The Morals Of Downloading

4leto · 19-09-2011 12:34PM

Voodu Child wrote: »

Its flawed logic because most people spend a fixed amount on non-essentials every month. If they spend less in one place then they spend more somewhere else.

So if somebody in HMV loses their job because of illegal downloading then by the same token somebody in a pub, restaurant or clothes shop has kept their job because the money has gone there instead.

Overall it makes no difference.

It does when you kill an industry, the extra money spent does not fill the gaps. Although other people may have some extra resources, the people employed in those industries don't.

FloatingVoter · 19-09-2011 12:44PM

When the 3D printers arrive, I shall download a beautiful woman.
ps. OP ...2 hours. You need to open the ports on the client or else .....

usenet

.

Seachmall · 19-09-2011 12:45PM

4leto wrote: »

It does when you kill an industry

Technological advancement is killing the industry. Actually, it's not killing the industry it's just killing off the excessive distribution fees and pretentious suits. Musicians will still make music and directors will still direct movies, by removing a big number of expensive overheads needed to promote and distribute the movie you are reducing the overall cost and increasing profit for those directly involved in the production (as opposed to paying large fees to people only involved by association or title).

Will people lose Jobs if the trend continues? Of course, but that's what happens when industries are forced to adapt. If they refuse to adapt the entire industry will fail. The technology won't reverse itself and legislation can't realistically prevent people from downloading. People are going to be out of work, it's up to the men at the top to decide how long they're going to keep up this charade and how many people will be out of a job.

Voodu Child · 19-09-2011 12:51PM

4leto wrote: »

It does when you kill an industry, the extra money spent does not fill the gaps. Although other people may have some extra resources, the people employed in those industries don't.

Industries die all the time. Others spring up. Its a fact of life.

You've only so much to spend every month and if you're not spending it in one place then you're spending it somewhere else.

ScumLord · 19-09-2011 12:56PM

4leto wrote: »

You would be surprised in Hollywood there are more flops produced then blockbuters. Just the Blockbusters subsidise the flops.

Unless they pay an obscene amount of money to make a film I don't see how they could be making a loss and they obviously aren't making great loses.

Even if a film does flop they have years to recoup those costs through selling the films in shops and selling to TV stations. The thing about it is the best films don't even need big budgets they just don't want to make the effort it seems. Big budget and big marketing is their way of playing the numbers and they've only themselves to blame they know exactly what they're doing, it's a business and all they care about is return on investment the quality of the film doesn't really come into it.

johnny_ultimate · 19-09-2011 12:58PM

The assumption that downloading only hurts the 'industry' is a flawed one. Partially correct, but also much more complicated than that.

Sure, someone downloading a Hollywood blockbuster has an effect, but in the general scheme of things it's a somewhat negligible one. When 50,000+ people do the same, it's more complicated. Even more complicated is when the publisher or artist is struggling to break even in the first place.

Take games. Everytime a new PC game is released, it shoots up on piracy charts. Sure, Activision will still make money despite illegal Call of Duty downloads. But independent developers, many of whom go out of their way to provide the customer with no DRM and first time buyer benefits (unlimited re-downloads etc...), also tend to find their games shooting up the torrent sites.

These aren't 'the industry'. They're developers trying to make a living. And because some people feel some obligation to get everything for free, they suffer.

Perhaps there will be a paradigm shift soon (the old assumption that 'art should be free'), but at the moment, downloading isn't a victim less crime. It's naive to think it is.

Seachmall · 19-09-2011 01:00PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Unless they pay an obscene amount of money to make a film I don't see how they could be making a loss and they obviously aren't making great loses.

Even if a film does flop they have years to recoup those costs through selling the films in shops and selling to TV stations. The thing about it is the best films don't even need big budgets they just don't want to make the effort it seems. Big budget and big marketing is their way of playing the numbers and they've only themselves to blame they know exactly what they're doing, it's a business and all they care about is return on investment the quality of the film doesn't really come into it.

Exactly, some of the ****test movies out there have the biggest budgets and some of the best have the lowest budgets. By forcing the industry to focus on quality to compensate for expensive graphics we will (hopefully) see a rise in original and creative scripts.

A good example is Primer; $7000 budget; $400,000+ box office earnings

ScumLord · 19-09-2011 01:03PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Even more complicated is when the publisher or artist is struggling to break even in the first place.

Do what radiohead did and allow people to donate directly to the company that made the film. There have been a few films I've downloaded that I would have been happy enough to donate something to the makers because I actually liked the film. My only other option is to drive 30 miles to buy it, which won't happen as it won't be in my head at the time.

I don't see them doing that either because there's too many people with their fingers in the pie that will demand their cut for doing next to nothing.

joseph brand · 19-09-2011 01:05PM

chin_grin wrote: »

The last dvd I bought was Scott Pilgrim (Mary Elizabeth Winstead was the clincher) and damn near threw the remote at the telly for the un-skippable anti-piracy ads that you can fast forward but not skip. F*ckers.

Those ads turn people off dvd's, and onto .avi files. Ooohhh the irony. I feel sorry for the BIG record companies. It seems bands may have to tour more often to make money, which is better for them than cd sales AFAIK. It also helps the fans who get more opportunities to see their band/ singer Live.
WIN WIN.

4leto · 19-09-2011 01:09PM

But there is nothing springing up, before if an industry died, it died because of a new industry. For example the Aeroplane devastated the liner industry. But Jet travel did make new industry.

With down loading you couldn't say that that is creating the internet and its subsidiary industries.

It is almost like saying that shoplifting is creating a security industry.

As for Hollywood recouping its losses well it once could with Vid and DVD sales, now that is disappearing fast.

Take me I would spend about on average a fiver a week on vids a tenner on books, now that is nearly 800 a year, now that is gone from both those industries.

I know I will do something extra with that 800, but it wont contribute to media companies. So I will probably find myself less in debt. I don't think I want much else. I will see I suppose.

johnny_ultimate · 19-09-2011 01:10PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Do what radiohead did and allow people to donate directly to the company that made the film. There have been a few films I've downloaded that I would have been happy enough to donate something to the makers because I actually liked the film. My only other option is to drive 30 miles to buy it, which won't happen as it won't be in my head at the time.

I don't see them doing that either because there's too many people with their fingers in the pie that will demand their cut for doing next to nothing.

In an ideal world, yes, that option would be made available. Indeed, game developers often do make it possible with 'pay what you want' offers. Most people are generous, but there's always the moochers who will pay nothing or the lowest possible amount (50c or whatever). There are so many people who have a ludicrous sense of entitlement against culture.

Of course, it's a far from perfect situation. There's a film I've wanted to watch called Show Me Love for a while. The only way I can get it legally is to pay 40 euro or more for a director boxset where I already own the other three films. That isn't going to happen. The distributor is shooting themselves in the foot there. And I'm someone who goes to the cinema two, three times every week and always find it rather reasonable with, say, IFI membership and happily ignoring the pricy, tasteless cinema snacks. I will always pay when I can, but not silly amounts.

And yet, many other films I have a plethora of options available. Amazon is dirt cheap for most DVDs a week or two after release. Mubi has a decent subscription rate available if I want to check out some foreign / classic cinema (the selection is weak over here due to license issues, though). iTunes often offers 99c rentals or purchases.

Unfortunately, the problem of 'rights' always raises its ugly head. Publishers, record labels, whatever need to realise that there shouldn't be borders on the internet. At the moment, the law restricts it. But the law is outdated, and needs to be addressed. Until then, illegal downloading is the only way to get many things.

Seachmall · 19-09-2011 01:15PM

4leto wrote: »

But there is nothing springing up, before if an industry died, it died because of a new industry.

iTunes, Hulu, Netflix and other AVOD companies are springing up providing goods cheaper than their physical counterparts and higher quality than their illegal ones (with additional bonuses).

The problem isn't that people don't want to pay for goods or services anymore, it's that they want better goods and services and will only pay what they deem them to be worth (the radiohead example above is a good one in terms of people paying what they deem the content to be worth).

4leto · 19-09-2011 01:25PM

Seachmall wrote: »

iTunes, Hulu, Netflix and other AVOD companies are springing up providing goods cheaper than their physical counterparts and higher quality than their illegal ones (with additional bonuses).

The problem isn't that people don't want to pay for goods or services anymore, it's that they want better goods and services and will only pay what they deem them to be worth (the radiohead example above is a good one in terms of people paying what they deem the content to be worth).

I don't agree, Itunes and those places employ a fraction of what the retail outlets selling the same products use to employ. Plus I can't see their sales on an upward curve when their now competition is free.

But yes I have not seen a reduction in retail costs to reflect their lower distribution costs, so some cop on is needed. Or perhaps the greater margin is paying for the illegal downloading, I don't know.

Take books, I often go into Easons and see all the later 50plus people still buying books and I am saying to myself do they know you can get those books much more conveniently and a lot cheaper with Amazon and other sites.

Now I am aware I don't even have to use amazon. I can now get them for free.

I haven't done that yet, I know this sounds stupid to the free media generation, but morally I will be uncomfortable with that, for a while anyway, till it becomes routine.

ScumLord · 19-09-2011 01:32PM

4leto wrote: »

But there is nothing springing up, before if an industry died, it died because of a new industry. For example the Aeroplane devastated the liner industry. But Jet travel did make new industry.

With down loading you couldn't say that that is creating the internet and its subsidiary industries.

I don't know about that, the industry and demand is still there it's just people have options now, they don't have to pay the price that these companies set. They could drastically reduce their costs and still make great content it's just their industry is set up in such a way that the most useless have to much power to enforce their useless position.

As far as I can see many of the pirate sites I use take in donations to keep the sites going and they seem to be well able to keep up with massive demand.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Unfortunately, the problem of 'rights' always raises its ugly head. Publishers, record labels, whatever need to realise that there shouldn't be borders on the internet. At the moment, the law restricts it. But the law is outdated, and needs to be addressed. Until then, illegal downloading is the only way to get many things.

That's why I have little to no sympathy, their trying to protect their position of wealth more than anything, it's not like people will stop making art without them. They're really losing the battle as technology and special effects become easier and cheaper to use. They're going to find it hard to justify huge money when it looks no better than what some young one could make in their free time at home. The only saving grace they would hold onto is top class actors and all the other talent they can buy out.

Seachmall · 19-09-2011 01:39PM

4leto wrote: »

I don't agree, Itunes and those places employ a fraction of what the retail outlets selling the same products use to employ.

The employment opportunities aren't the same (not directly anyway) but the physical market for these goods is dying out and the industry will adapt as new industries emerge to compensate.

However the indirect employment opportunities resulting from services such as iTunes and Hulu is massive (all those services need to be designed, developed and maintained).

Plus I can't see their sales on an upward curve when their now competition is free.

So they must improve their product. Better quality, more features etc.

I haven't done that yet, I know this sounds stupid to the free media generation, but morally I will be uncomfortable with that, for a while anyway, till it becomes routine.

I more or less download all my books and buy the ones I like because I like having the physical copy to thumb-through (I bought 9 books last week, 4 of which I've already read via downloads).

bnt · 19-09-2011 01:40PM

If you find an artist worth supporting, then support them, so that they can do more good work in the future. It's that simple. I can list about 5 musicians or groups that fall in to that category, so I keep paying for their recorded and live music. The rest, I can live without - or rely on my archives.

Movies are a bad example for me - since I find so few new films worth seeing straight away - few enough to justify making a trip to the cinema. (Mostly the IFI.) For everything else, I can take pot luck with what's on cable TV, so I don't feel the need to download any. Most of the crap coming out of Hollywood these days is not worth the bandwidth, IMHO. :pac:

irelandrover · 19-09-2011 01:48PM

4leto wrote: »

Take me I would spend about on average a fiver a week on vids a tenner on books, now that is nearly 800 a year, now that is gone from both those industries.

I know I will do something extra with that 800, but it wont contribute to media companies. So I will probably find myself less in debt. I don't think I want much else. I will see I suppose.

For me I go to the cinema to see movies now more often than I would before. I also go to concerts more than i would before.
And if i find an idependant movie that I really like I will buy the DVD and the same goes with albums. So i find that I get more enjoyment by downloading but the money I would spend gets spent in the industry in teh end anyway so its really a win all round.

4leto wrote: »

Take books, I often go into Easons and see all the later 50plus people still buying books and I am saying to myself do they know you can get those books much more conveniently and a lot cheaper with Amazon and other sites.

Now I am aware I don't even have to use amazon. I can now get them for free.

I haven't done that yet, I know this sounds stupid to the free media generation, but morally I will be uncomfortable with that, for a while anyway, till it becomes routine.

ebooks is the one that annoys me the most. I got an Amazon Kindle as a present and i expected the books to be cheap. I went to buy a boo the other day and the kindle version was more expensive than the hardback book.
I said until that changes I will continue to download that book instead. And i do buy a lot of kindle books now as they have introduced a daily book for €0.79.

ScumLord · 19-09-2011 01:59PM

irelandrover wrote: »

ebooks is the one that annoys me the most. I got an Amazon Kindle as a present and i expected the books to be cheap. I went to buy a boo the other day and the kindle version was more expensive than the hardback book.
I said until that changes I will continue to download that book instead. And i do buy a lot of kindle books now as they have introduced a daily book for €0.79.

I'd say that's a deal with publishers to try and save some of the physical trade, I've seen many places where digital copies offered by big international companies are more expensive than hard copies sold in my local shop. It makes no sense.

starch4ser · 19-09-2011 02:04PM

4leto wrote: »

Kind of, when I want to watch a DVD it is usually something impulsive in me. I say I will get a vid and then I drive to extravision.

I was under the delusion that downloading takes ages, But now I realise it doesn't.

Plus I only recently got 25 megs from UPC before that it was about 5.

But I am an avid reader and a big book buyer. I never knew you could download E and audio books.

I have actually downloaded the Dune saga Audio books, I like to listen to talking books when I am power walking, before that I would use the library for their sparse selection. Those things are very expensive.

I hope you mean illusion

. I'm the last person you need to justify illegal downloading to. Anything that can be converted or is in digital format, you can get for free online. Much more than e and audio books too

Sitec wrote: »

Does anyone know how much internet piracy actually costs the film industry annually?

at this stage, it might be better to pose the question how much is the film industry is costing piracy?

Temptamperu · 19-09-2011 02:06PM

Sitec wrote: »

Does anyone know how much internet piracy actually costs the film industry annually?

The industry lies about the number so you can never tell.

desertcircus · 19-09-2011 02:11PM

On the price of Kindle books: at the moment, we're not seeing much of a difference in price for two related reasons. One is that the cost of producing the physical book is a fairly small component of the total cost involved - something like 15%. The other problem - and this is one which will probably change fairly rapidly - is that because the economies of scale with books are so drastic (producing twice as many books costs nowhere near twice as much money), the partial cannibalising of physical book sales has meant that it's not much cheaper to produce 10,000 physical books and sell 10,000 ebooks than it is to produce and sell 20,000 physical books. As a result, the cost of ebooks is raised slightly to subsidise the cost of producing physical copies.

As said, though, it wouldn't surprise me to see publishers move to all-ebook strategies for certain books. Scifi, for example, could easily move to such a model in the near future, as I suspect a huge proportion of its readers are early adopters of technology and already have e-readers - as well as the fact that it's a niche genre, with smaller print runs that comprise a bigger proportion of the total cost of the physical book. An ebook-only publishing house, run well, could probably offer an author significantly better terms which would more than offset the reduced sales (do you want 5% of 50,000 sales, or 10% of 30,000?), forget completely about that 15% of cost which would be going to produce the books, and do quite well for itself. All you need is a book with a niche audience that's likely to be carrying e-readers, and you've got yourself a market. And of course, it becomes easier with each additional book done this way - as e-readers become more popular, print runs shrink and audiences become more and more likely to carry Kindles and Nooks.

Samba · 19-09-2011 02:13PM

Sitec wrote: »

Does anyone know how much internet piracy actually costs the film industry annually?

Not sure tbh, but based on the tripe that's been released these past few years I have to question if piracy is partly to blame for this, I'm sure the recession took its toll on the industry too but I often wonder if piracy has a direct correlation with the number poor productions being release these days.

A good example would be the Sci-Fi genre, apart from Moon, there hasn't really been anything noteworthy for some time now. Whereas look at the quality in this genre pre-piracy times.

leggo · 19-09-2011 02:26PM

To tell the truth, people can put forward all the excuses for downloading they want. But that's all they are: excuses...not reasons.

As someone who does it, it's wrong.

There is a gap between the retailers and what the audience are willing to pay, agreed, but IMO at the end of the day it all comes down to sheer individual greed. We want something, and because we can take it for free, we do. Essentially it's digital looting and everyone who does it (myself included) is equally complicit.

Standard Toaster · 19-09-2011 02:34PM

If I could download food and clothes I would.

The Agogo · 19-09-2011 02:47PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

All depends on availability. If I can get a DVD / CD / legal download at a reasonable price, I'll happily pay. I especially will go out of my way to support smaller distributors and artists. Good translations of foreign films, jam-packed DVD sets, releases of classic films in a nicely restored format: these are worth paying for IMO, and usually from small companies who genuinely go out of their way to have a good quality release.

But the truth is we get ****ed over here in Ireland. Television especially. Not only do we have to wait for f*** knows how long to get the show in many cases, even then it can be relegated to mental graveyard slots if not on some god forsaken digital channel between the sub-softcore pornography. In the States you have Hulu, decent on demand services and hell even iTunes if you don't mind paying a euro or two for an episode. Here, only Channel 4 knows the value of customer choice and is willing to move on while the others lag sorely behind.

If something isn't available to a consumer in the first place without serious hoops to jump through, can you really blame them for taking the easy, handiest solution?

best response so far..kudos

ScumLord · 19-09-2011 02:50PM

desertcircus wrote: »

On the price of Kindle books: at the moment, we're not seeing much of a difference in price for two related reasons. One is that the cost of producing the physical book is a fairly small component of the total cost involved - something like 15%.

There are many other costs the real world has to suffer, shipping and handling and of course storage, customs weather protection.

I see this a lot though and it annoys me, world economics have set everything up so the most labour intensive and resource hungry way of doing things is the cheapest. It happens everywhere it's obscene.

pickarooney · 19-09-2011 02:52PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

Parental duty: Shrek 3 with an orange tint, Russian subtitles and the backs of a few heads.

Never again.:(

So just like the cinema then?

Zascar · 19-09-2011 02:55PM

I agree with johnny_ultimate above. I went to a talk one time with some people in the music industry and one of the people was a music journalist who writes reviews for papers etc. She said that sometimes it's so bloody difficult getting a copy of the CD from the label where she has to jump through hoops, whereas realistically she can often just go online and download the thing in 5 minutes.

The fact is the industry was way way far too slow to change and they paid the price for it. If when napster started becoming big they had of embraced change instead of fighting it, and changed their model to make things cheaper and easier, maybe they would not be in the sh1t they are now. If you considerably lower price you'll sell shed loads more, simple economics - but they can make just as much money/profit if they do it right. Just look at Apple and the App Store for iPhones. If all apps were €29+ like any boxed software was in a shop, there is no way they would have sold even a fraction of what they have since they made everything way way cheaper.

Columbia · 19-09-2011 03:22PM

It is wrong, but it is the fault of companies being completely unreasonable in their demands.

Take a certain well-known language software. I'm going abroad to volunteer for a while, and I have been told that learning some Russian will help me communicate (there's a local language too but it's not exactly useful outside of the country). My options;

Pay £299 to the company's website and wait a couple of weeks for delivery. I can only have it on one computer so when I go to the foreign country and get a netbook I no longer have the software I paid all that money for.

Download it for free, have it later that day, and put it on as many computers as I like.

No contest.

desertcircus · 19-09-2011 03:24PM

Columbia wrote: »

It is wrong, but it is the fault of companies being completely unreasonable in their demands.

Take a certain well-known language software. I'm going abroad to volunteer for a while, and I have been told that learning some Russian will help me communicate (there's a local language too but it's not exactly useful outside of the country). My options;

Pay £299 to the company's website and wait a couple of weeks for delivery. I can only have it on one computer so when I go to the foreign country and get a netbook I no longer have the software I paid all that money for.

Download it for free, have it later that day, and put it on as many computers as I like.

No contest.

Alternatively: your local library probably have learn-a-language CD courses. Bring them home, rip them, stick them on your MP3 player.

The Morals Of Downloading

Comments