web
counter
 

Why Pay for Anything? Movie Bootlegging and the Evolution of Media

By Michael Murray | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (87)



sliding-doors-free_1.jpg

The other day while on a long train ride I took a glance at what people were watching on their laptops.

A solitary woman in her mid-30s, absently chewing on her fingernails, watched Sliding Doors. This movie, made back when Gwyneth Paltrow was an actress whose name was not yet followed by contemptuous snickers, foreshadowed the over-arching ambition that would spell her doom. Her British accent was so appalling and condescending it was as if she had become the very distillate of all that was obnoxious in the world. Who did Paltrow think she was kidding?

star_trek_chokes.jpgAn older man watched the J.J. Abrams Star Trek prequel. I loved the verve and pop of this film and had a smile sliding all over my face when I watched it in the theatre. Seeing all the old characters I had grown up with, as familiar as aging friends of the family, reconfigured as vigorous and ambitious was what touched me, I think. We got to see a glimpse of all them before they were defined in the series, before they were set in our minds forever. For me, it was like watching my parents, before they became my parents, when they had lives and identities that were their very own.

A pretty young woman wearing a hijab was watching The Social Network, which I thought was a first rate movie. Expertly directed and featuring a great score by Trent Reznor, the film brilliantly showcased the acidic writing of Aaron Sorkin, whose voice found a natural home in the intellectual misanthropy of Mark Zuckerberg that had previously been masquerading as liberal humanism in “The West Wing.”

Other people, instead of watching the movie, were actually on their Facebook pages, while at the back of my car near the washroom, one woman had managed to draw a small crowd to her laptop to watch Bridesmaids. The notable thing about this was that Bridesmaids was still in wide release and the what they were watching was obviously a bootleg.

I habitually buy bootleg movies. I consider it a gritty and urban activity, like listening to somebody whimper for mercy over a drug deal gone wrong through my bedroom window late at night.

20070405_061406_komodo_dragon_0.jpgMy first foray into the bootleg market was accidental, a matter of circumstance rather than design. Like most entries into an underground economy, morality didn’t play a factor. A better delivery service for a product I used had been built and made available to me, and so I used it. I employed reptile thinking, really, instinctive and self-interested rather than contemplative and empathetic.

The bootleg hut I go to is presided over by an ancient Asian man who either speaks no English or pretends to speak no English. I’ve forgotten the exact pricing structure, but I think it’s 3 for $12 or 7 for $20. The quality of the DVD’s can be hit or miss. Once, I got a copy of The Crazies in which a theatre goer’s shoulder was visible at the bottom of the screen and the copy of Alice In Wonderland I bought was curiously devoid of what I would call color. (Personally, I kind of liked these interpretations of the filmic experience, seeing them as a kind of mash-up or a piece of found, if degraded, art) No matter, for each handheld disaster there are usually five perfect copies of advance screeners that had been sent out to the media and then bloodlessly dispatched to bootleggers. (By the way, this site does not accept screeners, or bootlegs, as far as I know.)

I have to admit to feeling some excitement in finding out if the DVD I bought is going to be a dud or not. You know, it’s like playing a Scratch N’ Win ticket— maybe you’re going to beat the system, or maybe the system is going to beat you. And of course, in this particular situation you have no recourse if you’ve been burned. The hut is migratory, so you might not even be able to find it again, and if you do, well, the guy working the front is old enough to be indifferent to threats and is apparently mystified by all languages and attempts at communication. He’s an impenetrable bureaucracy unto himself.

But still, that doesn’t make buying bootlegs right, does it?

In considering this I think it’s relevant to acknowledge that I think the Internet is as important an innovation to civilization as the wheel.

If it’s not actually the place where we live, it’s the place where we’re all moving to.

It’s a radically democratizing agent, one that provides an instantly accessible repository of culture, knowledge and marketplace, dramatically shrinking the world and amplifying opportunity that had previously been withheld from people for generations. The Net’s a rapid delivery system that cuts out the middle-man, enabling a cultural and commercial freedom that could evolve independently of, and perhaps obliterate the obdurate directives of our monolithic elites. Skype will destroy the existing phone companies. Music file sharing sites will ruin record companies. Ebay and Etsy will threaten retailers. Twitter, Craig’s List and infinity of Blogs and web sites will crush newspapers.

Time marches forward and economies, ever-evolving, keep moving on, forcing people to come up with new ways of making money as the old revenue streams dry up. Better ideas force industries, and more importantly, people, to adapt.

Right now, musicians, instead of signing big contracts with record companies are making money by touring and hawking merchandise, their CD’s little more than loss leaders for the rest of their commercial enterprise. Television shows, now aware that people watch their programs at their own pre-recorded leisure and just zip through the ads, must now embed the ads within the shows. Critics, once singular voices of authority, have blossomed from every nook and cranny, now offering the public a diverse and fully interactive array of informed and idiosyncratic opinion.

Why pay for anything? We have ourselves a hive now, and what one person knows or thinks, everybody knows and thinks, and maintaing any sort of elite ownership over intellectual property is going to be impossible, perhaps even immoral. (Brazil manufactures cheap copies of patented HIV drugs to dispense to citizens that wouldn’t otherwise be able to acquire the life-saving treatment.)

thoo-brook1.jpgThe fact that technology now exists to rapidly duplicate and disseminate bootlegged copies of movies doesn’t mean that those who buy them are wrong (or right) or are responsible for destroying jobs within the industry, it just means the world is changing. The movie industry, instead of trying to crush and control this audience, is going to have to adapt, and they are. What are 3-D movies but an attempt to keep us coming back into the theatre so that we’ll continue to see franchise movies like the Pirates of the Caribbean series, buy the action figures and DVD’s they spawn, and ensure that at the top of the pyramid, Johnny Depp still gets his 50 million per film?

Regardless, the experience of attending a movie and seeing it in a theatre cannot be duplicated. To have everything dissolve around you and fade to black, and to see a world— so much larger than life— unfold before you just as the artists intended, is unique. And without even knowing it, the mood and expectations of the rest of the crowd, like weather blowing in, passes through you and then a rare but unforgettable moment of shared transcendence might emerge, and for that, well, for that we will always return.

Michael Murray is a freelance writer. He presently lives in Toronto. You can find more of his musings on his blog, or check out his Facebook page.










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Tracey Morgan Unapologetically Bashes Gays | The Borrower Review: Wait, They Don't Love You Like I Love You









Comments

contented sigh

Posted by: Ian at June 10, 2011 11:58 AM

Resistence is futile?

Posted by: superasente at June 10, 2011 12:07 PM

Without commenting on the rights and wrongs of prices and excesses in any industry (movies, music, pharmaceuticals, PDAs, etc.), it is worth pointing out that nobody ever thinks intellectual property is important until they have some of their own that is being encroached upon.

Posted by: PaddyDog at June 10, 2011 12:10 PM

But still, that doesn’t make buying bootlegs right, does it?
What kind of an idiot buys bootlegs when you can download or stream them for free on the web?


Why pay for anything?
1. Because we enjoyed the product and want to support it
2. Because few people are that cheap that they will watch a crappy cam version of a movie they really want to see isntead of checking it out at the movie theater

Posted by: Minto at June 10, 2011 12:19 PM

Artists, studios, content providers, and retailers are going to be forced to adapt or die, and the technology is changing the market in remarkable ways. This is all very true.

However, this statement is complete bullshit:
"The fact that technology now exists to rapidly duplicate and disseminate bootlegged copies of movies doesn’t mean that those who buy them are wrong (or right) or are responsible for destroying jobs within the industry, it just means the world is changing."

Just because it is easy, convenient, and unlikely you will be caught doesn't mean that we moral and ethical implications simply vanish. Rationalize it all you want: you are stealing something that has value that someone (or many people) created and developed. That is objectively and immutably wrong. You may not give a shit, and that's on you, but don't frame your argument as morally neutral.

Posted by: Yossarian at June 10, 2011 12:25 PM

I generally don't pirate music or movies or anything like that. It's not fair to the artists, and also, what you're getting isn't worth the risk (seems like the best place in the world to pick up viruses is bootleg movie sites -- a fact I know from my ex-husband's frequent system crashes).

That being said, my kid came home with a bootleg copy of some current horror movie (loaned to her by a friend) and I watched it with her. Man, what a crappy experience. It wasn't a good movie to begin with, but with the aspect ratio totally messed up, it was like watching aliens on the screen.

I'll stick with Netflix. There's no movie so great that I can't either pay for it in a theater, or wait a couple of months for it to be on a legal DVD.

Posted by: Wednesday at June 10, 2011 12:28 PM

I'm a big ol' stick in the mud for not liking the "theatre experience" anymore. My college roommate and I saw The Godfather and A Clockwork Orange four times one week Back In The Day. I rode a bus to see Pulp Fiction and The Crying Game. I've wimped out.

Posted by: DenG at June 10, 2011 12:28 PM

Rationalize it all you want: you are stealing something that has value that someone (or many people) created and developed. That is objectively and immutably wrong. You may not give a shit, and that's on you, but don't frame your argument as morally neutral
That depends entirely on the product. In some cases you are completely right but in others like say downloading TV shows as soon as they are aired rather then wait for weeks till they come in your country? I fail to see how you are stealing anything(well I suppose if you have rating measuring things but almost nobody does) You will see it for free anyway.

Posted by: Minto at June 10, 2011 12:29 PM

Also where is the line in pirating music.Is there much of a difference if you create a playlist on youtube and let it play or burn the songs on a cd and put it in your stereo? You are not paying for it either way and yet one is completely legal while the other one isn't

Posted by: Minto at June 10, 2011 12:34 PM

Mea culpa - forgot to mention: no bootlegs for me!

Posted by: DenG at June 10, 2011 12:34 PM

I'm a pirate and I'm proud of it. Fuck the man.

Posted by: superasente at June 10, 2011 12:40 PM

I used to feel bad about copying DVDs that I rented. Then I found out that two different friends, who are both in law enforcement, do the same thing.

Now, I find it to be more of a Robin Hood type situation. Robbing from mega-corporations that mistreat and exploit their customer base to give to the poor(namely me).

Posted by: androstarr at June 10, 2011 12:44 PM

@Minto

Yes, there is plenty of gray and undefined areas. I think there are many cases where the industry is overprotective and consumers have every to modify content or transport it across mediums, DMCA be damned.

I apply a different standard to over the air or streaming online television shows compared to first run movies. It's difficult to know where to draw the line between free streaming music and downloading an illegal copy of that album. A little bit of bending the rules is reasonable and probably a good thing for the industry, I just object to the "neither right nor wrong" claim. There are obvious ethical implications. Pretending that they don't apply is just a self-serving cop out to rationalize petty theft.

Posted by: Yossarian at June 10, 2011 12:45 PM

I clicked on this post and started reading with my nose high in the air and a huge smirk of superiority on my face...and then I realized that I technically partake in bootlegged materials quite often. I have not purchased a single music CD in the last 5 years, all my music comes from the library. And most of the shows I’ve been watching were viewed at Mega Video or other such websites...

Shame on me?

Posted by: Scully at June 10, 2011 12:45 PM

I do not bootleg anything myself. I'm deeply invested in the social contract (I know, hopelessly idealistic of me). I evaluate my choices by asking what would happen if everyone made the same choice that I did. In the case of bootlegging, if everyone chose to not pay for movies, music and other content, movies, music and other content would no longer be profitable and they would stop being made.

It's reductionist, ludicrously naive and simple minded but it's an easy short hand for making choices that may or may not have wider ranging effects. I do not care if other people watch bootlegs. I'm not trying to judge anyone, only to be comfortable with the decisions I make.

On the point of adapting, you're absolutely right. As people adapt to using new distribution methods so must producers.

Posted by: FyreHaar at June 10, 2011 12:46 PM

Why pay for anything?

Because I'm not a thief.

Posted by: Todd at June 10, 2011 12:47 PM

Yossarian, I don't think M.M. has written an entirely unsatirical article for the site in a while. There are kernels of truth in each of them, but what you're taking umbrage with is not one of them, I don't think.

Posted by: Ian at June 10, 2011 12:48 PM

@Minto

Yes, there is plenty of gray and undefined areas. I think there are many cases where the industry is overprotective and consumers have every to modify content or transport it across mediums, DMCA be damned.

And that's the thing. Instead of the industry getting on with the times they are just pissing everyone off which really really doesn't help them. The old ways are dead

I apply a different standard to over the air or streaming online television shows compared to first run movies. It's difficult to know where to draw the line between free streaming music and downloading an illegal copy of that album.
I think it's only a matter of time before music becomes similar to TV and then they would make money only of people using it with commercial use, live concerts and so on.


There are obvious ethical implications. Pretending that they don't apply is just a self-serving cop out to rationalize petty theft.
That's the thing. They aren't. Morals,ethics they can be quite subjective from person to person. You make it seem like people try to rationalize or justify something they feel guilty and wrong about doing. But that's the not the case. Most people simply just don't give a crap. And with industrie's attitude this is not going to change soon

Posted by: Minto at June 10, 2011 12:56 PM

I remember a few years back when the music industry made this big, arrogant to-do about the anti-pirating technology they just implemented in music CD's that would make ripping and duplicating music a thing of the past. They claimed they went through millions of dollars and many eggheads trying to come up with the CD that couldn't be pirated. Less than a day later, the solution was posted that all one needed to stymie their multi-million dollar accomplishment was a 99 cent felt tip marker, which made the disk still as rippable as it always was. I imagine the people who came up with the original software had ancestors who built the Maginot Line- but that's just a theory.

The point is that if you want to sell me something that I can see and hear- then it can be copied. It will always be able to be copied.

I'll tell you two reasons that many people have little qualms about bootlegging movies and music; years of overcharging people for products and overall declining quality. When albums are released with only one or two decent tracks, when remakes and sequel movies keep releasing different versions of ever changing picture and sound quality (and formats) with "new" material, when you have to buy a TV series's entire season worth of crappy episodes to watch the three that are worth repeated viewing, consumers get regularly fed up with having to pony up good money for stuff that isn't worth it. I'm not saying it's entirely ethical, but I do understand.

If the entertainment industries aren't going to try to improve their production standards, then they need to wake the hell up and charge people less for the crap they try to pass off. Otherwise, people are going keep bootlegging and an increased rate and will continue to do so whether the material is inferior or not.

By the way, does anyone recall a few years back when Hollywood made a bunch of anti-bootlegging trailers? Some compared bootlegging to being the hardest of criminals and some starred actors throwing a pity party about how bootlegging takes money from them. Hey Tinseltown, piece of advice; don't throw Ben Affleck on the screen and have him tell me he can't get his children what they need because I opted to get a bootleg of Paycheck instead of paying money. They would have been better off showing the blue-collared movie crew people who live from job to job than show the pretty people bitching.

Posted by: bleujayone at June 10, 2011 12:56 PM

That has crossed my mind, Ian. I don't think it's possible to pin down Mr. Murray. Still, I think that sentiment is one that a lot of people hide behind (I'm not doing anything wrong, technology makes it a victimless non-crime) so I thought I'd get me two cents in.

Posted by: Yossarian at June 10, 2011 12:58 PM

Over time, I've slowly moved from Yossarian's perspective to something closer to Murray's. I used to be flatout anti-piracy during the salad days of Napster, which, at the time I mainted was wrong due to the fact that musicians still needed big record deals, or studio support, to make their big money on tours. I thought piracy took away from sales, which hurt the artists in the long run. I still think, to some degree, I wasn't wrong, because I knew many people my age who used to buy albums but had suddenly stopped due to the availability of free pirated copies. Of course, those were the days when AOL was the internet. So young. So naive.

Now, however, with the speed at which we can pirate, and those who would do so are now relatively cleanly divided from those who would not, I don't think pirates actually hurt anyone. They probably weren't going to buy, anyway. In fact, piracy has now been proven to help some artists. If not for THIS particular product, then for the NEXT one they produce. Now, I am a content creator, and I fully embrace giving away incomplete versions of my comic on my website, and fairly soon I'm going to branch out into selling at a steep, steep discount the complete versions online as .PDF downloads or on jumpdrives. But, the printed comic will be available for those who want to support us, but it's the premium version. If people spread my comic for free, well, that's just free advertising for me. (That's the hope, anyway.)

What are 3-D movies but an attempt to keep us coming back into the theatre[.]

Yes. This. It's why the TV Industry (including every aspect of entertainment that uses televisions as a delivery system) is trying damned hard to create workable, sellable 3DTVs; it's what fueled HD before that. Eventually, like my comic, and live theater and concerts before that, movie theaters will be the premium. We'll pay a little more than we do now because we want the experience. We'll get fewer movies in theaters, and they'll be bigger movies. But the internet will be here to give us the future King's Speeches and Mementos.

The future isn't now, but it's very soon.

Posted by: RobP at June 10, 2011 12:58 PM

Cracked actually had an insanely effective version of this article last year. I'd recommend everyone give it a read, even if Cracked is far below your intellectual level:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html

FARTS, indeed.

Posted by: JP at June 10, 2011 1:03 PM

Ian, I don't find anything satirical or nuanced about this ludicrous essay. It is wholly reflective of an attitude that knows no geography and crosses generation, gender, race and class. If you can get it for free, take it, consequences be damned. I'm a writer by trade, of novels and television. I live solely off the fruits of my work. What the hell incentive do I have to keep producing if I won't receive the financial reward I'm due? It's the foundation of economics.

And to echo Yossarian: You can wrap it up in assertions "that the world is changing" and "corporations must adapt or die" all you want. That doesn't change the simple nature of the act. It's not rebellion or revolution or resistance. It's thievery. Plain and simple.

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2011 1:06 PM

Morals,ethics they can be quite subjective from person to person. You make it seem like people try to rationalize or justify something they feel guilty and wrong about doing. But that's the not the case. Most people simply just don't give a crap.

People who "don't give a crap" aren't making a different, subjective moral judgment; they're not making a moral judgment at all. People who bootleg movies rather than pay for them know it's immoral and illegal and they know why: it's theft. Whether they feel guilty is immaterial. A lot of murderers feel no remorse for what they did, but that doesn't get them off the hook.

Posted by: Todd at June 10, 2011 1:22 PM

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.

Thomas Jefferson wrote this in 1813 regarding copyrights, which both he and Madison felt were akin to monopolies. These ideals make it possible to maintain the public domain (which is being assaulted by the Disney Corporation so they might retain exclusive ownership over their characters, which were originally set to enter the public domain in 2003 -- which would have meant that anyone could make a t-shirt of Mickey Mouse and legally earn a profit from it's sale).

This idea, that the inventions, ideas, and artistic expressions of the individual belong to the population at large -- that's a very important ideal and one I embrace whole-heartedly.

Posted by: superasente at June 10, 2011 1:30 PM

@ Chris and Yossarian

I don't think that MM or anyone else is arguing that bootlegging/piracy is legal. My interpretation of this article is that there is a difference between illegal and wrong.

I think that consumers and producers of media are separated by a vast gulf of opinion on this matter. People that create music, movies, tv shows, ect... believe that their work is of inherent value and they deserve financial compensation for such.

Consumers feel that they are being gouged by movie ticket prices, DVD prices, CD prices, Cabke TV prices. The amount we are asked to pay is far in excess of the value of said media. For this reason, may do not feel it is wrong to burn a copy of a rented DVD or stream a TV show from the internet.

Posted by: androstarr at June 10, 2011 1:32 PM

I approve this message.

Posted by: John G. at June 10, 2011 1:45 PM

I don't think there is a difference between illegal and wrong, not in this case. Prices are driven by the market. So what if a consumer thinks an item is overpriced? DON'T BUY IT. Choice and its twin competition are the only morally acceptable ways of driving down a price. If a consumer doesn't feel it's "wrong" to take something that was produced through the collective efforts, time, energy and resources of the artist who created the object and the company that developed and distributed it, we have great reason to fear the future of art, high and low.

If you don't want to pay the price, then don't buy it. But obtaining it by other means is still theft. Certainly, as Yossarian has said, there are gray areas. But I have yet to read an argument that undermines the central truth; all I see here are rationalizations for a mob mentality that says it's okay to loot from a company because a particular consumer can't afford the price of ownership. Stealing is stealing. I'm very much at home making the moral judgment.

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2011 1:48 PM

I don't think there is a difference between illegal and wrong, not in this case. Prices are driven by the market.

Look up cartel

Posted by: Minto at June 10, 2011 1:50 PM

What the hell incentive do I have to keep producing if I won't receive the financial reward I'm due?

Because you love it, Straw Man? You're damn lucky to be paid to write novels and television. But if you're only writing to get a paycheck, I don't envy you. I hate this phrase, but it applies: You're doing it wrong.

Posted by: RobP at June 10, 2011 1:55 PM

"Look up cartel"

Please see: "not in this case." I can go to five different movie theaters in NYC and see the same movie, legally, for five different prices. I have options on cable providers from which to buy service, at different prices. I can buy music from any number of legal online services - again, at different prices. How is any of this evidence of a cartel? As awful as Disney or NBC is, they are not OPEC - and OPEC does not have full control over oil prices. They rise and fall with the market often regardless of production output.

And while you're at it, look up "close reading." And go on justifying your theft.

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2011 2:02 PM

Please see: "not in this case."

Yes cause there are so many multi billion dollar corporations who all compete fairly. They would never fix the prices I am sure. When you are a looking for a cartel you look at the top not the bottom

Posted by: Minto at June 10, 2011 2:07 PM

@androstarr

We aren't talking about legality either. We are talking about ethics. Your sense of entitlement, your disregard for the people who work to create and produce something, and your ability to justify it because the real thing is too expensive is not a valid excuse. You don't get to unilaterally make the decision that since you believe the movie/music/or show in question costs too much you will just help yourself to it for free, thank you very much.

Some artists and companies are trying to fight against the changing times, and mostly they are fighting a loosing battle. Others are embracing change by making more content available for free and seeking out different sources of revenue. It's easier then ever for new creative people to put their work out there and get noticed but it is still very difficult for anyone below the level of superstar to carve out a stable, sustainable existence being fairly compensated for their creative efforts. Everything is changing and nobody has really figured it out yet.

But if you think that the rules don't apply to you and you are entitled to take whatever you want just because you want it, well, you're an asshole. Taking things that people worked really hard to create against their wishes, in violation of laws intended to protect them, without compensation is an asshole thing to do.

It won't necessarily stop you from doing it, you may not give a shit about them or me or anyone, but don't pretend you're not being an asshole when you do this stuff. You are. It's an asshole thing to do.

(I mean that as the universal second person "you", not you specifically, androstarr)

Posted by: Yossarian at June 10, 2011 2:09 PM

Hey RobP, my reasons for pursuing my art and craft are my own and require no explanation to you. But I'll tell you anyway: Like me, plenty of my colleagues work as tv writers that they may sustain the work that gives them greater personal reward, work such as plays and novels. It's called having a day job.

Why does being successful at what I do warrant an attack? I'm not lucky; I'm good at what I do and I work hard. What's wrong with seeking just compensation for it? Dickens fought for his copyright protections. Why shouldn't anyone else?

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2011 2:13 PM

@ Chris

Your experience in NYC is the exception not the rule. In most places in the country you have one cable provider, one phone service provider, one theater chain. There is no competition to drive down costs, there is no choice for the consumer.

I am making my choice as a consumer to send the message that your product is overpriced. I won't spend $20.00 for a DVD. I won't spend $60/month for basic cable. I won't spend $30 for a hard-backed book. Piracy is my way to fight a corrupt and monopolistic system.

This problem was not created by the tv writer nor the key grip nor the set designer. It was created by the executives that give themselves absurdly lavish perks and exorbitant salaries. The huge pay disparities mean that the people creating and doing the hard work get the crumbs while the execs eat the feast.

I am sorry if you are getting the shaft in this deal, but you as a producer of content need to fight for your fair share however you can.

Posted by: androstarr at June 10, 2011 2:17 PM

I maintain that there are only certain movies that deserve to be seen in a theater. Every ticket you purchase is like a vote of approval for the content on the screen. The quality of the experience and the price of admission were last seen crossing each other as they moved in opposite directions. The floors are sticky. The sound is shit. The snacks are stale and overpriced. The next fucking kid who pops open his cellphone to text, tweet or facebook his retarded friends gets a rusty ginsu knife in his throat. 3D movies are bullshit 50s schlock than and they remain that way. If you willingly put on cheap paper specs to see a movie you're a 'tard and hope you get genital cancer. Put your movie in 3D and you can guarantee I'll be down the street playing pool instead.

I will not see a remake. I will not see a sequel when the first movie was shit. I will not see a film version of any novel written for tweens. For that matter I will not see the remake of a sequel or sequel of a remake, or a prequel to the sequel of a remake, or the remake of a prequel to a sequel, or a sequel to the prequel for a remake. For every Gone With The Wind there are 12 "Meet the Stupids". When you make it worth my while I'll quit downloading so much.

Posted by: Mr. Stitch at June 10, 2011 2:20 PM

Lastly,

The TV Writers strike for more money gave birth to endless waves of unscripted reality TV shows. You priced yourselves out of the market, and out of your jobs and now out 280 channels there's 5% out there worth watching.

-Fuck You All-

Posted by: Mr. Stitch at June 10, 2011 2:30 PM

Bullshit, androstarr, Piracy is your way to be an asshole.

Look, I get the attraction (selfishness, entitlement) just don't cloak it in that 'fight the man' bullshit, ok? Every fucking show on television gets a DVD release, which you can rent with a netflix subscription (or a library card). And half those shows are streaming online legally with minimal ad support for revenue. If you want the new pinoeering methods to blow up the old establishment then fucking support the new methods, asshole! I don't know if I've ever dropped $30 on a book and I read all the time. Put it on hold at the library, wait for the paperback, buy a used copy... It's not that these are great ways to support but they are more ethically responsible choices. You have plenty of choices. When you chose piracy, you are choosing to be an asshole, asshole.

Posted by: Yossarian at June 10, 2011 2:31 PM

@ Yossarian

You say I am an asshole. Well I say that you are a fool of colossal proportions for supporting and defending a system that abuses and misuses you. You are a corporate lackey that licks the boots of the man that crushes you and you thank him for it. That makes you stupid beyond reason.

Posted by: androstarr at June 10, 2011 2:37 PM

What the hell are you downloading so much if you hate everything? How can you possibly have trouble finding good television when there are more quality shows on now than ever before?

No, you just like to bitch about stuff to hear yourself talk and you complain about quality while justifying how you are entitled to take whatever you want (because you don't really want it, eh?)

That rant was particularly pathetic, Stitch. And with apologies to whoever builds the word could of today's comments... You're an Asshole!

Posted by: Yossarian at June 10, 2011 2:39 PM

Untrue, androstarr.

I support bands, authors, and filmmakers who make good movies that I want to see. I follow industry trends and try to throw my support behind distribution models that I believe in and feel are responsive to me (I dropped cable, I stream Netflix, I watch the Daily Show online, I am selective about the movies I see in the theater, I support my local library, I pay a flat fee for unlimited music streaming.)

What I don't do is talk out of one side of my mouth while downloading the latest Transformers movie from Pirate Bay and steal what I don't want to pay for (because fuck the man, right?)

Grow up. I'm not a corporate lackey I'm a discriminating consumer and a mother fucking adult. You sound like a petulant child (and an asshole).

Posted by: Yossarian at June 10, 2011 2:45 PM

@ Yossarian

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

You see yourself as part of the solution through your discriminating consumption. I see you as part of the problem by supporting monopolistic companies that abuse content providers and customers alike. That makes you both a blind fool and an asshole.

Posted by: androstarr at June 10, 2011 2:56 PM

Anybody who thinks that pirating movies (or whatever) ONLY sticks it to "the man," and has no effect on the thousands of low-wage workers in movie theaters, DVD manufacturing, and stores that sell DVDs across the country is a jackass.

Posted by: Todd at June 10, 2011 2:56 PM

I think both of you sound like assholes right now. Not because your points are invalid, but because you're shreiking at each other like spoiled, petulent children.

Posted by: another asshole (psst...it's superasente) at June 10, 2011 3:11 PM

I don't download pirated movies because a.) it's risky, b.) I haven't the interest in reading up on the file formats, codecs, etc., & c.) there's a lotta poorly shot garbage out there.

Mostly unrelated, but I was shocked, SHOCKED the other day when I found out that when I purchase something on Amazon or another online store & pay no sales tax I'm supposed to calculate the sales tax myself & mail it to my state Comptroller. I'm supposed to figure out whether the tax should be levied, levy it, & pay it. The tax code says so. There are no words!

Posted by: the new transported man at June 10, 2011 3:23 PM

To anyone trying to rationalize pirating music/movies/TV shows as "Stealing from the mega-millions corporations...or sticking it to the man...or rebelling against a system that abuses us..."

Fuck You in the throat with a donkey cock.

Mega-million Corpporations - They make their money
Sticking it to the man - He fucks you harder...and no he doesn't spit on it first
Rebelling against a sytem - Wow...what a brave display of rebellion there Spartacus. You inspire dozens.

To be a proud and openly supportive of piracy is wrong on all the levels it should be that you should want to stop and think about who is being hurt. It hurts no one at the top. NO ONE.

It hurts the bottom line. And when the bottom line suffers, cuts start at the bottom. They don't fire CEOs. They don't cut pay to the studio lot heads. They cut the little people. Usually starting in the support staff and art department. The plasterer. The carpenter. The sculptor. The make-up artist. Then, they hang a green screen and contract out to some shitty firm to have them make some scenery at the last minute. Ever notice CGI in a movie and think "Hmmm...that's CGI." A lot of the time it's because CGI wasn't the original plan. So it was done loose and fast and thrown in becuase budget cuts rolled through due to studio losses. I know the movie isn't that great, but Avatar's CG looked amazing because it was planned from the beginning. The contractors spent months and months on development alone. When a movie is planned to have tangible sets, effects, and designs...you can tell.

The long and short of it is, pirating causes cuts to the staff. You are fucking no one other than someone who was making an hourly or contract wage and when they aren't on set, they work at a fuckin pizza place. Or drive a limo. Or tend bar. They ARE doing what they love, and they are being rewarded for it. But not extravagantly. They are merely making part of their yearly wages and trying to pay the rent because they LOVE WHAT THEY DO. But fuckers like you and millions of others cause a trickle down effect. Eliminating the artist. And when the artist is gone, the quality is gone.

So fuck your mother. Fuck your sister. Fuck you dead grandmother in the ass and most of all fuck you.

Posted by: PissBoy at June 10, 2011 3:30 PM

So now people are trotting out the "It kills jobs argument" Yikes. If people weren't so down on workers rights we would have a much more level playing field for workers in every industry.

As stated above. This problem was not created by the tv writer nor the key grip nor the set designer. It was created by the executives that give themselves absurdly lavish perks and exorbitant salaries. The huge pay disparities mean that the people creating and doing the hard work get the crumbs while the execs eat the feast.

I am sorry if you are getting the shaft in this deal, but you as a producer of content need to fight for your fair share however you can.

Posted by: androstarr at June 10, 2011 3:48 PM

You complete lack of any real perspective and your 9 year old-esque "Me first attitude..." are ridiculous.

I would gladly liquify my fist whilst collapsing your face in a calculated, yet still blind, rage.

It's not a debate around "killing jobs..." It's a practical response to your completely impractical thought that your "rage against the machine" is, in any way, harming who you intend to harm. The people who really make the movies don't have marketing and advertising teams to generate them new revenue streams, analyze test populations, et al. Th...

...Nevermind. Bothering to respond to you is a waste of my time. I could be doing so many more things that have more value that what you can bring to the table. Like examining the skin around my toenails, organizing desk items based on lethality, fuckin yer mom...just about anything really.

Posted by: PisBoy at June 10, 2011 3:59 PM

Hi Chris
I am also a writer and I have been paid to do so, therefore I do have a dog in this fight. I wanted to respond to a couple of your points.

"If you can get it for free, take it, consequences be damned. I'm a writer by trade, of novels and television. I live solely off the fruits of my work."

I can get it for free, and there are no consequences. I can borrow your novel from the library, read it, and return it to them without you knowing this has happened and without you having received any income from the process (aside from the library's or donor's initial purchase). Do you object to my having consumed your intellectual property via this distribution channel? I'm not baiting you, I'm actually very interested in your opinion.

Personally, as a consumer, I prefer not to pay the full cover price for a book. I realize that I may be negatively effecting your income by doing this, and I apologize for doing it. I regularly buy books for $0.25 to $1.00 at used book stores and garage sales (paperbacks mostly, but I regularly also find first edition hardcovers in excellent shape for a dollar or two). By purchasing a used book, I miss out on the chance to read the book on the day it came out, but there are many books to read and I am definitely not caught up with what I have already purchased. After I am done reading them, I frequently give these books to a friend or sometimes to the local library. I don't have a big enough house to keep them all (according to my wife), and I constantly must make room for new acquisitions. Do you object to my having consumed your intellectual property via this distribution channel?

A few years ago, the recording industry made many legal arguments against the process of selling used music on CD. I don't remember all of the nuances of their complaint (I think they were trying to use a version of the software industry "user license" model), but they obviously lost the argument. In my area, there are more used CD stores then there are new CD stores. Actually there are almost no new CD stores -- before you quip about them being driven out of business by pirates, from what I understand, it was Walmart and other mass retailers that did them in. I have not found a used CD store that doesn't also sell used DVDs. Obviously, I consume CDs and DVDs the same way I consume books: I buy used copies for low prices and then I give them away. Is it legal for me to do this? As far as I know, it is.

What if I receive a DVD of a movie as a gift, and then, even though I already consumed it, I sell it to a used CD store? It that legal? As far as I know, it is. What if I receive a DVD of a movie as a gift, and then I give that to a friend, even though I have already consumed it, and then my friend sells it to a used CD store. Is that legal? As far as I know, it is.

What if I download an album for iTunes, burn it onto a CD and give it to my mom? Is that legal? No, it's not. What if I delete the original files off of my computer before I give the copy to my mom -- is that legal? I honestly don't know for sure, but I think it actually is, as long as I delete the original files off of my computer. What if my mom gives the CD to her friend -- is that legal? I think so. What if my mom copies it onto her computer and discards the hard copy CD, but then later burns another hard copy for a friend, but deletes the files on her computer before giving the hard copy to her friend? Still legal? I don't know, but it seems like it should be.

Is it illegal if I send the files to my mom via email, rather than give her a hard copy? As long as I delete the original -- maybe.

It becomes illegal if I make more than one copy. If there was only one copy of the album and it got passed through ten thousand users, if a used DVD got bought and sold ten thousand times, that would still be legal. If someone invented a file transfer application that would transfer a file from your computer to any random person who wanted it, but only if the file was simultaneously deleted from your computer, would that be legal? It seems the same as leaving a used DVD on top of a fire hydrant on a street corner and walking away, but its not somehow.

Most of the people that I know who fill up their iPod with music they "got off the internet," change the contents of their iPod frequently, and mostly delete the content they no longer want. Many of the young people I know will watch a movie on their computer, having got the movie "off the internet." But as soon as they're done watching the movie, they mostly delete it. Is any of that legal? Not even remotely. Is it ethical? People from my generation would say that it is not ethical, but I have met a lot of young people who think that this is how "everybody" does it, and they don't see anything wrong with it.

On the other hand if distributers could establish a way to charge for one-time use that consumers liked, maybe they could still make money off of their content. iTunes and Amazon have provided music consumers with a system that allows users to buy only the songs they want, and only after having heard a sample of it. I think Netflix streaming content or something like it, will be the thing that changes all of this. So far, content providers still resist having their movies stream over Netflix and similar services because they worry that this will facilitate piracy. It's more likely that all-you-can-eat streaming will be the thing that keeps content producing profitable.


Posted by: Kosmic Koyote at June 10, 2011 4:43 PM

Kosmic,

I don't see how the concept of a library figures into any aspect of the conversation in which I've taken part. Maybe I'm missing something, but my understanding is that the content warehoused in a library has been acquired by legal means. Whether by purchase or donation or grant, whatever. At some point a transaction took place. My book was bought. If it winds up in a library, great. If your mom buys it, tells you it's great, lends it to you, you read it and pass it along to your wife, great. There's a valid social contract at play there, as valid as this one: I offer you a good or service that you desire to OWN (not BORROW). In return for said good or service, you pay me the fee to which it has been assigned. If that fee is too high, you suck it up and go without - or borrow from a library, whose staff deemed it valuable enough for their purchase. Unless they're rogue librarians, looting what's left of Borders.

As for your other points: I don't disagree that the law lags far behind the technology. I stipulated earlier (around the time I went crazy about this) that there are plenty of gray areas. But until the day comes that the law and technology mesh, people ought to obey the rules. To quote George Costanza, "We are living in a society..." We're not talking about Jim Crow. Pirating Super 8 is not an act of noble civil disobedience, no matter how one wishes to cut it. It's just stealing.

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2011 5:26 PM

Whether by purchase or donation or grant, whatever. At some point a transaction took place. My book was bought. If it winds up in a library, great. If your mom buys it, tells you it's great, lends it to you, you read it and pass it along to your wife, great. There's a valid social contract at play there, as valid as this one: I offer you a good or service that you desire to OWN (not BORROW). In return for said good or service, you pay me the fee to which it has been assigned. If that fee is too high, you suck it up and go without - or borrow from a library, whose staff deemed it valuable enough for their purchase. Unless they're rogue librarians, looting what's left of Borders.

So by this same logic if someone buys a legal DVD and then uses a torrent to share it's contents with his friends it should be ok too? I am really curious about this. What about e-books. If a buy it legally and send it to my friends by e-mail why shouldn't it be legal? It's my copy and I should be able to do what I want with it as long as I am not using it for a commercial gain.

Posted by: Minto at June 10, 2011 6:20 PM

Because you creating a copy! There's no parsing this! A torrent is a copy! It's distribution en masse, it's not loaning your single acquisition out! It's not an original! This is kindergarten science! Fucking pay for what you want! What is so hard to grasp about that?! Do you see how angry you're making me?! I never used exclamation marks! My editor would have my head!

Posted by: Chris at June 10, 2011 6:34 PM

I should be able to do what I want with it as long as I am not using it for a commercial gain.

Minto, it's interesting that you word it that way.

In the 80's when the first VCR was invented by Sony, they were taken to task for inventing something that was inherently made to violate copyrights. The public was suddenly able to instantly and cheaply obtain copies of any movie or TV show that appeared on TV. The VCR was built for that singular purpose, and Sony fought to defend it. They argued that if a person uses it exclusively for home use -- meaning that they don't distribute the content for profit -- then they aren't violating the profit of the copyright holder and should be permitted to keep a copy.

This went to the Supreme Court and they agreed that it was "fair use." But make no mistake; Sony did this because it was profitable.

Jump ahead 25 years or so to downloading music. Sony is a bigger company now. Much bigger. And all of a sudden it's music library is being downloaded in massive quantities without payment. No profit. So they go to court again to fight for the rights of their intellectual property, and to make it illegal to download songs. Even if those songs aren't distributed for profit and are only used for personal use.

I think this is wildly hypocritical, and I'm not alone. I believe that any art, invention or idea does not belong to an individual, but rather to the population at large. If someone writes a book, that's great if they can make money off it. But they shouldn't count on it. If you write a song, it's great if people will pay you to hear it. But you're not owed their payment. And if someone wants to cover that song and earn their own share from it's performance, there is nothing you can do to stop them. You shouldn't want to stop them.

I don't pirate music and movies to spite the system. I do it because the songs I listen to are mine to listen to. The movies I watch are mine to watch. I am part owner of these pieces of art and I intend to enjoy them on my terms. I don't believe that Sony should be permitted to halt the dissemination of their song library. I don't believe that Disney should be permitted to retain sole ownership of Mickey Mouse, effectively cancelling the entire process of the public domain.

Am I a criminal? Oh yeah. The same kind of criminal who goes 5 miles over the speed limit, smokes dope and crosses the street regardless of what the little light says. Am I morally corrupt? Am I an "asshole," as Yossarian would have me believe? Maybe. But not for those reasons.

Posted by: superasente at June 10, 2011 7:18 PM

@ Chris--culturally and professionally I expect we splash about the same waters. I've worked as a writer for years, dabbling in TV and film, blah, blah, blah and a hefty chunk of my friends are creative types who've had to make professional adjustments according to the emergent climate we live in. At this point, most of "us" are indifferent to the fact that the old economic model of a kind of linear ownership of the art we create is broken.

Those who stand in opposition to it, and there are some, remind me of Luddites trying to storm the Industrial Revolution by breaking a loom, or those who deny climate change and keep planting Maple trees when they should be cultivating olive trees.

If we're artists, we need to think of new ways to make ourselves relevant and useful, like mendicant monks. The novel, an enduring form, is changing. We're going back to serial instalments, books are being written for people to read on their cell phones while commuting to work on the subway and the very grammar and syntax of our language is changing. Exclamation points are back, baby! And of course, there aren't any novelist I know who actually make money on their novels, but in the hope that the novel reaches a broad audience, is bought by a studio, or earns them sufficient critical acclaim that they can get a job teaching. What's important to them, to their capacity to earn a living is the distribution of the work and not the purchase of the work, if you know what I mean.

At any rate, I could rattle on about this forever, and I should just stop and go and eat dinner.

Posted by: Michael Murray at June 10, 2011 7:34 PM

...Am I the only one confused about the Kelly Brook photo?

Posted by: AmbroseKalifornia at June 10, 2011 7:36 PM

Confused by a Kelly Brook photo?

There should be Kelly Brook photos everywhere! Kelly Brook brings clarity, a very, very simple clarity.

Actually, she was in that 3D Piranha movie and I thought she in particular, with her 3D assets, best exemplified the utilization of that technology in order to draw people into the theatre. Ahem.

And Superasente--you make excellent points, I think.

Posted by: Michael Murray at June 10, 2011 8:14 PM

My present attitude towards bootlegging, illegal downloading, and the like is heavily shaped by that of Stephen Fry: Bootlegging is for children and teenagers, who love music but have no money. When you are an adult and have money, or at least some stake in the social contract, you put away childish things like BitTorrent and buy used CDs instead of illegally downloading albums.

That being said, I watch way too much old British television on YouTube and should probably just buy the DVD set of "Fortysomething" already.

Posted by: Maureen at June 10, 2011 9:24 PM

Stephen Fry, so elegant, sophisticated and smart is hard to argue with, but he is British and of a certain age, by which I mean has a classist, good-manners, old school sensibility to him. As polite and right-thingish as his point of view is, it's going to be hard to impose that on say, the developing world of Chindia.

Posted by: Michael Murray at June 10, 2011 9:51 PM

True. And yeah, it is pretty classist. Maybe it's more of a noblesse oblige thing, where we who have the money to buy the CD SHOULD buy the CD so that the artist can eat and everyone can see her videos on YouTube.

Posted by: Maureen at June 10, 2011 9:59 PM

Wow, Asente. Do you really believe that?

- any art, invention or idea does not belong to an individual, but rather to the population at large.

- Artists aren't owed any payment by the people ?!?

- People are completely entitled to take anything the artist creates- it's all essentially a public domain free for all- and oh yeah it's great if they can make money off it, but they shouldn't count on it.

This is your theory? Your "excellent points" (must be that famous Murray sarcasm). At least the "fuck the man" reasoning from androstarr can be attributed to immaturity/ stupidity.

Look, I was a little crude and sloppy in my earlier salvos against the piracy apologists. I'll try to make this as clear as possible: It doesn't matter if it's a song, a novel, or a major motion picture, the things people create (by themselves, collaboratively, or through the combined efforts of hundreds of actors, artists, tradespeople, technicians, and support staff) have value and they belong to the people who created them. The people who created them have every right to control how they are disseminated and to be compensated for their efforts, just as much as anyone has a right to profit from the fruits of their labor. It doesn't matter if it is independently produced or financed by a large corporation. It doesn't matter if it can be easily downloaded over the internet or if it must be tucked under your shirt and snuck out of the shop. It's not yours just because you want it. It's not free just because you don't feel like paying for it.

Some fair use is understandable (making tapes from your friends, making copies from the library) but it doesn't follow that exploiting technology that allows thousands of people to make copies from strangers is suddenly ok.

Some artists might feel that it is in their best interest to put their work out there for free. That is their decision because it is their work. It does not follow that you suddenly have the right to take anyone's work for free just because the precedent has been set, your expectations have been adjusted, and you feel entitled. You don't get to take what you want just because you can, or just because you want to.

Look, I know we live in the real world. It's going to happen. It can be justified on a whole lot of different levels. taping a song of the radio is ok, so what about recording a song streaming over the internet, so what about downloading that same song? If you rent a movie and burn a copy, is that better than just downloading it? I'm not able to give you all the answers and make everything black and white. It's complicated, we're human, and the record companies are assholes (If I bought it, fuck you I'll make mp3s if I want to)

What I am saying is that if you make copies of other people's work without paying them for it, you're an asshole. You're not an activist and you're not an advocate of some brilliant new post-consumer egalitarian society where art wants to be free. We've all probably done it- myself included- but it's an asshole thing to do.

I've got netflix for movies but I've downloaded some TV series from bit torrent because I just don't want to deal with juggling multiple discs. It's a purely selfish and indefensible decision. I'm an asshole for doing it. I've also gone to some shady sites to stream live sporting events because I don't have cable. I'm a cheap asshole. I also download a ton of comic books without paying for them. There's no Netflix/Gamefly/Rhapsody equivalent for comic books and I can't go out and buy everything I want to read. There's no good substitute and I don't think that excuses my behavior, I'm still an asshole, but I download the cbz and cbr files of whole multi-year runs of comic books.

It's going to happen. It's too easy, very tempting, low risk, and easy to excuse. All I'm saying is, you're an asshole if you do it. Keep that in mind. Try to be decent and support the movies, tv shows, books, comics, musicians, poets, theaters, producers, studios, shops, and all other cool people who are the reason that we have all this cool stuff in the first place.

But most of all, just don't try to give me some smug self-serving bullshit justification for your entitlement. Just admit you're being an asshole. I'd feel better if you'd just feel a little bit bad about it.

Posted by: Yossarian at June 10, 2011 11:23 PM

And to repeat a point I tried to make earlier: A lot of artist and publishers realize that the world is changing. They aren't going to get everything figured out overnight anymore than you are going to suddenly stop being a thieving asshole but a lot of them are making a serious effort to find ways to adjust their business models for the internet age. Pay attention and support them.

A lot of shows are streaming online by the channels that produce them, or on sites like Hulu. If you support this kind of thing then watch the shows you like on Hulu. Support Netflix Instant Watch instead of bit torrent, it's eight god damn dollars a month. Wait for the movie to come out on DVD instead of downloading it from Pirate Bay. Get your music from sites that stream it legally. Most new albums are streamed by the band themselves when they are first released. That does not mean "see, I might as well download it illegally" it means they are making an effort to give you want you want so don't be a dick.

Posted by: Yossarian at June 10, 2011 11:44 PM

Yossarian:

I wasn't being sarcastic when I wrote that I thought Supersante made excellent points, however, I think you make excellent points, too. As you acknowledge, there's grey all over the goddamn place in this ever-evolving arena and making any sort of moral or ethical absolute is crazy.

I thought Supersante's post illustrated that companies are not regulated by higher principle, say, respect for the artists who work under them, but change their stance according to their own economic good. This is human nature, I'm afraid, and if you do a brief survey of artists you'll see the same sort of self-serving attitudes.

I also understood that it was the Jeffersonian principle that once an idea is out there it is shared and interpreted by the community. We sit upon the shoulders of geniuses, and all of that, all boats rise with the tide, and once Star Wars is made a million different interpretations and inspirations were born from it, as it was born from an idea preceding it.

The notion of what intellectual property is and if the legal integrity of such an enterprise can be maintained is a matter for philosophers more than lawyers, I think. Nowhere do I state a position that I think one side is right or wrong, but that people--artists, corporations and consumers--will act in a self-interested way.

It is infinitely complicated and we ( or at least I) try to make the best decision I can at the time. ( An aside--there is an App in development that will tell you the labor record of all companies and stores where you might be making a purchase.) I forgot where I was.

Something about the Stanley Cup?

The lines between what is and what should be intellectual property are entirely blurred right now, and it won't be sorted out to the satisfaction of interested parties for ages, if ever.

Posted by: Michael Murray at June 11, 2011 12:29 AM

Because you creating a copy! There's no parsing this! A torrent is a copy! It's distribution en masse, it's not loaning your single acquisition out! It's not an original! This is kindergarten science! Fucking pay for what you want! What is so hard to grasp about that?! Do you see how angry you're making me?! I never used exclamation marks! My editor would have my head!
Who the hell are you to tell me what I can do with my own property? If I want I will copy it. I will set it on fire, I will use it as a freaking hat if I want. Unless I am actually using it to make money you have no right whatsoever to tell who I can share my property with or what I can do with it

That's why I can understand going after streaming sites and torrent trackers. I like them but they make money of other people's work and I can see how this is illegal and wrong. But going after people who use their own completely legal property and decide to share for it free? To me that's a crime that's wrong and your industry are the criminals

And speaking of copying guess what? That's the only reason people who complain about copyrights are even relevant at all. It's this technology that allowed you to cheat the system and get paid multiple times for the same product. The great free ride And you know what? Technology gave you this opportunity and now it takes it away. That's how the world works

Oh and since I practically smell the rant how if nobody pays there won't be any movies...well guess what get off your high horse. Even if the current corporate system fails we as a society have plenty of ways to entertain ourselves. It's full of clubs with live music, the internet is full of writers publishing their works for free, we have sports, dancing, sex and an nigh infinite amount of other ways to kill time so don't you are something special. YOU need society. Society can very well go without you. So stop whining and trying to infringe on our personal property rights before we as a society slaps you back to your pre free ride place


Oh and for the people who go on about the other people in the industry. Again just because they do the grunt work doesn't mean they are special. Quite a few people have no job and quite a few people have to change careers. That's life. Society is not a charity

Posted by: Minto at June 11, 2011 5:47 AM

...the things people create...have value and they belong to the people who created them. The people who created them have every right to control how they are disseminated and to be compensated for their efforts, just as much as anyone has a right to profit from the fruits of their labor.

Paul McCartney will be glad to hear that, I bet. Since he doesn't own any of The Beatles music.

The truth is that artists usually don't own their art. Their art is either commissioned by a patron of some kind, or gobbled up immediately after it's produced. Was Inception a brilliant piece of film -- a piece of art? Hell yes. And Christopher Nolen was paid a hefty sum for his part in it's creation. But make no mistake, even though he's the genius behind it, he's not the sole recipient of it's profit.

When Jerry Seigle and Joe Shuster invented a strong man who could leap long distances, and who always managed to save the intrepid reporter Lois Lane when she got into trouble, they didn't become stallionaires (pretty sure "million aire" is still one of the banned words). They were paid $175 for their work and sent home. The family has been entrenched in a legal dispute with DC for decades (and this debate is ongoing -- the creation of Image Comics in the 90's was a direct result over the dispute of creator ownership).

Musicians sell their music in order to receive the privilege of seeing their CDs in music stores. Painters are commissioned to create works for the buyer. Poets sell the property rights to their poems to the publishers.

It's not called "selling-out" for nothing; an artist rarely owns his or her art.

I would happily give a dollar to the writer of a song that I like to be able to download it. If musicians were smart, they would make their music available for download directly from their website. I'd pay a dollar for that, knowing where it went. But if I download a song from iTunes or Amazon, the musician gets maybe $.01 of that money. Christopher Nolen already got paid. Jerry Seigle and Joe Shuster never saw a dime. The massive corporations and conglomerates are the ones getting paid. And I could give fuck all for them.

Posted by: superasente at June 11, 2011 8:49 AM

I am not one to "steal" music or movies but when Ipods came out and I found that I would have to "buy" a song that I already bought from an album and then a CD, I decided that Limewire wasn't such a bad thing. How many times do you have to buy something before it is yours?

Although when I saw the window that said " if you download this song then you are committing copyright infringement" I stopped.

Posted by: kirbyjay at June 11, 2011 9:30 AM

How magnanimous of you, Asente. The system is unfair to artist so you're going to be our Robin Hood. Stealing from the rich and giving to... well, to your self I suppose. (Poor superasente?) Why do I get the feeling that this is less about a philosophical commitment and more just a way for you to get stuff without paying for it?


Spare me the juvenile anti-corporate rant I got from androstarr. The system may not be perfect and you can find plenty of anecdotes about artists being exploited, but it's a system based on laws that generally allows artists to profit from their work and allows for the creation, production, and distribution of a lot of awesome stuff, from Coen brothers movies to Twilight, from The Wire to American Idol, the Clash or Adele, David Foster Wallace or Jennifer Egan.... Pretty much everything we love at Pajiba (and everything we hate) is produced by this system.

So, are your really committed to anarchy and undermining this system in total? Or do you just want to selectively criticize it so you can justify sneaking in and taking what you want from the big bad system? Again, it sounds less about principles and more about free shit for you, excuse making and entitlement.

Because if you really do believe in what you say, I'd like to know what you make of the stupidity that Minto is spouting up there. I don't think I can take the time to respond to his points with anything other than contempt but they might be useful to illustrate the flaws in your thinking.

Even if the current corporate system fails we as a society have plenty of ways to entertain ourselves. It's full of clubs with live music, the internet is full of writers publishing their works for free, we have sports, dancing, sex and an nigh infinite amount of other ways to kill time so don't you are something special. YOU need society. Society can very well go without you. So stop whining and trying to infringe on our personal property rights before we as a society slaps you back to your pre free ride place

[remember that "You" refers to artists and creative types, who I guess need to be "slapped back" to their "pre-free ride place"]

Look we all love music, movies, and TV. The right thing to do is to pay our $5 or so for the stuff we like. If you give in to temptation and steal something at least have the decency not to celebrate it. Admit you're an asshole and try to do better next time.

Posted by: Yossarian at June 11, 2011 10:02 AM

As a representative of old media (ink on dead tree division), I say sure, go ahead and crush newspapers with your Twitter. But then who is going to do the first-hand reporting for you? Much of what transpires as "news" on new media is the relaying and linking (for free) of information that a legitimate news organization paid its reporters to dig up for you. What, are bloggers going to get together and figure out how to pay someone to spend hours and days and weeks and months at your statehouse to monitor how your elected representatives are stealing from you and selling you down the river? Enjoy the demise of old media all you like, until the day you wake up and wonder why 90 percent of your paycheck goes to government and there's no one left to tell you.

I also disagree with MM about the future of the movie theater. I think movies will do just fine, but it wouldn't surprise me at all, with home theaters getting more affordable and theater theaters getting more expensive (not to mention the sometimes obnoxious conditions in them), I can see the demise of the theater in 10-20 years.

Posted by: , at June 11, 2011 10:56 AM

I remember reading somewhere that musicians generally get about a dollar for each CD they sell. Obviously, a lot of other money is going to the record company, and the music store, and the shipping company, and whoever else. But if Beyonce (or whoever, I don't know what the kids listen to these days) makes an album that five million people would like to listen to, I think that's pretty impressive and I don't begrudge her the five million dollars she should be getting for doing it. If everybody says "screw the corporations" then Beyonce gets nothing, and all the little guys (sound engineers and deliverymen and so on) get hurt too and maybe lose their jobs. It's not right.

Posted by: Todd at June 11, 2011 10:59 AM

I never said I wasn't in it for myself. I just have reasons beyond selfishness for feeling that way. The system is profitable enough. The system exploits the artists (when I say "fuck the man" I do so dismissively rather than angrily). Art and advancement belong to everyone. All of that is true. The only thing standing in my way of enjoying the art I love on my own terms is a series of laws. And like many other laws, I choose to ignore or embrace them based on my own internal moral compass.

These laws I choose to ignore. I think they're silly.

Posted by: superasente at June 11, 2011 11:15 AM

@Minto

You know, you're right about "artists" needing society and that part of what is at work in this debate is the sense of pride of the content provider is damaged when the work becomes devalued.

I worked at a newspaper up in Canada for a number of years and you would not ( or perhaps you would) the pompous sense of pride that journalists had about themselves. They were bringers of truth, a unique skill the rendered them a societal elite and they loved the sense of pride and esteem that came with that. And the truth, as I was once told by an editor, was that they just provided the content that went between the ads. They were lazy, corporate lackeys, often, unimaginative and unadaptive and when sites popped up, say Pajiba, and did what they did better, faster, truer and with greater transparency and balls and essentially started to put them out of business, they started to sputter and complain about bad grammar or something. It fucking drove me nuts.

Artists, by and large, are terrified of finding out that they're not singular, that there are all sorts of people who can do similar work given the opportunity and time to do so. This resentment is at least in part what fuels the rage they feel against the system they think has betrayed them, but really the competition has just multiplied and they've lost their positions of prestige. ( this is merely a psychological, not economic glimpse)

It's like any profession, I guess, and our parents an grandparents and great grandparents went through it, too. A master shoe maker lost his job to factory shoe workers, somebody who made cars lost their job to somebody overseas who made better cars less expensively, and the pride of the individual is always damaged and inevitably, the first thing that's said is "well, the new way is inferior to the old way, the writing is worse, etc"

Posted by: Michael Murray at June 11, 2011 11:21 AM

Michael,

Some of those people at your newspaper took great pride in being truth-bringers because they were very GOOD at being truth-bringers (at least I hope some of them were). Because some of the people you lump in with the slackers exposed corruption and fraud and waste and all that, which posed a great, or even a little, benefit to your community and your life, whether you're even aware of it or not. I don't know where you live, but in a town my size, if the newspaper closed tomorrow I don't think anybody is going to mobilize the resources to do what the newspaper does, or at least not for some time. It will be open season for the grifters, con men and thieves, and that's just the public officials.

Posted by: , at June 11, 2011 11:42 AM

ZING!

Posted by: superasente at June 11, 2011 11:51 AM

Kudos to suprasente. That's about as well-stated as I've seen that viewpoint.

No matter how well it's stated, though, it can never be accepted as valid by those committed so deeply to connecting value to property rights. Sure, property rights are important--and that's an obvious understatement--but they don't have to be the only lens through which we view human interaction.

We've entertained each other with music and other performances for a very, very long time. Turning that into a commodity to be sold in units has existed for a very short time. Was there a guarantee that it should remain that way forever? Is it a good thing for it to remain that way forever? I think those are questions worth thinking about. Maybe art is different than other things that are bought and sold.

Posted by: icecreammang at June 11, 2011 11:52 AM

[remember that "You" refers to artists and creative types, who I guess need to be "slapped back" to their "pre-free ride place"]
No. You refers to self righteous pricks who think they can interfere with what I can do with my own property. Look as I mentioned I understand chasing people who use other people work to make money like streaming sites and torrents trackers. I like these things but I understand that they are in the wrong. However this is my line. When it comes to what I can do with my legally bought property? As long as I don't use it for commercial gain nobody has any right to tell me what to do with it. If I want to I will copy it and share it with all my friends. If I want I will paint it red and eat it. It's my property my choice and I will be damned if if some artist and their corporations think they can bully and bribe(excuse me the pc word was lobby) their way into crushing my rights. No way. And when I see the same pricks talking about if they don't get their way it will be almost as if the very idea of fun will die? Yeah I do feel like slapping them in their places.

Look we all love music, movies, and TV. The right thing to do is to pay our $5 or so for the stuff we like.

I personally do when I have the chance. I like supporting products that brought me joy but just because I like to support some artist but that doesn't mean that I will cut them any slack if I see this whole holier then though attitude that some of them bring and their attempts to interfere with my property


As a representative of old media (ink on dead tree division), I say sure, go ahead and crush newspapers with your Twitter. But then who is going to do the first-hand reporting for you? Much of what transpires as "news" on new media is the relaying and linking (for free) of information that a legitimate news organization paid its reporters to dig up for you.

This would sound more impressive if the old media hadn't fallen to almost twitter levels where they concentrate on the latest scandal and usually ignore everything else

You know, you're right about "artists" needing society and that part of what is at work in this debate is the sense of pride of the content provider is damaged when the work becomes devalued.
But that's it. The work is more valued(although granted also more hated) then ever with information age.

Also there is the question of how much piracy actually hits the pockets. Oh sure if you hear some wild stories about ruining them to the ground but look at Wolverine. A freaking DVD quality screener was out with just a few missing CGI scenes was leaked and the movie was crap and yet it did nearly 400 mil. Or musicians. You can't pirate concerts. All the fans all the adoration is there. That's where real musicians truly work no a few hours in some studio and then copy a million cd's overprice them and put them on the market

Artists, by and large, are terrified of finding out that they're not singular, that there are all sorts of people who can do similar work given the opportunity and time to do so.
That's was kinda what I was getting to do although I was a bit too harsh since he pissed me off by claiming his he has a right to tell me what to do with my property. I am getting kinda sick of hearing if we don't bow to every copyright bs the movies will die and we would have nothing so on. Because you know what? One of the things I really love and support are short films. I visit every festival, every screening I can get my hands on and it's wonderful. Amazing creativity and fun and most of them beyond a low budget. You can just see how much love they put in these movies and quite a few of them are on the web for free because they want to share them.
And then when I read how the same egomaniacs who bring us such creative things like" CSI: insert a the milionth city" or Twilight or sequel number 72 with more boobs and explosion and they have the gall to proclaim how if they don't get as much money as they can squeeze off the movie industry will die? I just go meh.


It's like any profession, I guess, and our parents an grandparents and great grandparents went through it, too. A master shoe maker lost his job to factory shoe workers, somebody who made cars lost their job to somebody overseas who made better cars less expensively, and the pride of the individual is always damaged and inevitably, the first thing that's said is "well, the new way is inferior to the old way, the writing is worse, etc"
Yeah I know. I really shouldn't be so harsh since I can understand where some of them are going but still sometimes they really piss me off with the endless ego and whining

Posted by: Minto at June 11, 2011 12:03 PM

Make no mistake, my experience working in the newspaper industry is tinged by some bitterness and there are brilliant and singular journalists working at papers all over the world who truly are bringing the light. Where I worked, less so, I'm afraid. The paper, in a large city in Canada, was part of a massive chain that owned half of the nation's media, a massive and dead-eyed bureaucracy in which the only thing that mattered was the bottom line and protecting the interests of the beast itself. ( I had a weekly TV column and often it felt like my job was merely to promote the shows that the conglomerate aired on it's TV networks and not review it--marketing under the guise of journalism.) I was never a journalist, never went to journalism school and saw in the other writers a need to follow a strict code of production. It was a factory, and in this case, known to be a notoriously bad factory, but still, it put out the equivalent of a novel a day, or perhaps more appropriately, a catalogue.

But sir, I take your point. There are brilliant and courageous journalist bringing the light, just as there are in all walks of light, but in my limited experience, they were the exception and not the rule, although they all seemed to share an unyielding sense of singularity and importance that was nothing short of delusional.

As far as Twitter goes, it's as much disinformation as information, but I follow a number of journalist in Canada and what they tweet--office cooler stuff back and forth between one another--gives their writing subtext, providing transparency, immediacy, personality and context that is never present in the print pieces. On it's own, Twitter is insufficient, but as a background tool it's essential.

One last thing about news delivery concerns Stewart and Colbert. In order for their jokes to be funny they have to provide a context so that the audience understands the joke, in this way they're much more informative and educational than old school mediums in which objectivity was claimed ( this drove me crazy!), but really all it was was content stripped of context and why it was just an effective delivery system of message for their political masters.

Posted by: Michael Murray at June 11, 2011 12:06 PM

superasente (and other piracy advocates),

Question for you: Where do you draw the line between the people it's OK to rip off (The Man) and people it's not OK to rip off? I mean, maybe we could be friends in real life, and I don't think I'm evil, but if YOU think I am ... well, a friendship with you would get pretty tiresome if I had to keep my hand on my wallet at all times.

I just make it easy on myself and my friends by choosing not to rip ANYBODY off.

Something about a Golden Rule I hear people used to believe in.

Posted by: , at June 11, 2011 1:12 PM

Minto,

Unfortunately, there's some truth to that.

Michael,

"they were the exception and not the rule"

That applies pretty much to every business. I'm not here to argue that there aren't slackers in every newsroom in the country or that there aren't bad newspapers. My point is that there are people too eager to throw out the baby with the bathwater, to chuck out the gems you mentioned with the rocks. I can only conclude these are people for whom ignorance is bliss. (Geez, I'm using a lot of cliches, aren't I? I must work in the newspaper business.)

I understand these are changing times and if I had all day I would make a case that I saw this coming a generation ago (but did not invest appropriately or I'd be The Man today). That newspapers will some day fade away or be forced to morph into something else, I have little doubt. I just hope they (mine) can hold out until my retirement. I also hope that people would consider what life would be like, at least for awhile, in the absence of professional reporting and make their media choices accordingly.

For a glimpse of what a newspaperless future would look like, turn on your local TV news every night and subtract every story of substance, which the TV "news team" likely picked up out of the local paper.

Or read nothing but blogs, which likely linked to the story that TV news picked up out of the local paper, and imagine them without any links, except to each other.

There ya go.

Posted by: , at June 11, 2011 1:29 PM

Back to the pirates:

You know, if you really want to stick it to The Man, grow a fucking pair and commit to it. Hold up some banks, or mug some stockbrokers or lawyers, or steal a Mercedes, or fly a plane into the World Trade Center (what, too soon?). Be Tyler Durden. This penny-ante "Hahaha! I made an unauthorized copy of a DVD! Fuck YOU, Mr. Corporate Swine!" stuff is so lame.

Also, this "I own what I own" stuff doesn't work in real life. You may think you own your house or your land or your car, but try not paying your personal property taxes, or don't bother renewing your car registration, or try keeping the gas driller off your "property" if you don't own the mineral rights, and you'll find out pretty quickly who really owns your ass.

Posted by: , at June 11, 2011 1:57 PM

I think piracy is a problem if it means the creators don't get money they would have gotten otherwise, but that means there's nothing wrong with seeing a pirated copy of a movie that I wouldn't have paid money to see, or watching a pirated copy as a basis for deciding if I like it, and then if I do going out and buying (or at least renting) when it comes out on DVD. There are also a fair amount of old movies and TV shows the studios don't bother to make available on DVD, in that case I don't see a problem with getting a pirated copy.

By the way, I think this is an appropriate thread for the anti-piracy PSA shown on The IT Crowd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck

Posted by: Jesse M. at June 11, 2011 4:00 PM

@ , :

By the way, one of the things that drove me bananas about newspapers was that at first they ignored social media, hovering above it as if it would corrupt the objectivity of their craft rather than utilizing it to enhance their work. And finally, when they realized it wasn't a child's trend, they used it exactly like old media, merely marketing what they had already produced.

In Toronto and elsewhere across North America, they are trying to create grass routes newspapers, very local and on-line, of course. There would be a core of "journalists," but in the OpenFile ( name of the enterprise) case it's typically very young and underpaid students, who take stories from residents. They want something investigated and then open a "file" on it, and the journalist digs in. So far, it hasn't worked.

Many of my friends and associates are writers and journalists and in many ways the new media has made them lazy. If they have a question for a story, or need a contact or quote, they just ask for one from their Facebook page, and the community, eager to help out, do just that. I think that the most vital role that the traditional journalist plays right now is in international affairs, where they're embedded in Africa or Russia or wherever, and interpret and write back from there, otherwise the role of the journalist is growing less distinct in my mind.

Posted by: Michael Murray at June 11, 2011 4:46 PM

Michael,

I think there's probably some pretty good long-form investigative journalism still being done into state and local issues, too. Occasionally I've judged newspaper contests and come away impressed with stories I thought would be vital to readers in those towns and states.

And I would be remiss if I didn't give some props to my colleagues in the shrinking ink-on-slick-paper magazine industry as well. I'm a longtime subscriber to The New Yorker and Esquire, and both routinely turn out fascinating stories on a wide array of subjects, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to features on the fashion and food industries.

Of course, it takes having longer than a 140-character attention span to find out what's really going on in your city, state, nation and world. That's the problem now.

Posted by: , at June 11, 2011 9:11 PM

These laws I choose to ignore. I think they're silly.

Posted by: superasente at June 11, 2011 11:15 AM

I've been following this thread and waiting for you to go "Ha! I was just kidding!" But apparently you're serious. Wow.

I've been reading your stuff on Pajiba for quite a while and you're consistently funny and often insightful, but if you truly believe the stuff you've been spouting here, then you are broken. At least Minto is arguing his right to do what he wants with content he's purchased. You just want to steal other peoples' work when you like it.

I don't remember you ever telling us what you do for a living, but it must be supremely unsatisfying for you to shit on the work(s) of others. Rationalize all you want, but by your stated actions, that's exactly what you're doing. I can only conclude that you are not close to anyone whose livelihood depends on the protection of THEIR work and THEIR ideas, because I suspect you would change your tune (publicly, at least) if you were.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at June 12, 2011 12:21 AM

I'm an insurance adjuster. So yes, I am broken.

[smokes joint, weeping to stolen Coldplay album]

Posted by: superasente at June 12, 2011 1:27 AM

very late to this but.....

the first thing i thought of when i was reading this article was, "isn't anyone reading a book?" and by "a book" i mean a physical one with pages and stuff, not the electronic variety. it made me sad. guess i'm officially an old fogey (only an old fogey would even use the term old fogey--sigh).

i've lived overseas going on twenty years and have been seriously bit torrenting shows, movies, and music for ages now. when i like something i might actually buy it. usually i don't.

superasente ftw!

Posted by: splinter at June 12, 2011 7:54 AM

I have kind of an uncomfortable history with piracy. My mom used to very very anti-piracy, so I resisted it for a long time when I was young (which is prime music-downloading age). Then, around Napster's time, I could rationalize that I wasn't actually downloading music, but sharing it.

As for movies, I don't buy bootleg copies, but I do borrow them from friends, or watch a downloaded copy off their computer with them. But to go to a store (I live in SE Asia, where people only get pirated movies. It's accepted here) and pay money for it - I have yet to do it. I don't think I'd be against doing it, but I would feel a little bit uncomfortable.

And yet I still watch my TV shows on Mega video and all those streaming sites.

Yossarian has a hard line drawn and I admire that. I think ideally, that's what I would believe. But I still listen to music that I get from my friends (who get them by downloading it) and watch movies that I borrow from friends - so clearly, I don't subscribe fully to that logic.

Everyone seems to be taking the intellectual property argument for it. Saying it's stealing and all that. I don't know if that's the right "moral" argument to take - it's hard to feel like it's wrong to take money from someone whose talents are overestimated and overvalued. However, I think the best moral arguments should be approached from the mafia point of view. I recently read a Washpo article that seriously made my heart lurch. I'll be thinking about it next time I watch/listen to someone "borrowed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/drug-cartels-muscle-in-to-piracy-business/2011/05/28/AG93GLEH_story.html

Posted by: denesteak at June 12, 2011 2:36 PM

I have nothing extraordinarily insightful to say. I did watch Scream 4 online, because my godforsaken movie theater here in nowheresville, Utah hadn't played it yet and it had come out four weeks prior. Honestly, I would have bought a ticket, had that been an option. And yes, I certainly could have waited for Netflix to drop it, but I got impatient. I feel kind of bad about it, because I dislike breaking rules.

So Hulu and Netflix are fine, MegaVideo etc is not, correct?

Posted by: TWoPFan at June 12, 2011 4:40 PM

I don't think it's a coincidence that the Renaissance was coincident with the first modern patent being granted in the Republic of Venice. I think creating an economic incentive to make original works is what squares the risk-reward equation. If everything is all risk, then why bother? BTW, if a company goes too far in patent protection, that in of itself forces innovation to figure out a way to by-pass that obstruction. There is a safety value in this patent system.

Anyway, being from a country that (until recently) had no respect for intellectual property, I can tell you that it doesn't promote innovation. We make many movies, all of them shitty, generic drugs (but nothing new or novel), and a software industry that has yet to produce a novel piece of software that anyone can name. If a world of an intellectual commons actually made any sense, if the hive truly is more powerful than greedy individuals/companies we'd be a goddamn powerhouse.

Interestingly, after we appropriated much from the rest of the world, we are starting to finally accept and enforce intellectual property rights. Why? Because some of our formerly generic drug companies are starting to finally get their act together and coming up with novel medicines - and they don't want cheap copies of them floating around.

How conveniently we toss aside our moral arguments when it benefits us.

Posted by: foreignView at June 12, 2011 5:56 PM