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

News on Eureka and Masters of Cinema.
Locked
Message
Author
User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#101 Post by MichaelB » Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:22 pm

Andreas wrote:Yes ofcourse producing a dvd contains a number of different costs,
but what are you saying, that if the costs went down the price would not?
No, I'm saying the exact opposite - if prices are forced down because people refuse to pay more than, say, $10, then the production costs will have to drop just as dramatically if the distributors are to stay in business.

I've already spelled out what that means in terms of the quality of the end product.
Sure, maby they would have to start selling films as data over internet insted, and then we would not get our lovely keepcases.
But you know whats even better? More people get to se the films!
Don't you think that's what Fritz and Dreyer wanted when they made them?
Well, since you've cited two of the most supremely visual of all filmmakers, I suspect the answer is a pretty clear-cut "no". It's bad enough watching Vampyr in a poor 35mm print - drop the quality to YouTube standard and it borders on unwatchability. So no, I don't remotely think that this is what Dreyer would have wanted.

(And while I can only speculate on those two filmmakers' views, I can absolutely guarantee it's not what Stanley Kubrick would have wanted, as I can confirm from personal experience that he regularly sent spies to check out the print quality at repertory screenings of his films. And if the prints got a bad report, I'd get a call from Kubrick's office, after which the print would quietly be removed from circulation. In fact, the only UK release print of Paths of Glory was effectively removed from distribution for years as a direct result of this - and the irony is that Kubrick didn't even own the rights to that title!)

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

#102 Post by vogler » Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:04 pm

For those that find MOC dvds too expensive and don't already know about this, here is a price comparison site for U.K. dvd retail. Just enter the title and search and you get a list of the price of that dvd at all the major U.K. online retailers. There are major savings to be made, for example The Face Of Another is currently only £9.89. at sendit.com as are Onibaba and Kuroneko.

I use this site for every U.K. dvd that I buy and it saves me an absolute fortune.

User avatar
davebert
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: NY
Contact:

#103 Post by davebert » Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:17 pm

Also CD-Wow occasionally has fantastic offers for American customers, such as Onibaba for $7 USD and Punishment Park for $13. It's all about having a nice list and then taking whatever's most affordable at the moment. (Although bargain hunting is how I ended up with a pile of unwatched DVDs large enough it could topple over and pin me to the floor.)

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

#104 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:03 am

ambrose1am wrote:Do any of them know Swedish law and why pirating is tolerated there?
The unauthorized downloading or uploading of copyrighted material has been illegal in Sweden since they implemented the EU Copyright Directive in July 2005. But trackers like ADC and TPB don't actually host copyrighted material and only facilitate copyright violations, which isn't illegal under Swedish law. Thus only individual uploaders and downloaders within Sweden itself can be prosecuted, which is orders of magnitude less efficient than going after the trackers themselves. Furthermore, there's still some confusion as to what burden of proof must be met to secure a conviction -- one court ruled that prosecutors actually had to produce the accused's computer (which was impossible, since Swedish law only allows house searches for crimes punishable by imprisonment), but another court disagreed and upheld a conviction based only on ISP logs.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#105 Post by zedz » Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:36 pm

ambrose1am wrote:First, they may be full DVD rips, but they are still not the legitimate product. People aren't downloading the actual MOC DVD with the MOC label stamped on the surface and the booklet with the nice paper and the Amray DVD case. They are downloading copies of data.
How disingenuous can you get? Clearly the core of MoC's product is the 'data' - the movie - and it's where the bulk of their outlay has been. Or do you honestly think that MoC's customers see their releases as incredibly expensive Amaray cases containing silver ornaments for hanging from their Christmas tree?
It's not the consumer's fault that producers haven't created a good business model to satisfy their needs. In many ways, it's besides the point whether it's illegal or not. Whether a downloader feels it's legal or illegal is besides the point; the market has decided that it is there to download.
It seems to me that the 'good business model' to which your dubious logic is pointing is one in which the kind of marginal films which MoC and others deal in simply would not be published. Thank God the people behind these labels are not mere businessmen. Your analogy with mass-market publishing is specious. That model would (and, to an extent, already does) apply to major label DVD releases. With MoC, the comparison would be to small specialist presses or academic publishers, and I don't see their wares arrayed on trestle tables at Book Barn, Inc. But I do see them struggling to stay in business.

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#106 Post by Gordon » Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:58 pm

We live in a world increasingly devoid of logical morality. Conversely, we live in a world of increasing amounts of arseholes. If a window of opportunity for exploitation opens, then you can bet your balls that one of the arseholes in the global ghetto will pounce with ferocious glee. FUCKING CUNTS! :x

A sensible strategy would be to try and persuade all major UK etailers to stop shipping to Sweden and Asia. Harsh, but ya gotta fight fire wit' fire.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

#107 Post by Tommaso » Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:47 pm

Gordon wrote:A sensible strategy would be to try and persuade all major UK etailers to stop shipping to Sweden and Asia. Harsh, but ya gotta fight fire wit' fire.
Just for the problem that you needn't be in Sweden to upload your files to a Swedish file-sharing site.

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#108 Post by Gordon » Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:56 pm

Ah, so it isn't just the owners of the site who upload the files? For some reason, I thought that the guy was buying the DVDs and ripping them himself. Murky business.

ambrose1am
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

#109 Post by ambrose1am » Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:59 pm

zedz wrote:How disingenuous can you get? Clearly the core of MoC's product is the 'data' - the movie - and it's where the bulk of their outlay has been. Or do you honestly think that MoC's customers see their releases as incredibly expensive Amray cases containing. silver ornaments for hanging from their Christmas tree?
I'm an MoC customer, and yes, the product is the data. But I'm not going to argue anymore about the fact that file-sharing, and file-sharing software, is legal, and that there are gray areas between privacy, intellectual property, and a personal sense of ethics. I have simply tried to pose the argument that the Internet and file sharing have changed the idea of intellectual property, that there are gray areas, and that large companies more and more are encroaching on people's privacy rights.

I have listened to a lot of small DVD-company owners in this thread, and I am persuaded by the intellectual property rights arguments. There are many artists who support file sharing willingly; others don't. Customers should respect the opinions of the ones who don't. Generally, I try not to download or copy material if an artist has come out against downloading and file sharing (Robert Fripp, for example), or if an artist is operating a small company, and downloading something would personally make me feel like a cretin (Greg Sage and the Wipers, for example). In fact, I have rarely downloaded or traded anything that isn't unavailable in R1 or completely obscure or OOP. I draw a distinction here between copying the occasional CD that a friend bought, or sharing something I converted to MP3. Why? Because I do. I don't feel sharing what I own with friends is violating anything, especially the spirit of the artist. If a friend comes over to my house 25 times and I play the same album for him every time, should we pay the artist 25 times because my friend didn't purchase it? Is there a difference between playing something 25 times for someone or burning them a copy of the album? Where do you draw the line? Then again, sometimes (Greg Sage again) I will tell friends that they should just buy a copy of an album because it's affordable and worth supporting the artist. Sometimes I don't.

I grew up making cassette tapes of albums during my teenage years, and have retained the concept that making "tapes" for friends is not a violation of any rights. Some people disagree with that. Maybe they should sue the tech companies and programmers that allow people to extract digital files instead. Oh wait, tech companies have been sued for this, and yet Apple, for example, keeps releasing new LEGAL versions of iTunes, which you can use to extract digital files from copyright protected CDs. Sorry, but I have listened to new albums at a friend's house, burned a copy of the CD, and then went to see the band live, and spent money on a t-shirt, too. This is the kind of economic fluidity that feels threatened by overly prohibitive copyright protection.

But back to your point about the product. Of course the data is the product. What I can do with the data I purchased is the question. But to the point, for many people, myself included, it is the packaging--the design, paper quality, and attention to detail (well written and EDITED copy [I work as an editor and notice these things, British style notwithstanding]), not to mention a good selection of essays--that separates CC and MoC from other smaller companies. A lot of smaller companies are doing decent transfers of films; most of them do not do packaging well. And these are mass-produced media products, after all, but don't tell me you don't fetishize over them because that would be disingenuous. You wouldn't be a member of the Criterion Collection forum if you didn't. So the package matters.
zedz wrote:It seems to me that the 'good business model' to which your dubious logic is pointing is one in which the kind of marginal films which MoC and others deal in simply would not be published. Thank God the people behind these labels are not mere businessmen. Your analogy with mass-market publishing is specious. That model would (and, to an extent, already does)apply to major label DVD releases. With MoC, the comparison would be to small specialist presses or academic publishers, and I don't see their wares arrayed on trestle tables at Book Barn, Inc. But I do see them struggling to stay in business.
What is dubious to me is that the music and film industry still hasn't figured out how to deal with downloading and digital media in the real world, and that you are giving them a pass for that.

As for publishing, I said nothing about mass-market publishing. I should have made this clear but I was talking about niche-market, i.e. "literary," publishing. And I routinely see hardcover and first-run paperbacks of smaller, "literary" titles marked way down in the independent bookstores where I live. Maybe not at Borders or Barnes and Noble though.

But this is a separate discussion, really. The film and music industries (especially music) are overcharging, or have an inflated sense of value, about their products when compared to book publishing. (That said, we aren't in the laserdisc days anymore, thankfully. That they could get away with what they charged for laserdiscs then is precisely the point.) However, the book-publishing industry is probably to blame for its own demise, to be honest, because it started "taking back" books that didn't sell, and crediting bookstores. To some extent, book publishing has never recovered from that. Nevertheless, books are cheaper for customers because of this--if you know where to look, or, I guess, live near some good independent bookstores. Anyway, I think MoC and CC could mark down their products even more and still manage to stay in business. They're doing well; don't let the poverty and profit-margin cries fool you.
Last edited by ambrose1am on Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

#110 Post by Tommaso » Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:10 pm

Gordon wrote:Ah, so it isn't just the owners of the site who upload the files? For some reason, I thought that the guy was buying the DVDs and ripping them himself. Murky business.
As far as I understand it, the owner of the site only provides the 'platform' for anyone willing to register and share their files. That's what makes it so difficult to stop filesharing in the first place.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#111 Post by MichaelB » Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:27 pm

ambrose1am wrote:Anyway, I think MoC and CC could mark down their products even more and still manage to stay in business. They're doing well; don't let the poverty and profit-margin cries fool you.
Yet again you make an assertion that's not supported by any actual evidence.

And in this case, you're directly contradicting claims made repeatedly in this very thread by someone who actually works for MoC.

In other words, you would appear to be calling him a liar - which is a pretty serious accusation to make in a public forum, given that he's an identifiable individual with a professional reputation to protect.

User avatar
davebert
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: NY
Contact:

#112 Post by davebert » Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:48 pm

I bet the Naruse test discs make for some pretty bitchin' spinners on peerpee's gleaming new Cadillac!

ambrose1am
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

#113 Post by ambrose1am » Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:00 pm

MichaelB wrote:Yet again you make an assertion that's not supported by any actual evidence.

And in this case, you're directly contradicting claims made repeatedly in this very thread by someone who actually works for MoC.

In other words, you would appear to be calling him a liar - which is a pretty serious accusation to make in a public forum, given that he's an identifiable individual with a professional reputation to protect.
You know, after all that I wrote, it's weird that you would respond to only that comment. I just wrote that I respect artists who don't support file sharing, and wouldn't download their work because of that. For the last time, I am not putting MoC or you out of business. I have spent thousands of dollars supporting your business, and I'm not sure I want to anymore. I see you're trying to provoke me, so I'm done posting in this thread. It seems we're doomed to talk past each other w/r/t this issue.
Last edited by ambrose1am on Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

amnesiac
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:27 pm

#114 Post by amnesiac » Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:03 pm

Disregarding the legality and/or morality of downloading a full DVD for a moment. Does anyone really think that these bittorrent sites can be stopped? You may be successful in bringing down one site, but more will pop up in it's place (or in the case of the Pirate Bay, they will just move to another ISP in another country).

Downloading is here to stay, whether we like it or not.
Gordon wrote:A sensible strategy would be to try and persuade all major UK etailers to stop shipping to Sweden and Asia. Harsh, but ya gotta fight fire wit' fire.
That really is the most idiotic idea expressed in this thread. Those in England, USA, France, Australia etc., do not upload full DVDs?

User avatar
Jun-Dai
監督
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:34 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#115 Post by Jun-Dai » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:34 am

The argument that libraries buy their discs before sharing (or that people selling discs used have paid for them, even if the second- and third-generation buyers have not paid the rightsholders in any sense) holds the same for people making the discs available for download, the difference--legality aside--is in the ratio of viewers to purchasers.

With a library or a rental service, even though no one viewing the disc has paid the rightsholders for it, it's inconceivable that the number of people watching the films this way would vastly outnumber those purchasing the discs, at least partly due to the bottleneck of the service (e.g., if it's checked out a week at a time on average) and the physical medium itself (how many times can the average DVD be handled and watched by the average user before it doesn't work anymore?). With P2P, theoretically every person owning a modern computer and a broadband connection could watch it with only one person purchasing it, which of course would be a nightmare for MoC, bringing up a visceral reaction in any sane content producer, even if in practice the ratio is somewhat closer to that of the library system.

I don't see the appeal to people's sense of ethics or law-abidingness as being likely to prevent the discs from being made available for download. Frankly, I don't see anything preventing that. The only hope you have lies in two pretty strong possibilities: (1) that customers will continue to buy the discs because they don't know how to download them or would prefer the 'official' release for whatever reasons (packaging, legality, etc.); and (2) that customers will buy the discs (regardless of whether they download them) because they want to support the company.

Making the discs available for illegal download is definitely not a victimless crime, but it's also pretty much unstoppable.

Downloading the discs, on the other hand, is pretty clearly a victimless crime--more so than speeding, in fact, where the victims are those affected by the driver's arguably reckless choice to speed. If a person, Mike, chooses to download a DVD, the producer has lost nothing except arguably the opportunity cost wherein Mike now has less of an incentive to purchase it for the sake of seeing it, but that opportunity cost was only ever held in place by Mike's inability to see the film otherwise.

Comparing filesharing to theft or piracy in any real sense of those terms is in my mind as disingenuous as asserting that filesharing has only the positive affect of promoting and publicizing the products in question--both are completely ignoring the murky ethical grounds and are in my view largely responsible for the tremendous amount of talking past one another that tends to happen in these discussions.

A better parallel to filesharing is that of bringing outside food into theaters. My understanding is that for most movie theaters, the concessions are the main point of revenue, as the bulk of the ticket sales go to the distributor. Now I doubt that anyone would normally consider it "stealing" to bring your own bag of popcorn to the film, but it is in effect the same thing: you are counteracting the business model while benefitting from the business' operation. Making a disc available for illegal download is like giving away free popcorn to other moviegoers. Should the practice become prevalent enough and only the rare customer buys the concessions, the theater would go out of business or be forced to find a new business model (and unless the theater in question is AMC, guess which would happen).

If making an appeal to people to stop filesharing is of questionable efficacy, it seems to me that the more reactionary protests on the part of the anti-filesharing crowd here would only be likely to have a negative impact on the situation--alienating customers and potential customers much more than persuading those on the fence. This is of course offset by the incredibly poor representation of those here arguing in favor of the moral superiority of filesharing and demanding that MoC drop their prices (which are already quite reasonable).

I think a more productive plea would be this: MoC is a small company that lives and dies on the success or failure of only a handful of releases, and regardless of whether people download the films, people should purchase them if they would like MoC to continue to operate and put out high quality releases.

I think hoping that filesharing is going to go away or that there isn't going to be a single person that is willing to copy the MoC discs and make them available is an impossible dream. But it's not at all inconceivable that your customers will continue to purchase the products even if they download them first.

After all, it's not the filesharing itself that harms MoC's bottom line--it's people not purchasing the discs that does it, and the two are not the same. In the case of Paramount's customers, I doubt filesharers care a whit about the company's bottom line, but in the case of more niche companies, I think most of those that would otherwise purchase the discs are likely to be much more conscious of the impact of poor sales on the company.

After all, if you are to assume that MoC's customers are largely those inclined not to purchase the discs and that they will only do so when there are no alternatives, then that means you think pretty poorly of MoC's customers, in which case your plea isn't likely to help much. If you don't think that, then you should feel more secure in the fact that your customers are there to support you through the increase of illegal filesharing, a comfort that few other companies are lucky to have. If anything, a good number of those of your customers that _do_ fileshare will now have extra money from _not_ purchasing titles from the larger companies that they can spend on MoC discs. Between those customers, the ones that won't fileshare, and the customers that may come to hear about MoC because of a disc they downloaded, do you really think so poorly of your customers that you see your bottom line taking that much of a hit?
Last edited by Jun-Dai on Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#116 Post by MichaelB » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:17 am

ambrose1am wrote:You know, after all that I wrote, it's weird that you would respond to only that comment. I just wrote that I respect artists who don't support file sharing, and wouldn't download their work because of that.
And then signed off by calling Nick a liar. Since I know Nick and respect what he does, why is it remotely strange that I would respond to that? Surely it would be far stranger if I didn't?

And why should I take the rest of your post seriously when you sign it off with a totally unsupported accusation - which you won't back up even when challenged?
For the last time, I am not putting MoC or you out of business. I have spent thousands of dollars supporting your business, and I'm not sure I want to anymore. I see you're trying to provoke me,
No, you are the one being provocative. I've spent my time in this thread trying to sift fact from fantasy and applying the various mostly hypothetical situations being raised to the real world that some of us actually work in.
so I'm done posting in this thread. It seems we're doomed to talk past each other w/r/t this issue.
That's because your modus operandi is to make sweeping assertions with no evidence, refusing to produce any when challenged, usually preferring to drop the subject altogether when someone more knowledgeable than you takes you to task (for an excellent example, see Davidhare's response to your wildly inaccurate impression of French intellectual property law).

So why should anyone who cares about this issue - indeed, who may have a professional interest in it - take you seriously when you argue in such demonstrably bad faith?

User avatar
Jun-Dai
監督
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:34 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

#117 Post by Jun-Dai » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:36 am

MichaelB, I commend you for working harder than anyone else to make this a reasoned discussion, but I have to respond to one thing you said:

* I've spent my time in this thread trying to sift fact from fantasy and applying the various mostly hypothetical situations being raised to the real world that some of us actually work in.

It's true that a lot of hypothetical stuff has been brought up, mostly in defense of file-sharing and a good portion of it worthless, as far as I can tell, but I have yet to see one hypothetical point that is the basis of this whole discussion from the very first thread be applied to the real world: that filesharing has a net deleterious effect on MoC, or niche labels in general. Two assumptions are being made here: (1) that the effect is overall negative and (2) that the negative effect is significant. Even if one accepts the first without any evidence, the second doesn't necessarily follow.

Another point that Nick made in the original post was that the negative effect is in part due to MoC spending valuable effort chasing down the two sites that harbor the worst offenders. This point isn't really debatable, though the need for this effort relies on the thus-far-unsubstantiated assumptions.

It does make me sad that the people running Asian DVD Club and Cinematik are so disrespectful towards MoC. I assume you've gone after those users providing the bittorrents--have they been similarly disrespectful?

EDIT: I looked over at Asian DVD Club (Cinematik isn't allowing new registrations), and it looks like peerpee hasn't exactly gotten respectful responses. On the other hand, he's also taken a very antagonistic attitude (though I can't see where this originated--post searching doesn't go back very far), which makes it seem like he feels he's going to succeed in shutting down the community. It seems to me that he would do better to take a hearts-and-minds approach rather than simply making threats which may in the end turn out to be idle.

EDIT: The Asian DVD Club has published a lengthy article relating to this situation. I'd reproduce it here, except I fear the shitstorm that would ensue (likely it would be worse than what we already have). That said, I pulled two things out of reading it. First, people are always eager to rationalize their behavior, and it's frightening how quickly the author has allowed Nick's behavior to induce in him a sense that MoC no longer deserves to be supported (why should a single representative of the company, no matter how vitriolic, so tarnish in his mind the work of one of the most prestigious and idealistic DVD producers? I suspect it has to do with the fact that his own work in setting up a distribution channel for these illegal rips is being attacked). Secondly, Nick is taking an awful gamble in thinking that he can beat these people. If he fails, he has multiplied the rapidity with which the discs are likely to be made available and he has reduced the likelihood that those downloading and distributing the discs are going to want to support MoC for their efforts in making them. If he succeeds, he may reduce the illegal acquisition of the discs, but he has probably taken a PR hit in the process.

It would have been better to go about the process of shutting down these sites as silently as possible, or to accept their existence and do as much as possible to inspire guilt in the freeloading downloaders so that they would be inclined to purchase the discs instead of or after downloading them. I don't know that MoC can easily salvage the damage done on those forums, but it might be worth a try. Failing that, I think they would do well to minimize the additional attention drawn to these matters as possible (is that what they are doing?).
Last edited by Jun-Dai on Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#118 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:43 am

This is as rancid a thread as I've seen on this site, and there've been some whoppers. This should be so cut and dry-- these "mass-availability downloads" of rights-secured, mass-cash-restored, huge bookleted premium disc projects-- it aint the fuckin same as makin a cassette copy or two of Zep4 for your pothead friends when you were seventeen, son. If, however, when you were seventeen, you were making thousands of copies of Zep4 available out of your garage for thousands of strangers, then you're a piece of shit scheister.

Dupes of $2 PD alpha vid tv rips of DETOUR-- who gives a fuck? Not the same as MoC or CC.

MASS public access to rights-secured, exclusive, non PD five and six figure restorations? Give us a fuckin break awready. This shit already exists in the fringe of profit making. You wanna do it, sure, folks know it happens... at least don't come on here and fuckin brag about it like it's the american way. It's not-- it's smartass teenage i.t. guerilla programming, pussy-faux-punk reverse Big Brother shit. You steal pizzas and auto glass too? Product is product.

Goodnight and lock this abortion already (though it's an excellent IQ test for the forum.)

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#119 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:49 am

There have been some excellent posts in the thread (as well as foolish ones) -- why lock it. The issues involved are important.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

#120 Post by vogler » Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:09 am

HerrSchreck wrote:This should be so cut and dry
But obviously it isn't - this is why the issue of file sharing has been so widely debated since it's inception in the courts, by the media and elsewhere. It's why the subject is on the syllabus of university degree courses and has even been the subject of some students dissertations (not me by the way - it's a far too boring subject for that).
HerrSchreck wrote:these "mass-availability downloads" of rights-secured, mass-cash-restored, huge bookleted premium disc projects-- it aint the fuckin same as makin a cassette copy or two of Zep4 for your pothead friends when you were seventeen, son. If, however, when you were seventeen, you were making thousands of copies of Zep4 available out of your garage for thousands of strangers, then you're a piece of shit scheister.
Listen 'son', one of the reasons for the legal difficulties involved in file sharing is that there is no centrally stored file that all these users download. It is the exchanging of data between individuals computers and therefore it's very difficult to prosecute. The sites in question hold no material that infringes copyright laws. There is certainly some truth to be found in the ethics of what you are suggesting but the issue is far more complicated. A better analogy might perhaps be if you copied Zep4 for your friend who then copied it for a friend who then copied it for another friend and so on (although if we were talking about cassettes, then by the time it got to the 1000th person it would probably sound more like oceanic whale farts). On many levels I agree with you, especially when it comes to MOC, Criterion and some of the other companies we are interested in here.
HerrSchreck wrote:(though it's an excellent IQ test for the forum.)
Agreed. The way I see it there are some people who have responded with considered arguments and carefully composed posts attempting to put forward the different viewpoints that people have on this issue (although their points may sometimes be misguided but this is to be expected in most debates) and then there are those who have responded with sarcastic, dismissive and unhelpful posts that indicate a refusal to even acknowledge that a debate on the issue exists, let alone try to win that debate. I think the important thing is to attempt to enter into an intelligent discussion on the issue - you can't always be right but there's no shame in changing your mind in a debate as a result of points raised by others.

It is a complex issue in terms of morality, legality and logicality but there is a debate to be had as proved by a couple of particularly insightful recent posts by Jun-Dai. I think this issue can only be won by entering into the debate and winning people over to the cause of MOC and Criterion etc. Many of the file sharers are already on the side of these companies and with a little more reasoned debate I do think minds could have been changed. There is still some evidence of this taking place to some extent in this thread although the impact could have been much greater if there had been more persuasive argument as to why people shouldn't download MOC dvds rather than just dismissive one-liners and other sarcastic responses. This is where the music industry failed and it looks to be where the dvd industry may also fail and that is a great shame for all of us who love great dvds of great films. I am pretty sure the damage has already been done and it is definitely the case that MOC will have lost many supporters because of this. There's no use in saying screw them, we don't need the file sharers, because the truth is that MOC needs every sale it can get. A diplomatic approach could have achieved so much.

EDIT: Just a note to say that there certainly have been some intelligent and persuasive arguments as to why people shouldn't download MOC dvds, particularly MichaelB, I only wish there could have been more.

User avatar
foggy eyes
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:58 am
Location: UK

#121 Post by foggy eyes » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:07 am

vogler wrote:there certainly have been some intelligent and persuasive arguments as to why people shouldn't download MOC dvds, particularly MichaelB, I only wish there could have been more.
I guess this is just what Schreck sees as cut and dried: we just should not download MoC material. It should not be available in this manner for anyone to take advantage, intelligent and persuasive arguments notwithstanding. Regardless of the subtleties and complexities of the wider debate on filesharing, this one does not need to run and run.

P.S. This is not meant as a provocative retort to Vogler, whose posts have largely been reasoned and informative. Tensions have been running high on this thread...
Last edited by foggy eyes on Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

#122 Post by peerpee » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:20 am

Back again because I'm surprised to read such poppycock from Jun-Dai, being backed up by Vogler.
Jun-Dai wrote:The argument that libraries buy their discs before sharing (or that people selling discs used have paid for them, even if the second- and third-generation buyers have not paid the rightsholders in any sense) holds the same for people making the discs available for download, the difference--legality aside--is in the ratio of viewers to purchasers.
Complete rubbish. Libraries legally provide discs on a temporary basis. The people illegally making the discs available for download offer the information for infinite use on a permanent basis. Using the example of secondhand sales in your argument is akin condoning the forgery of banknotes -- you're basically arguing that used banknotes don't have any value.

If someone chooses to illegally copy a DVD they have rented from the library, then only then does their illegal action equate to filesharing. Trying to compare renting with filesharing in the way that you have is completely disingenuous.
Making the discs available for illegal download is definitely not a victimless crime, but it's also pretty much unstoppable.
One could say the same for shoplifting, but police and shop staff combat shoplifting every day. It would be foolish not to.
Downloading the discs, on the other hand, is pretty clearly a victimless crime--
There's lots of evidence in this thread to suggest otherwise, I don't know what logic you're using here, but illegally uploading and illegally downloading are both illegal.
If a person, Mike, chooses to download a DVD, the producer has lost nothing except arguably the opportunity cost wherein Mike now has less of an incentive to purchase it for the sake of seeing it, but that opportunity cost was only ever held in place by Mike's inability to see the film otherwise.
Is this some kind of justification for Mike illegally downloading films for free? Because of his "inability to see the film otherwise"? There's a pretty wide-open flaw in your argument if so, and that's "Mike's unwillingness to part with cash and use a website to order the film legally".
Comparing filesharing to theft or piracy in any real sense of those terms is in my mind as disingenuous as asserting that filesharing has only the positive affect of promoting and publicizing the products in question--both are completely ignoring the murky ethical grounds and are in my view largely responsible for the tremendous amount of talking past one another that tends to happen in these discussions.
You're not really bringing much to the table though are you? I foresee a lot more "talking past one another" based around your flawed points.

The exact data on our DVDs is copyrighted. From the film itself, to our DVD menus, and MoC's encode of the film --- all of it is copyrighted. No-one has the right to obtain that data free of charge. It does not matter how you obtained the data, whether by carrier pigeon, radar, or broadband internet. If you have obtained that material free of charge, and that material is illegally being offered to thousands of people, then the uploaders and the downloaders are acting illegally.

Regarding your other points... they're all moot and ineffectual because of two gigantic facts: filesharers will continue trying to fileshare, and MoC DVDs will never be legally available for free download.

So I'm sick of hearing moaning, flawed arguments trying to justify filesharing as being good for everyone -- when in fact they're only good for those who get something for nothing -- and instead, I admire the honesty of the filesharer who says: "Fuck you, I got your film for nothing, cumstain." (<--- actual email) or: "You smell of poo, I downloaded all your films for free." (<--- actual email)

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

#123 Post by vogler » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:39 am

peerpee wrote:Back again because I'm surprised to read such poppycock from Jun-Dai, being backed up by Vogler.
I'm not 'backing up' what Jun-Dai said, I'm merely welcoming the fact that he is obviously putting thought into what he is posting. I think his points are perceptive but I don't necessarily agree with the viewpoint. That would be one for him to argue. I do agree with a number of his points but I've already stated my thoughts on those a long way back in this thread. I have taken on board a number of points from both sides.

EDIT: I've re-read his posts and actually there are a great many good points being made. This doesn't mean that any one of them can be quoted with the idea that I'm backing them up though.
Last edited by vogler on Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gordon
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#124 Post by Gordon » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:58 am

amnesiac wrote:
Gordon wrote:A sensible strategy would be to try and persuade all major UK etailers to stop shipping to Sweden and Asia. Harsh, but ya gotta fight fire wit' fire.
That really is the most idiotic idea expressed in this thread. Those in England, USA, France, Australia etc., do not upload full DVDs?
I more or less acknowledged the failings of the idea myself, so don't insinuate that I am an idiot. That was a completely unnecessary comment. I don't know anything of the technology of ripping, uploading and torrents, as I have never attempted to upload or download, so cut me some slack.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

#125 Post by vogler » Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:17 pm

Ha - who renamed the thread '"Fuck you, I got your film for nothing, cumstain." - that's fucking hilarious!

Locked