Steal This Film 276
SargeantLobes writes "Steal This Film is the first part of a free documentary series about file-sharing. This part focuses on The Pirate Bay, and copyfighters Piratbyran. From their website: "There have been a few documentaries by 'old media' crews who don't understand the net and see peer-to-peer organisation as a threat to their livelihoods. They have no reason to represent the filesharing movement positively. And no capacity to represent it lucidly.""The film is free for you to share, watch on your DVD-player or on your iPod, or show in cinemas." Torrents are available on their website, or watch part one, two, three and four on YouTube."
Confusion About Abbie Hoffman (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, when I saw this title, I thought immediately, Abbie Hoffman [wikipedia.org]--a revolutionary.
Abbie authored Steal This Book [tenant.net] which was made into Steal This Movie [imdb.com] which was then inspired Steal This Wiki [nine9pages.com]. I heavily advise reading/watching all of them.
If the four parts of "Steal This Film" have the same spirit as Abbie Hoffman's movement, then I'd probably be OK with this. And from what I've read of Hoffman's work, I think that he would be speaking out against the **AA left and right were he alive today. I'm just concerned that people will be tempted to confuse these two cinematic features.
I don't have the time to watch the first parts right now but can anyone tell me if this really is a documentary like the summary says? Because when I go to the site, they are asking for donations and from their page: (their caps, not mine) This doesn't seem to be a documentary so much as a kind of biased viewpoint of file-sharing. Aren't documentaries supposed to show all sides of the story and pose the most important views so that the viewer can understand the whole situation perfectly? And what documentaries are they thinking about that are made by 'old media' crews? Actually, the one documentary I have seen is Revolution OS [revolution-os.com] which is definitely not 'old media' crews. There's no use for me to watch a documentary that simply makes me say, "Right on, brother! Preach to the choir!" I can get that if I mention RIAA or MPAA to anyone my age.
Some enjoyable quotes from Hoffman (taken from the Wikipedia entry about him):
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman (Score:5, Insightful)
in fact, there's hasn't been any objective documentaries made, ever. the views of the filmmakers always shines through one way or another.
</film nerd statement>
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a massive difference between "filmmaker's view shining through" and "film created to make a point". I agree with you on the former, but we're discussing the latter here. No offense, but your point isn't really relevant (albeit likely accurate). What we're talking about here are "documentaries" designed to sell an idea. there exist documentaries that either a
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I honestly wouldn't have ever guessed that. Your English is great.
What you're saying is that the very act of capturing something on film is taking an opinion on it. That's true, and it is a bias, but it's not a deliberate bias. The bias I'm talking about isn't "this story needs to be told", it's "this is the answer, the other guy is a twit". "I want to tell this story" is a totally different level of bias compared to "This is my point of view disgused as fact". The f
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with opion and bias. However, what we need to do is accept the fact that opinions and biases exist, so when we see/hear something we don't blindly accpet it as truth. Doing that simple task (although difficult for some) is a very good first step in being able to have better understanding of the underlying topics.
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman (Score:4, Insightful)
And what exactly would that massive difference be?
It's impossible to create an "unbiased" work; I think this is mathematical fact [jerf.org], in the highest sense of the term, not a mere rhetorical point.
Given this impossibility, the only difference between "filmmaker's view shining through" and "film to make a [presumably different] point" is how honest the filmmaker is being about their own point of view.
I'd honestly rather see a documentary that accurately reflects the maker's viewpoint, because anything else is likely to be dishonest and probably sub-par, because if they don't believe what they are saying that, too, tends to come through.
The key point here is that it is possible to hold a nuanced opinion, or to believe that the situation is very complicated and you just want to give up, or that the situation is pretty complicated, here's what I think the facts are, here's my call, your call may differ based on the same facts. I know this because I have many opinions of my own of that nature. This is only bad if you assume that everybody always has firm opinions about every question, which I think is something that only someone naive enough to have firm opinions about every question can believe. (Many other people don't think this explicitly, but clearly reason with it as an implicit point.)
All documentaries "make a point". The better people may make documentaries with more nuanced points, but points nonetheless. The only question is whether the filmmaker is lying about their viewpoint to appear "unbiased", and whether they are lying about the facts.
"Unbiased" is actually itself a social construct that prescribes certain beliefs and viewpoints, and is definitely a bias itself; for instance, the "unbiased" social construct states that if there are two opposing sides, and that both sides have the slightest fact in their favor, than we are obligated to throw up our hands and say "We can't decide who's right, the situation is complicated." It doesn't matter how overwhelming the evidence may be, if we are to be "unbiased" we must not make a call. Without speaking to the truth or falsehood of this view, that itself constitutes a "bias" in both the mathematical and human sense (which overlap more than it may appear upon casual inspection of the mathematical definition(s)), a "bias" against making firm decisions about who is right and wrong. This is merely one part of the "unbiased" myth; ultimately the very word is an oxymoron.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the difference between "I'm interested in this, so I talk about it" (bias based on subject selection) and "This is what I think, wrapped up and packaged as fact" (deliberately misleading bias). I only consider the second one actual bias, because anyone who makes a documentary on (let's say) the an
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman (Score:4, Insightful)
But rather than taking the obvious argumentative tack of trying once again to convince you of How Wrong You Are In The Light Of My Obvious And Transcendental Rightness (TM)*, I'm going to point out this is a great example of different biases (in the mathematical sense), in this case about the nature of documentaries. You are making a claim that with my personal biases basically can't even be expressed. With your biases, clearly there is one.
Who's right? Who's wrong? And most interestingly of all, do those questions even make sense with such a subjective subject?
Personally, I tend towards separating the act of "definition" or "distinction" from the act of analyzing the distinction. So you have provided a definition/distinction, I've disagreed that it means anything, and now it is for the reader to decide.
The upshot being that neither of us can claim to have an "unbiased" opinion about the goodness of a given documentary. (Not that you were making that claim any more than I was.)
(*: Just to be clear, that's sarcasm.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot CNN. CNN is every bit as biased as Fox News. If you want unbiased reporting, you know, actual journalism, you'll need to start your own network. it seems every network out there selectively presents the "news" to proselytize their own philosophies. The best you can do as a viewer is to watch multiple sources and come to your own conclusions. :( Gone are the days of an
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say my examples were exclusive. I picked a biased liberal and a biased conservative. If you'd rather the comparison be Al Franken vs. Ann Coulter or Michael Moore vs. Rush Limbaugh or whatever, go for it. The point isn't in the examples it's in the fact that this is extending a pre-existing political trend to other social issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Confusion About Abbie Hoffman (Score:5, Funny)
I'm such a wuss, I bought my copy. My only excuse is that I was just a kid and didn't understand the ethics of theft.
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, if only...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Yes, and the penalities are actually much less for stealing property, if you get caught."
The confusion is the media's fault -- whenever the RIAA or MPAA goes after a file-sharing whale, the press paints it as if they were busted for "downloading," when the reality is that they were nailed for making a bunch of stuff available for distribution.
Thus, "person nailed for filesharing" and "person nailed for shoplifting a CD" is not the best comparison. Closer to the mark is "person nailed for filesharing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The documentary is basically showing the Pirate Bay's side of the story, including the political muscle-work of the MPAA/RIAA via the US and Swedish governments to arrest citizens in sweden without any (local) legal basis. (The Pirate Bay was not sharing movies, just meta-data, which doesn't seem to be illegal in Sweden).
I'd say they bring a message that the endless plots to pull money out of the distribution problem of old, is no longer very plausi
Webpage design (Score:2, Funny)
Pretty intresting website design. Kind of refreshing to see a page that can do without flash, gif animations, even images and still be... kind of stylish...
sig?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's with the javascript to generate the text then? Surely they could have done it with regular HTML so that people with no js would still be ok?
On my site [ccalam.com] I've tried to create 'an atmosphere' with text effects and yeah. it also makes it pretty hard to read.
But! I use regular HTML and with js to apply the effect - if you have js off you just get regular text. I also let you turn the effect off if you don't like it.
Re:Webpage design (Score:5, Informative)
And yet, the page -- which is simply text -- is needlessly generated using javascript, rendering it as a black nothingness for those of us surfing with javascript disabled.
Funny? (Score:2)
Anyway, back on topic... while it's not the most versatile visual layout in the world, it sure is the first time in a long time that I've seen a truly fresh, different, interesting and creative visual style like this. All the better that they built it without any annoying gizmos. Mui bueno, thanks for pointing it out.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
*pout*
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, could it possibly have been easier to do it that way than in, say, Dreamweaver?
HTTP? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
iPod Video file - http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3514718/StealThisFilm. Part1.iPod.m4v [thepiratebay.org]
DVD Image - http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3514722/StealThisFilm. Part1.iso [thepiratebay.org]
Here you go (Score:2)
http://aaaa.ws/StealThisFilm.Part1.mov [aaaa.ws]
In Korea (Score:2, Insightful)
Moviesizes (Score:2, Informative)
Regular
DVD
Don't Understand? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds to me like they understand the net perfectly, because P2P networks as they're currently used *are* a threat to their livelihoods. Note that this isn't the fault of the technology, but the people using it. And the threat isn't all that big or serious, but it is there.
And while I respect the fact that they're releasing their film in this manner, I wish they'd respect the rights of the people making the content they facilitate the downloading of. But hey, that's just my opinion...
Re:Don't Understand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily. There are some risks to P2P for content providers, but P2P can be helpful in some instances (getting you hooked on a show, like what the high piracy rate of "33" did for BSG). A model based around P2P could work even better. P2P might harm some business models (release a crappy movie, overhype it, and hope everyone sees it on week 1), but other business models survive.
Re: (Score:2)
If the folks getting hooked on Battlestar Galactica went and watched it on TV or bought the DVD, it's a win for the makers. If they went and downloaded them all from The Pirate Bay, it isn't. That's why I say it's really down to the people not the technology. And they can't force people to buy their stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It tends to harm the business models where creators of a work, and those who financed it, get money in return.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"P2P might harm some business models (release a crappy movie, overhype it, and hope everyone sees it on week 1), but other business models survive."
For example, the folks who run TPB and Kazaa are very wealthy indeed. Perhaps the TPB folks aren't millionaires yet like the principals of Shaman Networks, but they'll be there soon.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not like they (the Pirate Bay) actively go out and find torrents, nor it it like they don't have torrents pointing to legal content.
It's quite literally not their job to police their users' activities; they are not required to do so by their local law.
Meanwhile, there's a separation between filesharers and customers; do you know what it is?
Income.
Example:
Low income human: I do not have expendable incom
Re:Don't Understand? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only people I know who use P2P file sharing are friends of mine who just want everything that comes out so they download them and then play them on their $10,000 entertainment systems. I think for them it is the fun of getting something for free rather than an issue of income that drives them to file sharing.
Dunno, maybe I am just sheltered and don't know the file sharers who would truly qualify as "low income humans"
"Income" might not be the best metric (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not really an excuse for piracy so much as an explanation of the motives involved. Given the choice between paying for something and getting the exact same thing (or something they value equivalently) for free, people are always going to pick free. Honestly I think the reason people with higher incomes don't download is not because they see much additional value in the DVD, but because they value their time more highly, and don't want to mess around with file sharing programs or hunting down torrents. At a certain point, it just becomes easier to drive down to Blockbuster/Best Buy and buy the disc than it does to download it. It's an opportunity cost calculation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that the most convenient and time
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People buy entertainment from their disposable income.
There are spin off rules that are also (at least approximately) true:
People who buy more than trivial amounts of entertainment with non-disposable income soon take themselves out of the market.
People who spend less on one form of enter
Re: (Score:2)
A 'high speed' connection (i.e., fast enough to non-painfully run bittorrent) runs about $15/mo (DSL).
The friend I reference as 'low income' makes $16k/yr and rents an apartment. He doesn't bother paying for cable, 'cos the two shows he actually watches on TV are available as torrents about an hour before they finish first-airing.
So yeah. The fact that you live around a hoarde of rich-bitches is not a denial of my point.
Re: (Score:2)
And I know they're not breaking the law, and that they're not required to police their users. I just have the vague wish that people would respect the wishes of people who create or supply things. A lot of people slate the MPAA/RIAA for producing crappy stuff, but this crappy stuff is the most popular and widely available material on these sites. If people put half as much effort into finding and promoting good alternatives as they do into spreading the mainstream, we'd ha
Re: (Score:2)
"Poor college students" aren't, "instantaneous price repair" *is* theft, and no, you don't get a pony.
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled "have". Big difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I call it "a bullshit excuse for being a cheapskate". Just because you don't agree with the price for something doesn't give you a license to steal/P2P it (I expect the usual hundred responses talking about how "copyright infringement isn't stealing", and it isn't. I know that. It's just a useful shorthand. Give it a rest.)
You do not NEED major label music, big name films or anything like that. If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. Listen to the ra
Yup (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe not you in particular, but the copyright extensions that have gone through since copyright's inception in the US in 1790 seem like a plot against the customers of content creators. Read the below if you don't believe me.
REF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyrig ht_Act_of_1976
http://en.wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No [magnatune.com] they wouldn't [salon.com]. Not if they were smart.
Important quote for the lazy:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thankfully, just because a particular legal argument isn't va
Re: (Score:2)
With that said I ask, is it illegal for a pawn shop to list their items and their address online? Or for the police to list seized contraband i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They barely understand the net at all. They understand it just enough to see that it is a threat to their livelyhoods. They don't care about any more than that. I can't really blame them.
Re: (Score:2)
You can make them used to an alternative form of content though, which will cause them to not become your customer when they will start making money. It is as simple as that. When I was a student, I went to library and read 3 books a week for free, I got my games and movies from friends and I didn't pay a cent for them. I didn't really have the money to pay. Now I am somewhat older
Re: (Score:2)
Face it, CD sales are just going to end soon. DVD sales a little while after that. When Dell starts shipping computers with BearShare preinstalled that will be really a sign that it is over.
It's a trap! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yea, right (Score:2)
And what do these people have to show the copyright holders in a positive light?
Preaching to the Choir (Score:4, Insightful)
For the record (since this sort of thing often comes up in these discussions) I am a content creator who thinks copyright should expire after a decade, period. I give most of my works away for free, but figure on revenue-generating works that if you can't make money off it in ten years it either sucks, or you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, why don't you forward links to the movies to friends/family members/acquaintances who might not be aware of the 'other side'?
Or even burn a copy gfor those who are a little less web-savvy? Maybe even send a copy to your local and state legislators, along with a letter about why they need to watch the film? I
I want to buy it. (Score:2)
One thing is for sure (Score:5, Interesting)
One of my coworkers said "you know, this movie's so unrestrained and poorly done that you actually respect all those big generic Hollywood movies for at least being coherent." You felt that maybe these guy's weren't right: we needed to pay for IP because the only movies that'd be left would be horrible pieces of crap like this.
Four parts was unnecessary. The whole episode was given no context (no history of IP at the beginning to set the table, no explanations of the differences in nations' IP laws or how international treaties work. Of course the creators might not know any of that themselves... which came off in a sense that they where really talking from the selfish desire to get away with whatever they want. And that's no way to sway opinion). There was no objective devil's advocacy (is there such thing as bad IP theft? Bad theft? What of Hollywood's concern about the East Asian bootleg DVD markets?), no attempt at compromise (is there some way to maintain creator's right to his work while at the same time preserving the consumer's right to fair use) or suggestion for future international law. Basically the movie just blew a big raspberry at corporations which makes the fair use camp seem childish. The only result is that fair use will get marginalized and ignored. The exact opposite effect of actually changing the landscape of intra- and international copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, they took the cool title already. I guess 'P2P' is still available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great movies aren't always about great CGI and slick editing. Check out Hard Boiled or The Killer (Woo/Fat) or Clerks for examples. Which is not to say that this documentary is a great movie, but that even if copyright infringement did lead to a decline in production values, it would not necessarily lead to a decline in the quality of movies. The sterile and prohibitive movie industry in America has its
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really think "fair use" comes into the P2P equation at all. Downloading/uploading whole songs, movies or albums certainly doesn't come under fair use whatsoever. If anything the debate over DRM is the right place for discussion of fair use.
Holy Crap (Score:2)
That websites just scary.
YouTube a sex site? (Score:2)
*sigh* (Score:2)
The summary talks about how "old media" (gotta love that, I presume making shit for no reward is "new media") have a problem with P2P because it's a threat to their livelihood. Well, really, wouldn't you? Of COURSE it's a threat to their livelihood, of COURSE they're not going to stand up and say "YES, it's absolutely A-OK for people to leech o
If It's Free (Score:2)
How Downloading Pirated Video Cost Me $400+ (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The idea that this is some kind of marketing channel is absurd. You downloaded one show and gave up because the pirates aren't doing a good enough job. By purchasing the product you are undercutting your entire generation and all people that are demanding free access to entertainment everywhere.
No, this is a form of advertising because for every person tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe he just, I dunno, wanted to support the people who made the show?
Steal This Film fails to persuade... (Score:5, Interesting)
And unfortunately, I think they only half-succeeded. They historical events don't seem to be lacking at all, but TPB seemed to lack any philosophical basis for their reasons to justify piracy. Honestly, I came into this movie hoping to get more ammunition to justify piracy, but because there didn't seem to be a real argument in favor it, I actually came away from the movie thinking that it is wrong.
One of the 'Pirates' was explaining that she felt that it was against her ethics to buy a CD or movie on DVD. That's it. No explanation. Another remarked that he felt by supporting TPB and facilitating the theft of over 150,000 copyrighted materials he was committing 'civil disobedience'. Could you elaborate?
Unfortunately, TPB really seems to cast itself in an immature light with their reasoning in favor of piracy. For example, they played a clip of an MPAA executive stating that obvious economic facts that their product cannot just be given away for free. TPB's response? "It's not my problem to come up with an answer."
Interesting. TPB, at least through this documentary, really tries to portray itself as an advocate for change in intellectual property laws, but fails (in my opinion) to offer any real compelling reason why that should be, and fails again in really pushing for an alternative to outrageous movie prices and the equally ridiculous idea of getting it for free.
They were right about a few things, though. The MPAA and RIAA really do need to change their business model. With the advent of online music stores such as iTunes, the RIAA is slowly moving into the 21st century along with the rest of the world's digital civilization, but even still, their model for business is quite inept for the age we're in.
People ought to be able to get music and have fair use with it. Before the age of Digital Rights Management (DRM), it was quite easy to be able to buy a CD, duplicate it, make mixes of different songs, copy it to a cassette tape, etc. within the bounds of personal use. The new locks that come with downloadable content are unacceptable because they remove the ability of the user to play it whenever, wherever, and on whatever they want. This only adds fuel and justification to the piracy movement.
No, "Steal This Film" fails in providing a real compelling pro-piracy justification. But who knows, maybe in Part Two (scheduled for release in two months) they'll redeem themselves. Until then, TPB really has lost ground on the offensive.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer from many young people is that because it is so easy and cheap to do so, they should be allowed to do it freely. Obviously, this attitude doesn't have a lot of deep thinking behind it, as this movie shows.
The other side that people keep ignoring is that non-digital physical distribution is still necessary
Re: (Score:2)
The answer from many young people is that because it is so easy and cheap to do so, they should be allowed to do it freely. Obviously, this attitude doesn't have a lot of deep thinking behind it, as this movie shows.
That's not really a reason to abolish fair use rights, and in my view there CAN be no reason. As I've s
Re: (Score:2)
"Another remarked that he felt by supporting TPB and facilitating the theft of over 150,000 copyrighted materials he was committing 'civil disobedience'."
Can somebody who's seen the film explain whether this fellow is truly practicing civil disobedience, by (for example) informing the authorities (if appropriate) and the media companies that he is pirating their stuff? That is civil disobedience: breaking the law in a spectacularly obvious fashion, getting busted, and drawing attention to yourself. Yes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. Potentially because when viewing both points of view, we get an approximation of the reality concerning Filesharing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not wrong about that. However, it's a delicate game to play. If you present a "documentary" that shows both sides in a debate where only one side is getting any airplay otherwise, you extend legitimacy to that side.
Instead, you must do what your grade-school teachers told you to do: present the other side point by point, and refute them. In this day and age, you must do so in rapid succession, since the attention span of your viewer is really short - you need to get the rebuttal in before they've
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'Course, you appear to be a coot of some nature. Shame you posted as AC; I'd be able to 'Foe' you.
Wait a tick... when did Slashdot become Myspace?
Re:"Generation Steal" (Score:4, Insightful)
When it comes to the likes of online distribution of music and movies, chances are you're really talking about the former. That's not activism, that's being cheap.