Is downloading films worse than downloading music?

wub · Post by **wub** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:51 am

Illegally download a track, and you're potentially killing a revenue stream to a smaller independant music label/artist who might otherwise not be making music if their shit gets pirated.

Illegally download a film, and you're taking away profit from an often globally recognised organisation who routinely overspends on production, and can afford a couple of hits on their latest DVD when they're paying their actors $20m+ per film.

Is one form of piracy more/less acceptable than another?

Feel free to give feedback. Be advised this discussion is not adovcating the illegal download and filesharing of copyrighted materials in any way, shape or form.

MrAural · Post by **MrAural** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:00 am

I couldn't give a shit if it cut their revenue. I aint paying £5 to see a film, that could well and truly be shit.

wub · Post by **wub** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:04 am

MrAural wrote:I couldn't give a shit if it cut their revenue. I aint paying £5 to see a film, that could well and truly be shit.

What about a film that you could pretty much guarantee would be good? Is it the cost, or the risk that you might not like it?

Filthzilla · Post by **Filthzilla** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:05 am

I'm not sure... but yeah you could be right Wub, maybe the film industry can take a few hits better than the music industry can.

wub · Post by **wub** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:07 am

Filthzilla wrote:I'm not sure... but yeah you could be right Wub, maybe the film industry can take a few hits better than the music industry can.

So, by that rationale it'd be okay to illegally download music when artists were signed to the larger record labels, like Universal?

MrAural · Post by **MrAural** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:09 am

wub wrote:
MrAural wrote:I couldn't give a shit if it cut their revenue. I aint paying £5 to see a film, that could well and truly be shit.
What about a film that you could pretty much guarantee would be good? Is it the cost, or the risk that you might not like it?

Well. The actors.. Something with Mel Gibson, or John Travolta ruins the WHOLE film.
And the music. No Justin Bieber or pop music.

Capture pt · Post by **Capture pt** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:12 am

Something interesting happened the other day:

My friend got his track included on a Ministry of Sound CD: somthing like SOUND OF DEEPER FUTURE DUBSTEP or whatever.

Anyway

Point is, he found out through someone who happened to see it telling him. MoS didn't tell him they were using his tracks.

Surely, from a morality point of view this is just as bad/worse than illegally downloading anything? My friend wont see a penny from the sales, and MoS will no doubt make a fortune from the CD, and giving none of it too the artists who's tracks were used.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think people need to sort their priorites out on who to witch hunt first - comparing average joe who just wants to listen to a track without going on youtube but cant afford to spend money against a corperate music label who has had massive international success using tracks without crediting any of the artists who WILL make a fortune from the sales....

I mean. Fuck a track might get leaked or put on a sharing forum but at least none of those people downloading are going to try to sell it on!

Perhaps I don't know the whole situation with MoS. Perhaps theres somthing i'm not aware of going on.

Funny thing tho: they made a spelling error on the track name aha.

nicenice · Post by **nicenice** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:15 am

Its a bit more complex then that though.

I'm presuming most pirated music is music from major labels, and most of that money won't even go to the artist but the label so I guess its fine. I wouldn't people to pay for the shit most majors put out anyway. A lot of small independent musicians, I know in the metal scene especially aren't bothered about filesharing, for them its a form of promotion and if people like them enough they'll buy a shirt, go to a gig or buy their records. In the dance scene though, you don't need to pirate as much. Theres no need to download release after release because if you wanted to hear the newest tunes you could just subscribe to a couple of podcasts and keep up to date with mix's.

It depends what side of the music industry that you're talking about. I wouldn't bother downloading a big budget film from hollywood because I presume most of them are shit. The only films I watch are released from small studios and foreign, made on a small budget and probably not looking at making much of a profit, so I do try to go to the cinema to see it. I prefer watching films in the cinema as well, its a more immersive experience then watching a shit download on a shit laptop screen or trying to stream something whilst adverts constantly pop up.

lami · Post by **lami** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:16 am

When I download films I feel no guilt whatsoever as my not buying the DVD is a drop in a huge ocean for the film companies. Same If i download an album by a big artist if i'm piss poor at the time, but have an intention of buying it at some point.

I do however feel really guilty when I download 10 or so tracks from lesser known artists because i really cant afford them. I dont play them out, just so I can enjoy them on my iPod on the way to uni or the train etc but I still feel bad and end up buying the oes that I really enjoy anyway. Cant take the guilt man.

wub · Post by **wub** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:22 am

nicenice wrote:The only films I watch are released from small studios and foreign, made on a small budget and probably not looking at making much of a profit, so I do try to go to the cinema to see it. I prefer watching films in the cinema as well, its a more immersive experience then watching a shit download on a shit laptop screen or trying to stream something whilst adverts constantly pop up.

Conversely though, some smaller films may not get a cinema release.

The small screen thing isn't really a factor - for example, you can watch .avi files via flashdrive on an xBox, which could be rigged up to a large screen. And with so many DVD rips around, quality isn't really an issue, esp. when coupled with increased download speeds.

say_whut · Post by **say_whut** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:22 am

I never download films, I buy a lot of DVDs though. I will often wait for them to come down, like I waited ages to get Shutter Island and The Road, then low and behold they were a 2 for £10 at hmv. I can't ever justify paying £15 as soon as it's out, or even paying £5+ just to see it at my local - and very shitty - cinema.

nicenice · Post by **nicenice** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:30 am

In which case they should get a DVD release which I'll buy.

Personally, my view on the whole piracy thing is. If you pirate music because you don't have the money, and you like the music, then when you have some money buy an album, some vinyl or go to a show. If you like the music that you've pirated you become a potential revenue stream for the artist.

Films on the other hand are a double edged sword. I couldn't give two shits about people pirating bit budget films, most of the time after all the money being pumped into them they lose all monetary worth because of their shitness. On the other hand I disagree with downloading small indie films because once you've watched it you've watched it. There's no way to fund the director and studio that made the film other then buy the dvd or to go the cinema but you won't be inclined too because you have it sitting on you hd.

wub · Post by **wub** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:32 am

nicenice wrote:Films on the other hand are a double edged sword. I couldn't give two shits about people pirating bit budget films, most of the time after all the money being pumped into them they lose all monetary worth because of their shitness. On the other hand I disagree with downloading small indie films because once you've watched it you've watched it. There's no way to fund the director and studio that made the film other then buy the dvd or to go the cinema but you won't be inclined too because you have it sitting on you hd.

Would you apply the same concept of scale to music? It's more acceptable to take from larger labels than independants?

dubmatters · Post by **dubmatters** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:33 am

So you wouldnt steal food from your local green grocers but stealing from tesco is fine?

Just because an artist is very succesful and signed to a major then stealing their work suddenly becomes ok?

Some flawed logic right here.

wub · Post by **wub** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:36 am

dubmatters wrote:So you wouldnt steal food from your local green grocers but stealing from tesco is fine?

Just because an artist is very succesful and signed to a major then stealing their work suddenly becomes ok?

Some flawed logic right here.

Perfect analogy - does the crime of piracy become acceptable because the victim is faceless and can afford to take the hit?

nicenice · Post by **nicenice** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:37 am

I'm not entirely sure. I think with music the waters are muddier.

wub · Post by **wub** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:38 am

nicenice wrote:I'm not entirely sure. I think with music the waters are muddier.

Why though?

nicenice · Post by **nicenice** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:40 am

Also, people talk a lot about piracy but they never define, or discuss, ownership.

I find it hard to understand how someone owns sound.

wormcode · Post by **wormcode** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:40 am

Hollywood has been having record earnings despite piracy, it was reported 2010 was their biggest year ever.

It's TOTALLY ridiculous to be paying Tom Cruise or Will Smith 20+ million to do a lame movie. Usually they will take percentages of sales or marketing as well. It's just greed. Look as this dickhead. Of course we all know Cruise is a wackjob too. Why would I want to make him richer?

I do gladly pay for films I love, and sometimes I buy them more than once (VHS, DVD, Bluray...) but I do look into who makes the films and their track record, especially studios that have sued people, like the kid from Sheffield facing extradition, and the 8 year old girls being sued in the US for downloading songs, or having people censored for fair use... I don't mean I will download it, but I'd be less likely to even watch it at all.

I also try to support independent films and smaller studios just like I support independent artists and labels. It's not quite the same sometimes for films as sometimes they will get nationwide/worldwide distribution through large corporations, at a hell of a cost I'm sure.

Cinema prices I wouldn't mind if they keep innovating interesting ways to entertain. Like the 4-D film type thing where it's a physical experience. It can be a cheap gimmick like a bad 3D movie, it just depends if they do it solely for profit or actually focus on making it good like Avatar. Despite flaws in the story, that 3D was totally worth the price. It won't work for every kind of movie, so they will have to resort to making great films more often again, and stop remaking/rebooting every other movie in their back catalogues.

dubmatters · Post by **dubmatters** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:43 am

wub wrote:
nicenice wrote:I'm not entirely sure. I think with music the waters are muddier.

Why though?

A whole generation have grown up pirating music/films/software.

I dont know anyone who pays for music under the age of 25. Except for the dj/production/head type of person.