Music & Film Piracy

[Saracen]

.....

I should mention, furthermore, that the only reason any of them were bothered about the issue of piracy is because the uni issues enormous fines to people suspected of downloading copyrighted material - not because of any qualms over the downloading itself.

I'd suggest that the only thing stopping a lot of people from robbing banks is that same logic - it's not that it's illegal, it's that you're likely to get caught and do a lot of time if you are.

For just about any law to have a deterrent effect, two elements are required :-

- expectation of getting caught, or at least expectation of an unacceptably high chance of getting caught
- serious enough punishment if you do.

[Spud1]

I did write a nice post explaining my history etc but I will just keep it short instead.

I used to be heavily involved in piracy, for me it was for the fun of it and of helping others..in the days before P2P became widespread.

At one point I "Woke Up", realised how wrong it was to pirate, how much I was stealing (and it IS stealing, maybe not in terms of criminal law but that doesnt matter, its theft plain and simple) and then decided that I didn't want to be apart of it anymore. I now buy all my software/music..and am much better for it. I deeply regret the years of my youth when I was a pirate..regardless of how much fun I had.

I think people do it these days because its so easy, to the point that it is almost legitimised. The websites are there and hosted in places that its difficult to get a takedown actioned, so many people use bit torrent and other evil P2P services so there is a constant supply of content..and people are getting far too used to being able to type in what they want, and get it within 30 min with todays internet connections.

Too many people think its OK too - they simple refuse to admit that it's illegal, immoral and just plain wrong..and then they try to say it's nothing like stealing! This just shows the immaturity and stupidity of many people to be honest.

How to tackle it? That is the tough one. Introducing a new law to actually make downloading a TV show for example into a criminal, rather than a civil, offense would be a good start, but its very difficult to police without ruining the freedom of the internet.

We need some strategy to take down "facilitating websites" from the public domain - places like NZBMatrix, PirateBay and the like.

We will never eliminate piracy, but returning it back to the secretive world of its past, when you actually had to work hard to pirate what you want..that would virtually kill it dead imo. Thats the best way to approach it without turning us into a police state.

[aidanjt]

how much I was stealing (and it IS stealing, maybe not in terms of criminal law but that doesnt matter, its theft plain and simple)

If it's not stealing legally nor literally. Then how is it stealing anyway? By what metric is it theft?

[Spud1]

If it's not stealing legally nor literally. Then how is it stealing anyway? By what metric is it theft?

You are taking something that does not belong to you. The "method" of stealing is different from the traditional "pick it up with your hands", but you are taking a product, and not paying for it. Thereby depriving the owner of the money for said purchase.

You don't have to deprive someone of the object that you are stealing for it to be classified as theft.

This is a different point when it comes to /criminal/ theft, as I tried to clarify in my original post..but that is a pure technicality of current UK law, and its something that I hope will be rectified in the future.

I have to ask you a question since you clearly disagree. If you are a developer and your only means of income is selling your software..but some people think they can just take it for free (thereby making it hard for you to eat, to live, to pay your bills), is it still not theft? Is that right, allowed? Would you not want them to be prosecuted?

Piracy causes these situations, its not over hyped by the media, if anything it's under hyped. It's not just big studios that lose money from it (they ostensibly can afford to), but small indie developers and studios too.

[Terbinator]

I think people do it these days because its so easy, to the point that it is almost legitimised. The websites are there and hosted in places that its difficult to get a takedown actioned, so many people use bit torrent and other evil P2P services so there is a constant supply of content..and people are getting far too used to being able to type in what they want, and get it within 30 min with todays internet connections.

TBH, that's the biggest draw for me. The fact it generally takes longer to get something legally and in the latest case of interest to me, after everyone else, piracy in some cases just offers up a better product.

There is something wrong when i can have a flac version of Suck It and See (release date the 6th of June) 20 days early and in a better format than what iTunes/Amazon et al are offering up for the digital equivalent, at a later date.

I have no issue with paying, in fact my spending on legitimate media has shot up by quite a bit both on Blu-Rays, games (Steam), software and music. But when the paying consumer is being beaten by the none paying one in more ways than one, logical questions arise imo - and they are right to be asked.

Releasing singles on the day of their first radio spin and airing programs on the same day/night on both sides of the pond is slowly moving us closer to the desired point except it's about 10 years behind being of any use.

[redddraggon]

How to tackle it? That is the tough one. Introducing a new law to actually make downloading a TV show for example into a criminal, rather than a civil, offense would be a good start, but its very difficult to police without ruining the freedom of the internet.

Waste of resources, I'd much rather the currently overstretched police were dealing with the likes of violent crime and traffic offences.

The best way of defeating piracy is if the industries themselves adapt. Like yourself I used to pirate everything, but Steam and Spotify changed that for me. Now the TV and Movie industry needs to adapt - things like Region Lag just encourage piracy.

[aidanjt]

You are taking something that does not belong to you. The "method" of stealing is different from the traditional "pick it up with your hands", but you are taking a product, and not paying for it. Thereby depriving the owner of the money for said purchase.

You don't have to deprive someone of the object that you are stealing for it to be classified as theft.

This is a different point when it comes to /criminal/ theft, as I tried to clarify in my original post..but that is a pure technicality of current UK law, and its something that I hope will be rectified in the future.

Nobody has an intrinsic right to greater profit margins. You're not taking anything from anyone. That's why it isn't theft, neither legally nor literally. And if we were to bring ethics into it, then any one corporate publisher is a far greater thief than every pirate combined, as they swindle from the artist(s) and the customers alike.

[aidanjt]

TBH, that's the biggest draw for me. The fact it generally takes longer to get something legally and in the latest case of interest to me, after everyone else, piracy in some cases just offers up a better product.

There is something wrong when i can have a flac version of Suck It and See (release date the 6th of June) 20 days early and in a better format than what iTunes/Amazon et al are offering up for the digital equivalent, at a later date.

I have no issue with paying, in fact my spending on legitimate media has shot up by quite a bit both on Blu-Rays, games (Steam), software and music. But when the paying consumer is being beaten by the none paying one in more ways than one, logical questions arise imo - and they are right to be asked.

Releasing singles on the day of their first radio spin and airing programs on the same day/night on both sides of the pond is slowly moving us closer to the desired point except it's about 10 years behind being of any use.

Exactly, there's no rational reason what so ever that songs can't be published to online music stores the moment the gold master disc is recorded.

[Spud1]

Nobody has an intrinsic right to greater profit margins. You're not taking anything from anyone. That's why it isn't theft, neither legally nor literally. And if we were to bring ethics into it, then any one corporate publisher is a far greater thief than every pirate combined, as they swindle from the artist(s) and the customers alike.

What on earth has it got to do with profit margins? The only way to legally obtain the product would be to purchase it. So if you have a copy, and didn't pay for it, the copyright owner has not received his/her £30. So a copy of their product is in use for £0, instead of £30. Therefore they are down £30.

It's very simple really, I don't intend to start throwing insults around (we don't want feisty hexus ) but I mean really, I don't get why you (and others) can't understand that there is loss involved here, and that it is theft by all by a legal technicality.

[Flash477]

A large part of the current problem is how the industry has dealt with the problem...



There is nothing that gets on my wick more than not being able to just get on and watch the film that I paid for, when the people who watch the pirated versions can!

Then again, when you've also had some of the rubbish come out like Skyline, it is no wonder many people watch pirated versions, even if it just to check the film is any good before buying it.

[roachcoach]

How to tackle it? That is the tough one. Introducing a new law to actually make downloading a TV show for example into a criminal, rather than a civil, offense would be a good start, but its very difficult to police without ruining the freedom of the internet.

First thing they need to do is sort the laws out so they are not, well, bat**** insane.

When ripping a CD you bought onto your ipod is a crime, a crime just as (legally) serious as downloading a song you own on tape/LP, which in turn is just as serious (legally) as doing it to a song you do not own is fundamentally wrong and I defy anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

Get laws people can actually respect and can get behind, laws they believe in. Not laws which criminalise almost everyone in society, then the serious enforcement conversation can start. There has to come a point where if the majority of society are breaking a law, fix the law, not society.


In tandem, the industries need to get up to speed and quickly - criminalising swathes of people when they offer no viable alternate is stupidity of the highest order - you lose a revenue stream and disgust consumers which in turn garners utter disdain and disrespect for the laws.

[aidanjt]

What on earth has it got to do with profit margins? The only way to legally obtain the product would be to purchase it. So if you have a copy, and didn't pay for it, the copyright owner has not received his/her £30. So a copy of their product is in use for £0, instead of £30. Therefore they are down £30.

As I said, nobody has an intrinsic right to greater profit margins. They're not down £30 at all. It's a non-sale. Their copies are all still there, and their wealth hasn't decreased.

It's very simple really, I don't intend to start throwing insults around (we don't want feisty hexus ) but I mean really, I don't get why you (and others) can't understand that there is loss involved here, and that it is theft by all by a legal technicality.

If I walk out of a book store with a book under my arm that I didn't pay for, that is theft. If I stand in the book store with a blank book in one hand, pick up a book in the store, and start copying it onto the blank, and walk out with the copy, that isn't theft. That's copyright infringement. You're not depriving anyone of anything, you made a copy with your own labour. You don't have a legal license to make that copy. But it's still not theft by any measure of the word. They still have the same amount of books in the store, and same amount of money in the tills and store safe, and they still have the same potential to sell the remaining books for the remaining amount.

Their 'loss' is entirely imaginary, and invented by a system which provides publishers with a government granted, and enforced, monopoly on the duplication of intangible assets.

If they had to openly compete with other publishers for sales on the same book, do you think it would still be £30? Do you think they could get away with the same crappy deals if copyright wasn't transferable from the artist?

[Spud1]

...and they still have the same potential to sell the remaining books for the remaining amount.

If they had to openly compete with other publishers for sales on the same book, do you think it would still be £30? Do you think they could get away with the same crappy deals if copyright wasn't transferable from the artist?

Well no, they don't have the same potential, they have just lost a potential sale. Doesn't matter if you think you would never pay for it in the future, you are now just not going to (unless you renounce your ways and decide to start paying for things you use instead of just taking them).

You have avoided the question of "what you if you were the content producer, and you depended on the sales of your content to live" I see...

Perhaps we should leave aside the word theft then, no point getting hung up on the technicalities. You must surely agree that it's wrong and [potentially] directly harmful?

It's sickening to think that people actually think that "copyright infringement" is a victimless (crime) process. If you are going to do at, at least realise the implications for your victims.

[roachcoach]

There is something wrong when i can have a flac version of Suck It and See (release date the 6th of June) 20 days early and in a better format than what iTunes/Amazon et al are offering up for the digital equivalent, at a later date.

I have no issue with paying, in fact my spending on legitimate media has shot up by quite a bit both on Blu-Rays, games (Steam), software and music. But when the paying consumer is being beaten by the none paying one in more ways than one, logical questions arise imo - and they are right to be asked.

This is so very true.

Situation:
>TV show eagerly awaited globally is released in the US months ahead of everywhere else
>Everywhere else pirates it.
>Company goes mental about infringement and lost revenue.
>Consumers wonder where the alternate avenues were.

Now the only argument I've ever seen about this is as follows:

"It's their copyright and to do a phased release is their right"

I absolutely agree, it is their copyright and do with it as they will. However I have zero sympathy with the complaints about their plight of consumers are pirating something when it's the only means available. You have consumers asking for it, jumping for it only to find the ONLY place they can get it is illicit sites.

As I said before, those are lost opportunities, not lost sales. In a globalised, digital age it is simply unforgivable.

Ethics aside, it is literally the only industry I've ever seen willfully ignore potential customers and instead of investing in engaging them, lobbying for laws to enshrine their old model and trying to fight consumer demand.

Where's European netflix? It's the dominant internet traffic in the USA right now, even more than torrents - if that doesn't scream demand then the collective ears need testing. Until the industries get their fingers out the European Netflix is the sodding pirate bay.

I have a very hard time taking a moral highground on the side of people doing so much to push people away/doing it just wrong without thinking to myself "You know what, you could sort this out really easily".

They wont buy our products!
Can they buy your products?
No. But that's our right to refuse to sell it.
I see. Could you maybe make your products available? Perhaps then people might buy it.
NO! WE WILL LITIGATE!

It's ridiculous. It actually reminds me a lot of irritating, spoiled children.

[roachcoach]

It's sickening to think that people actually think that "copyright infringement" is a victimless (crime) process. If you are going to do at, at least realise the implications for your victims.

Financially it's the same as buying used....

[aidanjt]

Financially it's the same as buying used....

Exactly. They don't own copies they didn't make or purchase or sold themselves. And they've no right to the proceeds from them (although they'd like you to think so, the way publishers are gearing DRM these days).