THE DEVIN'S ADVOCATE: STOP PIRATING, DICKHEADS - Page 8

Those aren't bad suggestions, though I'm sure some theaters would argue that they don't have the staff to act as studio police. Making piracy more difficult without impacting the normal customer experience is always a good choice. If piracy is inconvenient, that takes care of all the lazy folks.

"Media-sharing" is the problem. And it should be fought. There's no way to turn sharing and copying into a lucrative business. Studios are slowly embracing alternative forms of distribution, but what they don't like - and here is where I agree with them - is one guy using their purchased copy as a jumping-off point for hundreds of others to own their own copy. And that's what wil continue to happen - one guy buys a downloadable copy, then pirates it and makes it available for free. No amount of innovation in terms of availability and cross-platform formats and so on is going to change the fact that an increasing number of people wish to dodge paying for this stuff. Studios are a business, and as much shit as they get I don't see why they should be expected to swallow the notion that once their product is made and out there it should available to all for nothing.

I agree they shouldn't be expected to just suck it up and deal with it. The challenge is finding ways to combat piracy that don't affect and subsequently alienate the innocent customer. Turning ISPs or even customs officials into the Copyright Police raises hackles across the board. And the more severe the tactics become, the more pirates want to find a way to circumvent the protection. So studios shouldn't be expected to suck it up, but it may turn out that it's exactly what they'll have to do if they don't want to make the problem worse. That stinks, and it shouldn't be like that, but unless someone comes up with an elegant solution that makes piracy too difficult to do (without also ruining the experience for legitimate customers), I think it's where we're headed.

Oh, come one, I could see special case scenarios (undistributed works, geo-restrictions, etc.), but anybody that pirates major studio blockbusters that are available everywhere is clearly stealing.

When Netflix and $1 Redbox (and Redbox-like competitors) are giving a super cheap option to customers, there's no excuse.

If you download a pirated copy of, say, Sherlock Holmes, when you can walk over to a Redbox and rent it for a buck, then I have little sympathy. If $1 is a problem for you, then you have bigger issues you need to deal with than figuring out a way to get cheap or free movies. Like finding a job so you can eat and pay rent.

(What I find amusing is that most of the major studios HATE, HATE, HATE the Redbox model; it exists on the right to re-sell a bought work. Redbox buys movies in bulk from a distributor and rents them out for $1, so studios don't get a cut from the rental fee. It's clearly the answer to most of the piracy of the mainstream studio output, but they can't see that.)

I can't believe I have to fucking do this but here ya go.

A small time/ first time director usually works with a crew he's familiar with to keep down costs. It's a crew that will often have to double up on their positions. You likely have a guy who's the first AD as well as a 1st AC. The director will also work with smaller post houses and likely film in an area where he can get the best tax breaks to keep down costs. That area is usually far away from the Hollywood backlots. His effects crew is likely a boutique shop or the entry level worker arm of a larger shop (y'know, guys who need the experience before they move on to the big projects).

He's also usually leveraged across the board like a sonuvabutch. That mean he's getting his money source from a variety of different people and governments (in the case of co-productions). These are all people who will want their money back eventually. He has not received grants these are all loans. Money that he and his producers are on the hook for. Or, if he's done his homework, the production itself is on the hook for. Regardless, it will affect his ability to get shit done in the future if his production forfeits the money.

Should his movie not back its money due to someone pirating it, he's pretty much done for. He won't get investors for his next flick. He can't get a co-pro going because he didn't earn money on the last. Plus, he has to either pay back money to investors or declare the production bankrupt. As an indie director, that means you're dead in the water.

How does that affect everyone else? His crew won't be working on his next picture cuz there won't be another one. Most of them were likely working to get their IATSE or DGA/DGC ticket. So now they won't get all the hours they need on his next flick because it won't exist. That means no medical coverage and retirement plan payments for them because they aren't yet union. It also means that pay cut they took to work their position wasn't worth it.

That FX guy who was getting experience or who would get experience on the next show is now not getting work. That boutique sound company will likely never get paid for the work they did because the producers borrowed against the post budget (don't act surprised, every movie does this). The editor's assitants are in the same boat or at the very least ina similar one to the production crew.

Here's the even shittier aspect. All those guys who invested in the movie, who may have had dreams of being big name producers, are now tainted. And not just them but anyone of their personal associates or business associates. You've tainted an entire investment pool Not just those that invested but those who may have invested in the next one had the first movie made make its money.

How do you suppose that post sound house is going to react next time a young indie filmmaker comes in asking for some cheap work? Do you think that sound stage in Louisiana is going to cut the next filmmaker a break who asks for a deal? Do you think the government will feel like helping out up and comers if they never get their money back? How about an actor who was promised a percentage in lieu of payment?

In short, fuck you if you don't think a movie being pirated can't make a difference to below line crew. Fuck you if you believe all filmmakers/film crew work in a studio system and won't get hurt by pirating. And, finally, fuck you, if you think that exposure alone should make a young filmmaker happy.

Now now, Ryan, that's all made up BS until someone can produce a pie-chart showing the exact effects of piracy on film production.

Ryan, actually I think an answer to the financing for the smaller filmmaker problem may be the proposed futures market for the movie business that the SEC is holding hearings on. Many Wall Street firms are making a push for this, but it could also benefit the first time filmmaker with nothing more than a strong script under his arm. He can essentially go to the markets and raise money by issuing shares.

It could revolutionize the business, and actually decrease some of the risk and losses. A bit off topic, but it's relevant to one of your concerns.

And pay for the internet access you're using to download the movies in the first place.

Then again, they probably look at it as a better return on their investment. For $25 a month, I can rent 25 Redbox movies, or I can have internet access and watch a potentially unlimited number of movies.

Sure, but who has that kind of time on their hands? Maybe, high school or college kids (who skip class A LOT).

This thread has 'Admiral Akbar' written ALL OVER IT!!

I think the issue is more pirating current-in-theater movies. Once a movie's on commercial DVD, it's out in the wild, forget about it, it's gonna get copied, shared, etc.

Question is, how to protect Joe Rookie Indie Filmmaker from piracy? True, some have argued that Scenes from a Wisconsin Trailer Park isn't as juicy a target for pirates as Transformers. Yeah, there'll be a small demand among people who don't live near the three (if Joe is lucky) theaters playing the flick nationwide. But the audience tends not to be zit-faced computer jockeys, who are looking for Iron Man 2. Fortunately, the tastes of those who illegally download films is about the same as the majority, i.e. shitty.

I've seen a lot of indie filmmakers just sell their films on DVD-R (or a more professional format) on their website, and I've bought some. I've legally downloaded such films for a fee. I've gone through IFC on Demand.

The point is, Joe no longer necessarily has to count on a distributor to pick up his film; he can go right to the source and sell it, cut out the middle man and make money. Will he be kickin' it in the Caribbean? No. Is it easier if he has even a small outfit like Magnolia or Oscilloscope to market his film? Sure. But he can use the internet to network and self-market in a way that wasn't possible even ten years ago. I've seen indie filmmakers post on Facebook looking to see if anyone has a certain prop they need for a scene, and I've seen people answer that call within minutes. Use the tech, damn it, don't fear it.

I'm not meaning to disregard the impact of piracy on the little guy, but how many people do you figure watched an illegal download of Wendy and Lucy or the latest mumblecore flick versus the number of people who watched it legitimately? I'm gonna go ahead and speculate not that many.

So Joe needs to change with the times and the tech just like the mighty studios. Think laterally. Make it worth someone's while not to download the illegal copy. I've seen filmmakers set donation levels, where at a certain price you can get your name in the credits, or a signed DVD, or whatever. In the end, talent and originality will rise above. If you're making shitty shit, either at the studio level or in your backyard, it's just a product and will be used and abused accordingly. If it's recognized as being more than a product, the right people will support it and it most likely won't even be on the pirates' radar.

Honest question:

If a movie is illegally downloaded after release, I can see where it would be impossible to track down who is responsible and stop it. However, if before, couldn't it be tracked to a responsible party and crucify the guy? It might not stop all the bleeding once the pirated copy is out there, but I imagine if it was publicly known that the guy who leaked the Wolverine copy was found in 5 minutes and is now serving 5 years in Federal PMITA prison, this would dissuade future pirates, yes?

And the reason I bring it up, and someone else I'm sure has before, but this, to me, is very similar to an illegal drug issue. There's a lot of focus right now on the downloader/user, and not as much on the uploader/Colombian Druglord.

I doubt it, because at a certain point ego comes into it. *I* can't get caught. That *other* guy got caught. Everyone thinks they're exempt from the "everyone else" laws. I'm the only person who should be using a cell phone while driving, etc.

I understand the urge to download movies, but I still don't get why someone would leak a film to torrent sites, take Wolverine for example. That person isn't becoming famous, they aren't making a profit, what's the motive? Just to be an asshole?

THESE are the ones, above all others, who literally need to be shot out in the street.

People who pirate movies instead of paying for them through proper channels are bad. But THESE fucking assholes...

Here's the thing though, if you equate the cost of making a movie versus the penalty for stealing it, you could prosecute the person who uploaded it in the first place for stealing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. If they put that law into place, and enforced it, I imagine movie pirating would slow down dramatically.

I still don't understand what's in it for the pirate, though. The person actually uploading it. I get what the guy on the street corner's in it for, he's getting cash. But what does the uploader get? Notoriety? Guy's sacrificing bandwidth to purposely be a dick for nothing? I've never gotten this.

Edit: Or what Nexus said.

In short, yes. It's the same reason hackers in the eighties decided to try to break into secure systems. People do it because a) it's "edgy", b) it's relatively easy, and c) they get satisfaction from beating the "system". There's no profit motive for these people. For most, it's simply a badge of pride.

Shit, you want to be proud of something, run a fucking marathon or work at a soup kitchen.

Good read Ryan, you raise lots of valid arguments. However really quickly... This hypothetical indie production is the least-likely to fall victim of pirating simply because, if it's being produced/funded and made the way you've described, I would doubt it would have any kind of profile to spark the interest of a bootlegger. Movies that fall into the pirated category, usually are "big" summer movies and/or oscar-bait stuff. Your indie-made film you describe would be unlikely to fall victim of a heavy pirating effort, it would also fall victim to (if anything) below-average marketing and a limited theatre release. Also, this indie film would be unlikely to a) have pre-screenings or b) release screener dvds. Both of which are pirate-bait.

Also, if the indie film is any good, it'd make back it's money - based on your low-cost model above. If it was pirated, yes, it would theoretically make slightly less money - but there is no proof, none whatsoever that shows a direct correlation between a movies financial failure and pirating. Only that it's illegal and people who do it, are stealing. Using your indie example, it's highly unlikely those 'stealing' the film would have been aware of the film before pirating it or bothered to see it at the cinema either way. Sure, by stealing it... you could say it's lost revenue, absolutely... but that's assuming they knew about the film and/or had intended on paying for it before seeing a torrent for it.

Which, for the record... is wrong. But you can't say there is empirical evidence that, other than being assholes... Pirates are killing indie-funded films.

It'd be like saying because I got given an extra $5 in change from a burger purchase, Little timmy wouldn't get his paycheck for his next months worth of work or lose his job later on. It's such small percentages of people we're talking about here, again... pirating is not mainstream - using this thread as an example, less than 2 or maybe 3 people here actively pirate stuff.

It's a good argument you make, but it's not a realistic one.

_____

EDIT: Someone further up mentioned Netflix as an example of an online movie source - that source is not available worldwide, it's only in the US. Again, not an excuse for pirates just an example of the draconian copyright laws and global restrictions currently at play here. If studios were serious about combating Pirates, if it was a BIG problem - rolling out Netflix globally (ala iTunes) would be a logical step to combat pirating.

Dude, you'd be AMAZED at what gets pirated out there. It's not just blockbusters and Oscar bait.

Adam Carolla did a podcast with Darren Bousman recently, who railed about the negative impact of piracy on the box-office for Repo! The Genetic Opera. He was very much in the Troy Nixey camp.

Sociopaths?

To Biggs' post, I feel like David Duchovny responding to Zoolander... "But why male models?"

"Really, Derek? I just explained it to you, five seconds ago."

Things which require effort and/or empathy. You must understand, these pirates are the same douchebags who try to post "First" in threads, etc. They're the same idiots you hear on XBL.

Now, some pirates are/were in it for the technical challenge of breaking DRM. That, while still morally incorrect and illegal, at least had a clear goal, and they acknowledge for the most part that what they're doing is theft. Of course, most of them have a misguided Robin Hood rationalization.

Ironically, first time I saw that film, it was on a guy's computer, a few months before the DVD came out. Someone on a KMFDM message board uploaded a copy to rapidshare.

So, yeah. He's absolutely right.

Oh, for sure... no doubt. I have no idea, but do people actually download the obscure stuff?, what numbers are we talking about here? Thousands, hundreds... or just a dozen of people. How many people would download a pirated copy of 'Primer' for example?...

...and those that DO download it, did they know about it beforehand, or did they pay to see it at a cinema first, loved it... and grabbed a replay copy for friends who missed it?

I think the latter is more of a reality than the kind of numbers Ryan would be talking about that would actually affect a films bottom line.

So now we're back to the "Oh, it doesn't hurt them THAT much" argument.

No, the argument is that pirating is destroying peoples lives and jobs. I'm saying, that there's simply no logic in that... it's not mathematically possible.

Isn't establishing risk/level of hurt a fairly important criterion in determining just how bad something is, though?

I'm still fairly surprised to see how content some of you are with merely leaving it at "it's bad." There's no interest in defining the degrees of this badness, no interest in discussing how some of the responses to online piracy represent threats of their own.

Driving over the speed limit isn't as morally suspect as driving drunk. Punching a guy in the shoulder isn't the same as knifing him to death. In discussing ethics (and legality, which is an entirely separate issue though you wouldn't know it to look at some of your responses), we talk about the level of harm, the level of immorality. It's very seldom a binary good/bad situation.

Exactly, which is why when people say "oh, well.... you wouldn't steal a TV would you?" have missed the point. It takes genuine malice and intent to steal a TV than it does to grab an episode of 30ROCK off the net.

...also, there are many, many things in place to make it easy and cost-effective for those of us who want to purchase a TV legally. It's also easier (and far less riskier) to just go an buy one and would take more effort, risk and moral ambiguity to steal one.

You may have a point. There was a story the other day about a plumber who hid cameras in the bathrooms of women's houses. It's not as bad if the pictures were for his own private use, right? It would have been actually bad if he had intended to put them online or to sell them.

I mean, that's what you're getting at, right? Because stealing the work someone toiled over for years and years is essentially the same as speeding.

Except when it's taking something you didn't actually pay for. HOW immoral it is is an interesting question, but it has little bearing when the root problem is the mentality that says taking creative property without compensating its creator is okay.

All these Zoolanders, not enough David Duchovnys.

That's an utterly ridiculous comparison. Speeding, for one... can KILL someone. A guy taking photos of ladies bathrooms is an utterly irrelevant comparison.

Here's one that works...

I'd put movie piracy in the same category as someone borrowing a book from me that I didn't return to the library, and lent it to a few mates.

I don't know the ratio of exposure and how it is related to the amounts of illegal downloads but I guess a very popular blockbuster will get downloaded at least 5 times more often (relative to its exposure).

Wouldn't that in some perverted way make "piracy" an ally for small and indie film makers? If Wolverine get's downloaded a lot and leaked before release, people who otherwise would've spent money in the cinema are now free to see something else or spent their spare coin on something more valueable.

People will only spent a certain amount of money for entertainment, if they can get the majority of the mainstream diarrhea for free, they might wanna spent that money at the theater or for smaller and harder to get artsy stuff.
Wouldn't the death of blockbuster cinema help the small ones?

Just food for thought, maybe I'm completely wrong...

Are people missing the "loss of revenue" part of this equation? Of course it would be terrible for smaller films to lose money.

I'm finding something in this thread interesting: The amount of people who are making this assumption/mistake...

legal=ethical=moral

The definitions are NOT the same and shouldn't be used interchangeably. Carry on.

Except that the library paid for the book initially. A better example would be if you stole that book from a Barnes and Noble and then photocopied it for your friends.

An Antichrist screener was online right around, possibly before, it's theatrical release date. This date ALSO included the On Demand/Pay-per-view options.

Fucking hell, this thread has been tedious (as this argument always is). Why wait for "proof" while we just let this sort of piracy go on unchecked because it "isn't really hurting anyone?" If you really can't see how this can and will fuck up the art we all enjoy here, then...

Jesus Christ, Devin, really? I mean, I'm sure if that plumber could've legitimately paid for those bathroom videos, he would've PROUDLY done so. Clearly this is just a case of there not being an outlet for the demand.

If only those women would've wised up, they and the plumber wouldn't be in this whole mess.

The folks behind Night of the Living Dead: Reanimated are releasing their own bootleg prior to the official DVD release.

If El Mariachi, which was produced under the conditions stated above, had been pirated Rodriguez would've lost his shirt and we wouldn't have his filmography now. Whether you like his stuff or not is irrelevant, we wouldn't have him as a filmmaker, and that would certainly sadden me.

Your problem is that you keep thinking indie films are always low budget, low action feature. Things that wouldn't interest pirates at all. Look at the work of Neil Blomkamp as an example of an indie filmmaker who makes films that are appealing to mainstream audiences. Lots of horror movies that line the shelf are first time director flicks. They're prime for the pirating community. If not here, certainly in Europe and China.

Roger Corman made his fucking career off of the style of filmmaking listed above. How do you think he would've done if people were pirating his movies.

So, if they are aware of their film being stolen, it's bad? If they aren't it's okay?

Or are you suggesting that because we have no way of proving loss of income there's no foul? That's what I'm not understanding. There's no proof of loss of income to a writer being plagiarized yet no one here would dare suggest that plagiarism is fine.

Do you honestly believe that if one of Neil Blomkamp's first shorts got pirated it wouldn't have affected his bottom line? Why would a film festival book a film everyone has downloaded or seen on youtube? Something that's been on the net is old news in weeks, why would someone want to talk to him about a directing gig (professionally) if his shits only good for online? Or because that was last week's hot viral?

And honest to good, it's quite possible that an indie film becomes a huge frickin' hit making back it's money ten times over (more if you're Blair Witch). What are the odds of that happening (and thereby pulling money out of the pockets of producers and directors etc) if it's available on JoeTorrent site?

There's no empirical evidence of plagiarism being harmful on an economic scale...

Wrong. It's more like you getting your full meals every day for free for a month at Little Timmy's Place and then you wonder why you can't get burgers anymore because the place is closed. That's how freakin' close indie film makers are to not making another flick.

No offense but I'll put my awareness of indie film making and distribution versus yours any day of the week.

Guilt and ethics interest me immensely so an article like this was always well placed to appeal to me. Not a day goes by lately without me either observing people pirating in one form or another or attempting to get me to do the same (sending me a link to something illegally sourced, etc.) This is true with film, TV, and music.

To illustrate, a friend of mine who loves It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia championed it for ages before it became available here. He insisted I'd love it, too, and recommended it frequently. The show wasn't on local TV at the time, satellite or otherwise (a brief spell on FX was all it seemed it get) and it was horrible missing out on something I wanted to see badly, but I didn't take the easy way out and watch it illegally online, because I knew my enjoyment would have been eliminated by the guilt I'd feel over not paying for it.

As it turns out, the show's now available on iTunes for a not unreasonable price and I'm finally gonna get to join the discussion.

This is something I still get amazed by with albums especially. The worst thing about most people not even realizing this is wrong has to be the embarrassment I feel when this kind of thing comes up in conversation. Invariably, I feel (or am made to feel) like an oddball for trying to find alternate, legal means of enjoying something. Knowing my heart's in the right is all the vindication I need, but it's still annoying to put up with the hassle in the moment.

Look kids, Big Ben, Parliament.

Piracy hurts the bottom line of movies.

There is no way to determine the extent of this damage reliably.

The fact that we can't determine the actual extent of damage in NO WAY makes piracy justifiable. The fact that major movie studios may have buhzillions of dollars doesn't factor into the argument either -- stealing from someone is wrong whether they "notice it" or not.

However, since we can't really know how much harm is being done, we also can't really know if piracy is the prime (or even major) contributing factor of any film's lack of financial success. That doesn't mean piracy wasn't the prime factor -- it just means we can't be sure because we don't know the extent of the damage. It may be that if piracy weren't involved at all the film would still have failed, leading to the same consequences of people losing out on future opportunities. Or it might be that the film would have been a success if only pirates hadn't targeted it. There's no way to know for sure.

Piracy may very well be costing people jobs/destroying entire careers/shelving films due to a lack of investors. Hell, it probably IS contributing to all those things. We just can't know that for sure because there's no way to ascertain the actual impact of piracy in an empirical way. I do think it's disingenuous to suggest that piracy doesn't hurt the industry at all -- it's a problem that needs to be addressed. But I also think it's possible that the movie industry elevates the problem of piracy beyond its actual impact. Again, I don't know that for sure -- it could be that the industry underestimates the actual impact. I just think anyone claiming to know the truth is either delusional or lying.

Here's another argument to take: Piracy leads to bad movies.

If it's all about the bottom line, and studios are afraid to lose revenue, why take a risk on new, fresh talent? Directors aren't made in a vacuum. As Troy Nixey demonstrated, it takes a lot of work to get to the point to make a good major studio film. Everyone has to cut their teeth in the movie business. And when studios decide they can't take a chance on new talent because the profits aren't there for whatever reason, they stick with the safe, the sequel, the prequel, the remake (and yeah, I know Troy Nixey's film is technically a remake, but it's a remake of a TV movie that's been forgotten by practically everyone).

How does piracy fit into this? If independent filmmakers can't get discovered or get financing, they don't get to make movies. And new talent dies on the vine. We know a lot of writers in this community, most of whom have struggled for over 10 years to break into filmmaking, and some of them are finally getting their due. Rampant piracy eliminates the willingness of a small studio or independent financier to take that risk. Producers aren't altruists - they want to make their money back, at the very least, but they mostly want to make a profit, a profit that isn't made in the theatrical release window. It's made through On Demand, through DVD purchases and Blu-Ray purchases and rentals, and even online download purchases. Downloading those films for free takes away any incentive to finance those kinds of films. And so the new voices suffer, and get silenced.

I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that piracy could very well lead to ASS: THE MOVIE. Because why take the risk on new talent when no one pays to see it anyway?

I've just done a fairly thorough bit of research into authorship and intellectual property, in general, which happens to cover (at least in a loose sense) both illegal downloading and plagiarism.

The super, super, super high-level version of it - cultural notions of authorship are socially constructed, our present take on authorship is based on a bunch of Romantic era bullshit that printers were able to exploit to their advantage in the 19th century as the reach of copyright was expanded, and what constitutes plagiarism, regardless of what may seem intuitive to you, is HIGHLY subjective. If you care to delve deeper on the plagiarism issue, this isn't a bad place to start.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there, but I thought it was interesting you brought up plagiarism, because it's a far better analogy than stealing TVs.

I did manage to find a study conducted in 2007:

De Vany, A.S. & Walls, W.D. (2007). Estimating the Effects of Movie Piracy on Box-office Revenue. Review of Industrial Organization, 30(4), 291-301.

If anyone has access to that journal via an academic connection, you might want to take a look at that issue since it seems to be all about the film industry. Anyway, De Vany & Walls found that box office revenue losses were probably about $40 million, substantially less than the $3 billion claimed by the MPAA. Still a lot of money (and De Vany & Walls do admit to certain unmeasurables playing a part), but if we're letting the MPAA's claims lead the discussion in terms of legality, I'd say there's a problem.

But I know - it's all bad, and pirates should probably be gutted and skullfucked if but one dollar is lost.

You could make virtually the same argument about the video rental business. This cheaper alternative to buying a ticket to see a movie or buying a movie on DVD must certainly result in economic losses that could lead to ASS: THE MOVIE. Because obviously if someone likes a movie enough to rent it, he would have bought it otherwise. Obviously.

Dave, I took a gander at the article. Just to clarify, the $3 billion is a claim about losses for the entire industry, the $40 million is what the authors calculate for a single movie.

Unfortunately, the authors only had access to data for a single wide-release movie. As a scientist, I was somewhat dismayed to read this passage:

I mean, c'mon. Analysis of one movie based on 'confidential' data is not terribly helpful. That said, their method of measuring the rate of change in a movies theatrical revenue in relation to the number of pirated copies available for download makes sense to me.

Haven't paid attention to the thread in a while. Are we still saying "stealing is stealing" over and over again and completely rejecting the idea that on an individual basis (depending on how it's utilized) it is in fact possible that piracy can be beneficial? Yes? Okay, carry on...

Hey, I tried to kill this thread with math, and here you are stirring the pot again!

Math? Math won't kiss this, only fire can.

Stop breaking the law assholes!

Whoops. That was completely shoddy research on my part, and there's really no excuse for it.

And I now notice that this article was cited in a subsequent article on how difficult it is to quantify the damage that piracy does to the film industry, which is the very good point that JonStrickland was making in the first place.