Who’s Knock Off Nigel you ask?
He’s the ‘victim’ in a series of ads, who downloads films (oooer!!!) that he doesn’t have he right to. According to the ads he also steals from whip rounds, and other people’s milk from the fridge. Here’s the ad at YouTube.
It’s a little odd really, as downloading films isn’t theft, even if it’s the latest Hollywood blockbuster such a Batman: The Dark Knight or Wall-E. To steal something, you have to deprive someone of it, and downloading films/music/software doesn’t actually deprive anyone of anything.
It does however make company executives panic, as they see revenue disppearing, and it worries them as they might not be able to afford to sniff high grade cocaine from the cleavage of $1000 an hour call girls. 
The solution is of course simple.
Stop ripping your customers off.
19 Comments
Craig
I think the ads are ridiculous, as is the notion that somebody is going to stop downloading after seeing them.
I particularly hate the ones they put at the front of DVDs I’ve paid good money for and then disable the skip feature to I have to sit through it
The only way to avoid the annoying ad is, ironically, to get a pirate version !
I would expect some clamping down with this issue, as to how draconian or indeed realistic it will be only time will tell but I’m sure they are going to try and do something.
Rod
Rod
They will do something, and are indeed trying to with the latest BPI & ISP initiative, but whether it will work remains to be seen.
Calling everyone who downloads a film (or music etc) a thief who would steal from friends and charities, won’t do them any good whatsoever.
I buy more legitimate DVDs/CDs/Software since the advent of downloading, than I did before. Ironically I used to buy real pirated material from markets and car boots. Indeed there is still a large market near where I live, and every third stall sells pirated material, none of which I buy. If they insist on stamping on ‘file-sharing’ I’ll go back to those days.
I will not pay full price for something that I can’t return, unless I’ve had a damn good look at it first.
I have to disagree, sorry.
People put their money into these movies, and yeah they are stinking rich anyway, but I suppose you are taking from them. And, you’ve gotta give it to the actors… they do a pretty good job. Say you’re a lawyer, and you sort out some legal papers or something for someone, you’d not expect them to turn around and say “oh, I’m not paying, but I’ll take the papers anyway”.
If you think about Premiership football, your football players and team are stinking rich and hugely overpaid, and yet people don’t buy knock-off tickets (or do they?).
But yeah, I agree the adverts are awful. I preferred the “You wouldn’t steal a handbag” adverts
Welcome to the site.
No they don’t buy knock-off tickets, but that is actually a criminal offense I believe.
Downloading films is not a criminal offense,nor is it classed as theft. It is copyright infringement.
Copyright law is all over the place, and I don’t pretend to understand it. But I didn’t mean in terms of the law, I meant morally. People wouldn’t buy knock-off tickets because they know they can’t get away with it. So, just because we’re dealing with movies and not tickets doesn’t suddenly make it right.
Also, from your article I thought you were implying that just because you’re “stealing from the rich” it’s alright, since you’re not depriving them of something… not that it isn’t actually a criminal offense. And, it’s only not a criminal offense in some circumstances apparently.
P.S. Can I just say, if you do download movies/music/anything else illegally then I’m not judging. Don’t take offense, I just wanted to add something to the discussion. And, I don’t think that just because you do download these things that you’re stealing my milk. :p
Thanks for the welcoming
It isn’t really the case of stealing from the rich or poor. Nor is it right, but neither is it really wrong. The reference to criminality is when you try to profit from infringing on copyright, by selling. Buying is not an offense, so downloading can’t be either.
I see it more as previewing before purchasing. If you buy clothes etc you can try them on, but with media you don’t have the same rights.
It has always been my opinion that this is about who controls the delivery, rather than any kind of theft. The media industry doesn’t like the fact that they don’t have any controls anymore.
And as for me downloading anything…
Previewing before purchasing, you mean like trailers and 30 second samples? Lol.
I totally see your point about who controls the delivery, but I don’t mind that. What I hate is that after the delivery, the media industry now try to control what’s been delivered… DRM.
Music is social, it’s meant to be shared. Back in the day you could buy a CD and lend it to a friend to check out, there’d be no restrictions on it — their CD player wouldn’t self-destruct if they tried to play it. If they liked it, they’d go out and buy it. It should be the same with digital downloads, my friends might send me a few tracks from an album… if I like, I’ll buy the rest. That’s how music should be.
Also, just had a thought. Could downloading be an offense if you’ve signed a contract with your ISP that says that you’ll not infringe copyright via their service(s)? :s
Nope, not an offense, just breach of contract.
Previewing as it stands is as you describe, a 30 second sample of music or a 1 minute film trailer, both of which are cherry picked by the creator so as to put its product in the best light.
It’s all about control, and that’s it in my opinion. Control of delivery, and control of how you use it. Would we put up with it in any other section of our life?
If they weren’t so greedy they would have kicked most piracy into touch long ago. Before the BBC iPlayer went flash based and usable on a Mac, I used to download stuff I missed from torrent sites. Now I don’t bother, I just watch it through iPlayer, and to be perfectly honest I wouldn’t begrudge paying a small monthly fee to watch stuff that way.
We do put up with in other sections of our lives: firearms, knives, solvents, certain animals, alcohol, cigarettes. Delivery is tightly controlled, use perhaps not as much. Even delivery of movies is controlled, stores can get done for selling an 18 rated film to someone that’s 17.
Having said that, those things are controlled for our own good…they are potentially dangerous when used improperly. And now I think I see your point: the control of music/films seems to be more about protecting the creators rather than consumers. (I do think the creators need protecting, but the rights of the consumer should always be put first since, at the end of the day, there’s more consumers.)
I think we agree on one thing, iPlayer is great. I use Windows and don’t bother downloading because the flash is good enough. We get it via Virgin Media TV, too.
iPlayer is the future in my opinion, but the media industries are terrfified of it, as it removes their control. Look at the arguments that some of the companies have had with Apple over iTunes and it’s pricing.
Piracy of movies will drop like a stone when a true Video on Demand service comes out, similar to iPlayer, but it needs to be cheap enough, and the films new enough. Problem is that the industry won’t allow it, as they cannot control how many people watch per screen/per subscription. They can’t see that letting a family of four watch a film together for a small fee is better than them buying a pirate from a car boot. All that they can see is three people not paying to watch.
Craig
I have to agree with much of what Michael says.
Whether people like it or not music and films are the products of other people’s labour - they have a right to a return based on their investment and rights.
This business of ‘they’re rich’ or whatever holds no water.
If somebody has a good job and has earnt a reasonable wage you wouldn’t expect them to work for nothing for a couple of months simply because in your opinion they’ve made enough this year !
The real problem is not the headline acts most people quote.
James Bond film or new U2 album - yes they are already rich and they’ll still generate a good profit despite file sharing.
The problem is the new as yet undiscovered U2 or the low budget film that may produce the next 007 type franchise.
These will not get made !
They are already borderline in profit terms indeed many lose money and have to be supported by the profits from other films or bands.
The only thing that is holding things together at the moment is that the majority of people don’t know how to download a film or CD.
When they do it will be a disaster if nothing is done.
The next generation coming through will not be buying music and films they way our generation does/did !
I agree with you about prices but human nature is such that a lot of people will never pay for anything they can get for nothing.
An old argument but always a good one Craig
Cheers
Rod
Rod
Has nothing to do with rich or poor, headline act or not. This generation isn’t buying for a number of reasons
1 - it’s too expensive
2 - they can get it for free
3 - more things to spend ’spare’ money on
If they drop the first one to a reasonable level, they kill off the second one, and take a fair cut of the third.
As for the old analogy about a good job etc.
A person in a good job doesn’t expect to work hard on Monday, and keep reaping the benefits for 50+ years. Why is someone singing worth 50 years of copyright, someone writing a song worth life + 70 years, but the inventor of a an engine that runs on sugar (theoretically speaking) worth only 20 years?
The industry have de-valued their own products, whilst simultaneously abusing it’s customers - and now the customer is in command. This isn’t about poor struggling artistes, it’s about mega-corporations and rights bodies trying to wrest back control.
Here is a better analogy in my opinion.
You both run your own blogs.
If I was to take all of your content, and post it here, would you then sue all of ‘my’ readers for reading your material here?
Would you label them all thieving bastards because they haven’t read it on your site?
Would you demand they be cut off for viewing your material on an unauthorised site?
Craig
I believe copyright should never run out.
If somebody writes a book then it is the fruit of their labour it is no different to somebody who builds up a business.
We would not dream of saying to somebody:
You’ve owned that land and made money off it for 50 years now you have no right to do so etc etc
Musicians, actors and writers etc do what they do as a job and should continue to benefit from their work and be able to pass it on to next generations of their family.
Why should somebody else make a profit from printing a book which is out of copyright ?
Re your example of blogs:
People do steal my content and try to make money from it and I regard that as theft. It is my work not theirs.
You seem not to accept the ‘job’ theory.
People do things for a living if you employ a builder to build you a conservatory he is not doing in order to give you a pleasant Sunday morning reading the papers and drinking coffee. That is YOUR idea and reason behind the exercise. His is simply to be paid an agreed sum for his labour.
Would you label them all thieving bastards because they haven’t read it on your site
No because my content is not published on a pay to read basis. If my content was so fantastic and popular that I could make the site subscription only and then people deliberately sought out ways to read my content or hack it etc with paying me then yes I would consider them thieves !
Would you demand they be cut off for viewing your material on an unauthorised site?
I have demanded from individuals and hosting companies that they remove my stolen content. I would not penalize the readers in this case as they are unaware they have done anything wrong.
We can quibble all we like but at the end of the day we all know when we download most DVDs or CDs we are not supposed to be doing so be it legally or morally.
Let us just have the decency to admit it rather than trying to justify it !
Cheers
Rod
PS: I am currently trying to find out precisely whether “illegal downloads” are illegal, I know you say they are not but as yet I’m unable to find anything concrete either way
Yes ok it’s illegal, immoral and unethical.
I shall now cease and desist downloading anything, and I shall also stop purchasing DVDs and CDs via the normal retail channels. I’ll use eBay to buy it all secondhand, or wait until it comes on Sky and record it onto DVD.
You won!
One last point though.
Let’s say you were a fan of a band/singer.
You bought Album 1 and loved it.
You bought Album 2 and loved it.
You bought Album 3 and thought it was ok.
You bought Album 4 and thought it was crap.
Is it really that immoral to download Album 5 to see whether it’s as good as Album 1/2, average as Album 3 or dire as Album 4?
My blog is Creative Commons BY-SA so I’d only mind had I not been given attribution and they’d not released their work under the same license.
I do however disagree with Rod, copyright should expire after a set period. I love how there’s so many Public Domain books out there. Knowledge longs to be free, copyright only for as long as copyright is required.
As for the album thing, it depends what your moral code is. Some people believe in a set moral code (doing x is wrong all the time) and some are a little more subjective with their morals (doing x is wrong, but there are times when doing it could be right). E.g. Lying is wrong. But, say you see a guy hiding behind a tree. Another man with a knife in his hands comes past and asks you if you’ve seen a guy hiding anywhere… is it wrong to lie? It’s up to you… don’t let me or Rod stop you from downloading if you feel it’s right.
Personally, I’d hear a few tracks from album 5 on the radio, and my friends’d probably tell me what it was like had they bought it so I’d not bother.
Oh, and about iPlayer, I think the main hurdle we’re facing is bandwidth. With some ISPs, the bandwidth isn’t there. And where the bandwidth is there, ISPs aren’t happy because people are actually using all of the bandwidth they’re paying for. (Shock horror.)
I know Virgin Media has put some weird restrictions on when we can download large files.
From Rod (my Spamblocker is keeping him out
)
Craig
Is it really that immoral to download Album 5 to see whether it’s as good as Album 1/2, average as Album 3 or dire as Album 4?
Different argument !
In the real world if you want commercial goods then you buy them - if they turn out not to be to your taste then why would you expect a refund or indeed the item free of charge lest you not like it.
Would you expect to rent a DVD and get a refund because you thought the film was crap ?
Following your analogy:
If you thought the last album crap you have a series of options:
Don’t buy the next one
Go to HMV or wherever and listen to it for free then decide
Read reviews
Listen to clips on Amazon etc
The above is spitting hairs as we all know the vast majority of people download to avoid buying.
We have to talk about what the majority do otherwise the argument decends into petty-fogging.
Cheers
Rod
I’ve read everyone’s comments on here, and despite the argument that artists should get a fair deal for their talent & that it’s not the point whether or not the artists/bands/record companies/producers are ‘loaded’ or not, record companies are still making a heap of profit from artists, especially as we all know how much it costs to produce a CD. It’s a known fact that the majority of artists/bands income comes from concerts/gigs & other live appearances. But the record industry have a license to rip-off artists - is that right?
The ‘in’s & out’s’ of copyright laws & download legalities are complex & are there to adhere to, however, just because these are in place, doesn’t make them right. We have plenty of laws in this country which are just down-right stupid & illogical.
Just my two-penneth…