Is peer sharing in bit torrents legal?

[RobinGoodfellow]

If a department store had such facilities then maybe i might, provided they had somewhere comfy to sit. As for the restaurant thing, if i order chicken and get steak, i'd notice before eating it, if it was chicken that tasted bad, i would ask for my money back, you tried doing that at the cinema after watching a bad film?

<---Apples. Oranges.--->
Movie reviews, good ones, warn people away from bad movies. Even allowing that it's a crapshoot, you have a general idea what to expect. In this case, you know that the chicken is going to be good or bad ahead of time, and so it's on you whether or not you take a taste. Read: You want to be first in line, you pay the price, be it good or bad.

Oh, and to head it off at the past: Test-driving a car is also a bad example. After all, the car is returned in good condition regardless of how the drive goes. I wonder what the salesman would say if you told him that you were going to buy the car if you liked it, but were going to destroy the car if it didn't?

Technical in that its a legally recognised crime, that doesn't mean its necessarily just to consider what i'm doing a crime.

<facepalm>
"Technically" (if you're going to argue semantics use the actual word you used originally, at least) implies that a lawyer has to really work to figure out how to prosecute something, and that it's going to be easy to beat it. There's no "technically" here; it is illegal. Period. Case law has established this time and time again. I have no idea why you're even bothering to defend it as a legal action.

I'm not ripping the dvds and i'm not duplicating the dvds, i'm just downloading to try before i buy IF its worth it.

The DVD is not the copyrighted property; it is the movie encoded onto it. When a bootlegger is arrested for DVD's and music, it is not the medium (i.e., the plastic things) he is being arrested for, it is what is on the medium. It's not the torrenting that's the issue, but that you have something which someone else sells for a living, and which would be theft in any other context, yet mysteriously isn't in this case for which your reason is simply, "Rich people deserve to be stolen from."

Its not BS. Its the other side of a legit argument. The consumer in the case of the movie industry basically takes pot luck when they see a movie relying on the trailer not to be a false representation of the quality of the movie which it too often is.

If reviews and the people talking about a movie didn't exist, you would have a point. They do, so you don't. You noted that you are not grabbing movies that are currently showing, so that means that you have had time to do at least some research on the movie, and decide if the movie is at least interesting enough to watch. Your point is sort of, well, null void.

I think the law needs to change, rather than having thousands of downloaders considered as criminals, only those who duplicate or upload to the net should remain 'criminals'.

As long, of course, as duplicating a free copy for your own personal use is excluded. <facepalm>

Quality films won't fail to make money, the industry is complaining based on the fact that it could be even filthier rich.

Yep; which I have pointed out. You did catch that part when I said that Avatar, the highest grossing movie, is also the most pirated movie as well, right?

However, I'm considering the industry as a whole and not just the big fish. I'm also looking at the small production houses that go bankrupt each year because too many of their movies get pirated, meaning that someone just spent $10M, and isn't going to see a dime of it because it was just easier to download the movie. So, if I guess you never ever download indie movies, it's all good, right?

Then again, I love the logic that I should put a lot of money and effort into something and not be able to full enjoy the fruits of my labors. There's just something fundamentally wrong there...

Downloading music is pointless as you can hear it anywhere before buying it, thus the only reason you would, is to have it for free.

Unless you want to do something silly, like, oh I don't know, listen to it whenever you want to or wherever you want to. But who would ever want to do something stupid like that?
[For those not getting it: /sarcasm.]

Downloading movies to have for free is wrong,

Yep. Yet you're defending it. Weirdness....

thats not what i am downloading for, i have no intent to have it for nothing, its try before buy. My dvd collection speaks volumes about my contribution to the industry so it won't wash for the industry to complain about my misuse of torrent sites.

<facepalm>
Sure, you have a nice DVD collection. But just because you are a contributor to the industry, does not mean that everyone is. I know far too many people that have extensive movie collections, and they didn't have to pay for a single movie. So I guess the RIAA should ignore the illegal downloads on your computer because you have a number of CD's. Too bad it doesn't work that way...

RG

 

[BoiOnFire]

I disagree. I am one of those downloaders.

I download from only two sites and only movies, i don't ever download software or ebooks or music or pornography. The reason i don't download all those is because unlike movies, they are not a passion even if i enjoy them occassionally.

I have a huge dvd collection of paid for movies contributing fully to the industry. What i am not happy about in any way, is the fact that if i want to watch a movie, the minimum i have to pay is over half the cost of the dvd by going to the cinema. If i enjoy the movie i will then buy the dvd and the cost equates to £20 per film.
I could just wait until it comes out on dvd and spend only £12-£15. The cost is what i would consider to be a fair price, but only if the movie is any good.

There are so many films out there that are made which are not worth paying for and i don't want to spend money on such. Its not like music which you can hear freely on the radio, that IS something which i fully support is wrong. (music downloading i mean)
The only way to know whether a film is worth going to see or buying on dvd is to see the film first somehow. The trailers are not good enough. How many times have you seen trailers and thought the film was good but then found the trailers to be highlights of the only decent bits of the film?

Many illegal downloaders are actually real fans like me and have a much higher average spend on the industry than their non-downloading counterparts.

Its not like every film is being downloaded by everybody, if its a romance or a comedy or action film then i don't download because thats not my movie interest, but sci-fi or horror, i'm there. A good film will get my money on dvd sales or cinema ticket even after i've seen the film illegally. And thats a good thing because i want MY money going to studios and production teams that throw out quality titles. I don't want to keep afloat the cheesy film producers that use well produced trailers but poor movies.

The way i see it is, i know i'm breaking the law, but i'm not the one uploading the torrents, and if someone else out there is going to risk the penalties to do so, that is their business, for me its just a great opportunity to decide whether it is worth parting with my cash.

Currently there are legit sites which you can join to watch movies free, but they are on a paid membership basis. You don't have to pay to hear a track on the radio so why should you have to pay to watch a film on such a so-called 'watch free' movie site?

Lastly, and this is great for the movie industry, i've seen films which i never heard of before, and they were good, i have dozens of those in my collection, several of which are foreign films. Unless you are an avid cinema goer, most films you either hear of by word of mouth or they slip you by until one day you may see it free on the tv.

So i am technically commiting a crime by doing so but, i don't see it justly as a crime. Its an industry boosting tool as far as i'm concerned.

Having said all this, i personally dislike the idea of seeing a film snatched from its first screening. I ALWAYS wait until the dvd release and then download it, because to me, that is no different to borrowing the dvd from a mate, i'm still seeing the film at zero cost to me and at no extra profit to the industry whichever way i do it.

I just wanted to give you some advice, take it for what it is ok...
1) Never and I mean never ever admit to doing something illegal. Thats stupid, there is now a record of you admitting to downloading movies without paying for them.
2) The difference between watching a movie that a friend has purchased and stealing it online is that he paid for his and has the legal right to show it in his home or to let others borrow it for home viewing.

No amount of convoluted justification on your part will absolve you from committing the crime of pirating. I'm sure you have seen the FBI warning before each film, just know that for every movie you download it can cost you up to $250,000 in fines....lately the movie and music industry has been vigorously prosecuting everyone they can get their hands on.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

In my opinion, the biggest misconception that people have about this topic is in the distinction between the technology of P2P file sharing, and the illegal act of transmitting copyrighted material.

The two are not synonymous.

Backing you up on this: Yep. Medium<>Message.

As for using (abusing) P2P technology to commit copyright violations… there is a legal grey-area, since not all countries have the same laws or recognize the jurisdiction of foreign nations. But if you are in America, than yes, you are most assuredly breaking the law. When caught, you can be punished.

And then you say this. Most productions are copyrighted in multiple jurisdictions, either through treaty or by talking to the locals. There is some gray area, simply because not all countries stringently enforce those laws (most notably China, which ignores it, and Japan, where illegal copies are seen as advertising). India and Ireland have begin their own crackdowns, so it's definitely getting interesting...

RG

 

[andysayshi]

Hollywood is in the process of coming to terms with the digital age. The music industry is, only now, realising how to manage it. The music industry's defiance to submit to the new world has cost them dearly.

The internet should have been a mecca for the music industry. Imagine being able to sell your product directly to the consumer, removing all manufacturing and transport costs, removing a retail middleman that takes a substantial cut? It's a businessman's dream.

All the music industry needed to do was make it easy, make it accessible, and make it really, really cheap.

Instead, they clawed and fought and screamed at the technology, because they were caught up in the 20th century world where people paid 20 bucks for a CD in the hope that 10 tracks were all as good as the single they heard on the radio.

They lost the fight. Their reluctance to engage their customers, whom they instead treated like criminals, meant that people found ways to subvert them. Companies like Apple finally found a successful way to sell music online, and now they own the marketplace. It could have belonged to the record companies, but they fucked it for themselves.

Rights management only hurts genuine consumers like me, not illegal downloaders. I own dozens of commercial BluRay discs, but Apple computers don't support BluRay rights management, so the only way for me to watch those BluRays with Apple OS X is to illegally rip the content of the disc to the hard drive, which is really easy to do. Why is Hollywood spending tens of millions of dollars disrupting my viewing experience, when it doesn't inhibit illegal downloaders in any way?? I paid good money for these movies, but I can't watch them on the device of my choice. The movie companies are effectively encouraging me to pirate the films.

Nowadays, music is sold cheaply track-by-track, or as subscription services. This is the future for movie companies too, but they're still trying to fight it.

A lot can be learned from Apple's App Store, undoubtedly one of the most colossal business models of the past 20 years. When things are cheap, people buy them.

And here's the thing - piracy of iPhone/iPad apps is very low. It exists, as piracy in all mediums will always exist, but if the genuine article is cheap enough, the majority of users simply won't bother with more convoluted ways to save a few bucks.

I have a media server in my home with 5 terabytes of movies, music and TV shows stored on it. Every single movie on it is legally acquired. 90% of the music is legal. About 50% of the TV shows are legal - I do download TV shows, but I still buy box sets of the stuff I really like.

But here's the deal. If watching a movie online cost me 99 cents, if watching an episode of the Simpsons cost me 20 cents, I wouldn't waste my time, energy or money buying and filling hard drives. I'd just pay the little amount and enjoy the show. No waiting, no worries that I'm getting an inferior copy.

The cost to the movie companies is tiny, compared to traditional retail outlets. Micro-payment systems are proven to work, although I think iTunes music is still way too expensive. If it's cheap enough, the majority of consumers will not bother with illegal downloads.

That's the future of online entertainment. We'll get there eventually, after Hollywood has fought tooth-and-nail, accused their customer base of criminal activity, and allowed more time for people to get comfortable with free illegal methods. It's sad to see them struggle when the answer is so obvious.

 

[resonance]

just know that for every movie you download it can cost you up to $250,000 in fines....

Again, you won't rack up $250,000 for "downloading" anything as long as you don't "distribute". Just because inexperienced computer users are
"distributing" with or without their own knowledge does not make the act of "downloading" itself finable by $250,000.

The strategy of executives is to confound "downloading" and "distributing" and make outlandish damage claims that they know very well are impossible to collect.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

But here's the deal. If watching a movie online cost me 99 cents, if watching an episode of the Simpsons cost me 20 cents, I wouldn't waste my time, energy or money buying and filling hard drives. I'd just pay the little amount and enjoy the show. No waiting, no worries that I'm getting an inferior copy.

<facepalm>
Youse people....

Hollywood is already there; it's the distribution people that are dragging their feet. They just want to make sure that the details work out.

That said: A Netflix or Blockbuster account for less than $10 a month allows you 10+DVD's a month; even if you just do the movies, that less $1/movie. That same subscription allows you to watch some of those movies online anytime you want. And if you just want television episodes, Hulu allows the last five shows for free, and entire season for just $8/mo. You have to deal with ads, but it could be worse. I personally prefer to go with the long-form/no other ads version, but that's me.

In short: If you watched a movie each night, those movies would cost about $.30 a movie, and the episodes are free, or, assuming you watching four a day on Hulu's plan, that's about $.06 per episode. But if you want to pay $.99 and $.20 respectively, go for it!


And for the other non-tech person:

@resonance
We are discussing torrenting here. This means that when you are downloading the movie, you are also helping to torrent it to other users. In effect, you are helping to distribute it when you torrent it.

RG

 

[BearBoi]

And then you say this. Most productions are copyrighted in multiple jurisdictions, either through treaty or by talking to the locals. There is some gray area, simply because not all countries stringently enforce those laws (most notably China, which ignores it, and Japan, where illegal copies are seen as advertising). India and Ireland have begin their own crackdowns, so it's definitely getting interesting...

The ‘grey area’ I mentioned extended beyond piracy. Copyright material is subject to all kinds of licencing agreements between various companies and distributers. For example, NetFlix in the US offers a huge assortment of movies and TV shows and, by all accounts I’ve read, is a great service.

In Canada, NetFlix is a stunted piece of crap offering barely 1/10th of the material you get in the US. Due to distribution regulations and various other issues, most of what you get in the US would technically be illegal to show up here in Canada – at least in this format, for now.

I wasn’t just limiting my comment about ‘grey areas’ to piracy, though I understand that my too-brief statement may have implied as much.

The heart of my message was, as you so eloquently stated: Medium<>Message.

 

[Lord Booticus]

I used myself as an example to offer the other argument as to why illegal downloads are not always damaging to industry which creates the goods.

I've agreed fully that i think it IS damaging to certain industries, music, pornography and computer software which is why i ALWAYS buy such content legally.

In the case of movies, i don't see the harm specifically in the way that I go about using torrents.
Regardless of the crime (which i do understand, i'm not stupid), I take the risk because i don't see my specific infringement as being damaging to the industry.
Like i said before, i contribute more than the average and the cash goes to the those who create quality films.
I don't download films which are pirated direct from the cinema screen (even with the opportunity and even if i really want to watch it). Somebody else has paid first for any of the films which i am downloading AND i leech the download, i don't seed it afterwards, nor do i keep a copy on my hard drive after i've seen it, nor do i create a copy for myself before deleting it.

Why is pirating movies not damaging the industry, but is damaging the music and porn industries? Couldn't the arguments used to justify your pirating be used by music and porn pirates? lf its a good album or porn I'll buy it/ I wouldn't buy the product any way so the industries lost nothing.

The term porn pirate makes me laugh.

 

[hungrybrownbear]

The Internet is the fastest and easiest way to get your movies out there. While they won't admit it, the movie industry and the music industry have actually benefited from the exposure, because most of the people who download copyrighted material, would not have bought it if the copyrighted material was not made available on the net. A prime example of this is the indie movie Ink which rose to cult status popularity due to "illegal" sharing on bitorrent sites.

While I'm not completely condoning or decrying file sharing of copyrighted material, just realize that the ethical ramifications are a bit more complicated than just "walking into a store and stealing a movie." Especially if you subscribe to the belief that you can do whatever you want with the things that you own.

How about being a little less judgmental because there are many more facets to this issue than "it's just stealing".

 

[evanrick]

Mitch



How about going to a restaurant, order a meal, eat it, it wasn't what you expected, then, don't pay.

thats not such a great analogy, people get out of paying for restaurant food all the time for that reason.

im not saying if you eat all of it yeah you should pay but there are tons of crapware and shovelware, crap movies and you never get to own it anyways.


the fact is this is what happens too often. I am perfectly fine with paying for content and we do in America with the highest internet costs on earth, and they do not let you choose what content you want (comcast)

and the big corporations can not really complain when they are not giving consumers choices so they are effectively stymieing themselves with even more restrictive content.

look at dvds these days. they come with "digital copies", sometimes 2 or 3 disks, but those disks are temporary. what if the movie is shit? you are out of luck. what if the disk breaks? too bad so sad.

what if the program is filled with product placement and half of it is commercials?

no, thats intolerable.

the groups i do feel are owed are ones that use the net as their only delivery, everyone else just needs to protect their shit better or let consumers have choices.

these giant media companies have all the protections in the world, but average citizens have no defense against a giant bank, insurance company, healthcare company.

the playing field is not level, and these companies have to play by the same rules as actual instead of hiding behind their lawyers and lobbyists.

 

[USEDCAR]

I have a question is it illegal to use a video sniffer program to record shows from their network websites?

 

[BearBoi]

I met a guy the other day online and he said he worked at Warner Brothers,

He said "There's a whole area of tubby dweebs in cubicles that do nothing but look for pirated dvds and illegal downloads..."

Yup. For all the other companies, there are third-party industries (piracy creates jobs! heh) that monitor pirated torrents for the sole purpose of reporting offending IPs.

You see, getting back to my original post on this thread, they do have the means to fight piracy… it is just easier to attack the technology itself.

I have a question is it illegal to use a video sniffer program to record shows from their network websites?

I don't beleive it is technically illegal, but is not appreciated either, given the “please don’t do that” message most companies put on their videos

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

I used myself as an example to offer the other argument as to why illegal downloads are not always damaging to industry which creates the goods.

Note that the question was not if it was harmful or not, but whether or not it was illegal. It's unquestionably illegal, even though it may, to a certain degree, actually help the industry, provided the pirating is kept to a reasonable degree. To a certain degree, it's like using cattle to cut grass; as long as the cattle keep moving, the grass can be kept to a healthy green. But, if the cattle stay in the area too long, they eat all of the grass. The same with pirates: There's a balancing point between the additional exposure garnered and when it actually starts hurting the film being pirated. Usually it falls far below that point, and that's okay, but there are times when it can cause a movie to lose money, especially if it's a small indie movie...

I've agreed fully that i think it IS damaging to certain industries, music, pornography and computer software which is why i ALWAYS buy such content legally.

This is a bullshit point. You can't exclude one industry because it's convenient to your point. I love splitting hairs myself, but it's for logical reasons, not arbitrary ones.

Like i said before, i contribute more than the average and the cash goes to the those who create quality films.

If everyone did this, and the money was spread around, then there wouldn't be an issue. However, just because you are an exception doesn't make it right.

I don't download films which are pirated direct from the cinema screen (even with the opportunity and even if i really want to watch it). Somebody else has paid first for any of the films which i am downloading

You are aware that this another bullshit point, right? Someone had to pay to watch it in the first place. I understand the quality issue, but not that someone paid for the DVD and that counts, but if someone paid for a ticket instead it doesn't.

AND i leech the download, i don't seed it afterwards,

Then you're not torrenting. As you download it, you're a seed. If "leeching" excludes you from that, then you're ignoring the concept of sharing the movie altogether, and that makes you sad...

nor do i keep a copy on my hard drive after i've seen it, nor do i create a copy for myself before deleting it.

Superfluous. The point is that you did download it. Anything else is an after-the-fact rationalization, and won't stop a lawyer from nailing you.

I disagreed because, i have, on several occassions, bought legally, content which were not given great publicity, that i had never heard of before, which i first encountered on a torrent site.

See my first point, re: cattle.

Perhaps tho the film industry could focus more on those who actually upload torrents and make them available for everyone else. Targetting users won't solve anything.

So how would tell the users apart from the distributors..?

And i also just want to point out that you don't need a lot of money to create something of quality, just the passion, determination and the talent.

Yeah, because special effects are cheap. Sorry, I agree with the basic point, but a limited budget limits what you can do. Points for passion, but it just comes off as a rationalization.

I'm going to make this my last post as i am not arguing that copyright infringement is wrong, merely disputing the extent of the damage that is supposedly inflicted on one specific industry (the movie).

Urgh. you must have arms of steel from all that digging...

RG

 

[Aaron]

My understanding of Canadian Law was that it's illegal to upload, but not to download. I could be mistaken, though.

 

[justdra]

I met a guy the other day online and he said he worked at Warner Brothers,

He said "There's a whole area of tubby dweebs in cubicles that do nothing but look for pirated dvds and illegal downloads..."


They really hire people to surf the net for illegal material. Hmm

If that is the case, they are not doing a great job. I think they are not really hell bent on stopping the piracy, but they are maybe looking for that "Moby Dick" type of catch so they can make a big statement.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Ok so its looks like my last post wasn't my LAST post after all.

Man.....

I found this point interesting. Clearly you disagree with my stance in trying to justify my own particular behaviour, yet you, by the statement you make, recognise the point which i entered into this discussion on the back of.

Which I pointed out in my first post. And have pointed that out several times. Just sayin'...

In relation to small indie movies, i don't see how they can be affected in any way different to mainstream film.

The problem is that indie movies don't make as much as regular movies for all of the reasons you've listed. Basic Business: You don't spend as much money, you don't make as much. I agree that pirating can make a movie a cult classic; the problem with being a cult classic, however, is that you're not likely to get your money back. Some do; however, most do not. Small movies tend to not make their money back as quickly as large movies; if the movie becomes more popular among pirates than payers, then the movie won't make any money. It has a small audience; if most of that audience sees the movie via pirating, it just won't its money back.

I have no idea how you think that a pirated movie gets money back to the creator; my understanding is that it doesn't.

I am not excluding one industry because it is convenient to my point, i am excluding it purely because it is relevant to my point and on the basis that it doesn't work the same way as other industries.

Make product. Sell. Get money. Avoid the pirates. That applies to all four industries; the only difference is the medium. You can split hairs all you want, but the bottom line is that pirating does affect all four industries. That you have singled one out as acceptable to be pirated and that the other three are not makes sense to you, but in all cases the same law and the same basic issues apply.

I don't recall saying any different. I recognise the illegality but i don't necessarily support it.

That's your issue. It's irrelevant to the OP's question.

This is not a bullshit point.

Yeah...Whatever gets you through the night...I get the balance between superior quality vs. wait time; they increase in direct relationship, at least in theory. Past that, it's a pretty shallow argument.

Waiting for a movie to be released on dvd means that such movies at least would lose zero money from the box office if only everyone else were to apply that ethic then it would obviously minimise the damage, especially as the box office is the industries first chance to recoup its production costs.

The problem is that most movies make most of their money back on DVD, not the box office. Sure, you have blockbusters, but they are few and far between; most movies are limited release (just a few weeks at most) or straight-to-DVD. To anyone knowledgeable about the industry this point of yours is ludicrous.

This where that balancing point I mentioned comes to the fore, and where studios get really nervous. A movie that's not popular enough with the general audience but is loved by the pirating crowd is unlikely to make a movie, and movies similar to are unlikely to get the greenlight in the future. So even if it's a cult classic, it's unlikely to inspire other producers to take up a similar cause in the future.

Again, sure you buy. But how many others do?

No, of course not, the law is clear. The difference in my actions compared to a less conscientious, purely opportunistic download could mean, in the hands of a defense lawyer, the difference between a hefty fine and a token one.

I'll give you that one. Would point out that there is still a fine, however.

I couldn't honestly answer that, which is why it might be more pointful to spend money on addressing this aspect, after all, the distributors start the ball rolling.

True, but few would do it if they didn't know that someone was downloading it. There is a sort of chicken/egg thing going on here....

You recognise my point tho, and movies requiring costly special effects are generally produced by established picture houses and distributors who, if the movie flops for example, suffers smaller losses anyway.

I still don't see that as a major justification. Admittedly my tastes are more towards the smaller-medium movies, and I like to defend those movies when I can, mainly because pirating tends to actually hurt them. At the same time, the big special effects movies are the movies are the ones I see as having the real problems financially, mainly because some of them are on the cusp of making it. The bigger the movie, the weirder the position I find myself in .

The bottom line, however, is that the balancing point can be really fine, and I would like to see a decent way to hit easier....

RG

 

[quasar]

So Corbin fisher won 250k in a suit it filed against a bit torrent downloader? Is it illegal? If so, thousands are liable since a lot of people downloads vids from torrents?

That wasn't all, on the 13th, two major torrent sites were closed down.

PureTNA reportedly had in excess of 1,329,500 members and Empornium had a similar number. PureTNA’s database housed nearly 67,000 torrents servicing around 630,000 peers. Empornium listed more than 82,000 torrents and 660,000 peers.

http://www.xbiz.com/news/129511