I don't know, I suspect not by making a complete idiot of yourself on a public forum.....
Care to explain?
Jump to content
Bootlegger Gets 33 mos in jail!
145 replies to this topic
Posted 30 August 2014 - 07:19 AM
Care to explain?
Posted 30 August 2014 - 07:34 AM
Not at all. I've been perfectly willing to pay for certain songs from iTunes, having already spent several hundred dollars there I might add. A Google search often turns songs up on iTunes, but when I fire up iTunes directly they're not listed, because I'm logging in from Australia. This has happened numerous times. Apparently you can circumvent this by tortuous means, but I can't be bothered.
There seems to be no logical reason why TV series can't be simultaneously released throughout the world, which would considerably reduce piracy if there was a legal avenue for download.
In any case, there is a difference between "eating their food" and using some Star Trek type gadget to "duplicate their food".
One is theft, the other something unequivalent that people try to assert is theft....
Posted 30 August 2014 - 07:37 AM
No, I'm not a psychiatrist.
This is just one of series of similar threads.
Look up anything recently started Richard "de Forest" Boddington, and you'll see what I mean.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 07:40 AM
In the words of William Goldman: https://www.youtube....h?v=5Ay5GqJwHF8
Posted 30 August 2014 - 07:49 AM
John; that's actually been my stance all along, a reformation, or reformulation, of the distribution model. Here in San Mateo County, we had a kid whip up a small piece of code that allowed a network to swap music files. He called it Napster. People, specifically the record industry (music industry now, I guess) was up in arms because it came down to essentially making illegal copies and giving them to "friends", or people you knew (or were connected to via the network).
The music industry cut a deal, and Apple Itunes and Google stepped in by buying or creating their own code for the exact same function that Napster provided. Only the big companies had access to actual source libraries through legal agreements.
When a piece of work is not available to the public, book, film, music, art work, whatever it is, then it's the pirated version that gets the nod. That's the way it's always been, which is why I've always thought that the film industry was pricing themselves out of business.
Having said that, it's still just down right wrong to grab someone else's work, Xerox the thing without permission, whatever it is, and throw it up on the market for sale to line your pockets. You can tell me that I'm on a high horse, and I would totally agree with that statement and accept the title, but stealing someone else's art is simply not right.
I think for the common man when they see Star-X in the headlines get Y-Millions of dollars for Film-Z, then that justifies for them in their minds that "piracy is okay because they're rich", ignoring the fact that it was selling the product that the commoner is stealing that allowed them to build that wealth.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 07:50 AM
Well, I don't understand your position. It sounds more like a personal issue with another poster, and not so much the topic at hand.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 07:59 AM
An addendum to this. I might be wrong and my data old, but the fact that Denmark is the only country in the world where the law requires creative HODs, including cinematographers, to be named as copyright holders does somehow point towards a massive injustice in the whole system.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 08:01 AM
Posted 30 August 2014 - 08:04 AM
'Theft' is a shorthand for something very similar.
If someone takes an image of mine without permission and uses it without paying, I'll call it 'infringement' if you like.
But I'll still pursue him for payment.
Alright, the image is readily reproducible and I'm not deprived of it so it is not technically theft. But if that reproduction is my source of income, why is it so different?
Edited by Mark Dunn, 30 August 2014 - 08:07 AM.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 08:52 AM
Well, if a person wants to get didactic about it, then you could say that murder really doesn't hurt anyone other than the killed party, because there is no immediate direct economic impact on that person. The spouse and offspring of the person killed could sue, but would it not be better if we could develop a system whereby people are killed and a fee is paid. Historically some societies came close to something like this.
But, the absurdity in that the previous example is that that is a matter of public safety, and what we're discussing here is more a matter of economic flow, and making sure that the person who created the work is adequate compensated.
In the end I think the film industry will come around. I think they're still counting on box office sales as the dominant factor in product distribution, because part of going to a film is to experience the film with other people; laugh, cry, ooh and ah at the images on the screen.
I think there digital distribution with new anti-image-piracy technology (say frames invisible to the naked eye, but that will register on a video camera and show up on playback when said image is taped) is the way to go. That way cases like this guy in the BBC article wouldn't be an issue, or he'd be even dumber than he reportedly is.
I can't recall if someone mentioned it here or on another BBS, but there's also corruption among studio employees. I remember a news' piece showing Closed Circuit security footage of employees (Warner or FOX) who were responsible for some phase of post-work on a film (Batman or some big title) just burning DVDs to take home and sell, or otherwise putting digital footage on portable media and walking out of the post facility or studio so they can upload it once they got home. That there could be a case of not paying the employees enough to steer them away from making extra dollars on the side, but it's also a matter of integrity too, and the film industry doesn't have a big reputation for integrity on certain levels.
I personally think the TV and theatrical distribution model is not suited for 21st and 22nd century media distribution, and needs to be reworked. Still, you shouldn't be pirating someone else's work in the first place. End of story.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 09:31 AM
But if that reproduction is my source of income, why is it so different?
Because you aren't necessarily deprived of your source of income.
Piracy can be - and often is, I'm convinced - a victimless crime. Not every instance of piracy represents a lost sale. Probably very few do. That money that people think they've lost probably never existed. If the piracy hadn't taken place, they still wouldn't have got any money.
Now, of course, I say necessarily because sometimes an instance of piracy does represent a lost sale, but I suspect this is much more the case when websites and blogs use photos unlicensed, or when professional, profitmaking youtube channels rip off music, because some of those people are funded to pay for rights and the money does exist. I suspect, however, that it is vanishingly rare with regard to film piracy.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 10:08 AM
I really don't understand that logic at all. If you created a work, and put that work up for sale or rent, and someone copied it without your consent and did likewise sell and/or rent it, then he is competing against you with your own product.
That, by definition, is denial of monetary compensation, unless he agreed to pay you a percentage of the take, or you just said it was okay.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 10:12 AM
I just gave you the very real example of how buyers at AFM will not buy a movie for DVD release in their territory because they know the piracy is so bad that they won't make any money. This also means that a lot of lower budgeted movies that were once being made are now no longer being made. This means a loss of revenue and job opportunities for young people trying to establish a movie career, from director all the way to PA.
So this is not a victimless crime at all.
Also, if this was a victimless crime, why did your government just toss one of your fellow citizens into jail for 33 mos?
Posted 30 August 2014 - 10:15 AM
Agreed, you may follow your own advice and leave now.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 10:43 AM
I don't know if anyone has heard of the Popcorn Time website/app system but it got a lot of press on some big new site for offering a netflix like streaming service of virtually any film, brand new or classic from your phone, computer or chromecast.
I was super impressed till I realized I can't actually subscribe to it. Cause it's free. Cause its not studio / network sponsored. It's all streaming bit torrent files.
This was both super depressing but also interesting. The designers behind this code were clearly sending a message to Hollywood to get it together and create something similar that truly provides viewers freedom to stream whatever they want whenever they want.
If there was a legit service like Popcorn Time I'd subscribe to that in a heartbeat. It combats piracy by making it effectively pointless. How it impacts the bottom line of DVD sales is a different argument but there maybe no method of resurrecting that. I would much rather stream something than buy a physical DVD. But I'd be happy to pay for the stream if it was in decent quality. Half the time Amazon on demand comes in horrible and in SD and Netflix has a terrible selection of new movies. So maybe a studio sponsored version of Popcorn Time would work. Just a thought.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 11:29 AM
The thing is is that most of the major networks already stream their libraries. I don't think any of the majors do, other than Disney (via their official website, and allegedly they know have an official Youtube channel where you can pay for movies on demand). It may have to do with a prohibition against vertical monopolies (control of manufacture to consumer retail process), but allowing that might be the solution to combating piracy.
Even so, that doesn't combat DVD/Blu-ray says, nor justify theft of companies who are not as robust as Disney. to police their properties.
Again, Ricahrd's words echo my opinion. It has and will continue to eat away at money for new projects. And yeah, when I was first entering the industry back in the 80s, making a low budget horror film on 16mm was one of the ways to break in. But apparently now you can't do that anymore because there's no incentive for a distributor to buy your product, according to Richard.
If that's the case, then if you thought it was hard to break into film before, lack of funds and out of control piracy will make it impossible.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 12:18 PM
Walk of Shame (15mill budget) was released simultaneously to theaters and Itunes. It did poor in theaters but it was #1 on Itunes for a while. The way Stephen Brill was talking in one interview, that seems to be the way things are heading for studios and their smaller films. Digital and theatrical together. But hey, Joss Whedon just put his last film In Your Eyes on Vimeo on Demand for streaming. So there's also that option. Anyone know the total revenue generated for that release? I know Vimeo lets you keep 90% of the profits as the filmmaker. I'd be curious to see if he got enough purchases on that film through Vimeo streaming to at least cover the cost of the film.
Posted 30 August 2014 - 12:42 PM
Totally untrue if your livelihood is working on films. How do you say you're denied income if the sale of your product is deferred to a pirate version of what you made?
Posted 30 August 2014 - 01:27 PM
What I'm going to write goes against the way I like watching movies but...