bte part 3 not on YouTube

Discussion in 'RED DWARF UNIVERSE' started by jaybo1973, Feb 15, 2012.

  1. Seb

    Seb Captain Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,796
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Location:
    JMC HQ
    I don't think it's unethical or disloyal in the slightest. I buy second-hand records, DVDs and games all the time. I've just come back from a trip to CEX, where I bought seven movies for a total of twelve quid.

    However, again, these aren't things I have a vested interest in. I do have a vested interest in the continued success of Red Dwarf. And I would have said that before I got this job, too - because I'm a "supporter" of Red Dwarf. Therefore, I'll always want to do things that benefit its continued production. So I'll always buy DVDs new, and as both a fan and as a GNP employee, if someone asked me, I'd nudge them in the direction of buying new.

    If you don't think that, then fair enough. But once again - this isn't an offshoot fan forum. This isn't somewhere like Digital Spy, a neutral website with a thread about Red Dwarf in it. This is the official forum. And I'd like to think therefore that the attitude of most people visiting it would be the same as mine - we like Red Dwarf, we want it to do well, we want to see the creators and cast rewarded for their fine work with residuals and royalties - so let's help that happen as much as possible.
     
  2. sundayforsammy

    sundayforsammy Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,402
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Location:
    Newcastle UK
    It's absolutely ridiculous to think that selling a Red Dwarf or and other DVD you own on the secondhand market or indeed buying the same as piracy. The people who go round pubs and shopping centres with sports bags full of copied crp quality films, well now that is piracy.
     
  3. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    JMC200 wrote
    well, perhaps not from just the same "few" copies, but technically/theoretically speaking, sharing the same copies (a much larger number of course) is perfectly doable, in a similar way to how libraries work today, but on a bigger scale...hypathetically speaking, if it were legal and ethical i mean (but this could also work in theory if we were talking about legal copies also). But you're right, in this specific example, as the paradigm stands right now, that would indeed be unfair, as the producers, studios, etc, would be loosing out. That would be bad.


    Seb wrote

    Well i apologize if i caused any personal offense, and i take your points in both posts on board, and i respect the position you're in here too. I also admire your personal loyalty to the show, in fact your answer was exactly the answer i was hoping for, and it's a perfectly reasonable one. I would personally find it slightly depressing if your reasoning’s were purely based on legalities...not that i'm suggesting it's okay to break the law, and indeed technically speaking, if we were talking legalities, it's not illegal for me to watch anything on youtube, though it is illegal for the up loader to post things without legal consent of course (contradictive legalities?...yup), so sure, the ethics of my watching youtube could be questioned if you like, that's left down to the individual's personal judgements in the eyes of the law. Technically speaking it's not our responsibility to check if it's legit or not, so indeed it comes down to personal ethics and values - judgments regarding each individual case, which is questionable of course. But to be accused of openly promoting piracy is equally as questionable in my view.

    I "own" series 1-3 of The Brittas Empire on dvd by the way (although realistically speaking i don't really "own" them do i?, otherwise i would be able to share said bought and paid for product with others in any way i choose...as things stand, it is only the physically molded polycarbonate resin and plastic objects that i own, not the content of which is stored on them), and when i can afford it i may even buy the others too, right now however i can't afford to do that, sure i could borrow the dvd's or videos from a friend, but when they have been freely available on the tv, i don't personally have a problem with watching them on youtube either, as the end results are exactly the same, on a personal level at least.

    In what was considered by some a controversial remark at a festival last year, Bill Bailey openly admitted that he doesn't so much mind his older shows being unofficially put up on youtube (in the tv edit format at least), as profit has already been made, and also because they are freely available on the tv anyway...he did however understandably personally get his latest show taken down from youtube, as this was causing an initial loss in profit).

    I very rarely download torrents myself, the last time i did so was after buying the last Pirates of the Caribbean dvd, legally. I was assured on the phone that this would include the dvd extras, but when i received it i realized this was not the case (the extras are only available if you buy "The exclusive edition" from Sainsbury’s), and apparently this wasn't good enough reason for me to get a refund and send the disc back. So yes, i downloaded the extras torrent, and if any legal representatives who may be reading this wish to take action against me for that, then so be it. But my conscience is clear non the less. I actually paid more for the bare bones copy than i would've done for the exclusive edition.

    While i respect loyalty to Red Dwarf, especially here on the official site, what i said about hypocrisy is unfortunately not something i feel i can take back with any sincerity and honesty. I don't feel it fair to promote one rule for one and another for everyone else of whom one doesn't personally have a vested interest in. If unofficial videos on Youtube are considered piracy, then that same rule should surely apply to all content, not just Red Dwarf...erm, but obviously on a personal level i wouldn't want the right to post youtube music vids to be taken away...(contradiction) ;-)

    If i were to post a full episode of Red Dwarf here or anywhere else (hypothetically speaking, this is not something i've ever done by the way), an episode that i have physically and legally paid for on the day of release (as i've mentioned before the only RD dvd i bought second hand was The Bodysnatchers collection), in order to promote the show (as very few people will buy a dvd of a tv show if they have never seen an episode before) then surely that would be no different than posting a full music video to a song of which i also legally paid for? (other than those which were legally free from the get go).

    I already apologized for my not so subtle youtube comment, i admit that was not something i should've posted here and i honestly wish i hadn't done so now, my apology in that respect was very genuine. But i don't feel i or anyone else here is outright supporting piracy by any means (not purposely at very least), there are many grey areas emerging right now regarding organizations like youtube/google, of which even the dvd production industry and studios are recognizing now. I was merely trying to point out the obvious paradox that comes about when it comes to how we choose to watch a show that is freely available for all to see, whether it be those who watch it on Dave, borrow a video recording from someone who has recorded it from Dave or buying a second hand dvd. All of whom could be claimed as being disloyal to the show if we so wished to put that spin on it (unless they are one of the few who happen to take part in the "viewing figures" whilst initially watching it on Dave).

    I too have vested interests in the show, as a fan. And while i have mentioned in the past that i materialistically like the way the dvd's look on my shelf, realistically speaking, both you and i know that, hypothetically speaking, in order for me to create that effect (the physical appearance) there are other ways in which i could potentially do that, and yes there is a way i could do this quite legally too, all i need is a dvd recorder, a tv license and a printer, and so long as i don't try to sell my legally recorded personal copy (as said copy would them magically transform into a pirate copy), technically speaking there is no legal issue with that.

    Therefore the only logical reason behind me choosing to buy the original copies is out of loyaly to Grant Naylor productions - for the show itself. Although in my personal case i have another motive too, my love for the dvd extras, but again we both know that technically/hypothetically speaking, i have a choice as to how i gain a copy of those extras, and my choice is to do it legally, out of support to the show and Grant Naylor and due to my own personal morals and ethics.

    If some of this sounds slightly contradictive...that's because, technically some of it is, inherently so, as it what you are saying about vested interests and specific loyalties.

    This is also why, again as i mentioned in an earlier thread, i encouraged a friend of mine, as well as people here to buy a legit brand new copy of Bodysnatchers over an exploitative seconed hand copy from ebay (exploitative due to the ridiculous £100/£200 pricing)...as well as my personal vested interests in helping people save money in general...which admittedly can sometimes be somewhat of a paradox for me in cases like this, one that may often cause what may seem like an unintentional slight hypocrisy or pedantry from myself, eg: BTE can be legally bought for £3.49)

    The difference is that my vested interests have every ones best interests at heart, as much as physically possible at least , not just for one money making enterprise, which as i said can bring about a certain dilemma at times, because the very nature of the way this system works generally means that where one gains profit, another looses out to one degree or another. The difference between £5.49 and £3.49 is indeed fairly minor for many, but in my personal example of The Bodysnatchers collection, i personally felt it was slightly overpriced for what it was, as great as it is for it's "extra content". I'm not blaming any individuals here, far from it, but for me that was the realistic cut off point for my loyalty as a fan who usually buys all the dvd's on their day of release, including BTE. It's not like i bought an illegal copy of Bodysnatchers, i bought a completely legal copy which had already been paid for and had already made a profit for GNP...yet i also completely recognise the inherent paradox in this.

    However, when series X comes out i will quite likely be buying the dvd on it's day of release, for two main reasons;
    1. Out of support for the show, creators, cast and crew, etc.
    2. Because my other option of buying the legal download will likely not include the dvd extras (unless i'm mistaken) otherwise this second option would be my personal choice...

    ...ah but wait, would this option then mean that not as much profit is being made in the long run? is the download market really killing the dvd industry?...one only needs to look up the official statistics via The British Association and the UK film council if they want the true honest answer to this (which is more than can be said for the propaganda and dishonesty output by ELSPA (the European Leisure Software Publishers Association) in the past, when it comes to the whole "Downloads are killing the music industry" argument.

    However, the above mentioned argument regarding the music industry is indeed actually a fair one in certain ways and to a certain extent, unfortunately, if and when one ignores the exaggerations and dishonest liberties taken with the official figures in the past. But put simply, the music industry is indeed loosing out to a certain extent, the dvd industry is not (yet). Although this problem is due in part (a big part) to illegal downloads, along with the fact that the system over all is not adapting fast enough to natural technological progression/evolution. Although as we can see with organizations like Spotify, this is gradually changing now...it's certainly a difficult balance to gain though, especially when it requires ones personal ethical values to come into play. This is something that will test us as a species in so, so many ways over the coming years.


    Anyway, as hypocritical as it makes me feel personally, out of respect for you (both as an employee of GNP and as an individual) and GNP as a production company, i shall refrain from using Red Dwarf in any further examples on this subject here. In fact given that i realize some of my views on this particular issue come close to pushing against the boundaries of acceptability, i will stop commenting in this thread altogether now. Shame really as i had what may have been an interesting and possibly somewhat surprising reply in mind to another posters question, but said reply would require complete unbiased honesty from myself regarding where i feel the cut off point is for what we call ethics and loyalty within our own personal values (whether it be we the consumers or the corporate industry itself). So again, i will refrain from the unintentional possibility of causing any further upset.
     
  4. Sparky

    Sparky Supply Officer

    Messages:
    516
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Location:
    Not the Messiah just a very naughty boy
    *hides wooden leg, eye-patch and parrot down the back of the sofa*
     
  5. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    I really must stop making these statements about not commenting on a particular thread again, kinda' wrote myself into a bit of a corner there didn't i?, D'oh!. I should've just kept it at "i will no longer take part in the main discussion or debate here after this post, or use Red dwarf as an example of which could be seen as being disloyal and/or disrespectful", or something like that.

    Indeed, actually i should've mentioned before that this was indeed their get-out clause in the end. When i phoned back to complain, i wasn't so much technically out right accused of lying by the manager, but rather it was pointed out to me that there was no record of the particular individual staff member telling me that the specific extras i mentioned were featured on the disc.

    The manager also mentioned that the description on their site did indeed say "includes bonus material", which is technically true, it included some bloopers and the trailer, as does the rental version. Wheras the extras package that i specifically asked about on the phone (due to past experiences with other companies) include much more than just that basic package.

    It was this difference that i made very clear on the phone (twice, just to make sure), and the reply i got very much implied that the information i was being given was factual rather than based on some random member of staff's assumption (he even went away "to double check" for me) *sigh*. So in the end, legally i had no leg to stand on.

    I used to record all my phone conversations to companies for this very reason (one must of course make them aware of this though, for legal reasons), but i only have that function on my mobile phone, not my home phone, and right now i can't afford to be phoning these high rate numbers in that way...then again, maybe i can't afford not too...circles and roundabouts, eh? :-(
     
  6. SoundableObject

    SoundableObject Catering Officer

    Messages:
    273
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Location:
    Liverpool England
    I wouldn't buy a second hand version of BTE because of the style of case it came in. It would probably arrive damaged.
     
  7. AlexVS

    AlexVS Third Technician

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Actually, while the blame is always put on 'the industry not adapting', I tend to find more often that the greatest problem is one of people believing they have an entitlement to content. Music suffers particularly badly here, and it always saddens me to see that increasingly there is an argument being trotted out that music should be free. This is of course insane. If I record a cd, it costs me a fairly large investment of capital to do so, especially if I want it done well. I was hugely angry to find the first cd I did with my band had been put up on the internet for download a few years back, and had it removed straight away. People seem to believe that because they have paid for something, then they have the right to distribute however they like. I don’t think any of us would begrudge playing something to a friend or lending them a copy, but to put a product online in its entirety for anyone to download is clearly totally removed from this analogy.

    It’s no different for television shows. I would say that clips were on the same grounds as putting up freely available music on YouTube, but an entire show is like putting up the whole album. It’s not as if the show is unavailable, and indeed if it were I think you’d find greater sympathy. Not enjoying something when you first see it isn’t a justification for not paying to see it again, and asking on the Red Dwarf website forum is a particularly odd choice. If I had someone comment on my website asking where they could hear the rest of an album for free then I would obviously be annoyed. I wouldn’t care about what else they were obtaining in the same way, but when it was a product that I have a direct interest in, obviously it won’t sit well. The same principle applies here.
     
  8. sundayforsammy

    sundayforsammy Deck Sergeant

    Messages:
    2,402
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Location:
    Newcastle UK
    Slightly Off topic but.

    Hello and welcome to the forum, so what band are you in and whats your website url so I can have a look and check out the band.
     
  9. ori-STUDFARM

    ori-STUDFARM Supply Officer

    Messages:
    833
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Location:
    Nottingham United Kingdom
    You should really ask Norman Lovett that...
     
  10. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia

    Well, some people will always blame the music industry directly for not adapting (while ignoring the illegal uploader/downloader issues), while others will always blame the illegal down loaders (while ignoring the technical realities that need to be adapted to by the industry) Then there are those who blame the greedy record labels, producers, corporations, technology firms (while ignoring the afore mentioned issues)

    The full unabridged story lies somewhere in between. I personally see all of these very real issues as the same interconnected problem that needs to be tackled as such.

    As i said people's ethics and personal/collective morals are something very much needed right now, our values need to adapt just as the music industry needs to adapt a little faster than it is at present, we all need to adapt, this isn't an either or solution. The system as a whole needs to move forward. Every one is, or will soon begin to lose out to one extent or another. Even big business such as EMI have been struggling and have had to cut thousands of jobs, this cannot be blamed purely on people who download music for free (although as i said that is a big problem...but hey, who am i to speak on morals? i have a shed load of cassette tapes here with many, many albums of which i never paid a penny for, as i think is the case with most music fans from the 80s/90s generation).

    The internet is here and here to stay. In recent history a large portion of the value created by music, movies, newspapers, etc, have began to benefit others, whether that be legal and respectable technology firms, pirates and other companies...talking legal or otherwise is irrelevant to the problem in hand, laws are irrelevant to the problems we face today, and they certainly wont solve the problems by creating more, laws are simply an admittance to a problem, but very rarely are they a tangible long term solution.

    Youtube are a perfect example of profiting off others, they have made a ridiculous amount of money from essentially doing nothing (bit like those on Wall street and the London stock market exchange really, only most of them provide nothing to anyone but themselves). All they did was use clips from tv shows to build a massive business that Google then bought for $1.65 billion. This is the example output to the public today, profit off other people rather than collaborating...or become famous by singing other peoples songs and going onto a talent show, it's all about me, me, me and money, money, money...so is it really any wonder that so called piracy is so ripe in the world today? i'd say it's a pretty natural offshoot of our current environment and culture.

    Newspapers being another example of an industry that is declining, and will continue to do so as it's made obsolete by technology and consumer habits. When people can get the same information for free on line, why would one expect them to go out and by a physical newspaper?

    As was written in The Observer not so long ago, The internet has changed the way these industries functioned efficiently, it's changed everything, and not because it enables the fast transmission of digital data but because the regulations that enable technology companies to evade responsibility for their business models have created a broken market. Many sites now offer music, while hundreds of others summarize news. Part of the problem is rampant piracy – unauthorised distribution that doesn't benefit creators or the companies that invest in them. It also puts pressure on media companies to accept online distribution deals that don't cover their costs.

    But the underlying issue is that creators and distributors now have opposing interests. Companies such as Google and Apple don't care so much about selling media, since they make their money in other ways – on advertising in the first case, and gadgets in the second. Google just wants to help consumers find the song or show they're looking for, whether it's a legal download or not it would be insane for any intelligent human being to believe otherwise, while Apple has an interest in pushing down the price of music to make its products more useful. And this dynamic doesn't only hurt media conglomerates – it creates problems for independent artists and companies of every size.

    Technology companies often promote the idea that "information wants to be free", as technologist Stewart Brand said, because it's so cheap to deliver. Indeed, one of the most exciting aspects of the internet is the way it has all but eliminated distribution costs – a digital movie can now be sent from Hollywood to Hong Kong for pennies. Some pundits even suggest the price of media will inevitably fall to that level.

    It's hard to imagine how that would happen from the viewpoint we have now, in the now - this very moment in time, simply because the internet hasn't had nearly as much effect on the process of making movies. The same film that costs pennies to send across the world might cost $150m to make. "That tension will not go away," Brand predicted in 1984. "It leads to wrenching debate about price, copyright, so called "intellectual property" and the moral rightness of casual distribution."

    One day all of this will disappear. The monetary system as we know it today simply cannot and will not continue forever.

    Since a college student created Napster in 1999, technology companies have framed this conflict as one that pits media executives against tech-savvy consumers. But the real fight is between media executives and technology investors – it's worth remembering that Napster received money from a hedge fund – who want to use the media to build their businesses.

    Behind the moral debate that Brand presciently predicted is a clash of opposing economic interests. Technology executives aren't exactly shedding tears for companies such as EMI, saying they just can't compete online. But much of the competition EMI are up against isn't the kind to encourage, because it won't lead to better products. Pirate Bay never tried to release better music than EMI – it just distributed the same music in a way that didn't provide any compensation for its creators. Similarly, the Huffington Post doesn't compete with other newspapers for stories – it just summarises news other papers have already reported. Legally or not, the companies essentially outsource their costs. In "economic" (monetary) terms, they're getting a "free ride".

    Then you have companies who are already adapting in what would seem the most logical and inevitable way, such as Spotify or Tunecore

    As pressure builds to enforce copyright law online, technology companies and the activists they support argue that any attempt to block pirate sites will "break the internet", as if it were an iPhone teetering on the edge of a table. The truth is that the internet is broken already, it's a mess: it's simply too chaotic to provide the infrastructure for our so called economy as it stands today. This has to change...but then on a more series note, so then does our primitive and chaotic (anti-)economy has to change, adapt and evolve (now there's a wacky idea huh?) before newspapers and film declines like that of the music industry. Technology companies have long lectured creators on the need to adapt to a changing digital world. It would be a shame if they couldn't heed their own advice.

    Rabid competition, i feel will soon prove to be an outdated social, political and "economical" (monetary) experiment. We are all one, we are living on a single resource and must act as such. Collaboration is the only way forward.

    All the problems in the world today are due to the fact that all the natural elements are unbalanced, they're all fighting against each other (and thus so are we), legal or otherwise, as i said is actually irrelevant to the holistic problem, but rather discussing laws and legalities is to bury our heads in the sand, to cover up the reality outside of these man-made conditioned fragments of social conduct.

    "While you may feel it's perfectly acceptable to upload a single music video of which is "freely available" (bit vague that actually, in what way do you mean "freely available"? and how does it differ from an episode of a tv show?) but not a single episode of a tv show...well, i have no monetary based vested interests in any tv show!, so why should i care about any of that tot?...But if you allow any of my music videos to be posted to your site's forum...I'll sue you!...even if you bought my album, you have absolutely no right to put my songs up on youtube! your perceptions and analogies are irrelevant, you don't legally own that video, so please don't upload it or post it onto any forum!!!...okay?"

    ...that last paragraph was purely hypothetical and meant to be very much tongue-in-cheek by the way, i hope you got that..:-) But i also hope i've made my point clear...



    So, see here basically what you're saying is that someone uploading, or sharing one single episode (out of a whole season of episodes) is the same as uploading an entire album?. It's an interesting perception, it's not one that everyone will agree on though i'm afraid. Others may see things slightly differently, eg; One song = the same equivalent to one episode. One album = one season, or series if you like - as it is indeed a series of songs, or episodes. I could give various examples of such suggested justifications and personal perceptions regarding these matters, and i'm not saying any of them are entirely correct or false either. I'll leave that for individuals to decide. But you will never find a holistic solution that everyone agrees with. You can't change things for the better by fighting an existing reality from within, you must begin to create a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

    Perhaps another possible analogy could be to compare an entire album to a special edition dvd with otherwise inaccessible extras (the Spaced boxset for example) as obviously the only legal way to "own" the full package is to buy the full package in it's physical form of matter, as opposed to watching the repeated episodes on tv for example. All the individual episodes are free to watch legally (providing one has a tv/BBC license) much like songs we hear on the radio are free to listen to. But in order to hear everything on the CD (the full album) or to see everything on the dvd (including all the extras) one must either borrow it from a friend, download it, steal it or buy the physical dvd/cd itself. Personally in the case of struggling musicians especially i would choose to buy the album, preferably directly from the band or artists themselves.

    Speaking from my personal standpoint here, I have no problem whatsoever with listening to a single track i'd never heard before on Spotify, or youtube even, for free. But i wouldn't download or even listen to an entire album on Spotify without paying for it.

    And likewise i have no problem whatsoever with watching an entire episode of... Black books, for example, on youtube...have a guess where i first saw an episode of Black books (i'll give you a clue, it wasn't on channel 4 or Dave)...yep, that's right, it was good old youtube. Now have a guess at which dvd boxset i bought a few weeks later...Yep, correct again, i now own the Black books dvd boxset, and all thanks to initially seeing an ep on youtube. True story.

    I agree that music can't just magically be free all of a sudden within a monetary based system, as people then lose out, and as i said that would be bad. Not only would that be "insane" as you put it (from a business perspective), it would/will also be literally impossible in the long term, if the artist's were to survive in the sense of music being ones main income in the future.

    But unfortunately, when a problem arises, whether one agrees with why or how that problem came about in the first place or not, the system, like it or not, must adapt in order to stop the problem from perpetuating any further.

    And that problem as i see it is down to the natural shift in technological evolution, along with personal ethics (or lack of them, as seems to be the main issue here). The latter you seem to agree with, but the former has/will/is playing a massive leading roll too .

    Fair enough, i do understand that...but with all due respect, why do you then expect others to care about people who obtain your own band's album for free?...see herein lies the problem, people are only out for themselves, you don't care about my hypothetical music video being put up on youtube, and maybe you wouldn't even care if someone was to post my entire album on your website's forum, i mean why would you? it doesn't affect you, right? unless i were to attempt to take legal action against you of course.

    What we call piracy and illegal downloads today, will never be defeated so long as money is involved in our every day lives, the system (along with social values in general) must adapt and evolve as much as physically possible from within the inherent restraints forced upon us.




    Edit: Oh and be fair to Manplus, he simply asked a question, and i see no reason to disbelieve that he genuinely didn't know it was considered disloyal or whatever to watch Red Dwarf on youtube...people don't just assume these things.

    My mothers partner didn't know this either until very recently. The other week he had a bit of a rant about file sharing online (he's against it, period!). When he was done ranting at his somewhat bemused daughter, i calmly pointed out that technically speaking it was no different to him watching the many tv shows he and my mother had been watching on youtube...he didn't believe me at first, but after doing a spot of research, the poor guy was mortified, lol.

    He genuinely thought everything on youtube was verified officially by Youtube/Google before hand - he thought that anything that shouldn't be there wouldn't make it passed the legal uploading stages...which as i mentioned earlier, even if Google had enough staff/resources to check every application to post a video, the reality is, they simply don't care about legalities, they don't care if your album gradually gets puts up on youtube, one song at a time...and again, i ask, why would they? and why would you expect them to?...people don't care unless it affects them personally, if it's outside of their vested interests then they turn the other cheek until they have no choice, eg; they're not going to go out of their way to make sure it's okay for someone to post your music, they don't care!, you would have to take direct action yourself in order to get your songs removed, no one else is gonna' do it for you. This is the mentality of our culture today, and it's all being perpetuated by the competitive, selfish profit-based monetary system, and the social systems it uses to train/condition/program our social conduct.
     
  11. simulant37

    simulant37 Science Officer

    Messages:
    11,946
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    The genie is out of the bottle regards the internet & one of the problems is that the industry failed to embrace the potential of it regards tv/film/music. Now they are taking draconian measures to protect their product when they should be making it more appealing to download content legally; offering exclusive content, making it easy to download, priced competitively etc.

    Price is a major factor, go onto Amazon & look at the difference between a cd & download version. Downloads are unreasonably priced, we all know cds are overpriced but at least there's the excuse of packaging, the actual cd itself etc to justify the cost. The same cannot be said regards a download where the buyer receives no physical product, but is charged nearly the same price! How can this be justified? How much of this goes towards the artist anyway?

    I am not condoning illegal downloading but the industry needs to understand why perfectly law abiding citizens who would never dream of shoplifting are illegally obtaining music (in this example). Only then can it be combated, more extreme measures will not work.
     
  12. Pendo

    Pendo Supply Officer

    Messages:
    596
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2001
    Location:
    Liverpool
    I don't understand when people say the industry hasn't developed to meet the demands of the online market when companies such as Netflix or LoveFilm allow users to watch unlimited movies and tv shows for what I think is a reasonable monthly subscription.

    People who are complaining about movies being too expensive, the reason for this is because of the number of people who are willing to pirate movies and download illegally. If people were to stop illegally downloading movies then they would be cheaper to buy for everyone, but companies are forced to increase prices on their products to make up for lost income.

    I think the main problem is people taking the opportunity to get something for free rather than pay for it legally, and failing to see/understand (mostly through sheer stupidity or deliberate ignorance) that it is stealing. The second main problem is that too many people get away with it. There isn't enough policing of the crime. If people think they can get away with it, they'll do it.

    I love films. So much so that I want to protect the industry. If I can't afford to buy a film I want, which I often can't, I'll go without! I wouldn't dream of downloading it illegally, no matter what my intentions were to purchase it at a later date.
     
  13. supercat

    supercat Console Officer

    Messages:
    4,314
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Up The Owls!
    I think the fact that it took the industry so long to allow companies like Netflix and LoveFilm to exist, that it was already too late. They allowed pirates to get too comfortable. Yes we have those services now, but it's taken a long time to legally establish them.
     
  14. simulant37

    simulant37 Science Officer

    Messages:
    11,946
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Exactly, lovefilm & netflix are late to the party. The industry should have been leading the way not playing catch-up! But the movie industry doesn't give a damn about the viewer, the appalling state of modern cinema-going is proof of that! It is only now providing legal downloads to combat piracy rather than provide a service to viewers.
     
  15. Mardroid

    Mardroid Console Officer

    Messages:
    2,930
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    I agree. I was thinking of getting an ereader tablet device recently (I was thinking of the Kindle to start with then saw that Kobo were doing a touch version of their product for around the same price) but then I saw the price of their downloads on both devices. I still think they're great gadgets but I really don't want to pay the same price for a proper hand-held book especially considering how cheaply you can pick up books second hand nowadays. They did lots of freebies as far as old books (Dickens, etc) were concerned though.

    I'm not saying this to condone piracy mind. Purely my thoughts on the price of downloads compared to actual books. They should sort that out.

    On the other hand, I read quite a lot of comics, and they generally ARE cheaper as downloads. (In the case of DC, you have to wait a month for the price to go down, but I'm prepared to do that.) Still probably not as cheap as such things should be but a significant saving on the paper copies. If the Kindle Fire were available over here I'd likely still get one to take advantage of this. (I'm half considering an Ipad, but that would take some saving and I'm not sure it's worth it. I would use it for other things apart from comics though.)

    I think part of the issue is that it IS a subscription. I'm the kind who likes to grab movies once in a while, not every month. I remember a site which allowed me to do that, and I used it. They seem to have removed that entirely now, only allowing subscription services. To be fair it's a good deal if you rent a lot of films, but it wouldn't be monetarily worthwhile to me unless I plan on changing my film consumption. I'd imagine there are plenty of people like me. To be fair, I can still rent on a 'pay to view' service on Virgin's On Demand service attached to my Cable, but they seem rather expensive to me. Considering how quickly the price of DVD to buy goes down, and by how much, it seems better just to wait for that and buy it.

    Again, I don't say this to condone piracy. I'm largely against it. I HAVE watched uploaded content of series that I wanted to catch up on though, but it's largely been stuff that has been broadcast over here that I missed. For example, Sky 1 had a dispute with Virgin a while back and the channel was removed from the package. It has since returned, but in the mean-time they showed episodes (possibly an entire series) of Lost which I obviously missed. I caught up on-line. :-) I'll admit, I didn't feel that guilty about it.
     
  16. jaybo1973

    jaybo1973 Catering Officer

    Messages:
    408
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    I have certainly opened up a can of worms and after all this, it was on the TV the week after ;-)I have paid my share and bought the first 8 series on the day of release. I really do think BTE was a let down and not worth purchasing. Sorry guys.
     
  17. Cappsy

    Cappsy Second Technician Fan Club Team

    Messages:
    95
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2001
    Location:
    West London
    If only buying one set of products somehow entitled you own an entirely different product without paying.
     
  18. jaybo1973

    jaybo1973 Catering Officer

    Messages:
    408
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Chill out! Youtube isnt illegal to watch anyway. Send the piracy police round if you want, i am sure they have got bigger fish to fry, such as illegal immigrants working in back street sweatshops copying films for a tenner a day.
     
  19. ori-STUDFARM

    ori-STUDFARM Supply Officer

    Messages:
    833
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Location:
    Nottingham United Kingdom
    I once bought some beer at Morrisons....I now go in every friday night and drink 4 cans before I get to the checkout and leave without paying. It's okay though because I paid full price that one time and the new beer doesn't even taste nice.
     
  20. jaybo1973

    jaybo1973 Catering Officer

    Messages:
    408
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    I cant believe that I am the only person to have watched anything on youtube. I wonder where all those hits come from?
     

Share This Page