Is downloading tv series/films acceptable?

[BobbyNoShoes]

I "steal" a lot of films and TV and it's fair to say i have almost no guilt about it. BBC even less so because i pay for a license for the privilege of owning a tele box.

So does this make me a bad person, of course it! I do have a fairly stonking DVD/blu ray collection but it pails in comparison to the number of shows i've "borrowed" at one time or another.

I want to watch programmes that entertain me exactly when i want to watch them as it would be financially unfeasible for me to buy my own channel and cram the schedule with personal delights i will settle for downloading.

On a positive note almost all of my DVD collection has been purchased after watching odds and ends I’ve downloaded. Although i don't use i-tunes often as it's stupidly expensive. 12 quid for 6 episodes of a comedy series from the 80's, utter arse water!

[harryashfield]

Originally Posted by hicks

yeah breaking the law is ok not paying for stuff is totally fine

this is a dumb debate of course it isn't but people will still do it why feel the need to justify yourself?

Originally Posted by harryashfield

with Lilly Allen bitching about music downloads, I thought it might be time for a fresh look at it.

I do wish people would read things before they comment flippantly. I thought it would be an interesing topic, seeing as the music download topic had come up recently.

[Smartie]

Personally i'm of the opinion that it's ok to watch providing you buy.
I do use 4od, iplayer and Virgin OnDemand, but I've paid already to see these things, or they're provided free by the channel.

If you downloads films without paying then really that's not fair.

I'm a purist and will buy anything I really want to watch when it's available on DVD.

BTW, if you Video/ skyplus whatever legally you have only 30 days to watch it, and you may not keep it after this time.

[Ace of Spades]

I think the way forward in the way people listening to music is streaming, and now actually owning the music - I don't really care If I don't own it. Spotify have got it just right, for ten pounds a month you can listen to unlimited music on the PC and on an IPhone without adverts. Streaming music over the 3G network is just as good as if it was stored on the device its self.

I think what of the music industry is doing, or suing people, isn't going to help their cause. Their going to have to do something else, such as use media like Spotify to solve their problems - which they have started doing.

Prices for albums and single tracks is just to high for some people. If your student, like me, you can't afford the the seven pounds per album - the only option is to illegally download it. 79 pence per song is quite steep in my opinion, especially if you want to fill a 160GB Ipod with music.

[wayland jr]

I personally download and watch a TV show shortly after airing and delete it afterwards, so it's no different to using iPlayer, really. I usually buy DVDs for movies, haven't downloaded one in years. I've never bought a DVD set of a TV series though.

[cyber_turnip]

I watch a lot of films online and I don't feel remotely guilty about it because I pump so much money into the industry as it is. I've seen over 25 films at the cinema so far this year, I've bought a pass for Leeds International Film Festival and if I ever enjoy a film enough online, I'll buy it on DVD.

I'm also a member of Lovefilm so if I didn't download/stream films here and there, I'd just rent them out later on so nobody's actually losing any money.

Legally, I wouldn't have a foot to stand on, but ethically, I think I'm in the green.



When it comes to music... well, let's just say I always buy albums from bands that I want to support.

[captain canuck]

Originally Posted by gembird

I tend to only download stuff if it's completely unavailable or prohibitively expensive to get the DVD.

This is the way it is for me for almost all UK TV programs with the exception of things in the sci-fi genre (I have no idea why this exception is the case), also regardless of how old they are. For instance I had some Blackadder and Fawlty Towers downloaded for a little while, but eventually caved and got the collections despite the expense.

Also, children's TV programs. There are a few that I like because of subtly adult-friendly humour that only come in like one or two-episode DVDs that cost as much as a single movie, and don't have special features. I will not buy them; but fortunately most end up on YouTube or elsewhere - uploaded by the makers, not just some fan doing something potentially illegal.

This leaves me both ethically and legally in the clear.

[funaboganza]

For me I agree that the film industry needs to be making money, and so people who download the whole film and then do not pay for a copy shouldn't be allowed to. However, I feel they also blame the illegal downloaders too much - they are the cause not the problem in my eyes. If DVD prices and especially cinema tickets were cheaper, I'd be more inclined to goto the cinema and see films - but since it costs too much, I'll often end up waiting for it to appear online or on free-TV.

I think the best solution would be to reduce the prices of cinema tickets and DVDs as well as more TV shows being offered for free on the internet (even if they include a lot of adverts).


Not to derail the current debate with this but:
Does anybody else feel that seeing as we are always encouraged to cite references and quote literature to strengthen arguments - with nobody claiming copyright breach so long as the correct creditation was given - we shouldn't be fined for using segments of a movie or film withought specific permission (which currently results in copyright charges)?

[doctor_fruitbat]

They should be giving far more leeway even than that; it pisses me off when short clips get taken down from Youtube because of some uppity suited dork. A Guardian reader was sent a letter not long ago from Warner telling her not to hold a Harry Potter themed night, because it would amount to an "infringement of Warner's rights". No, I'm not fucking kidding. What do Warner lose from someone holding a themed night? Absolutely jack shit. What do they gain? Publicity. Another small reason for people to keep HP fresh in their minds and to keep wanting to read the books or watch the films or in any other way keep the franchise alive and keep money pumped into it. Why is Star Wars still a gigantic money-spinner? Because Lucas let the fans do the hard work of building a universe for him. It's worked out pretty well for him, when all is said.

The problem is that they simply don't get the people they're selling to. People dress up, draw fan art or write horrible slash fiction because they are fans, and they are engaging with the material in a way that they enjoy. When someone puts their favourite movie scene on Youtube, how do they know what they want to put up? Because they've watched the damn thing. Because they like it enough that they are willing to spend time ripping the film, snipping out the clip and uploading it. And then other people watch it, get the product fresh in their minds, and will probably bear it in mind the next time they're bored and wondering what to watch.

Media companies need to give much, much more leeway to this sort of thing, because it is part of the ebb and flow of modern media. We now get trailers, desktop backgrounds, mini webisodes and the like, for free, so why do the fans get shit on when they do basically the same thing? It's like slapping your own child when they try to imitate you.

[Cjw]

Originally Posted by doctor_fruitbat

No, I'm not fucking kidding. What do Warner lose from someone holding a themed night? Absolutely jack shit..

The profit that the restaurant was going to make on their property?

Have a look at the typical prices they charge for events.

[ikat381]

Artists can make money in other ways besides having a monopoly right on making copies of their work. Actually, I think we could probably prove that these monopoly rights allow big companies to shut out smaller competitors, which prevents many artists from making a living.

For this reason, I see zero moral problems with downloading whatever you want. I guess we could tie this question to a larger ethical debate about when it's okay to break the law, but for me the short answer is that there's nothing morally wrong about downloading.

[steven_munn]

Originally Posted by ikat381

Artists can make money in other ways besides having a monopoly right on making copies of their work. Actually, I think we could probably prove that these monopoly rights allow big companies to shut out smaller competitors, which prevents many artists from making a living.

Wait what? Someone else should have equal rights to make money off of something that I created? Something I spent four hours writing, two weeks honing and four hours in the studio (plus two hours after-editing) paid for from my own pocket? Something I spent time promoting at local gigs, while I paid 60% of proceeds to people who had no part in the creative process but who help promote me and look after my legal affairs?

Pardon me for being vocal, but why exactly the fuck shouldn't I have sole monopoly rights on my own stuff? If someone wants some rights, let them write and produce their own shit.

Or maybe I misinterpreted you.

[doctor_fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Cjw

The profit that the restaurant was going to make on their property?

Have a look at the typical prices they charge for events.

How do Warner lose money for something that they don't even do in the first place? Unless the restaurant starts handing out copies of the books or films that they ripped off the net, the answer is they don't.

[steven_munn]

Originally Posted by Cjw

The profit that the restaurant was going to make on their property?

Have a look at the typical prices they charge for events.

"at a maximum of £25 a head I won't make a profit, I'll be struggling to cover the costs of the ingredients and props I've shelled out on, such as dry ice and miracle berries. "

[Magic Noodles]

TV should be alright. Once you've missed (and haven't rercorded) it, there's no other way to watch it. It's not like you're downloading it instead of watching it, because you can't, so they aren't losing money.