Then I realized that all products are like that. Price can be used as a guide for expectations, but even the most expensive steak might not be worth the price.

The problem seems to be that with movies, unlike a burger or steak at a restaurant, the consumer has no direct recourse if they aren’t happy. If you hate a burger, you don’t go back to the restaurant, but if you hate a movie, all you’re left to do is not see that particular director’s or actors’ work again. And even that is misleading.

Still, the world is not a free sampler. You pay for the movie, and if you’re unhappy, then that’s tough. It’s the consumers job to protect their own money.

But if you pirate the film out of some misplaced entitlement to entertainment, you’re not only pissing on the filmmakers, you’re giving a big middle finger to true film fans who go pay for the movie ticket (that they could have easily pirated) because they actually respect the work of filmmakers and don’t act like petulant children who believe they deserve something other people worked hard on for free.

Personally, and I am sure they feel this way, 500,000 illegal downloads is not lost sales. Most of those people would probably never have been aware of the film if it was not for bi torrent, and would not have bought it.

Positve side, each one of those people only needs to tell one or two friends about the film, and then they might find fans there that will also be the dvd, other content. So its not negative. In terms of from an indies standpoint who have no marketing money like studios.

I think the future is not the sales of the film but all the spin off revenues sources, pysical products. And of course, a fan base that builds, as fans will support. Time will tell if this works for them. And I know they will share their experience to help others, like they always do.

BUY INK!!!

Media piracy is copyright infringement, not theft (or ‘stealing’). The latter requires the owner to be deprived of the use of the item in question. Photocopying a book is not the same as physically stealing it, though both may be illegal. This is a very important distinction, and what makes the former a civil offence, and the latter a criminal one (at least where I live). It is pure propaganda to describe movie piracy as theft.

The merits and detriments of copyrights in general are different to those of physical property, in some part because copyrights cannot currently be effectively enforced. What doesn’t work doesn’t last.

This is probably a good thing, because it stops distributors of media charging artificially high prices, and allows smaller players into the market. Consider the situation before the advent of the Internet – the little indie filmmakers you feature wouldn’t be able to argue the merits of piracy – effectively they wouldn’t exist.

The fact is that all this is just capitalism at work – a more efficient method forces out a less efficient method. Braying against it is useless, and simple pandering to vested interests. The only way forward is to develop business models that capitalise on the mass distribution digital technology allows. This could be making it convenient and inexpensive to pay (a la itunes), or something else entirely.

Media piracy is copyright infringement, not theft (or ‘stealing’). The latter requires the owner to be deprived of the use of the item in question. Photocopying a book is not the same as physically stealing it, though both may be illegal. This is a very important distinction, and what makes the former a civil offense, and the latter a criminal one (at least where I live). It is pure propaganda to describe movie piracy as theft.

The merits and detriments of copyrights in general are different to those of physical property, in some part because they can not currently be effectively policed. What doesn’t work, doesn’t last.

This is probably a good thing, because it stops distributors of media charging artificially high prices, and allows smaller players into the market. Consider the situation before the advent of the internet – the little indie filmmakers you feature wouldn’t be able to argue the merits – effectively they wouldn’t exist.

The fact is that all this is just capitalism at work – a more efficient method forces out a less efficient method. Braying against it is useless, and simple pandering to vested interests. The only way forward is to develop business models the capitalise on the rapid distribution digital technology allows. This could be making it convenient and inexpensive to pay (a la itunes), or something else entirely.

Explain another product you can do that with. You don't have the right (as a consumer) to say that just because you don't like something (your opinion), you shouldn't have to pay for it… Please explain that, as I don't understand the mindset under which that's alright.

Here's why. When I was growing up, my father owned a pub, and every day we'd have at least one customer ask to speak to a manager because they 1) didn't like the food despite 2) eating all of it. My father would calmly tell them that the restaurant wasn't a sampling place.

Simply put, you don't get your money back just because you don't like something. That's part of the risk of sale, the buyer beware that pirates don't seem to want to adhere to. I'm no expert on the mindset here, but it's clear that people downloading things don't believe they should have to pay to enjoy a product. As you said, they don't believe they should have to pay for shoddy work. I understand the impossibility of knowing whether something is shoddy or not before the purchase, but that's how a ton of products in life are.

I don't believe that everyone that pirates stuff would have bought it otherwise, but I think that people who get something for nothing aren't helping the industry. They are certainly not free advertising.