"Fuck you, I got your film for nothing, cumstain."

[Tommaso]

What I would like to see is the establishment of p2p sites that only contain links to non commercially available material and enforcing a strict policy to ensure there are no dvd rips of commercially available products. This would then present the other side of the file sharing debate and promote the dissemination of all kinds of wonderful rare material that would be of benefit to a great number of people.

Very much in agreement with this, and everything else in your post. According to what I hear (I'm on analog modem and have never even had the chance to check one of these sites) there seem to be many sites already that adopt precisely this policy, and would take down any material if there should be a copyright owner who would complain about things put up there. And if the material is indeed rare (as with silents) I would assume that most of it is not in good shape anyway, and so no damage would have been done if once such a film would be released on a proper, restored dvd.

[Steven H]

This is a good example of the grey areas that exist in the file sharing debate. The issue is not black and white and there is a continuous scale of legality ranging from the obviously legal (public domain) through to the obviously illegal (commercially available dvds). My concern is that file sharing often seems to be attacked indiscriminately and I fear this could result in the loss of what is potentially a very valuable tool for the spreading of legal material.

I agree. Perhaps there could be some kind self regulating authority, like a "this website is supervised for content by _____" so users know when they're participating in something less destructive to copyright (kind of like an "Oversight Committee of Downloading" (the OCD... fits, doesn't it?)). If there's anything crying out for self-assignment, this is it. Other than that, yeah sure, go after them and shut them down, but ten more will spring up in their place and you spend all your time hunting. Weighing the amount of energy it takes to go after copyright infringers versus what ends up happening is a big part of why p2p is still going. It's a huge hassle, but it's all tied up in the open communication and freedom of movement on the internet, which is something that shouldn't be given up without a fight.

I don't believe that p2p is a device we should give up easily, but it's fraught with undesirable side effects, including possibly wiping out revenue for MoC (a serious crime against the film community if there ever was one.) So I'm basically a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" type when it comes to filesharing, however, I'll kick mud in the face of anyone downloading a small company disc (if I have to pay for it, they have to, dammit.) But when it's all said and done, as someone who's been "tape trading" rare films for years, I'm already one of the damned.

[davebert]

Well, naturally there's Archive.org, which has thousands of movies and all sorts of other things that have moved beyond copyright and are available for download.[/url]

[vogler]

Well, naturally there's Archive.org, which has thousands of movies and all sorts of other things that have moved beyond copyright and are available for download.[/url]

Yes, archive.org is great and I have found some amazing things on there. I can spend hours and hours (days even) searching through all of their content. p2p file sharing is a different thing altogether though, being the sharing of anything you wish directly between users computers. You don't need to upload to or download from an internet website and it is completely independent. It is useful to find links to the downloads on websites though.

[colinr0380]

I know Jonathan Rosenbaum talked about this in some of his 'Global Discoveries on DVD' articles for the Cinema Scope magazine, about getting DVD-Rs of non-commercially released films from places like superhappyfun.com, and how he supported this but was still interested to see the site selling copies of films once they did have a commercial release. In theory I'd agree with being able to download a copy of The Passenger or 1900 when they were unavailable for so long because of one reason or another, or because you are annoyed at the Weinstein's buying up every interesting film in Asia and not releasing them for four years, and only then in dubbed and edited versions etc.

However the problem comes with the Internet being a global resource while certain films are available only in one region or another - Red Desert is out in Australia, so would it be wrong to download it here in Britain, rather than buying the commercially-available DVD from Oz, or for someone from the US to download a copy of the BFI discs of Leon Morin, Pretre or Le Doulos since they're the only releases of these films on DVD at the moment? And this is before we get to questions of the film itself being the same, but having different extra features for different territories. I think there would still be major questions of illegality, which is why I try to keep safe and get most of my films from normal shops, or buy commerically available copies of films released in the US, rather than get into the whole bootleg thing. I think there is a major difference between someone being able to buy the Region 3 commercially released Panorama discs of Ozu or Mizoguchi, compared to another person downloading them without paying anything. Sure it is really annoying to find a better (or the only!) version of a film has been released somewhere else that you are never going to be able to get but that's when you start lobbying hard for a Criterion or MoC release rather than trying to get an illegal rip of the film that most likely will stall any prospect of any good quality DVD of the film being brought out.

By the way I have a ton of DVDs in my house, and a number that are still unopened and I object that my collecting films I'd really like to see but have difficulty finding the time to sit down and watch being characterised as 'a sad need to fill the void in a stunted social life' - my social life was stunted by my grumpy nature long before I bought these DVDs!

Plus I do find myself rewatching a number of times films I've already seen - I just got through the first season of Twin Peaks again and last night rewatched Cat People for the umpteenth time so I do properly appreciate the films I watch (although who can make the judgement that another person is 'properly appreciating' anything without coming across as a bit of a snob?), which is also a reason for having a number of unwatched films, and for my top ten DVD list always being a year or two behind everyone elses!

[vogler]

However the problem comes with the Internet being a global resource where certain films are available only in one region or another - Red Desert is out in Australia, so would it be wrong to download it here in Britain, rather than buying the commercially-available DVD from Oz, or for someone from the US to download a copy of the BFI discs of Leon Morin, Pretre or Le Doulos since they're the only releases of these films on DVD at the moment?

More grey areas. Perhaps it would be ok to download a copy of the film in the territories where it is not available as long as the file was not a rip of the dvd in question and was instead a vhs rip or something like that. I personally would not want to do that because if a film I have a rip of is released in a nice dvd edition anywhere in the world then I buy it immediately. There is of course the issue of the quality being better, which is the most important thing, but I am also of the old school that prefer to have something tangible, particularly in the way of booklets etc. (shit - maybe this is my supressed collector instinct coming out). There is also the fact that many people are not multi-region or pal/ntsc compatible. I think these are issues to be addressed by the individuals personal sense of morality.

By the way I have a ton of DVDs in my house, and a number that are still unopened and I object that my collecting films I'd really like to see but have difficulty finding the time to sit down and watch being characterised as 'a sad need to fill the void in a stunted social life' - my social life was stunted by my grumpy nature long before I bought these DVDs!

I agree with you here. In fact I thought that whole comment was utter bollocks and very unhelpful. I usually do manage to get through all the dvds that I buy but the rare stuff that I download does tend to pile up unwatched.

EDIT: I didn't mean to say I agree that your social life was stunted by your grumpy nature.

[MichaelB]

However the problem comes with the Internet being a global resource while certain films are available only in one region or another - Red Desert is out in Australia, so would it be wrong to download it here in Britain, rather than buying the commercially-available DVD from Oz, or for someone from the US to download a copy of the BFI discs of Leon Morin, Pretre or Le Doulos since they're the only releases of these films on DVD at the moment? And this is before we get to questions of the film itself being the same, but having different extra features for different territories. I think there would still be major questions of illegality,

There would, for the simple reason that most DVD distributors only licence the relevant rights for the territories they're interested in - so the BFI discs you mention only cover the UK and Ireland and, in theory, should only be sold there. (Though in practice no single-territory distributor is going to raise the slightest objection to anyone exporting the discs elsewhere, for obvious reasons!)

Also, just because something isn't commercially available doesn't mean that no-one owns the rights. In fact, virtually every film (especially in Europe, where EU copyright legislation effectively ensures that hardly anything is genuinely in the public domain) will have a rightsholder somewhere - even if no-one's sub-licensed the British, French or US rights (or whatever), they'll still be held by the primary rightsholder.

So no, in a strictly legal sense it certainly is not OK for you to download copies of Jean-Pierre Melville films, even if they haven't been formally released in your territory. Just to give a real-world example, in the early 1990s I arranged a London cinema screening of Istvan Szabo's Mephisto, which wasn't in British distribution at the time. I was able to get hold of a print (which was still sitting in the Rank depot at Perivale in North London, the UK's main 35mm print repository), but I needed formal written permission from the Hungarian rightsholder before I could show it legally.

(This was arranged via the Hungarian Embassy in London, who couldn't have been more helpful - Hungarian films weren't exactly easy to come by in London at the time, so I imagine they were delighted when someone proposed to screen one!)

[tryavna]

I'm really glad to see that this thread has developed into a more reasonable discussion in the last few posts, after nearly devolving into something quite ugly.

Since I last posted to this thread, however, I see that a peculiar line of argument has developed in order to justify the use of filesharing. Essentially, the argument seems to be that filesharing has become a part of the "market." For example, here:

The free market makes us all consumers, right? Well, file sharing is part of the free market. Torrent sites are like revenue sharing in baseball, a pooling of assets, except it's more democratic, not just for millionaires. File sharing exists because of unfair pricing and market-driven technology. [...]

Call downloaders stealers or thieves, but the market--the same market that supposedly demands $30+ for an MOC title--adjusted to those prices and created file sharing.

Or, most recently:

However the problem comes with the Internet being a global resource where certain films are available only in one region or another - Red Desert is out in Australia, so would it be wrong to download it here in Britain, rather than buying the commercially-available DVD from Oz, or for someone from the US to download a copy of the BFI discs of Leon Morin, Pretre or Le Doulos since they're the only releases of these films on DVD at the moment?

More grey areas. Perhaps it would be ok to download a copy of the film in the territories where it is not available as long as the file was not a rip of the dvd in question and was instead a vhs rip or something like that. I personally would not want to do that because if a film I have a rip of is released in a nice dvd edition anywhere in the world then I buy it immediately. There is of course the issue of the quality being better, which is the most important thing, but I am also of the old school that prefers to have something tangible, particularly in the way of booklets etc. (shit - maybe this is my supressed collector instinct coming out). There is also the fact that many people are not multi-region or pal/ntsc compatible. I think these are issues to be addressed by the individuals personal sense of morality.

Just because something is available to consumers doesn't automatically make it part of the market. And just because a product is available in a foreign market doesn't mean that it's part of your regional market. In fact, Ambrose seems on the verge of suggesting that the sort of filesharing that under discussion here operates outside of the market. I think that it's fairly reasonable to compare it to black market activities: You can buy/access it if you want, but most courts of law regard it as illegal. Some people have decided to bypass the usual routes of exchange -- often with inferior/watered-down product, always by depriving the market's legal supplier of revenue. (There are, of course, gray markets as well, which operate just barely within the law, and I suppose there are analogies to made there as well. I'm thinking particularly of the phenomenon of bootlegging/trading live performances of bands, which has been around for decades but has really exploded over the past 7-10 years, thanks to the Internet and MP3s.) In a sense, filesharing could be considered a fancy sort of smuggling that's once again allowing the most priviledged members of society to enjoy more of a particular product because they have additional resources and knowledge (in this case, computers, broadband connections, and knowledge of bit torrents or whatever).

I understand the argument, as Toilet Duck might reasonably make, that this sort of black market activity is not as ethically "important" as, say, the pharmaceutical industry. Nevertheless, I'm not very sympathetic to the argument that, since I know how to do it and I want to do it, I therefore have a right to do it. (In fact, the argument that some posters have made -- that if a law seems silly to my sense of morality, I can ignore it -- strikes me as a highly irresponsible misreading of Thoreau or even Nietzsche, especially since we're talking about filesharing movies, which are luxuries, not necessities. If we were talking about high-priced medicine, it might be a different story.) To be honest, I'm not even sure I understand the argument that, if information exists, a person has a right to free and immediate access to that information. Some information requires incredible amounts of time and monetary investment, and the person or organization who makes those investments is legally and (in my book) morally justified in limiting other people's access to that information. If for example, I spent five years of my life and tens of thousands of dollars in writing the first official biography of a historical figure, or in developing a new invention, or in restoring a 70-year-old film that I owned the rights to, I'd want my ownership of and investment in that information protected.

Finally, it would be very interesting to see what the average age of the two camps on this issue would be. I'm getting the sense that it's the younger members of this forum who feel most strongly that filesharing is somehow justifiable. (And I don't want to transform this into an "Old Farts" vs. "Young Turks" argument.) But it certainly does bode well or ill -- depending on your point of view -- that copyright law may eventually get changed within most of our lifetimes. Laws (and even ethics) do change, after all, and I'm willing to admit that. One thing I do feel uneasy about, however, is that the demand for immediate access to information seems so strong among the pro-filesharing camp that I wonder how it may affect the way society values the amount of time and effort placed in research and development and in intellectual property.

[vogler]

Since I last posted to this thread, however, I see that a peculiar line of argument has developed in order to justify the use of filesharing. Essentially, the argument seems to be that filesharing has become a part of the "market."

To be honest tryavna I don't really understand the points you're making anymore and if I'm making the argument that 'filesharing has become a part of the "market."' then I'm unaware of it. You do realise that we are exclusively talking about films which are commercially unavailable don't you - we are no longer discussing rips of MOC, Criterion or whoevers dvds. My position on the issue is simply that I have no moral problems with downloading films that are not commercially available. If there is no product to buy in the first place then I can't see that anyone is losing anything by it. As I stated these are all films that I would dearly love to be released on dvd and would buy instantly if they were. All I'm talking about is what people find to be morally acceptable to them. This does not bother me at all with regards to my personal sense of ethics.

In a sense, filesharing could be considered a fancy sort of smuggling that's once again allowing the most priviledged members of society to enjoy more of a particular product because they have additional resources and knowledge (in this case, computers, broadband connections, and knowledge of bit torrents or whatever).

With all due respect I think this is a bit silly. Having knowledge of computers and broadband access does not make you 'the most priviledged members of society' - that is ridiculous. There's millions of people living in the poorest areas of Britain with these things. Broadband costs very little more than dial-up where I'm from (and it's tax deductable). I actually don't have much knowledge of torrents because I use other software but all file sharing is very easy and you certainly don't need to be an expert. I have friends who can barely use Word but have no problem downloading rare films and concert videos.

Finally, it would be very interesting to see what the average age of the two camps on this issue would be. I'm getting the sense that it's the younger members of this forum who feel most strongly that filesharing is somehow justifiable. (And I don't want to transform this into an "Old Farts" vs. "Young Turks" argument.)

Filesharing can obviously be justified in some respects, for example the sharing of material in the public domain, or the music I make myself and share with others online. To suggest that it can't is totally illogical. I am only speaking in favour of public domain sharing and the sharing of commercially unavailable material so I don't think that puts me in your most strong supporters category but if it is of any use to you my age is 28. I also have friends who use filesharing who are much younger than me and much older. The majority of all file sharers might perhaps be younger though, especially when you consider that it is used by millions of kids to download Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, etc. Many older people have also picked up on this opportunity though.

We also have a huge number of people who regularly share dvd-r copies or vhs tapes of rare films on this forum (perhaps the majority of the forum?) and this includes "Old Farts", "Young Turks" and everything in between.

[MichaelB]

Finally, it would be very interesting to see what the average age of the two camps on this issue would be. I'm getting the sense that it's the younger members of this forum who feel most strongly that filesharing is somehow justifiable. (And I don't want to transform this into an "Old Farts" vs. "Young Turks" argument.)

You may be right, but it's also clearly the case that those of us who actually own and/or represent intellectual property with at least some perceived market value are less likely to be keen on filesharing - for obvious reasons!

But it certainly does bode well or ill -- depending on your point of view -- that copyright law may eventually get changed within most of our lifetimes. Laws (and even ethics) do change, after all, and I'm willing to admit that. One thing I do feel uneasy about, however, is that the demand for immediate access to information seems so strong among the pro-filesharing camp that I wonder how it may affect the way society values the amount of time and effort placed in research and development and in intellectual property.

Indeed, and that's my major concern too. What worries me about all these references to things being too expensive, and citations of ludicrously underpriced releases like The Conformist as yardsticks, is that legitimate rightsholders are being blackmailed to a certain extent by people who say "Charge us what we think is a fair price, or we'll just take it anyway!".

Obviously, I accept that market forces have a major role to play in setting the retail price (I'm willing to bet - or rather I know for certain - that the BFI Quay Brothers disc had an infinitely greater production budget than the old Kino disc, yet this certainly isn't reflected in their respective RRPs!) but the problem here is that the market is being distorted by an alternative parallel market (your black market analogy is a good one) that simply doesn't respect the same economics.

Let's take the example of downloading Jean-Pierre Melville films in countries where they're not actually on release. Aside from the legal issues (at base, this would unarguably be an infringement of copyright), if such practice was at all widespread, it acts as a powerful disincentive for a distributor in the relevant territory to take the title on at all. And in turn this has a knock-on effect on the primary rightsholder, who might well be forced to ask for a higher price for the rights to the other titles in their catalogue - or, in extremis, go out of business altogether if it becomes impossible to earn a sustainable living.

So if you can't buy these titles in the US, but English-subtitled copies are available in the UK, then the only morally acceptable solution is to buy the UK discs. In fact, if they genuinely aren't available in the US, you can do so in the knowledge that absolutely no-one will be losing out, least of all the original rightsholder, who may well have links to the original filmmaker.

[vogler]

I'm really glad to see that this thread has developed into a more reasonable discussion in the last few posts, after nearly devolving into something quite ugly.

The reason for this is that the most extreme sides of the argument are missing from the debate at this point in the thread. There is obviously no way that peerpee could agree with AZAI and ambrose1am, nor would anyone expect him to.

One other (unrelated) point is that the opinions of file-sharers should not be generalised. There are many viewpoints and I certainly don't want anyone elses attributed to me. I'm absolutely not saying this in a provocative way; I simply mean that I only speak for myself and no one else speaks for me.

[ambrose1am]

Obviously, Swedish law disagrees with you, and French law is looking like it will join the Swedes. Can't really cite one from the US, though I'm sure it's far from over here. Is there a lawyer in the house?

You are totally wrong about French law. And I work within a Judicial work system here in Australia.

The degree of French protection to even unclaimed copyright for unclaimed auteurs is extraordinary and is only exceeded (in terms of unenforcability) by the Australian laws on Copying anything to and from any differing format (another problem in itself), as against the actual "intellectual copyright"/droits d'auteurs" principles which underly French law. At some level anyone can argue with (legally) Australian law about the forms of copying, but French law - as I understand it quite clearly - is hard as a rock. If there's a potential claim for copyright, it is enforceable. It is based on intellectual PROPERTY - If you can't understand that you're simply an idiot. And what you're claiming a right for is totally illegal. With BIG fines and a prison sentence. You're just talking shit. To put it more kindly you don't even know what shit you're talking.

I am NOT talking about downlaods of non copyright material, like the Dainah la Metrisse which Knappen has just sent me. Or the tons of PD material that has been circulating the net for years before filesharing became sexy. Obviously. Or is it not obvious to you.?

Also be mindful, while Nick has openly explained that his life's work is compromised by this (obviously limited print runs which he can now see duplicated by some arsehole online equalling for no cost and beaucoup profit) he is arguing for the integrity of the product legally entitled and sold.

Fuck the capitlalist/Provo/Pseud argument. You are talking about people's lives and work here.

Is this a helpful post? You just come off sounding like an intolerable jerk who is incapable of discussion. I am simply trying to understand some nebulous issues about copyright law by posing some arguments. The issue of “intellectual PROPERTYâ€

[vogler]

At this point I am following peerpee's lead and signing out of this debate. This is no longer an argument I want to be involved with.

[tryavna]

One other (unrelated) point is that the opinions of file-sharers should not be generalized. There are many viewpoints and I certainly don't want anyone else's attributed to me. I'm absolutely not saying this in a provocative way; I simply mean that I only speak for myself and no one else speaks for me.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to lump you all in together, which is what my previous post must have sounded like.

It does, however, still sound to me like you're saying that you have a right to product that isn't available through legal channels:

My position on the issue is simply that I have no moral problems with downloading films that are not commercially available. If there is no product to buy in the first place then I can't see that anyone is losing anything by it.

By definition, however, if films aren't "commercially available," then whatever means you're using to get them are indeed outside the market. (And if you're willing to acknowledge that, then that certainly does differentiate your position from Ambrose's.) The problem, of course, is that I don't see what gives you the moral/ethical right to procure those films. Just because you happen to love them? If those films are in the public domain, then fine. But if they're still owned by a company that is currently working on a release (like, say, Warner's O Lucky Man!, which isn't legally available on DVD to the best of my knowledge), then how can really justify downloading a copy that somebody has made available on the Web. Just because you want it and it's there? I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like a reasonable justification to me. It becomes even more problematic when you stop to consider that perhaps Warner will be releasing that film in the near future. Sure, you might very well purchase the film, but what about others who feel that their download is enough? By accessing it through filesharing, those people have denied Warner (the legal rights holder) of income -- or at least a legally licensed middleman like a video rental store.

Having knowledge of computers and broadband access does not make you 'the most priviledged members of society' - that is ridiculous.

It's not as ridiculous as you might think. Ownership of a computer and enough disposable income to afford a broadband connection certainly places you in the top 75% of the world's wealthiest people. A recent study estimates that, if you have individual assets of just $2200, then you're already wealthier than half the world's population. And I would suspect that most members of this forum have considerably more than that. (Or if they're still students, they soon will.) So I stick by my analogy. Filesharing, like black markets, tend to benefit wealthy people the most. After all, who can deny that it takes a certain amount of privileged background to be interested in classic and art-house films anyway?

it's also clearly the case that those of us who actually own and/or represent intellectual property with at least some perceived market value are less likely to be keen on filesharing - for obvious reasons!

Yes, your point is much more relevant, Michael! Though the age difference still interests me.

[tryavna]

You just come off sounding like an intolerable jerk who is incapable of discussion.

Whoa! That's as mistaken a first impression of David as I think is possible. I don't think there's anyone on this board who is more capable of discussion.

I am not a lawyer, legal scholar, or expert in copyright law, French law, or Swedish law. But it seems to me that Swedish law tolerates looser standards for intellectual property by virtue of the fact that so many pirate sites are based there. Is that an unreasonable assumption?

Without meaning to be too glib, when your operative piece of evidence is "seems to me," then I really do think that is an "unreasonable assumption." And I don't mean to be singling you out necessarily, Ambrose. A lot of the "evidence" in this thread (from both sides) has been decidedly anecdotal. I think that, of all of us, MichaelB has been making the most consistent sense.

Like vogler, however, I think this thread has begun to go back in a direction I thought it had escaped, so I think I'll bow out.

[ambrose1am]

In fact, Ambrose seems on the verge of suggesting that the sort of filesharing that under discussion here operates outside of the market.

Hahaha. You are right, tryavna.

I think that it's fairly reasonable to compare it to black market activities: You can buy/access it if you want, but most courts of law regard it as illegal. Some people have decided to bypass the usual routes of exchange -- often with inferior/watered-down product, always by depriving the market's legal supplier of revenue. (There are, of course, gray markets as well, which operate just barely within the law, and I suppose there are analogies to made there as well. I'm thinking particularly of the phenomenon of bootlegging/trading live performances of bands, which has been around for decades but has really exploded over the past 7-10 years, thanks to the Internet and MP3s.) In a sense, filesharing could be considered a fancy sort of smuggling that's once again allowing the most priviledged members of society to enjoy more of a particular product because they have additional resources and knowledge (in this case, computers, broadband connections, and knowledge of bit torrents or whatever).

These are interesting comments. Sorry, but online communication comes off sounding harsher than it was originally intended. Then again, davidhare called me an idiot. I haven't stooped to name calling because it's idiotic.

MichaelB's comments have been extremely reasonable and perceptive.

[vogler]

Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to lump you all in together, which is what my previous post must have sounded like.

No problem.

I said I wasn't going to make any more posts in this thread but I will out of politeness to you tryvana. It's a bit rude to not respond since you are addressing me.

It does, however, still sound to me like you're saying that you have a right to product that isn't available through legal channels:.

Morals are subjective. Everyone has their own sense of what is and isn't morally acceptable. I don't really understand what is meant by rights; I only refer to my own sense of logic and morality which, as I have stated, have led me to the conclusion that downloading films which aren't commercially available is morally acceptabe to me. There is no reason why I would take anyone elses moral beliefs into consideration (except perhaps the artist) and I don't believe there is the existence of any sort of universal moral code which I should be consulting. The question for me is logical; will my actions have any negative impact or hurt anyone else? My conclusion to this is no. The only reasonable argument people have come up with to the contrary is that downloading these films may harm the prospects of future releases but I really can't see anyone being dissuaded from buying Alain Resnais Je t'aime Je t'aime because of this:



or Wiene's Raskolnikow because of this:



There are better rips than this and worse but I think the impact they would have on the prospect of sales of legitimate DVD releases is absolutely non existent or something almost insignificant (along with people recording films from TV which we all surely must have done).

I don't even think there are many artists who would subscribe to the strict adherence to legal frameworks that you are suggesting; at least not the types of artists I generally respect and like.

[ambrose1am]

Without meaning to be too glib, when your operative piece of evidence is "seems to me," then I really do think that is an "unreasonable assumption." And I don't mean to be singling you out necessarily, Ambrose. A lot of the "evidence" in this thread (from both sides) has been decidedly anecdotal. I think that, of all of us, MichaelB has been making the most consistent sense.

That's fine. You are right to call me on Swedish law; like most people on this forum, I do not know it. I don't know why Sweden is so tolerant of pirate sites. Does anyone? There are many owners and operators of boutique labels on these forums. Are they aware of the specifics of these laws? It would seem worthy of exploration. Do any of them know Swedish law and why pirating is tolerated there?

[Andreas]

My English is not perfect so please excuse some of the letters.

The DVDs are to expensive, I can't buy all MoC's. So what do I do? I download them I can't afford. And how do I sleep at night? I just think like this:

If not enough people would buy the MoC DVDs, then Eureka would have to stop producing them (and believe me, I'll be the first one to cry.) But lets then say the same thing happens to bfi, a-eye and cc, they all have to stop producing their dvds because they spend more money then they make. So thats it! No more world cinema!!

But...if the people with the rights for Murnau and Kurosawa lose their customers because DVD distributors can't pay the prices. Do you really think they will stand there, hour after hour, trying to sell the same hot dot for 50 bucks? Of course not! They will sell to rights cheaper cause otherwise they won't make any money, and then will Eureka be able to sell the MoC DVDs cheaper and people will start buying them again. Back on Track!

Everyone can't pay $39 for a DVD and thats why the costumers is changing the rules.

[MichaelB]

But...if the people with the rights for Murnau and Kurosawa lose their customers because DVD distributors can't pay the prices. Do you really think they will stand there, hour after hour, trying to sell the same hot dot for 50 bucks? Of course not! They will sell to rights cheaper cause otherwise they won't make any money, and then will Eureka be able to sell the MoC DVDs cheaper and people will start buying them again. Back on Track!

With the greatest respect, this is incredibly naive, because it assumes that the only significant cost of producing a DVD is the licensing fee from the rightsholder.

In actual fact, what separates companies like Criterion, MoC, the BFI and others is that they add extra value - in many cases considerably more value - to the raw product, which is the film itself.

Just to expand on an example I gave earlier, the old Kino disc of the Quay Brothers shorts was sourced from a straightforward transfer of an existing distribution print. By contrast, the BFI version went back to the original source materials (camera negatives, magnetic sound recordings, etc.) and painstakingly squeezed every last bit of information out of them, including filmmaker-approved digital restoration and mastering to HD to future-proof the transfers as much as possible.

Now how much extra do you think these new transfers cost to create?

And on top of that you have to add the menus (significantly more elaborate the Kino menus), the packaging (purpose-designed foldout Digipak versus Amaray-plus-insert), and the booklet (24 pages versus four). Not to mention hiring a camera crew to shoot the interview, booking studio time to record the commentaries, an edit suite to edit both, plus the authoring house, menu designer, packaging designer... I could go on, but I trust the point has been made.

Now if the market dictated that it would be unrealistic to sell the end product for more than $10, the solution couldn't be more obvious: forget about the high-quality transfer, extras and packaging and just do a basic transfer of the films themselves, stick the disc in an Amaray case and print a cover insert and a chapter list. Simple. But would you really prefer that?

Everyone can't pay $39 for a DVD and thats why the costumers is changing the rules.

In which case what happens is that the price of the DVD is reduced over time, as is demonstrated time and again. Which is a far better option than cutting corners upfront, which would be the most logical outcome of what you're suggesting.

[Oedipax]

Everyone can't pay $39 for a DVD and thats why the costumers is changing the rules.

Oh come on, now we're just going in circles. Plus I think this is one of the less convincing arguments on the pro-downloading side: I can't afford it, but I have the 'right' to have it. Not to mention there's no reason to be paying $39+ for an MoC DVD unless you're talking about one of the boxed sets.

I've been abstaining from posting in this thread since my own attitude towards filesharing is somewhat ambivalent; I engage in a fair amount of it, though it is much more in the vein of rare, unavailable works rather than just mindlessly grabbing everything Criterion, MoC, Second Run, etc. put out and burning them to a dual-layer blank, and presumably treating it as if it were just another part of my 'collection.'

But I will admit, at times I've grabbed things that are commercially available. Not because I believe I have the 'right' (whatever that is), not because of some strange addiction to downloading everything in sight, but simply because it's there, and I was curious about it. And I have made numerous purchases on the basis of such viewings. With almost 600 titles in my DVD collection, I don't compare with some of the most avid collectors on this forum, but it does represent a huge percentage of my disposable income as a student. And if I won the lottery tomorrow, there'd be at least 600 more in short order. But I don't want to justify it by saying ultimately the act of downloading this or that film led to me buying said DVD, even if it's been the case. I might suggest however that if anyone should have a problem with what I'm doing, it's really Netflix (or the recently-deceased Nicheflix).

One thing I do want to mention is that even a perfect 1:1 copy of a film on a DVD-R, to me at least, is a poor substitute for the real thing. For others I realize this isn't really the case, but I'm a fan of packaging and presentation, and the whole 'aura' that surrounds a real DVD (which is kind of a funny thing to be saying about something so inherently and easily mechanically reproducible!) I'm not satisfied until I have the real thing, and this suits me just fine.

I don't want to see anything happen to MoC or any other of the great boutique labels, and I don't condone the pirating of their releases. What Cinematik and ADC have done in response, while predictable in the Pirate Bay tradition of mocking rightsholders from a (seemingly) immune position, puts a bad taste in my mouth and certainly makes me feel less than good about visiting those sites from time to time.

But I will say, if it's a matter of me seeing, say, Godard's Histoire(s) du Cinema or not, I'll gladly trespass on whatever 'intellectual property' exists and stands in the way. I couldn't care less if the clips are cleared, or whether some anonymous IP lawyer sitting at a desk thinks it's within my 'rights.' If the only versions available are without English subtitles, then I have no problem whatsoever with making my own, and putting them out there for others to enjoy. To me, this is miles apart from, say, torrenting the newly-released MoC release of HdC (oh, please! although I suppose that's AE's domain). As Godard says, there are no rights, only duties.

[colinr0380]

The DVDs are to expensive, I can't buy all MoC's. So what do I do? I download them I can't afford. ...

But...if the people with the rights for Murnau and Kurosawa lose their customers because DVD distributors can't pay the prices. Do you really think they will stand there, hour after hour, trying to sell the same hot dot for 50 bucks? Of course not! They will sell to rights cheaper cause otherwise they won't make any money, and then will Eureka be able to sell the MoC DVDs cheaper and people will start buying them again. Back on Track!

Everyone can't pay $39 for a DVD and thats why the costumers is changing the rules.

If I have this correct, you are saying that no one buying the discs will make the people who hold the rights to the films eventually cave in and sell them off for a pittance to a company who can produce a £5 or $10 DVD version. Unfortunately this might have a number of unintended consequences:

- As MichaelB has posted, the cost of producing the DVD itself is not taken into account, so what you'd probably end up with is a £5 or $10 public domain quality DVD since no one would be able to justify the time and money that would need to be spent restoring the film. There are difficulties even now balancing restoration against the number of sales you could expect the film to get from its DVD release - for example the discussion about the Ozu films, and whether it is the poor quality that has caused the delays in Criterion releasing them. You'd probably still get the Robert Harris restorations in collaboration with major studios, such as the restoration of Vertigo and Spartacus with a major theatrical re-release, but it would become more and more difficult for the foundations behind the Metropolis or M restorations to justify the expenditure, or for Criterion to take the extra steps it does in cleaning up the films they release.

This is even before you consider whether extra steps would be taken by whoever released the cheaper DVD to lure in more customers - such as colorisation! This is something that is going on even now with public domain titles - I'd much rather be able to see the Criterion of Carnival of Souls than sit through a colorised, poor quality version, even though I could have saved £20 by getting the public domain version!

- Another possibility is that the people who own the rights for the films will just hold them and not drop their price. Then it becomes a question of who folds first - and since you already suggest you can't wait and save up money to buy the DVDs commercially available at present, but instead download them , I'm not sure they would have to wait long before getting an offer from someone.

The best way to get people to drop their prices is to vote with your wallet and as MichaelB said wait until the price drops, or don't buy it at all. I sympathise with the points raised by people who want to see everything - I don't really consider films a 'luxury' either, they are an important part of my life (and I worry that at least in the UK the lack of regular TV showings of foreign language and classic films is causing a lot of harm to the creation of a new generation of people who appreciate cinema. Television screenings were where I got my first taste of Tarkovsky or saw Tetsuo - The Iron Man together with Hammer films, big Hollywood blockbusters or Godzilla movies, so the distinction between types of films was enjoyably blurred; I only started buying £15 or £20 videos and DVDs later on when my budget allowed it - but my interest in, and lack of prejudice towards, foreign language or 'arty' areas had been fostered. I worry that tryavna's comments about foreign and arthouse films being a luxury is part of the thinking that could cause foreign films to occupy even more of a niche, exclusive market than they already are. But that's another argument altogether!), but we still have to pay for the service.

[colinr0380]

I couldn't care less if the clips are cleared, or whether some anonymous IP lawyer sitting at a desk thinks it's within my 'rights.'

I would also suggest that lawyers are not exactly the best arbiters of morality - for example I used to work for a law firm where the cleaning lady brought in her catalogue of pirated (Hollywood film) DVDs each week, and took orders for everybody from the receptionist to the Partners! (£1.50 a DVD) You'd think in a law firm of all places this wouldn't go on, but it did until she retired because they didn't see the problem. (However I did once stupidly mention my concerns about it and I think it got me marked out as a troublemaker and perhaps contributed to my eventual exit from that charming establishment!) - mind you no one there specialised in the field of copyright law so I suppose they didn't think they were doing anything wrong?

[tryavna]

I don't really understand what is meant by rights

Not because I believe I have the 'right' (whatever that is)

Just a quick post for clarification. When I've referred to "right" or "rights" in this thread, I've specifically meant the right to property or ownership, which is recognized in courts of law the world over (and even in some constitutions). In other words, as individuals, we have the right to possess and do more or less what we want with our own property (land, personal effects, liquid assets, etc.). I firmly believe that this also includes "intellectual property," which is what's covered by copyrights.

By the way, I'm all in favor of "fair use," which covers the sort of artistic and educational uses of intellectual property that people keep bringing up. But that's not really what this thread is about. The sort of filesharing that we've been talking about leads to the possession of copies of intellectual property without remuneration for the person/organization who holds the right of ownership for that intellectual property.

[Andreas]

Yes of course producing a DVD contains a number of different costs, but what are you saying, that if the costs went down the price would not? Sure, maybe they would have to start selling films as data over internet insted, and then we would not get our lovely keepcases. But you know whats even better? More people get to se the films! Don't you think that's what Fritz and Dreyer wanted when they made them?

Torrents it's not the choice of one thief, it's the choice of millions of costumers. The laws existing today says it's illegal, but they will simply have to change.