Downloading and you, the exciting world of corporate ethics

[Panoramixe]

I can't really convince myself that file sharing is justifiable in any way, since you're indirectly stealing from the makers of the product. It's leeching them of money and if more and more people start doing it, at some point (far) into the future no one's going to have the money to produce music on a large scale.

Music for example has been "free" for quite a while already, even before the internet. Radio makes its money by putting advertisements in between songs, no reason you can't do the same on the internet with banners, some in-file advertisement and e-mail marketing.
TV shows, series and (old) movies are also "free" (cable isn't that big of a cost) to watch, just because there are advertisements. It's even easier to advertise on the internet and you can actually calculate the benefits of a campaign there.
So it's just them not adjusting to technology, like you said. I really can't feel sorry for them making less of a profit.

In my case I only download things I can't find anywhere legally (like old TV series and cartoons, good luck finding those on a DVD) or series the networks stream on their site themselves. (Like the CW) The rest I'll try to download legally as long as it doesn't take me more than 15 minutes to find.

[TheRabidDeer]

The main thing that I find interesting about downloading movies:
Why is it only the studios and not the theater chains themselves (like regal cinemas) that complain about it? If there really is an effect, then shouldnt the theaters that actually show the movies be enraged by piracy as well?

[RouVix]

The main thing that I find interesting about downloading movies:
Why is it only the studios and not the theater chains themselves (like regal cinemas) that complain about it? If there really is an effect, then shouldnt the theaters that actually show the movies be enraged by piracy as well?

Theater chains are much smaller bussinesses than movies studios. Also, theater chains don't have copyright laws they can use in their defense (or offense).

[PinkPenguin]

In school, we actually had quite an interesting discussion about this in a class. As someone in my class pointed out, if we download something, the actors, the producer, director etc. actually get publicity, if we didn't download it, we wouldn't know if that director made a good movie or not, or if that actor was any good or not. And some people actually buy a movie after they download it, not saying that I do, or everybody, but some people do. And if they hadn't downloaded it, they wouldn't have watched it in the first place, and therefore maybe wouldn't have bought it.

[RouVix]

In school, we actually had quite an interesting discussion about this in a class. As someone in my class pointed out, if we download something, the actors, the producer, director etc. actually get publicity, if we didn't download it, we wouldn't know if that director made a good movie or not, or if that actor was any good or not. And some people actually buy a movie after they download it, not saying that I do, or everybody, but some people do. And if they hadn't downloaded it, they wouldn't have watched it in the first place, and therefore maybe wouldn't have bought it.

In my humble opinion that's a load of crap. Do you know what else actors, producers, directors etc. get publicity for? When you pay to see the movie. I'm sure the bank manager gets into the news too if you rob his bank, especially if you shoot the guy, but you still don't go around robbing banks saying it's ok because they get publicity.

As for the other part, well I don't have any statistics or anything, but apparently neither do you. nevertheless I'm very convinced that only a very, very marginal amount of people download stuff illegally of the internet to "check it out" and buy it with money later. You just end up watching the movie, and never buy it because you already saw it. I used to tell myself I'm not doing anything illegal because I'll just buy the movies later. I gave up after the first two because it just doesn't work like that. That marginal amount of people might be a little bigger when it comes to downloading music as someone might actually download a song or two and then buy the rest of the album, but bands often release singles free off the internet and that's also why God created the MTV, so that people could check out song or two and make up their mind if they want the album or not.

As a whole, both of your remarks are very, very bad attempts at trying to justify illegal downloading. It's illegal, and there's really no way around that. Not even if you try to tell yourself you're not a criminal. You are.

[Medium9]

I would have never went to the cinema and watch Alice in Wonderland, if I hadn't watched a downloaded Sleepy Hollow, after which I got interested in who the director was, and that movie was the first that twitched my little fan muscle for Johnny Depp. AiW wasn't the only movie with them both I payed for since that incident. The same for Rush Hour, which I actually found quite entertaining. I saw RH2 on my PC, and later went to a Rush Hour night with all 3 parts in the cinema. I had a downloaded version of Star Trek (2009), but since the image quality didn't do it justice, I bought the Bluray version and watched it more than once again from there. Also, it was made pretty well and absolutely deserved to be supported. I have seen the first 8 Star Trek movies on my PC, and still went to a ST night at the cinema's where they showed the same movies. Just to name a hand full of examples from the top of my head.
Oh, and I have seen LotR in a LotR night, and then went to download them, since I didn't really saw the point in paying twice for them

You just cannot project you own personal shortcomings onto everyone else, and more importantly, judge by that. The torrent network has, in my case, done a pretty good job as advertiser in the past, and since I am a student and as such usually low on cash, I can't and won't pour my few bucks into some cinema/studio/blah without a slight clue about whether it'll be worth it (and the evening and gas (it is rather expensive here in Germany) spent on it, since I have to drive quite a bit to get to a properly equipped cinema).
Yeah, trailers can tell you if the coarse story outline is your cup of tea, but a great story can still be fucked up by some sub par directors and/or actors well. That you won't be able to draw from trailers, for that you need to have seen something with/by them before.

[Offhand]

In my humble opinion that's a load of crap. Do you know what else actors, producers, directors etc. get publicity for? When you pay to see the movie. I'm
As a whole, both of your remarks are very, very bad attempts at trying to justify illegal downloading. It's illegal, and there's really no way around that. Not even if you try to tell yourself you're not a criminal. You are.

Yes, but, as a whole legality does not translate into morality. How many laws did you break today? Did you cross a busy street not at a crosswalk or waiting for someone to stop for you?

The internet has more or less forced business to outlaw practices such as music sharing, not because is was any more morally good or bad before but because it's more widespread now thanks to the internet. Think about it, back in the early 90's I got Nevermind on a cassette type from a friend, and ended up copying it to give to more friends. I'm sure any popular album made prior to Napster got the same treatment. Copying was not stealing, at least prior to court cases like the Napster guy getting sued or Kevin Mitnick getting tried for theft.

[TheRabidDeer]

Theater chains are much smaller bussinesses than movies studios. Also, theater chains don't have copyright laws they can use in their defense (or offense).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regal_Entertainment_Group
2.6 billion a year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros.
11.7 billion a year (with an operating income 845 million higher than previous years in 2007)

Theater chains are hardly "much smaller" businesses, they are one of the most essential parts of the movie industry today. Independent theaters are very much in the minority. True that they may not be able to sue (unsure of this, as I am not a lawyer), but that does not prevent one from making complaints.

In my humble opinion that's a load of crap. Do you know what else actors, producers, directors etc. get publicity for? When you pay to see the movie. I'm sure the bank manager gets into the news too if you rob his bank, especially if you shoot the guy, but you still don't go around robbing banks saying it's ok because they get publicity.

As for the other part, well I don't have any statistics or anything, but apparently neither do you. nevertheless I'm very convinced that only a very, very marginal amount of people download stuff illegally of the internet to "check it out" and buy it with money later. You just end up watching the movie, and never buy it because you already saw it. I used to tell myself I'm not doing anything illegal because I'll just buy the movies later. I gave up after the first two because it just doesn't work like that. That marginal amount of people might be a little bigger when it comes to downloading music as someone might actually download a song or two and then buy the rest of the album, but bands often release singles free off the internet and that's also why God created the MTV, so that people could check out song or two and make up their mind if they want the album or not.

As a whole, both of your remarks are very, very bad attempts at trying to justify illegal downloading. It's illegal, and there's really no way around that. Not even if you try to tell yourself you're not a criminal. You are.

http://torrentfreak.com/indie-movie-...piracy-091110/
True, its only one of a few success stories thanks to torrenting, but they are out there.

[RouVix]

Yes, but, as a whole legality does not translate into morality. How many laws did you break today? Did you cross a busy street not at a crosswalk or waiting for someone to stop for you?

So because you crossed a busy street not at a crosswalk, it's ok to break as many other laws as you want? No matter how petty you think a law is, it's still a law. And as long as it is a law, it's irrelevant to try to argue to yourself and others why you broke it and how morally alright it is. You're still a criminal. I'm still a criminal. But I'm not trying to hide it by making up excuses to justify my actions.

The internet has more or less forced business to outlaw practices such as music sharing, not because is was any more morally good or bad before but because it's more widespread now thanks to the internet. Think about it, back in the early 90's I got Nevermind on a cassette type from a friend, and ended up copying it to give to more friends. I'm sure any popular album made prior to Napster got the same treatment. Copying was not stealing, at least prior to court cases like the Napster guy getting sued or Kevin Mitnick getting tried for theft.

Yes, and heroin used to be legal, too. It aint anymore though, so why don't you go around trying to tell everyone why it's perfectly ok and it's your right to do heroin? What happened in the 90's is completely irrelevant if copying over the internet is illegal now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regal_Entertainment_Group
2.6 billion a year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros.
11.7 billion a year (with an operating income 845 million higher than previous years in 2007)

Theater chains are hardly "much smaller" businesses, they are one of the most essential parts of the movie industry today. Independent theaters are very much in the minority. True that they may not be able to sue (unsure of this, as I am not a lawyer), but that does not prevent one from making complaints.

You just compared the largest and most geographically diverse theatre circuit in the United States to One of the major film studios and it was still 4½ times smaller. My point stands. And everyone knows how well does "making complaints" work. And atleast where I'm from movie theaters ARE making complaints by running anti-piracy adds before the movie and telling us how illegal copying a movie is, how video recorders aren't allowed in the theater and how everyone should "pay attention to the people around us and report suspicious behavior to the staff".

http://torrentfreak.com/indie-movie-...piracy-091110/
True, its only one of a few success stories thanks to torrenting, but they are out there.

In my opinion you really couldn't bring an indie movie into the conversations. Indie moviemakers have completely different agendas than the major producers. Indie moviemakers don't have the marketing and distributing systems as the big corporations and getting their movie pirated is often the the only chance for them to get their movie to the masses. Ever heard of Star Wreck for example? They automatically released their full lenght indie film for free off the internet because they knew it'd be a completely wasted effort to try and make people pay for it. Most of the people who pirated Ink would have never even had the chance to check it out in a theater or Dvd. That is not the case for the mainstream movies.

[PinkPenguin]

...

Perhaps, but just to clear up, I NEVER said that it justified it, I know it's illegal, and what i'm doing is a crime. All i'm saying is, that the people who make the movies don't just get shit from people downloading it, now you may disagree on this, but that is what I think.


Edit: cut down quote. --Sunshine

[TheRabidDeer]

You just compared the largest and most geographically diverse theatre circuit in the United States to One of the major film studios and it was still 4½ times smaller. My point stands. And everyone knows how well does "making complaints" work. And atleast where I'm from movie theaters ARE making complaints by running anti-piracy adds before the movie and telling us how illegal copying a movie is, how video recorders aren't allowed in the theater and how everyone should "pay attention to the people around us and report suspicious behavior to the staff".

Major film studios dont only do movies, if I wanted to make a direct comparison I wouldve mentioned paramount, which AFAIK, only does movies. WB, fox, and many other companies are involved in all kinds of media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_pictures
3 billion a year

And the only other american theater chain that I know of is AMC theaters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Theater
again, 2.5 billion a year. And would you look at that, right up close to Paramount's revenue.

I also think you are a retard for saying a multi-billion dollar company that the film industry needs is small fries.

In my opinion you really couldn't bring an indie movie into the conversations. Indie moviemakers have completely different agendas than the major producers. Indie moviemakers don't have the marketing and distributing systems as the big corporations and getting their movie pirated is often the the only chance for them to get their movie to the masses. Ever heard of Star Wreck for example? They automatically released their full lenght indie film for free off the internet because they knew it'd be a completely wasted effort to try and make people pay for it. Most of the people who pirated Ink would have never even had the chance to check it out in a theater or Dvd. That is not the case for the mainstream movies.

http://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-...lified-091113/
"He mentioned that the leak of an unfinished copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine might have boosted interest in the film"

As I said, there are more stories out there where torrenting may have helped a movie make more money.

[Medium9]

A model that could work in these days:

Studios produce movies like they always did, lease them to cinemas and produce DVDs and Blurays as always, but additionally there is a new internet portal run by either a new independent company, or a consortium of the studios, that receive the movies too.
Then there are two "types" of movies: Completely free ones that serve as an advertiser for some studio/director/actors - these may as well be short movies, of which some are already of really high quality. And then there are the normal movies as we know them.
The internet portal then requires you to create an user account there, that as it self is free. You then may freely download the free movies, and can then chose between two versions of "proper" movies: A "budget" version in mediocre quality, much like most 700MB files you can find on the torrent network today, with only stereo audio an no extra footage whatsoever. Let that cost around 3 bucks each. Additionally you could download a high quality version, like 8GB versions that are pretty close to Bluray quality. Make them cost around 8 to 15 dollars. Those will feature extra footage, and full 5.1 or 7.1 digital audio.
The free movies should come in a common format playable with any player out there, but the payed ones would need to use an encrypted closed format only playable by the client software that comes with an account there. There are plenty of great ways to limit playability to one particular copy of this software, and it must not have any other restriction. This is only to prevent sharing of these, not limit the buyers options. Also, it should be made easy to transfer copy-bound movies to a new copy in case of re-installation of a computer, or changing it entirely. This must work immediately, easily, free of charge and reliably.

I at least would rather spend ~3-5 bucks on some movie, than having to search for a watchable copy and sometimes wait for it to download a bit longish, and engaging a questionable action. If I'm certain that I want top quality, I will be willing to pay more, and since there is a quite large chain of intermediate cost-boosters on the way to a Bluray missing, 8 to 15 dollars should be a decent price for the film itself, and worth a high quality movie night.
The system above could also be incorporated with TV receivers, decoders and game consoles (plus internet connection), to offer this service to non-PC cineasts.

Technically, the whole thing could ideally base on the very torrent network itself! The distributing company hereby can save a LOT of servers and bandwidth. They just need to set up a few seeding boxes on a proper connection, and than offer users to act as remote seeds, distributing the movies they already have. That way movies will have a perfectly balanced out bandwidth availability based on demand and spread.
Users that seed should be granted a price reduction relative to the amount of bandwidth they are willing to spare, so that it isn't only a noble act to make the system work, but to get all those into the boat that need a $-sign to be made doing good things. These price reductions are already financed by the fact that this way the company will need much less servers and bandwidth themselves, and it establishes an amazing availability and robustness.

Wiggle prices and details to make this round and nice, and THAT would be buying/watching movies of TODAY, and has a great potential to make sharing degrade by a LOT without pulling off any costly lawsuit. But sell stuff like that to those concrete headed suit wearers in the upper stories of the studios...

[RouVix]

I also think you are a retard for saying a multi-billion dollar company that the film industry needs is small fries.

And I think you are a retard for saying that I said the theater industry is small fries. Read what I say, then come back (hint: I said smaller, not small). You also managed to completely disregard my other remark about why the movie producers are making a bigger fuzz about it than theaters.

http://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-...lified-091113/
"He mentioned that the leak of an unfinished copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine might have boosted interest in the film"

As I said, there are more stories out there where torrenting may have helped a movie make more money.

I know I just quoted you, but let me quote you again. In pieces, this time:

unfinished copy

might have

interest

Did it say "We loved it how someone pirated our movie and we totally ended up making SO MUCH MORE MONEY!!!" No, it did not. Did it say "After that leaked unfinished copy totally none of those more interested people torrented the movie but actually paid to see it instead"? No, it did not. That article was about one executive from one company saying something his company doesn't agree on and basically just said that the technology is "ok". And that is a hell far away from saying that getting their movies pirated equals to more money.

[TheRabidDeer]

And I think you are a retard for saying that I said the theater industry is small fries. Read what I say, then come back (hint: I said smaller, not small). You also managed to completely disregard my other remark about why the movie producers are making a bigger fuzz about it than theaters.

You said it was MUCH smaller, not smaller. I didnt disregard the other remark, since I havent even seen you mention movie producers since the post I quoted originally. I didnt say anything about it originally because I have nothing to say about it, and I never have. To even mention it here as a method to try and make it appear like I am avoiding certain responses from you in the debate that you and I are having is just ridiculous.

I know I just quoted you, but let me quote you again. In pieces, this time:
Did it say "We loved it how someone pirated our movie and we totally ended up making SO MUCH MORE MONEY!!!" No, it did not. Did it say "After that leaked unfinished copy totally none of those more interested people torrented the movie but actually paid to see it instead"? No, it did not. That article was about one executive from one company saying something his company doesn't agree on and basically just said that the technology is "ok". And that is a hell far away from saying that getting their movies pirated equals to more money.

What it says, in simple terms:
"We think that because the movie was leaked, people that were previously uninterested became interested and went out to see the finished copy, resulting in a possibly higher revenue than we might have otherwise gotten."

The fact that an executive of a major motion picture company says that it is possible that a leaked copy gave them more money is pretty substantial, even if there is no factual basis on just how much (if any) actual gain there was.

Honestly though, what are you even arguing about with me? I provide links to exec's and independent success from torrenting and all youve done is try to disregard it with nothing of your own. All I have seen in the last few years of movies are huge hits that make record sales, despite this horrible torrenting craze.

[Offhand]

So because you crossed a busy street not at a crosswalk, it's ok to break as many other laws as you want? No matter how petty you think a law is, it's still a law. And as long as it is a law, it's irrelevant to try to argue to yourself and others why you broke it and how morally alright it is. You're still a criminal. I'm still a criminal. But I'm not trying to hide it by making up excuses to justify my actions.

I'm not using that argument to justify morality. Laws can and often are based on morals (see murder for example) but that doesn't mean all are. But what I'm trying to say is, legality doesn't necessarily translate into morality. You and I both break the law, but that doesn't mean we need to feel bad because of it. Neither does is mean other's will view a lawbreaker as a bad person (depending on the law). They may, in fact, praise you for it (or ask you for a copy). I find murder and rape deplorable, I don't find copying music files or smoking weed deplorable.

The solution isn't to try and stop the filesharing completely. They tried to shut down Napster, we all downloaded Kazaa. They tried scare tactics by suing old grannies who's grandchildren downloaded a few mp3s, that caused more backlash then anything. The solution isn't to try and stop downloading altogether. Short of some kind of Orwellian laws could that actually happen. They should instead focus on working within the system, because technology is increasing to the point where filesharing is more efficient, fast, and discrete enough to get rid of.

Companies are just starting to do that now. There's so much TV available on the internet that you don't even really need to get cable anymore. And these sites are hosted by the TV stations that make the shows. I've seen every Daily Show with Jon Stewart since I was in high school, I haven't paid for TV in the past three years.

[RouVix]

You said it was MUCH smaller, not smaller. I didnt disregard the other remark, since I havent even seen you mention movie producers since the post I quoted originally. I didnt say anything about it originally because I have nothing to say about it, and I never have. To even mention it here as a method to try and make it appear like I am avoiding certain responses from you in the debate that you and I are having is just ridiculous.

I'm not even sure how this whole arguments is relevant to the subject in this thread. I think it was someones (yours?) vague attempt at justifying illegal downloading "because it can't really be that big a deal because movie theaters aren't making a fuzz about it". What I said is that Movies theaters DO make a fuzz about it, but they can't make a big legal fuzz about because they aren't the copyright holders. Instead, you argued sematics and posted fairly irrelevant numbers.

What it says, in simple terms:
"We think that because the movie was leaked, people that were previously uninterested became interested and went out to see the finished copy, resulting in a possibly higher revenue than we might have otherwise gotten."

The fact that an executive of a major motion picture company says that it is possible that a leaked copy gave them more money is pretty substantial, even if there is no factual basis on just how much (if any) actual gain there was.

Honestly though, what are you even arguing about with me? I provide links to exec's and independent success from torrenting and all youve done is try to disregard it with nothing of your own. All I have seen in the last few years of movies are huge hits that make record sales, despite this horrible torrenting craze.

No, it does not say that. That executive does not mention money. Don't try to bring it in yourself when it's not mentioned in the article. It also does not say "people that were previously uninterested became interested". It says "might have boosted interest in the film"

And the fact that an executive of a major motion picture company says that Bittorrent is in fact a very nice technology (He did NOT say a leaked copy gave them more money) is not pretty substantial. The guy's the director of technology at Warner Bros. and perhaps understands, on a personal level, just how good bittorrent is as a technology and decided to take a warmer approach on the matter instead of cold hearted hate like others who participated in that conversation. That does NOT mean that Warner Bros.'s official opinion on the matter is "we love bittorrent and it's ok to illegally download our movies!".

Now lets go back to the first post. Panoramixe is writing a paper on the ethical questions around downloading copyrighted material off the internet and compares "the rights of the downloaders to those of the artists and record labels (among others)". And if we base the conversation on this, there is no other outcome that "downloading copyrighted material is wrong and illegal". The downloaders have no rights what so ever to download anything copyrighted from the internet and there are no excuses for it. No number of links about indie films and movie execs. not saying stuff you think they say is going to change that. If you want a change, write to your congressman.

Sure the movie producers and music industry should get their heads out of their asses and realize that the market has shifted and find ways to make those downloaders pay for for what they download. That doesn't mean, though, that it's ok to keep downloading in the meanwhile. It's a crime, and just because you don't think it's a big crime doesn't make it morally right and there is really no way to discuss around the simple fact that it's a law. Even if you're being "honest" and only downloading something you own and "just checking out", someone else is breaking the law by giving you the material.

[Chrus]

Wall of text o.O, thats not like me at all

I haven't read through the pages yet.

Now what I write is based on what I and the people I talk with do, that is by no where how every one else feel about it

As a downloader. I download alot, that can be both movies, series or music, and also games / programs, such as CS or logic.
The reason why I do such, "Crime" is that I don't know a program before I tryed it, I don't know a movie before I've watched it, I don't know if a band has what I like before listening to it and I don't know if a game is fun before I've tryed it.

This means that the downloading i do, is the "trial" the try out, if I download a CD I do it to see if it's a band I would like, if they make music with sence, music with a special style which fits one of my needs. Yes with songs there is a chance that I can just do it on youtube ofc, but not always possiple to find all songs there.
When I have heard a song, and found I liked it, then ofc I will buy the CD. The artist need to get money for what he does, but if I had not downloaded the CD at first I would have no idea what kind of music it was, and I would not had bought it either.

This gives the conclusion that the artist "gain" money from me downloading it, as if I hadn't done so I would not have bough the CD and he would had gotten any money at all

Same goes for movies, I download a movie to see if I like it, if I do I will go buy it, if I didn't like it, well yeah the producer loses alitle, since I Watched a movie with out paying, but the chance is biggest that I download a movie that I will like, I Rarely ever find one that I didn't. so in this case the producer again earn money because I buy it, if I hadn't seen it first I wouldn't have bought it, and the producer would not had earned anything.

This give the conclusion that the producer "gain" money from me downloading it, while there is a chance that he wont, if I didn't like it, the chance that I would buy it after is bigger as I don't download movies that I "based of the story, I've read" already know I wouldn't like.

Games, online games I can get trial accounts for, and some single player games you can download a trial of, but there is still way more games which I can not try out and only way to try it else wards is to buy it. Well this is my opinion but I will not pay for something that I in 20min after starting will stop because it's crap.
Because of this I download the games first, I try it out if I liked it, if I do I buy it.

Again same as above, the game company "gains" money from it, in this case the chance for not doing so is abit bigger than with movies, but I still buy more games than I ignor. and again, I will not buy a game which I don't know if I like, so buy downloading I get the chance and there for there is a chance for the game company to earn money

Programs, same as everything else, I might read about a program somewhere and in most programs you can download a trial, but it do happen that you can't. This is where I then download it to try it out, programs as CS4, yes this has a trial, but if we say it did not. There is no chance that I will buy something that expensive for there after 2 hours later relizing it would be crap. There for I download the program, first, I try it out and if it can what I need I buy a lisence for it.

Do I need to post my conclusion?

The above goes for my friends as well, maybe there is some who do not do it, but they don't say it then, and I can't know if it because of that..


Artist, now I'm from denmark, so I can't really say I've talked to any world artist, D.A.D maybe?
anyway, those which I have talked with do not complain that much.

They either believe that people do like me, listen to the songs then if they liked it, they go buy it.
or if it's smaller bands they are happy about it, if more people hear their songs, there is mroe people which may like it. They will then show the songs to friends and the pyramid has begon.

Now I've not talked with, but seen a interview with nightwish where they say that they don't mind people downloading, most part buy it anyway at a later time, and when someone downlaods a song they might show it to friends and there for get a bigger "fan" group, or to say just more people that liek their music

[Panoramixe]

I guess I'll join into the conversation again and I bring numbers with me:
http://www.bi.no/BI-Startpage2/Facts...-CD-purchases/
This survey had some extremely interesting conclusions:
1) People downloading illegally are also the ones paying the most for legal media. So if the entertainment industry punishes illegal downloading, they're punishing their best customers. (The entertainment industry wanted to punish illegal downloading by limiting or revoking internet access, doubt they would suggest such a thing after reading this survey.)
2) Paid downloading is more common than unpaid downloading. I find this fact extremely interesting, given that paid downloading is usually quite annoying. Payment methods are often too limited and it's far easier to find a torrent than a legal download.

But back to my "solution". TV has proven it possible to offer series/movies without having people pay for more than a cable fee, they rely on advertising.
There is no reason this can't be done on the internet (at a much larger scale than now), since advertising on the internet is cheaper to make, more direct (you can link straight to your website for a sale) and easier to value (you can track how many people saw your banner and how many clicked on it, you can even see how many made a sale after using said banner.)

[Elementium]

I guess I'll join into the conversation again and I bring numbers with me:
http://www.bi.no/BI-Startpage2/Facts...-CD-purchases/
This survey had some extremely interesting conclusions:
1) People downloading illegally are also the ones paying the most for legal media. So if the entertainment industry punishes illegal downloading, they're punishing their best customers. (The entertainment industry wanted to punish illegal downloading by limiting or revoking internet access, doubt they would suggest such a thing after reading this survey.)
2) Paid downloading is more common than unpaid downloading. I find this fact extremely interesting, given that paid downloading is usually quite annoying. Payment methods are often too limited and it's far easier to find a torrent than a legal download.

But back to my "solution". TV has proven it possible to offer series/movies without having people pay for more than a cable fee, they rely on advertising.
There is no reason this can't be done on the internet (at a much larger scale than now), since advertising on the internet is cheaper to make, more direct (you can link straight to your website for a sale) and easier to value (you can track how many people saw your banner and how many clicked on it, you can even see how many made a sale after using said banner.)

Not bad. The TV point is very good. There is already sites like Hulu.com which offer TONS of movies and TV shows for free with maybe 3 ads per episode (1 before the usual theme song one in the middle then at the end).

[lzsg]

But back to my "solution". TV has proven it possible to offer series/movies without having people pay for more than a cable fee, they rely on advertising.
There is no reason this can't be done on the internet (at a much larger scale than now), since advertising on the internet is cheaper to make, more direct (you can link straight to your website for a sale) and easier to value (you can track how many people saw your banner and how many clicked on it, you can even see how many made a sale after using said banner.)

It's a very good idea, and there are several music and video services already doing this. Hulu and Spotify are just two examples of it. I see no reason why it wouldn't continue to grow, either. It's really easy to access, it's free, and you've got loads and loads of material to enjoy.