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

[jguitar]

There are two things that fascinate me in the arguments of the pro-filesharing folks. One is the assumption "I have the right to have access to whatever film I might want to see." Remembering, as I do, the pre-DVD and even VHS days, and having grown up in the sticks, this just seems like bizarre thinking to me. Practically every film I read about growing up I couldn't see. When I moved to the big city, I was finally able to see scads of films I'd only dreamed of seeing before, and what a treat it was. Only to discover, as I learned more, that there were scads other films that I couldn't see for various reasons. And so it ever goes. The world is bigger than our desires, and what a good thing too. Somehow, I'm able to drag myself through life without having access to whatever I want when I want it.

The second thing has to do with another assumption. It seems to me that most of the arguments of the pro-filesharers were originally developed as ripostes to Big Faceless Corporations. Of course, that doesn't make those arguments correct from a purely legal standpoint--the law is fairly clear here. But I think that people could make themselves feel a bit better for stealing by thinking that they were "only" ripping off the Big Faceless Corporation, or by striking a blow against "the man," or whatever. Somehow, the "corporation" doesn't seem so faceless, and "the man" doesn't seem so oppressive when it's peerpee and Bikey. A lot of the pro-filesharer arguments hinge upon a legal vs. ethical distinction--they make themselves feel better by claiming ethical rights where they have no legal rights. But they twist themselves into knots in making those same arguments regarding MoC, Second Run, et al. More than they ever have before, they simply strike me as poor, self-serving arguments.

I operate purely out of self-interest here: I want MoC and Second Run to build successful, sustainable businesses doing what they're doing because I value their work immensely. I certainly do see filesharers as a direct threat to that.

Oh, and one last thing: if you can't afford an MoC DVD, you don't buy it, and you wait until you can buy it. While it frustrates my childish need to want what I want when I want it, it seems to somehow magically work.

[MichaelB]

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

Yes, but that's because Paramount is a gigantic megacorporation with very deep pockets. Also, they own The Conformist outright and presumably have instant access to the highest-quality materials. I suspect they probably also have in-house telecine and mastering facilities too.

Compare this to my current project, where the company who'll ultimately be releasing it owns none of the 32 separate items that I'm chasing, and pretty much every technical stage has to be outsourced to a third party. Just to make things even tougher for myself, several different countries are involved, and most of the masters are coming from Eastern Europe.

So without in any way wishing to disparage the producer of the DVD of The Conformist, who did a fine job aside from the yellow subtitles, I think it's very safe to say that it was a considerably more straightforward project in terms of materials and logistics. And therefore vastly cheaper.

[peerpee]

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

Toiletduck, be clear, I have no qualms about anything I've said. It represents how I feel. I'm sick-to-death of these bleating, moany arguments trying to justify filesharing.

[Subbuteo]

Nick you will never change the attitude of some of these absurd viewpoints, many of which are pathetically attempting to justify their consumer addiction of acquiring every film by this and that director. Clearly some will go to any lengths to do so... including theft!

I am convinced that it is nothing to do with prior knowledge of the film (particulary in the young) but a sad need to fill a void in a somewhat stunted social life. I exclude the majority of this forum's membership in this viewpoint, but see it everywhere on other forums.

Sadly its the integrity of the likes of MOC et. al. which are threatened by such addiction.

[ambrose1am]

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

Yup, they're expensive. But worth it.

Are they? Not sure about that. I love my CCs and MOCs, but when I look at them now I'm not sure they're worth the thousands of dollars I've spent on them. I guess that is, as Nick says, my issue.

OK, Paramount was a bad example. How about HVE titles, for example. Cheap discs, good films, good packages. Anyway, the crux of the issue comes down to two things: What is fair use? What does the market demand?

The best recent development related to these issues is Criterion's blog. I applaud Peter Becker's effort to allow customers a window into the operation. It's long overdue.

[ambrose1am]

There are two things that fascinate me in the arguments of the pro-filesharing folks. One is the assumption "I have the right to have access to whatever film I might want to see." Remembering, as I do, the pre-DVD and even VHS days, and having grown up in the sticks, this just seems like bizarre thinking to me.

And so why don't I have the right to access what I want? I remember the high-priced VHS player, too, and I spent a large amount of time over the past 20 years watching foreign films on screens. But times and technology have changed. It's now impossible to watch everything you want.

A lot of the pro-filesharer arguments hinge upon a legal vs. ethical distinction--they make themselves feel better by claiming ethical rights where they have no legal rights. But they twist themselves into knots in making those same arguments regarding MoC, Second Run, et al. More than they ever have before, they simply strike me as poor, self-serving arguments.

There are legal and ethical distinctions. I'm sorry you want to abdicate your rights as a citizen and consumer so willingly.

I operate purely out of self-interest here: I want MoC and Second Run to build successful, sustainable businesses doing what they're doing because I value their work immensely. I certainly do see filesharers as a direct threat to that.

I want them to succeed, too. And so they shall: file sharing hasn't put them out of business. There's an argument to be made that it's a showcase for the product.

Oh, and one last thing: if you can't afford an MoC DVD, you don't buy it, and you wait until you can buy it. While it frustrates my childish need to want what I want when I want it, it seems to somehow magically work.

Capitalism is not magic.

[jguitar]

It's not much worth responding here, but what the hell, it's Friday. I think it's interesting that ambrose1am thinks that one's "rights as a citizen and consumer" include stealing. I'm also glad that he seems to infer pro-capitalist arguments from my post ("Capitalism is not magic") because that allows me to mention something else I thought while reading this thread. Some of the pro-filesharing arguments seem to rest upon a confused notion of anarchism, or perhaps an even more confused notion of socialism. For whatever it's worth, I'm a red. And as much as I'd like to live in a society where cultural products received the support they deserve and there were no marketplace restrictions on films, music, and books, wishing doesn't make it so. The fact is, MoC and the others operate in capitalist markets because they have to. Filesharing doesn't somehow advance the revolution.

Fortunately, we don't have to speculate on the effects of filesharing on small labels. We can listen to what they say. What peerpee and Bikey say carries a great deal more weight with me than the faux-utopian fantasies of the filesharers.

[Michael Kerpan]

Simply stealing anything one would like to have is no more characteristic of socialism than it is of capitalism. Anarchism, perhaps....

[ambrose1am]

It's not much worth responding here, but what the hell, it's Friday. I think it's interesting that ambrose1am thinks that one's "rights as a citizen and consumer" include stealing. I'm also glad that he seems to infer pro-capitalist arguments from my post ("Capitalism is not magic") because that allows me to mention something else I thought while reading this thread. Some of the pro-filesharing arguments seem to rest upon a confused notion of anarchism, or perhaps an even more confused notion of socialism. For whatever it's worth, I'm a red. And as much as I'd like to live in a society where cultural products received the support they deserve and there were no marketplace restrictions on films, music, and books, wishing doesn't make it so. The fact is, MoC and the others operate in capitalist markets because they have to. Filesharing doesn't somehow advance the revolution.

Fortunately, we don't have to speculate on the effects of filesharing on small labels. We can listen to what they say. What peerpee and Bikey say carries a great deal more weight with me than the faux-utopian fantasies of the filesharers.

I'm playing devil's advocate here and arguing for the sake of arguing. Copyright infringement is not a black or white issue, and I'm not arguing that socialism would be better for Criterion or MOC, or that file sharing is a representation of socialism. Those are different points. You want to impose rigidity where there is ambiguity. The free market makes us all consumers, right? Well, file sharing is part of the free market. Torrent sites are like revenue sharing in baseball, a pooling of assets, except it's more democratic, not just for millionaires. File sharing exists because of unfair pricing and market-driven technology.

I'm not saying I can't afford MOC titles. I can, but I think they're overpriced and obviously a lot of other people do, too. But I still pay for them even though I feel like I'm getting ripped off. A friend of mine downloaded an MOC title recently, and I watched it. I loved it so much I just bought a copy. Online. From the UK. Oh, has anyone mentioned that some of those downloaders actually buy those DVDs before or after they download them? Because that always seems to get lost in the counterarguments. I guess that makes downloaders both consumers and thieves--just like MOC and Criterion, consumers for purchasing rights at overinflated prices, and thieves for stealing people's money with their highway-robbery pricing.

Call downloaders stealers or thieves, but the market--the same market that supposedly demands $30+ for an MOC title--adjusted to those prices and created file sharing. If file sharing puts Criterion or MOC out of business I will eat all of my words and shave my head in shame. But it won't. On that note, I'll be buying MOC's Shoah when it is released.[/i]

[Michael Kerpan]

Copyright infringement law may have gray areas -- but online file sharing of complete commercially-available titles is not one of them. It is clearly illegal.

Your economic analysis is just as faulty as your legal analysis. Shoplifting does affect the pricing of good in stores -- but is not part of the "free market" system.

[ambrose1am]

Copyright infringement law may have gray areas -- but online file sharing of complete commercially-available titles is not one of them. It is clearly illegal.

It is not "clearly illegal." The law is contradictory and therefore ambiguous. File sharing and fair use are more nuanced than you seem to want to allow. It is different than shoplifting because the product itself is not being stolen, rather an inferior copy of it. And shoplifters aren't sampling the product so that they can figure out whether to buy it. As long as it isn't being used for commercial purposes, it is not a violation.

[peerpee]

I'm not responding anymore about this issue, I think I've made myself perfectly clear. We now know who's responsible for these sites so I've nothing else to add. Thank you for the support from all those who have PMed and emailed.

[vogler]

Copyright infringement law may have gray areas -- but online file sharing of complete commercially-available titles is not one of them.

I'm glad to see someone drawing a distinction between the downloading of commercially available films and those that aren't commercially available. I do feel that this is an important point. I don't think it is file sharing that people have a problem with; it is actually piracy that people are objecting to. There are all sorts of legitimate uses for file sharing and also these gray areas which many of us would not have a problem with, such as downloading films that are not commercially available (films which we would all buy in an instant if they were released). There is a huge amount of this type of content which is shared. It's a better option than paying a bootlegger; why should they profit from others art?

[Michael Kerpan]

It is not "clearly illegal." The law is contradictory and therefore ambiguous. File sharing and fair use are more nuanced than you seem to want to allow. It is different than shoplifting because the product itself is not being stolen, rather an inferior copy of it. And shoplifters aren't sampling the product so that they can figure out whether to buy it. As long as it isn't being used for commercial purposes, it is not a violation.

You can repeat the same nonsense until your face turns blue -- but it won't make your assertions any more true.

What you are saying is flat out wrong -- and I challenge you to cite even one court decision that supports your interpretation.

[ambrose1am]

It is not "clearly illegal." The law is contradictory and therefore ambiguous. File sharing and fair use are more nuanced than you seem to want to allow. It is different than shoplifting because the product itself is not being stolen, rather an inferior copy of it. And shoplifters aren't sampling the product so that they can figure out whether to buy it. As long as it isn't being used for commercial purposes, it is not a violation.

You can repeat the same nonsense until your face turns blue -- but it won't make your assertions any more true.

What you are saying is flat out wrong -- and I challenge you to cite even one court decision that supports your interpretation.

Obviously, Swedish law disagrees with you, and French law is looking like it will join the Swedes. Can't really cite one from the US, though I'm sure it's far from over here. Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

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

You need to get a grip on the issue here too. We are not talking about stealing or thievery. We are talking about copyright infringement. Someone going into a store and taking a copy of one of your DVDs is stealing it. Someone making and distributing a copy of one of your DVDs without your permission is infringing copyright. Under UK law and that of most civilised countries (aside from the US) this is a civil offence, while theft is a criminal offence.

For all of the people here who are putting up reasons why they are downloading copyrighted material, just remember that none of these reasons will hold up in court. You are breaking the law, pure and simple. While I might object to Peerpee's rhetoric his point is perfectly valid: no-one has the right to copy or distribute MoC DVDs without the permission of the copyright holder.

If you are stuck for stuff to watch, why not go to The Internet Archive? They have over 600 complete feature films, plus hundreds of shorts, all out of copyright and quite legal to download.

[Michael Kerpan]

Obviously, Swedish law disagrees with you, and French law is looking like it will join the Swedes. Can't really cite one from the US, though I'm sure it's far from over here. Is there a lawyer in the house?

You still have not provided a single case citation. Or any reference that supports your assertions.

So what is obvious? Nothing I can see.

[Gregory]

The mere legality shouldn't be the main point here because I think most people who engage in this kind of filesharing are aware that it is illegal yet feel entitled to do it. The question is whether or not they are entitled. With a label like MoC, my own view is that there is simply no justification for it.

If people feel they can buy only so many DVD and wish to download additional films to help satiate their addiction, why not buy releases from CC, MoC, etc. and download or burn films owned by Fox, MGM, Paramount etc.? It seems a no-brainer that some labels are more worthy of support than others. MoC's very existence clearly depends greatly on purchases from the most dedicated cinephiles. The big corporations have enormous market advantages over smaller companies, and their sheer size alone means they are less impacted by filesharing. MoC discs are not overpriced by any reasonable standard that takes into account the scale of demand, the assorted challenges and risks that confront small labels in the marketplace, and the enormous amounts of effort required for these releases the extent of which members of this forum (myself included) are blissfully unaware.

We can all discuss the legal and moral ramifications of filesharing and piracy at length, but I would insist that there is a crucial difference between swiping something from a corporate chain store vs. the neighborhood independent retailer, to make an analogy.

[MichaelB]

Can I hazard a guess that ambrose1am neither owns nor represents intellectual property with any commercial value?

It's very easy to be glib about this sort of thing if your livelihood isn't being threatened by piracy. And Nick and Bikey are absolutely right: at the wafer-thin margins on which they operate, every lost sale matters. And every release that performs below expectations means that they'll be less inclined to take risks with subsequent ones - so EVERYONE loses out in the long run.

Gregory's neighbourhood retailer analogy is an excellent one. Not that there should be a grey area here anyway - pretty much every DVD explicitly forbids you from copying it in the legal notice that you have to sit through every time you load it up - but it's certainly true that certain types of piracy do less damage than others. And pirating discs from small independent labels is both legally AND morally indefensible.

[MichaelB]

The degree of French protection to even unclaimed copyright for unclaimed auteurs is extraordinary and is only exceeded (in terms of unenforcability) by the Australian laws on Copying anything to and from any differing format (another problem in itself), as against the actual "intellectual copyright"/droits d'auteurs" principles which underly French law. At some level anyone can argue with (legally) Australian law about the forms of copying, but French law - as I understand it quite clearly - is hard as a rock.

This is absolutely correct. Although there was a bit of a kerfuffle involving French copyright law recently (which is what I assume ambrose1am was referring to), this had nothing to do with the underlying notion of moral rights. And unless those are reformed at a fundamental level (which would probably require a second French Revolution), the rights of the artist and rightsholder are paramount.

I'd also be very intrigued to read some genuinely informed commentary on how Swedish law applies to people filesharing copyrighted DVDs. These cases, reported in October, suggests that it's far from the free-for-all that some are trying to claim - not least as both the copyright infringers were successfully convicted.

[vogler]

I am NOT talking about downlaods of non copyright material, like the Dainah la Metrisse... Or the tons of PD material that has been circulating the net for years before filesharing became sexy. Obviously. Or is it not obvious to you.?

There are many seemingly 'obvious' points in debates but nevertheless they still need clarifying. What is obvious to some may not be obvious to others. Many people are probably unaware of the legitimate uses for file sharing.

[Tommaso]

Just a few points.

I cannot quite understand how people can think that MoC dvds are over-priced. While it may be true that if you live in the US they may be considerably more expensive than your usual Image or Kino dvd,but they certainly are not when compared to the Criterion prices, and if I have a look at the prices of many MoC dvds available here in Europe (from play or from cd-wow, for example), they are often even cheaper than a normal shoddy German standard-priced dvd in any shop (even online sellers like amazon) here in Germany. And conversely, when I have to buy dvds from the US, they will be more expensive. So pricing has to do with where you live, and I have to pay more for a Criterion or Kino disc here than the folks in the US have to. And it's perfectly normal. And in addition, even excluding this factor, MoC products are of a much higher quality than most other dvds. Not just transfer-wise, but also of course design and booklet-wise. And it's reasonable to charge more for this than for your usual barebones Warner release.

I agree that file-sharing of officially available material or dvd production has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, but it also wouldn't be defendable under anarchism. Anarchism has nothing to do with a do-what-you-like attitude, but rather with mutual respect for other people and their legitimate wishes and rights.

As someone pointed out, many people who download films already spent all of their money for dvds and have a huge collection, and apparently these are addicted to seeing more films. Are they? Are they really interested in these films, or is just a somewhat psychic urge to HAVE more and more stuff? A friend of mine has this sort of addiction, his flat is full of dvds and cds, some of them still in their original cellophane wrap, and that for years now. He only has them, but he doesn't use them. And even if someone manages to actually WATCH all these things, is there the same appreciation, the same magic exuding from a particular film as there would be if one watched, say, perhaps just two films per week? It's not appreciation of film, it's just thoughtless and tiring consuming.

Toilet Dcuk, thanks for making your point on Beckett more clear. Although I think discussing the ethical/artistic implications of changing around/cutting a theatre piece would lead us way off-topic here, I have always wondered that apparently in theatrical arts it's considered to be completely normal to make changes and sometimes even distort the original idea of a playwright. Noone would do that with a film: see all the cries and discussions here about dvds missing a scene, wrong colour schemes etc, edited versions for the sake of getting an age certificate lower than "18" etc. But as you say, it's basically an ethical thing, and if monetary aspects on the part of the heirs come up, well I agree... burn that flag... And there are many instances where the heirs are much less open to those changes you mention than the actual playwright/author himself.

Finally, while I agree that some of Nick's posts were perhaps not very helpful in their tone, I can understand them perfectly well, because it's obvious that these file-sharers do not have the least respect for the producer of the work they 'share'. I have had similar experiences for myself, being a (part-time) musician who – unlike Nick – need not/cannot make a living from his work. But nevertheless a lot of time and (partly my own personal) money goes into the recording and releasing of the music. So, once, after a concert, I had a talk with two members of the audience who both apparently liked the thing very much, and one of them actually bought the cd. When I asked the other one whether she also wanted to buy one, she simply said, smiling: "No, I don't have to, my friend here will make me a copy". Perhaps it's silly to complain about this, but I felt genuinely hurt at that moment and wished we had put some bloody copy protection thingy on the cd. It was not meant as an unfriendly or disregarding comment by her at all, I'm sure, but it shows that people do not even think about the efforts it takes to produce and release something worthwhile, that they regard music/films as something coming 'out of nothing', for free. It's perfectly legal for her to get a copy from her friend, of course, but that doesn't make it any better. And if that happens often enough or visibly enough (like people sharing MoC dvds), it's perfectly understandable if Nick reacts the way he did.

[vogler]

Just a few points.
I cannot quite understand how people can think that MoC dvds are over-priced. While it may be true that if you live in the US they may be considerably more expensive than your usual Image or Kino dvd,but they certainly are not when compared to the Criterion prices, and if I have a look at the prices of many MoC dvds available here in Europe (from play or from cd-wow, for example), they are often even cheaper than a normal shoddy German standard-priced dvd in any shop (even online sellers like amazon) here in Germany. And conversely, when I have to buy dvds from the US, they will be more expensive. So pricing has to do with where you live, and I have to pay more for a Criterion or Kino disc here than the folks in the US have to.

I totally agree with you on this point and I had thought this myself. I always tend to think of Criterion dvds as being expensive but that is mostly because of how much it costs me to import them from the U.S. I have now found that the cheapest way is to use U.S. sellers through amazon.co.uk, an option that I think is available on all the amazon sites. This means you only pay the domestic postage charge. MOC prices seem to be pretty standard to me and like MichaelB pointed out, they can easily be found much cheaper if you shop around. I bought almost all of my MOC dvds for between 8 and 13 pounds. I do not think that MOC dvds are overpriced. All dvds are expensive and I wish they were cheaper but compared to other dvd labels I think you are getting a lot for your money.

As someone pointed out, many people who download films already spent all of their money for dvds and have a huge collection, and apparently these are addicted to seeing more films. Are they? Are they really interested in these films, or is just a somewhat psychic urge to HAVE more and more stuff?.

I don't know - there could be some truth to that with some people. I personally only download material that is not commercially available. I do download far too much and have loads of rare silents and avant-garde films which I've not had time to watch but the reason I do this is that I am worried if I don't download these things now then they will no longer be available in the future. Every rare L'Herbier, Gance, Epstein etc. needs to be grabbed now. This does not really apply to commercially available material.

[MichaelB]

I personally only download material that is not commercially available. I do download far too much and have loads of rare silents and avant-garde films which I've not had time to watch but the reason I do this is that I am worried if I don't download these things now then they will no longer be available in the future. Every rare L'Herbier, Gance, Epstein etc. needs to be grabbed now. This does not really apply to commercially available material.

I've only once downloaded a recent film from a clearly illicit source, and that was Esma's Secret about three weeks ago.

And my conscience is just about clear on this, because:

1. I was reviewing it for Sight & Sound and wanted to check a couple of plot points as I'd made the fatal mistake of letting too much time lapse between viewing and writing;
2. I'd already seen it on the big screen, courtesy of its distributor (from whom I almost certainly would have been able to get a DVD screener if I'd been really desperate);
3. I deleted it immediately after I submitted my review, which wasn't much of a wrench as the quality was crap (the video, not the review - or at least I hope not!)

So that really was a genuinely victimless crime, and although I'll freely hold my hands up and admit to copyright infringement, I doubt even the filmmaker would have had a problem with this case. True, my review wasn't exactly a rave, but at least it should be unimpeachably accurate when it comes to the factual elements.

(Talking of which, is it true that the New Yorker's legendary fact-checking department even goes as far as to send a minion out to watch the films reviewed by Pauline Kael, Anthony Lane et al and fact-check all their assertions before publication?)

[vogler]

So that really was a genuinely victimless crime, and although I'll freely hold my hands up and admit to copyright infringement, I doubt even the filmmaker would have had a problem with this case. True, my review wasn't exactly a rave, but at least it should be unimpeachably accurate when it comes to the factual elements.

This is a good example of the grey areas that exist in the file sharing debate. The issue is not black and white and there is a continuous scale of legality ranging from the obviously legal (public domain) through to the obviously illegal (commercially available dvds). My concern is that file sharing often seems to be attacked indiscriminately and I fear this could result in the loss of what is potentially a very valuable tool for the spreading of legal material. Banning file sharing outright, as many would like to do, is a bit like banning knives because they can be used to stab people (something which the U.K. government has actually considered). What I would like to see is the establishment of p2p sites that only contain links to non commercially available material and enforcing a strict policy to ensure there are no dvd rips of commercially available products. This would then present the other side of the file sharing debate and promote the dissemination of all kinds of wonderful rare material that would be of benefit to a great number of people.