Downloading Instructional Torrents

[bagelgod]

I've already explain this but I will again because you missed it. You may or may not have taken money from him you can't be sure because you have already consumed the knowledge on the DVDs.

No, I can be very sure about things I'd never buy. In fact, I'm sure that right now I'll never buy elephant crap.

The problem is what you've stated in previous posts which it's "made the grappling community better" which leads me to believe that you've shared the knowledge with others allowing them to also consume it without paying for it.

Wrong, and you obviously didn't read my first post. I said that because of watching the videos, I become a better grappler. Thus, as a result of me getting better, the people I train with get a better training partner as a result. As a result of having a better training partner, they get better. As a result of making my school better, it makes competition harder for everyone else. As a result of harder competition, everyone we compete with gets better; those people compete with others, and go back to their schools. Now, I've just made everyone who grapples a better grappler!

Besides, this is stupid to begin with. How is it any different if I did pay and shared the information without the others paying for it than if I didn't? Are you seriously saying I'm never allowed to share information I've gleaned from DVD's, even if I've paid for them? Be careful with your analogies, little mister.

Some of those people may have bought the DVDs but now no longer need to. That's really what piracy is about: distribution.

...What? This doesn't make any sense. If they've already bought DVD's, then who cares? The guy got his money. Whether or not they watch the DVD's doesn't matter to him, he got his check in the mail, which is all he cares about. Unlike the selfless me, who cares about bettering the grappling community.

Well since we're speaking in hypotheticals, how do you know that pirating didn't prevent him from making a website 1000x better?

Explain, albiet in hypotheticals, how this makes a lick of sense.

This point is near here nor there really. I think you were just being silly.

Yes, and I still am being silly. Trying to intelligently discuss the finer points of copyright law on sherdog is like trying to teach a 4 year old about contract law.

I don't really understand this argument as you dont have any proof of this and to make such a claim the burden of proof would be on you.

It's called circumstancial evidence. If you saw a kid with chocolate smeared all over his face, surrounded by crumbs, and your chocolate cake missing, it's pretty straight forward. Likewise, Marcelo's DVD's were the most torrented BJJ DVD's (and I think might still be). So he moved to a format that makes it considerably more difficult to pirate; Draculino did the same, Eddie Bravo did the same (I think he is a close second in terms of DVDs, and certainly has had his book pirated through the wazoozoo), and some other big name (I think JT? Or is it Joao? Not sure). There's a reason all these guys are migrating to a MGinaction based way of doing things. Christ, if Eddie Bravo is doing it then you know it's a great business move.

And if you try to put it in terms of right/wrong, you're being very nearsighted no matter what side you land on.

Irony.

 

[andrehbjj]

^^^^^^^
I bought your DVD.

I appreciate it very much. Thank you.

 

[andrehbjj]

bagelgod,

You're caught up in the semantics, but avoiding the real question. If you dont want to call it stealing, fine, call it copyright infringement. Now tell me if it's ethical or unethical.

If you admit that its unethical, I'm satisfied. I'm not trying to get everyone to destroy their pirated copies and rush out to buy legit ones, but you can understand, I hope, that it is frustrating to see people treat it as if it is their RIGHT to pirate just because it's against a law that is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. And it's easy.

If you think it's ethical then tell me how it is different from the guy who walks into a BJJ school and sits on the bench day after day watching class and taking the information back home to work on with his friends?

 

[bagelgod]

3) Stealing isnt limited to physical objects.

Copyright. Infringement. Say it with me now.

If I hire you to work for me for a week, and then at the end of the week I skip town without paying you, I've stolen from you.

No, you've breached a contract.

4) If any of you train at a BJJ school, or teach at one, imagine someone coming in and watching every class from the bench at the side of the mat, then going home and training the exact techniques he saw that day. Think about someone doing that the next time you have to pay your monthly dues at the school or pay the rent on the place if you're the instructor.

I'm not arguing for or against piracy, but I really don't care about this. The guy isn't going to get any better unless he trains with resisting opponents, and if he's training at home, it doesn't sound like he is. Furthermore, I get the benefit of asking my instructor questions, sparring with people better than me, and the like.

Now, to make your analogy a little more clear, it's like he's coming by our gym and then going back to his. I personally don't give a crap. I've shown my tricks to people I've had to compete against a week before competition. I want the BJJ community to get better. I'm not in it for money, unlike others.

I do that where I teach, and I have given out many, many DVDs for free or at a discount to people who needed a break and asked.

This is why I bought your DVD; because you actually give a crap about BJJ. This is my own personal viewpoint though, one I'm not saying everyone should have, or even really feel the need to justify.

there is no way to convince many of you that it is wrong.

Don't force your morals on me.

 

[bagelgod]

You're caught up in the semantics, but avoiding the real question. If you dont want to call it stealing, fine, call it copyright infringement.

There's a big difference in using such a charged/loaded word like stealing and unlicensed copying. Don't pretend there isn't. Also, how the hell can you have a conversation about something when nobody knows what the words mean?

Now tell me if it's ethical or unethical.

If you admit that its unethical, I'm satisfied. I'm not trying to get everyone to destroy their pirated copies and rush out to buy legit ones, but you can understand, I hope, that it is frustrating to see people treat it as if it is their RIGHT to pirate just because it's against a law that is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. And it's easy.

If you think it's ethical then tell me how it is different from the guy who walks into a BJJ school and sits on the bench day after day watching class and taking the information back home to work on with his friends?

As a general rule, I don't discuss ethics on the internet. Or even really that much in person. I have my own views, I stick to them. I don't expect others to. In fact, the other thing I expect others to do is leave me and my views the hell alone. Unless of course those people are the police, in which case, officer, I swear I didn't know!

 

[andrehbjj]

bagelgod,

I very much appreciate that you purchased the DVD. Thank you.

The problem that I have with your argument that paints pirating as a "victimless crime" is that if it is really victimless (or has no impact) then lets imagine everyone doing it and see if that is truly the case. The producer of the DVD would sell exactly one copy, to the person who uploads the file, and everyone else would download (or copy) it for free.

So if we can see that there would be a huge impact if everyone does it, can you at least admit that there is some impact if some people do it?

So it isnt exactly like NOTHING is being taken from the pocket of the producer/instructor, so it is akin to stealing (though Im fine with copyright infringement).

Anyway, it will force producers to adapt in some way, as MGinaction has done. Whether or not its for the best we'll just have to wait to find out.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Daihlo]

I sympathise with those who are short of $

 

[Dubious Dom]

To say that you are stealing from the producers of these instructionals, you would have to assume that if you couldn't, or chose not to, pirate them that you would instead be paying for them.

But, if there were no way to download these instructionals for free, if I had to pay for them legitimately, I wouldn't purchase them. I would not be a customer at all.


So technically, they would get no money from me under any scenario (me being a cheap bastard), therefore they cannot gain nor lose from me pirating or not.

In fact, they gain advertising, if anything.

Problem? ))))

 

[bagelgod]

The problem that I have with your argument that paints pirating as a "victimless crime" is that if it is really victimless (or has no impact) then lets imagine everyone doing it and see if that is truly the case. The producer of the DVD would sell exactly one copy, to the person who uploads the file, and everyone else would download (or copy) it for free.

I'm pretty sure my argument was exclusive to me; I download things I would never, ever buy, OR, out of spite. Put another way, I buy things I feel deserve support (example: you). So, in my case, I'm not hurting anyone (unless I specifically am downloading in order to hurt that person/group, in which case I hope I am). I pay if I think I should, or download if I think I should. I feel fully justified.

The only time pirating becomes a nuisance is, as was stated earlier in the thread, it reaches what that person called "Fringes", but what I call the wobblers. People who sit on the fence and would probably buy it (after obsessing over it for weeks, or excitedly waiting for it to release, or waiting for it to go on sale, etc) but end up downloading it instead (instead access, it's free, etc). These are legitimate hurt sales.

I will say, however, that this group is probably the minority (if I had to throw a number on it, 10%). I honestly believe 20% of pirating (statistic brought to you by out-of-my-ass-university) is just because its there. I've got a friend that has netflix, and has burned copies of hundreds of dvd's. Hundreds. He's watched less than half. It isn't because he wants them any more, but out of some kind of strange hoarding instinct. I honestly think this happens a lot with torrents. Downloading a bunch of crap just because one can. Hell, this group is probably the least hurtful of pirates, because they'll never watch the stuff!

Ignoring the hoarders, you have the people who want the specific thing they download, but otherwise wouldn't pay for it and would go without. These people as well, I feel, are harmless. They won't buy it, ever. You can forget about it. Maybe because they're tight asses, maybe because they're as broke as a 1$ joke, but they just aren't going to. Here is where you get the large majority (60%? 65%?) of pirates. Here is where you're going to get all your arguments for or against it; everyone should be free to enjoy human culture, you're stealing from the creators of the media because you wanted it, but I wouldn't have bought it, but you wanted it, blah blah blah, back and forth, till the end of time.


The last 5% or less are people like me. Idealists, cynics, and spiteful pricks. I download, yes, but to me it's a lot more than just that.

A final categorum are the people who try before they buy. I think these people are over-represented, lie (to make others get off their case), or exist in very small numbers (>1%), but you're getting this sale, so it's a non issue.

So if we can see that there would be a huge impact if everyone does it

I'm going to stop you here and disagree. I'll concede some points (see below), but I disagree here. You're going to get people like me, that donate if their beliefs mandate it. You're going to get people that absolutely refuse to download (without paying). These people are always going to exist, and there'll always be a market. It isn't rocket surgery to download. You can learn to download torrents in 10 minutes, and download anything that's available. The reason 100% of people don't is because of these two groups (of course, you have your technically unsavvy people, but, arguendo, I'm ignoring them).

can you at least admit that there is some impact if some people do it?

The fringers/wobblers that download rather than pay are undeniably an impact. Ultimately, I believe the impact of downloaders is less than people think or make it out to be. They act like downloaders are bankrupting everybody, and frankly, they aren't and never will. Sometimes you get the money of wobblers, sometimes you don't. Their statistical impact, I would posit, is insignificant.

But so as to not be an arguminitive prick, yes, there is some. Albeit small.

So it isnt exactly like NOTHING is being taken from the pocket of the producer/instructor,

Anything is more than nothing, so yes, something is being taken. I will agree.

so it is akin to stealing (though Im fine with copyright infringement).

What do you mean by akin? If you mean there's an action, and later as a result of action, there is a loss of money by another, then yes. The difference (there are a lot) that would make the most impact to sherdoggers in this thread is that with stealing, the person loses the sale AND their item (and thus can't sell it to anyone else) making it a complete loss. C.I., the person loses a POSSIBLE sale (wobblers), but can still sell the item (to people who always pay, or people like me), so it's only a partial loss.

If we can stop using the "S" word, I'll more or less shut up, which I think everyone would enjoy.

 

[BJJ in Chicago]

again, I'm still wondering how much these guys make per DVD set that sells. It's mainly out of curiousity (not trying to use it to justify downloading sets).

i've personally found that when i pay for them, i tend to respect them much more. i downloaded drysdale's set when i first started downloading torrents and i really didn't appreciate what i had. now that i've started buying them and trading them with training partners, i've really enjoyed them much more.

 

[bagelgod]

i downloaded drysdale's set when i first started downloading torrents and i really didn't appreciate what i had.

Well there's your problem right there!

 

[Dubious Dom]

again, I'm still wondering how much these guys make per DVD set that sells. It's mainly out of curiousity (not trying to use it to justify downloading sets).

i've personally found that when i pay for them, i tend to respect them much more. i downloaded drysdale's set when i first started downloading torrents and i really didn't appreciate what i had. now that i've started buying them and trading them with training partners, i've really enjoyed them much more.

It costs virtually nothing to produce the DVD's, and the cost for shipping comes out of the 092830492 dollars you pay for them. Maybe they have to pay to house them in some warehouse in oregon or wherever. I'd bet its not too much though.

 

[andrehbjj]

Thanks, bagelgod. That was a well-expressed argument. You gave me a lot to think about.

I might just be old. Before I ever thought of making a DVD, I was already against pirating. That isnt to say that I didnt have some pirated things that people had given me, but I could probably count them on one hand and probably half of them I appreciated so much I went out and purchased them just to support the artist/instructor.

 

[andrehbjj]

again, I'm still wondering how much these guys make per DVD set that sells. It's mainly out of curiousity (not trying to use it to justify downloading sets).

i've personally found that when i pay for them, i tend to respect them much more. i downloaded drysdale's set when i first started downloading torrents and i really didn't appreciate what i had. now that i've started buying them and trading them with training partners, i've really enjoyed them much more.

I'll be happy to answer honestly, but first let me ask you a couple of questions (not as an argument, just to get an idea of what the perception is on the subject). These questions are open to everyone:

1) How much is a fair amount someone should make for putting out a good DVD? Let's assume that the instructor gives you an hour and a half to two hours worth of valuable material, communicates it well, and organizes it so that it can be learned easily. Let's factor in his costs (whatever you perceive them to be) as a part of the risk he takes, as well as the time it takes to film and either edit or oversee the editing, plus the fact that it is knowledge he gained from years of study and hard work. Let's limit it to only the first year the DVD is on sale, how much should he make from it?

2) What costs do you think are associated with making a quality DVD?

3) Do you feel that martial arts should be taught for free?

4) What is the dollar value, to you, of a technique or concept that causes a noticeable improvement in your game?

Thanks!

 

[andrehbjj]

It costs virtually nothing to produce the DVD's, and the cost for shipping comes out of the 092830492 dollars you pay for them. Maybe they have to pay to house them in some warehouse in oregon or wherever. I'd bet its not too much though.

Please define "virtually nothing."

Are you talking about the simple mass duplication of DVDs from a master? Depending on how many you produce and the quality of the packaging and DVD, the price ranges from $1.25-$3 each.

But that is hardly the cost of "making" a DVD.

 

[Daihlo]

again, I'm still wondering how much these guys make per DVD set that sells. It's mainly out of curiousity (not trying to use it to justify downloading sets).

Okay, here's a rough breakdown of my latest release.
DVD sells through retailers for $30

I get $10 per unit for that.

Each DVD costs $2.30 to physically produce and ship to the distributer.
If I have to stock them in a warehouse mail centre, it costs $1.25 to stock and supply per unit.

So far Im left with $7.30 per unit best case scenario.

Right, then the cost of filming is about $200, this covers what I have to pay to drive to the location, actual physical costs incurred on the day. NOT my time...

Then, it takes a couple of days for editing, another for authoring the DVD and fully testing. There's another 3 days.

Then there's the cost of the equipment that is needed, cameras, sound gear, editing studio... that lot is spread across all releases but the outlay is thousands. Thats a lot of sales to cover the expense to produce...

Then I have to give 50% to the instructor on the initial return.
That leaves me with $3.65

Convert that to

 

[Daihlo]

It costs virtually nothing to produce the DVD's, and the cost for shipping comes out of the 092830492 dollars you pay for them. Maybe they have to pay to house them in some warehouse in oregon or wherever. I'd bet its not too much though.

really...

 

[Jinzumkei]

Wrong. The very DEFINITION of piracy is copyright infringement. Making copies without a license. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. IT ISN'T ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THAT'S THE DEFINITION!!!!!!!!

No you dont understand, the problem isn't if you make copies. No one would care if you care if you made 10000000 copies, the problem is if you SHARE even 1 copy. So usage is the problem, specifically distribution.

Then why do people keep saying I'm stealing money from the guy if I would never in one billion years buy his product? I downloaded a ninja torrent just to have a good laugh and play a drinking game whenever they say the word "deadly". In real life, I'd never fucking buy that in 12 million years. Tell me, did I steal money from this guy by making a copy?

Because they are trying to boil it down to simple terms. I don't say what you are doing it stealing. I called it piracy. It doesnt matter that you would have never bought it, the fact that you are sharing it aloowing other to get it without paying for it is the problem.

Also wrong; sharing it makes copies. Hence, copyright infringement.

No I am right, if you share it you will allow others to consume it with out paying for it. Call it pirating or call it copyright infringement but either way it's still allowing usage without paying for it which is my point.

Because no one understands copyright law?

Disclaimer: I'm not saying copyright infringement is ethical or not ethical. I'm just fucking tired of seeing people not know what they're talking about.

The problem is I do know what I'm talking about. You don't have to understand copyright law to understand piracy and why distributors are against it.

 

[bagelgod]

No you dont understand, the problem isn't if you make copies. No one would care if you care if you made 10000000 copies, the problem is if you SHARE even 1 copy. So usage is the problem, specifically distribution.

So you're saying it's fine if I make copies so long as I keep them to myself and don't share them with anyone else? That's great. I'm going to go download and watch whatever I want, but turn off seeding. That way I'm making copies but not sharing. This is good, right?

Because they are trying to boil it down to simple terms. I don't say what you are doing it stealing. I called it piracy.

Yet you have no clue what piracy is.

It doesnt matter that you would have never bought it, the fact that you are sharing it aloowing other to get it without paying for it is the problem.

So it's fine with you if I illegally download something, and watch it, provided I don't share it with someone else?

it's still allowing usage without paying for it which is my point.

Your point is pointless. I can buy a DVD and loan it to a friend. I can trade it to a friend. I can play it in my academy's DVD player. Everyone, exception me, is getting usage without paying. Are you against this?

Also, I thought the "problem" was distrubition?

The problem is I do know what I'm talking about.

No, the problem is you think you know what you're talking about and you think you're right, which is the worst combination in the world.

You don't have to understand copyright law to understand piracy and why distributors are against it.

...except for the fact that the entire notion of piracy (as we use it today, obviously not cannons and high seas action) was created by, defined with, and based upon copyright law.

Look friend, I'm going to boil down piracy to its most basic elements. I'm done arguing with you if you can't understand this.

Copyrighted material is an expression of an idea (BJJ moves) fixed in a tangible medium (in this case, DVD's).

Rights held by the owners of the copyrighted information include but are not limited to making a copy or creating a derivative work of copyrighted material.

Copyright infringement is performing a right held by the copyright owner without a license.

The popular term "piracy" (used in the 1600's) is merely a descriptor of the act of illegally making copies or selling these illegal copies.

"Torrenting", or downloading, is when your computer copies a file from another computer. The file remains on the original computer, but now has a copy on your computer. It's a two way street. The uploader is making a copy of his file on your computer, and the downloader is making a copy of the uploader's file on his computer.

Let's review: By downloading/uploading copyrighted files (which is copying these files) without a license, I am infringing a copyright (the right to reproduce/make derivative works). Not "stealing"/theft/whatever. Copyright infringement.

You see now that it doesn't matter what you "think" piracy is. This is what piracy is. It's defined. If you are complaining about something else, like whatever it is you're on about with learning knowledge without paying, then don't use the word piracy.

If you cannot comprehend what I'm talking about, then I am done with you, as this conversation is above your level of thought.

 

[Jinzumkei]

No, I can be very sure about things I'd never buy. In fact, I'm sure that right now I'll never buy elephant crap.

Seriously why do you keep using this ridiculous argument, it doesn't matter if you'd never have bought it, distributors don't care about that. They only care they you'd SHARE it allowing others to get it without paying for it. That's why they want to make piracy illegal. If you share it you may take money from the DVD maker.

Wrong, and you obviously didn't read my first post. I said that because of watching the videos, I become a better grappler. Thus, as a result of me getting better, the people I train with get a better training partner as a result. As a result of having a better training partner, they get better. As a result of making my school better, it makes competition harder for everyone else. As a result of harder competition, everyone we compete with gets better; those people compete with others, and go back to their schools. Now, I've just made everyone who grapples a better grappler

Besides, this is stupid to begin with. How is it any different if I did pay and shared the information without the others paying for it than if I didn't? Are you seriously saying I'm never allowed to share information I've gleaned from DVD's, even if I've paid for them? Be careful with your analogies, little mister.

No I did read your first post and it's ludicrous. Oh I see, you're not just pirating, you're also an asshole. You want to withhold knowledge from your training partners, I see Not only is this not a provable metric, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you're taking money money from the DVD makers. I'm not making an analogy, little mister, I'm trying to explain to you why piracy may hurt the original instructor making the DVDs that's all. If you paid for it the DVD then shared the information it STILL may hurt sales because of the nature of the product, I'm not denying that. Just like if I BOUGHT a cd, then endcoded and shared it.

...What? This doesn't make any sense. If they've already bought DVD's, then who cares? The guy got his money. Whether or not they watch the DVD's doesn't matter to him, he got his check in the mail, which is all he cares about. Unlike the selfless me, who cares about bettering the grappling community.

No What I'm saying is that they MAY have bought the DVD but now don't have to because you've shared it for free. I've explained using game theory, specifically, Prisoner's dilemma why you're not necessarily improving the the community.

Explain, albiet in hypotheticals, how this makes a lick of sense.

What if more people bought the DVDs instead of pirating it and he made more money and made an even BETTER site. It's nothing I can prove but also you can't prove your original point. Thats what I was getting at.

Yes, and I still am being silly. Trying to intelligently discuss the finer points of copyright law on sherdog is like trying to teach a 4 year old about contract law.

You don't need to discuss copyright law, I'm not disputing that. In fact I probably understand it better than you do. Besides you don't need to understand the specifics of the law to understand the application of the law. My argument is about economics, and those points you haven't addressed.

It's called circumstancial evidence. If you saw a kid with chocolate smeared all over his face, surrounded by crumbs, and your chocolate cake missing, it's pretty straight forward. Likewise, Marcelo's DVD's were the most torrented BJJ DVD's (and I think might still be). So he moved to a format that makes it considerably more difficult to pirate; Draculino did the same, Eddie Bravo did the same (I think he is a close second in terms of DVDs, and certainly has had his book pirated through the wazoozoo), and some other big name (I think JT? Or is it Joao? Not sure). There's a reason all these guys are migrating to a MGinaction based way of doing things. Christ, if Eddie Bravo is doing it then you know it's a great business move.

Of course but circumstantial evidence doesnt necessarily mean something is true. You're trying to say what's called in law Post hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore because of this. that's not always true, and in this case its not directly provable. You dont know that they moved formats because of piracy its as easily conceivable that they moved to a better, faster distribution model, because that it became cheaper or they figured they could reach more people. That's all my point was.

Irony.

Why? I'm not saying what you're doing is morally wrong, I never once said that. My argument is that this is a much harder argument to unravel than people make it out to be. I'm trying to explain to you some of the economics and market theories rather than compel you to believe what you did is morally wrong, because I don't think that.