Ilegal downloading never 'morally justifiable' - NZFACT
Anyone prepared to delve even an inch beyond the pat little rationalisation contained in Robert Smith’s opinion piece on the justification for illegal downloading will know that it’s far from the truth.
Every illegal download of a movie deprives a filmmaker of payment for their work. And that has flow on effects to what is literally a cast of thousands involved in that project.
Moviemaking, after all, is an expensive – and risky – business. In taking the plunge to make a movie, the filmmaker is taking a huge punt that the story they’re seeking to tell will appeal to large enough audiences to make a profit two or three years down the road.
That’s the nature of the game, but rampant piracy is an additional risk that they shouldn’t have to absorb.
Make no mistake – this is a business, one that needs to generate a return in order to keep going. Otherwise it becomes a very expensive hobby limited to just a privileged few, or a cottage industry supported by talented amateurs who all hold day jobs to survive.
Lest you think this a tad dramatic, consider this: Piracy affects the smaller film industries like New Zealand’s just as much – if not more – than the big Hollywood studios.
Search any peer-to-peer filesharing site and you’ll see New Zealand films ranging from classics like Once Were Warriors to recent hits like Black Sheep nestled alongside the major Hollywood blockbusters.
And it’s the smaller industries like New Zealand’s that feel the effects of piracy the most.
A report by independent research company LEK Consulting found online copyright infringement cost the New Zealand film industry $70.8 million in 2005 – an estimated 25 per cent of the potential market. Of the total loss, just $27.1 million was sustained by the six major Hollywood studios.
The remaining $43.7 million – 60 per cent of the total loss – was picked up by local film and television makers.
Movies, at times, can be quite marginal products. And piracy can sometimes make the difference between whether a movie makes money or suffers a loss. And even when it does make money, the loss in earnings has knock on effects for future projects.
Projects get scaled back or dropped altogether. Some new writers, actors and filmmakers won’t get discovered. The opportunities become quite limited for everyone involved in the sector, from the artists, writers and directors, through to the make-up artists, set designers and camera operators.
This can have a huge consequence for a small industry like New Zealand’s, which, despite its size contributes an immense $2.5 billion to the New Zealand economy and creates nearly 22,000 jobs, as a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers has found.
Those who download illegally often justify their actions by citing the length of time it takes for certain releases to reach New Zealand. And I acknowledge that we, as an industry, must give audiences fast, easy and affordable legal access to the movies we produce.
The creative sector already has four online retailing sites specifically for the New Zealand market, with one more due to start in the new year. That’s not including all the other online retail outlets catering to a global audience.
And let’s not forget that the same “esoteric documentaries or impenetrable arthouse films” that Robert cites are difficult to source in New Zealand can be obtained simply by going to the filmmaker’s website.
But filmmakers simply cannot compete with products that are free. No one can. Like 99% of Kiwis, they need to see financial return for their efforts. No one after all works for nothing. If it were a rival product that significantly undercuts their offering on price, well, then it’s simply market forces at work. But how can anyone realistically compete with something that is stolen from them and then given away for free?
The internet is not something to be feared. And we recognise the opportunities it offers for us as an industry.
In supporting the Government’s moves to introduce a workable legislative process for rights holders to protect their copyright online, we as an industry are not talking about state-imposed preservation of the status quo – merely asking for support for legislative proposals that target those that persistently share copyrighted content.
I don’t believe everyone who shares copyrighted material knowingly considers the impacts of what they’re doing, and the process outlined under the Cabinet Paper proposal released by the Government last week for Section 92a of the Copyright Act provides opportunities to alert them of this, without penalty.
Like any new frontier, the Internet remains a Wild West. All we want is to be able to ensure that filmmakers – along with the rest of the thousands of people involved in the industry - get a fair go in being able to earn a living from their hard work.
Tony Eaton is executive director of NZFACT, which was established in 2005 by the Motion Picture Association to protect the film industry in New Zealand from the adverse impacts of copyright theft.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions21
You claim that every download deprives the makers of profit, this is just not true. As a downloader myself, I have seen many movies I would not have seen without downloading them, would I have eventually paid for them, probably not. I have a limited amount of disposable income, and this is given to the movies I believe have truly gone above and beyond. The movies my kind downloads are those we feel we are not willing to pay for. Its not that this money has not been given to something else, and hence deprived the makers of profit, its that it was never there to begin with. We don't 'save' money (and hence rob), we give to those that deserve it.
Hollywood wants it differently, then stop forcing reality television upon us, stop making half bit movies, and stop the dumb down of culture.
We're not paying because its turned into a replication festival (think of any action movie with a replaceable plot, shrek 1,2,3 &4) and its now more about profit than the art form.
We'll pay when we feel its worth it, the power is back in the hands of the consumer.
ps. Movies I gladly paid for include Dark Knight (3x), Wall-E, District 9, Watchmen, Coraline, Where the Wild things are, Avatar, Film Festival (x9),
"Every illegal download of a movie deprives a filmmaker of payment for their work"
Every download? Most lobbyists don't have the gall to claim that each and every download is a lost sale, although it's been a popular bit of bad economics from NZFACT lately. While a person shouldn't make illegal copies it's another thing entirely to say that they would have paid for it. This is a much more complex economic argument than "download = lost sale" and that's why for music it's estimated by the IFPI that 10% of downloads are lost sales.
There are many international studies on the result of downloading on purchases, and serious efforts go further than downloading to its effect on people. Copyrights are being infringed for sure, but many government studies have shown increased sales (per person) for those who illegally download. This doesn't mean illegal downloading is good or sustainable but the effects of this behaviour must be considered for any serious quantitative analysis. It would be fascinating to see whether New Zealanders behave the same way as overseas people do but unfortunately there haven't been _any_ studies into this.
We're now 15 years into the mainstream internet and I still can't buy DRM-free movies online -- yet you talk about shops with poor selections available as if you're satisfying legitimate consumer demand. Digital Rights Management (or Digitial Restrictions Management) has consistently failed at preventing illegal copies and it always will for basic cryptographic reasons: it's simply impossible to give millions of people in the world both the encrypted content AND the decryption key while expecting encryption to have any effect. What DRM does instead is cause poor interoperability and faulty movies for the majority of legitimate consumers, while illegal downloaders first remove the DRM locks so that the content will work everywhere. The music industry is slowly shedding itself of locks and becoming DRM-Free, but the movie industry still seems infatuated with this snake-oil. Despite the fact that DRM doesn't prevent copying (something you can independently verify by checking any file sharing site) DRM enjoys government protection and the movie industry foolishly embraces this anti-consumer option.
There are dozens of stores that sell DVDs in my home town. Can the same be said for online movie stores? Do they have the same selection? Of the movies that people illegally share online how many are available for legitimate download? How many are available DRM-free? These are the real questions for the industry you represent.
Mr Eaton, the 'lost sale' argument needs to be more sophisticated to be believable and DRM should be rejected in favour of consumer-friendly technology.
The traditional media companies are failing to adapt to what is now a generation of young people who grew up with the 'wild west' of the internet. The internet isn't the wild west anymore. We are used to being able to access something immediately, for better or worse. We are exposed to far more creativity and more means for sharing that creativity in new and exciting ways than ever before. We are becoming a society where everyone can create and share and enjoy.
Traditional media companies see the internet and P2P sharing as a threat, and that's because it is. It challenges that status quo. No longer are we subject to what we are told to like. No longer are we restricted in where we can be exposed to something new and unexpected. Presented with change, the old school has decided to dig in, rather than adapt. They missed the boat. Why should we prop up a poor business model? The door is open for new ideas, new distribution, new media companies to do what the traditionalists won't.
The film industry makes the most noise about piracy, but week after week I see Hollywood hemorrhage multi-million dollar budgets at mediocre movies and still breaking records. As someone that actually paid to watch Transformers 2, I think Hollywood will be just fine. It's the smaller artists that stand to benefit the most from file-sharing. In a culture so saturated talent, the biggest challenge for a new artist isn't making a sale, it is getting to be able to sell in the first place.
Through filesharing, I have been exposed to more music and more movies than I would have ever been exposed to otherwise. This in turn has led me to spend more money on the concerts to see the bands I like and more money to see movies by the directors I like.
The bottom line in this argument is that filesharing potentially loosens the grip of advertising and traditional media distribution methods which largely benefit the few and provide new, talented and underexposed artists to reach a wider audience and a chance to make a living.
Internet does a damn good job of getting rid of middlemen who have been ripping off consumers AND artists for years.
Using the new technology, and hopefully getting rid of the extortionate charges based on price elasticity and such like, will allow the artist to make more money and consumer to enjoy cheaper music. I would gladly pay a dollar for a single rather than $39.95 per album for a few good songs and whole lot of dross packaged by the industry middlemen.
Most of the "benefits" the recording industry claims it provides, come with the unwanted outcomes described by others above.
This is nothing but bleating to maintain status quo. The faster artists start getting away from the "contracted to so and so" approach and take their product and destiny into their own hands the better. Th internet is good for the producer and the consumer, and for screwing the middlemen.
I cannot wait to for the day the "recording industry", i.e. the leeches, become extinct.
Its time. Get out of the way.
Black Sheep was a hit???????? How?
They have to wake up and stop dreaming of thier past easy reward system for themselves. If all DVDs etc were sold for between $7 and $10 then who would bother getting a poor quality pirated version. They then would meet the real market not thier false inflated prices. People are realistic and when you meet the market you will win. Piracy only exists because they dont meet the market.
With all the justifications everyone has given for pirating movies it seems to me you have forgotten that piracy IS stealing.
Yes the film industry should make films available cheaper and faster via the internet I agree, but watching someones hard work for nothing is still a crime.
Hollywood is turning out a number of fairly average movies, but at the same time Hollywood is a business and in the middle of a recession you can't blame them for playing it safe. There have been a number of independent studios that shut their doors during the past year, and although piracy wouldn't be completely responsible for these houses shutting their doors you can't honestly believe the industy is losing no money from their work being stolen.
It seems to me that most people pirating movies will come up with any reason to justify getting something for nothing. The industry does need to become more net savy but it seems to me that people have forgotten that stealing is a crime and paitence has become a lost virtue.
The 'piracy IS stealing' arguement is misleading. I am not advocating artists being deprived of profit, but the issue isn't black and white. It's not something that is BAD and therefore a CRIME which must be PUNISHED. Research has been inconclusive in regards to how much of a negative or positive effect filesharing has had in regards to net gains or losses.
What I AM advocating is reform of outdated laws. P2P is happening, it is evolving and it's positive. It offers exposure to culture, music, film, art and each other like never before. It's is the benefits of P2P that should enjoy legal protection.
Media companies and thier advocates are quick to throw around scary statistics and percentages. Record and DVD sales dropping. What they don't mention is the rise of the digital copy and streaming technology. A production deal or studio backing isn't the only way to be visible or sell your product.
The noise about filesharing is coming from the major labels and studios, which is understandable. It's harder for them to change, they have more to loose and they have the money to make noise. But if there is one lesson we should take from the last few years, it's that mega-corporate culture doesn't have the publics interests at heart. The financial industry made a mess of the global ecomony due to thier own shortsightedness and poor regulation/legislature from the government. Should we allow the media companies to do the same with film and music? Or do we think these dinosaurs are just as 'too big to fail' and need special treatment?
What we are seeing now are new companies finding ways to compete with 'free'. And some companies are doing so very successfully, iTunes, as a prime example. Benefits to the consumer and the artist are obvious. Lower prices, accessibility and best of all, more money to the artists.
New Zealand has another chance to lead the charge in digital reform by looking out for the interests of the public and not the corporations. The digital age should be embraced and explored. 'Piracy' is the rule, not the exception. Learn to live with it because the alternative is disconnection, draconian and unbalanced punishment. And most horrifically for artists, obsurity.
Legally speaking copyright infringment is not theft and it is not a crminal offense, as much as certain copyright holders would like to make it so. As for the term piracy, the conotation that infringemention can be equated with "piracy" - storming and takeover of ship on the high seas -should be rejected for what it is: an industry attempt to use rhetoric to reframe the arguments.
Mr Eaton, here's a comment from Pollara that you should take to heart...
"There is a significant body of market research from around the time downloading became a significant issue suggesting not only that downloaders were perfectly willing to pay, but also that dowloading to some extent promoted actual purchase of the tangible product. Again, all along, it was choice and service that drove downloading - not really being able to get tunes for free.
That the industry then chose to fight with it’s customers rather than address their needs merely exacerbated the problem. Perhaps they didn’t know any better, and in their desperation to hang on to that CPG model of selling music, they took the wrong route. Fighting with one’s customers has never been a successful strategy, in my experience.
What all this has to do with your topic of copyright laws, I admit, I’m not sure. Certainly, illegal downloading of copyright material is wrong. Certainly, not all those doing so are criminals in any logical sense of the word. The industry is very much to blame here, because they ignored their customers needs knowing full well that a technological revolution was at hand that would enable their customers to satisfy their needs, with or without them.
There are a number of other factors that come into the decline of the music industry that I won’t go into in depth here - lack of iconic artists, the decline in the importance of music to the Playstation generation, the product itself declining in technical quality, the commoditization of radio and prevalence of safe, computer generated playlists, the abandonment of and by the retail channel and others.
But what it all comes down to is an industry that ignored it’s customers and then started to fight with them, trying to hold on to a model that customers were saying no longer met their needs."
If life is so tough, margins so thin and making movies so expensive and risky - then STOP paying actors etc.. $20m per movie.
I mean come on, how do you justify this obscenity. Pay them $1m (still too much really - they ain't saving the world you know) and you just made an extra $19m per top actor.
What are they gonna do, stop acting and go work at McDonalds.
And, Avatar just passed $1B, so err, what is the problem???
Really, this is all about greed - no sympathy at all.
Artists work hard to produce their product, whether they are, directors, actors or musicians or any other industry that has fallen prey to illegal distribution methods.
You all seem quite smug justifying why you should be able to do this.
Downloading copyrighted material is theft.
If you can afford to rent a movie, or buy it, or see it on the big screen, maybe instead of spending your nights illegally downloading you should put this time into furthering your education so you can get into a higher paid occupation; and then you might be able to pay your way in society instead of being a leech.
NZfact and the other side can argue about the ins and outs of downloading til they're blue in the face it wont change anything.
As the means of enforcing and stopping the downloading of copyrighted materials appear, counter measures also appear.
In short arguing and posturing wont change a thing for either side - The digital economy will drive change those that bend go with it may survive whilst those that dont are unlikley to last long at all.
the illegal downloading is economic justify by those who download the products. is common that the normal DVD is clone in .iso and .nrg or .img File Extensions to be convert in DVD rip for upload on torrents. then the users can take it with no cost.
With the high risks and legal terms of today's media the downloading of private information in my opinion can be stop with a better Cloud Computing Security of at least some effort from the ISP around the world. I`m sorry that people get robed and i know it's not the right way. Anyway great post and thank you for the job well done.
I consider illegal downloading as one of the consequences of technology. Same with computer threats we can install antivirus programs, have an online pc support but still full computer security is not secure. Ironically, some reports conclude that some people would buy the original DVD after watching an illegally downloaded movie. Some statistics even show the rise of hollywood actors in "not-so rich" countries that eventually lead to sales.
I consider illegal downloading as one of the consequences of technology. Same with computer threats we can install antivirus programs, have an online pc support but still full computer security is not secure. Ironically, some reports conclude that some people would buy the original DVD after watching an illegally downloaded movie. Some statistics even show the rise of hollywood actors in "not-so rich" countries that eventually lead to sales.
I consider illegal downloading as one of the consequences of technology. Same with computer threats we can install antivirus programs, have an online pc support but still full computer security is not secure. Ironically, some reports conclude that some people would buy the original DVD after watching an illegally downloaded movie. Some statistics even show the rise of hollywood actors in "not-so rich" countries that eventually lead to sales.
Piracy is NOT stealing. This is a common misconception and proves the amount of bad public education about piracy.
In the Dowling v. United States (1985) case the U.S. Supreme court itself stated that Copyright Infringement did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.
Now, to put that into perspective: if you go into someone's house and go over to someone's closet, steal their favourite shirt and then take it as your own back home -- that is stealing; however, if you go to their house, take down the exact specifications of said shirt and then go home and make your own copy of it -- that is hardly stealing, and that is what modern piracy is.
I think that the problem with illegal downloads is that when you choose to download something illegally, you are essentially stating that the person or entity who has created that work has no choice in the matter, that it is not their decision what their time is worth. I have a hard time believing that many would see that matter in the same light as illegal downloads if their employer chose to tell them that that they would not be paid for work they had already done. To summarize, it is more an issue of allowing others choice than one of any legal issue. The statistics are in the end irrelevant, as what you are really doing is bypassing the economic exchange that has been offered for the item in question, which is essentially, stealing.
Wait, wait, wait.. Is illegal downloads included in downloading interviews and live performances or videos put up by users that you cannot buy!! for example youtube.
Otherwise it is completely understandable for the law of illegal downloading of music, tv shows and movies that you can purchase.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below