Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoetMB
While I agree with you in general, I don't draw quite as hard a line as you do. One of the reasons for that is that the laws in this country are completely biased in favor of corporations and the rich. The copyright law has been extended from its original 25 years to its now "life of creator + 95 years" in most cases because of the will of corporations. Disney scared Congress into extending the copyright law because they claimed the expiration of copyright on Mickey Mouse meant that people would make porn movies with Mickey Mouse that would fall into the hands of children. Completely absurd.
|
Well, I look at this particular situation a bit differently. I think the reason why copyright laws were originally set up the way that they were is because they didn't think that many fictional properties and such would be profitable and have that level of interest years and years down the road.
In the case of Mickey Mouse, for example, I don't think he should go into the "public domain" since Disney still actively uses the character. They should be able to maintain their copyright on the intellectual property indefinitely. The same goes for any other characters/properties still actively in use by their copyright holder.
I think it should be changed more so to a "use it or lose it" kind of law. Sort of like the licensing deal that Fox has for making X-Men movies and Sony has for Spider-Man movies where they have to make a movie within a certain amount of time or the rights revert back to Marvel. Though I think the copyright law should allow for longer gaps. The intellectual property only becomes public domain if the owner of said property does nothing with it for a certain length of time.
That said, I think that in addition to just the intellectual property, itself, there should be laws requiring making existing works (i.e. movies, TV shows, etc.) available for purchase/rental/etc. And if that doesn't happen, after so much time of something being made unavailable, the public has the right to freely trade it, etc. The copyright owner will still own the intellectual property to make new works and so forth, but the public should be able obtain the existing works. This should extend to major notable variations as well, i.e. the unaltered original Star Wars trilogy. If they don't make it available, the public should be able to freely trade it and do what they can to obtain it, even if the altered versions are still available for purchase.
Quote:
And so while I would agree that if everyone just followed the laws they felt were just we would have chaos, I do that anyway.
But it has always amazed me that people who think that they're so sophisticated about technology are actually incredibly unsophisticated about it in that they think that a virtual copy has no value and that a physical copy has value. So the same people who would never shoplift think nothing about illegally downloading. The value is in the content, not in the package or the carrying medium.
|
I think a digital copy has value, but the loss of the physical medium changes that value. To me the value is in a combination of the content, carrying medium, and package. For one thing, if the package made no difference, then things like steelbooks and slipcovers wouldn't be such a big deal to so many people. And physical media can be resold, traded, etc. Granted in many cases it may go on to not hold more than a couple/few dollars in value, though in some cases when things go out of print, the value can go up depending on the supply and demand.
Additionally with digital copies, especially when it comes to streaming and/or trying to redownload something, we are at the mercy of the service provider and the content owner continuing to make that content available. If the content owner decides to pull the content from the service provider, you can't restream it, and if the device you originally downloaded something to gets damaged, you can't redownload it, and you are effectively SOL.
By contrast, if movie goes out of print, your existing discs will still work fine and continue to do so as long as they aren't lost, stolen, or damanged. And if one of those things does happen to your disc(s), you can buy another copy. Even if it's out of print, you can look for second-hand copies. How much you pay and how easy it is to get will very much depend on supply and demand, but at least the option exists. Granted, this comes with an additional cost that (when the content is still available) redownloading/streaming does not, but if you are properly insured, you should be protected and will have funds in the event of theft or major disaster. If a one-off movie just happens to get scratched or something, it's just one item that needs to be replaced.
For this reason, I still buy my movies and TV shows on Blu-Ray and (when BD isn't available) DVD whenever possible. I don't care if the digital version comes out a month earlier, I'll wait for the disc.
So there is value to me there. And while the content is very much important, the medium (and lack of restrictions of said medium) adds a significant value to me.
Quote:
I always ask people who think its no big deal to illegally download if they think it would be okay if I came over to their house and stole some of their stuff.
People who illegally download claim it has no negative impact on the business, but the reality is that the music industry has been destroyed. It's less that half of its 1999 peak and that doesn't even include inflation. And while it's not the whole story, a fair portion of that decline can be attributed to illegal downloading.
|
I want to preface this by stating that I'm not defending the act of illegally downloading something as a means to circumvent legitimately paying for it, as I think that is wrong.
That said, I do feel that digital theft and physical theft are two different things. When someone goes into a store and stealing a CD or DVD/BD, they are removing inventory from that store. Not only has that person obtained the content without paying for it, but they've prevented that store from selling that copy to someone else. They've removed inventory and prevented a sale. With digital theft, while I do feel it is wrong for people to take what they haven't paid for and I'm not defending that act, it does not have the additional problems of removing inventory and preventing other sales. Each time someone pays for a digital download, a new "copy" is made. So effectively half the problem with physical theft is removed from the equation. At the same time, because of this, some people who would never dream of taking something from a store have little qualms about downloading something, so that creates a new issue.
As for the music industry, I do feel that illegal downloading is a factor, but not in quite the same way that you seem to be stating. The Napster debacle ultimately pushed the industry to make legitimate pay downloads of music. This allows people to buy a single song for roughly $1, where previously people who just want that one song would have to buy a whole album at about $10-$20 just to obtain it.
While I do miss walking around record stores and such, to me this was more or less a good thing for the consumer. In general I've never really felt ripped off by the general pricing of movies, video games, etc. Typically the amount of entertainment in exchange for the average amount of money is proportionate (I know this can vary depending on length and quality of the content, but on average it's reasonable IMO). By contrast, music is the one thing that, aside from singles when available (which would still be a few bucks), we were forced to buy in bulk just to get the one or two songs that we wanted, at a pretty high price when only taking the desired content into account ($10 to $20 for 1 or 2 songs that only last an average of 3 minutes or so isn't ideal). It was a decent deal if you actually wanted the whole album or at least most of the songs on it. But for me, outside of some movie soundtracks, that was a rarity.
Music is the one medium that I've largely shifted to downloading (though I'll still buy the occasional CD if the price relative to the content is worth while to me... mostly from used stores, but occasionally new). The relatively small file sizes that make it easy to store many songs and back them up for safe keeping.
So, my point here is that while illegal downloading lead to this, the music industry really isn't losing money directly from people opting to illegally download it as opposed to pay for it at this point. They aren't making as much money because people are just buying the songs that they want at much lower prices than what they used to pay for whole albums. Even after factoring for manufacturing costs and any portion the stores kept, that's still less money in the studio's pocket. But I do feel in this instance that it is the more consumer-friendly option. So this was more an adaptation to market demand than anything IMO. While I'm sure some money is still being lost to illegal downloading, even if there was some magical way to 100% eliminate it, the music industry wouldn't suddenly bounce back to anywhere near their 1999 high. Odds are any increase would be marginal.
Quote:
|
On the other hand, I don't have a problem with "artists" who reinterpret existing art - reedits, mashups, etc. Copyright laws do make an exception for criticism and satire and I think re-edits that are not sold fall into this category.
|
I agree here. I think it is part of enjoying the content and having it as a "living, breathing" part of our lives. Copyright should be respected up to a point, but the rules surrounding it shouldn't be so "boot camp-ish" to not allow for this sort of thing.
Quote:
But getting back to my original point, everyone draws their own moral lines. Personally, while it's still technically illegal, I don't have a problem for example, making copies of music tracks for family members.
---
I have no problem making a copy of a CD to listen to on my MP3 player or for use in my car. I wasn't able to copy my VHS version of the OT to DVD-R because of copy protection, but if I had a way of breaking that security, I certainly would have. I paid for it - it shouldn't matter to Fox on what device I choose to watch it. And while I still wouldn't steal anything, as far as I'm concerned, with all the different versions I've purchased, I owe the Beatles and the Stones (among others) absolutely nothing for the rest of my life.
|
These are good points as well. I agree on the back ups and such. Heck, I don't have a problem with someone downloading a copy of a movie that they've previously paid for, but they were robbed or their house (along with collection) burned down or something.
And with that last point that you made especially, I think it applies here. I don't feel that it is wrong for someone to download/obtain a Star Wars fan edit, or the unaltered OT (or any other previous version, i.e. the 1997 versions) that has been fan-restored to be as high of quality as possible....possibly higher than past official releases... when that individual has officially bought the movies several times previously in different editions and on various formats.
Now, if a quality restoration of one of those versions later officially comes out, I do think that person should go ahead and buy the legit thing (which they'll likely want to do anyway).
Likewise, I don't really have a problem with people "unofficially" obtaining content that simply isn't available officially. A movie caught up in copyright hell... a TV show that hasn't been released due to it having a niche audience, or music rights issues (or if it has been released with the music changed, but someone goes and obtains a version with the original music intact) and so forth. These are cases where many people would pay for the legit thing if made available. But without it being available, they go an alternate route.
While I don't do this sort of thing anymore, there were a handful of times in my younger days where I obtained "unofficial" copies of a few movies before they were available on DVD and such. But typically they were movies that I enjoyed so much that I saw them in the theater (often times more than once) and later bought the official home release as soon as it came out. I just wanted to see it again during the "limbo" between being in the theater and on video. While technically against the law, the studio sure as hell didn't lose any money because of me.
And ultimately that's one of the things that bugs me... the studio's "math." While I'm sure most illegal downloads and such are done as a way to get around paying for the legit thing, it doesn't mean they all are, as in my example above. In other cases, some people might only bother seeing a movie if they can do so cheap or for free.
The studios assume that when a major blockbuster movie is being downloaded while still in theaters, each download is the equivalent of losing a ticket sale for the $20+ full-price, primetime, 3D IMAX showing of the movie at the most expensive theater in town (or if it happens while the movie is on home video, it's the loss of a sale of the movie on the most expensive available format at full MSRP).
Now, while in some cases that may in fact be true, the reality is that many of these people, as an alternative, either wouldn't have gone to see the movie, or if they did, they'd opt for the $5 or $6 before-noon 2D matinee. Or if after released on home formats, they'd wait for a major sale/price drop, or just catch it on cable for free (i.e. no more than they are already paying for their cable serivce), etc.
Again, I'm not saying it's okay for people to avoid paying for these things, but they do exaggerate the hell out of the money supposedly "lost." It's like that scene in "Be Kind, Rewind" where those executives or whatever come into the run down store still renting out VHS tapes because supposedly their home-made versions of Hollywood movies are a huge threat and contributing to the "billions" of dollars lost each year.
It's just ridiculous!
Laws exist for a reason. And it can be difficult, if not impossible to account for every potential scenario to allow exceptions where they make sense while making it illegal in all cases where it should be. But I think the intent of the laws should be taken into account. Obviously they don't want people downloading movies to get around paying for them. But the guy who previously bought Star Wars 4 to 10 times in the past and is downloading some other version/transfer of it? That guy's not a threat!
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
It sounds like a really shrill girl climaxing.
Linear Mode
