How do you view P2P or Torrents like BitTorrent to download TV or Movies?
Submitted by brownbagcomics on Sun, 04/04/2010 - 08:02
How do you view P2P or Torrents (like BitTorrent or UTorrent) in regards to downloading movies or TV shows?
Author Comments:
Just curious to see what the people who use this site think about the downloading of movies, television shows and music via Torrents or Peer to Peer. Are you with the RIAA or MPAA or are you with the EFF? Basically, do you have an opinion?
i think you should add: It's a crime and should be punished since it robs the artists, but, the laws should be amended to curb the outlandish penalties per individual songs to keep a person from going bankrupt off of, or mortally in debt because of, a handful of songs.
i do understand that there is intellectual property, but i have now purchased VU&Nico 3 times (twice in original CD form and now i have the Peel Slowly & See box set which includes it). so, did i own the intellectual property when i first bought it, or do i only own it now since it is currently in my hands?
what if it gets stolen from me, do i lose the rights to that intellectual property?
what if i buy it a full cost, rip it onto my computer, and then knowingly or unknowingly sell it, do i still reserve the rights to the property?
what if i buy a CD, it remains in my household, does everyone in my household own the rights? if someone stays in my household with the intellectual property for 5 years, do they own the rights if i give it to them? if i tacitly let them use it? resuming that argument: 3 years, 2, 1? 3 months? 2 days? 2 weeks? 9 weeks? 37 days? 33 hours? 98 minutes? 14 seconds? a Jehovah's witness?
"[considering the people who share the most, are generally the people who spend the most money on music and movies]" (CITATION NEEDED!!!! HELP!!! i need to track down this research, but if someone else can help me out that would be awesome since i am swamped in boring Modernist novels right now.) - i have spent about $1000 this year on movies, music, and books (non-school books), but that is all i have to spend.
the laws are too strict, and they profit off of the same technology they rail against: reselling the same albums over and over again (vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD, mp3, ...).
i have spent the majority of my earnings thus far in life on entertainment intellectual property, and i am on par (civil, and possibly criminally) as a thief of hard goods, that is, the actual CDs, cars, jewelry..., this seems a bit absurd to me.
they should lower the price on CDs since it is a product built to spill, as are cassettes, LPs, and even mp3s (when the hard drive fails, or a password/user name is forgotten). i do not understand this legislation, and there are more important things to litigate in society than theft of intellectual property.
and, who owns the intellectual property after the intellectual dies?
Feif, to answer a few questions here:
(1) The owner of intellectual property (IP) is the person/entity that owns the copyright in the artwork. In the case of music, this is generally recording companies, but sometimes the musician/band. The property right you have as an IP owner is the right to exclude other people from using copies (any copy, any copy at all) of your work without permission. That "permission" for each copy is legally granted each time you purchase a copy. So as a consumer of art, you never legally own the IP in question, you just own a physical or digital copy of the art.
(2) I know this sounds crazy in the age of easy digital reproduction but that's the truth. Of course, once you have legally acquired a copy, you can make copies of music, movies, etc. for your own use. P2P runs afoul, of course, because sharing ultimately constitutes sharing copies of protected work with others.
(3) The penalties are very steep, and the laws are not uniformly applied. The owner of the copyright in the latest Lady Gaga record is more likely to see justice than the owner in the copyright of Tim Buckley's Lorca. The business interests at stake guide the application of the law.
(4) There is good evidence that IP laws, in terms of music, primarily benefit record companies. The artist usually doesn't have the IP in the music anymore, having sold THAT right to the record company just to record their material. There is also good evidence that P2P helps artists, especially up and coming ones, gain more exposure and fans.
(5) Assuming the artist still owns the copyright (hasn't sold it to the record company, etc.), his estate would own it 70 years after his death. Copyright is life + 70 years for human owners.
(6) Ultimately, in the age of the internet and such easy reproduction and distribution of music, the laws are going to have to change or the record companies will simply perish. Some may see this, in light of years of fleecing artists, as divine justice.
(7) The laws should be amended to take account of the money being made at live shows, eventual record sales, merchandise, etc. AS A RESULT OF P2P networks. This would hopefully make all parties happy, though the record companies may not be as financially powerful as before.
(1): cite that law (i just want it for the future).
i disagree with the entire premise of how you described intellectual property and its implications (not with YOUR voice that wrote this, but the voice(s) of the MONEY behind the laws). that is, i do not think that anyone owns the rights to Jimi Hendrix's music (he still falls under that 70 years date and they released yet another unneeded "album" by him).
i assumed, heard, or "knew" all of this. thanks, but what do YOU (1) the artist, and (2) the person feel about any or all of this?
The law listing the exclusive rights you have as a copyright owner can be found here.
Personally, I think that IP laws are generally good and important. I want financial security and protection in my artwork. At the same time, I am realistic about marketing and getting the word out, so to that end I tacitly give my permission for unauthorized copies to float on the internet.
I am mostly unhappy about how the laws are doled out, in that it's apparently more important to enforce protection for Lady Gaga than Ant-Bee. Also, the penalties being brought down on people are very harsh, especially when we're talking about big money-making artists -- how much money did the record company really lose to justify such a penalty? That's where I stand.
IP laws are generally good and important: so do i, but the application is my problem: the penalties outweigh the crime.
financial security and protection in my artwork: yep, same here.
"I tacitly give my permission for unauthorized copies to float on the internet": your artwork that is "floating [in the tubes]" on the internet are not unauthorized; you upload the files; you explicitly tell people to download them; and you enjoy the feedback from anyone who will listen to your work (as of 12:47pm EST 4/11/2010). nothing about that is tacit, or unauthorized. a perfect example of this would be our lovable italian scaruffi, who posts his entire History of Rock book that is a work of art (and some poetry of his) for all to read, for free, and he does not care that his words are used in other areas on the web so long as they are cited - and i really do not know how someone could, with any conscience, take his or any critic's words, on any subject, anywhere in reality, and post it on the web without a citation: that is ABSURD!
it's apparently more important to enforce protection for Lady Gaga than Ant-Bee: Billy James would love to make money off of lawsuits (not $75,000 a song, but would like to be reimbursed for illegal downloads), but he cannot afford the lawyers that Lady Gaga's "people" can.
how much money did the record company really lose to justify such a penalty?: well, a lot: BILLIONS, but what is that number really? my problem is that they package IP in such shitty ways (it has always been plastic, think about it, well, and some magnetic tape...), and they bank on selling you The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, ELVIS, JIMI HENDRIX...and now MICHAEL JACKSON (in the coming years) over and over again.
prepare yourself for a stupid idea, or a good idea written stupidly: i wish that they could sell the media for what each of IT is worth, that is, if an album is not as good as another it should not cost as much - that is stupid and subjective, but not many people feel that the early Beatles & Stones albums are as good as the 66-72 era, but they cost the same. but a little bit of a better argument: why do bonus CDs, with remixes and outtakes (you know, those usually crappy versions of songs that the artist meant to throw away), cost as much as the "masterpiece" the person is buying (ELVIS COSTELLO!!!!!!!).
Oh, you're right that the files I uploaded are authorized. I was thinking more about how once you upload something on the internet, it's out there and can pop up in different places. According to Google Alert, some of my music is now available on random download sites I know nothing about! What's interesting to me is my apparent ability to sell music I originally uploaded for free. I think I want to research this some more. You certainly can't lose your copyright by granting a wide audience permission to your work, but it seems to make it hard to prove which copies were authorized or not.
Legal costs are a big part of it, but another big part of it is the record company not looking out for certain artists.
I do like your argument -- Lady Gaga should go for pennies, while Beefheart should go for at least $20 a copy -- but I don't rule the world. Your "better" argument is a bit more intriguing. Perhaps compilations or repackaging of earlier released material should cost less. Unfortunately a lot of the costs of music have little or nothing to do with IP (and even less with quality). It's just huge markups.
Google (Alert)my music is now available on random download sites I know nothing about! - i have heard about Google doing shit like that with literature, but not with music. nah, don't "get 'em", but you should do what scaruffi does, and another author (a novelist, whose name i cannot remember), and ask each site to stop sharing your work, and give links to your listology page, and then to any other page you allow them to be downloaded from in the future.
record company...certain artists: only the ones they can make the most money off of!
Wow - another great discussion about the law and the beliefs of intellectual property. Great job!
Now the question at hand: It is 2010 and there are 4 people who have voted who know nothing of peer-to-peer or bit torrents according to their votes. How can we have that be? Shouldn't everyone be sharing via P2P so that we can open up songs/shows/movies/art to more people and awaken their appreciation for it? That is what this "argument" is about yet there are at least 4 people who came to this site and don't know what we are referring to!
If you have questions about it - read this http://bit.ly/XKJtn and understand what we are talking about.
On a side note - if more artists put their music out into the Bit Torrent universe, they would become more popular in more places and not just in the United States or Europe! MORE AVAILABILITY=MORE APPRECIATION=MORE MONEY MADE ON MERCHANDISE!!!!!!$$$!!!!!!!!
Wow! you do have a point, but to be clear: it has been proven that setting things "free" brings back more rewards than micro-managing/controlling them and turning the fans into criminals. In fact, I can't tell you the amount of music, books and videos I have paid for just because I got something free and enjoyed it enough to get hard copies. Plus, anything you enjoy you tend to make others aware of and provide free advertising for it. If it weren't for "Dean Gray" and "American Edit" there would be a lot fewer fans of Green Day's American Idiot and in fact it increased the spotlight on that good album.
Also, saying that downloads rob the artist - the argument doesn't hold much weight if the artist is smart enough to parlay that exposure into more sales and marketing. Yes, you spend a large amount of money recording an "album" - but if you have to charge $15 and sell +3,000 copies to recoup your effort, would you have a bigger amount of supporters than if you let it be downloaded and subsequently purchased legitimately after finding out how good you are?
I always told my bands back in the late 80's and early 90's to sell their new tapes or CDs at used record stores like they wanted to get rid of it. This would give them more exposure by being in a store with established artists offered and it would give someone the chance to purchase their music cheaply, which may lead them to get more of their friends to enjoy it and they in turn would purchase another copy themselves. You must have a demand if you want to supply your arts.
Oh yeah - the people who spend the most are also the biggest downloaders could be true - I spend on average over $5,500 a year on books/movies/music but I won't admit to how much of the downloading I do.
Anyway, thanks for voting and putting your comments in this. It is always greatly appreciated when others give feedback to things I am interested in!
i buy much more because i get it free first, respecting the art and the artist enough to give them my money, though most of them (dead ones) don't get much, if anything. and i do push my tastes onto others, it is wonderful advertising that cannot be accounted for at Columbia's next board meeting.
Also, saying that downloads rob the artist - the argument doesn't hold much weight if the artist is smart enough to parlay that exposure into more sales and marketing. Yes, you spend a large amount of money recording an "album" - but if you have to charge $15 and sell +3,000 copies to recoup your effort, would you have a bigger amount of supporters than if you let it be downloaded and subsequently purchased legitimately after finding out how good you are?
but the big problem is not just robbing artists then getting sued, it is getting sued by the richest of the all the artists, not an artist like Ant-Bee, who really needs ever dime he can to make ends meet. all of his albums are out of circulation, whether you think that is good or bad personally is somewhat irrelevant, it is sad that he has to bust his ass in PR for other bands, and write books to support himself when he is an accomplished and talented musician - pop, psychedelia, avant-garde,..., take your pick he can do it. he is struggling to put out his 4th album in 20 years, which he was kind enough to give me an advanced copy almost 1 year ago: it is finished, but it just sitting on the shelves of music critics, and me, and we all enjoy it, but pitchfork.com won't write shit on him, and Columbia/Sony/.../(any other bassturd rec.company) will pick him up. i would put it out myself if i had the 15k he wants to do it right (PR, printing, artwork, etc.).
i am going to launch a site for my literature/sound/visual compositions, which will initially run on a donation basis, and when i get a project finished i will set it out for printing, or do it DIY handmade and sell it from there. but, before i finish the projects, all of the content will probably be free to access (archive) to build up as much a fan base as i possibly can. and for my sound projects, i will give CDs away to local record stores, if they will not buy them off of me, to get noticed--John Fahey would go around to record stores when he got his first album pressed and just place them in there without telling anyone...don't know if that helped him any, and i don't think it would help today either, but it is interesting nonetheless.
i would spend 10's of thousands of $'s on various works of art if i made enough to support that venture, but i am poor, so i spend what i can, on what i LOVE, then what i like. i download a lot, but i delete it all after i listen to it; i just want to know what it sounds like: a 30 second sound bite is shit--we should be able to preview entire albums and movies before we have to lay down hard earned money on PLASTIC!
glad to read what you wrote and to participate,
feif
Are we including music in this poll too, or just movies/TV shows? If we are including music, then I would be totally fucked lol.
Actually it includes everything that is shared P2P. Music, movies, TV, pictures, books, software, porn, etc. And BTW, you wouldn't be alone!