The advent of advanced technology that allows broadband Internet access on personal computers has made the illegal downloading of films increasingly common.[1]
In the early days of the Internet, films were held in formats that made them significantly harder to share than more easily shared music files, with the result that illegal downloading of films was less common. However, the rise of BitTorrent protocol has made it possible to share large movie files over the Internet more easily.
If an individual engages in the sharing of copyrighted materials without gaining the necessary permission, then that person is acting illegally in some countries and can face prosecution. Illegal downloaders either remain unaware of the illegality of their actions or ignore the law.
The potential punishments for the illegal downloading of films are the same as those for the illegal downloading of music but have yet far not been pursued with the same vigour by the film industry as by the music industry.
Contents |
Illegal file sharing is the newest form of copyright infringement, and remains the most common form of illegal downloading.
In the 1990s, file sharing programmes were developed in order to allow Internet users to share collections of music, small video clips and other small files. From the beginning, both users and copyright holders encountered problems with the file sharing process. Shared files could easily be infected with viruses that infected users’ computers, and copyright was easily infringed.
A number of high profile lawsuits have been filed against individuals who had developed large collections of illegally downloaded material, however it has had little deterrent effect.[2]
The most common ways in which a film can be illegally downloaded are via file sharing services, using peer-to-peer networks and through BitTorrents.
Peer-to-peer networks operate through people using software that joins them with a peer-to-peer network to locate shared files on the computers of other users (who are connected to the network). Files can then be downloaded straight from user to user.[3]
Significant P2P clients have included soul seek and LimeWire, the latter was discontinued as a result of court action in 2010.[4] File hosting services work similarly, with an internet hosting service designed to host static content. The content hosted usually consists of large files which are not web pages. A significant file hosting site is rapidshare.com which has been active since 2005.[5] Legal DVD versions of films are typically released to the public three months after they have finished playing in cinemas, to allow the cinemas to offer films before they are available to view on home entertainment systems. However, film pirates have the ability to offer versions of films available for online downloading before they have finished their cinema runs, and in some cases, before they have been released into cinemas. These copies are always illegal and have been obtained and released without the permission of the copyright holders.
Media streaming is the constant presenting of multimedia to an end user. Live streaming refers to the live broadcasting of multimedia over the Internet, and it remains a popular means of viewing media both legally and illegally, especially among users who do not wish to permanently download a film, for example.[6]
A media stream can be streamed in one of two ways. Live streaming works through a process called true streaming, that sends information straight to a computer or device without having the file that is being streamed save to a hard disk. The other way is that of on demand streaming that, through a process called progressive streaming, more commonly known as progressive download. Progressive streaming involves saving a file to a hard disk and then having it played from that location. The main practical difference is that on demand streams are often saved to hard disks for extended amounts of time; while live streams are only made available at one time. Such as during the live broadcasting of a football match.[7]
New film releases debut at different times across the world, thereby giving audiences in some areas the chance to see a film before it can be seen by those in another region. As a result, some people may be encouraged to illegally access films that are already available in another part of the world. It also gives members of the original audiences to make illegal copies of the film while in the cinema.
Audiences have become accustomed to viewing content online. On the Internet, the illegal nature of the version of the film available may not be as obvious as a clearly bootlegged video or DVD.
The film industry remains concerned about illegal downloading of films. There has been controversy surrounding the handing out of preview DVDs or videos, also known as screeners, to those carrying out judging duties ahead of awards ceremonies. These screeners are made available to judges before the films are released to the cinemas. Film award panel members see the preview tapes as important to their work of awarding prizes and promoting films. Although only sent to members of judging panels, some have found their way into the hands of film pirates. In the US, an actor, Carmine Caridi, admitted that he had passed screeners which he had been sent as a film panel judge, on to a man, Russell Sprague, who in 2004 was convicted of illegally copying preview tapes for sale. In 2003, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), stopped the practise of sending out screeners as they claimed their release led to an increase in piracy of films.[8] Going into 2011, the cost to the film industry worldwide of illegal downloading of films is estimated to be in the region of £500 million a year, according to Liz Bales of the Industry Trust for Intellectual Property Awareness. She is hoping that the introduction of improved legal downloading services which are easier to use and more efficient will deter illegal use.[9]
Although some illegally downloaded films can be of poor quality, and take a long time to download, illegal sites are improving. While films recorded from inside cinemas can suffer distortion, once the DVD has been officially released, the quality of the illegal copy available online improves. Faster broadband services are advantageous to illegal as well as legal sites.[10]
Estimates released by the British Video Association (BVA) for the year 2003 to 2004 showed that the number of illegal downloads of films and television programmes may have increased to 1.67 million, three times the number estimated to have taken place the year before. This was estimated by the BVA to have cost the DVD industry in the UK £45 million in lost revenue. The DVD industry was worth around £2.42 billion to the British economy in 2003 .[11]
It is estimated that the UK film industry was worth around £4.3 billion to the UK's economy, but that in 2007, illegal copying and sharing of films may have cost the economy up to £404 million.[12]
DVD sales have accounted for around half the profits of the worldwide industry in the last ten years.[13]
Jeremy Hunt, the UK's Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, is investigating the possibility of laws requiring that sites that offer services which infringe copyright are shut down. He has ordered Ofcom (the government-approved regulatory authority for the telecommunications industries in the United Kingdom) to investigate, and they will report back on the possibilities in spring 2011.[14]
An easy to use and inexpensive standardised platform for legal downloads is being investigated as an alternative for current illegal downloaders. “Cloud-based” storage is suggested as a possible way forward.[15] By 2008, the UK government was considering making it easier for those who downloaded music, films and television programmes illegally to have their Internet access blocked.[16] The Digital Economy Act 2010 is designed to make it the responsibility of the Internet service provider (ISP) to supply information regarding those who persist in downloading material illegally online. The government sees the threat of cutting off persistent offenders from the Internet as a last resort, only to be enacted in extreme cases is which offenders have been located, challenged, but continue to make use of illegally downloaded materials. They see persuasion as the best way to deter offenders and to encourage people to transfer to legal routes of accessing film and music.[17]
Copyright laws exist in most countries to protect creators of new work. The UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (with the amendments set out in the Copyright and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement)), is the latest version of the UK's copyright law. Two main types of people benefit from the enforcement of copyright laws. Creators of new material automatically own the moral or intellectual rights to their creation. These rights are not transferable. However, the economic right can be transferred to third parties, for example, the publisher of a book or the part owner of the rights to a film script. Likewise in the United States of America, copyright issues are enshrined in law. US copyright law comes under the federal laws, as set out under the US Constitution. Rights are granted under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, also referred to as the Copyright Clause. It has been suggested that British copyright laws were developed before the Internet became widespread, and that the laws were therefore perhaps unprepared for the subsequent growth of the Internet, and the issues raised. It was conceived and drawn up with reference to the more controllable, physical environment, and although the underlying tenets may remain suitable, some updating may be necessary.[18]
The industry remains divided over the right way to meet the challenges of illegal downloading. James Murdoch, currently the Chairman and Chief Executive of News Corporation, Europe and Asia told a media summit in Abu Dhabi in 2010 that illegal downloading was no different from as stealing a handbag, and urged the authorities to track down and prosecute offenders. By contrast, at the same conference, Maurice Lévy, the chief executive of Publicis, a French advertising organisation, noted that his grandchild did not see illegal downloading as stealing.[19]
Illegal downloading is increasingly seen as acceptable and normal. There remains a debate over whether people who currently download films (and music) illegally would be willing to pay in order to ensure that their activities were legal. There is also debate over the effects on the film industry, and conflicting evidence has emerged in this area. Technical advances in the area of downloading and file sharing are continuing to appear making the situation fluid. Only as the situation develops will we be able to fully appreciate the impact of illegal film downloading, and the implications for both the industry and consumers.