A long overdue post...

An initial disclaimer, I’m sure there are a few gaps in what I’m about to write. It’s too vast and broad a subject to avoid that (and peppered with legal nonsensicalities). But I’ve tried to clearly set down my own thought process below. This is not intended as some authoritative work on the subject but rather a few broadly written pieces that will hopefully stimulate thought and discussion.

What with the trial of The Pirate Bay torrent tracker, the recent cases in Germany of non P2P file hosting services being forced to turn over information and the efforts by some US Internet service providers to inflate the cost of access in a bid to bolster the cable television market; I feel the need to say a little bit about the film and television industry and where it’s all headed.

Full disclaimer, I have experience within the field of film and TV. I know many people within that world. This includes and is not limited to the production side of things, the revenue side of things and the guys at the bottom of the chain shifting lighting equipment. That being said the attitude you find “on the ground” so to speak can vary radically from the opinions of the “suits.”

As someone who would like a steady career in the film/TV world you’d probably assume I’d be all for anything to stop those dirty pirates. Pirate is an unfortunate term in this case. The waters have been muddied by the Pirate Bay by their very name. To put it very simply the pirates in the film world are the guys in China and various other locations printing stacks of illegitimate DVDs and selling them. The folks uploading DVDrips onto torrent trackers are file sharers. There’s a difference. Now it can be argued that trackers and the numerous blogs dealing in download links profit from this “sharing” through ad revenue. But the fact remains that the motivation of the releasers is very rarely profit.

The motivation of file sharers is what interests me the most. Big media will probably tell you (thanks to that ever so helpful press release from the MPAA) that file sharers are the low life of the Internet. People hell bent on stealing content. The actual situation is somewhat different. Generally file sharers are not interested in forking over cash for a product they have no assurance will be any good. As has been said time and time again downloaded content is not a direct equation to lost box office revenue or less DVD sales. The industry has no guarantee the consumer will automatically buy their product. This is the first great fallacy of all anti file sharing arguments. What file sharing provided was an easy way to access content. Easy, meaning not browsing a rental store trying to judge be dubious cover art and a couple of one inch stills on the back of the box.  It was the equivalent of a giant TV guide, that just happened to have almost anything you’d want to see available.

The second great fallacy of the anti file sharing argument is that giving someone else a copy of a film is wrong. An attitude has developed within the industry that the consumer must be licensed the view the product and licensed by their terms. Excuse me however if I fail to see the difference between Bob sending Richard an AVI file and Richard driving over to Bob’s house to watch the DVD. Of course that particular analogy is weak in that it’s unlikely the guy from Russia also downloading the AVI from Bob is going to alternatively pop on over to his house. But the point still stands that unless the MPAA is willing to say that having Richard watching Bob’s DVD is wrong because Richard didn’t buy the disc it becomes very hard to hold up this concept of viewer licensing.  The issue boils down to the right of the consumer to watch the film.

All of this stems from attempting to hold onto the revenue model of the cinema in the home video market. The cinema was simple, you bought a ticket, you saw the film once. The home video market was tricky, you bought a copy you watched it as much as you wanted. The price was not based on the number of times it was viewed but on the unit cost of a copy of the film. This was not something that went down well in Hollywood during the introduction of VHS. They still haven’t learned as 25+ years later they attempt limited use digital downloads, downloads tied to specific computers and downloads that only work on certain types of hardware devices. They are still trying to have a pay-per-view system while peddling DVDs. The outrage over file sharing has been that anyone can watch it as much as they want because “gasp” it’s an electronic copy. Essentially they are saying, hey you didn’t buy a ticket to watch this. My question is if it doesn’t matter if I watch my DVD four hundred times, why does it matter if I watch it once and three hundred other people watch it once each? If the file sharer reforms, buys a DVD and then starts a forum where members mail each other DVDs is that illegal? We are back to the beginning, the MPAA either must admit the inherent difference between selling me a cinema ticket and selling me a DVD or the DVD had better blow up after a couple plays in the DVD player. I doubt many people would buy them in the latter case.


If we agree on the inherent difference between a cinema ticket and DVD purchases we must come to grips with another question. Ownership of viewing rights. The cinema ticket gives the holder, one person, the right to view the product in question. The DVD comes with no such restrictions. I have seen no arguments that the entire family should not watch the DVD Dad bought, that each member of the family must buy their own copy. In other words ownership of the DVD is not tied directly to viewership of the content. This is the key point. In short DVD ownership does not regulate viewership, DVD ownership means a single copy of the film could theoretically be shown to everyone without prosecution if performed under the right circumstances. DVD ownership is a question of convenience - not the legality of viewing the film in a home.

To be continued...