The BBC Rehashes MPAA Propaganda
Written by Ben Jones on April 25, 2009As a government owned corporation the BBC has a duty to educate, and be evenhanded in its dealings with subjects. Yet in a recent segment on their long-running ‘Film’ program, currently hosted by Jonathon Ross, the BBC ran a biased segment straight from the MPAA. The BBC on the other hand, believes it was fair and balanced.
Let’s get things straight from the off, we know that as a major television producer the BBC has a vested interest in the goings on of copyright policy. However, the BBC also has a mission to ‘inform, educate and entertain’, so when the March 31st edition of “Film 2009 with Jonathon Ross” featured a section talking about piracy, it was worth investigating.
The 5 minute segment focused on an MPAA funded study by a group called the RAND corporation. The study – which was widely criticized early last month – is back with a new coat of paint. This time though, it’s being broadcast to the movie-going British public with the appearance of solid fact, and has addressed none of the questions we brought up just after the study was released.
Perhaps the choice of interviewees might shed some light on ‘why?’ a bit better.
* Keiron Sharp – Director General, Federation Against Copyright Theft.
* John Woodward – CEO, UK Film Council.
* Gregory Treverton – Director of RAND, the study’s authors.
* Callum McDougall – Executive Producer for Quantum of Solace.
This selection seems to be a bit one sided to say the least. If you’re wondering what’s so special about the last name, it might be because you didn’t go to see that film at the cinema. Just before the film was played, a short advert voiced by Quantum star Daniel Craig, talked about how “piracy was costing people jobs”.
McDougall also gave a speech last winter to a UK copyright industry lobby group saying how the industry will fall “like a house of cards” if downloading continues at current levels. This same group, the Industry Trust for IP Awareness, tried to push much the same message on terrorism and piracy almost 5 years ago.
One of our readers was angered by the bias of the segment and wrote a complaint to the BBC. After a few weeks of waiting a reply came back from BBC Complaints, and it was none too satisfying.
Thank you for your e-mail regarding ‘Film 2009 with Jonathan Ross’ as broadcast on 31 March.
I note you felt the report on this programme about copyright theft wasn’t adequately balanced as it only featured interviews with people from the film industry. I appreciate you felt we allowed a distorted view of this issue to be portrayed and note you have strong views regarding this matter.
This report focused in on a legitimate problem for both the film industry and the authorities as they try to tackle what is an ever increasing and profitable criminal activity. We feel the report outlined the laws surrounding the issue of film piracy adequately and that the interviewees from the film industry were entirely appropriate people to comment on the problem.
Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our output, and we feel this report was fully balanced in it’s coverage of copyright theft. Nevertheless I appreciate our audience has a wide range of opinions and inevitably this means that not every viewer will agree with the content of every programme we broadcast. We know all our editorial decisions are subjective and we’d never expect our audience to agree with every decision we make.
With this in mind that I’d like to take this opportunity to assure you that I’ve recorded your comments, including that you believe this topic deserves a more in depth investigation, onto our audience log. This is an internal daily report of audience feedback which is circulated to many BBC staff including senior management, producers and channel controllers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for contacting us.
Regards
Liam Boyle
BBC Complaints
Of course, there’s also a fine piece of irony in this show. The preceding segment was about a film called ‘The Boat That Rocked‘, a film about a 60’s pirate radio station. The irony is that it’s written and directed by one Richard Curtis. The same Richard Curtis that last year co-signed a letter to The Times urging ISPs to stop piracy.
It seems it’s only ok to profit from piracy, if you’re making a film about it.
UPDATE: The video of the segment is now available.
Previously: Danish Pirate Bay Block Sets Sail for Supreme Court
Next: Rapidshare Shares Uploader Info with Rights Holders
92 Responses
And the letter talks of “copyright theft”. OMGZ DEYR STELIN MAH COPYRITES
In case they would be willing to present a different point of view, who would/could/wanted there?
Until we get proper representation, while we are being called “pirates”, while we have no other voice but downloading, we will be completely ignored and defaultly judged.
More, we need to establish and distance ourselves from “criminal” label. What we do is still forbidden in the law, but, it is our oppinion that the law is the one that has to change.
Uniting under a pirate flag, even if it is “fun”, even if it is “ironic” will not do much for a cause that most that follow it, believe it just and worth fighting for.
There’s no other way to beat them, really beat them, then in terms that the others can deem fair and solidirize with. Just being against isn’t enough. We have to go all the way, and say, I’m against and why.
Just my 0,01€ worth.
power given brains taken.
“Until we get proper representation, while we are being called “pirates”, while we have no other voice but downloading, we will be completely ignored and defaultly judged.”
Why do we need to be represented? Why not just have actual pirates express their views?
Stay out of the movie theaters. Hell, stop downloading movies at all. Take up actual hobbies, spend time on something worth while, like family.
If everyone could do this, the studios would truly be brought to their knees. It would be a nice wake up call for an industry that likes to ass-rape its audience on a regular basis.
Of course it won’t happen, because all the sheeplets will still go and spend money in the theaters. And the movie companies will continue raking in millions of dollars. All the while piracy continues as it always has.
I never had the virtue of watching said program. Was it about how well known groups in an oppressed and absolute rule country are copying and selling DVD’s, or are they talking about a poor child raised in a welfare family that is downloading movies?
Who is the pirate? The group that is profiting from selling DVD copies, or the child who can not afford to buy a DVD? I can see how the movie industry is losing money to those who are copying and selling DVD’s, but how are they losing money from someone who can never afford to buy a movie in the first place?
The movie industry should go after those who are profiting from piracy, and leave the poor people alone.
I made the mistake of buying movies after watching the trailers and then discovering that the movies sucked. Can I get my money back? No. I prefer to buy movies that I can enjoy over and over again, so this time around I download the movies FIRST and then if I like them I will go out and buy them. I can afford to buy movies.
The fascist tactics and truly greedy actions made by the movie industry are appalling. They turn paying customers off by labeling consumers like myself as pirates. They make people like me want to rip and share our movies with friends, and make us feel like we should never buy a movie again.
They’re greedy, and they aren’t happy with having penthouse apartments in NYC, mansions in Hollywood with the multiple $100,000 cars, private jets and several yachts in the French Riviera. Well guess what, I am not fortunate to have that kind of wealth but instead I sweat and break my back doing blue collar work five days a week. If you feel threatened that you may not be able to afford to buy a $20,000 bottle of wine in your yacht on the French Riviera next week, I truly do not care.
The movie industry can go f*ck themselves.
whores
not geting any licence fee from me. first this bias what next a botnet.
oh wait they did that
cant believe the BBC did this… totally unfair and in that repsonse…
‘what is an ever increasing and profitable criminal activity’
wtf has this guy been smoking?
@5
Because without representation, you and I and all the others don’t have a way to deffend our views. To say clearly and loudly, in their ACTUAL faces we HAD ENOUGH.
You and everyone else, has to be subrepticious about our oppinions, because THEY decided they don’t want to hear us, and decided we don’t have the right to have a different oppinion.
Aren’t you fed up of all that? I am.
We truly need to organize.
Boycott, of course. But, we also need to have a chance to go on a prime time tv show, and say WHY.
Download until your hard drive burn, yes, of course, but without a representation you will have to do it hidden.
What is in stake is our right to do it. And that they can’t stop it. But, if we act as they paint us, we are being controlled by them, not the other way around.
It isn’t legal? Ok. Let’s work to make it so. Not EVER accept it and act as criminals because that’s their game. Not ours.
Nice BBC logo there.
So you all know, there are plenty of legal academics that sympathize with and help defend the views of “pirates.” They may do so, however, under the guise of different terminology, such as “pro-user” and the like. I am sure the content providers are well aware of opposing viewpoints that are made by these folks and it is a shame that they cannot sack-up and combat legitimate pro-user arguments head-on.
*Sigh*
“…and we feel this report was fully balanced in it’s coverage of copyright theft.”
*headdesk*
“To say clearly and loudly, in their ACTUAL faces we HAD ENOUGH.”
But why do we have to have to have someone else to “represent” us and tell others what we think? Why can’t we tell others what we think ourselves?
@13
Thankyou.
We do need them. We do need to gain the much needed respectability we deserve.
Most of you think this is only about getting stuff for free. Well, it is. But, it is also about getting stuff for free and don’t be persecuted and diffamated for it.
It is about saying proudly, I SHARE. And don’t be labelled a “pirate” for that.
I’m not a “pirate”. I’m a person.
@14
I really can’t see how any TV station could find a big enough place to fit us all in.
That’s why.
As an essentially government owned entity they are legally bound to lie to the public about things the government doesn’t like. That’s a fact.
Government agencies will never tell the truth when it comes to copyright, money, immigration, sex, drugs and rock and roll etc.
So to all i say: Always check the facts from an unbiased source as any government agency will always distort the truth or just out and out lie.
Someone should make an e-petition on the downing street website :)
“It seems it’s only ok to profit from piracy, if you’re making a film about it.”
So I guess they shouldn’t make action movies anymore either, since killings happen a lot in those, and murder is illegal right?
LOL. This site is a hypocrite; it expects others to be unbiased, though it isn’t unbiased itself. goodfight.
Cant believe the BBC did this….
Not geting any licence fee from me…
http://www.torrentpremium.blogspot.com/
@6 ‘riaatard’
I’ll be putting the clip up soon, so you can see for yourself.
And Srin – well, not if they’re active campaigners for increased penalties for murderers, no. To actively campaign against something, and then to turn around and make your next piece of work revolve around that VERY subject…
On representation.
This is not gonna happen.
Most downloaders couldn’t care less about taking action. They’re mostly 14 year old fat fucks who jack off more often than they think.
Getting involved has never been an Internet thing. The ideas are there but everyone has always failed to bring them down in the streets.
Remember “Anonymous”? Everyone was expecting for a nuclear explosion and we only got a furtive odorless fart.
Not gonna happen… and we’ll have to bend over and say thank you as a result.
These corporate animals are just trying to stop what they can’t–sharing. This happened before.. and now it has to happen again. So, you all think taking just people who work for the industry are going to be the most reliable ones? this is bias, and fits altogether with discrimination. Why do we have to have only ONE SIDE? where is the general public? where is the fairness that the same studies fit into people’s heads? F*ck the bbc. Everything i watch will go into TORRENTS. BBC will be entirely on torrents from now on. HEAR ME? Hypocrites! #future
@3&10
we have representation, well i don’t know about the UK, but in sweden likeminded “pirates” found the “Pirate Party” (piratpartiet.se) and there are several similar parties in other countries like here in germany (piratenpartei.de).
pp-international.net is a good source of information about your local pirate party and how to support them (like helping them to be up for voting for the EU this summer).
but you are right, we can’t just keep “pirating”, hidden away in our basements and backrooms, we net to organize and influence the legislation, we can’t just leave that to the content mafia’s lobby ;)
Only a couple of weeks you were praising the BBC for embracing P2P methods in distribution and production.
Make your mind up TF.
The BBCs pieces on TPB were also littered with inacuracies and nonsense. I’ve lost all respect for them.
Copyright theft? What the hell is “copyright theft”? What does that even mean?
Since the BBC has been experimenting with alternative digital distribution methods, I expected them to be mildly less clueless about filesharing than the average mainstream media outlet. Hah, silly me.
I also like how they think a report that only represents one side of an argument, the side with a vested commercial interest no less, is somehow balanced and impartial journalism.
Um, no. That kind of bullshit reporting is on the same level as fluff celebrity interviews where the the most hardball question of the night is, “Oh my god, Tom Cruise, could you even BE any more awesome?!”
Can you avoid paying the BBC television tax if you ditch your TV set and get a tuner for your computer? If you can and you live in the UK, I suggest writing the BBC and telling them that’s exactly what you’ll do until they learn how to do their jobs.
@Srin
I see. Did you feel it was too much effort to even try making sense?
@excitingless
“Only a couple of weeks you were praising the BBC for embracing P2P methods in distribution and production.
Make your mind up TF.”
Yeah, TorrentFreak. Who cares that the BBC wasn’t running this MPAA propaganda clip a couple of weeks ago? You should have seen into the future. How dare you not be psychic.
I CALL BOYCOTT!1!!!
FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! xD
For those looking to view this episode, it can be downloaded from here:
http://sceneddl.net/tv/tvxvid/film2009withjonathanross31032009wspdtvxvidremax/
I love how downloading from the internet and being involved in organised crime are now apparently the same thing…
@23
It’s time to change the rants, and half coeherent supports into lucid discussion.
Treat this subject for what it is.
It’s not enough to come here, and to countless other blogs and foruns, and post your support for this or other site.
The matter at hand is to use the momentum created and actualy go the step further, and instead of national movements, create a world movement.
I know, I may be raving mad, but, we are not divided in frontiers. No matter where we are, the problem is the same. But, please, no more “pirate” flags or anything remotly alike. For that, there’s already a place.
I do ask however, would anyone consider being represented by a Pirate Party? Although I do see the irony, and the joke that has lead to that name, I believe that would be the wrong approach to a wider public. More then shock them, we need to persuade them to listen. Shocked people don’t tend to listen much, they rather react.
Just my thoughts…
“The legal alternatives are out there”
Example – Quantum of Solace
http://www.findanyfilm.com/Quantum-of-Solace-film_options~25002
[Unavailable to download]
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4759195/Quantum.Of.Solace.2008.DvDrip.XviD-NoRar_
[2800 seeds, 1100 leechers]
Well done guys.
@30
FatGiant, perhaps you should set an example and start posting under your real name, that way maybe YOU wil gain some credibility
Can you guess? I’m going to file a complaint with the BBC complaints too. I hope everyone else is.
@33
Is john any more identifiable then FatGiant?
Is it of any more importance as to what my ideas are, and what I stand for?
I’ve used this nick since 1995, everywhere. You’ll be more likely to find it then my name.
And I don’t need credibility, only the ideas do.
‘Is it of any more importance as to what my ideas are, and what I stand for?
I’ve used this nick since 1995, everywhere. You’ll be more likely to find it then my name.
And I don’t need credibility, only the ideas do.’
That is why you will never defeat them. To gain any ground and for people to support/join your cause you have to show them that you as a person are worthy, not just your ideas. Hiding behind a nick is not the actions of someone who will gain a following of serious supporters who will add weight where it matters.
You will have to fight these organisations using their terms/on their ground, which will mean organisation, leadership and above all credibility to give you a voice where it matters.
With a name like FatGiant you will be brushed aside as another spotty idealistic teenager.
Look, China and India add new torrent sites every day. MPAA, can you say “game over”?
Imagine… billions of file sharers…
BBC pirates the money of the British
It is official.. Lundström demands Pirate Bay retrial:
http://www.thelocal.se/19078/20090425/
“I really can’t see how any TV station could find a big enough place to fit us all in.
That’s why.”
I didn’t say everyone. I said have normal people, normal pirates, not someone pretending to represent every other pirate, some spokesperson.
downloading movie=0$
giving movie to friend=0$
not going to see movie in theaters=0$
not buying movie=0$
0$ meaning that i am an organized criminal, the i am profiting from copyright infringement. and that i am killing babies and the like=priceless
Hm.. Everybody has their views.. If Jonathan Ross thinks its wrong, then good luck to him to try & convince his son/daughter otherwise..
I need to clarify a few things.
I DO NOT want to lead anything.
I DO NOT want to organize anything.
I don’t really want any spotlight, fame or anything.
What I’m doing, is to try to give some ideas to this debate. My own ideas. Based on how I see things and how I understand them.
I don’t have any kind of presumption of knowing better then anyone.
So, for all purposes and ends, I’ll contribute with that, and that alone. What anyone, if anyone, does with that, is their doing.
A leader is needed, formal representation is needed, organization is needed. But, I’m not the guy to do it. Heck, I don’t even have political affiliations, I follow no religion, can’t even say I’m a fan of any sports team. You couldn’t find a worse suited person to do this.
So, again I say. I will help. But I will NOT lead.
BTW, using a nickname, isn’t a teenager thing. LOL. My kids are teenagers. :)
Peace, and, if I can be of help, count me in, but, NEVER to lead.
File a complaint with ofcom, if the piece was meant to be a of a serious nature which it was and it was overly bias (again which it was) then ofcom should make the BBC admit it was bias.
BBC is paid for by UK citizens and is meant to be impartial, they didn’t air a disaster emergency comity advert over Israel/Gaza due to this “impartiality”.
I actually saw the program and my views are somed up perfectly by this artical. If everyone wrote in to the bbc about how ee thought it was unfair, no, we’re not going to change the world, but at least we’ll let a big organisation kno how many complaints there’ll get if it happens again; and thats what needs to change first, big companies having more balanced debates on issues like this.
Ok so since the Beeb are so fair I look forward to their pro-piracy interviews.
What did you expect? The show is called “Film 2009 with Jonathan Ross” and not “Fans 2009 with Jonathan Ross”. It’s not about the consumers perspective. Shows like that don’t act as a means of telling you about new movies they serve as bait for the people to go to the cinema. That’s why they’re financed, that’s why they’re shot and that’s why they air segments like the one you’re complaining about. If you want to see a non-biased view on movies don’t watch major network TV shows …
Quantum star Daniel Craig talked about how “piracy was costing people jobs”.
It’s Daniel Craig’s ugly face and McDougall’s poor job that hurt Quantum Of Solace, not piracy. Heck, my Mom’s seen all the Bond flicks and can even watch SciFi Originals and still couldn’t even make it through this movie (even for free). Bad filming is destroying the movie industry not piracy.
THIS should have been posted 25 DAYS ago.
BBC complaints only accepts complaints for 30 days usually.
There IS a group on the sane side of copyright. They’re called the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and I’m sure they have a UK counterpart. The EFF have been around since the days of the RIAA’s doomsday rant when casettes became popular, which, of course never came true. Either did the demise of Hollywood when VHS was deemed ‘legal’ by the courts.
Personally I won’t purchase another CD distributed by a record label or a DVD produced by a motion picture studio. They had the GALL to call me a pirate when I purchased MORE music than I ever downloaded, so I stopped purchasing. As for movies, I never purchased VHS or DVD and rarely ever when to movies in the theatre. There’s just so much more to do than watch their drivel. On occasion, when I deemed something might be of value to see, I rented it – after it was a top hit, when it hit the regular movie section. Or just watched it on TV, years after it was in the theatre.
@ TorrentHolocaust
Firstly, bar this crap here the BBC is one of the few places which is trying to change how it deals with online content, looking to put programs out with Creative Commons liscences.
It’s the creators of the show which were sucking up on this one.
—
As for the whole Quantum of… whatever… That anti-piracy speech at the start just made me laugh, wasn’t laughing at the end of the movie, waste of a good evening and the price of a ticket, it was a complete load of crap.
—
@ cheeseeater
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a had in european affairs but mainly the UK has Open Rights Group (ORG) which has many policises on Privacy and Copyright
@27 Anonymous: Since you ask I will answer. “Copyright theft” is when an company/corporation snatches an authors right to be recognised as the author of an work under an dubious “work for hire” clause written with nanoprint in said authors contract os.
@TorrentHolocust: Man I thought they paid you so little that you had given up astroturfing.
@”John”: Still stuck in the cult of the person. (”Me! I want to be famous! Me! Me!” kind of sewage that American Idol lives on)
“Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our output, and we feel this report was fully balanced in it’s coverage of copyright theft.”
Good luck with that argument in an actual debate face to face, you wouldn’t last 2 seconds before being proved wrong.. Surely they could have found some “pirates” who would be willing to talk on the subject or similarly stage some pirates and make them look like idiots, could see them doing that too..
@TorrentHolocaust are you really gettings paid that little your whole argument is in acronyms?!
“BBC FTW”
Video clip now on the end of the article.
CasualT – yeah, or they could have just read our article. Other stations have contacted us in the past for comment, and we’ve passed them on to others who’ve been happy to comment (such as Pirate Party spokesmen). They just didn’t bother.
I hate how they lie about how this stuff funds terrorism. What utter c***! This thing called BitTorrent? Last time I checked it was totally free. IE, NO ONE MAKES ANY PROFIT.
As far as the segment goes, it speaks of the LEGALITY of piracy. Not the ethics, reasons or specific issue of piracy itself. The lie, which is perpetuated throughout the mainstream, has a formula, which is this.
“X(t+oc)-R(OP)=e/p”
X is downloading, borrowing, listening to, copying, viewing online, having friends around to watch…anything they are not able to get their greedy hands in your pocket
t and oc Are X, because obviously X is not making them any cash, therefore X must be funding terrorism and organised crime. Same as with anything these people are not able to line their filthy pockets with; if they ain’t able to dine out on it, it’s evil.
The rest of the equation relates to greed, stupidity and revenue.
I think before the major film and music industries start creaming themselves – or indeed form a legitimate side line in revenue from appearing in this sort of quasi-documentary – I think they ought to consider paying someone £100,000,000 for a film or £80,000,000 for a couple of albums – and then sobbing like a child who wasted his pocket money is both stupid and self-defeating.
If your product is good, people will pay for it. If it’s crap they won’t.
I’m tired of everything that is not revenue generating being portrayed as evil just because Government and big business is not adding to their heap out of it.
I think it is important to distinguish between different types of piracy.
Our use of BitTorrent protocols, and the wider warez scene is totally different to the selling of pirated DVDs.
peace all, eni.
I agree w/ what the second poster was trying to convey.
For P2P and the sort, it was never peer to peer pirating, but file sharing. Now sharing doesn’t sound menacing enough or at all to anyone who’s ignorant to the gears of it all.
To counter that they’ve effectively mapped this known menacing word “pirating” on us, and we’ve helped them do this (pirate bay..).
Pirating is for profit, theft for profit. It does relate to someone who’s selling copied discs for profit and without the authority to do so, but they are not file sharers and we are not them. That’s a distinction we can’t afford not to have cemented.
FACT (Limited, for they are a private company not an agency with any special power) have been buying themselves parts of UK public bodies for a while now. Check out what their company Memorandum of Association says in part B:
“B. To watch and investigate and to keep records for reference and comparison of, all matters in any way affecting copyright interests in all forms of audio visual recording, the use thereof and of all developments thereof and to decide upon, initiate and support proper methods for dealing with any contingency which may arise affecting such interests and for protecting the same.”
They conduct covert surveillance on UK citizens, keep databases and records of their “targets” and have bought themselves part of the Trading Standards service:
http://www.bedfordshire.gov.uk/AdviceAndBenefits/TradingStandards/FinancialInvestigations.aspx
..yes, if you read that link you did notice that FACT Ltd, a private limited company owned by the MPAA, have funded a specialist unit in Trading Standards that works specifically on whatever FACT wants. This also means that FACT has access to the same government databases that Trading Standards do. Also because TS have the power to enter premises, seize and retain property the MPAA, a US company, effectively have the power to enter the premises of UK citizens and take their property as well!
Corruption? You decide.
…and a quick check of FACT’s members on Companies House website shows that one of their members is a company called 2Entertain Limited:
http://www.2entertain.co.uk/
2 Entertain Limited’s majority shareholder (606 shares out of 1000) is BBC Worldwide.
Impartial and balanced my ass. How can you be fair, impartial and balanced if one of your companies is in business with them.
We need a shot of corporate chemotherapy on cancerous companies such as FACT Ltd.
I’ll give them that buying pirated DVDs is wrong, as it is very likely funding something shady, not to mention it’s stupid, why pay for what you can get for free? Those peeps are making money from other peoples stuff, not cool.
But d/l cannot be compared. No-one makes money from it and a majority of those that use it go and buy it legally anyway. Granted there are those that don’t, and it must be said, I don’t buy EVERY film or album i d/l, but I have a fair bit.
At the end of the day, people just like sharing, where I come from, sharing is good.
Comparing file sharing to DVD piracy is dumb. Theyre just fear mongering. It might look to them that theyre losing money, but in reality, thats bullshit and who watches CAMs anyway? I always wait for the DVD rip, which SHOCK; someone bought.
Woo! I’m funding organised crime every time I download a film!
Wait… How…
Yes, earning from someone elses’ work is wrong; but this notion that anyone who downloads anything is obviously shady is also flawed
A while ago, I was offered about 500 albums, burned onto CD for £50. I declined, because that is wrong. People should get something from their work, not be ripped off.
But if someone who is not in a situation to spend out on a DVD or album wants to hear it, they should be able to.
Filesharing has had NO IMPACT on sales. None. The figures bear that out. The ability for people to test out what they might want to pay for is am important one; it’s the customer making up their own mind. Okay, some people abuse the system, but it’s certainly not worse than taking taxpayers money for a plasma tv.
What I dislike is this whole thing about how you are funding terrorism by downloading or file sharing, rather than that you are damaging industries which badly need to update their business model but are too arrogant / lazy to do so.
The Movie industry seems to be turning out a lot of crap (Vampire Lesbian Killers etc) or remakes (Alfie, Lady Killers, Clouseau) when there is an absolute wealth of writing and performing talent with fresh, quality ideas. Don’t tell me filesharing and piracy have damaged the industry because what has done more damage is the lazy, self interest of CEOs coupled with the short sighted knee jerk reaction of the well lobbied leglislature cow towing to big business.
I’m pretty tired of well heeled has beens trying to protect their positions and build even greater wealth by manipulating sheeple into believing falsehoods and assumptions instead of looking at this issue and saying “Well, maybe *we* need to change the way we do things”
A small umber of people abuse the system, but mainly, it’s people who want certain specific items who file share or download. Usually people who are fans (and that’s another thing, what is this thing with closing down fan sites?) or people who want to learn to animate, design and work but can’t afford the £800 or so for the software.
Unfortunately there are people out there who are in poorly paid jobs with high overheads that simply can’t afford to buy videos and go to the cinema because they selfishly wish to feed their greedy children healthy food. To top matters off these complete swine enjoy popular culture that is obviously made for their superiors in the higher social classes. When will the politicians see sense and realise in order to protect the film industry from being exposed to the eyes of poverty stricken paupers it is necessary to kick their doors in at 5am and drag them away to special medical units to be lobotomised. If this doesn’t stop producers and actors from whinging like little girls then it will be time to send in the death squads so that no one will ever be able to enjoy an evening in unless they have a big fat pay cheque. Obviously the poor should not be allowed to enjoy themselves, that only encourages poverty. It is morally bankrupt of us to have allowed them all the benefits of the last two centuries. Bring back the work houses. Then and only then will decent law abiding wealthy folk be able to walk the streets without being offended by their filthy smell.
Does anyone notice that the interviewees’ facial expressions and body language indicates lies? Especially when he estimates the “loss”.
pirating movies is copy right theft and is illegal in most countries. It’s like complaining that and piece on crimewatch didn’t acurately portray the feeling of the murderer.
I have pirated movies but i don’t try to justify my actions.
lol the vid is just ridicules. If i go and buy a dvd i would never buy a piretad one, becous I can downlaod the same shit any way.
This is why folks should think twice about letting the government run things in your life. BBC impartiality? That’s amusing. Wait ’til you get some good old Government-run doctor’in. ;)
F*ck capitalists!
Wow, Stupid MPAA, what a bunch of LOSERS.
As far as I know the government don’t own the BBC.
Jonathan Ross is a mpaa film industry pimp. This is proved by him having a chat show that relies on americans to appear on it.
This also proves that he is no critic and conflict of interest exists between being a chat show host and reviewer of films.
eg bad reviews = no ’stars’ on the chat show.
“As we move from one set of pirates to another, but unlike Richar Curtis’ loveable rum bunch, the people behind film piracy are no laughing matter.”
We’re a loveable rum bunch too!!! Take the TPB founders for example, they are a good bunch of guys.
That shows is so hypocritical, and very biased. I loved the irony about the two different pirates, expressed in the TorrentFreak story!!
If you live near the Mexican border or in Mexico… you shouldn’t even go to the cinema or you could catch swine flu!
I Dont think there was anything said there that wasnt total BS
Well if you don’t agree with it, make your own piece. I double dare torrent freak to do an interview with people from the movie business (runner, costume, makeup, actors, producer whoever).
But no one here will second that because you’re not interested in the facts. You just want to be labeled a thief just because you steal things.
“but filesharing isn’t blah blah blah”.
Ram it.
Oh, and the BBC isn’t owned or run by the government in any way shape or form. It’s paid for by the public through the TV license which I think is a good thing. Would any other TV station have created things like Planet Earth or The World Service?
No. They wouldn’t.
Gargantuan – over the past few years, we’ve tried to do exactly that. For some reason, they seem to be adverse to responding to requests for comment. We’ve even had interviews arranged, which they cancel last moment.
BTW, check my bio – I’ve been in the movie business AND TV business (including the BBC, and C4, and as more than just a ‘runner’). In fact, I had an invite to do some TV work in the US this past week. i couldn’t do it because of other commitments, but it’s not as nice and clear-cut as you’d like it to be.
Just wanted to point out a slight error… the BBC is not owned by the government, technically it is owned by the people (hense why the BBC has in the past fallen out with the government.
Which in my eyes is why it should be offering a more balanced picture.
What I find so funny with all this PA crap, is that every ad like this from the MPAA brings a nother person to ask “Hmm, free stuff? On the internet? Where?”. The whole TPB thing has caused even more people to find out what this TPB/torrent thing is all about!
Man, I know mums at my kid’s school who don’t know what a torrent is, how it works or any IT stuff, they simply know that this uTorrent thing makes me look like SuperMum when I get the latest blockbuster for my little Johnny and his mates to watch on a Saturday afternoon! The “pirates” know it’s wrong, the mum at school, the gu in his 9-5 at the bank, doesn’t know it’s wrong as such, until you change the 90% of the people who don’t know what they’re doing it won’t change a thing!
So MPAA, stop wasting your money preaching to the converted, it’s too late!
I can’t believe that some of you “Can’t believe” that the BBC is nothing more than Govt. propaganda dressed up as ‘honest, fair, balanced journalism’.
FOX anyone?
The BBC is absolutely NOT government owned. It is funded by the license fee which is determined by an act of parliament. It is controlled by a board of governers none of whom work for or are paid for by the government.
As such it is frequently criticised as by the government for political bias and is extremely harsh when interviewing governmment politicians.
C’mon, people : put up your own $25 Mil, make a movie, record it using open standards, distribute it ex your fav site, and watch all those people suck you dry. It’s your right to do that, and with open standards and licencing your right to download it, copy it, whatever.
That is ok.
This is not : Hugh Jackman put six months of his life into his movie recently and saw an early cut bootlegged a week before opening. The shits who did that are at the same level as the shits who downloaded it.
Shits one and all.
That’s S-H-I-T-S
To all the people on here that live in the UK.. It is not difficult to actually DO something about this instead of whining, and here’s how..
http://www.tpuc.org/stoppayingtvlicencefees
@ Ben Jones – As the author of this article you may like to pass the word around about the above website.
Wow the movie industry is outraged. Maybe some of them couldn’t offer their $1000 omlet or $1000 hair-cut these days. But wait. Is it due to piracy or the economic downturn? They think they have a point but could be mistaken. Or are they trying to take an advantage?
Majority of the world population is like me who are poor and the first thing on their mind is what they gonna eat and not which movie they gonna watch. So I watch no movies, precisely I buy no movies. But just because I am poor have I no right to see what is made out of another human mind? I use my labor force to keep the world running too. Surely, if all the laborers weren’t there then there would be no movies.
Thanks to all these downloads that in recent days I am feeling very human. I have now seen more of the world. New culture, new place and new ideas. I wouldn’t wanna be deprived of that! But if from tomorrow I don’t get to see any of them then I don’t care. I don’t bother myself to go and buy a movie. Basic livelihood preoccupies me.
The music industry should completely stay out of the piracy thing. If an artist comes out and speaks against piracy then that means he is a low-confidenced amateur artist. Cause no matter if non of your albums were sold and billion copies of it were downloaded you can always make a good money through concerts. If you have a real talent then people, even if they have heard your song 1000 times in their mp3 player, will come to listen to your live song by buying a ticket. Now if people break into a concert without tickets then thats the real problem.
But reality on the other side could be harsh on these richest people of the world(the movie industry people). This has become their profession and the means to feed their family. But this leaves no room for them to demand millions of dollars for their work while the people who watch them hardly make a comfortable living. Where is the equality of labor? If tomorrow no body decides to watch their movie then they are certainly going to be in a big trouble. And then they will have to labor like most of us and they can’t watch movies as they can’t buy. This is so natural. If I who works 9 hrs a day sweating all the time and earns $1200 a month out of which pays $800 just for the house rent, nobody else has the right to earn millions, billions, trillions of $$$.
You know where is the flaw? It is in the constitutional books that limits our rights by trying to define them. Just remember what the French revolution brought down. So all the greedy eventhough rich people out there do realize that it takes just few lives and a cue to change what is illegal today to legal tomorrow.
What these people tell has merit, upto a point.
Piracy may be funding terror and is definitely funding organized crime. I don’t know about the profit margins but it’s immensely less dangerous and lightly punished than trafficking narcotics. I buy all that.
Then, they have to put the home user sharing files in the same bin as the masters of the street arabs pushing contraband DVDs. That’s where they lose me and make me feel like digitizing everything I own and put it online in spite.
And a hint to the industry: camming 3D films is a non-issue.
For those doubting the BBC’s ability to air both sides of the argument, have a listen to the last 3 minutes of the latest Mark Kermode film reviews. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/kermode starts at 48:30-ish) to paraphrase “I’m sick and tired of the movie industry complaining about how much damage piracy is doing, catch up guys, they need to be doing what the music industry has been doing and give the audience more options to view the films legally”
For those of you who don’t know who Mark Kermode is, he’s a film reviewer with an almost cult following which is truly international thanks to live streaming of the radio show and the free podcast, and he is often out of step with most film reviewers on some things.
“It seems it’s only ok to profit from piracy, if you’re making a film about it.”
I suppose that counts for murder, rape and many more things also. Stupid comment!
However this article ws good thanks.
Ok, first things first, since when in hell is piracy more dangerous than drugs, alcohol abuse and co? Seriously if 1/4 of UK population does download movies, then its a common voice of democracy saying “Piracy is here to stay”.
I have to rofl when someone gets thrown into prison with rapist and murderers and this person is in there for downloading the latest movie….Damn this society is going to hell.
Hi, good post. I have been thinking about this issue,so thanks for posting. I will definitely be subscribing to your site.
What makes me laugh the most is the use of the argument that piracy aids terrosium. HAHAHA Oh wait the big film and music companys all own a large amount of shares in weapons maufacturing companys, which then go on and sell their weapons to terroist cells?
10 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.