tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post84932614509109851..comments2024-03-25T21:14:21.671-04:00Comments on Listen Eggroll: Why I Pirate Movies: A Self-Justification.md'ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-12382002503248936782013-01-23T02:36:26.500-05:002013-01-23T02:36:26.500-05:00Reminds me of two friends I have. Both of them hav...Reminds me of two friends I have. Both of them have recently gotten into comic books and mangas and graphic novels. One of my friends hates piracy mostly out of fear of litigation and malware. He also believes in supporting the artists and writers of the content you love. As a result, he recently just paid out hundreds in getting a hold of some older comics from like, you know stuff that is like over 20 years old. <br /><br />My other friend, is the exact opposite, she loves digital media and she wanted to read all of the comics of her fave superheroes, she ended up finding all of them online through torrents for free. <br /><br />When my other friend confronted her over it, she explained that what he bought wasn't supporting the authors anymore than what she did. <br /><br />Which is true. None of the comics that they had could be bought directly from Marvel or DC anymore in either physical or digital format. <br /><br />As for myself...I always end up buying the legal stuff at one point or another mostly because I like the convenience and I love that Amazon doesn't require me to download the content and give up computer space which both Apple and torrent websites require you to do. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-86336743075586023972012-05-02T12:35:27.549-04:002012-05-02T12:35:27.549-04:00You're right. I'll just abandon the thing ...You're right. I'll just abandon the thing I love most and find an entirely new primary interest at age 44.md'ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-6218574310999782162012-05-02T12:30:07.893-04:002012-05-02T12:30:07.893-04:00What exactly is so difficult about just going with...What exactly is so difficult about just going without?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14947233996077734991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-22845411141904958462012-04-03T01:59:32.994-04:002012-04-03T01:59:32.994-04:00You think you have problems. I was given too many ...You think you have problems. I was given too many bottles of champagne for my engagement and now the refrigerator's full.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-77541399384549471462012-04-02T19:50:36.385-04:002012-04-02T19:50:36.385-04:00film companies should take the same direction as t...film companies should take the same direction as the music industry- buy directly from the content creator. Theyre happy -You're happy and you get it when its created.<br /><br />The important people will continue to receive the money they duly deserve and continue to create fantastic content.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-40994905496922643722012-03-10T19:07:08.414-05:002012-03-10T19:07:08.414-05:00Thanks for the thoughtful response, Mike. I agree ...Thanks for the thoughtful response, Mike. I agree that, by citing several of you, I have given the false impression that many here have carbon-copy points of view, which obviously isn't the case. Threads inevitably play the game of "telephone." As it stands, I'm not sure I can refute your specific argument! So, for what it's worth...gcgileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17897617751722974494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-51532630329073710792012-03-10T17:43:49.295-05:002012-03-10T17:43:49.295-05:00As soon as Hochhäusler joined the converstaion, I ...<i>As soon as Hochhäusler joined the converstaion, I felt a palpable contrition emanating from Mike’s and Michael’s posts, as if they had encountered the exception they admire that they must somehow accommodate.</i><br /><br />Don't really think my own tenor much changed. Obviously I respect Hochhäusler as a filmmaker, but I didn't apologize to him in any way for having illegally downloaded <i>The City Below</i>, a film I could not have watched a single time for a reasonable price. <br /><br />Please note that I don't endorse all the pro-pirating arguments being made hereabouts. Gabe is a friend, but I'm not really down with his notion that movies belong to the people (to oversimplify greatly). My own position has more to do with a fundamental failure of the marketplace. If you are a filmmaker (I know you're not, but it's an easier example from my perspective) who believes he's losing money to piracy <i>of my sort</i>—i.e., people like me are downloading your movie illegally because there's no place that will rent the brand-new Blu-ray to us—then your job is to figure out how to provide us with an alternative by which you'll be compensated. If Netflix and Blockbuster refuse to buy your movie because they believe there's insufficient demand, or just because they're trying to phase out physical media altogether, then figure something else out. Create a website and rent it out yourself for $5 plus postage (which is way more expensive than an average rental, but still much cheaper than buying it outright—WHICH WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO SIGHT UNSEEN—and then reselling it as a considerable loss). Or something. But I say again that whatever the overall costs of piracy, what <i>I</i> am doing is <i>not depriving any artist of income</i>. If pirating became impossible overnight, I would not suddenly start buying the movies I'm downloading. I would simply be forced to read books instead.md'ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-90244503563951762732012-03-10T17:15:39.024-05:002012-03-10T17:15:39.024-05:00If what I have written is perceived as a naïve ane...If what I have written is perceived as a naïve anecdote, then I would argue that we have nothing but anecdotes to resort to, whether it’s Mike’s original story of downloading the Preminger film, Gabe’s story of the “pirate” in Lima, or whatever Michael is threatening us with. ☺ Because I am focusing on compensation for artists, my anecdote is aimed at limiting the scope of the argument presented here, not putting a folksy, self-righteous crimp in the thread.<br /><br />Technology has at once rewarded the artist with access and destroyed the value of that access. I feel insanely torn between embracing the technologies that enable young bands to produce beautiful albums without corporate overseers, and decrying them because they have totally devalued the market worth of that art. Recording artists—aside from an elite few—cannot make a living with their work. And I’m not talking scraping by, la vie bohème, ramen noodles eaten uncooked like a cracker—I am talking <i>zip</i>. And it is work, and it deserves compensation (i.e., subsistence living).<br /><br />I wish more working artists would speak up here (who, unlike Hochhäusler, depend on sales of DVDs/CDs/mp3s/what-have-you). This isn’t to devalue criticism, which is equally an art (and equally devastated by our digital economy), but it would be nice to hear from more filmmakers who can probably attest to the ambivalent positions in which digital technologies have put them.<br /><br />This is a more specific debate, I believe, than the fundamental vulnerability of jurisprudence to corporate influence, or world poverty (where it seemed Gabe was heading, even if he was talking specifically about DVD hawkers): simply put, do artists deserve minimum wage? Can we consider intellectual property rights as a possible solution to this problem at all, even if the current tenets of copyright law may be flawed at best, and arbitrarily organized to suit corporate interests, at worst?gcgileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17897617751722974494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-20975444086796509132012-03-10T17:13:47.434-05:002012-03-10T17:13:47.434-05:00I’m late to this, and my post is long, so I’m sorr...I’m late to this, and my post is long, so I’m sorry in advance on two counts, but…<br /><br />As soon as Hochhäusler joined the converstaion, I felt a palpable contrition emanating from Mike’s and Michael’s posts, as if they had encountered the exception they admire that they must somehow accommodate. The exception, however, is the person perceived as the legitimate artist, which of course, is about as subjective a perception as any on planet Earth. A respected filmmaker cries foul, and suddenly it “gives pause,” tempering the rather sweeping assertions of art, or any intellectual production, as something corporations and courts of law have distorted into “property,” in the same way that corporations have been made “people.” <br /><br />But speaking as another “producer of art” (and I’ll try to stop scare-quoting from here on out), I do find that fans sharing and burning my music has demonstrably limited the number of meals I can claim as a reward from the decades I have spent attempting to perfect the art I produce; I am not bitter about this, and many of those people who share my music freely are friends (however little they have backed their admiration and pleasure with financial support): I see the writing on the wall when it comes to the future of media artifacts. <br /><br />Yet there is a pedestrian, dare-I-say-<i>moral</i> responsibility implicated in all of this—the kind that directly involves hunger and housing and goes beyond a “cut to the ego,” as Slayton put it—as much as Michael threatens us with an anecdote that will ideally prohibit the egregious conflation of morality with legality. I will anticipate his threat with one of my own personal anecdotes: We performed at Noisepop this year, and a band that played before us had traveled all the way from Montreal to San Francisco, performing only once in Denver along the way (in other words, not even hand-to-mouth compensation). I bought their CD for $20, which is rather expensive. I could have easily found my bandmate who also bought it and simply burned it from him; after all, I hadn’t heard the recording yet, and one could say that committing my last twenty-dollar bill to an unheard CD was unnecessarily frivolous. But I was essentially giving them a quarter tank of gas. And that’s it. Doing anything less, I would consider myself a bit of a wanker. Because I am in their shoes, and this kind of sympathy/empathy is irreplaceable in the calculus of who-deserves-a-dollar-for-their-trouble. Since many commenters have been speaking with a more juridical tenor, this story might seem jejune; but for me, it’s essential to any argument involving artistic production. And in this vein, I think that buying Criterion DVDs blind, even if you pay a little more and wind up disappointed with the result, is a mutually beneficial contribution to a company that continually justifies its worth, even in terms of accommodating minority tastes and empty wallets by offering hundreds of obscure films, many unseen on DVD—available in HD with meticulous subtitling—on Hulu for ten measly bucks a month.<br /><br />(sadly, to be continued...)gcgileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17897617751722974494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-36299810671338129602012-02-29T00:16:08.408-05:002012-02-29T00:16:08.408-05:00@Wynyard -- You can quite easily watch 'comput...@Wynyard -- You can quite easily watch 'computer content' on whatever screen you like (or, just as well, watch content from legally purchased discs on your computer screen).Billenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-91991553688414114292012-02-25T09:51:03.908-05:002012-02-25T09:51:03.908-05:00I haven't flipped my wallet for a film in 10 y...I haven't flipped my wallet for a film in 10 years: Cinema ticket as gift, Ad TV/Cable, pilfering DVDs/BDs from family/friends with wretched taste. (I lie. I ponied up for 1 DVD back in 05: Crumb. Still haven't split the plastic. Scared it will alter my low opinion of a childhood hero). Yes, I miss out on a lot of "holy shit" movies but I cannot, just cannot, download cinema to watch on my computer. Forget moral quandaries: HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU ENJOY A MOVIE ON A FUCKING COMPUTER SCREEN? Yeesh. I can't even watch a Rihanna's-got-crabs-she-needs-scratching "music" video without thinking I'd rather be watching this vapid pap in glorious HD on my 60", not on this glary little rectangle I see before me.<br /><br />ps OMG, there's a picture on the website! You've changed Mike, you've changed!Wynyardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-47237850516555900532012-02-24T10:45:14.849-05:002012-02-24T10:45:14.849-05:00If the law changed so that it would be completely ...If the law changed so that it would be completely legal to download movies would Victor still be against the practice and willing to argue at length about it?Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-37793545052168576802012-02-23T22:20:20.210-05:002012-02-23T22:20:20.210-05:00As I understand it, Mike would be considered a pir...As I understand it, Mike would be considered a pirate and a thief even if he had downloaded the <i>standard-def version</i> of ANATOMY - i.e., a rip of a DVD he already owns. Technically it's still illegal and morally, I imagine the same people would argue that since he only paid for the movie in one particular delivery format (disc), stealing a digitized version of the film is taking away potential income from the technical wizards who earn their living compressing films into various codecs and file formats for online distribution. <br /><br />So how about it? Is downloading movies you already own an act of theft and morally wrong? How rigid do you get with this stuff?Jared Peacehttp://twitter.com/jaredpeacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-44599431644464234792012-02-23T18:52:31.678-05:002012-02-23T18:52:31.678-05:00This continual conflation of law with morality sur...This continual conflation of law with morality sure is getting tiresome.<br /><br />If it continues, I'll share an amusing anecdote. For now, I'll just go make some more PDFs of copyrighted texts for my students.Michaelhttp://academichack.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-65115124151695614892012-02-23T14:29:49.623-05:002012-02-23T14:29:49.623-05:00Max, I feel like you didn't actually read the ...Max, I feel like you didn't actually read the fairly lengthy discussion that's taken place here, much less my original post. 'Cause you've just repeated stuff that's already been addressed.<br /><br /><i>So, yeah, because people are not willing to pay for a product, my budgets shrink, therefore my salary shrinks. Thanks.</i><br /><br />I'm not talking here about people who would have paid for a product, but instead choose to download it for free. That is indeed a problem. I'm talking about instances in which the pirate would never have bought the item, and resorts to downloading solely because there is no means of renting it. There is no lost sale in this scenario. No income is being diverted from anybody. The people who didn't buy your product are the rental outlets. Bitch at them. (I am.)<br /><br /><i>If the options are to spend money or not watch it: does that logic work for other crafted products as well? Would you steal a chair too only because it's expensive?</i><br /><br />No, I would not. But (to steal from Mindy Kaling) if I needed to rent a car, and suddenly there were no cars available for rental and self-righteous moralists were telling me I should either stay home or buy a car and resell it, and someone who owns a car could magically create an identical car by snapping her fingers and was willing to give the duplicate car to me, I would use that car without the slightest qualm, especially if I were then either going to (a) snap my own magical fingers and destroy the car or (b) discover that I love the car, destroy the duplicate, and buy a brand-new copy of the same car.<br /><br />That's the correct stupid analogy in this instance.md'ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-65627545162637734522012-02-23T05:53:02.240-05:002012-02-23T05:53:02.240-05:00Hi md'a,
the problems in my opinion here are ...Hi md'a,<br /><br />the problems in my opinion here are some of the following:<br /><br />1. How do you know if nobody is harmed? Where did you not see somebody getting harmed? I truly disagree on that because, yeah, some people get harmed by that (even if it's corporations, Blockbuster says hi...). If budgets for films become smaller (talking for Germany), then this is direct result of a cut in revenue income for a product and it's creators (not due to 'cheaper' technique; labour is the same). And a cut in revenue incomes in film is either due to less tickets sold in cinema and/or fewer and cheaper options after the exploitation of movies after theatrical releases. So, yeah, because people are not willing to pay for a product, my budgets shrink, therefore my salary shrinks. Thanks. <br /><br />2. If the options are to spend money or not watch it: does that logic work for other crafted products as well? Would you steal a chair too only because it's expensive? And only because the movie itself is nothing you can touch or sit on doesn't mean it's the same. Btw, why isn't food for free? Before we watch films and listen to music for free, people shouldn't starve. But would you steal food because it's too expensive? Probably not...<br /><br />People put labour in a product that you are not willing to pay. That is not correct.Maxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-86737072288459091112012-02-22T23:57:13.507-05:002012-02-22T23:57:13.507-05:00This I can speak too, as I work in the library fie...This I can speak too, as I work in the library field. The availability of a DVD at a library is limited in a way that torrents are not. A finite number of copies are available for precise periods of time to people who can prove they live, work or study in (and therefore pay taxes or fees to) a specific community. And in my experience, few discs survive to be checked out by "hundreds of patrons". A few dozen checkouts before scratches and scuffs become untenable and the item must be replaced seems more typical.<br /><br />As a relative luddite, I haven't tried filesharing myself yet. Would I turn to it if I didn't work in a library and didn't live in a town with decent (if not NYC-scale) repertory screenings and some surviving independent video stores? Maybe I'm the 'entitled' one, hoping this antiquated distribution infrastructure survives past its usefulness for society at large. <br /><br />Gabe Klinger's 'class disobedience' argument is quite compelling. I do wonder what Nick Wrigley might have to say about that one. But I also wonder how many people in my town are missing out on increasingly-rare screenings of films they'd enjoy, made a world away from the MPAA, because they busy all their evenings stickin' it to the Hollywood studios in their bedrooms.<br /><br />I keep thinking back to the founders of the first film societies in the 1920s and 30s. Does the invention of new technologies confer new rights onto individuals with access to that technology? How about onto individuals without access to it? Does it confer new responsibilities as well? I really don't know.Brian Darrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693169310367670898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-40486660384165275552012-02-22T23:10:59.256-05:002012-02-22T23:10:59.256-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brian Darrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693169310367670898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-73058171255522559922012-02-22T22:17:20.537-05:002012-02-22T22:17:20.537-05:00I've still never heard a convincing argument t...I've still never heard a convincing argument that file-sharing is significantly different from, say, checking out DVDs at a public library. The library buys one copy, it circulates to potentially hundreds of patrons. The studio gets nada from those patrons' use of the DVD.<br /><br />File-sharing is simply part of the world we live in. Mike's conscientious justification makes perfect sense, but I don't think it's even necessary. Checking out a DVD from the library isn't some last-ditch desperation move when no other options are available, it's something you do because the library is a resource at your disposal. So too with file-sharing. I fail to see how this attitude constitutes "entitlement." I'm a law-abiding citizen and I pay for my Internet access.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08917874378666399043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-14429402588989529092012-02-22T21:37:47.023-05:002012-02-22T21:37:47.023-05:00It's clear that the 20th Century model of owne...It's clear that the 20th Century model of ownership -> sale economics is outdated. Technology and innovation creates a truly open market. There is nothing wrong with capitalizing on technological revolution, provided we keep a certain compassion for creativity.<br /><br />Our generation expanded the issue of open-source material, and will also have to solve it by creating a new business model.Matt Zurcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359156317210409909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-42651590084607391462012-02-22T19:08:43.294-05:002012-02-22T19:08:43.294-05:00@Victor. I think it's ridiculous to apply rule...@Victor. I think it's ridiculous to apply rule of law to economics. Isn't that why we now consider corporations to be people?profoblivionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975807183855789205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-66499768792144477382012-02-22T17:59:42.954-05:002012-02-22T17:59:42.954-05:00Let's talk about piracy for a moment -- *real*...Let's talk about piracy for a moment -- *real* piracy, not online file-sharing -- which has reached a level of sophistication so far lacking in the realm of legitimate distribution.<br /><br />I will give an example: a "pirate" in Lima or Calcutta or Manila will lug his crates of DVDs around an entire city for 10 hours a day looking for customers. He will be waiting for you outside of the subway station on your way to and from work, a few meters away from the corner store where you buy milk for your kids, he will even come to your table at the restaurant or bar where you're sitting and let you calmly peruse his stash. If you become a regular client, he will give you discounts and personalize the experience by finding movies that you like, much like an "on demand" type of service. <br /><br />And this man, for the most part, is just trying to make a buck like everyone else. He has no time to engage in internet debates, he doesn't care about the Criterion Collection or Masters of Cinema (except if his clients ask him) and he doesn't understand why something for which there clearly exists a demand is forbidden and thought of as theft when working folks honestly can't afford to go to the movies much less import a Bluray from the UK or or whatever. <br /><br />Films have the uncanny effect of making people happy; they are also a great tool to distract kids (ask any parent) and calm oneself down after a stressful day of work. And the class that cannot afford to buy films legitimately obtains them from the pirate down the street, simply and cheaply, because they want the same luxury as the people who *can* afford to buy DVD's and go to the movies. And why shouldn't that alternative be available to them?<br /><br />Entertainment executives, film producers and corporate lobbyists thousands of kilometers away who have absolutely no foot in the real world attempt everything in their power to penalize these people: those who provide as well as those who buy.<br /><br />If piracy is theft, than to steal from movie studios who make the experience of movies an elitist, upper middle-class industry is, frankly, an important act of class disobedience.<br /><br />Wake the fuck up, people.<br /><br />Sure, Mike D'Angelo has the resources to watch a lot movies and occasionally opts to download them, much like just about every other cinephile on the planet. We all have our reasons. Some of those are motivated by money, others by convenience. Those reasons don't need to be qualified in an internet forum. Mike, your attempt was earnest, but you don't need to feed the corporatethink out there.<br /><br />This isn't about Mike D'Angelo or a single mom in Manila. This is about greedy assholes and their powerful lobbies shaping our perception of what constitutes theft. Greedy assholes who try to determine what people have the right to experience and what they don't have the right to experience.<br /><br />If Netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster and other companies had the smarts to make movies accessible and affordable in the same way as these pirates do, people everywhere would be very pleased. But this sophistication doesn't yet exist, and so piracy thrives...<br /><br />Condemning people for not following a flawed, vague copyright laws is not the way out of this.<br /><br />The Nigerian and Indian film industries have found plenty of alternatives by producing and distributing instead of importing and settling on meager profit shares. Most of the world has not yet caught up because of the powerful MPAA lobby and its presence all over the world for more than a half century. But all of this anti-piracy talk is going to catch up with Hollywood, and they're the ones who are going to end up looking pretty foolish.<br /><br />If you want to talk about entitlement, you needn't look further than the American entertainment industry.Gabe Klingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02496031920410754279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-82877545740523948382012-02-22T17:51:36.252-05:002012-02-22T17:51:36.252-05:00I live in NZ and there is absolutely no distributi...I live in NZ and there is absolutely no distribution for foreign films here, even if they come here for a festival the ratings board requires a separate rating process for theatrical, festival and DVD releases so unless a film is rated for DVD it is illegal to sell it here. Unless I spend a fortune in shipping and import for lesser-knowns, foreigns or classic (which for, let MoC know, I would NOT be able to make a profit on resale) there's really no other way for me to see some of these films without going overseas. I try to justify my downloading by only downloading films that are a) unavailable in this country b) old enough to be in the public domain. But then again mostly those are the films that interest me - downloading a film like Harry Potter would get me in trouble with a studio that actually has the clout and the cash to go after individual downloaders. But with a blockbuster like that I'd just as easily watch it at the movies and 9/10 it wouldn't be something I'd be interested in seeing anyway.<br /><br />I'm not really a believer in intellectual property - I think once you make something it really is 'out there'. As an artist that's a cut to the ego but I think in this day and age it's a cut you have to take. Plus, if the goal is to find and absorb as much art as possible you're going to have to resort to 'piracy' to get obscure titles or titles translated into your language.Slaytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03788927670985682471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-41061292550589736232012-02-22T17:11:31.501-05:002012-02-22T17:11:31.501-05:00Dead-on, Ryan. Thanks for the cogent summary. Espe...Dead-on, Ryan. Thanks for the cogent summary. Especially this:<br /><br /><i>It's up to Criterion to exploit this under-served market by finding other distribution channels to offer products at a price point where they can make money. (And they've presumably done that by making a deal with Hulu Plus.)</i><br /><br />Not just Criterion, of course, but everybody. It's been demonstrated (most prominently by the iTunes store) that if you provide a simple and fairly priced method of obtaining content legally, most people with the means will avail themselves of it, even if they could circumvent it and pay nothing. So if you look around and notice that people like me are downloading catalog Blu-ray titles, and recognize that we're doing so because we're unable to rent them anywhere, <i>fix the problem</i>. Provide us with a channel. We'll use it. I certainly will (and as the post above this one shows, I in fact did).md'ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8838733.post-20005368142553065232012-02-22T16:51:25.297-05:002012-02-22T16:51:25.297-05:00My only comments here. The debate, at its core, i...My only comments here. The debate, at its core, is almost entirely economic. At bottom, it's about an antiquated intellectual property law regime hanging on while technological changes rapidly diminish the value of license holders. Said license holders are looking for ways to maintain value. So existing laws and economic models are not keeping pace with technological changes and consumer adjustments. So we're in a period of flux.<br /><br />The doctrinaire person might insist that we need to strictly abide by the letter of the law until the legal adjustments are enacted. But of course, it's idiotic to strictly comply with the letter of the law at all times, and I won't belabor the 10,000 scenarios that would expose the inanity of this mindset.<br /><br />Morality doesn't have anything to do with this. I'm hard-pressed to find any moral basis for me to yield completely to the preferences of a license holder. I see economic reasons for doing so. And legal reasons. But moral? Let's not tarnish genuine moral concerns by suggesting that this kind of issue rises to that.<br /><br />There are only two ethical questions here: the first, as Mike posed, "is anyone harmed by my conduct"? This is clearly no. Unlike a tangle product, <b>the owner is not deprived of the product's use in any way.</b> And if you would not have bought it anyway, the rights holder does not suffer a loss of profit. <b>There's no actual harm whatsoever here.</b><br /><br />The second question is, "if everyone behaved like me, would others be harmed?" In the narrow instance that Mike describes, the answer is still "no." In the <i>World on a Wire</i> example, I'm not going to buy that movie at any price point higher than $8.00. If a service allows me to pay a $3.00 fee to watch it streaming, I'll happily do that. But in a world where you're left to either purchase the disc for $29.99 or not watch the film at all, I'll opt for the latter. And if everyone similarly situated to me makes the same choice, Criterion does not lose anything. <br /><br />It's up to Criterion to exploit this under-served market by finding other distribution channels to offer products at a price point where they can make money. (And they've presumably done that by making a deal with Hulu Plus.) <br /><br />In short, we're in a situation where it'll take a while before businesses, lawmakers, etc. can sort out a distribution system and intellectual property rights scheme that adequately compensates content-providers and protect rights-holders. <br /><br />This is like most debates about economics in this country. Within 10 seconds of debate an economic problem becomes a moral one, and all perspective is lost.<br /><br />*Note: I'm not trying to justify my conduct as I'm not in the habit of downloading movies myself.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03078377790942736019noreply@blogger.com