Downloading Instructional Torrents

[rnaviaux]

fiftysvn, thank you so much for the kind words and the plug!

akdms, the market for instructional videos is so shockingly small that it almost makes any discussion of it seem pointless...and yet I cant help myself from talking about it. lol

There was a time when someone like Ryan could have made $30,000 from a single production (usually a set, not a single DVD), but I think those days are long gone. Again, I dont have anything near his name recognition (rightfully so), so I cant really use my own sales as an example, but I think any video producer/instructor out there would be overjoyed to sell 1000 units of a title in one year.

I think people look at Avatar or other Hollywood movies and feel that their download is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the money the movie they're downloading generates, and then perhaps they apply that same way of thinking to instructional videos, but the two are vastly different in many, many ways but particularly because each unit sold is a much larger percentage of the total potential sales amount that it simply impacts the producer of instructionals much more when people choose to download.

I'm familiar with another hobby/profession (Magic) that is dealing with the same problem. Tons of torrents of dvds and even pdfs of books being uploaded. The leading book publisher in this field has curtailed his output because of all the stealing that's going on.

Different tactics have been used to curtail all this dishonest activity. One author just asks readers to do the right thing. This is not an issue that arose with the advent of the net however. Copying was an issue for publishers of manuscripts and pamphlets with the introduction of the copier.

I used to hear the same rationalizations back in the 70s and 80s as I have heard in the last 20 years. While the technology advances making it easier to "infringe" upon copyrights the excuses for doing it haven't changes much at all.

I really enjoy people expressing their opinions on how much someone else should be paid for something. I used to have naive ideas about how much someone should make or pay me until I spent time doing bookkeeeping for a couple different companies. That combined with running my own company for a while made me appreciate just how many expenses there are with delivering a service or bring a product to market. Not that it matters really as even if a person is getting a huge profit margin bringing it up as a reason while its okay to illegally copy movies etc. is just another rationalization.

I guess rationalizations make it easier to face the fact that you know you shouldn't be doing what your doing.

 

[esl21]

wtf, does this even mean?

Don't be a shithead.

Are you having a bad day? The last two threads I've opened have you calling someone a shithead or a dipshit, both on the first page!

 

[akdms]

fiftysvn, thank you so much for the kind words and the plug!

akdms, the market for instructional videos is so shockingly small that it almost makes any discussion of it seem pointless...and yet I cant help myself from talking about it. lol

There was a time when someone like Ryan could have made $30,000 from a single production (usually a set, not a single DVD), but I think those days are long gone. Again, I dont have anything near his name recognition (rightfully so), so I cant really use my own sales as an example, but I think any video producer/instructor out there would be overjoyed to sell 1000 units of a title in one year.

I think people look at Avatar or other Hollywood movies and feel that their download is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the money the movie they're downloading generates, and then perhaps they apply that same way of thinking to instructional videos, but the two are vastly different in many, many ways but particularly because each unit sold is a much larger percentage of the total potential sales amount that it simply impacts the producer of instructionals much more when people choose to download.

I can't imagine sales for someone with his name could be that low... I mean, that's what, 1 or 2 percent of all BJJ practitioners?

Just curious, but maybe Tim could give some insight considering he publishes Estima's videos?

Also... Everyone is aware that you can rent DVDs at MMAVault? It's not free, and not everything is available, but it is cheaper than buying $100+ DVD sets that you'll watch for only a few weeks.

 

[BJJ in Chicago]

Wow, Andreh. I can't believe I didn't take the time to google you when i started replying to this thread.

We've had Rey out to Miguel's a few times (I've been twice) and each time I have taken a lot from him (in fact, the notes are in my log here on sherdog).

I'll have to pick up your sweeps dvd once I pay off next semester of grad school.

 

[TangoMF]

Interesting, and aggravating, thread. Someone mentioned in TrumpetDan's Roger thread that the reason Roger won't do a DVD is that people would just pirate it.

I've had people steal my work before (presenting my work as their own at a scientific conference) - pretty much one of the most aggravating things ever. Not exactly the same, but when you work hard on something you deserve to be rewarded for it.

Now I'm not perfect - I've totally pirated movies and BJJ DVDs, but I usually feel like an asshole, because I recognize that I'm effectively doing to others what I feel shitty about when it happens to me. I don't try to justify it by playing semantics.

 

[nefti]

If you are gonna pirate then do it without pathetic attempts at trying to justify yoirselves

 

[ijustwannasurf]

Andreh- whats up w the Open Guard DVD?

 

[AXSO]

Deleted

 

[Aethyr]

Copyright infringement can never be theft. It can be wrong, but not theft. It is wrong when a person who would have purchased, instead was able to get a copy for free instead. Note I said may be. Not even obtaining a copy for free is necessarily wrong. Look at libraries, that lend out books and movies. Or your friends, families or neighbors that may lend you a book or a movie. Or if you get together with a group of friends and you watch a movie without paying a cent. Or you record a song from the radio. All of these occurrences are *FAIR USE* of copyrighted material.

But, nevertheless, statistically, some people will buy the product. If those people, who would have otherwise bought, now download, then the retailer, author, whoever, is being deprived of a sale. That is the only time that "harm" or the closest form of it has occurred.

The problem with downloading from the internet is the sheer scale. A library has a limited number of copies. So for popular items, you have to wait. For not-so-popular-items, they don't even have it. Same goes for your friends or neighbors. So in the real world, there is an realistic limit to how many times something gets shared between each other. And that limit will balance against a person's impatience to see a movie or read a book or listen to a song. I can ALWAYS legally see any movie I want for free...by waiting for it to come on TV. Thus there is a time aspect to all copyrighted materials. The earlier you want something, the more you have to pay. The more I wait, the cheaper it becomes, until one day, its free.

I am against the notion that ALL forms of copying and sharing is wrong for the reasons noted above. Many forms of copying and sharing are not only 100% legal, they are morally justified.

However, the uncontrolled, unbridled sharing over the internet is also wrong because the balance between time and cost is completely removed. You no longer have to wait at the library or wait for your friend to lend it to you. Instead, everyone at once has access to the material for free. The temptation to download instead of paying is too great. And people who would have bought and wouldn't have the patience to wait for it, will download, thus depriving the creators of revenue.

Note this why copyright violation can never be theft - you've deprived them of PROFIT. But you've not caused actual loss - each time you copy their work, their bank account doesn't lose money. You have, however, stopped them from gaining money into their bank account. In other words, its as if you're "stealing" customers away, but stealing a customer away is very different than actually stealing the product the customer would have bought. And in this case, the customer is only yourself.

 

[Ares.420]

Ive downloaded a few but I always buy the ones I like.

 

[Ares.420]

Copyright infringement can never be theft. It can be wrong, but not theft. It is wrong when a person who would have purchased, instead was able to get a copy for free instead. Note I said may be. Not even obtaining a copy for free is necessarily wrong. Look at libraries, that lend out books and movies. Or your friends, families or neighbors that may lend you a book or a movie. Or if you get together with a group of friends and you watch a movie without paying a cent. Or you record a song from the radio. All of these occurrences are *FAIR USE* of copyrighted material.

But, nevertheless, statistically, some people will buy the product. If those people, who would have otherwise bought, now download, then the retailer, author, whoever, is being deprived of a sale. That is the only time that "harm" or the closest form of it has occurred.

The problem with downloading from the internet is the sheer scale. A library has a limited number of copies. So for popular items, you have to wait. For not-so-popular-items, they don't even have it. Same goes for your friends or neighbors. So in the real world, there is an realistic limit to how many times something gets shared between each other. And that limit will balance against a person's impatience to see a movie or read a book or listen to a song. I can ALWAYS legally see any movie I want for free...by waiting for it to come on TV. Thus there is a time aspect to all copyrighted materials. The earlier you want something, the more you have to pay. The more I wait, the cheaper it becomes, until one day, its free.

I am against the notion that ALL forms of copying and sharing is wrong for the reasons noted above. Many forms of copying and sharing are not only 100% legal, they are morally justified.

However, the uncontrolled, unbridled sharing over the internet is also wrong because the balance between time and cost is completely removed. You no longer have to wait at the library or wait for your friend to lend it to you. Instead, everyone at once has access to the material for free. The temptation to download instead of paying is too great. And people who would have bought and wouldn't have the patience to wait for it, will download, thus depriving the creators of revenue.

Note this why copyright violation can never be theft - you've deprived them of PROFIT. But you've not caused actual loss - each time you copy their work, their bank account doesn't lose money. You have, however, stopped them from gaining money into their bank account. In other words, its as if you're "stealing" customers away, but stealing a customer away is very different than actually stealing the product the customer would have bought. And in this case, the customer is only yourself.

interesting post

 

[bloosteak]

They wouldn't have those AIDS drugs if they didn't have the incentive to spend billions of dollars developing them. That incentive is provided to them by....charging for drugs.

Also, more people are exposed to culture because of piracy? Piracy reduces the likelihood of the creation of art. In the nineteenth century, authors had to release their books in serially in magazines because if they published a whole book right away, they'd make no money because they were quickly copied.

That is why we have copyright and patent laws (and a specific Constitutional basis for them). They promote the advancement of science and art.

Yeah, definitely not. Aids research is purely funded by the government with no profit motive. It's not profitable to be doing aids research, much better to keep them on a cocktail of expensive meds. Far more profitable to do research on erectile dysfunction.