Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Music Piracy Documentary Released As Torrent

Posted by kdawson on from the eating-the-dogfood dept.

goodbye_kitty writes "The producers of a new documentary film analyzing global music piracy have decided to 'put their money where their mouth is' by releasing the film as a free Xvid download (hosted by the Pirate Bay, as one would expect). The film explores the blurred line between 'fair use' and piracy, and includes interviews with DJ Danger Mouse (creator of the now infamous 'grey album'), Lawrence Lessig (founder of Creative Commons), the lads from the Pirate Bay, and even some guy from the MPAA. Here is a link to the torrent."

22 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Put their money where their mouth is by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are you sure it wasn't simply the case that they're out of money and/or nobody will distribute the documentary for them?

    1. Re:Put their money where their mouth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Are you sure it wasn't simply the case that they're out of money and/or nobody will distribute the documentary for them?

      Or maybe they're just clever and realise they can get lots of free publicity on sites like /. by releasing the programme as a torrent. Don't think we'll ever know, but you're reading this article aren't you?

      Unfortunately am in Canada and Bittorrent has been banned by the Internet Police over here, so we're not allowed to download files.

    2. Re:Put their money where their mouth is by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really wonder about that. A lot of movies don't get a distributorship, it's a basic fact of the industry, even more so with indie films.

      Anyways, "blurring the line between fair use and piracy" is a red flag to me. I really won't agree with an argument that somehow fair use can be blurred to the extend that distributing entire works (entire songs, entire albums, entire movies, entire TV episodes) to potentially millions of people is somehow fair use. Fair use has usually been interpreted as short clippings, parodies, making a personal copy of a work that you legitimately have and so on.

    3. Re:Put their money where their mouth is by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can download just fine on Rogers. I sure do. Just be sure to use the "Encrypt Traffic" option on Azureus, and set yourself up with a non-standard port. Check out the Azureus Wiki on NAT Problems on how to do this. I suggest using a port like 25522 or something like that.

      --
      UTF-8: There and Back Again
    4. Re:Put their money where their mouth is by ajs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately am in Canada and Bittorrent has been banned by the Internet Police over here, so we're not allowed to download files. Wow. That's totally freaking insane!

      Next time I download an OS via BT, I'll think of you... I'm really sorry, man.

      That said, I'm a little surprised and disappointed at Slashdot's reaction to this documentary. Someone does a documentary about file sharing, puts it up on BT and we attack them for it... sad. I would have thought we'd be glad to see that someone is finally starting to smell the new media. Do they want their documentary seen? Of course, they do, but if this works out, you know there will be thousands of fairly smart people thinking, "OK, now how do we make that a business?"

      The age of the fight between content creators and peer-to-peer sharing needs to come to an end. The age of the peer-to-peer media empires is long overdue.
    5. Re:Put their money where their mouth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      In case you didn't know, Rogers shapes all encrypted traffic (see http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs#Cana da), which includes anything from SSH to torrents. In fact, the only way to download this movie at a reasonable rate through Rogers is to disable Encrypt Traffic (and possibly some other settings, depending on your config). Then it'll go just fine and fast. However, if you plan on downloading anything remotely illegal looking (i.e. OS iso's, video games, ripped movies) they'll send you a nice Cease and Desist notice occasionally.

      Oh, and the reason you may be able to download fine is because they're only doing this Traffic shaping in certain areas (most), and there are a few areas I know of where they don't seem to have control just yet. And no, there's no magic port-trickery you can do to get around their traffic shaping.

      So does anyone know an HTTP or FTP source for this movie?

      Sincerely,
      An unwilling Rogers customer

    6. Re:Put their money where their mouth is by aerthling · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google Video: http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-166095 432964105847&q=good+bad+copy&total=254&start=0&num =10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

    7. Re:Put their money where their mouth is by kebes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well of course the "blurred line" won't appear when you counterpoint two extremes: short clips on the one hand (clearly fair use) versus distributing full copies to millions of people on the other hand (clearly copyright infringement, according to current laws).

      However, your implication that there is no "blurred line" isn't fair. The example given in the summary is DJ Danger Mouse, who mixed two different works to create something totally original. The music labels said that this was "clearly infringement" whereas many artists and fans said this work was novel and original, and clearly something that should be allowed under fair use (whether or not it actually is fair use is for courts to decide, I suppose, but the arguments regarding copyright are not so much about what the law is, but rather what it should be). This is one case where there is disagreement about how to interpret the actions, hence a "blurred line."

      Lawrence Lessig (in his books, blog entries, talks, etc.) provides many other examples of activities which straddle this line (e.g. a film-maker begin told to pay thousands of dollars because a Simpsons clip was playing in the background of one of the scenes in a documentary). Sometimes they are legal yet still legally persecuted by the big-labels. Sometimes they are illegal yet many people feel they are legitimate personal uses, or important creative uses. These fringe cases are very interesting.

      Now, I have not watched the documentary under discussion, so I can't say whether they tackle these fringe cases in a thoughtful way. However, I can honestly say that there is a dangerous blurred line between what you are allowed to do according to "fair use" and what you are going to get in trouble for doing according to "copyright law." The fact that this line is so ill-defined is what leads to all the questionable lawsuits against artists and end-users... and to a chilling effect in the production of creative works (which Lessig worries about constantly).

  2. Pay time by ciryon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder who's paying the producers salaries.

    1. Re:Pay time by phillip_alexander · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's at least partially funded by Denmark's national broadcasting corporation. It was produced and aired here more than three months ago, so part of the salaries are paid by the Danish television license fee payers (not including myself).

      They ask for donations though.

  3. Why? by Todd+Fisher · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why would I get this off the web for free when I can pay for it at a store?

    --


    --I'm not talking about dance lessons. I'm talking about putting a brick through the other guy's windshield.-
  4. Re:Doesn't work by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 2, Informative

    It works for me, and about 200 other people

  5. Oldddd by zeridon · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's way too old.
    It has been circulating around for about a year or so ...
    It appeared shortly after the movie Steal This Film

    --
    In fire we trust http://www.getoto.net
  6. I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... by samuel4242 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wish I could be optimistic for their bank account, but here's what will probably happen: the file sharing crowd will download it, watch it with a few beers, nod in constant agreement, curse the Man, and then raise a beer in a toast to the coolness of the producers. Perhaps a few will even contribute to the tip jar. But the jar won't fill up enough to pay for the time put into the project. And the producers sure won't make enough money to support themselves or a family so they can do such a cool thing again. Oh well.

    1. Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... by Yonatanz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, the producers' work will be viewed by thousands of people, and probably reviewed by tens of professionals and might reach production company managers, who may hire them for their next movie...

      If you are unknown, then this can be the perfect entrance to the industry. But you have to be good so that your free product is at least somewhat impressive.

    2. Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... by shark72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Also, the producers' work will be viewed by thousands of people, and probably reviewed by tens of professionals and might reach production company managers, who may hire them for their next movie..."

      Ah yes, the "design my website for free" argument.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    3. Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... by samuel4242 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, the producers' work will be viewed by thousands of people, and probably reviewed by tens of professionals and might reach production company managers, who may hire them for their next movie...

      I hate to be negative, but I can't see some producer saying, "Gosh, these radical dudes really did a great job undermining the reason why I'm able to get million dollar paychecks. I think I'll hire them to do my next movie. And I'll pay them millions even though they have argued that file sharers shouldn't have to pay into this pool."

      It's all well and good to stick it to the man. Just don't expect the man to be so impressed by your stick-to-it-tiveness and hire you immediately. Those kind of things only happen in Seinfeld .

  7. infamous == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    the word infamous means famous in a disgraceful way. it's a bad thing. you're not using it right.

  8. whoa there.. by newr00tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the word infamous means famous in a disgraceful way. it's a bad thing. you're not using it right.

    That depends on whether you consider fame to be a good thing or not.

    (Infamity ftw)

    --
    A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
  9. no love for da usenet? by Floritard · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here is a link to the torrent. Fuck that. Where my NZB file yo?
  10. Re:The producers will starve by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's not true and it's never been true.

    If i want to buy and view the movie "300" but a friend comes over with a movie of his and we watch that instead, I am no less inclined to eventually purchase and watch the movie 300. If he made me spend money to watch his movie, then I would be less inclined.

    Even if the movie in question WAS 300, I'd still be willing to go and purchase it if I decided it was worth my money, and a lot of movies are.

    The argument you're implying is that getting something for free makes you less likely to spend money, and that's not true, it's never been true, and it will never BE true. People with money and nothing better to do will spend their money on stuff they like and want.

    You have to keep in mind that the guys you're supporting are the same people who catch someone watching a movie that they didn't pay for and spend hundreds of thousands in attorney fees in order to victimize said person to set an "example" of what happens to you if you ever watch movies for free before paying for them.

    All for what? To save a few bucks in the future? To "save" their business from the evil pirates? Hardly. The reason these guys hunt down and victimize kids and college students is because they can write off their legal expenses as a cost of doing business and hopefully slip into a lower tax bracket, cheating the American people out of tax money.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  11. Re:The producers will starve by lilomar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I doubt it's very feasible to do a real, independent study on this. I tend to agree with you on this.
    But it doesn't stop people from trying.
    (The last two are PDFs)

    I never said that it outweighed, or even matched the lost revenue, I said it might which means you can't say for sure that piracy has a negative impact.
    I tend to believe that piracy doesn't have a negative impact though because of an interesting observation that I read somewhere. (but I can't for the life of me remember where, could have been a /. post)

    There are 3 types of pirates:
    1. People who would have bought the product, but didn't because they downloaded it.
    2. People who wouldn't have bought the product, but downloaded it and liked it enough to buy/recommend it to their friends.
    3. People who wouldn't have bought the product, but downloaded it and didn't like it enough to buy/recommend it to their friends.
    As long as 2 and 3 are greater than 1, there is a net gain.

    As to whether or not this is up to the community to decide, I'm not arguing the moral issues, I'm just arguing the economic ones. In economics, the consumer always decides the profit, even when that makes them criminals.
    --
    The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.