A lawsuit waiting to happen?

One of the principals on which the MPAA (Movie Picture Association of America) and similar organisations pin their continued lawsuit-fest against average people downloading copies of DVDs and movies, is that ever download represents lost revenue. You are stealing from the movie companies, affectively for some amount that is a multiple of the profit they make on, what would have been a sale.

If you accept the premise that one download equals one lost sale then it isn't too much of a jump to accept the conslusion that it is theft (by some definition). However, the premise is, at the very least, based on no actual concrete evidence or reliable statistics and at worst is plain wrong. So while it is most deinitely illegal to copy copyrighted works more fuss is being made than is really justified given that alot of those 'potential sales' would never really happen.

Anyway, a thought just occurred to me: in my previous blog post I was hyping up the latest Dan Brown movie, Angels & Demons, and, while I can't claim to have a fantastically wide readership there might be the odd person who I influence to see the movie. I also mentioned Star Trek in negative terms so might turn people off seeing that.

I doubt I'm going to get anything for the free publicity for Angels & Demons even if my opinion did affect a significant number of people and equally it would seem preposterous for me to be sued/charged for the lost in revenue caused by me saying Star Trek is a bit pants and not worth a look. However, if I let someone have a copy of the DVDs for these films when they come out I would be liable for a trip to court.

But what if the people I gave the DVDs to were the ones that would never have bought it? There is no potential lost sale there. If I did NOT let them have a copy they wouldn't have bought one anyway.

So, the question is, should the movie companies try and squash bad reviews of their films to protect their profits in the same way they attempt to do with 'illegal' downloads? No, they can't do that (bet they wish they could). Should they be able to claim lost sales as a reason to sue people, no, that doesn't make sense either. Should they try and provide more sensible ways to get their movies, e.g. cheap lower-quality downloads (supplemented with advertising revenue and other techniques), yep, that seems like a better idea :D

I must not watch tear-jerker chick-flicks!

Flicking through the channels while trying to rest in the hotel room and I came across "Beaches" which I haven't watched in ages (I have the soundtrack on CD somewhere and use to play it endlessly ... ooo, I actually have it on the mp3 player as well :D )

So started watching from about 1/2 through and towards the time I had to go down and get some food it was getting to the end and I remembered why I don't watch films like this too much; they make me cry my heart out!

It's even worse when I can even predict some of the dialogue

CC Bloom: "I know everything about you, and my memory is long" (CC walks away)
Hilary: "I'm counting on it"

Even more moving; Hilary is admitted to hospital, with little time left and, when CC arrives, says she doesn't want to be seen like this, she wants to leave ... CC goes and gives the hospital staff hell and gets her out and back to the beach house.

Thankfully at the point when "Wind beneath your wings" started to play I turned the TV off and went for some food otherwise I would have been a blubbering wreck!

Don't get my started on Titanic either! I've never dared watch that again after crying so much I thought my (female) friend was going to walk out and leave me in the cinema!

So now I prefer to stick to things with a happy ending ... I still cry at those anyway :D

Just .... well ... just annoying!

I don't like censorship. It's just plain wrong.

If someone has something to say then they should be able to say it. Okay that's a bit of an over simplification since there are obviously issues of libel, accuracy, etc to consider but these should not be dealt with by blocking or censoring the original material.

So something like the following article gets me really, really annoyed:

IFPI Forces Danish ISP to Block The Pirate Bay

The whole copyright issue is a different matter, I'm not debating (well not yet) whether it's right/wrong to offer such items for download, but as the article points out, all the Pirate Bay does is provide links to these items, they don't host them.

It's been argued in many places that simply having links is, in itself, not illegal - for all practical purposes you could never make it illegal as the whole of the web works on links! Presumably this argument also stands up in court, if not the Pirate Bay would surely have been shutdown a long time ago?

In fact, if there was enough evidence to make a good case that the Pirate Bay is operating illegally then surely you could get an injunction directly against them pending a decision along these lines.

No, it doesn't appear to be that simple, so instead we see this type of action where access is censored. Well it's censored for now, as mentioned in the article there are ways round any such measures.

So the IFPI (and by association any other such organisations like the MPAA) are now very unpopular, they've spent money on the court case, presumably alot of money since I guess lawyers specialising in this area are expensive, and they have achieved what? Well nothing really. I bet torrents will still be accessibly, P2P tools are still out there, people are still downloading movies, the only real affect has been bad publicity, a waste of money, and the start of a slippery slope into censorship.

The solution? Well, I don't know what the real solution is but I would suggest that the money and time here would be better spent in coming up with some service that will tempt people away from their 'criminal' activities by giving them something they clearly want (online download of movies) with some added value (for a cost).

You simply can't fight Piracy head on, it is totally and utterly impossible, the only way to win is to offer something easier, better and more attractive - so that probably means setting up a legal Pirate Bay equivalent that can make money through subscriptions, advertising, marketing, and many other revenue streams ... oh and of course you'd save all that money on lawyers fees as well :D

UPDATE: I spoke too soon:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/ifpi_baidu_china_yahoo/