Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

What do you think of this arguement for posting movies to download?

Other Talk "Otterville" plus Religion/Politics

What do you think of this arguement for posting movies to download?

Old 11-04-05, 11:53 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Lake Ridge, VA
Posts: 6,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What do you think of this arguement for posting movies to download?

Over at FW someone posted a link to a site offering free movie downloads. From the site's FAQ:

Q. Is it legal to download movies?

A. This is the most asked question I receive. Whether you are downloading Movies, Music, eBooks, Software, etc. At one time or another it was frowned upon for people to download a copy of any of these items. But times are changing, and increasingly the convenience of downloading an update to your computer, reading an e-book or listening to music on your computer is becoming a way of life. Transferring your music to Ipod's and taking it on the go has become extremely popular. Many computer users have for years downloaded these items on file sharing networks, and with the popularity of these networks exploding, owners of copyrighted items have made efforts to close them down. Unfortunately as soon as one is successfully closed down, several more appear. It's like trying to play "Whack the Mole" forever.

What copyright owners need to realize, is that the Internet is a tremendous opportunity to market their digital wares and to obtain profits never before realized. Jack Valenti of the MPAA before congress in 1982 made the dubious quote "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." Nothing can be further from the truth. VHS movies became the most profitable market for films, which in the 1990's was supplanted by the DVD. Now the Internet will supplant even the DVD and (removed site) is at the forefront of that wave. The old saying is 'if you can't beat them, join them' is so true today. Even JK Rowling has begun allowing legal downloads. Click here

What about (removed site)? We set up our website as a library on the internet. We are doing the same thing for movies that a a Public Library does for periodicals. For example a Library buys newspapers and makes copies available to the public in the form of "Microfiche". This microfiche is in fact a processed version of the original. It is on film rather than on paper and can be stored in much less space. The microfiche is then viewed on a microfiche projector. The advantage of this system is you don't get ink on your fingers reading it.

Converting periodicals to microfiche has long been an accepted "legal" method of making copies of publishers materials. This clearly falls under the doctrine of "fair use", as it is usually done for archival, preservation, and educational purposes. Also many users of libraries are accustomed to taking a book off of the shelf and paying to copy a few pages. There is no rule that says you can't copy the entire book so long as you have the money to do so (it might cost you more than buying the book outright). And don't forget that Lawyers and Xerox machines are well acquainted with each other. So these are legal examples of copying.

(removed site) is a nonprofit library whose sole purpose is to archive and make available movies to our registered users on the internet. We purchase the original movies or receive donated original movies to our library. This is a key issue because ownership implys you have the copyright owners permission to access the contents. We then encode the DVD's with our software, which shrinks the size of the original much like a library makes a microfiche copy of a periodical. This new file is not a copy of the DVD movie but a new creation in it's own right. It is a much smaller version of the DVD and is more acceptable for downloading. When played on a computer the picture is of a lesser quality (although barely perceptible) than the original and generally does not include the additional features that a DVD has. And you wont get ink on your fingers either. We are making these versions available for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes, and claim "Fair Use." Further the DMCA under Title 17 Circular 92 Chapter 12 § 1204(b) provides for "Limitation for Nonprofit Library, Archives, Educational Institution, or Public Broadcasting Entity."

So the short answer is YES as long as it is done from a site that operates in accordance with the law.
I thought the arguement was interesting, but I'm no legal expert. Any thoughts on this?

Last edited by SunMonkey; 11-04-05 at 11:56 PM.
Old 11-04-05, 11:58 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It seemed to me that it was the tampering of the DVD encoding that was illegal. That would mean that the above is full of poop. I could be wrong though.
Old 11-05-05, 12:08 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
twikoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Right Behind You!!!
Posts: 79,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
you can download movies from movielink.com already
and i believe they are giving one free movie to new members
Old 11-05-05, 12:15 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: not CT
Posts: 9,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the whole system is fux0r3d. We need to start from scratch.
Old 11-05-05, 12:34 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What a load of bull. Why don't people just admit they are theives when trying to get something for nothing?

The microfilm anaology is retarded. The newspaper isn't going to ever gain anymore profits from month old issues. Studios however will continue to get profits from movies years after they are released. I'm betting the newspaper has given permission for the microfilm to be created so no laws are being broken.
Old 11-05-05, 01:46 AM
  #6  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kaysville, Utah
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just as anyone can go to a Public Library and take a book off of the shelf and make copies for a fee, or check out a DVD for a fee, our site has been created as a Digital Public library specifically for movies. Any member of the public is welcome to visit our site and browse through the titles. After Registering, and paying the appropriate fees, members may download copies. It is our policy to only offer movies that we have the original physically in our premises.
they say they use mainly DIVX compression. Can you imagine how bad the quality is? Just wait till the MPAA sues the owner of the site, and gets the membership records, and every movie they downloaded. I predict this is going to get ugly.

Old 11-05-05, 02:05 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by resinrats
What a load of bull. Why don't people just admit they are theives when trying to get something for nothing?

The microfilm anaology is retarded. The newspaper isn't going to ever gain anymore profits from month old issues. Studios however will continue to get profits from movies years after they are released. I'm betting the newspaper has given permission for the microfilm to be created so no laws are being broken.
It might have been a bad analogy, but others have been proposed:

Library loaning out movies, music, books for free.
Taping radio/TV/cable broadcasts of movies and music
Loaning copies to friends
Making mix tapes or even copying full albums for friends.

What makes these so different from downloading? It's illegal to download a copy of Black Eyed Peas new single (through p2p), yet it's ok to tape it off the radio? What about making a copy for a friend? Illegal, yes... but would you call someone who did that a thief (as the term is being thrown around now)?

I use to be more militant about this too -- and I still don't download music/movies through p2p because I want to support the artists. But I'm starting to see that despite the law, this is much greyer than some people (especially the mpaa and riaa) are trying to make it out. Calling someone a thief for downloading a movie is the new thing -- but no one thought twice about recording movies from cable, making copies of albums for friends, etc before the whole internet file-sharing thing became popular.
Old 11-05-05, 08:39 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,082
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Yeah, and because my pockets are big enough to hold a CD, I should be able to shoplift them without getting caught.
Old 11-05-05, 10:02 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
The Bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 54,876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The thing that makes movies slightly different than albums/music is because there's just... the movie. The movie doesn't hold tours, it doesn't sell merchandise (most of the time), you can't buy one of the movie's other movies.

With bands, I might've gotten one of their CDs through a friend, but then I went to the concert ($20) and bought a shirt ($20) and maybe I bought a CD or so down the line.
Old 11-05-05, 11:43 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Portland
Posts: 8,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Bus
The movie doesn't hold tours,
What's that place called the theater for then?
Old 11-05-05, 11:50 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 29,210
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
1st it is illegal, plane and simple
2nd his arguments may be sound and when you owns a studio, music recording business or whatever, he can use the internet however he wants.
3rd, if he owns his own studio, music business or whatever and wants to run the business by giving away his product, I wish him luck.
4th the "owners" of the movies, music, whatever may run their business into the ground with their beliefs, but it is THEIR movies, music or whatever to do that with. While I personally believe they should take advantage of the "opportunity" the internet affords, I'm not the CEO, stock holders or whatever.
Old 11-05-05, 01:27 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 29,210
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Good article which seems to bolster the OP message. But I would still say it up to the "owers" of the product to decide how/when to use the net.

This article is from AVS and full credit to them,

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=598998

TV Shows You'll Want To Pay For - Maybe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How $2 downloads can revive network television

By Ivan Askwith Slate.com
(Ivan Askwith, a media analyst with MIT's Convergence Culture Consortium, writes frequently on the intersection of technology, entertainment, and culture.)

It has now been 20 days since Apple announced it would sell selected ABC-Disney television programs via iTunes. As of Monday, iTunes customers had bought more than than 1 million videos. At first glance, these sales figures seem like another nail in the coffin of broadcast television. If we can get television content online, on demand, whenever we want it, how will networks convince us to tune in on their schedules? For that matter, how can they be certain we'll tune in at all?

The iTunes distribution model does give the networks a huge opportunity to reinvent themselves, though. By allowing viewers to purchase individual episodes, broadcast-television executives could free themselves from the yoke of advertising revenue. That could potentially usher in a new age of television, one where fans have the power to keep their favorite series in production and producers have the opportunity to create more elaborate, controversial, and innovative programs.

Until now, broadcast television has followed a predictable pattern. If a show does not attract enough viewers, it goes off the air. Sometimes this system functions perfectly (e.g., Who Wants To Marry My Dad?), but it often fails in spectacular fashion. Many of the most innovative shows of the last two decades—shows that generated critical acclaim and cult followings—have been early casualties of the ratings wars.

When such shows get canceled, there are generally two explanations: Either the network didn't know how to market or schedule the show, or the series grew too complex and unwelcoming for casual viewers and latecomers. (Joss Whedon's Firefly is an example of the former, while David Lynch's Twin Peaks exemplifies the latter.) Both scenarios are symptoms of the same problem. There's still an assumption that if a show is good enough, a sizable audience will be sitting in front of the television when it airs. In an age of DVD boxed sets and TiVo, such a belief is fatally flawed.

As iTunes and its inevitable competitors offer more broadcast-television content, producers won't have to depend on couch potatoes as their only audience. They also won't have to compromise their programs to meet broadcast requirements. Episode lengths can vary as needed, content can be darker, more topical, and more explicit. If the networks are clever, these changes can supplement broadcast programming rather than replace it. Audiences already expect director's cuts and deleted scenes on DVDs. It's not hard to imagine that the networks might one day air a "broadcast cut" of an episode, then encourage viewers to download the longer, racier director's cut the next afternoon.

Nor will episodic programs have to be self-contained to remain accessible to new viewers. While DVDs now give viewers the chance to catch up between seasons, on-demand television will allow anyone to catch up at any time, quickly and legally. Producers will no longer have to choose between alienating new viewers with a complex storyline or alienating the established audience by rehashing details from previous episodes. (This would be especially critical for plot-intensive shows like Alias, which has been forced to "reboot" its plot several times to make it accessible to new viewers.) If they're smart, the networks will realize this is not only feasible but extremely profitable. Rather than recapping relevant details from previous episodes ("Previously on Alias ..."), we may soon be encouraged to buy our way up to speed ("Before watching tonight's Alias, download Episodes 4, 5, and 6.")

The most enticing possibility, though, is that on-demand television will allow audiences to take an active role in programming the networks. We've seen several examples of fans banding together to save their favorite programs in the past few years. Fox put Family Guy back into production on the strength of high DVD sales, NBC released Freaks and Geeks on DVD after getting bombarded with petitions, and a fan-organized campaign to resurrect Firefly resulted in last month's big-screen release of Serenity.

Direct downloads will give fans of endangered shows the chance to vote with their wallets while a show is still on the air. And when a program does go off the air, direct payments from fans might provide enough revenue to keep it in production as an online-only venture. If we assume that the average hour-long drama costs $1.5 million per episode and downloads will cost around $2 per viewer, shows would only need a few million viewers to turn a small profit. Would a few million viewers pay $2 a week to download an hour of television? It's certainly not impossible. In the past month, viewers have shelled out more than $30 million for two hours of Serenity. And even if viewers aren't prepared to pay $2 per show, there's nothing to stop the networks from offering free downloads with embedded advertising (which could be far better targeted than the ads networks currently show).

MIT's Henry Jenkins, for one, has already written extensively on potential business models for online, on-demand television. Jenkins outlines a subscription model where viewers pay in advance for an entire season of downloadable episodes, providing the startup capital needed to fund production. Episodes would also be available at a higher cost on a per-episode basis, providing a steady stream of additional funds. Downloadable television also would provide access to a global audience, which would presumably include many viewers who would be thrilled to buy episodes rather than wait for shows to arrive in their country. (The BBC is already well ahead of us on this.)

If iTunes shows us anything, it's that audiences are willing to purchase their media when it is simple, affordable, and convenient. With Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft set to join Apple in the television wars, it's a safe bet that we'll see more major-network content for sale in the near future. For those of us who use peer-to-peer software like BitTorrent to download the shows we miss, there's no rush. For everyone else, I just hope Veronica Mars and Arrested Development will be available for download before the networks give up on them.
Old 11-05-05, 02:08 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Great article. I agree with the model, and I hope they carry it out. I'd LOVE to have it for a show like LOST. I probably wouldn't buy the DVD set because the replay value is low, but I often miss the airing of it, and fall behind in viewing. I'd gladly pay $2/episode to catch up on the missed episodes.

-p
Old 11-05-05, 03:44 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jason
Yeah, and because my pockets are big enough to hold a CD, I should be able to shoplift them without getting caught.
You don't see the difference?

Here's a list of ways I can deprive the studios of revenue without breaking the law:

Borrow the DVD from a friend.
Borrow the DVD from the library.
Record the movie off television and watch it as many times as I want.

Add other complications to the issue: Watch it on Tivo, skipping commercials.

Heck, Tivo will now let you record a movie off television and then burn it to DVD -- or you can simply do it yourself with a standalone dvd player.

Last edited by DodgingCars; 11-05-05 at 04:14 PM.
Old 11-05-05, 03:51 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Bus
The thing that makes movies slightly different than albums/music is because there's just... the movie. The movie doesn't hold tours, it doesn't sell merchandise (most of the time), you can't buy one of the movie's other movies.

With bands, I might've gotten one of their CDs through a friend, but then I went to the concert ($20) and bought a shirt ($20) and maybe I bought a CD or so down the line.
That's true, but to be honest, I rarely go to concerts anymore, so a band is likely only to make money off me from CD sales... If a friend gives me a copy of an album, it will be very much like a friend giving me a copy of a movie.

And studios do have a model to make money off the movies above just the DVD sales -- theres the theater run, PPV, hotels, cable, network tv, DVD sales, DVD rentals (revenue sharing), re-releasing DVDs, legal downloads, etc.

And of course, with certain movies, merchandising is huge: Children's movies, LOTR, Star Wars, etc.
Old 11-05-05, 03:59 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,603
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
We purchase the original movies or receive donated original movies to our library. This is a key issue because ownership implys you have the copyright owners permission to access the contents. We then encode the DVD's with our software, which shrinks the size of the original much like a library makes a microfiche copy of a periodical. This new file is not a copy of the DVD movie but a new creation in it's own right. It is a much smaller version of the DVD and is more acceptable for downloading. When played on a computer the picture is of a lesser quality (although barely perceptible) than the original and generally does not include the additional features that a DVD has. And you wont get ink on your fingers either. We are making these versions available for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes, and claim "Fair Use." Further the DMCA under Title 17 Circular 92 Chapter 12 § 1204(b) provides for "Limitation for Nonprofit Library, Archives, Educational Institution, or Public Broadcasting Entity."

Silly argument. Obviously they haven't read what copyright means. And if they were legit, they should become a library, and have the original copies available for viewing, not some compressed worthless piece of shit compressed version.

And do they think because a person buys a DVD then gives it to them, they are passing the original movie label's rights as well?

If they were really concerned about preservation, do you think they would be compressing the image quality and taking away the features/extras of the movie. That's just premium retarded argumentative crap.

These people don't fall under Title 17 protection, in other words.

Last edited by DVD Polizei; 11-05-05 at 04:01 PM.
Old 11-06-05, 12:35 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
 
D.Pham4GLTE (>60GB)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stick out your tongue!
Posts: 39,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pedagogue
Great article. I agree with the model, and I hope they carry it out. I'd LOVE to have it for a show like LOST. I probably wouldn't buy the DVD set because the replay value is low, but I often miss the airing of it, and fall behind in viewing. I'd gladly pay $2/episode to catch up on the missed episodes.

-p
well, if it's one or two eps, then no biggie, but a whole season would cost just about the same as buying the DVD.

and it also depends on the quality of the video.
Old 11-06-05, 08:48 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk God
 
twikoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Right Behind You!!!
Posts: 79,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Forum Troll
they say they use mainly DIVX compression. Can you imagine how bad the quality is?

not sure why you would expect the quality to be bad
if do it properly, divx can be ripped at much higher resolution than svcd and slightly below standard dvd quality

http://www.videohelp.com/comparison.htm
Old 11-06-05, 08:52 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,082
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by DodgingCars
You don't see the difference?

Here's a list of ways I can deprive the studios of revenue without breaking the law:

Borrow the DVD from a friend.
Borrow the DVD from the library.
Record the movie off television and watch it as many times as I want.

Add other complications to the issue: Watch it on Tivo, skipping commercials.

Heck, Tivo will now let you record a movie off television and then burn it to DVD -- or you can simply do it yourself with a standalone dvd player.
The problem with dowloading v. swiping like this is that when you burn a copy of a friend's DVD, you're making one. When you post it on the net, you're making hundreds, if not thousands. Plus, the schemes you mentioned above involve a certain amount of work, which acts as a deterrent.

And who says you're not breaking the law? You? Copyright violation has nothing to do with monetary gain.
Old 11-06-05, 10:30 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DodgingCars
It might have been a bad analogy, but others have been proposed:

Library loaning out movies, music, books for free.
Taping radio/TV/cable broadcasts of movies and music
Loaning copies to friends
Making mix tapes or even copying full albums for friends.

What makes these so different from downloading? It's illegal to download a copy of Black Eyed Peas new single (through p2p), yet it's ok to tape it off the radio? What about making a copy for a friend? Illegal, yes... but would you call someone who did that a thief (as the term is being thrown around now)?

I use to be more militant about this too -- and I still don't download music/movies through p2p because I want to support the artists. But I'm starting to see that despite the law, this is much greyer than some people (especially the mpaa and riaa) are trying to make it out. Calling someone a thief for downloading a movie is the new thing -- but no one thought twice about recording movies from cable, making copies of albums for friends, etc before the whole internet file-sharing thing became popular.

libraries have very limited quantities of things so you may have to wait months to borrow something. And you have to return it. The purpose of a library is to promote art and literature to people who may not be able to afford to purchase it.

The others you have to buy media to make the copy, spend time doing so,etc. It's no big deal if you make a copy for a friend, but would you spend the cash and time to make 100,000 copies for people around the world?

What possible fair use can you argue when you distribute other people's work to millions of people around the world at once? If these people can afford computers, then they can probably afford to buy the movie or whatever. Or they can go borrow it from the library.
Old 11-06-05, 04:52 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jason
The problem with dowloading v. swiping like this is that when you burn a copy of a friend's DVD, you're making one. When you post it on the net, you're making hundreds, if not thousands. Plus, the schemes you mentioned above involve a certain amount of work, which acts as a deterrent.
You're right. There is a difference between posting a movie to the internet and making a copy for a friend.

But there's also a difference between downloading a movie from the internet and shoplifting a DVD from Best Buy.

My only point was it's not as cut and dry as "it's stealing" as some people try to make it.

And who says you're not breaking the law? You? Copyright violation has nothing to do with monetary gain.
Care to point me to the copyright laws that show any of the things in my post as illegal?
Old 11-06-05, 04:55 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by D.Pham00
well, if it's one or two eps, then no biggie, but a whole season would cost just about the same as buying the DVD.

and it also depends on the quality of the video.
I agree.

I would only do it a few times.

-p
Old 11-06-05, 04:56 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by al_bundy
libraries have very limited quantities of things so you may have to wait months to borrow something. And you have to return it. The purpose of a library is to promote art and literature to people who may not be able to afford to purchase it.

The others you have to buy media to make the copy, spend time doing so,etc. It's no big deal if you make a copy for a friend, but would you spend the cash and time to make 100,000 copies for people around the world?

What possible fair use can you argue when you distribute other people's work to millions of people around the world at once? If these people can afford computers, then they can probably afford to buy the movie or whatever. Or they can go borrow it from the library.
I wasn't arguing fair use at all. I was just pointing out that it's not as black and white as people try to make it out. Even you seem to be excusing illegal activity (making a copy for a friend) yet people have no problem calling someone who downloads something a thief.

I understand, for most, the problem is volume. But I also pointed out that it's just as easy to tape a movie from television as it is to download the movie.

I'm not arguing that it should be ok to share a movie on the internet. I'm just arguing that people should stop throwing around terms like "thief", "stealing", etc. They're loaded words.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.