Comments on: Does video have a Napster problem?

As Hollywood adapts to online realities, video-sharing sites could soon face a day of reckoning.

[zincmann]

Let the FREE movie revolution continue!

I am not justified by any means to get the freely distributed content on sharing sites, but since I am not the original distributor of the seed for sharing I am just purely obtaining a copy for my own home viewing.

The studios make enough money when the film comes out in the theater. Just look at the obscene ticket prices! I rest my case!

[Earl Benser]

You're still just a common thief....

... and none of your 'rationalization' changes that fact in any way.
Why don't you just shoplift the DVD from the video store and save
all that download time?

[rzelazny]

It certainly is theft

But it is not the same as stealing physical property. While it is definitely wrong and completely unethical, it is more akin to stealing a service, like stealing cable or making illegal free phone calls. Shoplifting DVDs is a bad analogy.

[Zymurgist]

Not theft...

It's not theft. It MIGHT be copyright
infringement, but it's not theft anymore than
it's embezzlement or assault.

Unethical? Probably, that depends on the
situation. A lot of content people trade is
stuff that's not commercially available, or
copyrighted material for which there's no
associated copyright holder (happens all the
time in the US, actually). Further, it depends
on what you use the work for -- were it for the
purpose of critical review, education, or to
further the public discourse, then it wouldn't
be infringing, but would it be unethical?

Receipt of a copyrighted work (such as
downloading it) is not actually an infringing
activity (in the US, so long as you don't also
distribute it or modify it), but does the fact
that it's legal make ethical? No.

The problem is that there's copyright law,
there's what media companies want it to be, and
there's what many consumers want it to be /
think it is -- and these are not the same.
Further, there is little intelligent debate on
the subject. The purpose of copyright was to
assure that authors could get their works
published, and that all works ultimately become
the property of society (originally, the idea
was that things would entire the public domain
within no more than 1/2 a generation so that
memory of the work would not fade from the
public consciousness). Copyright law as it
exists today serves media distributors very
well, but much less so the public or the
original authors/creators.

My guess is that the media companies will
continue to hemhorrage cash and push for
copyright enforcement regimes to the point that
it will become entirely unpalatable to the
general public (ask someone buying high-end A/V
equipment about their frustrations). At that
point, there will be some form of popular
backlash that will force a massive shift in
copyright law (or elimination of copyright
entirely).

The need for traditional copyright is more or
less gone today. It was never intended as a
revenue protection mechanism.

[SeizeCTRL]

The Little Mermaid

Here is a DVD that is no longer available to purchase. All the copies on eBay are illegal copies from China. Occassionally you will find an original Disney release which sales for $75+

So for a DVD that I can no longer buy, how is downloading it copyright infringement? If there is no available outlet to purchase, then there is no way to infringe.

There are countless movies and music that are out of print... so the only way to get a copy is by downloading it. You may call it still consider it theft, but given the situation, it' the only option and I have no issue with that.

[gekkoo7]

Macs can't watch NBC videos

So far every article I've read on this subject mentions that the NBC
clips are available gratis on its website, but no one acknowledges
that you have to be a Windows user to view them there.

[Zymurgist]

Doesn't work for all Windows users...

It doesn't even work for all Windows users. It
won't work with most browsers -- just 2 versions
of IE.

I always wondered why broadcast signals aren't
considered public domain. They are effectively
public domain for the duration of the
propagation of the signal, but that ends when
the signal has passed. Slow down the signal to
delay propagation? That's OK, time-shifting is
legal.

So where's the logic of attempting to thwart
distribution one you've ostensibly provided a
copy to everyone on the planet for free?
Obviously, not everyone will observe or record
the transmission when first made, but the fact
remains that EVERYONE "received" the
transmission once, and the transmission is still
propagating (perhaps not locally). So, what wee
are really trying to stop here is extemporaneous
perception of the broadcast already received
unless done by means of a device in your control
prior to transmission that was actively engaged
in recording the transmission as it passed the
point where the device was situated? I guess
that makes sense.

[markdoiron]

Correction to Article Sidebar?

The article sidebar say "Music and television producers ...", but I think it should read "Movie and television producers ...".

mark d.

[Darryl Snortberry]

Cheating Is As American....

...as apple pie. Since some of you are already on your high horse you can go ahead and give your land back to the mexicans and native americans and pay back wages to the descendants of slaves. It's what Jesus would do.

[brian g--2008]

indeed

best comment of the article.

[just_some_guy]

Winner.

You win the Internet.

[stansoft]

They are right!

You cannot just obtain a copy of a movie for your own viewing... when a movie starts they have a screen there where it says something like this: unauthorized distribution, copying of movies even without monetary gain is investigated by the FBI and is punishable for up to 5 years in prison and/or $250,000 fine...

so law is law, and that's why this whole thing can be napster # 2!

--

Stan Oleynick, founder: http://www.enthem.com

[Zymurgist]

Don't believe everything you see on TV...

The copyright notice before a movie is somewhat
incomplete. It doesn't mention that the
copyright will expire, or that there are legal
exemptions, or that copyright may only cover a
portion of the work but not its entirety, etc.
Most people don't know what copyright is, how it
works, or why it exists. What they do know
typically comes from soundbites and propaganda
that intentionally attempt to confuse the
general public on the issue.

The law isn't very fuzzy. It's pretty clear --
anything you do with a work is legal save for
redistribution by copying and making a
substantively derivative work (well, that part
can be tricky), until a court tells you
otherwise. Ironically, making copies in and of
itself is not generally considered infringement.

A number of children's videos put out by Fox (I
think, who did "Robots"?) contain a terrifying
video set to hardcore music that flashes slogans
equating copyright infringement with theft and
associating it with drug use.

i agree

totaly

[Jackson Cracker]

I guess they've never heard of Google...

Check out Google Groups, it seems to be a sustainable business based on copyright infringement.
Millions of complete copyrighted newsgroup articles displayed without the permission of the authors
and used to sell advertising.

[PeterWard87]

It's worse than Napster...much worse...

YouTube has more of a problem than many see. A tragedy that has been made possible through large sites like YouTube is copyright infringement. I have seen many users that do nothing but download other's videos and (successfully) claim them as their own ideas. This is much more tragic than a ripped-off Hollywood movie, which is easily discernable from a grassroots artist, as the small artists lose a substantial portion of their notariaty. In addition to reams of red tape one must traverse to remove a pirated video, YouTube makes no move to check for pirated videos from no-name artists. To me, that is much worse than multimillionares losing a little income.