a question about morality

[obliv326]

i have a question regarding an interesting problem. understand that by merely posing the wuestion i am not admitting that i have done this, nor that i know of anyone who has. howevere, the act in question could be done, so think of it as a bit rhetorical...

i have paid to see transformers twice already. once on the 4th of july when i ended up noot even seeing it b/c the crowds were INSANE, then the next day when i went back and saw it. i did stay on the first day and see another film, as i didnt think i had to just turn tail and leave since the crowd was not something i wanted to wade through.

nonetheless, the technology and what have you does exist to download the film onto my computer. so, since i have seen it, indeed, paid for it twice, and most likely i will buy it when it is released on dvd is it really immoral to download it...esp if it is very pos i will see it in the theatre again...

so, yeah, there it is...if you pay to see a film in the theatre, and are most likely willing go buy the dvd, or at least rent it, does that make it immoral to download, or is it essentially just like borrowing it until it is available officially?

and what about films that are not released where you live...there are communities, where my friend josh lives in west virginia, for instance, where grindhouse didnt even get a release. is it fair for him to download before the dvd comes out? or if a film from the uk, for instance, is not getting a stateside release, and wont be out on dvd for a year?

honestly, i dont see how that kind of stuff hurts anyone. does anyone agree/disagree?

[Michael West]

I see how you are rationalizing it. And I have talked to people who make the same argument. They will get a copy of something from a friend of a friend, but think it is fine because they paid to see it in theaters and just want to be able to watch it again until the DVD comes out, which they will buy because the quality of the pirated disc/download is very poor. So they paid to see it in theaters. They pay for the DVD. What's the harm?

Well...for one, it's illegal. So yeah, there's that. And then you have to look at it from the standpoint of the artists involved. If people do not pay money in the normal, legal way to a theater or a store, the studios do not get money and the people who made the film will not get money. If they don't make money, they will make no more films, etc.

Since I'm a writer, let me use books as an example. I remember when I worked for various retail stores that sold books. We would get these lists of mass market paperbacks to take off the shelves and run to the back room. Once there, somebody would rip the front cover off and throw the book in the trash. When I first saw this practice, I was shocked! Why just toss away all those perfectly good books! Why not put them on the bargain bin or keep them in the break room or something?

Well, turns out that the covers get sent back to the publisher and the publisher records those as unsold and destroyed. They earn no money on them and, of course, they do not pay the author. So, if you grabbed a "stripped" book out of the trash or bought it at a store, the sale is not recorded. If an author does not get good sales on a book, the publisher will not buy another from him or her. If they go to another publisher, this new house can pull up the sales figures on the last book from the other publisher. If there are not enough sales, they may not sign them either.

"But I'll buy a real copy," you say. "I just want to see if I like it first."

(I hear that argument from people who get pirated DVDs too.)

Fine. If you really want to read a book before buying it, go get it from a library. The library bought the book. The author got paid. All is right with the world.

So, bottom line, as an artist, I could never download a copy of a movie or buy a pirated disc. If I don't think I'll like a movie, I'll wait for cable or put it in my cue at Blockbuster On-line. If I really like a movie, I will pay to see it again or wait for the $1 show or DVD.

Let's use a recent movie as an example. Grindhouse. I paid to see Grindhouse 3 times. I know there were pirated copies of it out there because I would find them on YouTube when I would go looking for trailers and behind the scenes stuff. Anyway, if everyone who bought a bootleg DVD of the flick had bought a ticket instead, the movie may have been a hit and we might be able to enjoy the fun of a Grindhouse 2. Instead, it was a flop and now there's even a question as to if it will appear on DVD as one film.

So in answer to your question, morally, it is against the law and takes money away from those who work to create it. How's that for a long road to a short answer?

[obliv326]

i have to say that i am really surprised at the tone of your response. esp since the fact that i presented a very specific set of conditions about the scenario is pretty much indicative that i KNOW it is a "BAD THING"..which, in not answering my question or even addressing it at all, you have spent your time explaining that it is BAD... i dont think anyone, esp myself would disagree.that, on its own, it is a negative influence on the buisines, robns artists of pay for their work, etc. however, i was not speaking about downloading or bootlegging on its own, but in a very specific set of conditions that would deem most of the criticisms ineffective and meaningless.

>I see how you are rationalizing it. And I have talked to people who make the same argument. They will get a copy of something from a friend of a friend, but think it is fine because they paid to see it in theaters and just want to be able to watch it again until the DVD comes out, which they will buy because the quality of the pirated disc/download is very poor. So they paid to see it in theaters. They pay for the DVD. What's the harm?<

well, first of all, i take offense to this statement...how I am rationalizing it? i was very clear that i was not condoning it, nor that i did it myself. i was simply asking a question. for you to first off use the 'i can see how you are rationalizing it' is tantamount to accusing me of doing it. i was simply asking a question. i am not "RATIONALIZING" anything. i just presented a situation where in my mind there really wasnt any harm being done.

the thing is, you just write that paragraph, and then DONT ANSWER MY QUESTION! you immediately start presenting other circumstances, ones not at all like the ones i was oresenting. you dismiss them as simple ratuionalizations, then act as if the conditions i put forth were simply an excuse to be a normal, everyday bootlegger/downloader...again, my question was about a specific situation, and rather than answer that, you simpy avoided it and gave us the same old industry standard response...which i know, and most everyone does as well. weve all seen those things they play before the trailers in the theatre and the thing they make you watch on some dvds, so it really wasnt necessary...and again, the whole point of my presenting a circumstance ikn which NO ONE could be said to be losing money for their work at all, and that changes the whole equation,hionestly

>And then you have to look at it from the standpoint of the artists involved. If people do not pay money in the normal, legal way to a theater or a store, the studios do not get money and the people who made the film will not get money. If they don't make money, they will make no more films, etc. <

well, in the interest of full disclosure, i am an aspiring screenwriter and director, someone who, if i am really lucky, may be in the busness one day, and if so, i would be very much affected by illegal or illicit downloading. i didnt need the sanctimoniuous sermon on why downloading is wrong. i was asking a specific question about a very valid grey area. as an ARTIST, a filmmaker and director, aspiring, I would be much more affected than pretty much anyone here by the practice, so if anyone has the right to get sanctimonious, it is me. if i am able to ask the question and present the idea, then maybe we should all be able to examine it.

and, again, the conditions i presented mean that NO ONE LOSES MONEY! THAY HAVE BEEN PAID! amazing that you simply dismissed my question and we're back to 'illegal downloading 101' inside of 2 paragraphs...

so, since you ignored my question, or rather simply dismissed the question and gave us the industry answer about the practice in general and completely ignored the situation, i will ask it again

with refernce to the "loss of money, etc"...my entire post was about how that issue was NOT a problem. in the case of transformers, i paid to see it in the theatres not once, but twice. i will most likely pay to see it again, in the theatres, while it is still a first run feature. so the whole case you made above is irrelevant. the artists HAVE been paid, TWICE, and most likely will be paid to see it again. and i will buy the dvdnwhen it is released. if you know me, you know that i live for the features on discs, and i will not only buy it, but i will buy the super duper deluxe 3 disc version w/a die cast optimus prime. no one is losing money, so that isnt an issue, and honestly, the entire point of my post was to ask whether there really was any harm in the action when no one was actually being deprived of their living or losing any money. i wasnt asking of it is simply wrong to download films at all under any circumstances. i know that downloading the copy of spiderman 3 that someone taped w/a camcorder on opening night instead of paying to see it yourself is wrong, and stupid, honestly, as the quality is crap. my question is how ANYONE involved in the productiion of transformers is injured by the activity i was referring to.

>Fine. If you really want to read a book before buying it, go get it from a library. The library bought the book. The author got paid. All is right with the world.

So, bottom line, as an artist, I could never download a copy of a movie or buy a pirated disc. If I don't think I'll like a movie, I'll wait for cable or put it in my cue at Blockbuster On-line. If I really like a movie, I will pay to see it again or wait for the $1 show or DVD. <

wow...okay, this is quite a stretch from my original question, but i will answer this and refer back to my original post...

i was not talking about someone who did not know if they wanted to see transformers and downloaded the movie from the internet first, then made their decision. i was referring to someone who (sigh) PAID TO SEE IT TWICE/WILL BUY THE DVD (the most intensively feature laden version, and possibly more than once)/WILL PROB PAY TO SEE IT AGAIN IN THE THEATRE!!!!!!! again...THEY HAVE GOTTEN THEIR MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

h is last paragraph of yours avoids the question i was asking again and makes up some OTHER scenario to show another kind of situation where downloading is wrong.

>"But I'll buy a real copy," you say. "I just want to see if I like it first."<

(I hear that argument from people who get pirated DVDs too.)<

the situation i am asking about is NOT a person who is avoiding paying for a film.in my scenarios, they have eitherALREADY paid for it, or they want access to one that they cannot get legally or above board at that time.once again...we all KNOW that just stealing movies off the internet is wrong. buyiing pirtated dvds is wrong. you went and actually MADE UP a COMPLETLY DIFFERENT situation than the one i was asking about...one more time...THATS NOT MY QUESTION!!! i really wanted an answer to my question, and being that i asked a legitimate question, i dont think the polite answer was 'suuuurree youve seen it already! ohhh, i belieeeevee you! and ooohhhh yeaaahhhh, iii just KNOOOOWWW youll buy the dvd when it is released. mmmmm-hmmmmmm.' i can scan the ticket stubs, both of them, if you dont believe that i already paid to see transformers twice.

you specifically mentioned grindhouse, and so did i, so to make my point again, my friend josh lives in west virginia. the nearest theatre to him showingh grindhouse was in pittsburgh, 2 + hours away. not only that, but it only lasted a week...and that entire week, he was working and didnt really have the schedule to get up there and see it. like me, he is a huge movie buff, and will absolutely buy the dvd...and will even most likely buy it twice if they double dip it, like i assume they will.

so, he had NO CHANCE to see it at the theatre. he WILL buy the dvd when it comes out, most likely falling for the double dip. should he, simply because of the fac t that he lives in a cultural wasteland, be forced to wait until the dvd is released? i personally think that he would be morally justiffied to download it and watch it, since someone at a studio decided they didnt care enouigh about his community to release it there. i also know him well enough to know that, if he does download it and doesnt like it, he will STILL buy it, because he also hopes to work in he business and does not use the fact that the technology allows him to screw the artists and everyone involved to keep from having to pay for it. indeed, if he could PAY for the download, he would...

>Let's use a recent movie as an example. Grindhouse. I paid to see Grindhouse 3 times. I know there were pirated copies of it out there because I would find them on YouTube when I would go looking for trailers and behind the scenes stuff. Anyway, if everyone who bought a bootleg DVD of the flick had bought a ticket instead, the movie may have been a hit and we might be able to enjoy the fun of a Grindhouse 2. Instead, it was a flop and now there's even a question as to if it will appear on DVD as one film.<

yeah, but i doubt it. that is a HUGE assumption and an even bigger stretch. how many people do you think bought a pirated copy of grindhouse? why would they be so hell bent on buying grindhouse and not something else? dont you think that all movies probably get hit equally? i mean, if you are likely to see spiderman 3 in a theatre instead of grindhouse, wouldnt you also be more likely to buy the bootlegged copy of that movie?

like i said ,this is a stretch. grindhouse succeeded or failed on its own merits, and the few thousand dollars that it lost to bootleggers most likely would not have been enough to make any difference. you cant really pick out one film to use as a victim for downloading. for some reason, people didnt go to see grindhouse. i doubt it was because all those people had already snapped up their bootleg copies on dvd...chances are it will be a big hit on dvd actually. 3 hours in your home is a big difference than 3 hours in a theatre...

(or maybe tarantino could have made a film that wasnt a complete piece of garbage...but thats a different story) and did i mention...not the question i was asking?

other than the transformers situation, i had asked about one other scenario...if there was a film that had not been released in the states, or has not been released on dvd...there is, for example, a documentary about the making of 'salo' that i am really interested in seeing. it was shown on tv in england, and never released on video. it was never shown over here at all, but being interested in the making of the film, i found out about it through several sources online.

now, since it was never released, i have two choices...either not to see it, or see it as a bootleg. i have tried every source i can to locate it, including contacting the bbc archives (they were unable to help). but then, yesterday, you made this statement....

>So, bottom line, as an artist, I could never download a copy of a movie or buy a pirated disc<

so, i should simply never be allowed to see it...correct? what if it appeared on some pirate bittorrent site? i should still not download it, even though it is not available anywhere else...it is not available on video, it cannot be seen in any legitimate way, and therefore no one is losing any money on it. no one is being harmed...except me, who wants to see it, but has no legitimate way to do so...

according to the blanket statement above, i simply should not, b/c of where i live, be allowed to see something that interests me? even though NO ONE will be injured or damaged in any way, since no one is making money on it anyway, i should simply refuse to watch it? furthermore, if it ever DID get released on video, i would ABSOLUTELY buy it...but i should not be allowed to see it? unless,somehow, it does get released?

hmmm...see the problem w/blanket statements like that?

the problem i have, and the reason i take offense, is because rather than answer my question which was, essentially, can there exist a situation where downloading is, essentially, harmless. rather than acknowledge that the question took for granted that downloading in a vaccuum is wrong, you dismissed the conditions that i was applying to the situation, simply writing them off as 'rationalizations'and suggesting that i was, i must assume, lying to simply make the action seem okay, and, again i must assume, make myself feel good about stealing movies, right?

no. the conditions i gave to the board when i wrote the message were, far from being dismissable, the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the post, indeed, they are the ONLY RELEVANT part of the post!!! without those conditions imposed on it, then you are simply answering why illegal downloading is bad, and we all know that...just like we know not to take candy from strangers. i certainly am aware that downloading is harming the film business and i do care a great deal, since, again, i hope to work in the film business. the only thing that needed responding to was how the people who have been paid by the audience member already for their work would be harmed by someone temporarily having a copy of that same work of their own, which will presumably be erased once the dvd is released. those conditions are the question, and the only thing that was really being asked. i was certainly not asking whether downloading in ts most bald faced and cheapskate form bad, but this is the answer, and the only answer, you gave.

also, to your point about the 'stripped books'...for it to be relevant to my question, the person with the stripped book would have to have already bought the book, twice, in hardcover, and would be planning on buying it in paperback as well...and the very ridiculous nature of that last sentence is why this is is really not relevant. people may read books more than once, but certainly not like people see films. if you buy a stripped book, you have no intention of buying the book again. unlike a film, where you can purchase another ticket and see it again in a theatre. it really doesnt relate that strongly...but hey, since you brought up the artists not getting paid for the sale of stripped books...let me ask you...are you also not in favor of used record and book shops as well? the artists do not profit from the resale of their work in these situations. i love used books/records, and i imagine you do as well, but it is a tough market for artists to deal with, so sometimes there has to be some concession given to the consumer as well.

to be honest, i am a little hurt by your answer. it not only ignored my question about the conditions in that very specific situation, which, again, was the only real matter up for debate, but the condescending and accusatory tone offered an admonition that was neither part of my question, nor part of how i conduct myself.

so, shall we try again? one more time, focusing on the circumstances rather than the blanket issue, which we know already (movie piracy = bad) ...anyone else want to chime in?

ok...once more...is it immoral to download a film that:

1) you have paid to see. not that you are PLANNING to see, or that you MIGHT see if younlike it from the download, but you have PAID to see...in the instance of transformers, paid to see twice! and may very likely see it again, after having the film at home.

2) you WILL buy the dvd. not MIGHT buy it if you like it, not will borrow it from a friend, but WILL buy it, and most likeely will buy the super, high end collectors edition w/3 discs and a big toy or something...

OR

3) the film was not released to your area, and you WILL buy the dvd when released. you either have to wait until the dvd is released or see it from an illegal download...but either way, you WILL buy the dvd.

4) the film is simply not available to you at all. cant be found on dvd. was not, will not be released to theatres in your area. but DOES exist on some bootlegor as a download on a site, but NO WHERE else...and IF it is ever given an OFFICIAL release, you WILL buy it.

those are the conditions. you cant ignore them. you cant dismiss them. they are the things i am asking about, okay? not whether downloading or bootlegging is a good idea. no. trhe whole point of applying these conditions to it is because i KNOW that by itself it is wrong, okay?

anyone care to take a shot?

[Michael West]

Obliv,

You've got mail.

Having re-read your original query and my initial, knee-jerk reaction, I must agree with you. I did not address the specific questions and concerns posed in your post. Instead, I went off on a ramble. I am sorry.

[obliv326]

mike

please, no apologies necessary. i am all for a good healthy debate. i think i was able to respond, and you are more than welcome to reply. if MY tone was a little exceessive, i apologize as well. however, i think it is sometime okay, and often insightful and entertaining, for people to disagree on something. ask timid...he and i have had several lively chats, and we are no less friends for it.

so by all means, dont apologize for your reaction...and dont think i was taking anything personally (although, looking over my post i can see where you might get that impression, and again, i didnt want you to feel bad...). it was all in the name of healthy debate, and it is what makes ameruca great...the factv that we can all have and share our opinions...

so please dont feel bad...however, i would really like to know what you think aboutv the situation i have posited. i wouldntg have asked if i didnt want your opinion, and the opinions of others onthe site.

really, no harm done, ever, at all...you ar a giood friend, and i would never assume such a thing a bout you...

so, i apologize if i upset you or made you feel guilty. everything is fine. no worries.

you are a great man and a great writer and my life is fuller for knowing you. you never need assume that you would ever be considered a negative thing for me at all...

hope that you are well, and please, dont woory about the post.

obliv