Star Wars Bootleg raids this morning (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

Maybe they should frisk people and install metal detectors at theaters?

It's not far from that. They could use recent events to mask them under the guise of "security." One of my local theaters already has a policy forbidding backpacks, bags, and large purses of any kind.

And Ebay is totally useless when it comes to enforcing any kind of copyright issues. I used to report numerous bootleg CD's to them. At first they took them off, but later they changed their policy so that only an "authorized representative" of the copyright holder, who had to be officially registered with Ebay, could request an auction be ended. So, as someone said, unless the various studios/labels hire a staff to scan Ebay, etc., all day every day, the bootlegs will continue on Ebay because Ebay itself won't do anything about it.

Off-topic, but with regard to CD's, the US labels basically killed their own sales by ceasing to release singles. Most other countries around the world have a vibrant singles market, but in the US the labels want you to buy an $18 album to get a single song. I refuse.

 

[streeter]

John: When people download movies off the web, money IS lost. True, each time a bootlegged movie is watched does not mean that one less ticket is sold. But some of the people DO watch these movies, whether downloaded or purchased as bootlegs, instead of going to the movie theater or instead of going to the video store to rent it. When you don't have as much money to spend, quality becomes less and less of an issue. There is no way of knowing exactly what revenue is lost, but my guess is that it IS significant. Movies aren't like music - do you think that if you DL a movie that you are more likely to buy it? That may hold true for music, but I doubt it does for movies.

Kai: I was disappointed in your description of your moviewatching habit. What you are downloading are movies that don't belong to you because you didn't pay for them. It would only be fair if you paid to see your movies just like other people do. Just because you also spend a lot of money on DVDs is not an excuse.

In the United States, intellectual property rights are taken a lot more seriously, apparently. In the end, it all boils down to courtesy, honesty and respect.

And regarding Hollywood and their money - first of all, they earn their money fair and square. Second, they aren't the only business that works that way- just the most publicized one.

 

[Kai Zas]

Michael:

I'm sure here in Europe people care less about those intellectual properties. I know people who have thousands of DivX movies. Personaly, I dont' keep a single one. I download, I watch, I delete.

I do save money that would otherwise be spent on rentals, but I must say, over here DVD's are still in the minority. And I refuse to watch VHS. By the way, do you know that sometimes we have to wait HALF A YEAR before we get the goods? I buy most of my movies in Canada. When it comes to recent movies, I have them befor they hit the theaters. Which, for others, is quite frustrating. We do have the internet, we know what's coming, we just have to wait half a year longer. Not me, though.

Then again, if there were some kind of streaming pay-per-view thing going on the internet, I would gladly go for it. But, considering the way hollywood studios want to delay and divide the world into regiosn, I'm guessing there's a big wasted opportunity.

By the way, when you buy a piece of art, have you not looked at it before? Would you buy a wrapped-up painting sight unseen, hoping it's good, depending just on a description? Maybe a little peek behind the curtain for 10 seconds? No. The same goes for a movie. When I go to the theatre, I like to be surprised. I watch the film, if it's good, it's good. If it's nog, I had a good time watching a bad movie. But to buy a dvd (for lack of rental or theatre showing) and hav a dud on your hands? No. I'd rather download the movie, watch it and then decide.

 

[streeter]

Kai: You're right that it sometimes takes long for a movie to cross the pond... fortunately, the wait is getting shorter and shorter. For Episode II there is no wait at all.

However, I don't think a painting can be compared to a movie. For a painting, you don't pay to see it (unless you have to pay to get into the museum) - you pay to own it, or have the ability to see it whenever you please. For a movie, you do pay to see it. The two simply can't be compared.

I think watching a bootleg is like sneaking into a movie theater without paying.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Kai's response is funny because until recently Europe's copyright laws were far more stringent than in the US, and European creators were screaming that they weren't being properly protected in the US. Hence we have the Uruguay Round of GATT that brings PD materials from Europe, like Metropolis, back under US copyright.

 

[Bob McElfresh]

Administrator Note: Good discussion guys.

HTF is not against discussing the issues around bootlegs. We will step in and remove once people start asking/advising on how to do it.

 

[Josh Matthews]

I took an International Intellectual Property Law course a few years back. My recollection of GATT is that it really doesn't have any "teeth." Countries enforce it if they feel like it. I think it will be some time until you see bootlegging stop overseas. In the U.S. we're pro-i.p. rights because we've got all this valuable i.p. to sell. Film is a good example. In the U.S., our film industry makes a ton of money. The overwhelming majority of countries' film industries don't make any money at home or abroad so why should they put any pressure on their government to enforce GATT provisions. If some U.S. company sells a few less tickets, so what? They gain nothing by protecting U.S. i.p. so why should they. I imagine the industry could pay these countries for the cost of enforcement but I suspect that would be seen as too costly for the film industry. Thus, from the "country that allows bootlegging"'s point of view (and you'll find most of the truths we cling to depend on our point of view) why should they subsidize the U.S. film industry.

I'm not advocating this position, but my sense is this is what's at the core of the problem.

Incidentally, I don't buy bootlegs. I saw a bit of one of "Phantom Menace" shortly after it came out at a friend's house and it was so bad we turned it off and never watched it again. Having bought the VHS and DVD versions and seen it in the theater 6 times I figure I've absolved myself.

 

[Greg_Y]

When someone can prove to me that every bootleg copy is meant to usurp the purchase of the real thing when it comes out or to replace the need to go to the theater, then I will whole-heartedly advocate the stomping out of piracy. But AFAIC, this bitching and moaning about the selling of really crappy copies of a movie is silly.

Legally, does it really matter? There's a copyright holder. He/she has certain rights. Someone is infringing upon those rights when distributing things like this. I don't believe that financial loss is the one and only factor that divides what is okay vs. what is not okay, in a legal sense. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

When you don't have as much money to spend, quality becomes less and less of an issue.

In which case you probably just wouldn't see the movie at all. I know that I have bootlegs of several movies. I saw many of them in theaters and own (or plan to own) all of them on DVD.

Point in fact: Piracy IS theft unless the person plans to buy a license to view said things with a legitimate release.

 

[Dave H]

Why are you guys protecting hollywood that much? Haven't you noticed those people are filthy stinking rich? They can afford to loose that little bit of money.

That is a rationalization for piracy and it doesn't matter how "filthy stinking rich" they are. Breaking the law is breaking the law and there is a reason for these laws.

 

[DanR]

Dave H,

Exactly what I wanted to write. I would also add to your post that just because someone is "rich", doesn't make it "ok" to basically steal from them. Sure, stealing 50 Cents from a homeless person in the NYC subway is a bigger "hit" to them vs stealing 50 Cents from a Billioniare. But in the end, both are still stealing, and because one person isn't going to "miss" the 50 Cents doesn't make it right. Good post.

Regards,

Dan

 

[John_Berger]

John: When people download movies off the web, money IS lost. True, each time a bootlegged movie is watched does not mean that one less ticket is sold. But some of the people DO watch these movies, whether downloaded or purchased as bootlegs, instead of going to the movie theater or instead of going to the video store to rent it. When you don't have as much money to spend, quality becomes less and less of an issue. There is no way of knowing exactly what revenue is lost, but my guess is that it IS significant. Movies aren't like music - do you think that if you DL a movie that you are more likely to buy it? That may hold true for music, but I doubt it does for movies.

Okay, let's expand on this a bit then.
I do not believe that one download equals one lost sale, and I reject your notion completely that money is somehow automatically lost with every blippin' download of a movie. The truth is that we don't know if money is lost at all, let alone the amount. That's all there is to it. We can speculate all that we want, but the lsat time I checked, DVD sales were still going up, up, up!
The whole concept of losing "billions of dollars" is nothing but speculation and conjecture so that the studios can make it seem like they're just such victims even though they continue to charge us upwards of $30 for a plastic disc. That's where I have a problem with this.
I have actually heard (yes, I have heard this argument) that every person who has Internet access is expected to pirate a movie at some time, and therefore that must be accounted for in the lost revenue estimate! Oh, yes, I'm sure that someone's grandma who hardly knows how to use AOL will be downloading "Spider-Man" this coming weekend!
Let's look at a real scenario, though. I downloaded the screener DVD rip to "LOTR: Fellowship of the Rings." I won't deny it. BUT (before you start crying "Foul!!") I've already seen it in theaters twice. I have already warned my wife that I will be purchasing not only the August widescreen release but also November's collector's edition. My download was NOT to steal revenue, and it was NOT to prevent me from buying the DVD ... okay ... plural ... DVDs. It's solely to satify my cravings for the movie until such time as the DVD comes out, and I still plan on seeing it in theaters again before it leaves entirely! (The big screen just cannot be surpassed by even the biggest TV!)
I paid to see the movie twice. I'll see it at least once more theatrically. I'm buying both versions of the DVD when they're available. And let's not forget the money that I paid at the concession stand, which is where the theater gets its profit. Legality aside (because that's NOT the issue and never has been), how did I steal revenues from New Line? When the DVDs are in my hands, the files are going to be wiped because I have a DVD-ROM drive, so I won't need them. So, I ask again, how did I steal revenues?
And don't talk to me about "You should see it in the theater again." If I have a desire to see one specific scene at 2 AM on a Sunday morning, (A) there are no 24-hour theaters in my area, and (B) I am not going to a theater to see a five-minute scene in a 2.5 hour movie.
Am I the exception to the rule? Possibly. But we have NO WAY of knowing that. That's where my gripe is. There is absolutely no way that we can prove definitively or other wise that when a person buys a crappy cam video that they will not see it in the theater and/or they will not buy the DVD when the movie comes out.
If someone has full intention of using a bootleg to replace the real thing, they're doing the wrong thing. Period. I will not disagree with that at all. I'm simply saying that I am tired of people who make ridiculous statements like "we're losing billions of dollars" with absolutely, positively no way to prove it whatsoever.
Until such time as they (and their "you breaking the law - period" supporters) can prove that one download will always equal one lost sale or two lost sales or however many lost sales, they need to just clam up.
Personally, my opinion is that the majority of people who download an inferior version (and even DIVX is vastly inferior to the real DVD) as a replacement to the real thing would not have bought the DVD in the first place.
Intent to buy *IS* a factor, or at least it should be, regardless of what the "you're breaking the law - period" types say. The law is not an issue, and it never has been. The studios do not care about the law, and you're a fool if you think they do. They care about the money that they THINK they're losing. I certainly cannot blame them for that. Stolen money is stolen money, but only if that money was destined for them and never made it BECAUSE OF the download or the bootlegged version.
I'm also forced to wonder about how many downloads are done not to watch the movie but simply to say "I have it." Even software piracy watchdog groups admit that by their estimate about 20% of software downloads are not used but instead act as a trophy.
But then again, what do I know? Somehow, my download has stolen money from New Line Cinema even though I've seen the movie twice and I'm sweating, waiting to spend more money on New Line in August and November. Go figure. I guess that my obvious and wanton lust to steal revenues by buying the DVDs and going to the theaters is clouding my judgement.

 

[John_Berger]

I don't believe that financial loss is the one and only factor that divides what is okay vs. what is not okay, in a legal sense.

It most certainly is. If illegal copying actually (somehow) made the studios gain a profit, do you really think that they'd argue about people breaking the law?

Obviously, in this case their lost revenue is attributed to breaking the law, so they're putting on a front about the legal (or illegal) aspect of "piracy".

 

[Joe McCabe]

To those who rejected my comment regarding the internet being about to change, and those who said that no money is lost on bootlegs:

Right now, I *could* (but won't) direct you to sites where DVD Rips of many, many titles are available. Hell, they're even selectable by alphabetical order! Now, I realize that the technology isn't currently in place to make 100% perfect copies, but how far off are we from that???

In the very near future, this is going to be a MAJOR problem for Hollywood. Whether we like it or not, Hollywood will not allow this to stand.

Say what you will, but we are talking about "Big Business"

here, and money talks. If/When Hollywood truely starts to feel the bite, you can bet your ass they will try everything they can to stop it.

FTP, IRC and others will be tough to deal with, but Peer to Peer programs will probably be facing hard times in the near future.

 

[John_Berger]

Say what you will, but we are talking about "Big Business"

Yes, of course. Rather than do something intelligent like provide their own rips for $5.99 or some other modest price, they'd rather spend million upon millions hunting down everyone else and putting spy-chips into our computers. How fitting for Hollywood to take that approach.
It's our fault. It's always our fault.
But I forgot -- one download always and forwever will equal one lost sale. How silly of me to forget that.
:rolleyes

 

[Greg Rowe]

FTP, IRC and others will be tough to deal with, but Peer to Peer programs will probably be facing hard times in the near future.

FTP and IRC would be easier to stop than peer to peer. That is WHY gnutella came into existence. There is no central server that can be shut down. It simply can NOT be shut down. FTP is easy to shut down because the site operator would be responsible. IRC is tougher because of the fact that the files never touch the IRC server when being transfered. It would be easy to shutdown an IRC server because it propogates the spreading of pirated materials though.

My point is that the MPAA needs to ADAPT. They can't stop the piracy - no way. Peer to peer makes it impossible to stop. Their current attempts are copy protection (DVI anyone) which only inconvenience LEGAL users. Do you like the idea that HBO will be able to tell you TV not to allow the HD signal to be recorded? This is a poor attempt at stopping piracy. All it takes is one person to crack their scheme at it is all over. Look at DVD! The CSS codes got broken (they were poor to begin with - 3 line perl programs can decode a DVD). Look at copy-protected pseudo-cds. Many people have figured out how to rip them and they are available EASILY for download. Putting in the copy protection makes some MACS stop functioning! So regular user Joe pops in his Celine Dion cd - just to play it, or to make a copy for his car (fair use), and now he has to PAY apple to fix his computer!

How much money is being thrown away on copy protection? Tons of money must have been spent developing the CSS scheme, and for what? The only solution is for companies to adapt. Offer a product that is of higher quality than bootlegs at a good price. This can be done, copy protection can't.

You should note that the DMCA (digital millenium copyright act) makes it ILLEGAL to ATTEMPT to circumvent copyright protection mechanism - no matter how simple they are. A russian computer scientist was arrested (by Adobe's urging) because he pointed out SECURITY HOLES in their ebook software. He pointed out how easy it was to circumvent their copy protection, and was ARRESTED!

This stuff honestly scares me.

Greg

 

[Joe McCabe]

To John_Berger:

While I agree with you about Hollywood looking for more reasonable solutions, I also, as a businessman, wouldn't want customers attempting to dictate my prices to me.

Where would the line be drawn?? You say $5.99, but maybe someone else feels that's too much. And even if it was say $2.00, many people will still say "Screw that, I'll just get it from MorpheNapsterZaa for free!!"

See what I mean??

As we speak, DVD Rips of Monster's Ball, I Am Sam, Hart's War, etc. are on they net, and they haven't even been released yet. DVD Rips!!!

So again, we have a situation that, even if a scheduled $5.99 download release date were set, it wouldn't matter.

It's here, now, and free.

 

[Greg_Y]

John_Berger,

I still don't understand your point. You are making an excellent argument that the studios won't be losing a dime from your actions. So what? That still doesn't mean that it is legal.

Let's take a simpler argument:

Say film X is unavailable on any type of home video and is never shown again theatrically. It is not shown on TV or through any other medium. Effectively, it sits in a vault somewhere, never again to generate one cent of revenue for the copyright holder. Does that mean it's legal to freely copy or distribute DVDs, VHS cassettes or MPEG files of the movie? No. Even if there is no revenue lost, it does not necessarily mean that it's a free-for-all. The copyright holder had certain rights that you cannot infringe upon.

 

[Greg Rowe]

Where would the line be drawn?? You say $5.99, but maybe someone else feels that's too much. And even if it was say $2.00, many people will still say "Screw that, I'll just get it from MorpheNapsterZaa for free!!"

I know this was directed to John but...

The point is that they need to provide something better for a fair price. To me packaging is important. For a lot of people it isn't. There needs to be some good solutions. How about a discount on a DVD purchase with a valid movie ticket stub? How about movie ticket discounts coming inside of DVDs? The root of the problem needs to be handled - not the symptoms.

There isn't an easy solution. It's tempting to say just make HD-DVD so that a full rip would be 18gigabytes. That would work, but only temporarily. Technology moves so fast it wouldn't take long to catch up.

 

[Joe McCabe]

To Greg Rowe:
But's what's *wrong* with what's provided now??
For the most part, I LOVE the DVDs I purchase, and feel the price is very fair (in most cases), and if sales charts are any indicator, so do ALOT of other people.
Let's face it, this issue isn't problematic of the current DVD market, it's an issue of easy, anonymous, accessability to stolen material.
If people still had to go out of their house, and risk getting arrested, they wouldn't have such a cavalier attitude towards the issue.
But since it can be done from your home, and no one will know, many people are advocates of "file sharing".
Now, I'm not trying to be holier than thou, because I am guilty of this activity myself.
I'm simply being honest about the situation.