I would not know, I am not a big movie fan, I have only done one bit torrent download of a movie from a trusted source, I buy or record movies to DVD from cable. To time shift them. Sometimes, by years.
Piracy is for people with more time than money: students.
It’s not that, and it’s not “most people copy what they already have.”
The point is, before it became relatively easy to download movies off Usenet, I spent ~X on movies. Currently, I spend ~X on movies (adjusted for inflation.)
I don’t think a 700MB divx file replaces a commercial product intended for home use, and it certainly doesn’t compare with actually going out to a movie. If the movie is something that I’d buy, I’m still going to buy it. If it’s something that I’d see in the theatre, I’m still going to see it in the theatre. If it’s worth a rental (and Videomatica has it,) I’m still going to rent it. I still pay for cable.
I may also dip into the river of media that flows through the internet. In many cases this will be for things that I have already or will at some point pay for a proper copy of. In other cases, not. I would never claim that I have not derived some benefit from downloading without paying for it - only that no one has experienced any actual loss from it. (And in many cases downloading something leads to actual benefit for the creator.)
Here’s a typical scenario: I saw a copy of Dennis Potter’s The Singing Detective float by. I had enjoyed Karaoke and Cold Lazurus, so I snagged it. (I admit that I have never paid a UK television license fee.) The copy was not terribly good, and after watching the first episode, I checked to see if I could get a copy from Videomatica. Yes! It was way above my price-point to purchase, but I did rent it. At the same time, I noticed that there was a film version, with Robert Downey Junior. I checked it out on the IMDB and RottenTomatoes and found that it was poorly reviewed. I easily found it on a torrent site and grabbed a copy to check it out. The encoding quality was middling, but more importantly, it was pretty clear that the movie sucked. Didn’t watch it, didn’t rent it.
In the above scenario, how do you measure the losses to the BBC? Were they harmed when I grabbed the unlicensed copy? To what degree? Was this harm reversed when I acquired the right to watch the series through an authorized channel? (If so, precisely how?) Was Paramount harmed by my downloading of the remake?
Were the producers of Le Petit Nicholas harmed when I downloaded a copy of this movie, which I only became aware of because it flowed through the river of media made available on the internet? Would I have offered up the princely sum of ten whole Canadian dollars to order the DVD from Archambault for my wife if I hadn’t? No. Wasn’t this to the copyright holders’ advantage, then?
I haven’t read much of the thread, but I don’t see a problem with programs that convert Youtube files for individual people. The courts held long ago that people have a right to record and watch or listen to songs, movies, etc. for their own use, and these programs, as long as they aren’t file-sharing programs of some sort, serve that function. They are essentially high-tech tape recorders.
Like the Download Helper add-on for Firefox. Personally I mostly use it to download copies of embedded pornographic videos. I think I’m a more or less average torrent user, I download because it’s cheaper than buying. I’ve bought a few things because I didn’t want to wait for my limited bandwidth to allow me to download it (like Battlestar Galactica, although I bought the later series second hand so none of my money went to the company that made it), I’ve downloaded lots of stuff I wouldn’t otherwise have bothered with (being a scifi buff lots of mediocre American sci-fis I wouldn’t have paid for) and some things I was willing to pay for but couldn’t (like The Year of the Sex Olympics, of which no copy for sale could be found). When it comes to things I would have been willing to pay for but didn’t because I downloaded them it’s a much shorter list.
If it’s the Betamax doctrine you’re talking about, that’s not what the courts said. The court said that time shifting is a legitimate use for a VCR and that a maker of a device that has at least one significant legitimate use is not secondarily liable for illegitimate uses by users. That’s not the same as saying that there is a “right to record and watch [stuff] for their own use.” Time shifting implies that you are recording something solely so that you can watch it at a time different than the time being broadcast. It doesn’t say anything about other uses. It also implies that the court recognized that at least some portion of the uses that the VCR was being put to constituted illegitimate uses (direct infringement).
Does it matter to you who you are paying-the artist who created the work and his official representatives, or the people who stole it?
Wait, I’m confused about your position, Czarcasm. Are you equating second-hand retail to theft? If so, that’s pretty out there.
You’ll want to have a look at the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 and RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia
I dl a lot of stuff that simply isn’t available to me otherwise - things like current UK serials, anime that hasn’t been released in the US, old recordings not available on dvd, etc. I also dl stuff that is but is a pain in the ass for me to watch in the original format. For example I can watch old episodes of the original Dr. Who series on Roku via Netflix streaming but my bandwidth can be a little flaky at times and the Roku controls are limited. I can use IE to watch them too but I hate IE and never use it if I can avoid it - even via the firefox plugin. I also sometimes dl movies before they are officially available on dvd or afterwards but I don’t feel like waiting for the dvd in the mail.
As a consumer I’m doing my part to support the industry with my satellite and netflix subscriptions. And since there is a more or less fixed amount of time i’m willing to spend watching tv, it’s not like i’m really getting away with anything. Most of the stuff either is available to me already and I just want to use it in different format or it’s not available to me by any legitimate means anyway.
If I don’t watch any tv for a month, directv doesn’t give me a refund. If I don’t return my dvd’s right away to get the next one, neither does netflix. So if I take some liberties with how I consume protected content, so what. As soon as you start talking about subscription services like cable, satellite, streaming and rentals, the financial argument gets very fuzzy very quickly.
Exactly. People think there is some ‘fair use’ doctrine that is well established. The doctrine exists but it is very poorly defined at this point. For example even making backups of media you own is not clearly fair use although it is often regarded as such. There are still a great many situations that will need to be litigated before there is any clear guidance.
First of all, the AHRA applies only to music recordings not “movies, etc.” Second, it’s a statutory right, not something the courts have declared.
The issue in the *Diamond *case was whether the Rio was a digital audio recording device that required the payment of royalties. The portion you quote does not bear on that issue, and thus is mere dicta. Even if it weren’t, it still would apply only to music, and it sets forth no general principal that people have the “right to record and watch [stuff] for their own use.”
Feel free to argue that recording music is OK but recording movies is not. Should be amusing!
Why would there be anything difficult about that discussion? There is a statute that says you can copy some things in some limited circumstances as an exception to a statute that generally says you can’t copy anything. There’s nothing mysterious about that.