where people are increasingly expecting both instant delivery of a vast catalogue at the lowest possible cost (ideally nothing at all) and companies that are certainly working towards that ideal but who keep finding themselves up against such pesky real-world issues as budgets and legal matters.
In my day job, I’ve lost count of the number of wide-eyed, touchingly but hopelessly Utopian e-mails I’ve read from people who essentially want the whole national film archive available online for download – and quite a few say “And I’d be prepared to pay, too!”, as though this made the job any easier. I agree that it’s a wonderful idea and hopefully at some point in the future we will actually reach this, but the financial, logistical and contractual hurdles are such that it’s unavoidably going to be a very slow process.
Contractual hurdles are in many ways the toughest to overcome, as you’re often dealing with agreements that are so old that the original contracts basically have to be renegotiated from scratch, as they (for obvious reasons) make no provision for digital distribution or, in most cases, for any other form of distribution other than the original celluloid rental model – so even a retail release introduces previously unforeseen complications. And it’s not just the film companies you have to deal with – if the film features actors or musicians, you have to deal with their unions too – most modern films will have sorted all this out upfront, but older productions won’t, and if Equity (say) only ever permitted two television screenings, then you have to renegotiate with them, too.
(This is one of the reasons so much of the BBC’s pre-1970s back catalogue was wiped, by the way – Equity was worried that the schedules would be increasingly taken up with repeats, thus threatening the livelihood of its members, which is why they often restricted the number of repeats – and why in turn the BBC simply wiped the tapes after the second or third airing, as they were no longer exploitable. Appallingly short-sighted of course, and the law of unintended consequences has consequently seen the ravaging of a significant chunk of Britain’s cultural heritage, but you can see Equity’s point in a world where secondary markets like video had yet to be introduced.)
The problem is, we can stamp our feet about these contracts till we’re blue in the face, but they exist and they have to be respected – at least if you want to do something legitimate with the material (and certainly if you seriously expect access to the best-quality source materials: the owner’s not going to let you anywhere near them without several rock-solid binding agreements – it’s hard enough getting your hands on this stuff sometimes even when you’ve crossed every T and dotted every I!). It’s all very well blathering on about “a revolution”, but you’re only truly going to achieve your revolutionary aims by simultaneously overthrowing the government and abolishing a great many laws.
OK, this isn’t going to happen (and certainly not on the necessary global scale) – but even if it does, you won’t achieve Utopia because who’s going to pay for the preservation of this material? The film companies won’t any more, because you’ve abolished the copyright laws and they no longer have the legal power to exploit their physical holdings, so why hang on to it? (See my Equity/BBC example above). I know better than anyone posting here just how expensive it is even to prevent films from deteriorating further (i.e. doing absolutely nothing with them as far as the outside world is concerned) – and how can you possibly justify that expense if you can’t exploit your catalogue commercially any more? So the government steps in (assuming it’s culturally savvy enough and not some kind of year-zero merchant like Pol Pot’s Cambodia) – but they’re also under financial pressure and have to set an absolute ceiling on what can be preserved.
So when you inevitably decide that you can’t afford to preserve everything, what do you get rid of, and who makes that decision? And on what grounds? The BBC took that decision in the 1960 and 70s, with culturally disastrous consequences – and you don’t get this stuff back once you’ve got rid of it (or at least not the original materials). Carl implies that he’d junk the British Transport Films catalogue, but surely this would tick every single box in favour of its preservation, being historically and culturally significant and able to fend for itself commercially? (In many ways, this citation proves my point, so thanks for that!)
What’s also interesting is Carl’s suggestion of a barter system – presumably oblivious to the fact that such a system has been in place for decades. In the film industry, you’re a mug if you pay full price for something – you can always negotiate a discount, usually by some kind of quid pro quo arrangement. But this only goes so far – the bottom line is that you also need raw materials in the form of celluloid, magnetic and optical recording media, and someone’s going to have to pay for them somewhere along the line: it’s unlikely that you can invariably come up with an inspired symbiotic deal that will suit both parties in the deal to the extent where no money changes hands. (This is the left-wing equivalent of the right-wing fantasy that billions can be saved through unspecified “efficiencies”).
Heck, if Michael and I, and others on here teamed up, we could probably create our own site and make a huge profit of pirating movies.
Believe me, I wouldn’t need your help! At any given moment in my office, there are literally hundreds of Digibeta tapes (broadcast-quality SD masters for the most part), including tons of stuff that isn’t available anywhere else, and I have all the technical wherewithal to have them digitised and either burned onto a DVD-R or even disseminated online. I’d make a fortune.
So why aren’t I doing this? Well, for starters I’d be caught very quickly indeed – the number of people with access to this material and the technical savvy to pirate it must be in the low double figures at the absolute most, so it wouldn’t be long before PC Plod came knocking. I would certainly be fined and possibly imprisoned (depending on the scale of the piracy) and, more pertinently, I’d be fired immediately and would have extreme difficulty ever getting a job in the legitimate industry again. So I’d have to make an implausibly massive amount of money in the very short term for it to be worth my while.
More seriously, I’d also do significant damage in the longer term and on a wider scale. A cultural organisation that seeks to punch above its financial weight is hugely reliant on the goodwill of more commercially-oriented companies – and their trust. Most of the stuff in my office is owned by someone else, and if it was pirated, bang would go the chances of ever getting access to any of that company’s material again (a big deal if it’s a huge rightsholder like Granada, Studio Canal or the BBC) – or at least not without far stiffer legal and financial safeguards. So my selfishness would have a huge knock-on impact.
Granted, this is an extreme case, and people like me don’t get granted unsupervised access to this material unless they can be trusted, so I’m not about to draw parallels between this and your average everyday online pirate. But it does rather illustrate that the law of unintended consequences (or, more realistically, the law of consequences the pirate doesn’t give a toss about but which are nonetheless hugely relevant) almost always applies in these situations, regardless of scale.
Samouari,
There is an element of talking at cross purposes here. You are mainly arguing about “pirating”. I am mainly arguing not about people who “pirate” but about people who benefit from “piracy”. I said, the two may be equally morally reprehensible. You can target me straight away by arguing that were it not for those benefitting the pirates would have no market. Yes, you’re right. Were it not for some people buying from the pirates and then making what they’ve bought freely available for lots of other people, the pirates would have no business. For me, it’s about the lesser of two evils. I’m only one person, but I just happen to find myself more against the film system itself than against the pirates. So I consciously continue to benefit in the knowledge that the pirates are kept in business by the in-between-man. You’ll just have to accept that I’m that rare individual who has very little respect for large parts of the film industry. I think it’s more damaging than it’s good and I would have no qualms about it being brought to its knees. My eye is already on what might be born and evolve in its place.
Regarding primary data. I see I have failed to make the point clearly enough. When I say my experience is first hand I mean something different to what you have understood. Let me give you an example. I see a student bring in his pen drive with a given mp3 on it. I see him copy it onto a computer and then from the computer onto another student’s pen. I see this happen more times in a week than you have hot dinners in a month (you’ll probably tell me you’re a salad person). I see friends burning CDs for one another. I see work colleagues copying music and films from hard drive to hard drive. That’s what I mean by primary source data. Not hearsay, rather physical experience. If you’re asking me to accept that everything is different in your country, then fine, I accept that. I wouldn’t be so stupid as to imagine that I knew better about the beneficiaries of piracy where you live than you do. So I think your concluding sentence, “Even attitudes between country-to-country could be completely different.” might have to remain the decisive factor here. Attitudes can be completely different, country-to-country, and so can behaviour and actual practice.
There’s an ethical pattern here. One that I am quite conscious of. If you benefit from piracy, then you tarnish yourself with the same brush. But I have already said that I am tarnished with that brush and I see the stains on the clothing of everyone around me. The question for me is do I stop or do I go on? And it’s a question which as I’ve tried to express in previous comments has to do with much larger ethical patterns. So I find myself going on, and in so doing keeping that in-between-man happy and keeping those despicable pirates in business. Bad luck to me! I find everyone around me going on too. Bad luck to everyone around me! I think I’ve already suggested why this is. It has much more to do with western market capitalism as a life system than it has to do with the relative security of the film industry.
I was careful to refer to myself as a selective anarchist. You could argue that an anarchist is an anarchist. I would argue that lots of people are selective anarchists. They follow the law in some respects; they break it where it fails to make sufficient sense to them. It’s not really a modern outlook. It’s the way that people have behaved for millennia. People break some laws and get into trouble very quickly; they break others and never get into trouble. The law can be bought, it can be evaded and it can be utterly flouted. The law is one of the most imperfect systems in existence. In cases where the law protects the interest of some more than others – and in the belief of the latter unfairly so – it is only ever adhered to selectively. I base everything I say on what I experience happening in the real world around me. Let me give you a simple truth, Samourai. If I got a pound every time I saw someone break a law where I live I’d be a millionaire before RED’s Scarlet starts shipping. And where I live couldn’t in your wildest dreams be referred to as a trouble spot. The people around me are what someone like you might refer to as normal law-abiding citizens – and therein lies the irony. They are law abiding and then they’re not. Like all the people around me, I respect the law selectively too.
In a situation of absolute anarchy you might be right, I might be out of a job. But that’s where your argument and my argument show themselves as being so far from ever connecting with one another. I don’t see absolute anarchy around the corner. But I do definitely see selective anarchy being practiced all around me every day of my life here. And that’s what I’m talking about. I’m talking about what people do here where I am. I am talking about the general prevailing attitudes and modes of behaviour. I am talking about people sometimes upholding the law and sometimes disregarding it completely. I am talking about a truth, people continue to become very particular in their morality; systems struggle to keep up with that particularity. You are arguing about what “should” be. There’s a cosmos between us.
You talk about policing of the NET. So what? It won’t change a damn thing. Hackers are always several steps ahead. Several of my students wouldn’t dream of torrenting. They subscribe to off-limits servers that are always changing their identities and forms. If you think that there’s a cyber police force with a large enough personnel to firstly chase all the wandering minstrels and thereafter prosecute all the millions who have illegally received from them, then you’re a better man than I. But then of course you are a better man than I. Or so it seems.
My father used to buy cassette albums. He used to make copies onto blank cassettes for his friends. His friends used to buy albums and make copies from the originals for their friends. Lots of people had dual cassette decks. It was the exception the person who didn’t have a copied cassette in his music collection. Most collections were full of them.
The situation hasn’t changed at all. Technology may have but the trends in human behaviour haven’t. While you continue to focus on the pirates I focus on actual human behaviour happening here around me. I think people know that what the pirates are doing is wrong. But there are things they disagree with more than the pirates.
If Hollywood were to fall apart (I don’t see that happening anytime soon) but if it did, it would be no bad thing in my book. It’s one man’s opinion; that’s all it is.
You talk about the costs of production, promotion and distribution but those costs change drastically when a musician creates an album on his computer and the files are uploaded straight to the client. They even change if the album is put onto CD and shipped straight to the client. I admit there is an initial technological outlay (PCs copying machines etc.) but I covered the practicalities of that in my last comment. I know very well how much a stack of a hundred CDs/DVDs can be purchased for on the NET. Even the Taiyo Yuden DVDs I buy are dirt cheap when purchased in bulk. On this one issue I will have to continue to firmly disagree with you. Products are overpriced.
Perhaps the difficulty here is that you and I both want very different kinds of industry and we act accordingly. But please don’t continue to give me the “breaking the law” argument. Yes, we know the law gets broken. If I get into my car and go to the local corner shop I will see the law broken along the way. Someone’s dog will shit in an area of trees and they won’t scoop it up into a plastic bag. Someone will park illegally for a few minutes while they dive into a shop. Someone will drive at 35mph in a 30mph speed limit zone. And not one of those people will ever be prosecuted. But the man who drives at 50mph in the same zone might be. People’s morality is far, far, far more idiosyncratic than your argument lets on. The law is followed. The law is broken. Time to move on.
“What’s also interesting is Carl’s suggestion of a barter system – presumably oblivious to the fact that such a system has been in place for decades. In the film industry, you’re a mug if you pay full price for something – you can always negotiate a discount, usually by some kind of quid pro quo arrangement.”
Original sentence: “How’s it going to be paid for? Oh, with the green stuff I guess, or through a bartering system, or in kind, or LETS, or co-operatives…”
That’s the curious thing about English, Michael, so open to misinterpretation. There’s nothing in my original sentence signalling an unawareness on my part about the common practice of the systems mentioned. If you look closely you’ll notice that they all have that in common: they have all been experimented with and practiced.
Your “presumably oblivious to the fact that such a system has been in place for decades” gives much more away about the emotion in your own argument than it says about my knowledge of economic systems.
Keep rolling with that British Transport Films point Michael. I gave you that one. My hands are in the air. Though my example had more to do with what the BFI focuses on than whether the titles themselves are profitable. But hey, I made the slip, and you’re quite entitled to keep getting good mileage out of it.
“So when you inevitably decide that you can’t afford to preserve everything, what do you get rid of, and who makes that decision? And on what grounds?”
This is by far the more interesting point because it has to do with the nature of our democracy, who decides how public funds are spent and who those decision-makers are accountable to. Usually, as with most aspects of an electoral dictatorship, the wider public have very little say in the matter. It is all done through very narrowly decided mechanisms of representation. I, as Joe Bloggs, am never consulted. Which is the case with most aspects of current western, allegedly “democratic” living. I have to wait for that extraordinarily liberating and empowering moment when I am invited to put my x somewhere on a piece of paper. And this is exactly why I am a selective anarchist. Not because it’s a prefect mode of existence, far from it. It is the most compelling mode of existence for me in the face of a very unsatisfactory political system which I find myself living in (and before you rush for the big guns in glee, no, I’m not a communist).
“But this only goes so far – the bottom line is that you also need raw materials in the form of celluloid, magnetic and optical recording media, and someone’s going to have to pay for them somewhere along the line: it’s unlikely that you can invariably come up with an inspired symbiotic deal that will suit both parties in the deal to the extent where no money changes hands. (This is the left-wing equivalent of the right-wing fantasy that billions can be saved through unspecified “efficiencies”)."
Your world of transforming a body of works created in one medium into a digital archive is very different to a contemporary/near future medium where everything is digital to begin with and remains digital all the way through. I appreciate your challenges. But they have little to do with the new systems of production that we are moving into. The two don’t really bear comparison. I mean you can compare them – I just don’t know why you would want to. It makes more sense to look at a 100% digital system of production through screening as a new medium in its own right. The “someone’s got to pay argument” is a good one to get into the detail of. But not by grouping those two very different worlds.
If you want to get into “someone’s got to pay argument”, I’ll be happy to get into that one. I’ll be happy to enter a “current/near future systems of production|” debate. I see such systems as being ultimately far more personal, less monopoly-like. Small scale rather than large scale. Much smaller budgets but more integrity and a lot more choice. I see products having to prove their merits and justify their prices more, and this in advance of the transaction (more cheese tasting). I see payment as being more direct between creator and consumer. I see a lot of other things too. But I guess that’s for another rainy day.
I haven’t really been following the topic any more (there’s only so long one can listen to a thief justify their actions) but I thought I’d share the follow which I found humorous. I went to see Yes Man the other night, the theatre was packed and everyone was laughing along, including me. Jim Carrey plays a character named Carl and at one point two cops are interrogating Carl and one says “Carl huh? There’s another Carl we don’t like,” and the other cop finishes: “His name was Marx.” In a theatre with hundreds of people only myself and one other person laughed. I then heard murmurs of “I don’t get it…” and such.
My reason for mentioning is that if only about one per cent of the general population even know who Karl Marx is, is it any wonder that a communistic business model for the entertainment industry seems an actual attractive prospect for the more ignorant section of the bell curve?
My only hope is that personal integrity will eventually prevail…. lest pirates help usher in totalitarian governmental powers to void any sense of personal privacy all because you didn’t want to pay your $8.50.
I’ve come to this discussion very late in the day, and must admit I haven’t read every comment. But I’ll offer a few thoughts:
1. Elvis Costello once commented that piracy is wrong because “some people actually make their living from [being artists].” Even if it’s a meager living, I think we should respect their labor—and I would argue that piracy isn’t “communistic” (I’m quoting Paul Rankin—although I agree with his overall point) but actually appropriates labor unfairly, essentially exploiting the worker, effectively alienating him/her from that labor, and the product of same.
2. I’m in my early 50s, and so the first 15 or so years of my movie-watching life were spent pre-video. And while I do wish everything were available immediately, I don’t think it’s merely delusion-nostalgia to value movie-watching as an occasion rather than a “torrent.” I understand the desire to have it all—cinephilia is among the most voracious of the obsessional appetites—but waiting has its own pleasures—and never seeing creates its own glow: How much better is Tod Browning’s “London After Midnight” as a “lost” film? I’d say, well, much.
2b. Then again, over here in the US, for a little over a dollar a day I can use Netflix to watch 30-40 movies/month. So perhaps I should recede from the discussion a bit.
I don’t understand why all the hate to Joseph K, he’s simply being honest and his comment offsets the trajectory of the formed opinions, which is “stealing is bad”. This is debateable, I’m not in the means of accusing anyone but I know most of you have at least downloaded movies or music over the internet before. Simply because you can. Stop being hypocrites, it’s yours for the taking. The ethical guidelines vary from person to person.
The internet has been a blessing and a curse, and has rendered the film business to adapt to the economic and technological changes demanded by such things. Years ago, no one thought about piracy and downloading movies because the demand and the infrastructure (bandwidth) wasn’t yet implemented. We were still paying 17 dollars for cd’s, and life was a little less complicated. But movie tickets went up, and so did inflation. Suddenly sustaining a living with so many bills eating up your check leaves no room for entertainment when priorities take charge. For people who work in the film industry like I do, I barely make enough to get by and don’t want to pay 11.75 to watch a shitty hollywood movie with people talking and texting. I support what I like, if it’s a movie I want to see than I…pay for it.
If it’s something that isn’t available, then what’s stopping you from downloading if you want to see it? only yourself.
Do you really believe Hollywood is feeling the pressure if you download a copy of The Earth Stood Still? independents need all the help they can get, but support what you think is right.
I would have to agree with vellaem on his balanced views, he couldn’t put it better. Itunes implemented a good model for watching movies online, but the restrictions imposed (you can watch, but you can’t make a copy) takes the rights people want out of the their hands. If I paid to watch it, why can’t I get a chance to burn it? ludicrous.
The greed didn’t start with consumers, after all they buy whatever you sell them. It’s the greed of the studios that brought people to piracy, and now they’re trying to catch up. I’m not advocating piracy like some P2P version of Che, but all I say is that if you can’t get it, you have a right to seek it and watch it. I save my money for films I want to own (such as the splendid version of Salo) and support them when in the theater.
Foreign movies are a big reason for justifying piracy. There are just so many films that would never get distribution here and people want to watch. Many people just love films and can’t get them or can’t afford them. I feel a bit different about downloading music, but that’s a one sided commentary.
If you feel that water should be free, then why are we paying for it? the same applies for piracy. Just a thought.
“I haven’t really been following the topic any more (there’s only so long one can listen to a thief justify their actions) but I thought I’d share the follow which I found humorous. I went to see Yes Man the other night, the theatre was packed and everyone was laughing along, including me. Jim Carrey plays a character named Carl and at one point two cops are interrogating Carl and one says “Carl huh? There’s another Carl we don’t like,” and the other cop finishes: “His name was Marx.” In a theatre with hundreds of people only myself and one other person laughed. I then heard murmurs of “I don’t get it…” and such.
My reason for mentioning is that if only about one per cent of the general population even know who Karl Marx is, is it any wonder that a communistic business model for the entertainment industry seems an actual attractive prospect for the more ignorant section of the bell curve?"
I love Paul’s, “there’s only so long one can listen to a thief justify their actions”. All I’ve done in this discussion is keep away from pie in the sky and keep it real. Dear Paul, sorry to have to educate you, but if you rounded up all your ‘thieves’, in effect all the people living today who from time to time receive knowingly illegal video clips, mp3s or pieces of software, you’d need a space station the size of a large continent to imprison them all in. You poor fool. Wake up.
And as for your allusion to communistic business models…hmm…you need to learn to assimilate as you read. None were suggested. But I’d never deny you a laugh at Yes Man. I can quite understand a squeaky clean halo-over-the-head do-gooder like you getting off on Carey.
i made this flick back in 2004, little flick me and my buddies through together one month. my grandma and great grandma really dug it, and they really wanted a DVD copy. i never got around to making them a copy, and they were on me all the time, always asking about the damn dvd. just last year my great grandmother passed away, she never got a copy, never got to see it again. i dont want to die never having seen some films one more time just because they never got around to making an R1 release. so ill pirate the fuck out of the movie if its my only means of getting it. and if they release it afterwards, ill buy it.
its cute how some of u are getting so upset at each other.
“Slayare,
Remind me to never count you as a friend. "
chill out, this is just the internet.
I only will watch films online under 2 conditions: If the film does not have a DVD release because then screw them its the studios fault, and second if it is Oscar season and I missed a movie in theaters and want to see it before the Oscars. In the second situation it can onyl benefit the film because for some if it wasn’t for the nomination I wouldn’t want to see it and if I do and love it then I will buy the DVD when it comes out. For example this year before the Golden Globes I wanted to see Happy-Go-Lucky and after watching it online and absolutely loving it I will buy the DVD when it is released.
i work in film and when you pirate films you steal from me………an i’m not talking about the actors, directors aor producers! if you steal films then you suck ass!
The sheer length of this thread is too much to engage with, but I say….
Juss finda da goood place to renta da movies! Odds are, if you live close to any University, their library will have a nice selection of stuff. Or start a DVD co-op! MY friends and I used to do this in middle school and high school, where we would each buy imported video’s and DVD’s and circulate them around. I know its nice to own DVD’s but, unless you are doing rigorous study on a film or a selection of films, not really too much need to have it. Especially with things like Netflix and GreenCine, you can get almost everything you need as a rental for super cheap.
Here’s some stuff on copyright, which relates to debates on piracy, censorship and DRM.
-http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/ipmyths.htm
-http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
-http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/07/opinion/edsmiers.php
-http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/rec.pdf
This place is a good portal for a jump off into DRM
-http://www.eff.org/issues/drm
…and here also
-http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070115-8616.html
-http://w2.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html
re: censorship (film distribution and the web)
-http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html
The summary? Thievery is a matter of perspective.
Noseeum
I meant of course that I’d like to donate above and beyond what I already pay in tax to the BFI for some of the work it does (in a funny sort of a way I already do).
You know better than I do how much of a differential exists between what is received through taxation and other forms of public/government funding and what those transfers you’ve detailed actually cost. In any case, I’m not necessarily arguing for the archiving of all those films. Just because I said I support archiving doesn’t mean that I agree with all the films the BFI has spent money on restoring. That’s the age old problem with demo-cracy [sic].
You’ll also know better than I do what quota of what the BFI receives gets spent on the online service. But I’m not sure I follow your point there. Are you suggesting there’s a shortfall? In practical terms how does that translate exactly? Is the BFI running up a debt? Or do you mean that there are even more enriching things they could be doing if they only had the cash? If the former, then judging by the relative merits of some of the titles in their own catalogue I think they might need to be a little more selective. If the latter, well, that’s pretty much the same story for all of us. I’m afraid they’ll just have to be more inventive.
“once your revolution has achieved its aims and the landscape is littered with the rusting hulks of dinosaurs who couldn’t keep up”
If only. Your words conjure such a lovely image in my head. A British cinema circuit not dominated by Hollywood. We live and dream.
How’s it going to be paid for? Oh, with the green stuff I guess, or through a bartering system, or in kind, or LETS, or co-operatives… I don’t see the connection between the “rusting hulks” and Screen Online. Unless you know something about the way the latter is financed that I don’t. Are General Electric funding BFI work now? (Giggle)
What do you mean, how is it going to be paid for? It’s a BFI service. Didn’t you already answer that question yourself?