well I found this particularly interesting because this forum tends to be media oriented, and I'm pretty sure everyone has dowloaded plenty. I know that people download movies that haven't been made available yet in their areas (or might not be at all) and even I used to download a ton of songs in college before I started listening to just the same 10 cd's over and over again. Anyways, I also wonder abut iPods. I don't have one, but don't they pretty much require downloading music? whats the difference between downloading a song or bumming the album off a friend and makin a copy? Numbers.

I used to be all about open access, and realize that alot of bands for example promote themselves (when they aren't established yet) by distributiong music over the internet. I'm not sure anymore. I know alot of people trying to write books, and the thought that they want to make a living off of it, and have also invested their lives into it, means they should get some return both intellectually and fiscally. I don't really know what the arguements in court are because Copyright is a very tricky subject. Schools struggle all the time with on-line image databasing, for example, in art history because of this.

I just wanted to know how people feel about dowloading songs and movies and other material off the net. I don't mind so much old literature because its already in the public domain, but the rest of it?

Downloading movies from the net is movie piracy, ive had this conversation today already, but ill state it once more.

I think it is wrong, probably because im passionate about movies, whereas i couldnt give a shit about music etc. If you cant wait until its on the big screen you are one sad individual. It will ruin the future production of movies, and is that what we all want? no, didnt think so.

As a writer, I strongly believe in copyright for all producers of intellectual property - to a certain extent. I think after about 30 years, it should all be public domain. I'm sorry, but the grandkids who benefit from Estate of "Long Dead, But Really Famous Writer", aren't really entitled to anything anymore.

So because you dont give a shit about music, we should take your opinion on movies as gold? The same argument could be said about music...




Movies will never go down because of shitty versions of movies on a 15 inch moniter thats half black and white...trust me. Personally I dont dl movies, bc i would rather see them on the big screen...especially with movies Iam highly anticipating.

I do download songs though

well a few points of note:

a) I find it hypocritical, though i know its completely legal for MP3 players to exist and not file sharing programs. File sharing actually has a lot of stuff thats not copyrighted and allows people to share stuff. Thats been the primary defense for it. MP3 players exist because you can use your existing cds or subscribe online for music and upload it to your mp3 player. the only reason why sony and all are ok with mp3 players is that they manufacture them. But again, this is just my opinion on the subject.

b) downloading music and movies is legally wrong. there is little you can say to justify it. But i'm glad it happened and still happens to an extent in any case. Why!? Cause its getting the industry to take notice that high prices suck! True, little has been done but atleast they finally moved to the digital medium to provide music online for a far cheaper price than what you get at HMV. No longer do you have to buy a complete crap album for 1 or 2 songs. you can do so legally, something i wouldn't have seen taking place for a bit if the industry hadn't gotten a kik in the ass. I doubt places like netflix (which came into being round the same time as downloading music) would have succeeded if it wasn't for people realizing how much blockbuster rips people off.

Theres always a cheaper alternative .. its just not so attractive for people earning the big bucks to utilize unless something like this occurs. Notice how the movie industry barely took action till recently when divx took over .. before that, they barely acted on it cause they didn't care so much if people downloaded something or not, its only when they realized their profits might fall that they took action.

) TV program downloading ... woah .. this is a complete different topic of its own.

most people actually watch them over the net after the movie comes out, not before its released. the quality is so bad, its not worth it. its only recently (about 2 months) that excellent dvd quality torrents came into existance. then again, i'm a cinema person ...

Hey lmr, all piracy is bad, but i was giving my opinion.

@ bABA....i am a cineam person too, but this is not the reason i wont do downloading or pirate films, its the principle.

oh i know .. i meant to say those dvd prints mean nothing to me. it ain't worth watching if it can't be seen at
a) the cinema
b) months later if the movie looked good but not cinema material.

Ok, you're a good person to ask since I don't know this stuff. So the arguement about mp3 players though is that you need to subscribe to a site? That you pay a fee? and that those fees go towards purchasing music distribution? Doesn't that mean the music label gets paid? And shareware is open computer when someone allows for files to be used, but does that person have control, need to give a password or can anyone do it?



There are going to be ways to pay via credit card to dowload stuf that is legal. Song selection (pay per song) and then burn your own cd, hence the no buying a whole album for one good song. Movies rental at least. Prices are prices though. Its unfortunately because we demand expensive movies that cost over 120 million to make. That sets the ticket price, and so people that watch indie film mad for a margin of that get stuck paying the same price I guess. Its ten bucks, that's alot, but on the other hand, what doesn't cost that by now? I don't mind paying ten dollars because I make a decision that it my night. I wouldn't spend less then ten even on cheap beers and watered down drinks, dinner, hell even Ramen noodle soup is a buck now. People spend way more than ten bucks everytime they put five gallons of gas into their car. I guess its just priorities. Also, I wonder about DCD sales. I've heard rental is mstly suffered because buying DVD's are really cheap. So I thing buying a new release for ten dollars and owning it to watch multiple times isn't exactly expensive.

Its not about legality to me as much as its about energy expended. I agree with NCAR that bein a writer, etc, is a profession like everything else, and we won't get strong literature on the market if we don't support writers in being able to do it as a full-time job. I read a book about someone who took about 14 years to compile the information and write the book. Now if that just got spread over the internet and he doesn't get the financial return that would allow him to spend future years trying to write, that's not going to encourage another book.



Well of course, i wouldn't waste my time in a costly legal battle unless it was for something I thought would affect me either. Whats divx? And by tv dowloading I assume you mean what i was referring to with ordering rental over the internet and doing a direct feed to the tv?

People that do buy pirate material or download movies, i wonder how they'd feel if they were a director or a studio and there latest groundbreaking movie was on the internet 1 month prior to release, they be pretty fucked of about it. And it would lose them tons of money....

you gotta be careful with that one though algren. Go live in Asia where people dont get to see shit for months and even when they do, the stuff thats released is an abomination. paying 27 dollars is a looooot of money for them as compared to what might cause them 5 dollars there (but like i mentioned, an abomination of a movie, censorship, bad subtitling and all that crap).

hell, i waited 2 years to watch Mars Attacks.

dont get movies (dont know how to)
I havent seen manny films this year due to insane ticket pricing, im only watching absolute must sees in the theater now

only get around 5 songs a year (only going after absolute favs)
and I have a friend that uses itunes so he usually gets the music i like for me becasue he also likes it.

None of that really. MP3 players can play music as long its in mp3 format (or other acceptable formats). This could be
a) Music downloaded through subscription
b) Music ripped into mp3 from a cd (that you mayh ave bought from hmv)
c) Illegally downloaded music.

the biggest percentage of music on mp3 players though is illegally downloaded music.



I didn't understand much of what you said. but here goes.

the first part of what you siad is what i'm talking about. the pay per song thing came about once mp3 music took over and all this sharing started. mp3s were called for banning initially but they couldn't do it. then they just capitalized on it.

second, the reason why the movie costs 120 million in the first place is becasue of the money they charge you to watch these movies i nthe first place now. can someon really say that a movie isn't financially successful anymore!? again, i'm not justifying anything. I'm saying i'm just glad that this downloading exists today so that prices of dvds (which cost upwards of 25 dollars now) can be brought down a bit or atleast cheaper ways can be found for the industry. that way, these crazy budgets of stupid movies like van helsing and catwoman wouldn't exist and something more decent can actually be viewed on screen. Its wishful thinking .. i know.



I guess thats true.

Divx was just a really good format that came out for watching movies. good quality and with high speed internet, quick downloading.

tv downloading is downloading television programs. its a completely different subject all together though. television programs, entire seasons of things and what not. just get them off the net.

I have more respect for software because of this. Softwares making money completely relies upon delivering a good product so their financial success itself makes them deliver something with quality. even though they catch you for piracy, they put in their own effort and time all the time to make sure their stuff cannot be pirated. i respect that. they DO something about it themselves and don't sue someone for revealing that a "shift button key pressed" will bypass all security measures ...

Still, that is no reason to steal.

And anyway, that comment was directed moreso at yanks, where the above doesnt happen.

its not really stealing at that point really. you're watching those cause thats the only thing thats available.

believe it or not, till i think 1995, in karachi we didn't HAVE legal movies even coming out there. The cinemas showed about 20 english movies in a year, off which only 2 or 3 were from 'last year' if we were lucky.

people would rent or buy movies once they'd come out legally (usually cause of better prints) but really .. what are you suppose to do otherwise?

Ah, I was reffering to the only viable option being option a, but I see how once its in that form, and one person downloads it, everyone can have it. Still, I don't know how government or business would go about handling this. Making it illegal and trying to crack down on it will be tougher than catching marijuana or petty theft or anything of that nature. Its going to be too immense a drain on regulation resources. There needs to be some way that industry cunters. Maybe make non-burnable cd's? I don't know.




what if stores allowed to pick and chose and then made a cd for you? Or you could order a selection you want from the label (for songs distributed by that label of course). I know that's how mp3s became big. Because people only wanted one song from an album, and buying a single is expensive, useless, and takes up space. People basically just want to make their won mixes.

A question for BJ: why download your favorite five songs? shouldn't those be the artists you want to support by actually purchasing their songs? I undersand downloading, more for "checking things out" and then going to buy the stuff you do like and want to support financially. I don't really do any of it though, but I haven't purchased a new record in a long time anyways.



Classic...which comes first, the chicken or the egg? i see you point. Its a vicious cycle of trash for cash.



You're introducing an free market type understanding of competition, only I don't know how much it applies when the compettion is this form. but I see what you mean. Right now its the only thing providing a counter, but I can also say some theatre chains are better than others, and if everyone supported the better ones, prices might drop. I hate Loews and really like AMC. Firstly because AMC often has a better selection, and usually brings a couple smaller budget films in. Secondly, they are 50 cents cheaper (maybe 1$ some places. i know its not much, but its making a point) and thirdly, they take student i.d. even for opening night of a film and on weekend nights. That makes it 7.50. If they realize how much people are pushing for cheaper tickets by always opting for 7.50 rather than 10, theatres will get the point. Also second run theatres. I would support your arguement had I noticed any trend in ticket price stabilization, but ever since these new dowloads became a big deal, I haven't noticed its stopped the rise in ticket price of dvd cost. On the contrary perhaps.

option 2 is viable nad legal as well. you purchased the songs on the cd. you can now listen to them through any medium you want.
non-burnable CDs hehehehe .... doubt it. its sort of like a vicious cycle here too. people thought cds couldn't be copied. we found a way. same with dvds. found a way too. technology and innovation forces us to find a counter for everything. i mean think about it. if you got technology to burn the cd the first time and/or use a copy of a cd to make even more for high volume production, it means the technology already exists. its just a matter of making it cheaper.



this happens in some places i know but its a problem. its not upto the store. what about the artist or the company .. how do they get paid? is such a structure already in place? but its a good idea and this is what i mean. this is why i liked this mp3 boom. cause its makign the industry realize they have to do these things. and slowly, lets hope the options you listed above will also be undertaken.



in this case, i'm more than willing to bet its the chicken. so whats the chicken? the industry itself deciding to spend more and more cause they realized what a big market they have now outside of cinema. ok well, the egg came first then but that didn't warrant the hatching of it, and for movies to start costing so much more to make for quality that is now usually less than mediocre



free market competition and umm .. yea . umm .. sure.
hehe, not what i had intended to say though. i really meant that the software industry took a lot on its own hands and decided to find fool proof ways of making sure their stuff wouldn't get copied. and they didn't just find every excuse to sue people. thats really it.

as far as dvd prices go, i still think they're going up and up. like i said, progress in movies has been slow. even with divx, the quantity of people downloading movies is small. and most people who download movies download only those they prolly never wished to pay or see in the first place meaning minimal loss of revenue. but things are changing. like i said, rental has changed. dvd downloading only became viable about a year ago (or even less) and its effects wont be felt for a long time right now.

I have an iPod, and most of the music on it comes from the CDs I own.

The reason MP3-players are not illegal was spelled out by the courts in 1998 (when the RIAA tried to make them illegal): it is actually the same reason that VCR's are legal: "fair use" doctrine allows a person to make copies of the media they own, provided it's for personal use. Since MP3 players allow for that legal use, and the manufacturers have no way of splitting the illegal copies from legal copies, the product itself is legal. The same logic did not apply to Napster, because Napster had the means to prevent illegal downloads, but did not do so. Newer MP3-sharing services are smarter and do not have the capability to know what you are sharing and/or downloading, hence they would fall under the "fair use" clause.


That all said, my personal opinion that copyright laws should not exist at all. All copyrights (as well as patents) are doing is provide a government-enforced monopoly to the creator. My position is that the government should not be in the business of providing such protections. If you want your work to be protected from copying then do not release it to the public. Needless to say, I have absolutely no qualms about downloading music and movies from the Internet.

yea .. i read up on that .. and even disagreed with it. there are ways of identifying if something is legal or not. not completely yes but theres a lot they can do with their players to make sure they're not illegal copies but its just not implemented. why? because they know most of their mp3 player owners come from illegal music downloaders .. till that isn't changed, they won't fix it.

i have some respect for apple on that front .. they took an initiative and are trying till today to get people to get stuff legally. instead of threatening people or making people feel guilty, they went out and provided initiatives, free players, cheaper music, free downloads ... the works.

Virtually all, if not all, things I have downloaded were either old (1950s films, etc.) or the type I wouldn't pay for. And I'm serious when I say I wouldn't pay for it. Think I'd be willing to shelve money to support a film like Catwoman? Hell no... So it's not lost revenue on their part. I would simply never pay for it, ever. Ditto for music.



The rare instance where I have downloaded a film that's in theatres, that I think was wonderful, and that needed support, I have gone to the theatre and paid admission for it, since that would have been a film I would actually have paid to see. Finding Nemo is the one example that comes to mind; I downloaded it, fell in love with the film, went to the theatre to pay up as a thanks for Pixar. For The Incredibles, I immediately went to the theatres.


Foreign films are thougies; for the most part, since I have no clue where foreign film stores are, the net's the only way to find them. Case in point: Raise the Lantern. I guess one way to make up for that is to go and watch the next film by Zimou. At least that way you give back to him and support foreign films. If a foreign film plays at a theatre near me, I go watch it. I mean, you gotta support that industry.


Btw, downloading can have its advantages, in that it keeps you away from paying for BS. I will, for example, not pay for the next DW CGI. I'll check it out online, and if it is good, I might just watch it in theatres. Personally, I considered Shrek 2 an insult and a rip-off, so the way I see it, they owe me, not vice versa (I piad for Shrek 2, sadly).

With the MP3-players there is no way to distinguish whether an MP3 you load on your player came from a CD you own or from a CD somebody in Zambia owns. There are some ways to copy-protect the music sold on the Internet, but those protections can invariably be removed. In the worst-case scenario, when you can't remove the watermarks digitally, you simply hook up a line-out port to the line-in port and voila - you have a protection free copy.

hmm.. i see where you're going with this .... i was talking about the music media itself, not the player ..

hmm .. i still think it was stupid!! :razz:

box, right on bruther.

You gotta show them capitalist pigs that hell no, you won't spending a dime on that shitty Dreck 3 movie!

box .. if i may ask .. how was catwoman...

The closest you can come to making sure that a portable music player only has legal music on it, is making sure that each song has a digital signature matching that of the player. That would require an online service tied with your music player and it wouldn't allow you to rip your own CDs onto it. I doubt something like that would gain any traction.