5 ms·

I don't really understand how they can have such a radical view... If the pirate bay were to be the only media distribution system left after all of the traditi

I don't really understand how they can have such a radical view... If the pirate bay were to be the only media distribution system left after all of the traditional "Hollywood" corporations went out of business (b/c of the pirate bay), there would be no more movies which the pirate bay could distribute. I don't know about you guys, but I do like my movies. EDIT: Please note this was just I thought an interesting topic to think about - I by no means think this is going to happen. TPB's statement gave me the feeling that they didn't want the traditional Hollywood to exist any longer, which is why I brought this up. Call it what you want, but what a ton of people are doing in downloading movies off the pirate bay is taking something that they haven't paid for. Maybe one can say that isn't stealing, but I find it hard to call it anything else. Maybe I'm missing something in their stance? EDIT: I know we're talking about the middleman and not the producing companies, but the pirate bay is still facilitating the act of taking revenues away from producers, right?

nazgulnarsil 15y ago
if you're a consequentialist then you only care about outcomes. Every economic analysis I've seen indicates piracy rate does not affect the returns to creators.
- andrewcamel 15y ago
  I'm sure the economic analyses are well thought out, but isn't it just common sense that some proportion of those people who download content for free would have purchased that content had they not been able to download it for free? That would obviously mean decreased revenues for the content creators... The main reason I brought up the end game stuff was because the article gave me the feeling the TPB doesn't want Hollywood to exist any longer. They are talking about the people that allow Hollywood to make money as if those people are criminal scum that are just selling plush toys and anorexia. Just thought it was an interesting scenario to consider given the apparently largely negative feelings toward Hollywood's existence.
  - baddox 15y ago
    > but isn't it just common sense that some proportion of those people who download content for free would have purchased that content had they not been able to download it for free? Probably some portion very close to 0%. It's a hard problem to define without having unfiltered access to everyone's mind. Regardless of what measurement you use, I suspect things like DRM, slow download speeds, slow shipping, bad cinema experiences, etc. have caused more loss in revenue than piracy. I also suspect that for many forms of media (particularly music and software), piracy has been a significant contributor to many producers' success.
    - andrewcamel 15y ago
      That's a really interesting take on it - thanks so much for responding. I never thought about how all of the issues with trying to stop piracy could have decreased revenues as well. Really wish we could get some numbers on this to see if your arguent has backing.
  - timmaxw 15y ago
    It's true that some pirates would have paid if they hadn't been able to pirate. But that's not the whole story: sometimes getting media for free makes people more inclined to buy it or related media later. I've heard on Hacker News that free music distributions can create an audience for live concerts. Another example is "freemium" software and services. At least one study (that I'm too lazy to look up) found that some people will pirate music to try it and then buy it if they like it. So you can't determine from theory whether piracy leads to less or more revenue; you need real data.
    - andrewcamel 15y ago
      I really like that argument and actually hope it would prove to be true - would completely change a significant part of the industry. However, it is by definition of US law illegal to pirate copyrighted content, so regardless of whether or not we think it is a benefit to content production and distribution companies for us to pirate their content, it is always going to be illegal.
samlev 15y ago
There are some movies and TV shows being funded now without the 'majors', but the funding model hasn't really figured itself out yet. See Pioneer One for a self/crowd funded 'TV' show which was released under the Creative Commons licence (and distributed legally via pirate bay, etc.). Sure the quality isn't 100% top notch, but the point is that it's starting. It's slow, but the ball is rolling now.
secoif 15y ago
There's not a single thing I've downloaded over a torrent I'd have ever paid for without first getting it via the torrent.
- andrewcamel 15y ago
  Why would you do that to yourself? You're illegally downloading content. It's really cool and good and all that you're making up for your illegally downloaded content by actually purchasing the movie afterwards because that is what matters, but you could still have to pay huge fines for doing that if anyone wanted to make you. The other thing is that I think good natured people like you who want to pay for movies after watching them are very rare. The majority of pirates don't follow by your way of thinking, I would guess.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira...
  - secoif 15y ago
    You know why? Because there's so much shitty content out there. Bad TV shows that have one good episode. Bad albums with one good song. I'm sick of buying stuff and then later discovering I was simply a victim of a marketing campaign. That's not fair. So I will see if it's any good, THEN I pay you. That's how it should work, just like it does in a restaurant: you consume their content, if you're unhappy with the product, it's acceptable behaviour to complain and not pay. Why should I pay them to waste my time?
- Sapient 15y ago
  Stop buying their stuff and you will force them to change.
vasco 15y ago
You imply that everyone that pirates doesn't buy. And you imply that people who pirate would instead buy if they couldn't pirate. I never seen proof to any of those two assertions.
- andrewcamel 15y ago
  I am talking about one movie. If a pirate pirates a movie, it is incredibly unlikely that he/she is going to then go buy the movie. And yes, I do imply (and even say outright) that people who pirate would buy if they couldn't pirate, but not all of them. Probably only a very small proportion of them would buy a movie if they couldn't pirate it. However, if only one person would buy the movie out of the hundreds that pirate it, it would net the producing and distributing companies a loss, which is all that would need to happen for my argument to have sound backing.
bandushrew 15y ago
I dont understand this. if the hollywood corporations are unable to make something that anyone wants to pay for, why should they be in business? if they die out, its because their business model is broken. if their business model is broken, they deserve to die out. why should the government protect them? separately, if movies stop getting made that will because nobody is willing to fund them. surely that means that they should die out? if enough of us who like our movies (I am one) continue to fund movies, then they will not die out. again, why should the government have an opinion on any of this?
snprbob86 15y ago
Most physical object businesses has a multi-tier process that, greatly simplified, can be described as: (1) design -> (2) produce -> (3) distribute This simplified traditional model can be directly applied to movies, games, books, etc. For example: (1) guy writes book -> (2) publisher runs the printing press -> (3) dude runs book store Each of these steps can be greatly sub-divided. For example, someone needs to drive the truck full of books to the book store! Furthermore, the line between each of these steps can be very blurry. An author could, for example, print his own book at home, if he were so inclined. The big monkey wrench comes into things when you consider the most important missing element: MONEY! Where does it come from? In the days of yore, if you wanted to produce a film, you'd have to go find backers, like you would for a startup business. Those backers could be friends, family, fools, professional investors, pre-order sales, etc. More interestingly, one type of backer could be the production/distribution suppliers. They often have greater diversification, so they are more stable in the long term. As they grow more and more stable, they grow more and more rich. With their riches, they can go re-invest more and more of the supply and distribution chain. Once they own more and more of the supply and distribution chain, they can invest more and more in the design end of the process. Now here's where things get rotton: It is extremely difficult to profit from a movie these days which are not funded by the major studios. They simply won't run it in the theaters that they have exclusivity deals with! ie. most of them! You're fucked. This is true of a scary number of media empires! In addition to movies, think about TV, music, Broadway, books (especially text books). I'm sure I'm missing many. It even is true of software! It may no longer true for boxed software at your local Compu R' Us store, but it still is for video games. You're simply not gonna make as much money if your game doesn't show up on the shelves at Walmart. So while capitalism works pretty well in general, it's got a fatal flaw: it tends to generate monopolies. And monopolies are dangerous. If not presently malevolent, monopolies are like time bombs waiting to go off when new leadership steps in. I doubt the movie studios set out with the goal of controlling all media and public opinion. It just so happens that being good at making money makes you good at accumulating power. And power corrupts. So now back to the question you asked: What is The Pirate Bay's stance? Well.... I'd imagine that they view themselves as liberators from the tyranny of the production companies. If those companies went poof and disappeared tomorrow, films wouldn't disappear. I mean, just look at youtube.com/freddiew -- there are talented people out there who are figuring out how to fund things like they're doing with their VGHS film. Surely, destroying the production companies would cause people to loose jobs and lots of great films to die on the planning desk. But people will overcome. The industry will find new ways of funding itself and the middleman will become less powerful. Sure, YouTube is huge, but that won't stop you from clicking a Vimeo link. The internet simply makes it too hard to get disgustingly rich from being a publishing or distribution platform. And if you do get disgustingly rich, you simply can't lock every movie theater into an exclusivity deal: anyone could run his own movie theater! And many other movie theaters are just a few keystrokes away! There are new ones every day.
baddox 15y ago
I'll sidestep the tired but true arguments about why copyright infringement isn't stealing, and take a more pragmatic approach: First off, even if your assumption is true, it would only mean there would be no more movies created in the way Hollywood creates movies today. There would still be movies created by passionate filmmakers. Secondly, I think your assumption is wrong anyway. Hollywood could make movies that would get people in theaters. It would require better movies and probably better theaters. Pirates will have a hard time competing with a good theater experience. Remember, home video was not an original part of Hollywood's business model. Cinemas were. In fact, they have fought every new form of home media, heralding it as the end of their business, and then eventually adapting and making tons of money from that new media. It takes time, and they haven't quite managed to pull it off yet with today's new home media: high speed Internet access.
- andrewcamel 15y ago
  Could you please explain exactly why copyright infringement isn't stealing? I really don't understand any of the past arguments. Someone places a price on something that they paid money to create. Instead of paying that price (fair or not), you choose to obtain that something for free. That is, by definition, stealing. You are taking something that belongs to the creator of that something without the right to do so. -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal I am not saying that Hollywood is going to be completely killed - I was just speculating as to a possible (albeit unlikely) future scenario. The reason for my doing this is that TPB's statement gave me the feeling that they didn't want the traditional Hollywood to exist anymore. Sorry - what exactly are you getting at with the comment about them being so hypocritical about everything?
  - seanp2k2 15y ago
    The key word here is not "stealing" but "right" as in "the right to do so". See also: "makes a copy" vs "removes original" Creators need to be paid, and I see lots of passionate creators being paid despite, or even with the help of this "stealing" (SEO guys and gals call it "free PR".)
zerostar07 15y ago
That's why you need new models to promote and monetize movies. Piracy without compensation is of course not viable, but so is not the current "overcharge for zero-cost-digital copy so we can pay exorbitant promotions for mediocre movies" (e.g. avatar's 1/3 of the cost was promotion)
- andrewcamel 15y ago
  You can't think that you are paying for a no-cost digital copy. You are paying for a copy of a production that took over a year and millions of dollars to create! You wouldn't argue that you should only have to pay half-price for milk because half of the milk company revenues were spent on advertising, right?
pyre 15y ago
> there would be no more movies which the pirate > bay could distribute That's not the case. I remember someone once mentioning the Nigerian film industry as an example. Everything there is pirated, but they make their movies with the expectation that they have ~2 weeks to make their money before piracy becomes rampant. I'm sure that large $100-million movies won't be made in such a world, but I've never really heard anyone respond to whether or not that is a good or bad thing. Do we really need huge blockbusters like that to truly tell a compelling story?
- the-cakeboss 15y ago
  Why should piracy just be expected and accepted to the detriment of an industry? You don't need a huge budget to make great films, but why encourage an environment in which there is no choice but to make low budget ones?
  - pyre 15y ago
    1. I'm presenting a counter-point to the idea that 'no movies will be made.' 2. The idea that 'if piracy becomes rampant, then there will be no $100-million movies' usually comes up in piracy discussions. I'm asking whether or not we really need $100-million movies. Would the world be that much worse off without them? This is not a side of the issue that I've seen come up in these discussions, so I'm posing the question.

nazgulnarsil 15y ago

if you're a consequentialist then you only care about outcomes. Every economic analysis I've seen indicates piracy rate does not affect the returns to creators.

andrewcamel 15y ago
I'm sure the economic analyses are well thought out, but isn't it just common sense that some proportion of those people who download content for free would have purchased that content had they not been able to download it for free? That would obviously mean decreased revenues for the content creators... The main reason I brought up the end game stuff was because the article gave me the feeling the TPB doesn't want Hollywood to exist any longer. They are talking about the people that allow Hollywood to make money as if those people are criminal scum that are just selling plush toys and anorexia. Just thought it was an interesting scenario to consider given the apparently largely negative feelings toward Hollywood's existence.
- baddox 15y ago
  > but isn't it just common sense that some proportion of those people who download content for free would have purchased that content had they not been able to download it for free? Probably some portion very close to 0%. It's a hard problem to define without having unfiltered access to everyone's mind. Regardless of what measurement you use, I suspect things like DRM, slow download speeds, slow shipping, bad cinema experiences, etc. have caused more loss in revenue than piracy. I also suspect that for many forms of media (particularly music and software), piracy has been a significant contributor to many producers' success.
  - andrewcamel 15y ago
    That's a really interesting take on it - thanks so much for responding. I never thought about how all of the issues with trying to stop piracy could have decreased revenues as well. Really wish we could get some numbers on this to see if your arguent has backing.
- timmaxw 15y ago
  It's true that some pirates would have paid if they hadn't been able to pirate. But that's not the whole story: sometimes getting media for free makes people more inclined to buy it or related media later. I've heard on Hacker News that free music distributions can create an audience for live concerts. Another example is "freemium" software and services. At least one study (that I'm too lazy to look up) found that some people will pirate music to try it and then buy it if they like it. So you can't determine from theory whether piracy leads to less or more revenue; you need real data.
  - andrewcamel 15y ago
    I really like that argument and actually hope it would prove to be true - would completely change a significant part of the industry. However, it is by definition of US law illegal to pirate copyrighted content, so regardless of whether or not we think it is a benefit to content production and distribution companies for us to pirate their content, it is always going to be illegal.

samlev 15y ago

There are some movies and TV shows being funded now without the 'majors', but the funding model hasn't really figured itself out yet. See Pioneer One for a self/crowd funded 'TV' show which was released under the Creative Commons licence (and distributed legally via pirate bay, etc.). Sure the quality isn't 100% top notch, but the point is that it's starting. It's slow, but the ball is rolling now.

secoif 15y ago

There's not a single thing I've downloaded over a torrent I'd have ever paid for without first getting it via the torrent.

andrewcamel 15y ago
Why would you do that to yourself? You're illegally downloading content. It's really cool and good and all that you're making up for your illegally downloaded content by actually purchasing the movie afterwards because that is what matters, but you could still have to pay huge fines for doing that if anyone wanted to make you. The other thing is that I think good natured people like you who want to pay for movies after watching them are very rare. The majority of pirates don't follow by your way of thinking, I would guess.
- icebraining 15y ago
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira...
- secoif 15y ago
  You know why? Because there's so much shitty content out there. Bad TV shows that have one good episode. Bad albums with one good song. I'm sick of buying stuff and then later discovering I was simply a victim of a marketing campaign. That's not fair. So I will see if it's any good, THEN I pay you. That's how it should work, just like it does in a restaurant: you consume their content, if you're unhappy with the product, it's acceptable behaviour to complain and not pay. Why should I pay them to waste my time?
Sapient 15y ago
Stop buying their stuff and you will force them to change.

vasco 15y ago

You imply that everyone that pirates doesn't buy. And you imply that people who pirate would instead buy if they couldn't pirate. I never seen proof to any of those two assertions.

andrewcamel 15y ago
I am talking about one movie. If a pirate pirates a movie, it is incredibly unlikely that he/she is going to then go buy the movie. And yes, I do imply (and even say outright) that people who pirate would buy if they couldn't pirate, but not all of them. Probably only a very small proportion of them would buy a movie if they couldn't pirate it. However, if only one person would buy the movie out of the hundreds that pirate it, it would net the producing and distributing companies a loss, which is all that would need to happen for my argument to have sound backing.

bandushrew 15y ago

I dont understand this. if the hollywood corporations are unable to make something that anyone wants to pay for, why should they be in business? if they die out, its because their business model is broken. if their business model is broken, they deserve to die out. why should the government protect them? separately, if movies stop getting made that will because nobody is willing to fund them. surely that means that they should die out? if enough of us who like our movies (I am one) continue to fund movies, then they will not die out. again, why should the government have an opinion on any of this?

snprbob86 15y ago

Most physical object businesses has a multi-tier process that, greatly simplified, can be described as: (1) design -> (2) produce -> (3) distribute This simplified traditional model can be directly applied to movies, games, books, etc. For example: (1) guy writes book -> (2) publisher runs the printing press -> (3) dude runs book store Each of these steps can be greatly sub-divided. For example, someone needs to drive the truck full of books to the book store! Furthermore, the line between each of these steps can be very blurry. An author could, for example, print his own book at home, if he were so inclined. The big monkey wrench comes into things when you consider the most important missing element: MONEY! Where does it come from? In the days of yore, if you wanted to produce a film, you'd have to go find backers, like you would for a startup business. Those backers could be friends, family, fools, professional investors, pre-order sales, etc. More interestingly, one type of backer could be the production/distribution suppliers. They often have greater diversification, so they are more stable in the long term. As they grow more and more stable, they grow more and more rich. With their riches, they can go re-invest more and more of the supply and distribution chain. Once they own more and more of the supply and distribution chain, they can invest more and more in the design end of the process. Now here's where things get rotton: It is extremely difficult to profit from a movie these days which are not funded by the major studios. They simply won't run it in the theaters that they have exclusivity deals with! ie. most of them! You're fucked. This is true of a scary number of media empires! In addition to movies, think about TV, music, Broadway, books (especially text books). I'm sure I'm missing many. It even is true of software! It may no longer true for boxed software at your local Compu R' Us store, but it still is for video games. You're simply not gonna make as much money if your game doesn't show up on the shelves at Walmart. So while capitalism works pretty well in general, it's got a fatal flaw: it tends to generate monopolies. And monopolies are dangerous. If not presently malevolent, monopolies are like time bombs waiting to go off when new leadership steps in. I doubt the movie studios set out with the goal of controlling all media and public opinion. It just so happens that being good at making money makes you good at accumulating power. And power corrupts. So now back to the question you asked: What is The Pirate Bay's stance? Well.... I'd imagine that they view themselves as liberators from the tyranny of the production companies. If those companies went poof and disappeared tomorrow, films wouldn't disappear. I mean, just look at youtube.com/freddiew -- there are talented people out there who are figuring out how to fund things like they're doing with their VGHS film. Surely, destroying the production companies would cause people to loose jobs and lots of great films to die on the planning desk. But people will overcome. The industry will find new ways of funding itself and the middleman will become less powerful. Sure, YouTube is huge, but that won't stop you from clicking a Vimeo link. The internet simply makes it too hard to get disgustingly rich from being a publishing or distribution platform. And if you do get disgustingly rich, you simply can't lock every movie theater into an exclusivity deal: anyone could run his own movie theater! And many other movie theaters are just a few keystrokes away! There are new ones every day.

baddox 15y ago

I'll sidestep the tired but true arguments about why copyright infringement isn't stealing, and take a more pragmatic approach: First off, even if your assumption is true, it would only mean there would be no more movies created in the way Hollywood creates movies today. There would still be movies created by passionate filmmakers. Secondly, I think your assumption is wrong anyway. Hollywood could make movies that would get people in theaters. It would require better movies and probably better theaters. Pirates will have a hard time competing with a good theater experience. Remember, home video was not an original part of Hollywood's business model. Cinemas were. In fact, they have fought every new form of home media, heralding it as the end of their business, and then eventually adapting and making tons of money from that new media. It takes time, and they haven't quite managed to pull it off yet with today's new home media: high speed Internet access.

andrewcamel 15y ago
Could you please explain exactly why copyright infringement isn't stealing? I really don't understand any of the past arguments. Someone places a price on something that they paid money to create. Instead of paying that price (fair or not), you choose to obtain that something for free. That is, by definition, stealing. You are taking something that belongs to the creator of that something without the right to do so. -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal I am not saying that Hollywood is going to be completely killed - I was just speculating as to a possible (albeit unlikely) future scenario. The reason for my doing this is that TPB's statement gave me the feeling that they didn't want the traditional Hollywood to exist anymore. Sorry - what exactly are you getting at with the comment about them being so hypocritical about everything?
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  The key word here is not "stealing" but "right" as in "the right to do so". See also: "makes a copy" vs "removes original" Creators need to be paid, and I see lots of passionate creators being paid despite, or even with the help of this "stealing" (SEO guys and gals call it "free PR".)

zerostar07 15y ago

That's why you need new models to promote and monetize movies. Piracy without compensation is of course not viable, but so is not the current "overcharge for zero-cost-digital copy so we can pay exorbitant promotions for mediocre movies" (e.g. avatar's 1/3 of the cost was promotion)

andrewcamel 15y ago
You can't think that you are paying for a no-cost digital copy. You are paying for a copy of a production that took over a year and millions of dollars to create! You wouldn't argue that you should only have to pay half-price for milk because half of the milk company revenues were spent on advertising, right?

pyre 15y ago

> there would be no more movies which the pirate > bay could distribute That's not the case. I remember someone once mentioning the Nigerian film industry as an example. Everything there is pirated, but they make their movies with the expectation that they have ~2 weeks to make their money before piracy becomes rampant. I'm sure that large $100-million movies won't be made in such a world, but I've never really heard anyone respond to whether or not that is a good or bad thing. Do we really need huge blockbusters like that to truly tell a compelling story?

the-cakeboss 15y ago
Why should piracy just be expected and accepted to the detriment of an industry? You don't need a huge budget to make great films, but why encourage an environment in which there is no choice but to make low budget ones?
- pyre 15y ago
  1. I'm presenting a counter-point to the idea that 'no movies will be made.' 2. The idea that 'if piracy becomes rampant, then there will be no $100-million movies' usually comes up in piracy discussions. I'm asking whether or not we really need $100-million movies. Would the world be that much worse off without them? This is not a side of the issue that I've seen come up in these discussions, so I'm posing the question.