Difference Between Music Sharing & Movie Sharing

[Kevin Phoenix]

As we all know, right now the RIAA has waged war on us as a music loving people. They continue to alienate us more and more with each person they sue. But there are a few people among us who are starting to express concern that the movie genre will be next. I disagree. First off, let's analyze the difference. With music, a CD in stores contains several songs at a time. People who buy CDs tend to only enjoy a couple or so of those songs while the others pretty much go to waste. In short, you don't get your money's worth most of the time, hence why P2P was created.

Now movies on the other hand are sold as DVDs and VHS obviously as singles because a movie is a single thing. If a DVD contained multiple movies in them, then things would be different. But seeing as movies are single items, you can choose the ones you like and buy them. There's really no need for downloading any through P2P networks. And even so, you'd have to have a broadband connection to have any hope of doing so since movie files are huge. Coupled with most movies being in theaters beforehand and getting info on what the movie is about from others, that makes it all the more clear that there is no threat to the MPAA of us sharing movies to even a fraction of the degree we share music. I wouldn't have it any other way anyway. Movie files take up lots of hard drive space rapidly with each movie downloaded and aren't in the same crystal quality as a DVD. I will always buy movies in store because at least with movies, I have a choice. I know that I'll get my money's worth everytime.

So to those who are concerned that the RIAA or MPAA will start targeting movie sharers, I don't see that happening because music and movies on the P2P level are two totally seperate issues. Feedback on what I've said would be appreciated.

[Icebound]

with the price of huge harddrives shrinking and more affordable broadband, downloading movies is nothing. there is no "next", all media is being downloaded illegally at an incredible rate. just cause u don't have the bandwidth or hd space, doesn't mean millions others don't. downloading music is NOT older than downloading movies -- it's all the same. the same people that want to burn free music cd's are the same one's that want to burn free movies. why not? u say u choose movies, but most people grow tired of movies before a music cd. before kazaa and napster there was newsgroups and irc. people have been downloading movies for about a decade from these sources. also, previewing music is a lot easier than previewing movies, so to say people would rather blindly purchase a movie is foolish.

keep in mind, however, that people are getting sued for uploading and selling the copyrighted material -- not downloading it. this is how the litigants get sucked into the "unauthorized distribution" of these files.

furthermore, programs like kazaa lite do not help this matter. as bad as it sounds, it is always in ur best interest to just download. NEVER, EVER upload copyrighted movies. these people are severely targeted.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by Icebound@1 November 2003 - 09:32
...the same people that want to burn free music cd's are the same one's that want to burn free movies...

I burn music CDs. I don't burn movies. The quality, even of the best DVD rips, doesn't come close to the actual thing, and it's *really* noticable on a television set.

[Adster]

yes the onyl reason the real reason we buy DVDs and not cds is coz we can't really get the same quality out of downlaoding DVDs then we do with music if we could downlaod DVDs and get the same quality as a DVD we by like our audio cds then movie DVD buying would drop.

now the poin tof choiseing good point if we could walk into a music store and choose different songs from each albums and have them put onto 1 cd whcih we can buy for 30 bucks more ppl would buy them.

better then paying for a wingle for 10 bucks 1 song its ridiculous and all you get is a couble of B sides tracks that don't even make the album to go with it.

[MagicNakor]

I don't know, I'd still buy DVDs. The extras are nice.

I still buy CDs, but at a far lesser rate.

[Adster]

good point the extras and special features are good to have.

[Icebound]

all very good points, but i was just letting him know that movies aren't next as in it's been happening forever

[vivitron 15]

Originally posted by Icebound@1 November 2003 - 08:32
it is always in ur best interest to just download. NEVER, EVER upload copyrighted movies. these people are severely targeted.

I could never promote or advertise this, its just plain wrong...if you wont ul then dont dl its that simple


and the MPAA is going after movie sharers, sending out C&D letters

[junkyardking]

Originally posted by Adster@1 November 2003 - 10:50
yes the onyl reason the real reason we buy DVDs and not cds is coz we can't really get the same quality out of downlaoding DVDs then we do with music if we could downlaod DVDs and get the same quality as a DVD we by like our audio cds then movie DVD buying would drop.

now the poin tof choiseing good point if we could walk into a music store and choose different songs from each albums and have them put onto 1 cd whcih we can buy for 30 bucks more ppl would buy them.

better then paying for a wingle for 10 bucks 1 song its ridiculous and all you get is a couble of B sides tracks that don't even make the album to go with it.

With broadband speed increasing and the prices dropping, it's only time before dvd-r images become mainstream, and with new dvd technologies already developed it wont be long before we see 1:1 copies of dvd's that are over the 4.3gb level, as for dvd rips i dont mind them especialy as i have a dvd player that plays mpeg4/divx/xvid straight on to the tv.

[Kevin Phoenix]

Originally posted by Icebound@1 November 2003 - 17:34
all very good points, but i was just letting him know that movies aren't next as in it's been happening forever

Another good reason why I prefer buying the DVDs is the extras and commentary you can listen to with many of them. Ice, I disagree with your statement. I never once said that movie downloading wasn't around as long as music downloading. I said the ratio is smaller than that of music sharers. I mean think about it. How often do YOU (maybe not you specifically Ice) download music files in relation to movie files? Hard drives and broadband may be getting cheaper. But music sharing is much more frequently used than movie sharing. And listen to what MagicNakor said. Even the best DVD rips have suckass quality in comparison. The few times I did download a movie, it was only to satisfy my enjoyment of that movie. Once it came out on DVD, I am quick to run out and buy it and then delete the movie file off my hard drive to free up space. And might I add, assuming you're one of the people who uses a single large hard drive, (I personally don't, I use 2) the more you fill it up with data, the slower your computer gets. And I know this from experience. I build computers for a living so I know. So unless your computer is top of the line with a lot more memory than what is needed, it's going to slow down over time as you download stuff.

As for those who are burning these movies onto a DVD-R CD, good for them. But watching a downloaded movie with less-than-true DVD quality for so long, it's going to give you the itch to want it in the quality it's meant to be in. And it will be a long time, if there even is such a time, before movie sharing becomes as much a threat to the Dollar Almighty companies as music sharing has.

There may be C & D letters going around to movie sharers, but the overall level of action taken against those people is child's play compared to what the RIAA is currently doing. I have yet to read any public news about someone getting sued for movie copyright infringement. And I keep my eye on the news all the time. Even if that has happened, which I'm sure it has, it hasn't become mainstream news like the RIAA battle has.