"Fuck you, I got your film for nothing, cumstain."

[MichaelB]

One thing I've noticed every time this debate comes up is that justifications for piracy almost always seem to be retrospective - i.e. after the piracy has already been facilitated.

Which makes a nonsense of any claim to be "helping" the filmmaker/distributor, because surely if you genuinely wanted to help, wouldn't it make much more sense to contact them in the first instance and ask what would be most useful?

And this isn't remotely idealistic: I don't know about Bikey, but both Nick and myself got into this business in the first place through being genuinely helpful towards film companies operating on a shoestring. And it's a habit that dies hard: even though I'm now lucky enough to earn a family-sustaining living through writing about film and producing DVDs, I'll still go out on an unpaid limb to support someone whose work I admire - the most recent example being the five lengthy reviews of DVDs of Christopher Nupen documentaries that I wrote for DVD Times, after hearing that Nupen was having difficulty getting much in the way of in-depth press coverage.

But maybe I was barking up the wrong tree? Perhaps I should have simply copied the DVDs, cracked the encryption and uploaded them onto an offshore server? After all, this is all "helping", isn't it - and it certainly would have involved one hell of a lot less effort!

Sarcasm aside, there's another underlying issue here - which is that not only are current releases threatened by piracy, but future ones are too. As many of you know, I'm following up the Quay Brothers release with an even more comprehensive survey of the short films of Jan Svankmajer, including a whole dual-layer disc's worth of previously unreleased material.

This project is definitely going ahead, so you don't need to worry about that - but thus far, none of my many proposals for future projects in a very similar vein (i.e. comprehensive collections of work by major animators who are currently poorly represented on DVD) have been greenlit. And I suspect sales figures on the first two releases will play a major role in deciding whether any of them ever will be.

So if people genuinely want to help - and this applies to MoC and Second Run and countless other small labels who try to punch well above their financial weight in qualitative terms - the best possible things they can do is (a) buy the DVDs, and (b) help publicise them. And if you turn out to be any good at (b) you might even end up getting regular freebies yourself - I was so impressed by DVD Outsider's review of The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes that I asked our press officer to send them the Quay disc (with no regrets whatsoever!).

[vogler]

First I want to say that I understand where Peerpee is coming from and his reaction is certainly understandable. I will also say that this post is in no way intended as a defence of the theft of the creative work of others. It most certainly is not. I do, however, feel that there needs to be a balanced debate concerning this issue because if it is not thought through carefully there is the risk that more harm will be done than good. I am also referring to the file sharing debate in general terms and certainly not addressing MOC directly. This is an issue that I have studied and written about although I am certainly not an authority on the subject. I have given if a fair amount of thought though.

I think the issue of how file sharing affects sales is a very complex one. I have noticed that most of the file sharers that I know have some of the largest collections of legally bought DVDs and CDs that I have seen and often very large credit card bills because they buy way more than they can afford. If they bought any more they would be living on the streets for lack of money. Some people are so obsessed with cinema that they just can't afford to buy enough to satisfy their addiction and sometimes the ethics get lost amid all the enthusiasm. This doesn't make it acceptable but it does perhaps explain the reasons, especially when so much more material is available with relative ease through these illicit means. Whilst you might consider the 100 downloads to be potential lost sales you could also consider them to be 100 potential gains. In reality I feel there would likely be a mixture of both with the addition of more people who would never have bought the dvd anyway. The music industry made the mistake of assuming that every downloaded album was a lost sale but many file sharers have such large collections of downloaded music that if this were the case many of them would have to be millionaires. I know for a fact that some people do download dvd rips and then subsequently buy the dvd because they want the real thing and not a compressed downloaded version. In this respect I know of many cases where dvd labels have actually benefitted from file sharing. There are certainly people who download things to preview them before buying to see if they like them and in many cases they would not have bought them otherwise.

You can certainly respond to this by saying that these people should rent dvds instead and this is true, but when a free option is presented it can be hard for people to resist. It is a difficult area morally and people have been breaking the law in this way for a very long time: for example how many people can honestly say they have never copied a cassette/record /CD for a friend? Probably nobody. Also there is the issue of recording films from television which practically everyone has been doing since the invention of the video recorder. I understand that this is a different issue but I think it is still worth considering. All of this does not make it legally and morally acceptable but it does make it difficult for most of us to point the finger and condemn others.

Another issue that gets forgotten is that file sharing is a wonderful way of getting hold of all sorts of incredibly rare films that would otherwise not be available. Copies of a huge number of rare silent films have been found this way along with many other rare items that are commercially unavailable and some which may never be commercially available. I personally have no ethical problems with the sharing of films that are not commercially available and I think many members of this forum would feel the same. In this respect you only have to look at the amount of people who frequent sites like superhappyfun. I feel that it is better for people to get these films free through file sharing than to help an unrelated party profit from the artistic works of others.

Lastly I think there is a far more important issue that needs to be addressed by dvd companies and that is the ebay dvd pirates. With file sharing it is at least debatable whether it has an adverse effect on sales and there have been many studies made on the subject which have come to conclusions either way. It seems fair to assume that many people who download films with file sharing do so because it is free and many of them would not even have considered the film otherwise. Some will be likely to subsequently buy the dvd. Pirate dvds, on the other hand, are a product that people do actually buy and I think it is far more likely that these will be lost sales. Many people who would have bought the official dvd are buying these as a cheaper option. There is also the very annoying issue with these counterfeit dvds that they are often being presented as if they are the real thing. You buy the dvd for a very reasonable price thinking you have got a real bargain and then what actually drops through your front door is a crappy, poorly presented package with no case and badly reproduced copy of the original cover. In addition these discs are often scratched and freeze half way through or crash peoples computers and sometimes it is even worse and you get a dvd-r burn instead of a proper manufactured dvd. I learnt this the hard way some time ago. I personally think this is a much more important issue than file-sharing.

I'm not trying to defend the theft of others creative work and as an independent underground artist I can understand the worry of losing some of the relatively small number of sales you might get to piracy but I do feel there is a need for a full and balanced debate on this issue. I find that it is always a mistake to over-simplify matters and you can end up with something more akin to a witch-hunt as seen with the music industry's recent suing of 12 year old girls for downloading Britney Spears singles.
(I'm obviously not suggesting MOC would ever do anything like this. My whole post is concerning the file sharing debate in a more general way.)

[davebert]

In response to the academic's post several spots above this on the nature of educational use, I feel like I have a decent grip on the various uses of DVD exhibition since I work at a rental store, intern at the financial collection wing of a major indie DVD label and am also a university student. With exhibition it basically comes down to whether it's a closed setting or not. Inviting friends over to watch a DVD is perfectly fine, and screening a film in a closed classroom setting is also fine. But if the event is open to the public and advertised as such (even if admission is free), then theoretically the rights holder to the DVD that will be screened should receive a fee. This often does not necessarily warrant the full price charged to theaters for renting a print, because obviously things are easier for us if they use a DVD and in the case of no-charge free events, they probably don't have the budget to afford anything like that. So it might just be a symbolic small charge (say, $1) with accompanying contract to make ourselves feel good about having some sort of grip on what we own. I don't always agree with that, but if you have small enough margins you do what you have to.

Renting is a whole different ballgame, one that I think has a far more positive role than piracy in spreading the word about a product. It's true that renters may never buy the discs they rent (some would say that's the entire point), but it does serve as a good method of previewing and often for cheap but seasoned DVD collectors there is a deserved try-before-you-buy mentality. Because you only have the disc temporarily before returning it, there is not the temptation of permanence that hinders the try-before-buying of downloading the film, in which case you already kind of own it. I recently put on the Quay Brothers R1 release at work just because I have heard much about them but never actually seen any of their stuff. Having seen some of the disc, I am now much more excited about the BFI release.

I would also like to second MichaelB's note on the importance of good criticism. Most movie review sites are disgustingly simplistic or poorly written, and there are few coherent writers that I have found to treasure. This is somewhat ironic since I used to churn out pretty awful reviews while in high school (Cinenikki, baby!), and I'm somewhat glad that whole back catalog of reviews slid into the abyss of internet archives. Anyway, the writers who I do follow and tend to agree with, I will end up buying things on their recommendation alone. Good reviews should also serve as a "preview" of the disc, not just the technical stuff that DVD Beaver makes so pointed, but notes on the film itself and who it will or won't appeal to. This forum serves a similar purpose, and one reason I continue to post here is because I have gained (and spent) so much on great things I would never have known about before.

[Narshty]

Lastly I spend all the money I can spend on dvds....but I want to see more films than I can afford as a student, I need to see more films I can afford for my future career. Videostores don't have them, the cinemas here do not play them......I have the right to see them....Wanting to see culture and paying as much as I can to support them, does not make me a FUCKING thief....

{|=

I'm also a poorly student for whom DVDs are currently an expense beyond my budget, so I rent them online instead. While, granted, it's not supporting MoC, Second Run, the BFI and other independent labels as directly as I'd like, at least it's helping to create demand from the point of view of the rental companies who can hopefully be encouraged buy more copies and with greater punctuality. And there's nothing remotely illegal about it either.

[Tommaso]

Renting is a whole different ballgame, one that I think has a far more positive role than piracy in spreading the word about a product. It's true that renters may never buy the discs they rent (some would say that's the entire point), but it does serve as a good method of previewing and often for cheap but seasoned DVD collectors there is a deserved try-before-you-buy mentality.

Honestly, I always thought renting -as opposed to downloading - was the best way to get a perfect copy of a film if you don't want to pay for it (or at least want to pay only very little). Pop it into your dvd burner, remove the copy protection with one of those little thingies, and get a perfect 1:1 copy, at least if it's a single-layered disc. Definitely miles ahead of any fileshared rip. I guess that's the main reason for many people to go out and rent a disc. Bad thing is: it's illegal, and there is no way to avoid the moral question behind it even if it wasn't. The answer whether you will do it or not will probably be different according to whether it's an MoC disc or a Universal disc (for example), but I must agree with Nick: sharing a film on a broad public basis that is existing in an official, easy-to-get dvd version from such a small label seems not only unfair to those who made the dvd in the first place, it also seriously endangers the possibility of more new productions.

The "try-before-you-buy mentality" is not a valid argument for me, especially not in the case of MoC, who present worthwhile and representative trailers on their website; and once you're a little used to film and ways of directing etc., you get a fairly good idea from these trailers whether a particular film is for you or is not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making available films (especially rare silents) that through the ignorance of dvd companies are not available officially. And I also support Toilet Dcuk's argument as a creative artist. But using a fragment of Samuel Beckett is not like stealing the whole of "Waiting for Godot", and even in this case I would differentiate between the artist and his heirs. If Beckett was still alive and would explicitly say to me that he doesn't want anyone to use a snippet from his work, I'd say he HAS the right and authority to say so and I would have to give up the idea. If his heirs forbid it (for pure economic reasons, I suppose) I would say: ignore it, but be prepared to be sued if you're found out. This same thing happens in the music world all the time (sampling), and especially if you use a famous sample in an uncreative way, so that everyone can easily spot its origin, well: Mick Jagger's lawyers await you.

Likewise it might well be that there are indeed producers of dvds who would not mind filesharing because they might see the positive effects of this, but Nick obviously is of a different opinion. And as the producer of that dvd he HAS the right to forbid these filesharers the sharing of MoC dvds,and that is a moral right, not just a legal one to me.

[colinr0380]

You can download any of my short films absolutely for free. That would be a lovely instance where filesharing and sites like YouTube do offer me more exposure, because I'm not selling them anyway (until I end up directing My-Super Ex-Girlfriend 2--then they'll be extras tossed onto the overpriced Deluxe Edition release!)

You could be the next M. Night Shyamalan!

I think that the questions yoshimori puts are interesting, but I guess it comes down to whether you are charging your friends for sitting in your lving room and watching the DVD with you, or charging students for watching a film in the classroom. I'm not completely sure about rights issues but I posted yesterday about watching Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and the film of Maya Angelou's I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings while at college and studying the books. I also brought in my recorded-from-television copy of Ran, which we watched the first half of and discussed in relation to King Lear. I think that if we had been charged admission by the teacher or if I'd asked for payment for bringing my VHS into class the situation would be wrong, since the teacher or I would be profiting from screening the film. I guess local cinema clubs that charge admission have to licence the film properly, and I suppose the same thing goes for rental shops - do they have to licence the films and get permission to be allowed to rent or sell copies rather than just buy a film from the local shop and stick it on their shelves? (EDIT: sorry davebert talked about it better than I did!)

I'm personally going to be coming into some financially difficult times soon, and I'd love to be able to see all the great films Criterion, Masters of Cinema or Second Run release but even if I can't for a while I wouldn't even consider downloading illegal copies. Even without having the even worse intention of copying and selling them on for personal gain, I'd still feel incredibly guilty about taking something that people had worked very hard on, from the filmmakers themselves to the people producing the discs and having it in my possession. I don't know if it is relevant, but I'm also someone who still feels a bit guilty about having a lot of videotapes of films recorded from television for purely personal use (ok, maybe my parents or friends watch them sometimes too!) that have built up over the last decade!

When I got my first DVD player I worried about the region coding issue - before I realised that it wasn't as big a deal as some made it out to be, and that being multi-region was very necessary to see half of the films I wanted to - I don't lose much sleep now by thinking that I've mucked up Warner's spreadsheets by looking like a Region 1 customer because I bought the Gangsters collection from the US rather than waiting for the films to slowly, if ever, come out on Region 2 with half the extras! That's just part of being a consumer - you go for the best deal. But you still pay for the goods!

I'm against piracy even when considering the big companies such as Fox and Warner, even though I personally think they are soulless money-making corporations, so I'm even more opposed to pirating from smaller companies that need all the support and sales they can get.

I usually raise my eyebrows at the piracy ads on the major corporation's DVDs - "If you pirate this film you place future film production in jepoardy". So there's a chance we might never get to see Pirates 3, 4, 5...? Shame. But for the smaller companies this same warning is incredibly important, placing not only future film, but future DVD production in jepoardy. As thedancingkid said it is ironic that the smaller companies are giving us low key 'Friendly Warnings' at the end of their films while larger corporations are bombarding us with unskippable piracy ads at the beginning of all their discs (at least on the British Region 2 discs!), when in a strange way I'd expect it to be the other way around. However all this talk about whether I hypothetically consider ripping off a Fox DVD somehow less morally wrong than a Masters of Cinema one shouldn't change the fact that copying (and especially selling on) without permission is stealing as much as walking into your local shop and walking out with handfuls of goods without paying is.

It would be great to think that my purchases of the latest Criterion, Masters of Cinema, Second Run discs help the company to keep going, although realistically I know that my purchase of a copy of each new disc is just a drop in the bucket - but at least it is some way to show my appreciation for the hard work that is done and for making these films finally available to everyone. I get the somewhat selfish feeling like I'm participating in a small way by supporting the films I really want to see, and hoping that part of the money I paid for the Quay Brothers set goes to help both them produce more films, and for more more DVD sets of the same quality to get the chance of being released (the same would apply to my getting Satantango, although it'll be a while before I have time to sit and watch it!). There wouldn't be any way to feel anything more than a sense of being ashamed of myself if I sat down to watch a pirated version, and that's before I factor in denti alligator's comments about terrible sound and picture quality, lack of packaging etc.

[MichaelB]

But using a fragment of Samuel Beckett is not like stealing the whole of "Waiting for Godot", and even in this case I would differentiate between the artist and his heirs. If Beckett was still alive and would explicitly say to me that he doesn't want anyone to use a snippet from his work, I'd say he HAS the right and authority to say so and I would have to give up the idea. If his heirs forbid it (for pure economic reasons, I suppose) I would say: ignore it, but be prepared to be sued if you're found out.

The guy I caught uploading Quay Brothers films to YouTube plaintively asked why I was picking on him, since at that time a search for their name returned 40 other results.

But those 40 other results were a mixture of:

1. Very short excerpts;
2. Remixed experiments using their footage;
3. Their showreel as posted on their US agent's site;
4. Tributes to them by other animators (i.e. just mentioning them in keywords but not actually infringing their copyright.

Now in a strictly legal sense I could have legitimately objected to the first two items as well - but this seemed like counter-productive overkill. The crucial difference between these people and the guy I was allegedly persecuting was that he was uploading complete films.

In other words, he wasn't promoting, he was publishing.

(And, contrary to his complaint, I wasn't just picking on him - but the other half-dozen people in a similar situation removed the offending material immediately with no questions asked!)

[vogler]

(And, contrary to his complaint, I wasn't just picking on him - but the other half-dozen people in a similar situation removed the offending material immediately with no questions asked!)

This is where the issue gets very strange for me. I can understand why people download free rips of films and I think most of them would not honestly be able to say that they have the legal and moral right to do so. Human nature does lead people to do such things sometimes and I can understand this, without endorsing the practice or considering it a moral right. It is when the militant file-sharers make comments such as 'Videostores don't have them, the cinemas here do not play them......I have the right to see them....' that I get confused. Where does this right come from? I'm not trying to provoke AZAI but I would like to hear a reasoned argument as to what he meant by that.

[ptmd]

*I wonder if you know about an American company I just heard about called CDigiX, which is making films and videos, including DVD-to-analog-back-to-digitally-encoded downloads of DVDs and tapes, available for download to university students. Apparently their client list includes University of Colorado, UCLA, and Yale.

Just to clarify, CDigiX is a service that is being provided under the guidelines of fair use for academic purposes at universities. It allows film studies centers and libraries to upload digital versions of DVDs that they already own online so that professors can use excerpts in online presentations and so that students can refer to copies of the film when writing papers. The copies can be downloaded only by students registered for the class using the film and automatically self-destruct at the end of the semester. CDigiX really has nothing to do with file-sharing.

By the way, for what it's worth, I'm completely sympathetic to the arguments of peerpee and MichaelB. It's incredibly difficult to license, transfer, promote, and release the sorts of DVDs that MoC and the BFI put out and these companies need all the support they can get (and as MichaelB has pointed out, so do the filmmakers).

[ambrose1am]

I think this was said in one form or another, but it deserves repeating: the people who are downloading rips of MoC films aren't people who would ever buy an MoC disc. First of all you're getting an inferior quality image, compressed and not looking optimal. Then, you're not getting the art and the booklet. If you really wanted to have a copy of the film there's simply no other option but to buy the release (unless we open up the can of worms that is one-to-one DVD burning). Ok, so it's wrong that they're using the MoC name and source material for the rip. But a compressed file of a film is simply no substitute for the real package. It's like stealing a cheap imitation of a fine product.

I completely disagree with most of these statements. First, the people I know who download from pirate sites have spent thousands of dollars on CDs and DVDs already, MOC titles included. They have shelves and shelves of legitimately purchased DVDs. Most downloaders that I know do it because they've spent all they could but still want to see or hear some titles, or don't necessarily want to make a blind purchase. What are their options? Not buying them at all or downloading. Renting? Give me a break. I would gather there are a total of ten, if that, rental stores in the US that rent MOC DVDs. So how is renting an option? It isn't. Generally, for every one download, they buy three Criterions or MOCs. I'm not joking. Surely there must be some way to satisfy both sides?

MOC, Criterion, and film fans are not all rich lawyers or doctors or businessmen, or, gasp, people who were lucky enough to have a father who founded Janus Films. Most people cannot afford to blindly buy every release. People want to sample products before purchasing; the industry needs to offer a service for this and it hasn't. So what does it do? Nothing and threatens lawsuits. Fact: like the big record companies, Nick is attacking his fans and buyers. And make no mistake--they are one and the same. (I'm not saying Nick is responsible for the DVD industry, but he's certainly trotting out the party line.)

That said, I do sympathize with Nick, knowing how much work, money, and time go into MOC releases. I really do. They are high-quality products, and a lot of time, work, and money goes into the packaging, the packaging design, working with the film elements, hiring translators, etc. I know this because I've bought 25 of them. But there are legitimate copyright issues to discuss here, and serious discussion shouldn't be dismissed with toss-offs. There are many different sides to this issue beyond stealing = wrong, first, because I'm not sure downloading is stealing. Are you? Are you a copyright lawyer? And even if you are there are good arguments to be made to the contrary. The problem is that the music and film industry has an enormous PR machine; the corrupt or lazy courts support the big companies; and the opposite arguments are rarely heard.

For example, as someone who has worked for law firms and has studied law, I know that there are legitimate legal arguments to be made about the disenfranchisement and privacy issues surrounding copyright laws. Another issue, tangentially related, but related nevertheless, is the cost of producing quality DVDs, particularly with regards to rights fees. For the most part, and I think this colors Nick's argument and attitude, the costs for buying rights to these DVDs are too high. The reality of these costs is that DVD companies have unreal expectations about the true value of their products. Disclaimer: I've worked in publishing for 14 years. Most people don't have the foggiest idea how a book gets published. They have no idea about all the work involved--the author interaction, the compromises, the editing, the art design, the production cycle, the printing. And yet the book industry still manages to give thousands of copies away--to employees, promotional thingies, other authors, etc.--like pieces of chewing gum. If you wait a year or so, you can pick the book up in the bargain bin for a few bucks. Yeah, the “free marketâ€

[peerpee]

So many problems with what you say!

Firstly, they're not downloading compressed versions of the DVDs. They're downloading FULL DVD rips. So we're talking DVD9, 7GB here.

Secondly, copies borrowed from libraries are copies that have been SOLD to those libraries. There are many libraries in the world. Many copies for us to legally sell to libraries.

Thirdly, it's not for you to decide whether downloading our product is illegal or not. Downloading our product is illegal. End of story.

Taking the above three points into consideration would you like to attempt restructuring your last post?

[toiletduck!]

But I think there are significant differences between copyright infringement and marijuana use or, depending on how fast we're talking about, occasionally breaking the speed limit. The latter two are basically "victimless" crimes, whereas the former deprives copyright holders of revenue.

Apologies for a lack of clarity on my part. I intended for my first point speak purely to the question of legality. There are very significant differences between all three crimes, but more primarily from an ethical viewpoint. On the legal spectrum, speeding, recreational drug use, and filesharing are all extremely minor and extremely widespread crimes. There are obviously deeper personal connections to the filesharing issue on this forum, but my main concern is that "It's illegal" isn't the concrete answer everyone is making it out to be, as the sole act of breaking a law is no reason for vilification, on anyone's terms. The law that is being broken is the deciding factor, and, from a neutral stance, filesharing is relatively minor.

I also support Toilet Dcuk's argument as a creative artist. But using a fragment of Samuel Beckett is not like stealing the whole of "Waiting for Godot", and even in this case I would differentiate between the artist and his heirs

This is also an interesting (and much more relevant) topic, but the issues I was referring to deal more with performance rights and what exactly paying royalties on a piece does or does not allow me to do with it. Like many playwrights, Beckett doesn't allow for unauthorized substituting or cutting of his work in performance. The Beckett Foundation are notorious for strict adherence to these standards -- so, in essence, any substituting or cutting of Beckett's work is illegal, and they will come after you. These sort of performance issues really aren't a very good parallel, but they do often leave me in a position where anyone who has ethical issues with my work can set the wheels in motion to stop me by being the little bird that informs the right people. That's why my knee-jerk 'damn the man' reaction kicked in at Nick's incentive. If a person is trying to stop my work on ethical grounds, that's one thing. Doing it for payment? That's just mercenary, and while offering up such incentives may be Nick's prerogative, if a similar instance would cross over into my not-so-parallel, all it would result in is another flag for me to burn. But enough of my high horse.

It is when the militant file-sharers make comments such as 'Videostores don't have them, the cinemas here do not play them......I have the right to see them....' that I get confused. Where does this right come from? I'm not trying to provoke AZAI but I would like to hear a reasoned argument as to what he meant by that.

I also get confused here -- what exactly do we mean by a moral right? I can't speak for AZAI, but setting aside all legal issues, if I have the ability to download a ripped copy of an MoC disc and the idea of doing so fails to create the slightest ethical tingle of uneasiness (hypothetically speaking, of course), why would I not do it? Now, trying to justify it to the opposite party, as in MichaelB's experience, just seems silly. You get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, at least have the decency to be up front about it. But as a human being, isn't my moral right to act according to my moral code (as well as to take responsibility for the outcome of those actions, which is a whole new ballgame)?

-Toilet Dcuk

[peerpee]

Apologies for a lack of clarity on my part. I intended for my first point speak purely to the question of legality. There are very significant differences between all three crimes, but more primarily from an ethical viewpoint. On the legal spectrum, speeding, recreational drug use, and filesharing are all extremely minor and extremely widespread crimes. There are obviously deeper personal connections to the filesharing issue on this forum, but my main concern is that "It's illegal" isn't the concrete answer everyone is making it out to be, as the sole act of breaking a law is no reason for vilification, on anyone's terms.

Speeding and recreational drug use do not involve blatant stealing. Please get a grip on the issues involved here -- we're talking about thievery.

I also get confused here -- what exactly do we mean by a moral right? I can't speak for AZAI, but setting aside all legal issues, if I have the ability to download a ripped copy of an MoC disc and the idea of doing so fails to create the slightest ethical tingle of uneasiness (hypothetically speaking, of course), why would I not do it? Now, trying to justify it to the opposite party, as in MichaelB's experience, just seems silly. You get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, at least have the decency to be up front about it. But as a human being, isn't my moral right to act according to my moral code (as well as to take responsibility for the outcome of those actions, which is a whole new ballgame)?

Hey, go and steal and pillage then if it fits your moral code. I don't know what your point is.

[vogler]

But as a human being, isn't my moral right to act according to my moral code (as well as to take responsibility for the outcome of those actions, which is a whole new ballgame)?

Not according to society but I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have no respect whatsoever for the law. All my actions in life are based on my personal moral code and beliefs and the law is not even a factor in this. There is, of course, a lot of overlap between my moral code and the law but the reason I don't go around murdering and raping people, for example, is that I find it to be morally reprehensible, not because the law says I shouldn't. I think you pointed out earlier that almost everyone breaks the law in some way. I'll stop now because I don't want to stray too far off topic.

[toiletduck!]

Speeding and recreational drug use do not involve blatant stealing. Please get a grip on the issues involved here -- we're talking about thievery.

Nick, with all due respect, if you can't "get a grip" and be reasonable about this, can we get this topic out of 'your' subforum and somewhere worthwhile? Bikey and MichaelB are in the same position as you and have both shown a remarkable amount of tact. I gave you free reign to be reactionary the first go round, but you've had plenty of time to simmer. it's really no longer excusable.

And how many innocent lives have been taken due to filesharing? I've repeatedly mentioned that I am not taking ethical issues into play on that argument, but if you insist on going there, have you had friends killed because some moron was fucking around and filesharing way too damn fast? How about you get a grip on the damn issues.

I understand that this is how you make your livelihood, and I feel I've been respectful to that throughout this whole conversation. But really, this shit is gonna happen, and don't expect everyone to line up for the MoC team -- there are complex ethical issues here, whether you want to admit it or not.

And learn the goddamn definition of the word 'hypothetical' before you decide to insult me again, please.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Lemdog]

They have shelves and shelves of legitimately purchased DVDs. Most downloaders that I know do it because they've spent all they could but still want to see or hear some titles, or don't necessarily want to make a blind purchase. What are their options? Not buying them at all or downloading. Renting? Give me a break. I would gather there are a total of ten, if that, rental stores in the US that rent MOC DVDs. So how is renting an option? It isn't. Generally, for every one download, they buy three Criterions or MOCs. I'm not joking. Surely there must be some way to satisfy both sides?

So because they ran out of money or can't find a place to rent them gives them the right to steal them? I live on what is called a budget. I have money allocated for rent, utilities, and yes dvds. You have to live within you means. I have to pick and chose what dvds I buy every month because of that. I can't go out and steal gas for my car because I believe that I already bought enough gas this month. Well I could, but I most likely would goto jail. I also can't go out and steal a Porsche 911 because there isn't a Porsche dealership where I live.

[peerpee]

Nick, with all due respect, if you can't "get a grip" and be reasonable about this, can we get this topic out of 'your' subforum and somewhere worthwhile?

Take it wherever you want. I couldn't care less what you think.

Bikey and MichaelB are in the same position as you and have both shown a remarkable amount of tact. I gave you free reign to be reactionary the first go round, but you've had plenty of time to simmer. it's really no longer excusable.

Haha! -- Wow, thanks for the free reign for me to be reactionary, you've really been exceedingly generous. Re: my comments no longer being excusable -- haha!

have you had friends killed because some moron was fucking around and filesharing way too damn fast? How about you get a grip on the damn issues.

Drama queen! -- He said "speeding" not "death by dangerous driving". You'll be equating "recreational drug use" with a heroin overdose next.

[ambrose1am]

So many problems with what you say!

Firstly, they're not downloading compressed versions of the DVDs. They're downloading FULL DVD rips. So we're talking DVD9, 7GB here.

Secondly, copies borrowed from libraries are copies that have been SOLD to those libraries. There are many libraries in the world. Many copies for us to legally sell to libraries.

Thirdly, it's not for you to decide whether downloading our product is illegal or not. Downloading our product is illegal. End of story.

Taking the above three points into consideration would you like to attempt restructuring your last post?

Look, Nick. I, and many others, value and support what you do, and I have bought and will continue to buy many MOC titles. Seriously. But you, and many others in the industry, can't see the forest for the trees. There are arguments to be made, and these issues are far from clear legally. I'm going to play devil's advocate.

First, they may be full DVD rips, but they are still not the legitimate product. People aren't downloading the actual MOC DVD with the MOC label stamped on the surface and the booklet with the nice paper and the Amray DVD case. They are downloading copies of data.

Second, libraries may buy those copies, but there are a number of issues that need to be unpacked here. The number one being that libraries are insufficient in terms of what the collector market is demanding. I realize that you can't put your DVDs in every library in the world. That's why there needs to be a service or site that is easily accessible to everyone worldwide--no friggin' region codes--that won't cost people more than a few bucks. The collector can watch the DVD, keep it for a while within a reasonable time frame, decide whether or not he or she wants to purchase it. You can do that with a car. Why can't you do it with a DVD? Everyone knows you forfeit your purchase price if you open the packaging. The fact is that there isn't a viable service like this for DVD collectors, and the industry is contributing to the proliferation of file sharing because of it. The industry is wasting all its energy on prosecution rather than creating a better business model. The industry is not advantageous to the consumer, and the consumer is making this pretty clear. To be sure, renting is a good option, and it's easy to rent Criterions at my video store here in the US, but very difficult to rent MOCs.

And libraries don't address the real issue, which is that film fans want to own your DVDs. I know you and Criterion have many labor and product costs, but CC and MOC DVDs are just too expensive. Collectors just want to make sure they want them by sampling them first. And as great as MOC and CC DVDs are, they just aren't worth the current prices, and that's because the prices you paid for the rights are too high. That isn't the consumer's problem. The book industry is consumer friendly. You don't have to buy that $40 hardcover--you can wait for the remainder--but if you want to support the artist you can buy it. Why isn't the DVD/CD market like this?

The fact is that the consumer has already made a choice: the prices are too high so he or she is going to share the information with other people. They went around the industries' business model, and now the industries refuse to adapt. What happened to the customer is always right?

Finally, if you support libraries then would you support my right to rent a DVD, make a copy of it, keep it on my shelf, and watch it in my home? Whom is that hurting?

Finally, why is it wrong for someone to decide what is legal or illegal? He or she is a citizen who is subject to laws, and he or she can argue against their legitimacy if he or she chooses. Fair use and copyright law are being challenged regularly. This is not an issue that's going to go away. The law is open for interpretation and argument. More importantly in this instance, he or she is a consumer, and if they choose to purchase a computer, connect to the Internet, and download a file, they are simply participating in the free market. Yes, you own the rights to that product, but you want to say "Tough luck if you can't afford to buy them legitimately." Well, the consumer is saying "tough luck" back to you. And meanwhile the consumers are already ahead of you, past that argument, relying on the market. They've already made a choice: the prices are too high so they're going to share the information with each other. It cuts down on costs. These are free market solutions to free market problems. It's not the consumer's fault that producers haven't created a good business model to satisfy their needs. In many ways, it's besides the point whether it's illegal or not. Whether a downloader feels it's legal or illegal is besides the point; the market has decided that it is there to download.

[toiletduck!]

I hope I'm not the only one who feels this has gotten petty and beside the greater purpose at hand.

Nick, I would like to say that I am a little shocked at your willingness to represent MoC in such an uncouth manner on an online forum that obviously attracts a large portion of your consumer base. That includes myself -- I have been and will continue to be an MoC supporter. I'm not so immature that I would allow an internet go-round to affect my future purchases, but I feel it must be said that, as adamant as you seem to be about protecting your sales, this sort of behavior, if repeated enough, will cost you much more business than any amount of torrents. Unsolicited advice, I know (and I'm sure you'll call me on it), but advice nonetheless.

But it looks like it's time for me to bow out of this topic (as AZAI apparently learned while the learning was good). I really never meant any offense, Nick.

-Toilet Dcuk

[MichaelB]

And libraries don't address the real issue, which is that film fans want to own your DVDs. I know you and Criterion have many labor and product costs, but CC and MOC DVDs are just too expensive. Collectors just want to make sure they want them by sampling them first. And as great as MOC and CC DVDs are, they just aren't worth the current prices, and that's because the prices you paid for the rights are too high. That isn't the consumer's problem. The book industry is consumer friendly. You don't have to buy that $40 hardcover--you can wait for the remainder--but if you want to support the artist you can buy it. Why isn't the DVD/CD market like this?

But it is, isn't it? All you have to do is keep your ear to the ground and your eyes on the sales and be prepared to wait a bit and you can get pretty much anything for a fraction of the RRP.

Just to give a real-life example, when Heimat came out in three box sets at £99 a pop, I decided then and there that I didn't want to spend more than £50 per set. So I simply waited for the price to fall - and, sure enough, it did.

(And I STILL haven't found the time to watch even the first box yet, but they do look very pretty on my shelves with the colour-coordinated German flag effect)

[ambrose1am]

They have shelves and shelves of legitimately purchased DVDs. Most downloaders that I know do it because they've spent all they could but still want to see or hear some titles, or don't necessarily want to make a blind purchase. What are their options? Not buying them at all or downloading. Renting? Give me a break. I would gather there are a total of ten, if that, rental stores in the US that rent MOC DVDs. So how is renting an option? It isn't. Generally, for every one download, they buy three Criterions or MOCs. I'm not joking. Surely there must be some way to satisfy both sides?

So because they ran out of money or can't find a place to rent them gives them the right to steal them? I live on what is called a budget. I have money allocated for rent, utilities, and yes dvds. You have to live within you means. I have to pick and chose what dvds I buy every month because of that. I can't go out and steal gas for my car because I believe that I already bought enough gas this month. Well I could, but I most likely would goto jail. I also can't go out and steal a Porsche 911 because there isn't a Porsche dealership where I live.

Your point is well taken, but this was an argument against the idea that "pirates" are simply stealing freebies and cackling on the way out the door. The fact is that the industry cannot get a grip on the idea that downloaders are also financial supporters. They are not mutually exclusive. The industries are attacking their own consumers because the industries haven't provided a service that the customer is demanding.

[MichaelB]

Your point is well taken, but this was an argument against the idea that "pirates" are simply stealing freebies and cackling on the way out the door. The fact is that the industry cannot get a grip on the idea that downloaders are also financial supporters. They are not mutually exclusive. The industries are attacking their own consumers because the industries haven't provided a service that the customer is demanding.

Yes, but part of the problem is that the customers are increasingly expecting things either for nothing or for so little that it's not worth anyone's while to bother releasing it legitimately in the first place. Or at least not to anything like the quality level that the customers are also demanding.

Which is why you get such extreme polarisation in the first place.

[peerpee]

Your arguments are shot through with a twisted logic which completely misunderstands reality.

First, they may be full DVD rips, but they are still not the legitimate product. People aren't downloading the actual MOC DVD with the MOC label stamped on the surface and the booklet with the nice paper and the Amray DVD case. They are downloading copies of data.

Are you serious? -- They're downloading the entire contents of the DVD and gaining the benefit of that data, and that's okay?

Second, libraries may buy those copies, but there are a number of issues that need to be unpacked here. The number one being that libraries are insufficient in terms of what the collector market is demanding.

So? That's your particular problem. Not being able to deal with it doesn't allow you to break the law.

I realize that you can't put your DVDs in every library in the world. That's why there needs to be a service or site that is easily accessible to everyone worldwide--no friggin' region codes--that won't cost people more than a few bucks. The collector can watch the DVD, keep it for a while within a reasonable time frame, decide whether or not he or she wants to purchase it. You can do that with a car. Why can't you do it with a DVD?

MoC would not want to operate such a service. I think you should stop moaning and start looking at purchasing DVDs from etailers overseas like most other people do.

And libraries don't address the real issue, which is that film fans want to own your DVDs.

Then buy them, you know where to buy them.

I know you and Criterion have many labor and product costs, but CC and MOC DVDs are just too expensive.

Ah! The truth at last! --- That comment speaks volumes. Volumes!

Collectors just want to make sure they want them by sampling them first.

Haha! Such tripe!
You're digging a massive hole for yourself.

And as great as MOC and CC DVDs are, they just aren't worth the current prices, and that's because the prices you paid for the rights are too high. That isn't the consumer's problem. The book industry is consumer friendly. You don't have to buy that $40 hardcover--you can wait for the remainder--but if you want to support the artist you can buy it. Why isn't the DVD/CD market like this?

Why do we have to pay for things? It's mental isn't it?

The fact is that the consumer has already made a choice: the prices are too high so he or she is going to share the information with other people.

...and that doesn't make it legal, it doesn't allow DVD labels and film companies to keep releasing and restoring films.

They went around the industries' business model, and now the industries refuse to adapt. What happened to the customer is always right?

But if you fileshare, you're not a customer, so you can't be right.

Finally, if you support libraries then would you support my right to rent a DVD, make a copy of it, keep it on my shelf, and watch it in my home? Whom is that hurting?

When you borrow a book or a DVD from a library you give it back afterwards. You're supposed to watch it while you have it, and then give it back. If you decide you want to then own that film or book, you buy it. If you COPY the film, who are you hurting? You're hurting the people who issued the film by not giving them any money for doing so. You're a thief.

I'm losing the will to live here. Can't go on responding to such cretinous arguments.

[ambrose1am]

Your point is well taken, but this was an argument against the idea that "pirates" are simply stealing freebies and cackling on the way out the door. The fact is that the industry cannot get a grip on the idea that downloaders are also financial supporters. They are not mutually exclusive. The industries are attacking their own consumers because the industries haven't provided a service that the customer is demanding.

Yes, but part of the problem is that the customers are increasingly expecting things either for nothing or for so little that it's not worth anyone's while to bother releasing it legitimately in the first place. Or at least not to anything like the quality level that the customers are also demanding.

Which is why you get such extreme polarisation in the first place.

This is a good point. Definitely consumer demands are creating the need for such high-quality releases and expenditures. But I still think CC and MOC are passing too much of that cost onto the consumer. When Paramount, to cite one example, releases The Conformist (finally!) in such a nice package for $10 you start to think that maybe some DVDs are overpriced.

[skuhn8]

Your point is well taken, but this was an argument against the idea that "pirates" are simply stealing freebies and cackling on the way out the door. The fact is that the industry cannot get a grip on the idea that downloaders are also financial supporters. They are not mutually exclusive. The industries are attacking their own consumers because the industries haven't provided a service that the customer is demanding.

Yes, but part of the problem is that the customers are increasingly expecting things either for nothing or for so little that it's not worth anyone's while to bother releasing it legitimately in the first place. Or at least not to anything like the quality level that the customers are also demanding.

Which is why you get such extreme polarisation in the first place.

This is a good point. Definitely consumer demands are creating the need for such high-quality releases and expenditures. But I still think CC and MOC are passing too much of that cost onto the consumer. When Paramount, to cite one example, releases The Conformist (finally!) in such a nice package for $10 you start to think that maybe some DVDs are overpriced.

Ok....gotta step in here. Seriously, do not compare what Paramount is doing with MOC and CC. They make a fortune off selling Billy-Bob's Super Fast Shit-Mobile and then can afford to mass produce and garner critical acclaim and all the kudos for a title like The Conformist. Maybe they're taking a big loss off that title--they probably are unless they got the rights for nickels as part of a bigger property package or an exchange of rights, something smaller labels can't afford to do or are in no position to do.

Yup, they're expensive. But worth it.