PA

There was one down the block from my apartment, and apparently they went out of business recently. I thought they had disappeared long before since nobody was utilizing their services with the availability of internet movies, etc.

But once they are gone, they are gone. Normal business, but still the company idea will be missed.

I'm clearly too young to know.

If you paid extra a chap would come round and play piano while you watched it.

Never did like video stores. Too hard to find things, limited selection of the newest releases... all of that went away with online rental, and now with iTunes rental, I can easily pick out a couple of movies to watch for a long flight and download them the night before while sleeping.

You pay to rent a video.., or if you want pay $9.99 for a movie from Apple. But its only good for one d/l and if you erase your iphone, or get an iPad, you have to pay all over again.
So in the end you have to pay $30.00 if you want on 3 apple devices, and you have no Box, paperwork, Physical copy...
Got to love the new system

I would never pay to download a film - it's completely silly. Why pay for something that an infinite number of copies can freely be made of in an instant?

Just a thought.

You think something which is freely distributed and can be copied any number of times with zero loss can be stolen? How could such theft take place? That would be a pretty new meaning for the word "theft."

... and please don't give me some "home taping is killing music" answer, because that's been tried before.

I say, bring back the video store. If there were a video store in my town, I'd probably rent movies every week.

The copyright owner owns the copy of the work that you are acquiring without paying for it.

And it's not zero loss--that's simply a false statement intended to preemptively absolve the thief of the theft.

The amount of the loss is equal to the value of the stolen copy, whatever that might be. Whether or not it can be "copied infinitely" is irrelevant; each of those infinite copiies is the property of the copyright owner, and if you acquire one of them without the copyright owner's permission (such as by paying for it or by obtaining it through a licensed distributor, for example) then you have stolen it. It's as simple as that, no matter what justifications are offered for it.

I've never made that argument because it's not the central issue, so I feel no obligation to defend it.

What you outlined is that argument.

I know that this thread started about video stores, but if you want to address digital copying in general, I think you're better off asking the actual artists and copyright holders what they think. I've been involved with a number of commercially released recordings as either an author, performer, or producer. I have found that almost everyone in my position has the same opinion as I in these matters. For the most part, it is industry lobbying groups such as the RIAA, which produce no content themselves, who have sold you these fantasies about what is "theft." They tried it with 8-tracks and it didn't work then, nor did 8 tracks hurt the music industry, and neither will new methods of copying.

The advancement of technology changes a lot of things. Instead of trying to force technology to function as if it existed in the world that was set up prior to its existence, we could - and are far better off - taking advantage of this technology and adapting our culture and economy along with it.

It isn't up to the non-purchaser to declare that copyrighted material is free, as you did.


It also doesn't matter whether the copyright is held by a particular Indie musician or a multi-billion dollar corporation; the copyright still belings to the holder, and it's up to that person or entity to decide whether the protected work can be accessed for free. Your attempt to smear my argument by telling me I've bought into a fantasy is simply an ad hominem. Is a work less protected by copyright because the copyright owner is a corporation? How so?

I am expressly not making the "home taping is killing music" argument because, as I said, it's irrelevant. The only relevant factor is the decision by the copyright holder to allow or disallow free access to the protected work. The ease of producing the copies has nothing to do with this argument. At issue is the fact that unauthorized copies of copyrighted works are being distributed. All else is incidental in this context.


For the record, I also know artists who have had their work stolen from them in this fashion and who object strongly to the "help yourself" attitude that you endorse, so I don't find your claims about the positions of these artists, performers, or producers to be convincing.

If these artists, performer, or producers with whom you are acquainted have opted to allow their work to be distributed for free, then that's their decision. But their decision doesn't grant equal rights of free distribution for anyone else's work.

The idea of Copyright long predates digital copying and distribution. Trying to pretend that these things are the same as what copyright was invented to protect is where the real problem lays.

The RIAA does not hold copyrights. What they object to is how new methods of distribution have made their economic interests irrelevant. It is by far those corporations and organizations which have been exploiting copyright holders who want to extend traditional ideas of copyright to new technology. They fear their obsolescence and the end of their exploitative industry.

It is not what copyright holders feel about distribution of their work which is at issue. What is at issue is the culture we actually live in. I don't know how old you are, but I assume that you've either watched things you recorded on television or listened to albums dubbed onto cassette tapes if you're at least in your 30s.

You say I'm endorsing a "help yourself" attitude, but that's far from the truth. I do live in this world, however, and I observe how it actually functions. What I actually support are small record and video shops. The last two albums I got were purchased at a store that a friend of mine owns.

See, we don't have a choice in whether or not the information contained on cds is distributed by others or not. It will happen. Whether you like it or not, and whether or not you consider it illegal, it's still free. Legal or illegal, free is free.

If someone downloads one of my albums from a torrent or free download site, there's nothing I can do about it. That's very different than someone else claiming ownership of my compositions (which is what copyright actually protects). It's just the transmission of information - if you overhear someone listening to a record that you didn't pay for, are you stealing? Information is - whether we like it or not - freely exchanged by many means. New technologies just make this more evident.

Ultimately, what I find to be very telling in these arguments is how capitalism has become so enshrined in our psyche that everything - even free information - is treated as a commodity. Think about theft as an abstract idea outside of its relevance to capitalism and see if your argument still holds water. I think it doesn't.

If you're really interested in this topic, at least have a glance at this:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx3d21wYXBlcnN8Z3g6ODkyYWVjMDlhZTRjZjg&pli=1

Well, if we go that route, then we pretty much abandon the notion of copyright altogether. If that's what you endorse--that no one actually holds exclusive claim to anything other than an object in their own possession--then that's great but I don't see how it has much practical application in the real world or otherwise. Unless you're claiming that no one ultimately has the right to profit from their artistic work if that work can be copied--which, of course, is where your argument leads.

Broadcast material is permitted to be copied; that's why they don't show those stern FBI warnings at the beginning of every program on the air. Therefore it is irrelevant to this discussion. You can't distribute that recorded information nor replay it for profit without permission of the copyright holder.

Incidentally, I believe that there have been numerous rulings on the subject of "mix tapes," but I'm not in a position at the moment to find links for you.


Excuse me, but when you refer off-handedly to the "infinite copies" of a work that can be made "at no cost," then you are in fact demonstrating a "help yourself" attitude. What else could you possibly be advocating in that scenario? Capitalism?


Nice, but so what? How is that even remotely relevant to the discussion at hand? Overall, is the larger fraction of your film/music library made up of material you acquired for free or material that you actually purchased? If the former, then your reference here to these stores is incidental.

You're trying to blur the issue by conflating claims of ownership of an artistic work versus claims of copyright for that work, and they are not the same thing. I can own a particular copy of a song, whether I download it or purchase it at a record store, but I don't own the right to make and distribute copies of that song.

A demonstration of authorship apart from its role in a capitalist society still greatly informs cultural practice. You hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph, and I think it's you who is conflating two different things. When you own a copy of a song, you do in fact have the right to make as many copies of it as you want. You are not allowed to claim authorship of that song. Depending on the recording, you may or may not be legally allowed to distribute copies of the song for profit. There is a big difference between a copyright holder and an entity which has a contract to distribute the work of a copyright holder. This is beside the point though, because what you're probably concerned with are the performance rights to a work, but you have yet to mention that - do you know the difference?

What I'm interested in is sharing. Are you stealing if a friend lends you a vinyl album to listen to? I mean, you'd be listening to it without having paid for it. Did you actually read - or at least look at the first few pages - of the document I linked to? If you did, you'd see evidence that new methods of sharing in fact increase the paid consumption of visual and audio products.

Describing the world is not advocating for it. We do live in a world where an infinite number of copies can freely be made of digital information. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's life. Don't blame me for pointing it out to you.

Where I buy my records is absolutely relevant to the discussion at hand. You claimed that I endorse digital distribution of music. In fact, I think it's terrible, which is why I would never pay to download mp3s - for the most part, they're terrible, but I also think it's stupid to pay money for something which is free to produce. I support local record stores when possible. People being suckered into thinking they're getting something worth paying for when they pay to download mp3s are playing a large part in destroying these record stores and in turn spurring free downloading.

My music library? Well, I would say that almost all of what I've listened to over the past several years has come from cds that my friends give me - that's how musicians roll, I guess. I do sometimes buy cds, and sometimes I download things. I also listen to streaming music with different services. Most of the tv and movies I watch are streaming.

Becoming angry with the existence of technology and the new culture it inspires and trying in vain to claw them back into the past is not a practice with a good track record. The world is changing and will continue to change. I think it's best to try to adapt to that and find ways to make what is at hand work for you instead of being bitter about it. The music industry survived 8-tracks, and it will survive the internet as well. Shocking as it may be, there was a music industry before recordings existed. Recordings came along, and we somehow survived. Trying to keep culture in a stage of arrested development somewhere in the mid-late 20th century isn't going to work.

Copyright has referred to the rights of authorship. It also refers to the right to produce and distribute copies of a work. You accuse me of trying to force technology into the strictures of the past, but you are forcing the word "copyright" to be defined in an outmoded, incomplete and anachronistic manner.

"Free to produce" or not, the copies ultimately belong to the copyright holder, no matter who produces those copies. Your musician pals may have given you a thousand CDs of their work, but it is their right to do so because they hold the copyright. If I were to distribute CDs of your pals' music, then I would be violating their copyright.

I truly don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. The copyright owner owns the right to produce and distribute copies. The right can be licensed to other distributors or, as in the case of libraries or rental stores, to lending services. What part of this escapes you?

Whether the copies are free to produce or costly, it simply makes no difference. And why should it? Is a work somehow less protected because somebody posted it online and it can now be downloaded for free?

That makes no sense. Maybe this is how non-musicians roll. You are free and welcome to place no value on your work if you wish, but you can't expext or require other people to the same just because you've opted for a decades-old definition of copyright.

You write about my "position", but my position is only the acknowledgment of the current situation. I don't think that's a position. It's just the current state of affairs.

Copies do not belong to the copyright holder - only the copyright does. Mick Jagger can't come to your house and take your Rolling Stones records because he owns the copyright to the songs on them.

I do understand your position, but I think you're just wrong, and I feel like it's not an argument that proves that, but reality.

"Whether the copies are free to produce or costly, it simply makes no difference. And why should it? Is a work somehow less protected because somebody posted it online and it can now be downloaded for free?"

This doesn't make a difference for how copyright functions, but it is at the heart of the matter. Information is free - it's not material. If you transfer knowledge you learned from a book to someone else, they aren't violating copyright by now having access to that information. If you listen to an album that a friend of yours bought, are you stealing?

(by the way, my musician friends haven't given me thousands of cds, but dozens - I'm in a small field, and I only listen to a few new albums a year anyway - I've got a stack of cds on my desk here that people have given me over the past year+ - I'm actually surprised that I've only not listened to two of the seven in this pile)

You may have purchased this or that record, or a particular download or the like, but that only means that you own this particular copy. You don't magically gain the right to duplicate the album, except as defined under fair use--which most certainly doesn't cover the making of "infinite copies" at no cost. The copyright owner (and duly licensed/authorized parties) retains sole ownership of the right to make copies.

Your example about Mick Jagger misses the point. Of course you own the particular copy of the album, but if you've made and distributed a dozen copies of it, then Mick owns them. That's the difference here; if you post a song online, then Mick owns the copy that you've uploaded, and if 10,000 people download copies of that song, then Mick owns those 10,000 copies as well. So if you and these 10,000 people are running around with unauthorized copies, then you each owe Mick whatever price has been assigned to that song.

The copyright most certainly does apply to the information! By your argument, anything that can be produced in digital form belongs to whoever wants it! That's the "help yourself" attitude that I described at the outset, and it's simply absurd even if you claim that it represents reality. All you can claim is that people like to steal copyrighted material; it doesn't mean that copyright doesn't apply.

Your assertion appears to be that copyright protects only the right to claim authorship. Well, that's an opinion that's about 300 years out of date, at least.

You say that copyright applies to the information. I agree that it does in terms of authorship in a very abstract way, but what about in dissemination and sharing of information? Digital copying and sharing are ways of disseminating information which were not conceived of when ideas of copyright were formulated. It seems to me that this is the difference in our positions: you feel that information which does not exist in any physical, stable, form can be owned. I do not. I also think this is an argument which exists far outside of discussions about copyright. What is information? What is knowledge? It becomes very abstract, and I think very interesting. I'm far more interested in seeing how our culture collectively decides to cope with this than I am in listening to what a lobbying organization for a massive industry trying to ignore it and force this new paradigm into outmoded economic models.

As a concept, it can be and has been adapted to apply to modern notions of authorship and ownership. Your refusal to accept this is both curious and informative. What you call "being logical and pragmatic" is really just a shorthand way of saying "because I can get it for free, I am entitled to get it for free."

The sharing of information is fine, so long as that information isn't protected under copyright. Perhaps "digital copying and sharing are ways of disseminating information," but they don't trump copyright.

Broadening the argument to encompass epistemology is simply an effort to distract from the actual discussion at hand. It would be like trying to get out of a speeding ticket by claiming that there is no absolute inertial frame. And if we go the route that you're suggesting, then plagiarism ceases to exist as a concept, as do authorship and ownership. If you're prepared to embark on that journey I say more power to you, but I'd be curious to see what you propose in place of these concepts.


And why are you bringing up a lobbying organization or a massive industry except perhaps as an oblique ad hominem or an attempt to blur the issue? Neither is relevant here.

I think this is where most people are getting the information from that inform their opinions on the issue.

What you characterize as "because I can get it for free, I am entitled to get it for free" I characterize as "this information is free, whether we like it or not - the technology has decided for us."

You give this as an example: "trying to get out of a speeding ticket by claiming that there is no absolute inertial frame."
I give this as a counter example: one should not get a speeding ticket for telecommuting or videoconferencing because they can participate in the discussion more quickly than would be possible if they had to drive to a physical location for the meeting.

I'll take it back to music to try to explain what I'm getting at: I've got a band. Say we play a cover of a Leonard Cohen song. The other guys in the band don't know this song, but I teach it to them. Do they have to now pay Leonard Cohen because they learned his song from me? This is an example of the free exchange of information. Of course Cohen still owns the copyright (though he doesn't for his first record, and would love to have you not pay for it), but sharing the information was free.

and I suspect you'll get a different answer. As I understand it, Cohen is more open about the sharing of the work for which he owns the copyright, and once again that's his business. But he has no authority to speak for all artists.

For copyrighted material, if you perform it and make a profit, then yes you owe the copyright owner a cut. And if your performance of that copyrighted material prevents the copyright owner from profiting from his or her work, then you might very well be liable. We can argue about the viability of such hypothetical lawsuits, but the underlying issue remains.

If you put on a full scale production of Phantom of the Opera and charged for admission, do you think that you wouldn't face liability? How, ultimately, is that different from the example that you cite about Cohen?

Your example about telecommuting is nonsensical and irrelevant.


And simply declaring that "the technology has decided for us" is a cop-out. Thanks to technology I can easily access your banking information--am I therefore entitled to it because technology has rendered it possible? Of course not. Your argument is no different from saying that a person can't be prosecuted for slander simply because he was able to utter the lie in the first place. The fact that something can happen doesn't make it inevitable or right or desirable.

You're getting copyright, publishing rights, and performance rights mixed up.

Leonard Cohen, Jimmy Buffett, or anyone else: you don't pay them to play a cover of their work. It doesn't work that way. Likewise, when they perform, they're not getting paid for the music they have copyrights or publishing rights for - not directly. Venues pay licenses for blanket fees. These fees are collected by organizations like ASCAP and BMI and distributed to their members via mysterious algorithms. It wouldn't matter if I played a concert of their songs for a profit or not - the venue's already paid the licensing fee. When they play live, they're also only paid for their performances - not their publishing rights.

The same would go for playing a song from Phantom of the Opera, but putting on a production of the musical is a theatrical production and governed under those terms, outside of music publishing.

My example of telecommuting is exactly what's at issue, but you're failing to grasp the abstract principle I'm trying to convey here.

Your words: "The fact that something can happen doesn't make it inevitable or right or desirable."

Have a think about that, and really, read the document I linked to many messages back which demonstrates how the sharing of digital information is beneficial to the entertainment industry.

Were you hoping for a Gotcha! moment? Well, bully for you. So I'm not solid on performance rights; good thing that they're irrelevant here. Let's get back to your attack on copyright and your endorsement of theft.

You have started, maintained, and concluded your argument with the same unchanging and apparently unchangeable assertion that free distribution of someone else's copyrighted work is a great thing. And in return you expect me to slog through your citation to find the points that you think are relevant? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Cite the relevant passages here, in context. Since you have no qualms about disseminating other people's work, you shouldn't have any difficulty copying and pasting the parts that support your claim.

Even if--big if--the theft of copyrighted material is somehow beneficial to the entertainment industry, it's still theft. Let the copyright holders decide if their copyrighted material is to be shared, because it's simply not up to you or to the legions of downloaders who have convinced themselves that we live in the "help yourself" age that you've been advocating.

because you aren't familiar enough with the subject that you're arguing about.

I wasn't trying to make a distraction, but bringing up something about how information is conveyed and exchanged.

If you want to carry on this discussion, familiarize yourself with copyright and how it relates to publishing rights and performance rights and what those different terms mean. You're conflating these three things, but they're different.

Basically you seem to be making arguments dealing with mechanical rights, and in that regard we have a differing opinion. For now, the law is on your side, but culture does not function as if the copying of digital information separate from physical objects is dependent on mechanical rights.

Anyway, I'm just repeating myself now.

By your own admission the law is on my side, and perhaps that's the essence of our disagreement. I'm arguing that the holder of the work's copyright retains exclusive right to produce and distribute copies of that work. You, on the other hand, are basically arguing that because technology makes it convenient to distribute without compensating the copyright holder, then anyone who cares to distribute the copyright holder's work is free to do so.

I agree; you're just repeating yourself, and a dozen posts later it's no more convincing than it was at the outset. We simply disagree on who should retain copyright (i.e., who has authority over duplication and distribution). I assert that the copyright holder retains that right, but you're basically asserting that everyone in the world has it instead.

You even refer to exclusivity of authorship, which in practice is another way of saying "thanks for producing this work which we intend to distribute without compensating you.


Yeah, we're going to have to disagree.

Why does the copyright owner have an exclusive right to distribute copies even though those copies may have already been legally purchased by others? Why does a rental store or library need to obtain a license to distribute copies that it has obtained by legal means and now owns? When somebody dies, all of the copies of hardcopy (ink on paper) books that the deceased owned can be sold by the estate without authorization from the copyright holders.

To some extent, I might be misunderstanding you, but there are various legal jurisdictions in the world, and to at least some extent what I'm talking about seems to be an actual part of law in at least some jurisdictions:

Dish Network will just push all the Blockbuster people to Dish Networks new Movie Pay Per-View. So they lose money on one end Blockbuster... but gain on the other.

The new rent a movie for 1.99+ and the new own the movie for 9.99+ all digital. Really no way to lose.

Then the chain stores put them out of business, then online put the chains out of business.

It's sort of a commercial natural selection process.

Kind of like the local corner grocery stores, butchers, and even bakeries. The big boxes came in and put them out of business. Now I see certain things like video store big boxes being taken out by the internet and the dollar rental vending machines.

Always nice feeling, vs theses no design, same crappy lighting box stores.

and find a wall of 600 boxes with no case behind it
Oh the good old days

Porn tape rentals were the driver behind the sales of VCRs.

got rid of the Voom content, and replaced it with what he wanted.

Blockbuster was only bought for the video library. The so-called streaming they said was going to compete against Netflix is only for Dish subscribers, where you have to buy a certain level of programming whether you want it or not as I understand it.

The beauty of Netflix is that you choose what you want, and when you want it.

when they bought Blockbuster - there is now a Blockbuster video on demand option with 3000+ titles.

The Blockbuster/Dish deal was more about offering thousands of movies on demand and there's an option if you're a Dish customer - just like the record stores did. I know, I used to work for Sound Warehouse and Peaches...No more record stores, as a matter of fact, Blockbuster bought Sound Warehouse way back when, that didn't work, so they put limited number of CD's in Blockbuster stores. Mostly the hits.

But what ever happens if the net is out or anything like that. We are turning into a world that had at least some physical items, now to just digital that can go away in a flash.

Its kinda funny to think, everything is going digital, papers, resume, videos, pictures... everything. No longer need physical copies and all that can go away in a matter of seconds

No manufacturing or distribution costs. Cut out the all the middle men. Even cut out the end sellers (Walmart, Best But, Amazon). You will either use streaming, or rent / buy digital copies you download to your computer or other device. No more used CDs / Blurays being resold without the provider getting a cut.

PC gaming is already very big in this area. Steam is the largest one of the bunch. You install their free app, then you buy a game you download to your computer, and start playing. The next generation of consoles will be probably be all digital. The companies that make the games want this bad. No more used games for sale from Gamestop without them getting a cut.

And when you computer or consoles break, you might have to buy all that stuff all over again. An endless river of money for the providers.

You buy the game, then you will always own it, no matter what computer you're on. I bought a copy of Half Life 2 years ago. I registered it with steam. Computer died years later, and I had lost the install disk. I installed Steam and I saw "Half Life 2. Click here to Install" 20 minutes later, I was in the game. They really need to do something like that for movies.

Check out Ultraviolet, they're advertising it alot on the "previews" when you rent a movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraViolet_%28system%29

I've just never understood the point of owning all that content, whether digital or physical.

Digital Music - Yeah, some of it I'm going to listen to over and over, but I've actually found that a lot of the stuff I bought through iTunes thinking that I needed to own it, I never listen to again after that first week of having it.

e-Books - Yeah, some titles I'm probably going to read again, but by the time I'm getting back around to reading an e-Book I've already read once, we're probably going to be on to a different format anyways.

Films - Don't understand the massive libraries people have at all. Don't know alot of people with massive digital collections, but the people I know with massive DVD/bluray collections have dozens of titles on the shelves that never even came out of the shrink wrap. They probably had the same when VHS was the rage.

The library is your friend, as are streaming services. Spotify at $9.99 is worth its weight in gold. Less than the cost of an album a month and most major labels are on there. If it ever stops, you're only out the $9.99 you paid for that month. Digital seems like the future, but wwning massive digital music libraries, sorry to say, will probably be as pointless 10 years from now as owning massive DVD libraries is today.

I found a physical library worth it. Went on a trip. Took my laptop and about 10 movies for the ride up. But you're absolutely right.
Other than that, I haven't touched one of my DVD's in years, other than moving from home to home.
I watch everything from Netflix on my blueray player. I don't even go to theaters any more.

I have two bicycle repair books I refer to, but they are becoming obsolete.
Great summary

all that plastic -

They haven't closed them all yet - I used to think I had to have the latest
release by ________

Not since Rhapsody or Napster entered my life. $9.95 per month to listen to most releases with a click is heavenly.

near me put up going out of business signs about a month ago. I wouldn't be surprised if all Blockbusters are closed soon.

I'm a '90s kid who remembers going to blockbuster and hollywood video on the regular until family got netflix in '06. i've heard that until the '80s TV rental services were popular.

hahaahah... Joking.

Yeah VHS tapes

I loved those guys. lol

THey hardly had anything I liked. Though my older brothers found some good stuff.

Businesses change hand so often you forget, who actually runs the show.

The conventional wisdom is that Redbox expects to morph into an online distribution service rather than simply a brick and mortar (or more precisely - Kiosk) based business. Unrelated related factoid: not many people seem to realize it, but Redbox is owned by the same company that has the "Coinstar" kiosk business.

Amazing how all theses business, one way or another are connected. So its like 4-5 big guys run the entire market. If one area slumps oh well, we got the other one that picks up. Kinda a never lose situation.

I'd swear that Goodwill Hunting wasn't due back until Tuesday.

Then late fees will start. But don't count on it, they will probably bulk package and sell late accounts to some creditor in Mexico

digital media is geared toward but I'll admit I kind of miss the local video rental store. It was kind of fun just going there on a Friday or Saturday evening with a friend and stumbling upon something we hadn't heard of. Or even just chatting with the person working there about some movie or the other - that the movie we were renting was great or he or she would recommend something else as well.

I understand the business aspects of this, and that blockbuster just isn't particularly viable as a brick and mortar store (and considering how they basically Wal-martized the rest of the competition, it serves them right), but there will always be some nostalgia. I'll also feel bad for the people losing their jobs due to these closings. It was good experience for the young people that worked at these places.