THE REASON ITS OK TO WATCH PIRATED MOVIES!!

[nayland]

Why is it lately the movies the look good to people like us shmoes are getting harder and harder to see. Just recently MIDNIGHT MEAT TRAIN came out. The friggin movie debut was in budget theatres. And where i live it was gone in a week. And people are robbed of gems. I personally got a chance to see it. And now another WESERN SUKIYAKI DJANGO just came out. This is the latest movie by TAKASHI MIIKE. Hell,QUENTIN TARENTINO even grabbed a little taste of this one. I watched the trailers. They looked really cool!! The whole movie is in english. SO HERE IS RELEASE DAY!!!!! It is not playing anyware around me. I did a 100 mile search of my area....NOTHING. It is almost like we are forced to resort to the internet because of situations like this. So who is really the bad guy?!?! Me?? For going to great lengths to see a film or the movie distributers that release 8 copies for the whole nation to enjoy? To me it's kind of a CATCH-22.

[Badbird]

Cry me a river.

Unless you live in New York or LA, you could say there is any number of movies you want to see, but can't. That's life. Get over it.

[KenSPT]

You don't always get what you want, when you want it; live with it.

Back when the Nintendo Wii's were hot, it was tough to get your hands on one. Does that mean it's okay for me to simply take one if I found it? I mean, I wanted a Wii, and Nintendo didn't release enough.

It's not my fault for wanting one, it's theirs for not adequately stocking stores; so am I justified in stealing one?

[sbunn10]

enough with the movie piracy threads, and anyways, KenSPT had one not too long ago. Should have posted this in there.

[nayland]

My point is if we cant see the movies we want to see we are not left with many options other than pirated movies on the internet. I am just telling why i feel its justified.

[nayland]

enough with the movie piracy threads, and anyways, KenSPT had one not too long ago. Should have posted this in there.

I did post on KenSPT. That is where this originally started. Why make a movie if you are not going to release it for at least some of the masses to see.

[KenSPT]

My point is if we cant see the movies we want to see we are not left with many options other than pirated movies on the internet. I am just telling why i feel its justified.

It's this thing called, "waiting" ...

This thread is long enough already, and as was said before; after last weekend, enough with the movie-piracy threads ...

[nayland]

I guess some dont have the patience you have. Plus some of us have limited time to watch movies. I am at home taking care of my 1 yeae old son. It's pretty hard to sit and watch movies that i have WAITED for. that is why the big screen is nice it also gives some of us a break from the outside world for a little while. And sit in a theatre for 90 to 120+ mins. and not have a worry in the world except watching that movie.

[Conz]

i download dvdrips all the time, and half the time i buy the dvd anyway, so we're even. im not losing sleep that movie studios are only making $100 mil not $200. i have to laugh at people who have no affiliation to the movie industry who act high and mighty when it comes to pirating movies. gimmie a break.

[Gordon]

It's okay to sneakily jerk off onto C cups in public because I generally don't otherwise get a chance to.

[miguel_montes]

Back when the Nintendo Wii's were hot, it was tough to get your hands on one. Does that mean it's okay for me to simply take one if I found it? I mean, I wanted a Wii, and Nintendo didn't release enough.

It's not my fault for wanting one, it's theirs for not adequately stocking stores; so am I justified in stealing one?

If you could make a copy of the Wii (like you can with the downloaded movies), that analogy would be correct. But since you can't, it's incorrect.

[Brendan M.]

Hey, you got Midnight Meat Train? Hook a brother up!

[Lawgick]

Why is it lately the movies the look good to people like us shmoes are getting harder and harder to see. Just recently MIDNIGHT MEAT TRAIN came out. The friggin movie debut was in budget theatres. And where i live it was gone in a week. And people are robbed of gems. I personally got a chance to see it. And now another WESERN SUKIYAKI DJANGO just came out. This is the latest movie by TAKASHI MIIKE. Hell,QUENTIN TARENTINO even grabbed a little taste of this one. I watched the trailers. They looked really cool!! The whole movie is in english. SO HERE IS RELEASE DAY!!!!! It is not playing anyware around me. I did a 100 mile search of my area....NOTHING. It is almost like we are forced to resort to the internet because of situations like this. So who is really the bad guy?!?! Me?? For going to great lengths to see a film or the movie distributers that release 8 copies for the whole nation to enjoy? To me it's kind of a CATCH-22.

If you can get it off the net I don't see why you shouldn't. Studios make way more then enough money.



p.s.

Shits gonna be stormin....:cool:

[Lawgick]

i download dvdrips all the time, and half the time i buy the dvd anyway, so we're even. im not losing sleep that movie studios are only making $100 mil not $200. i have to laugh at people who have no affiliation to the movie industry who act high and mighty when it comes to pirating movies. gimmie a break.

Exactly. I don't even buy the DVDs. Its really not that important for me to see every pimple on someone's face.:rolleyes:

[Lawgick]

Hey, you got Midnight Meat Train? Hook a brother up!

LMAO! Priceless...:cool:

[JINYX]

Would you people stop trying to justify illegal downloading, it's not right now matter how you look at it so stop trying. If you seriously need to make yourself feel better over it and absolutely need to pass the blame onto someone else then that's pretty sad. To make it even worse your blaming the people your stealing from for the reason you stole it.

That's like saying "I wouldn't have stolen that dudes Cadillac but he left the keys in his car when he went to go pay, so it's really his fault." Do you not see how backasswards your logic is?

In closing, stop stealing, as movie fans we should be one of the most outspoken opponents of illegal downloading, not standing up for these thieves that think it's their right to steal movies.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I think that's the reasoning , some people feel it's their right to watch a work of fiction for free , even if there is supposed to be some sort of monetary transaction involved .

This guy proved my point , films like Tdk won't suffer from illegal downloading , it's some sort of limited release film such as that one Qt plays a part in that he mentioned . Every " lost " ticket sale with regards to that film will make a difference . I don't get it , like someone already mentioned , we are supposed to be admirers of this type of art form , so why are we so inclined to piss on the whole distribution and profit margin process of these films ?

Just because we think it's our right to see a film for free when we want , doesn't mean we should be engaging in this nonsense . So , you don't see it in the theater , not every film can get a wide release , it's very expensive to make prints and to release a film wide , and a film like the one this guy is referring to wouldn't be carried by the mainstream theaters anyway , maybe a handful , but there wouldn't be enough interest to go wide with certain films .

Don't you think that every one who wants to distribute a film would want it on as many screen as possible , it's just not realistic , some people are making it seem as though the studios are actively trying to screw people that don't live in major markets . Why the hell is a film like Rochelle Rochelle going to be shown in bumfreak egypt when there will be only two people who will go watch it . It's the people's fault for not living in either Ny or La :) .


Stop this garbage already and wait for the freakin dvd , not only are you hurting smaller films by downloading , but you're ruining the experience by watching some crappy cam copy , so your'e cheating yourself also .


If you really want to watch a film and support these films , rent or buy , how else are some of these people going to keep on making films ?

[Robot]

It's not just the movie studios losing money, your local theaters suffer loss when you have the opportunity to see it locally but choose not too. While I can understand you want to see a film that isn't wide release and feel you're justified in your actions, why is it so hard to wait for movies to come out on dvd? Don't want to pay full price for a dvd? Wait another 1-2 months when they slash the prices and pick it up.

Oh, and I realize not every movie gets multi-region releases, but there are several dvd players out there that play all region encodings. So, if you can get the movies imported cheap, you really can't use the region as an excuse.

[Brendan M.]

Would you people stop trying to justify illegal downloading, it's not right now matter how you look at it so stop trying.

So are you saying that people should pay to see Disaster Movie? Now that is not right!

[JINYX]

So are you saying that people should pay to see Disaster Movie? Now that is not right!
FAIL

If someone wants to pay to see it, fine by me. If you feel it's not worth paying for then it's probably not worth watching, therefore, no it's not right to download it and watch it for free.

[KenSPT]

I guess some dont have the patience you have. Plus some of us have limited time to watch movies. I am at home taking care of my 1 yeae old son. It's pretty hard to sit and watch movies that i have WAITED for. that is why the big screen is nice it also gives some of us a break from the outside world for a little while. And sit in a theatre for 90 to 120+ mins. and not have a worry in the world except watching that movie.

You're right, a lack of patience on your end is a complete justification for stealing something. I mean, just think of how well that would work in other legally-questionable scenarios :

"Listen Officer, you shouldn't ticket me for running that red light. It was taking too long and I don't have the patience for it; therefore it's okay for me to run it."

"Judge, the only reason I had sex with that girl without her consent is because we were dating for a month and she hadn't put out yet. I don't have that kind of patience."

If you have a lack of patience, then it's a personality trait you need to work on. It doesn't give you the right to do what you want.

If you could make a copy of the Wii (like you can with the downloaded movies), that analogy would be correct. But since you can't, it's incorrect.

Alright, so if I can copy something, it's okay?

So, if I make a copy of your ATM card, and use it to go out on a shopping spree, is it okay?

Sure, it's costing you money, but I didn't steal the card. I would never steal your card, I'm just copying it. Your physical card is safe and sound.

There's no difference between me doing that, and you downloading movies. I'm making a COPY of something that is YOUR property, and everytime I use it I'm taking MONEY out of YOUR pocket.

Like I said, it's a copy, which by your own logic makes it okay.

[miguel_montes]

So, if I make a copy of your ATM card, and use it to go out on a shopping spree, is it okay?

Sure, it's costing you money, but I didn't steal the card. I would never steal your card, I'm just copying it. Your physical card is safe and sound.

There's no difference between me doing that, and you downloading movies. I'm making a COPY of something that is YOUR property, and everytime I use it I'm taking MONEY out of YOUR pocket.

Like I said, it's a copy, which by your own logic makes it okay.

You can make a copy of my atm card. But do you have the pin number to use it? How can you copy that pin number if I only have it in my head? Under these most likely circunstances, I don't see your new analogy working with downloading movies.

[LordSimen]

I don't think it's really considered pirating if no one is releasing it in your country. However, with Midnight Meat Train, it will be released, so it's best to wait. Same goes for the Miike film, seeing as Miike's underground popularity increases every year here in the states.

[KenSPT]

You can make a copy of my atm card. But do you have the pin number to use it? How can you copy that pin number if I only have it in my head? Under these most likely circunstances, I don't see your new analogy working with downloading movies.

Clever way to try and steer clear of the argument, but most ATM cards can be used in "credit card" ways, meaning the money is deducted from the account without a pin number being used.

Regardless, I'll simply ask you to replace ATM card with a Credit Card, or replace ATM card with any type of gift card; basically, replace ATM card with any type of card that has monetary value to you.

[KenSPT]

I don't think it's really considered pirating if no one is releasing it in your country. However, with Midnight Meat Train, it will be released, so it's best to wait. Same goes for the Miike film, seeing as Miike's underground popularity increases every year here in the states.

In the era of Region Free DVD players, you can purchase a DVD from overseas for a movie that was never released in the states. The problem is that it still takes time, as you must wait for the DVD to be released. That time is something that alot of the pro-piracy people believe they shouldn't have to wade through.

Also, doing that costs money and may take a little effort; things that the people who justify pirating think they shouldn't have to part with.

[MidnightAngel]

In the era of Region Free DVD players, you can purchase a DVD from overseas for a movie that was never released in the states. The problem is that it still takes time, as you must wait for the DVD to be released.

For example the spanish movie REC whic was released in theaters in Europe but no idiot distributors got interested in buying the rights for theater or dvd release in the U.S.. Now we have to see a dumb remake which is the same film only it's in english. That's another lame excuse for Hollywood to remake a film that it might never get released in the U.S.

[Brendan M.]

For example the spanish movie REC whic was released in theaters in Europe but no idiot distributors got interested in buying the rights for theater or dvd release in the U.S.. Now we have to see a dumb remake which is the same film only it's in english. That's another lame excuse for Hollywood to remake a film that it might never get released in the U.S.

Good thing I got myself a bootleg copy. Great film by the way.

[miguel_montes]

Clever way to try and steer clear of the argument, but most ATM cards can be used in "credit card" ways, meaning the money is deducted from the account without a pin number being used.

Regardless, I'll simply ask you to replace ATM card with a Credit Card, or replace ATM card with any type of gift card; basically, replace ATM card with any type of card that has monetary value to you.

I understand what you mean. I do.
Nevertheless, I still find your analogy invalid because I don't share your opinion that downloaded movies even have monetary value. At least they shouldn't have. For me, their value is not monetary, but cultural, intellectual, artistic.
The people who put a monetary value on them and sell burned DVDs in the black market are the ones who are stealing from the movie company. Those are the pirates. And like I said in the other thread, that, I'm against.

I even think that the movie companies should put their movies on the web for free after making profits with them in the theaters. Kinda like what Michael Moore is doing with his new documentary (except he isn't releasing it theaters, I think).

[LordSimen]

In the era of Region Free DVD players, you can purchase a DVD from overseas for a movie that was never released in the states. The problem is that it still takes time, as you must wait for the DVD to be released. That time is something that alot of the pro-piracy people believe they shouldn't have to wade through.

Also, doing that costs money and may take a little effort; things that the people who justify pirating think they shouldn't have to part with.

You definitely make a great point.

[KenSPT]

I understand what you mean. I do.
Nevertheless, I still find your analogy invalid because I don't share your opinion that downloaded movies even have monetary value. At least they shouldn't have. For me, their value is not monetary, but cultural, intellectual, artistic.
The people who put a monetary value on them and sell burned DVDs in the black market are the ones who are stealing from the movie company. Those are the pirates. And like I said in the other thread, that, I'm against.

I even think that the movie companies should put their movies on the web for free after making profits with them in the theaters. Kinda like what Michael Moore is doing with his new documentary (except he isn't releasing it theaters, I think).

I understand your artistic point of view, that movies are a part of the fabric of culture and should be available for all to see. I truly do.

That being said, to the studios who purchase these films, they are products; products that they hope will turn a profit for their respective companies.

These products are no different than inventory in a store, like the loafs of bread that line the shelves of a supermarket, or the books that fill the bookcases at Barnes and Noble. The movies are inventory, the studio is the store, and the store is looking to make as much money off their inventory as possible. Just because you wish it wasn't so, doesn't change the way it truly is.

The fact that you believe movies should be readily available for people to see, because of their artistic/intellectual/cultural significance, can be seen as nothing but another justification for piracy.

Your opinion is that movies should not have monetary value, but the fact remains that these films do have a monetary value, and it cannot be discounted.

If someone downloads a movie as opposed to buying a ticket to see it in theaters, or buying the DVD, they are taking money out of the pocket of the people who have a financial interest in these films. They are doing this by going through different channels to watch the film, channels which do not bring those individuals any financial reward.

This is the beauty of capitalism, you can create a product and present it to the public to gobble up; anyone who takes that product without paying for it is stealing.

I understand that your artistic heart wishes it were otherwise, but it's not.

You definitely make a great point.

Thank you, I appreciate that ... :)

[MisterTwister]

:DFAIL

If someone wants to pay to see it, fine by me. If you feel it's not worth paying for then it's probably not worth watching, therefore, no it's not right to download it and watch it for free.

No you want people to pay to see Diaster Movie. You want people to commit suicide. That's wrong man!

[Lawgick]

FAIL

If someone wants to pay to see it, fine by me. If you feel it's not worth paying for then it's probably not worth watching, therefore, no it's not right to download it and watch it for free.

WRONG.

There are plenty of movies that are worth watching but not worth paying for. In fact you are more likely to enjoy the movie if you haven't paid for it because when you do pay you want it to be worth the money.

[MisterTwister]

WRONG.

There are plenty of movies that are worth watching but not worth paying for. In fact you are more likely to enjoy the movie if you haven't paid for it because when you do pay you want it to be worth the money.

QFT.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Limited releases do suck, but the only movies I'd even consider pirating are the ones I'd be "morbidly" interested in seeing like Disaster Movie or Meet the Spartans because they don't deserve my money.

[JINYX]

WRONG.

There are plenty of movies that are worth watching but not worth paying for. In fact you are more likely to enjoy the movie if you haven't paid for it because when you do pay you want it to be worth the money.
When I pay for a movie I pay to see it because it interests me. If the movie ends up sucking, oh well, the advertising department did their job properly. If the movie is worth watching, it's worth paying for, I didn't say you had to pay alot. Go get a Netflix subscription. It cost's 18$ for the 3 at a time plan, you can get like 20 movies a month if you plan it out properly, therefore paying > 1$ a movie. If 18$ a month means alot to you, then possibly it's time to re-evaluate your position in life.

[KenSPT]

WRONG.

There are plenty of movies that are worth watching but not worth paying for. In fact you are more likely to enjoy the movie if you haven't paid for it because when you do pay you want it to be worth the money.

I don't think the food at some restaurants are worth what they charge, but I think their food is worth eating. Can I just walk in there, eat a meal, and walk out?

How you can justify stealing a movie by saying, "It's not worth my money", is so ass-backwards it's hilarious. If society didn't pay for things that they didn't deem "worth their money", then we'd live in a world where looting was the norm and stores didn't exist.

If you're willing to dedicate 90 minutes of your time to watching a movie, you shouldn't have a problem spending ( at the most ) a mere $10 to see it.

[KenSPT]

Limited releases do suck, but the only movies I'd even consider pirating are the ones I'd be "morbidly" interested in seeing like Disaster Movie or Meet the Spartans because they don't deserve my money.

So your money has more value than the money of everyone else?

[starcat]

I rarely ever download movies... not cause I dont agree, but the quality is just usually so shitty. That being said, if I download its either because going to the movies wasnt feesable, I used to see everymovie in the theatre, but after having a kid thats pretty much impossible now... but I almost always buy the dvd when it comes out as I am a collector. Or I may download a movie that I would never see in a theatre or buy... and would watch on a pay channel like HBO or Starz. So somebody is still always getting my money... so I totally dont feel bad about it at all. Eventually it will all be a moot point anyway, as I think they will start selling legal downloads of big name movies, giving you the option of whether or not you want to go to the theatre or not, because lets face it, in many peoples lives there comes a point where going to the movies everyweek is not as easy as it used to be.

[nayland]

I am not saying to go out and break laws. I dont go and buy pirated dvds. but if a movie comes out that i want to see and its limited release forces me to watch it on the internet. SO BE IT!!!! Maybe if film makers didn't want us to see it then maybe they shouldn't be advertising it in areas that it won't be shown in!!!!!!!!!! OHHHHHHH!!!!!! that was the internet that i saw it on........... I am a very patient person. But if i am a bad person for doing what i do??????????? I AM GUILTY AS CHARGED!!!!!!!

[nayland]

KenSPT. I guess you are just morally that much better than all of us. I didn't realize we had such a fine upstanding citizen among us.when should we show up for your sainthood??????????

[Lady Stardust]

Aren't pirated movies usually in really bad video quality?

[miguel_montes]

I understand your artistic point of view, that movies are a part of the fabric of culture and should be available for all to see. I truly do.

That being said, to the studios who purchase these films, they are products; products that they hope will turn a profit for their respective companies.

These products are no different than inventory in a store, like the loafs of bread that line the shelves of a supermarket, or the books that fill the bookcases at Barnes and Noble. The movies are inventory, the studio is the store, and the store is looking to make as much money off their inventory as possible. Just because you wish it wasn't so, doesn't change the way it truly is.

The fact that you believe movies should be readily available for people to see, because of their artistic/intellectual/cultural significance, can be seen as nothing but another justification for piracy.

Your opinion is that movies should not have monetary value, but the fact remains that these films do have a monetary value, and it cannot be discounted.

If someone downloads a movie as opposed to buying a ticket to see it in theaters, or buying the DVD, they are taking money out of the pocket of the people who have a financial interest in these films. They are doing this by going through different channels to watch the film, channels which do not bring those individuals any financial reward.

This is the beauty of capitalism, you can create a product and present it to the public to gobble up; anyone who takes that product without paying for it is stealing.

I understand that your artistic heart wishes it were otherwise, but it's not.

Let me try and clarify my point of view a bit more:

When a movie is in the theaters, it has monetary value because it is associated with a business. You have the audio and video equipment, that costs money; you have the theater itself, that costs money; you have the seats, that costs money; the electricity for the projector, for the sound, for the lights or the a/c, that costs money; you have the reels, those cost money; you have movie theater employees, they cost money. Basically, you have a whole new business universe around the movies that require money to operate. And therefore, to the movie it has to be added that monetary value and that's why it should cost money for people to see it in the theaters. I'm not against paying to see a movie in a theater, because I know that requires money to operate and for the movie company to make a profit out of it.

And when a movie is for sale on DVD or Blu-Ray, it also has monetary value, again associated with a business. You have the physical disc, DVD or Blu-Ray, that costs money; you have the case, that costs money; you have the cover and artwork, that costs money; besides the movie, you have extras, menus, all those other features that revolve around the movie, they cost money; a business sells the DVDs and Blu-Rays, therefore they seek a profit, so it requires money.

Not to mention all of the publicty and marketing the movie had upon its release in the theaters or in DVD.

I think that a downloaded movie only has that cultural value and no monetary value because there's no associated "extra" value that can cost the movie company money. There's no physical support, no artwork, no extras, they didn't even provide the ripping or sharing support. So, for me, the only value that's left is the artistic, cultural or intellectual.

When I say a downloaded movie should be free, I mean ONLY the downloaded movie. If the ripping and sharing was made via the movie company's website, therefore costing them money for hard-drive space, website, server, then they could use some form of ad-based download manager, or even something like NBC uses or even shows like Southpark, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
But should the movie companies choose to use P2P to share the movie, then it should be absolutely free.
They could also decide to stop selling DVDs and making the SD version of the movie (480p) only available online for free downloading. People who wanted a physical disc of the movie with a HD version (1080p) of it should then buy it on Blu-Ray.

[LordSimen]

I think that a downloaded movie only has that cultural value and no monetary value because there's no associated "extra" value that can cost the movie company money. There's no physical support, no artwork, no extras, they didn't even provide the ripping or sharing support. So, for me, the only value that's left is the artistic, cultural or intellectual.



Your logic would drive software companies out of business.

[jbar1026]

im not for stealing from the studios. but damn if the limited release movie was not coming to my area anyway then me seeing it in some other medium is no loss to them. i have the grindhouse bootleg but i saw the movie in the theatre and when they release the full version on dvd i will throw that bootleg in the trash. i am damn interested in seeing that western with qt and it might come to my area. there is an art house theatre in my area but its not likr i know whats playing there right now. if they wont give me the chance to pay them for it i will find someone else who will

[SatansPuppet]

To be honest if you're downloading movies that are being 'buried' like Midnight Meat Train and not buying the Bluray/DVD then you're doing yourself no favours as you're helping to bury the film by not purchasing it.

MMT needs ticket sales/DVD Sales to prove to that shit up in Lionsgate tower that you can't bury a great horror!!!! It's the Strangers you should be downloading just so that shit with the producing credit up in Lionsgate tower doesn't get YOUR Money and rewarded for what he's done to a much better movie like MMT. :)

[miguel_montes]

Your logic would drive software companies out of business.

Canonical, Google, Mozilla and many others would disagree. There are lots of free software companies that show profit.

EDIT: And IBM, Novell, Oracle, Progress Software, Red Hat, Sun.

Take Google Earth for example:

There's a webversion, Google maps. It's free for everyone.
Then there's a software version, Google Earth. That's free.
Then there's the paid versions of Google Earth. They cost money and have additional features.

I think movies should work the same way.

Digital distribuition (480p) - free for everyone but with various options:
- Streaming movies: constant server requirement (costs money), so the content would be free but ad-based (like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report);
- Downloaded movies: requires a one-time access to the server (costs money), so free with an ad-based download manager (something like Steam, for example);
- P2P (via torrents) shared movies: absolutely free

Physical distribuition - paid
- Movies with additional features: higher quality (1080p), a case and disc, artwork, extras

[LordSimen]

Canonical, Google, Mozilla and many other would disagree. There are lots of free software companies that show profit.

Why can't we have "open-source" movies?

Software companies. Video game designers. Film makers. Musicians.

They're all products, regardless of whether or not they're digital files. Microsoft Word is a digital file, but it's still a product, one that's made by a group of highly trained computer programers who would be out of a job if their product was no longer a product.

Digital products are products, regardless of whether they're digital or not. A computer game is still a product, regardless of whether or not in the end it's a digital file. A movie is also a product.

Stealing any of these products, digitally or not, is still stealing.

Seriously, if you're going to steal things, don't try to come up with falty logic to try to defend your thievery. At least people who steal out of hunger have a moral and life or death argument. The only argument here is simply personal laziness and a lack of patience.

[KenSPT]

KenSPT. I guess you are just morally that much better than all of us. I didn't realize we had such a fine upstanding citizen among us.when should we show up for your sainthood??????????

That was out of line and inappropriate.

I've been very courteous and polite this entire thread. I've been stating my point of view and attempting to defend it without resorting to digs and insults.

A statement like yours is nothing but a dig, and a retaliation on my end would do nothing but turn what is a very well-spoken thread into another internet flame war.



I think that a downloaded movie only has that cultural value and no monetary value because there's no associated "extra" value that can cost the movie company money. There's no physical support, no artwork, no extras, they didn't even provide the ripping or sharing support. So, for me, the only value that's left is the artistic, cultural or intellectual.



Yes, when you download a film you don't have a case, artwork, theater employees, and everything else you mentioned, but you're still watching the movie without paying for it.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, I was interested in seeing What Happens In Vegas, which is currently out on DVD. This is a movie a studio released, and a studio has financial interest in.

As a consumer, I have a few different options for seeing it.

1) I could rent the DVD, in which case the financial interest between the studio and rental facility is satisfied.

2) I could buy the DVD, in which case the financial interest of the studio is satisfied.

3) I could order it on PPV/On Demand, in which case the financial interest of the studio is satisfied, as well as the financial interest of my cable provider.

4) I could download the movie via an illegal third party site and watch it, in which case the financial interest of nobody is taken care of.

If I choose the fourth option, as opposed to the other three, I am taking something of monetary value, without those who have a financial interest reaping any of the benefits.

I have more than enough options to see the film in an "acceptable manner" , but instead I opted to download it and watch the movie in a form where nobody gets any financial reward from it. In doing so, I opted not to choose any of the three options that would benefit those with a financial interest; thus costing them money.

It's impossible to compare movies to something like Google Earth or Firefox, because those pieces of software were designed to be available for free.

Whomever has a financial interest in those products positioned it as such so that they can turn a profit on them by providing them to the public free of charge. Studios don't do this with movies, they market their movies to be available to the public for a set price, and if you don't pay that set price you are stealing their product without their consent.

I know you wish it were the other way, but it's not.

im not for stealing from the studios. but damn if the limited release movie was not coming to my area anyway then me seeing it in some other medium is no loss to them. i have the grindhouse bootleg but i saw the movie in the theatre and when they release the full version on dvd i will throw that bootleg in the trash. i am damn interested in seeing that western with qt and it might come to my area. there is an art house theatre in my area but its not likr i know whats playing there right now. if they wont give me the chance to pay them for it i will find someone else who will

Any movie that's in limited release in the US will eventually be released on DVD in the US. Just because you didn't get a chance to see it in theaters doesn't mean you have carte-blanche to see it by any means necessary.

You should simply wait for it to be released on DVD, then go through the proper channels to get your hands on it.

If you're not patient enough to do that, that's a personality flaw, and it's no excuse for taking something that's not yours without paying.

[dellamorte dellamore]

For example the spanish movie REC whic was released in theaters in Europe but no idiot distributors got interested in buying the rights for theater or dvd release in the U.S.. Now we have to see a dumb remake which is the same film only it's in english. That's another lame excuse for Hollywood to remake a film that it might never get released in the U.S.

I can see it now , the people who are bitching about Quarantine , a film they feel is an unwarranted remake will be the first pinheads downloading the film and watching it for free . The fact that they thought Rec shouldn't have been remade will be their justification for downloading it . And the hilarious thing will be , them bitching that it sucked . Well , it's automatically going to ( suck ), because the first illegal versions will be some cheap ass cam copies . It will be a sort of rebellion against remakes of foreign films , pathetic .

Typical downloader - oh man that movie looks horrible , why did they make it , hey man , how come nobody has a better copy up yet , i need to see this film . Yeah , for free .

[miguel_montes]

Software companies. Video game designers. Film makers. Musicians.

They're all products, regardless of whether or not they're digital files. Microsoft Word is a digital file, but it's still a product, one that's made by a group of highly trained computer programers who would be out of a job if their product was no longer a product.

Digital products are products, regardless of whether they're digital or not. A computer game is still a product, regardless of whether or not in the end it's a digital file. A movie is also a product.

Stealing any of these products, digitally or not, is still stealing.

Seriously, if you're going to steal things, don't try to come up with falty logic to try to defend your thievery. At least people who steal out of hunger have a moral and life or death argument. The only argument here is simply personal laziness and a lack of patience.

I don't think you know me well enough to be calling me lazy or without patience. I don't even think you should make those kinds of assumptions based on these tiny portions of my beliefs. I am a very patient man. More than I should be, really.
I did not disrespect you, so I would expect the same kind of behaviour from any other person, you included, please.

Again, I don't think I'm stealing. A downloaded movie for personal use has no monetary value. If I burned a DVD and asked 5 dollars for it, that would be stealing, because those 5$, instead of going to the movie company, would go to my pocket.

But if I follow your view on this, I would also be stealing from the movie company when I use a movie-related avatar here on the forum, because I'm illegally using a bi-product of that same movie company without proper authorization. Right? So, from that point of view, the immense quantity of Joker-related avatars are illegal and also a theft against Warner Brothers.
Right? Can any related bi-product of a movie that is used without proper authorization be considered stealing?

[miguel_montes]

It's impossible to compare movies to something like Google Earth or Firefox, because those pieces of software were designed to be available for free.

Whomever has a financial interest in those products positioned it as such so that they can turn a profit on them by providing them to the public free of charge. Studios don't do this with movies, they market their movies to be available to the public for a set price, and if you don't pay that set price you are stealing their product without their consent.

I know you wish it were the other way, but it's not.

Google Earth has two paid versions. It's designed to be free AND to have a price.

Movies should work the same way. I know they don't, but they should. The movie industry should really stop condoning the Internet and embrace it as another form they could somehow turn to everyone's advantage, like the examples I mentioned earlier. By offering free downloads with an ad-based support, for instance.
Maybe as the years go by and the Internet becomes an even greater global medium, this could change.

[KenSPT]

But if I follow your view on this, I would also be stealing from the movie company when I use a movie-related avatar here on the forum, because I'm illegally using a bi-product of that same movie company without proper authorization. Right? So, from that point of view, the immense quantity of Joker-related avatars are illegal and also a theft against Warner Brothers.
Right? Can any related bi-product of a movie that is used without proper authorization be considered stealing?

No.

The stills and images that are released to the web by Warner are not items that the public needs to pay to have access to. Those stills were put on the web free of charge. Thus, if avatars/wallpapers/buddy icons are made with those images, Warner is not losing any money.

If, hypothetically, Warner charged $10 per avatar on their site, and individuals copied them on their computer, and others used them without paying the set price, then your argument would have a basis. However, Warner released those images without the intention of making money off of them, thus if they're used in any manner, Warner is not losing a dime.

A movie on the other hand, was designed to turn a profit. The Dark Knight was not released on the web free of charge, it was released in theaters in the hope that people would pay to see it. Thus, if you watch an illegally downloaded version of the movie, you are taking money out of the pockets of the studio, as that's not the way the movie is meant to be watched.

Another analogy, since these are all the rave these days ... :)

If I walk into Barnes and Noble, pick the The Da Vinci Code off the shelf, make a photocopy of every page, go home and read the copy I made without ever buying the book, did I or did I not just read a book that was intended for purchase free of charge? Did I not just cost Barnes and Noble a sale? Did I not just cost Dan Brown and his publisher a sale?

The answer is simple; I did, because I took a product without paying for it.

[KenSPT]

Google Earth has two paid versions. It's designed to be free AND to have a price.

Movies should work the same way. I know they don't, but they should. The movie industry should really stop condoning the Internet and embrace it as another form they could somehow turn to everyone's advantage, like the examples I mentioned earlier. By offering free downloads with an ad-based support, for instance.
Maybe as the years go by and the Internet becomes an even greater global medium, this could change.

You think it should be, but like you said, it's not.

Wishing for movies to be released a certain way does not justify you in creating your own rules and stealing the product without paying for it.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Aren't pirated movies usually in really bad video quality?

There's various copies that come out depending on how long the film has been in the theaters . A cam is the one that will come out , normally the day after release , sometimes the same day , the audio and video will all be recorded within the camera , so that's why the audio sounds horrible . Then you have the telesynch , it's recorded with a camcorder , but the audio is recorded separately from the camera , so no crowd noise and a cleaner , most times 2 channel soundtrack .


Then you have the next step up , the telecine , a copy of the film source directly from the theater's projector . I'm not sure how these work exactly , but i think it's akin to dubbing from a dvd or vcr . So no crowd noise ( most times a 5.1 channel mix ), and a near dvd quality image since they aren't recording the projected image but from an audio / video outlet on the theater's projector . These will mainly come from countries were the policing of pirated movies and the bribing of projection operators is more easily accomplished ( Russia :) )


Now the mother of all pirated films , the Dvd Rip , it's exactly what it says , a copy of an actual dvd made by the studio . These can be " prerelease " , which i think is a completed dvd meant for distribution that has yet to be released ( all it takes is a shady employee to snag a copy for himself and put it on the internet ) or the screener , dvds that are given to the executives and such or dvds given to members of the academy for films that a studio wants to be considered for awards . There will be plenty of those floating around for films with oscar buzz once it gets closer to awards season . You also have dvd rips for films that are readily available for purchase , those are popular with people who want an exact copy of the dvd ( not exact in most cases because of compression issues and most times they won't have the original soundmix , but close ) but don't want to buy it ( those people can't use the i can't get a hold of a copy where i am argument ).

If you want to know how i know about these things , i admit , i went on a mad cheap horror movie downloading rampage a while back . It started out with a couple of rare , not yet available on dvd films ( Dead Pit , now on dvd so i have to buy it now :) ). I did some research about all the different codecs , the different types of files available , various media players that can play the files , all the different types of releases , sound mixes , encoding formats , how to convert between different audio / video formats . Yep , i had no life , and it's not something i'm proud of , because i love cheap horror and i want to support it , and i do , now , but i was one of those self righteous bittorent geeks at one time . I never realized that in order to support it i have to rent or buy , not download it for free . And yes , i would snag the occasional b buster , but don't worry , i got busted and threatened with suspension of my internet access .


I can't tell you or anyone else what to do , you have to make that decision on your own , but i will say , i couldn't , in good conscience call myself a fan of movies , an admirer of cinema , and keep on doing what i was doing . Buying or renting the film , puts your money were your mouth is and directs the profits to the proper recipients .

[miguel_montes]

^^ There's also HD-rips, which are movies in high-definition, like the ones on HD-DVD, Blu-Ray or even HDTV.

[nayland]

I am not trying to insult anyone. So KenSPT i apologize. My point i am trying to get across is why do they show us trailers for movies and get us all hyped on seeing something and when it comes out it is impossible to view. Sure, we could wait for the dvd to come out. But then we get let down again when nobody carries it because it did poorly in theatres. Trust me i know what i am saying when i tell you how a movie does in theatres tells video stores what and how many to get. If a movie tanks chances are not many copies will be purchased by stores. And i don't like to by movies blind. So, what to do?? Watch it on the internet. If it's good then i will pursue it and purchase it on AMAZON or something. So am i still being a common crook or am i someone who loves movies so much i will go to great lengths to view something that the company that made the film has made difficult for people who buy tickets that pay for that movie sometimes impossible to see.

[KenSPT]

i don't like to by movies blind. So, what to do?? Watch it on the internet.

Yes, some video stores only carry a few copies of certain films, but that's still not justification to download a movie for free.

For example, I wanted to see Son of Rambow. My local Blockbuster only had 2 copies, which Friday and Saturday were sold out.

So what did I do?

I made it a point to try and find a video store that had a copy. Sure, it took a little effort, a few phonecalls, and a little bit of a longer drive, but that's fine because it's a movie I really want to see. The DVD is now sitting on my shelf, and I plan on watching it soon.

Not everything in life is easy to get your hands on or achieve, as with anything in life, sometimes getting the things you want takes a little effort.

[countchocula]

You should be able to rent any film on DVD with Netflix and other online rental services. Before the Internet existed, you would have to blind-buy the film to see it. That was just reality. It's not a big deal. You are not entitled to certain films. Movies are wants. This isn't the same thing as stealing food or baby formula. This generation is so fucking spoiled. I'm only 23, but I remember life before cell phones and YouTube. It's a privilege to have access to entertainment, not a right. You can't just download a movie because you really want to see it. If it's not available, you wait until it's available. If you can't afford to buy something, you wait until you can afford it.

Why do so many people think they're entitled to material possessions? A film may be intangible, but it's a product like anything else.

[The Heart Collector]

Fuck Capitalism.

[LordSimen]

Google Earth has two paid versions. It's designed to be free AND to have a price.

Movies should work the same way. I know they don't, but they should. The movie industry should really stop condoning the Internet and embrace it as another form they could somehow turn to everyone's advantage, like the examples I mentioned earlier. By offering free downloads with an ad-based support, for instance.
Maybe as the years go by and the Internet becomes an even greater global medium, this could change.

Who the hell is going to pay for movies if they can easily get them for free?

The same logic goes for everything else. Who the hell wants to pay for google earth? Maybe a small amount of people? I can't imagine anyone wanting to. The moment you give people the option NOT to pay, they won't. Because people are cheap, lazy bastards.

Once you give them that option, and tell them it's okay, what you have effectively done is created a way to run so many hard working people out of business. Who will pay to go to a theater if they can get the movie while it's in theaters for free in high quality, and the industry tells then it's okay? The theater's will have to jack up their prices to compete, and that will only deter people even more. You think there's a high price for theaters now, imagine after the industry has embraced free movies what that will do to the market.

The fact is, free movies only works if they are old movies. On Demand from Comcast allows for free movies, and it's the closest thing I think they should ever go to free online movie downloading. Because the moment they start doing it for movies that are in theaters, which are the primary movies people will download, you will destroy theaters. You will lower the value of films. This will also run the people making the movies out of the business, because who's going to pay people for something that isn't going to sell, because it's free.

And in a generation where NETFLIX exists, there's no excuse for not being able to get a hold of any film that has been released.

[Le_Big_Mac]

So your money has more value than the money of everyone else?

No, when I say "my money" I mean "anyone's money." Except maybe that of someone who's mentally challenged.

[jbar1026]

Any movie that's in limited release in the US will eventually be released on DVD in the US. Just because you didn't get a chance to see it in theaters doesn't mean you have carte-blanche to see it by any means necessary.

You should simply wait for it to be released on DVD, then go through the proper channels to get your hands on it.

If you're not patient enough to do that, that's a personality flaw, and it's no excuse for taking something that's not yours without paying.

that would be true if i wasnt also going to buy the dvd. i saw sunshine on a bootleg dvd and when the officail dvd came out i threw the bootleg away and bought the movie. i think people who worked on these things deserve to get paid and i dont want to short change them. i just want to watch these movies that i cant find anywhere else. if its worth my money it will get it

[JINYX]

Who the hell is going to pay for movies if they can easily get them for free?

The same logic goes for everything else. Who the hell wants to pay for google earth? Maybe a small amount of people? I can't imagine anyone wanting to. The moment you give people the option NOT to pay, they won't. Because people are cheap, lazy bastards.

Once you give them that option, and tell them it's okay, what you have effectively done is created a way to run so many hard working people out of business. Who will pay to go to a theater if they can get the movie while it's in theaters for free in high quality, and the industry tells then it's okay? The theater's will have to jack up their prices to compete, and that will only deter people even more. You think there's a high price for theaters now, imagine after the industry has embraced free movies what that will do to the market.

The fact is, free movies only works if they are old movies. On Demand from Comcast allows for free movies, and it's the closest thing I think they should ever go to free online movie downloading. Because the moment they start doing it for movies that are in theaters, which are the primary movies people will download, you will destroy theaters. You will lower the value of films. This will also run the people making the movies out of the business, because who's going to pay people for something that isn't going to sell, because it's free.

And in a generation where NETFLIX exists, there's no excuse for not being able to get a hold of any film that has been released.

I completely agree with this statement.

As he said, with Netflix around, virtually ANY movie that has a DVD/Blu-Ray release is readily available.

The whole, "I've just got this bootleg copy until it's released" argument is NOT valid. You are still costing someone money, if you do intend to buy it, your costing a rental center money, as well as the movie studio. Also with this, if you bootleg the movie and it ends up sucking, you and I both know your not going to buy it. Stop being so cheap and put your money towards something you claim to love.

[the clever guy]

i agree with the count and ken on this topic.

let's look at sales figures for a second. look at titanic. now, i'm pretty certain that when titanic came out, internet movie pirating wasn't as rampant as it is now...if even at all. i'm only guessing that TDK hasn't made as much as it could due to internet pirating. i know a shit ton of people who own pirated copies. sure, i'll admit to watching them in pieces at their accord...but not owning them. when i really want to see the movie in the way it should be, i pay for a fucking ticket...which i've done about 5 times. i'm not saying i'm justified to get a pirated copy...because that's still a loss in warner's pockets, but i'm still paying to see the movie.

count brought up a good point, and todays "generation" or "youth" or whatever the fuck you want call it is goddamn spoiled. i'm also 23, and i fucking know it. the world was revolving just fine until the internet reared it's ass into it. surprisingly enough, the internet hasn't become self-aware...yet.

all-in-all people, pay for a fucking ticket. pay for a movie rental if you want to see it, as there are more than enough cheap outlets (netflix being the bigger of em all) to go through to see the movie for next to nothing. pay for the fucking dvd. and.....


BE FUCKING PATIENT!

[Robot]

that would be true if i wasnt also going to buy the dvd. i saw sunshine on a bootleg dvd and when the officail dvd came out i threw the bootleg away and bought the movie. i think people who worked on these things deserve to get paid and i dont want to short change them. i just want to watch these movies that i cant find anywhere else. if its worth my money it will get it


You aren't really what this debate is about. You may bootleg, but when an actual copy from the studio becomes available you purchase it. I don't have much of a problem with that because at least at some point a monetary exchange occurs. The whole problem is with people who never purchase a copy of the film and/or see it at the theater.

[eljefe15]

I agree that downloading dvd rips of movies is stealing. I know stealing is wrong, morally and legally. I'm not trying to justify or rationalize downloading or bootlegging in anyway. I just don't give a shit. I don't have a justification for downloading anything. I do it because I don't want to pay for something that I can get for free. There are some movies that I want to experience in a theater and there are some that I want to own on dvd. But those are special cases and I am more than willing to purchase the ticket or the dvd when I decide a movies is worthy of that. If it is not, I don't bother. It's as simple as that. The way I see it is that I've bought tickets and dvds of shitty movies before and I don't see any studio apologizing for releasing a shitty movie. As for the art and the artist, I will gladly support both with my dollars. But that is for me to decide, not the fucking studios. They make plenty of money, if they didn't, they wouldn't make movies. And those of you who have a moral or legal stick up your ass and keep defending multi-millionaires and all the money they're losing, don't bother. As somebody else said in this thread..."cry me a river."

[jbar1026]

The whole, "I've just got this bootleg copy until it's released" argument is NOT valid. You are still costing someone money, if you do intend to buy it, your costing a rental center money, as well as the movie studio. Also with this, if you bootleg the movie and it ends up sucking, you and I both know your not going to buy it. Stop being so cheap and put your money towards something you claim to love.

why the hell should anyone pay for a movie that sucks my mother in law and her sisters go to the theater and if the movie sucks they ask for their money back and do you know what.... they get it! why buy a shit movie to find out if its good. i would rent a movie to find out if its good but if i want to see something and i can then i do.

[SweetEnLow]

I don't like watching pirated movies because a lot of the time they are not the best quality. I have been waiting to see some movies for a long time, but I think I'd rather wait until they come out on DVD rather than watch a crappy copy that might fuck up my movie experience.

I have seen a few pirated movies at friend's houses.When they started playing them on the DVD player I didn't tell them I wasn't going to watch it with them, but I was afraid it would be a crappy copy. One of them was the latest Rocky movie, which I went out and bought anyway. The other one I went out and rented again, forget which one that was.

I don't really think it's right to watch pirated movies. Anyway you look at it, it's stealing. You are not paying for something you should be, if it's by watching it at the theater or renting or buying the DVD. But a lot of people steal without giving it a second thought. How many of us can say that each and every program that we have on our computer is a legitimate bought and paid for copy? How many times have you heard someone say yes, but Bill Gates is an asshole, he has enough money, Microsoft has enough money. blah blah blah.

People will try to justify anything. How many of us have mp3s?

Just because it's movies doesn't mean it's more sacred than anything else. It's all stealing.

[KenSPT]

that would be true if i wasnt also going to buy the dvd. i saw sunshine on a bootleg dvd and when the officail dvd came out i threw the bootleg away and bought the movie. i think people who worked on these things deserve to get paid and i dont want to short change them. i just want to watch these movies that i cant find anywhere else. if its worth my money it will get it

... and if you deem it "not worth your money", you just cost the studio and rental facilities a sale by coming to that decision via downloading.

I agree that downloading dvd rips of movies is stealing. I know stealing is wrong, morally and legally. I'm not trying to justify or rationalize downloading or bootlegging in anyway. I just don't give a shit. I don't have a justification for downloading anything. I do it because I don't want to pay for something that I can get for free. There are some movies that I want to experience in a theater and there are some that I want to own on dvd. But those are special cases and I am more than willing to purchase the ticket or the dvd when I decide a movies is worthy of that. If it is not, I don't bother. It's as simple as that. The way I see it is that I've bought tickets and dvds of shitty movies before and I don't see any studio apologizing for releasing a shitty movie. As for the art and the artist, I will gladly support both with my dollars. But that is for me to decide, not the fucking studios. They make plenty of money, if they didn't, they wouldn't make movies. And those of you who have a moral or legal stick up your ass and keep defending multi-millionaires and all the money they're losing, don't bother. As somebody else said in this thread..."cry me a river."

The "they make enough money" argument is so weak it's ridiculous.

Yes, studios rake in millions upon millions of dollars. So what? That's an irrelevant point. How does them running a successful business justify you stealing from them?

McDonalds makes millions of dollars a day, do you walk in there and steal a Big Mac?

If you don't think a movie is worth spending, at the most, $10 to see then I don't understand how you can justify spending 90 minutes of your time sitting down and watching it.

If I think a movie looks lousy, I don't watch it. If I'm interested in a movie, even if I think it's going to be mediocre, I spend $4 and rent it.

It's not like you HAVE to dedicate alot of money to a crappy movie. You don't HAVE to spend $15 on every DVD you want to see. If it's a movie you're interested in, you can watch the movie for a few bucks.

why the hell should anyone pay for a movie that sucks my mother in law and her sisters go to the theater and if the movie sucks they ask for their money back and do you know what.... they get it! why buy a shit movie to find out if its good. i would rent a movie to find out if its good but if i want to see something and i can then i do.

If I ran a movie theater, and anyone came up to me asking for their money back because "the movie stunk", I'd kindly tell them to go fuck themselves.

If your Mother-In-Law and sisters actually do that, it's a prime example of the level of entitlement far too many individuals feel they have nowadays.

[miguel_montes]

Sorry, but I have to rant for a bit.

I gotta say I'm not too fond of these types of generalizations:
- You wouldn't steal a Big Mac, but would you steal a downloaded movie?
- You wouldn't steal an atm card, but would you steal a downloaded movie?
- You wouldn't steal <insert item here>, but would you steal a downloaded movie?

Because if that's a crime, then by all means, let's generalize.

- If you have a list of MP3s that you didn't purchase, then you are also stealing and it's a crime.
- If you throw trash to the floor, that's a crime.
- If you smoke in public places, that's a crime.
- If you smoke illegal drugs, that's a crime.
- If you possess illegal drugs, that's a crime.
- If you write graffiti on the wall, that's a crime.
- If you cheat on your taxes, that's a crime.
- If you drink and you're not 21, that's a crime.
- If you sell alcohol to people who are already drunk, that's a crime.
- If you drive above the speed limit, that's a crime.
- If you drive drunk, that's a crime.
- If you pass a red light, that's a crime.
- If you double-park, that's a crime.
- If you're not old enough to drive, that's a crime.
- If you drive without your driver's license, that's a crime.
- Around here it's even illegal to cross a street if not on a cross walk, so that's a crime.

This easy-pointing-finger here reminds of that story where Jesus prevents a woman from being stoned to death, when he says something like: "if anyone of you is without sin, be the first to throw the first stone". I guess a lot of you are without sin, then...
Lots of people everywhere violate these and or other laws, and I bet a lot of schmoes here do the same, so how come you think you have the right to call me a thief, when a lot of these people also violate the law? I think it's of an unbelievable hipocrisy!!

/* rant over

[KenSPT]

Sorry, but I have to rant for a bit.

I gotta say I'm not too fond of these types of generalizations:
- You wouldn't steal a Big Mac, but would you steal a downloaded movie?
- You wouldn't steal an atm card, but would you steal a downloaded movie?
- You wouldn't steal <insert item here>, but would you steal a downloaded movie?

Because if that's a crime, then by all means, let's generalize.

- If you have a list of MP3s that you didn't purchase, then you are also stealing and it's a crime.
- If you throw trash to the floor, that's a crime.
- If you smoke in public places, that's a crime.
- If you smoke illegal drugs, that's a crime.
- If you possess illegal drugs, that's a crime.
- If you write graffiti on the wall, that's a crime.
- If you cheat on your taxes, that's a crime.
- If you drink and you're not 21, that's a crime.
- If you sell alcohol to people who are already drunk, that's a crime.
- If you drive above the speed limit, that's a crime.
- If you drive drunk, that's a crime.
- If you pass a red light, that's a crime.
- If you double-park, that's a crime.
- If you're not old enough to drive, that's a crime.
- If you drive without your driver's license, that's a crime.
- Around here it's even illegal to cross a street if not on a cross walk, so that's a crime.

This easy-pointing-finger here reminds of that story where Jesus prevents a woman from being stoned to death, when he says something like: "if anyone of you is without sin, be the first to throw the first stone". I guess a lot of you are without sin, then...
Lots of people everywhere violate these and or other laws, and I bet a lot of schmoes here do the same, so how come you think you have the right to call me a thief, when a lot of these people also violate the law? I think it's of an unbelievable hipocrisy!!

/* rant over

This isn't a thread about running through red lights, jaywalking, or driving without a license; this is a thread about illegally downloading movies.

I don't think people posting in this thread are pointing the finger while yelling, "THIEF !!! THEIF !!! THIEF !!!". We're discussing the ridiculous justifications made for the illegal actions, and questioning the logic of people who think they're doing nothing wrong.

The issue I have with a majority of the people who illegally download movies is that they find ways to justify what they do, and act as if those justifications make it alright to do what they do.

People in this thread have justified their downloading by saying :

-- The studios make too much money.

-- I want every movie I see to be worth the money I spend.

-- The movies aren't as readily available in my area.

... and you yourself have said;

Originally Posted by miguel_montes View Post

I think that a downloaded movie only has that cultural value and no monetary value because there's no associated "extra" value that can cost the movie company money. There's no physical support, no artwork, no extras, they didn't even provide the ripping or sharing support. So, for me, the only value that's left is the artistic, cultural or intellectual.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who ran a red light and tried to play it off as if the cop was wrong for pulling them over.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who drives under the influence who doesn't think they're breaking a law.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who cheats on their taxes, who doesn't think they're getting one over on the IRS.

However, people who illegally download movies act as if they are doing no wrong. They come up with justification after justification that they believe "defends" their actions.

Comparing any of the crimes you listed to illegally downloading movies is like comparing water polo to baseball; yes, they're both sports, but beyond that simple comparison, the differences are vast.

[miguel_montes]

This isn't a thread about running through red lights, jaywalking, or driving without a license; this is a thread about illegally downloading movies.

Of course it isn't. But you and other posters have no problem with coming up with examples, so why should I?

I don't think people posting in this thread are pointing the finger while yelling, "THIEF !!! THEIF !!! THIEF !!!". We're discussing the ridiculous justifications made for the illegal actions, and questioning the logic of people who think they're doing nothing wrong.

Yes, they are. Not only that, but also spoiled, lazy and without patience.

The issue I have with a majority of the people who illegally download movies is that they find ways to justify what they do, and act as if those justifications make it alright to do what they do.

People in this thread have justified their downloading by saying :

-- The studios make too much money.

-- I want every movie I see to be worth the money I spend.

-- The movies aren't as readily available in my area.

... and you yourself have said;

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who ran a red light and tried to play it off as if the cop was wrong for pulling them over.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who drives under the influence who doesn't think they're breaking a law.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who cheats on their taxes, who doesn't think they're getting one over on the IRS.

However, people who illegally download movies act as if they are doing no wrong. They come up with justification after justification that they believe "defends" their actions.

Comparing any of the crimes you listed to illegally downloading movies is like comparing water polo to baseball; yes, they're both sports, but beyond that simple comparison, the differences are vast.

I like the way people use comparisons to justify that downloading is illegal, but when I do it on the other side of the spectrum, you say they are simple and that the differences are vast.

So which is it? Because if the differences are vast, then stop comparing illegal downloading with other stuff and I'll do the same.

[KenSPT]

Of course it isn't. But you and other posters have no problem with coming up with examples, so why should I?



Yes, they are. Not only that, but also lazy and without patience.



I like the way people use comparisons to justify that downloading is illegal, but when I do it on the other side of the spectrum, you say they are simple and that the differences are vast.

So which is it? Because if the differences are vast, then stop comparing illegal downloading with other stuff and I'll do the same.

Miguel, I'm not sure if you're having a bad day or what, but you're starting to come across as hostile, whereas you didn't come across that way prior. I may be reading your words wrong, but I am truly not trying to attack you, I'm just trying to discuss the topic at hand. I don't want this to get personal.

Moving on ...

The difference between comparing "stealing a Big Mac" and "jaywalking" to illegally downloading movies is that the Big Mac argument fits within the scope of the argument.

A Big Mac is a product of McDonalds, much like a movie is a product of a studio.

If you take a Big Mac from McDonalds without paying, you're stealing the burger. If you download a movie without paying, you're stealing from a studio.

Beyond both activities being illegal, how does jaywalking, running red lights, or driving drunk have anything to do with downloading movies?

Comparisons are fine, but they need to fit within the scope of the argument, and I fail to see how any of the above mentioned "illegal activities" fit into the scope of an argument about illegally downloading movies. By your logic, if someone regularly runs red lights they lose any ability to argue the morality and legality of illegally downloading movies; that's kind of ridiculous.

For example; one of my friends was arrested in High School for shoplifting, but now (at 25) he's an avid voice in our area in speaking out against drunk driving. Because he once committed a crime, can he no longer speak out against other illegal activities?

[Reigh Kaufman]

I don't know how these threads last so long.

Downlading is illegal. It is not acceptable.

I watch movies that have been uploaded on YouTube.

I know it is illegal.

We should all know that it is illegal by now. (And why are YouTube not in trouble for this, anyway?).

But I do it - and I know I shouldn't. I don't, however, claim that it is okay when it clearly isn't.

Long story short: I don't judge anyone who downloads, especially since I have done it in the past, but I can't pretend it is not a form of theft.

Fair enough?

[miguel_montes]

Miguel, I'm not sure if you're having a bad day or what, but you're starting to come across as hostile, whereas you didn't come across that way prior. I may be reading your words wrong, but I am truly not trying to attack you, I'm just trying to discuss the topic at hand. I don't want this to get personal.

I know, I'm sorry about that. Like I said, it was a rant. I didn't mean to take it out all on you or anyone, just express a bit of anger.

Moving on ...

The difference between comparing "stealing a Big Mac" and "jaywalking" to illegally downloading movies is that the Big Mac argument fits within the scope of the argument.

A Big Mac is a product of McDonalds, much like a movie is a product of a studio.

If you take a Big Mac from McDonalds without paying, you're stealing the burger. If you download a movie without paying, you're stealing from a studio.

Beyond both activities being illegal, how does jaywalking, running red lights, or driving drunk have anything to do with downloading movies?

I also don't see how taking a Big Mac without paying has anything to do with downloading movies. People assume that because I download movies I could immediately steal other things. Like you said, there vast differences. For me, at least.

Comparisons are fine, but they need to fit within the scope of the argument, and I fail to see how any of the above mentioned "illegal activities" fit into the scope of an argument about illegally downloading movies.

Like I fail to see how any other argument fits within the scope of this argument. In my opinion, all other examples don't fit this argument, like you said, because there are vast differences. But people continue to generalize and enforce it.

By your logic, if someone regularly runs red lights they lose any ability to argue the morality and legality of illegally downloading movies; that's kind of ridiculous.

I also feel it's ridiculous, but isn't that what is being done here? I'm "stealing" movies, so people immediately think I lose any ability to distinguish between downloading a movie and a stealing a Big Mac. They then begin judging me, calling people who do what I do spoiled, lazy, etc., and think I also have the capability to steal other things, right?

People think that because I download movies I could immediately start stealing a Big Mac or sneak into a theater without paying. Well, you're wrong. I wouldn't. I wouldn't do it even if I knew I wouldn't get caught. But I would download a movie. Simple as that.

[KenSPT]

I also feel it's ridiculous, but isn't that what is being done here? I'm "stealing" movies, so people immediately think I lose any ability to distinguish between downloading a movie and a stealing a Big Mac. They then begin judging me, calling people who do what I do spoiled, lazy, etc., and think I also have the capability to steal other things, right?

People think that because I download movies I could immediately start stealing a Big Mac or sneak into a theater without paying. Well, you're wrong. I wouldn't. I wouldn't do it even if I knew I wouldn't get caught. But I would download a movie. Simple as that.

I've never said you were the type of person who would steal a Big Mac, if anything I've tried to state the opposite. I've stated that I don't think most people would justify stealing cars, food, or anything of value; thus why I'm puzzled as to why people justify stealing movies.

If someone came on this forum and stated, "I just walked into Best Buy, grabbed a copy of Cloverfield, and walked out without being caught.", people would vilify them.

I'm 100% confident that the only people who would justify that individuals actions would be younger kids who don't know any better. No matter what he/she said, no one would justify their actions. They'd say he stole, they'd tell him he was wrong, so on and so forth.

That's why I'm amazed at all the justifications thrown around in terms of downloading movies. People give reason after reason after reason as to why it's okay, and then continue to download the movies.

How can one group of people criticize and recognize the wrong in stealing a DVD from Best Buy, yet justify downloading a movie from a studio? I just don't get that.

There are victims in each situation, a product is taken in each situation, and while the methods are different, the end result is roughly the same; someone loses money.

How can one be justified, and the other not?

[Lawgick]

I've never said you were the type of person who would steal a Big Mac, if anything I've tried to state the opposite. I've stated that I don't think most people would justify stealing cars, food, or anything of value; thus why I'm puzzled as to why people justify stealing movies.

If someone came on this forum and stated, "I just walked into Best Buy, grabbed a copy of Cloverfield, and walked out without being caught.", people would vilify them.

I'm 100% confident that the only people who would justify that individuals actions would be younger kids who don't know any better. No matter what he/she said, no one would justify their actions. They'd say he stole, they'd tell him he was wrong, so on and so forth.

That's why I'm amazed at all the justifications thrown around in terms of downloading movies. People give reason after reason after reason as to why it's okay, and then continue to download the movies.

How can one group of people criticize and recognize the wrong in stealing a DVD from Best Buy, yet justify downloading a movie from a studio? I just don't get that.

There are victims in each situation, a product is taken in each situation, and while the methods are different, the end result is roughly the same; someone loses money.

How can one be justified, and the other not?


I think its fine for people to steal food.:cool:

[LordSimen]

Sorry, but I have to rant for a bit.

I gotta say I'm not too fond of these types of generalizations:
- You wouldn't steal a Big Mac, but would you steal a downloaded movie?
- You wouldn't steal an atm card, but would you steal a downloaded movie?
- You wouldn't steal <insert item here>, but would you steal a downloaded movie?

Because if that's a crime, then by all means, let's generalize.

- If you have a list of MP3s that you didn't purchase, then you are also stealing and it's a crime.
- If you throw trash to the floor, that's a crime.
- If you smoke in public places, that's a crime.
- If you smoke illegal drugs, that's a crime.
- If you possess illegal drugs, that's a crime.
- If you write graffiti on the wall, that's a crime.
- If you cheat on your taxes, that's a crime.
- If you drink and you're not 21, that's a crime.
- If you sell alcohol to people who are already drunk, that's a crime.
- If you drive above the speed limit, that's a crime.
- If you drive drunk, that's a crime.
- If you pass a red light, that's a crime.
- If you double-park, that's a crime.
- If you're not old enough to drive, that's a crime.
- If you drive without your driver's license, that's a crime.
- Around here it's even illegal to cross a street if not on a cross walk, so that's a crime.



'Eh? What was your point here? If you're going to try to show us as being ridiculous, then you shouldn't post REAL crimes to try to prove your point. ALL of those are crimes and ALL of those generalizations are true.

However, the severity of illegal downloading and something such as writing graffiti on a wall, both of which are crimes and both of which are wrong, is where the difference lies. Illegally downloading and arguing that every digital file should be free to the people would push millions of people out of business. People who went to college, studied for years, and mastered their craft to the highest degree. The moment you stop paying their bosses for their products, is the moment their bosses stop paying them for their work. With something like Graffiti, the highest risk you really run with that is vandalism. They're both still wrong.

[eljefe15]

The "they make enough money" argument is so weak it's ridiculous.

Yes, studios rake in millions upon millions of dollars. So what? That's an irrelevant point. How does them running a successful business justify you stealing from them?

McDonalds makes millions of dollars a day, do you walk in there and steal a Big Mac?

If you don't think a movie is worth spending, at the most, $10 to see then I don't understand how you can justify spending 90 minutes of your time sitting down and watching it.

If I think a movie looks lousy, I don't watch it. If I'm interested in a movie, even if I think it's going to be mediocre, I spend $4 and rent it.

It's not like you HAVE to dedicate alot of money to a crappy movie. You don't HAVE to spend $15 on every DVD you want to see. If it's a movie you're interested in, you can watch the movie for a few bucks.

You obviously didn't read my post carefully. I very clearly stated that I was not trying to justify or rationalize my stealing. I simply don't give a shit what you or the studios think. And to answer your question, no I wouldn't steal a big mac. Not because it's wrong but because it's garbage! But if I did eat that garbage I would take free food if I could. In fact, when I was in high school I had a lot of friends that worked for McDonald's and other fast food restaurants and we were always getting free food. Technically I wasn't stealing since I didn't go in there and take the food myself but when I'd drive up to the window and my friend was working, he'd give us a lot of free stuff. What should I have done? Should I have gone in there and told the manager that we got the food by mistake? Or should I have told the manager what my friend was doing and got him fired? Because surely we weren't the only ones receiving this benefit so it's not like I could have told my friend to stop it and it would go away. I should have got him fired, huh? Sorry but fuck that. I took the big macs and french fries and I was happy about it. Does that make me morally inferior to you? I don't think so but you may. And if you do, more power to you. But just some advice, be careful not to fall of your high horse on your way down, that is if you ever plan on getting off of it at some point.

[miguel_montes]

'Eh? What was your point here? If you're going to try to show us as being ridiculous, then you shouldn't post REAL crimes to try to prove your point. ALL of those are crimes and ALL of those generalizations are true.

However, the severity of illegal downloading and something such as writing graffiti on a wall, both of which are crimes and both of which are wrong, is where the difference lies. Illegally downloading and arguing that every digital file should be free to the people would push millions of people out of business. People who went to college, studied for years, and mastered their craft to the highest degree. The moment you stop paying their bosses for their products, is the moment their bosses stop paying them for their work. With something like Graffiti, the highest risk you really run with that is vandalism. They're both still wrong.

I'm trying to point out that if people consider that I break the law, that I do not recognize in them the right or the moral high-ground in which they put themselves, to accuse me or call me a thief because they also break the law by doing these or other illegalities. I think it's hypocritical.

[countchocula]

There's no question people break the law every day, sometimes without knowing it. We're just giving our opinions on this particular subject. I admit that I download music, but I would never try to justify theft. It is what it is. I don't care if you download movies. I'm more agitated by the mindset that Miguel and others seem to be espousing, which is one of entitlement.

[miguel_montes]

I admit that I download music, but I would never try to justify theft.

So, why do you do it? ;)

[LordSimen]

I'm trying to point out that if people consider that I break the law, that I do not recognize in them the right or the moral high-ground in which they put themselves, to accuse me or call me a thief because they also break the law by doing these or other illegalities. I think it's hypocritical.

No one who crosses the street illegally and jaywalk will claim after wards that what they did was legal and right. Same with those who run red lights.

I highly doubt I've ever heard anyone do any of those things and then afterward claim that what they doing wasn't wrong and illegal. Yet people who steal music and movies online will fight with every fiber of their being to prove that what they're doing is right and justified, when there really is no real justification that would legally hold any ground.

By all means, break the law, download movies, do whatever you want. I really couldn't care less. The only time I care is when people try to act like it's perfectly fine. No one throws trash on the ground and then afterwards proclaims "I WAS JUSTIFIED IN MY ACTIONS!"

[KenSPT]

No one who crosses the street illegally and jaywalk will claim after wards that what they did was legal and right. Same with those who run red lights.

I highly doubt I've ever heard anyone do any of those things and then afterward claim that what they doing wasn't wrong and illegal. Yet people who steal music and movies online will fight with every fiber of their being to prove that what they're doing is right and justified, when there really is no real justification that would legally hold any ground.

By all means, break the law, download movies, do whatever you want. I really couldn't care less. The only time I care is when people try to act like it's perfectly fine. No one throws trash on the ground and then afterwards proclaims "I WAS JUSTIFIED IN MY ACTIONS!"

Bravo ...

[jbar1026]

If I ran a movie theater, and anyone came up to me asking for their money back because "the movie stunk", I'd kindly tell them to go fuck themselves.

If your Mother-In-Law and sisters actually do that, it's a prime example of the level of entitlement far too many individuals feel they have nowadays. your kidding right!
we go to the movies for entertainment value! if there is no entertainment why should you have to pay. and add to that the theaters make more money on consessions so if i ask for my money back on tickets they still made money off me anyway
and entitlement please... i dont know about anyone else but im sick to death of sub par service and products being shoved in my face on a daily basis if something is crap then you should let someone know. if more people did then maybe people would take a bit more pride in thier products and sevices.

[LordSimen]

your kidding right!
we go to the movies for entertainment value! if there is no entertainment why should you have to pay. and add to that the theaters make more money on consessions so if i ask for my money back on tickets they still made money off me anyway
and entitlement please... i dont know about anyone else but im sick to death of sub par service and products being shoved in my face on a daily basis if something is crap then you should let someone know. if more people did then maybe people would take a bit more pride in thier products and sevices.

If you don't like the risk of seeing a bad movie, stop watching movies. If you paid for a movie that was faulty, such as a technechal difficulty like the sound going out or a fire happens somewhere in the theater that causes you to evacuate, then you are entitled to your money because. Because the product you bought was faulty. No different then buying a CD that's scratched or a microwave that doesn't work. Bring your receipt, you get your money back.

However, if a movie does work the way it was made and intended to work, it played, it goes from beginning to end, no problems ever occur, then you got what you paid for. If you didn't find it entertaining, oh well. Too bad. You aren't entitled to your money back. You already paid for the movie.

This doesn't mean that theaters that wish to provide this service are wrong, they're fine if they want to do it. It's their policy and that's fine and dandy. However I do believe Ken is correct in his statements about people today believing they're entitled to everything. It's depressing that society has evolved to that point, we're all a bunch of spoiled brats who think the world revolves around us.

[miguel_montes]

No one who crosses the street illegally and jaywalk will claim after wards that what they did was legal and right. Same with those who run red lights.

Nevertheless, people keep doing it day, after day, after day. They may not say it's legal and right, but they know it's illegal. And keep doing it.

I do give credit to people who want to legalize drugs, they feel it's right and justified, and try to change the law.

I highly doubt I've ever heard anyone do any of those things and then afterward claim that what they doing wasn't wrong and illegal. Yet people who steal music and movies online will fight with every fiber of their being to prove that what they're doing is right and justified, when there really is no real justification that would legally hold any ground.

No, that's not true. I read about cases where the accused, charged with piracy, was found not guilty. I remember one in Norway and another in Australia, I think.

Check this link, for instance. It happened in the US: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9932004-7.html

This part is especially conclusive:

"The court agrees with the great weight of authority that section 106(3) is not violated unless the defendant has actually distributed an unauthorized copy of the work to a member of the public," wrote the judge in his order. "Merely making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work available to the public does not violate a copyright holder's exclusive right of distribution."

[LordSimen]

Nevertheless, people keep doing it day, after day, after day. They may not say it's legal and right, but they know it's illegal. And keep doing it.

I do give credit to people who want to legalize drugs, they feel it's right and justified, and try to change the law.

With drugs the only person you're hurting is really yourself, with illegally downloading you are hurting an entire industry, thousands of workers, and an entire art form.

Movies are expensive to make. You take out the profit margin, no one will be willing to pay to get them made. There's no incentive. The entire movie business and art form relies on the ability to gain a profit from the movie being made in order to exist.


No, that's not true. I read about cases where the accused, charged with piracy, was found not guilty. I remember one in Norway and another in Australia, I think.

Check this link, for instance. It happened in the US: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9932004-7.html

This part is especially conclusive:

If this is the truth, I fear for the future of our beloved medium.

[jbar1026]

If you don't like the risk of seeing a bad movie, stop watching movies. If you paid for a movie that was faulty, such as a technechal difficulty like the sound going out or a fire happens somewhere in the theater that causes you to evacuate, then you are entitled to your money because. Because the product you bought was faulty. No different then buying a CD that's scratched or a microwave that doesn't work. Bring your receipt, you get your money back.

However, if a movie does work the way it was made and intended to work, it played, it goes from beginning to end, no problems ever occur, then you got what you paid for. If you didn't find it entertaining, oh well. Too bad. You aren't entitled to your money back. You already paid for the movie.

This doesn't mean that theaters that wish to provide this service are wrong, they're fine if they want to do it. It's their policy and that's fine and dandy. However I do believe Ken is correct in his statements about people today believing they're entitled to everything. It's depressing that society has evolved to that point, we're all a bunch of spoiled brats who think the world revolves around us.
anytime my mother in law and her sisters ask for thier money back they generally do so about midway through. they do not watch the whole movie and then ask for thier money back.
i would hardly call myself spoiled. i work damn hard for the money i make and see no problem having expectations when let say..... i go to a restaurant or when i go to a movie.
lets pretend i didnt know anything about disaster movie. i go in spend 8.50 on a ticket 4.23 on a bag of resses 3.75 on a small popcorn and 4.75 on a coke. half way through the movie i realize that the makers spent the same amount on the movie as i spent to watch it. i dont think it makes me spoiled or some sort of ass who thinks the world revoles around them to ask for my money back on the ticket. i wouldnt think to ask for it back on the food or drinks even though it is a waste since i didnt get to enjoy them with a movie

[LordSimen]

anytime my mother in law and her sisters ask for thier money back they generally do so about midway through. they do not watch the whole movie and then ask for thier money back.
i would hardly call myself spoiled. i work damn hard for the money i make and see no problem having expectations when let say..... i go to a restaurant or when i go to a movie.
lets pretend i didnt know anything about disaster movie. i go in spend 8.50 on a ticket 4.23 on a bag of resses 3.75 on a small popcorn and 4.75 on a coke. half way through the movie i realize that the makers spent the same amount on the movie as i spent to watch it. i dont think it makes me spoiled or some sort of ass who thinks the world revoles around them to ask for my money back on the ticket. i wouldnt think to ask for it back on the food or drinks even though it is a waste since i didnt get to enjoy them with a movie


If you saw half the movie, it makes sense you should get HALF the movie back, not all of it. Because you did see the movie. And yes, if you expect to get all your money back after sitting through an hour of a movie, it does to me sound like very spoiled.

[miguel_montes]

If this is the truth, I fear for the future of our beloved medium.

It is. I think the US has the most retrograde system for these kinds of things like illegal dowloading (RIAA, cough cough).
The Internet can and already is revolutionizing the way we distribute content. If used adequately, the movie companies could generate a lot of revenue off of it (like in the examples I posted on the pages before).

But they are afraid of it, instead of embracing it as another form of multimedia support. They think its going to hurt them, when they are really hurting themselves by making these kinds of ignorant stands.
Movie piracy isn't killing Hollywood, Hollywood is killing itself.

[LordSimen]

It is. I think the US has the most retrograde system for these kinds of things like illegal dowloading (RIAA, cough cough).
The Internet can and already is revolutionizing the way we distribute content. If used adequately, the movie companies could generate a lot of revenue off of it (like in the examples I posted on the pages before).

But they are afraid of it, instead of embracing it as another form of multimedia support. They think its going to hurt them, when they are really hurting themselves by making these kinds of ignorant stands.
Movie piracy isn't killing Hollywood, Hollywood is killing itself.

Movie piracy hasn't killed Hollywood yet BECAUSE Hollywood has taken a stand against it. They've made it common knowledge that it's wrong, and that's why they've managed to survive. If they embraced it, they'd be destroyed. You can't give away a product and expect to make a profit out of it.

[jbar1026]

If you saw half the movie, it makes sense you should get HALF the movie back, not all of it. Because you did see the movie. And yes, if you expect to get all your money back after sitting through an hour of a movie, it does to me sound like very spoiled. well this is where we agree to disagree. you think its ok for a company to ass rape its patrons and i dont. i bet if you go out to eat and sit down at the table and have shitty service, cold food, rude waitress you probably tell the manager everthing is super and leave a 25% tip to each his own i guess.

[boiledeggs456]

reason number 1, FREE. the end.

[LordSimen]

Shitty service, cold food and a rude waitress fall under tech. problems and not the problems you're mentioning for films. If you go into a theater and the seats all all faulty, the room is freezing, the sound is terrible, the picture cuts out randomly, then yes you are entitled to your money back.

But if you saw the movie perfectly fine, no tech. problems, then decide half way through that you didn't find the movie entertaining, that's more along the lines of ordering a hamburger, eating half of it, and deciding after all that you didn't like the taste of the hamburger despite of it being cooked the way it was intended to on the menu.

That's not enough reason to ask for your money back.

[miguel_montes]

You can't give away a product and expect to make a profit out of it.

Companies can offer its products for free and generate profit around it with related bi-products (merchandising, for example), or in some form of ads while downloading or streaming. There are a number of free produts offered by companies and they seem to flourish, not by selling its products, but by gaining popularity, gaining a well-respected name, and converting it into business.

And like I said, I don't think a movie should always be free. I feel they should provide lower-quality digital versions for free on the Internet and sell high quality-versions, like in the theaters or on Blu-Ray. Quality of the distribuition being the compromising factor.

If the consumer chooses to have the free movie, then he has to settle with a barebones, lower-version of it. If he chooses to have the "premium" product, he should pay for it.

[countchocula]

Cold food is a fact. A bad movie is an opinion. I wouldn't give anyone a refund if they didn't like the movie. They would just have to deal with it, which is something that people have forgotten how to do.

PS-I download music for personal reasons. It's a bit of a long story.

[miguel_montes]

PS-I download music for personal reasons. It's a bit of a long story.

We have time. :)

But if you don't, you can always summarize it. :rolleyes:

[jbar1026]

well as i used to be a restuarant manager i know that restaurants sell service not food you can go anywhere and get a burger but if you go some place and it takes 45 min and the its cold and you are treated like shit i hope you dont go back. its all about expectations

if i cant see a movie because the movie company doesnt bring it cloes enough to where i live and i see it via download or bootleg they are to blame not me. they underestimated demand and said me and others like me in my area are not worth while. i love to go to the movies and would choose it over sitting at my house watching a movie. if i go and the movie is so bad i cant watch it "and to give you a point of reference i saw house of the dead, alone in the dark, and in the name of the king at the theater and didnt ask for my money back" i deserve my money back. if they company thinks it should be able to make shitty movies and sell them as good ones. they are wrong and defending them for doing it is wrong too.

the fact that downloading and bootleging is wrong is easy to see. but someone like me is not going to break hollywood hell as i already said they dont even want my money. its the person who sees everthing released in this way and the people who buy bootlegs and burns instead of dvds

[jbar1026]

Cold food is a fact. A bad movie is an opinion. .
i would argue that your food would not be cold if you ate it instaead of complaining. your cold food then becomes an opinion too. i could also say that whats cold to you is not to me.
a bad movie is a bad movie it just has different degrees of badness

[The Heart Collector]

I don't think there's much that's morally abhorrent about "stealing" movies or music. Seeing grotesque apologism for the music and movie industry's terrible business practices, like LordSimen has been doing here, is just profoundly bizarre to me.

I don't agree with the notion that a movie is a product. This is just a really simplistic view and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't apply in many cases. I'm not talking about legal issues here, I'm talking about making a reasonable judgment about things. We have some laws about it, for capitalist reasons, but they're not necessarily objectively right or anything of the sort.

Books cost money. An author wrote those books. However, no one seriously argues that you shouldn't borrow books from people, or shouldn't go to a Borders / Barnes & Noble and read a book off the shelf, or that you shouldn't go to a magazine stand and read the articles you want then not buy it, etc. I haven't met a single person who argues that.

CDs cost money. Musicians made that music. However, no one seriously argues that you shouldn't lend CDs to people, that you shouldn't play CDs to people, that you can only play music in private, etc.

Movies cost money too. A studio made that movie. However, no one seriously argues that you shouldn't lend copies of your movie to anyone, that you shouldn't play your movie to people, etc.

What's the difference between me watching my friend's dvd, or me downloading the movie? In both cases, one person (me) watches the movie without the studio making money for that watch. Is anyone in their right mind going to argue that I am morally in the wrong for watching the movie downloaded instead? What if my buddy rips me a copy instead of lending me the dvd?

Do any of you act like that? Do you refuse to lend movies to people because they haven't paid for the permission to watch it, do you refuse to show movies to your friends at home because they haven't paid a licensing fee for watching this work of art?

The only reason those fees don't exist is because there is no reasonable way to enforce them, not because they are more or less morally acceptable. I wf the movie industry could charge you extra money for how many people were in the room with you when you watched a movie, they would. If the movie industry could charge you extra money for loaning a movie, they would.

The only reasons these distinctions exist is for money. They have nothing to do with reason or logic. The only reason the part in the "contract" you engage in when buying a movie that says you are allowed to show it to other people exists is because no one is going to try to enforce persecuting dvd lenders. The only reason you have to pay a fee to show a movie to students, but not pay a fee to show a movie to the same students but at your home is because they can't enforce that at your home. This is the only reason. It has nothing to do with logic or reason. The laws don't make any concrete sense. Pointing at the laws and saying "yeah, but the law says" isn't a good argument when the entire point of these discussions is how profoundly stupid the laws are.

The entire concept of selling a movie. It is not a simple case of a movie being a product that you have to purchase in order to experience, no matter how many times you repeat it.

What are they doing? They are not selling you a piece of plastic that happens to contain the movie.

They are also not selling you permission to observe the movie, because you can easily show the movie to people that haven't paid for that permission and it isn't illegal.

What they are selling you is a grotesque and uneven mixture of physical product and intellectual property. It is intellectual property when it benefits them (when they can sue you for reproducing it and posting it online), and then it magically reverts into physical property when it benefits them too (when you break your dvd and can't just get a new one).

The only reason that "downloading a movie and watching it online" qualifies as "theft" is because it can actually be prosecuted. Borders or Barnes & Noble don't sue people for grabbing books off the shelf and reading them right there at the store, but it's the same thing. Bookstores made an assessment that it isn't worth it financially or in terms of customer support to do such a thing. Right now, the movie industry has decided that it is worth it.

The movie industry and any other art industry are the same. They will persecute you and make it so that you have to pay them to experience their product to the maximum limit. The limits vary. The only reason the limits vary is because of what they can actually physically do, not because they are less or more moral.

For the most part, it has been a miserable failure. More and more people download every day, and the industry keeps losing money and no one likes or respects them anyone. One day, the movie and music industry will stop this nonsense, accept they were wrong, and embrace the new world. I wonder what you apologists are going to be saying then.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with The Heart Collector, but that is a helluva post right there. People who wish to counter are going to have to think very carefully about how to respond to some of his opinions.

Though it is pretty rude to read an article in a newspaper or magazine and then just walk off.;)

[The Heart Collector]

I want to add something else.

The only reason these debates exist is because of the technology at hand and the laws at hand.

The concept of a "book" and its physical form was probably much different when the printing press didn't exist. The idea of a book as a product that you sold wasn't the same.

If we had never had paper, but had only had internet, would anyone be arguing that a movie is a product? of course not.

[eljefe15]

I don't think there's much that's morally abhorrent about "stealing" movies or music. Seeing grotesque apologism for the music and movie industry's terrible business practices, like LordSimen has been doing here, is just profoundly bizarre to me.

I don't agree with the notion that a movie is a product. This is just a really simplistic view and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't apply in many cases. I'm not talking about legal issues here, I'm talking about making a reasonable judgment about things. We have some laws about it, for capitalist reasons, but they're not necessarily objectively right or anything of the sort.

Books cost money. An author wrote those books. However, no one seriously argues that you shouldn't borrow books from people, or shouldn't go to a Borders / Barnes & Noble and read a book off the shelf, or that you shouldn't go to a magazine stand and read the articles you want then not buy it, etc. I haven't met a single person who argues that.

CDs cost money. Musicians made that music. However, no one seriously argues that you shouldn't lend CDs to people, that you shouldn't play CDs to people, that you can only play music in private, etc.

Movies cost money too. A studio made that movie. However, no one seriously argues that you shouldn't lend copies of your movie to anyone, that you shouldn't play your movie to people, etc.

What's the difference between me watching my friend's dvd, or me downloading the movie? In both cases, one person (me) watches the movie without the studio making money for that watch. Is anyone in their right mind going to argue that I am morally in the wrong for watching the movie downloaded instead? What if my buddy rips me a copy instead of lending me the dvd?

Do any of you act like that? Do you refuse to lend movies to people because they haven't paid for the permission to watch it, do you refuse to show movies to your friends at home because they haven't paid a licensing fee for watching this work of art?

The only reason those fees don't exist is because there is no reasonable way to enforce them, not because they are more or less morally acceptable. I wf the movie industry could charge you extra money for how many people were in the room with you when you watched a movie, they would. If the movie industry could charge you extra money for loaning a movie, they would.

The only reasons these distinctions exist is for money. They have nothing to do with reason or logic. The only reason the part in the "contract" you engage in when buying a movie that says you are allowed to show it to other people exists is because no one is going to try to enforce persecuting dvd lenders. The only reason you have to pay a fee to show a movie to students, but not pay a fee to show a movie to the same students but at your home is because they can't enforce that at your home. This is the only reason. It has nothing to do with logic or reason. The laws don't make any concrete sense. Pointing at the laws and saying "yeah, but the law says" isn't a good argument when the entire point of these discussions is how profoundly stupid the laws are.

The entire concept of selling a movie. It is not a simple case of a movie being a product that you have to purchase in order to experience, no matter how many times you repeat it.

What are they doing? They are not selling you a piece of plastic that happens to contain the movie.

They are also not selling you permission to observe the movie, because you can easily show the movie to people that haven't paid for that permission and it isn't illegal.

What they are selling you is a grotesque and uneven mixture of physical product and intellectual property. It is intellectual property when it benefits them (when they can sue you for reproducing it and posting it online), and then it magically reverts into physical property when it benefits them too (when you break your dvd and can't just get a new one).

The only reason that "downloading a movie and watching it online" qualifies as "theft" is because it can actually be prosecuted. Borders or Barnes & Noble don't sue people for grabbing books off the shelf and reading them right there at the store, but it's the same thing. Bookstores made an assessment that it isn't worth it financially or in terms of customer support to do such a thing. Right now, the movie industry has decided that it is worth it.

The movie industry and any other art industry are the same. They will persecute you and make it so that you have to pay them to experience their product to the maximum limit. The limits vary. The only reason the limits vary is because of what they can actually physically do, not because they are less or more moral.

For the most part, it has been a miserable failure. More and more people download every day, and the industry keeps losing money and no one likes or respects them anyone. One day, the movie and music industry will stop this nonsense, accept they were wrong, and embrace the new world. I wonder what you apologists are going to be saying then.

Case closed.

And by the way, I still don't give a fuck. I watching any movie I can get my hands on...FOR FREE!!! *gasp

True (http://markshroyer.com/files/piracy.png)

[LordSimen]

I don't think there's much that's morally abhorrent about "stealing" movies or music. Seeing grotesque apologism for the music and movie industry's terrible business practices, like LordSimen has been doing here, is just profoundly bizarre to me.


I don't see that any different than the grotesque apologism for the person who claims to be a fan of a film maker, musician or artist in general yet refuses to pay the artist for his hard work and sweat. THAT is what I find profoundly bizarre.



I don't agree with the notion that a movie is a product. This is just a really simplistic view and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't apply in many cases. I'm not talking about legal issues here, I'm talking about making a reasonable judgment about things. We have some laws about it, for capitalist reasons, but they're not necessarily objectively right or anything of the sort.


If movies aren't product, then what are they?

An industry creates, distributes and profits off of them. That profit, in turn, is the only reason the movies themselves can even get made. Because movies are expensive as hell to make, even the more relatively cheap ones tend to still cost more than a new car. No one's going to pay for the creation of something if it's intent isn't to give something back to them, unless they're incredibly generous which is a rather rare chance.

But to be fair, let's take a look at what a product really is.

1. a thing produced by labor: products of farm and factory; the product of his thought.
2. a person or thing produced by or resulting from a process, as a natural, social, or historical one; result: He is a product of his time.
3. the totality of goods or services that a company makes available; output: a decrease in product during the past year.
4. Chemistry. a substance obtained from another substance through chemical change.
5. Mathematics.
a. the result obtained by multiplying two or more quantities together.
b. intersection (def. 3a).

Well, of course we can cross out 2, 4, 5, because those obviously aren't the version of product we're referring to in this situation, which leaves us with:

1. a thing produced by labor: products of farm and factory; the product of his thought.
3. the totality of goods or services that a company makes available; output: a decrease in product during the past year.


Produced by labor? Check. Are movies the totality of goods and services a company makes available? All film studios do, independent or otherwise, so double check.

Yup. Looks to me like movies, much like music, video games, and any other medium that can be copied and transferred into cyberspace are all products.


Books cost money. An author wrote those books. However, no one seriously argues that you shouldn't borrow books from people, or shouldn't go to a Borders / Barnes & Noble and read a book off the shelf, or that you shouldn't go to a magazine stand and read the articles you want then not buy it, etc. I haven't met a single person who argues that.

CDs cost money. Musicians made that music. However, no one seriously argues that you shouldn't lend CDs to people, that you shouldn't play CDs to people, that you can only play music in private, etc.

Movies cost money too. A studio made that movie. However, no one seriously argues that you shouldn't lend copies of your movie to anyone, that you shouldn't play your movie to people, etc.

What's the difference between me watching my friend's dvd, or me downloading the movie? In both cases, one person (me) watches the movie without the studio making money for that watch. Is anyone in their right mind going to argue that I am morally in the wrong for watching the movie downloaded instead? What if my buddy rips me a copy instead of lending me the dvd?

I'll tell you the difference: In the examples you gave, every single one of them involves someone purchasing the product. Viewing a product someone else purchased, someone around you, there's nothing wrong with that. You don't have any ownership of that product, you're leeching off your friend who does, or the book store that allowed you to read the book, or the magazine stand. Although I've yet to see a magazine stand that allows you to do that, they always tell you to pay up or put it back.

Illegally downloading requires no one to purchase the product. Many times the people download movies before they're even released in theaters or music before the album even drops, sometimes due to another country getting it before hand and other times due to someone getting a copy to review and abusing that kindess.

Not only that, it involves the copy of said product and distribution of said product without the authorization of the company who produced said product. The only difference between a digital copy and a physical copy is that one occupies bits and bytes in cyberspace and the other occupies space in real time. But the effect is the same.




The only reason those fees don't exist is because there is no reasonable way to enforce them, not because they are more or less morally acceptable. I wf the movie industry could charge you extra money for how many people were in the room with you when you watched a movie, they would. If the movie industry could charge you extra money for loaning a movie, they would.

Would they possibly try to enforce that if they could? Most likely, but I'd argue against that. The fact is, as I mentioned before, that instance involves someone purchasing the product. He didn't copy it nor distribute it amongst his friends, he allowed them to watch HIS copy that he paid for. That is perfectly fine.


The only reasons these distinctions exist is for money. They have nothing to do with reason or logic. The only reason the part in the "contract" you engage in when buying a movie that says you are allowed to show it to other people exists is because no one is going to try to enforce persecuting dvd lenders. The only reason you have to pay a fee to show a movie to students, but not pay a fee to show a movie to the same students but at your home is because they can't enforce that at your home. This is the only reason. It has nothing to do with logic or reason. The laws don't make any concrete sense. Pointing at the laws and saying "yeah, but the law says" isn't a good argument when the entire point of these discussions is how profoundly stupid the laws are.

I've already gone over the difference between illegally downloading a movie and watching your friend's DVD. The laws may not make any sense at times, it's true, that's the nature of law, but right now it makes a lot more clear sense than you're making right now I'd say.

I'm really not going to go into whether or not they'd try to enforce that at home, they probably would, but I'd argue that wouldn't really fall into what I'm arguing. They're two totally different situations and arguments.


The entire concept of selling a movie. It is not a simple case of a movie being a product that you have to purchase in order to experience, no matter how many times you repeat it.

What are they doing? They are not selling you a piece of plastic that happens to contain the movie.

No, they are selling you the movie. The plastic is how they are delivering the movie to you, the movie is what you're purchasing. The studio didn't spend 200 million dollars on pieces of plastic to sell to the public, they spent that money on the movie to sell to the public.


They are also not selling you permission to observe the movie, because you can easily show the movie to people that haven't paid for that permission and it isn't illegal.

What they are selling you is a grotesque and uneven mixture of physical product and intellectual property. It is intellectual property when it benefits them (when they can sue you for reproducing it and posting it online), and then it magically reverts into physical property when it benefits them too (when you break your dvd and can't just get a new one).

They are selling you the movie. It's a physical property AND and intellectual property, it is both. That is the way movies, video games and music work. They are both at the same time. To think of them as simply one or the other would be incredibly incorrect.


The only reason that "downloading a movie and watching it online" qualifies as "theft" is because it can actually be prosecuted. Borders or Barnes & Noble don't sue people for grabbing books off the shelf and reading them right there at the store, but it's the same thing. Bookstores made an assessment that it isn't worth it financially or in terms of customer support to do such a thing. Right now, the movie industry has decided that it is worth it.

That's not same thing. You're reading a book the store owned, the store allowed you to read it. The store also has all the right in power to take the book away from you if you haven't yet purchased it, it's theirs after all. A purchase was made from the creator of the book.

What would be the same thing, is taking that book, walking over to a copy machine, and copying every single page right there, and then taking it back home without ever purchasing the book a million times, and then passing those pages of the book around town for free.


The movie industry and any other art industry are the same. They will persecute you and make it so that you have to pay them to experience their product to the maximum limit. The limits vary. The only reason the limits vary is because of what they can actually physically do, not because they are less or more moral.

For the most part, it has been a miserable failure. More and more people download every day, and the industry keeps losing money and no one likes or respects them anyone. One day, the movie and music industry will stop this nonsense, accept they were wrong, and embrace the new world. I wonder what you apologists are going to be saying then.

Exactly why I fear for the future of the industry. The so called fans are the ones who are going to destroy it. Destroy the very thing they love. I don't know how anyone can clearly try to claim to be a fan of film if their actions are directly going to cause the inflation of the price of making movies and possibly the eventual destruction of it many years down the line.

[LordSimen]

I want to add something else.

The only reason these debates exist is because of the technology at hand and the laws at hand.

The concept of a "book" and its physical form was probably much different when the printing press didn't exist. The idea of a book as a product that you sold wasn't the same.

If we had never had paper, but had only had internet, would anyone be arguing that a movie is a product? of course not.

There's no way you can without a shadow of a doubt prove that to be true.

[miguel_montes]

I'll tell you the difference: In the examples you gave, every single one of them involves someone purchasing the product. Viewing a product someone else purchased, someone around you, there's nothing wrong with that. You don't have any ownership of that product, you're leeching off your friend who does, or the book store that allowed you to read the book, or the magazine stand. Although I've yet to see a magazine stand that allows you to do that, they always tell you to pay up or put it back.

Illegally downloading requires no one to purchase the product. Many times the people download movies before they're even released in theaters or music before the album even drops, sometimes due to another country getting it before hand and other times due to someone getting a copy to review and abusing that kindess.

In almost all cases of "illegal" copies, the person who makes that ripping has to pay for the movie. Only the case of DVD-screener doesn't require the purchase of the product. Let's see:

- TS: a person has to buy a movie ticket in order to be able to record the movie inside the movie theater;
- Cam: a person has to buy a movie ticket in order to be able to record the movie inside the movie theater;
- R5: I don't really know how these work, but usually the sound is from the movie theater. May require a product purchase.

All these forms of digital recording may not even require a purchase if the person doing the recording works in the theater and is able to watch them for free.
Let's continue:

- DVD-SCR: the only instance that doesn't require a purchase because it's an internal and test build of the dvd that was leaked by an inside source;
- DVD-Rip: requires an original DVD. Has to be purchased (unless the person gets them for free for reviewing purposes);
- HD-DVD Rip: requires an original HD-DVD. Has to be purchased (unless the person gets them for free for reviewing purposes);
- BD-rip: requires an original Blu-Ray. Has to be purchased (unless the person gets them for free for reviewing purposes);
- HDTV-rip: requires an HDTV reciever and probably a monthly fee. Has to be purchased (unless it's hacked), I think, because I don't own that and don't really know how it works in the US.

Not only that, it involves the copy of said product and distribution of said product without the authorization of the company who produced said product. The only difference between a digital copy and a physical copy is that one occupies bits and bytes in cyberspace and the other occupies space in real time. But the effect is the same.

I don't know if you read one of my earlier posts, where I link to a story that happened in the US:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9932004-7.html

You can read the PDF document of the case here:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/atlantic_v_howel/EFF_amicus_atlantic_howell.pdf

Basically a couple accused of copyright infrigement was found not guilty because the judge acknowleged that, quoting, "merely making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work available to the public does not violate a copyright holder's exclusive right of distribution", and "section 106(3) is not violated unless the defendant has actually distributed an unauthorized copy of the work to a member of the public".

What I conclude from that case, is that if I lived in the US, I could make an unauthorized copy of a movie if I wanted, but could not distribute it.
Well, I do make unauthorized copies of that movie, but I don't distribute them, so I'm not breaking the law.
So, basically, the US justice considers the distribuitors of the so-called unauthorized copies the "criminals", not the ones who actually receive them, like me.


No, they are selling you the movie. The plastic is how they are delivering the movie to you, the movie is what you're purchasing. The studio didn't spend 200 million dollars on pieces of plastic to sell to the public, they spent that money on the movie to sell to the public.

This paragraph got me thinking. So, if what they're selling is the movie itself, and the plastic is just a mean of distribuition, that means that if I own the movie on DVD or on VHS, it would be legal, for me, to download a digital version of it, like an HD-version? Since I already own the movie, I have the choice to watch it the way I please?

Exactly why I fear for the future of the industry. The so called fans are the ones who are going to destroy it. Destroy the very thing they love. I don't know how anyone can clearly try to claim to be a fan of film if their actions are directly going to cause the inflation of the price of making movies and possibly the eventual destruction of it many years down the line.

I strongly disagree. If the future of the industry is being destroyed, it's being destroyed within. It's not the piracy that is destroying the movies, it's the movie companies unwillingness to broaden their scope of distribuition, the growing lack of quality (quantity vs. quality), and the "suits" who think of movies as a business instead of as a form of art. An example of this is the growing watering-down of R-rated movies to PG-13 in order to increase revenues by allowing the expansion of the movie's target market.

People don't want to pay to see a movie that looks shitty, like Disaster Movie, but are willing to pay to see it if they think it's good, like The Dark Knight, hence its commercial success. I do believe movie piracy takes a toll on the movies box-office, but it's unbelievabely microscopic and negligible when compared to the toll movie companies suffer from constant low-quality movie releases.

[LordSimen]

In almost all cases of "illegal" copies, the person who makes that ripping has to pay for the movie. Only the case of DVD-screener doesn't require the purchase of the product. Let's see:

- TS: a person has to buy a movie ticket in order to be able to record the movie inside the movie theater;
- Cam: a person has to buy a movie ticket in order to be able to record the movie inside the movie theater;
- R5: I don't really know how these work, but usually the sound is from the movie theater. May require a product purchase.


Those may pay for the ticket in the theater, but their ticket pays for them to go into the theater and watch the theater's copy of the movie. The ticket DOES NOT pay for you to copy the movie and distribute it for free. The distribution of copies that is what's wrong in those situations.


I don't know if you read one of my earlier posts, where I link to a story that happened in the US:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9932004-7.html

You can read the PDF document of the case here:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/atlantic_v_howel/EFF_amicus_atlantic_howell.pdf

Basically a couple accused of copyright infrigement was found not guilty because the judge acknowleged that, quoting, "merely making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work available to the public does not violate a copyright holder's exclusive right of distribution", and "section 106(3) is not violated unless the defendant has actually distributed an unauthorized copy of the work to a member of the public".

What I conclude from that case, is that if I lived in the US, I could make an unauthorized copy of a movie if I wanted, but could not distribute it.
Well, I do make unauthorized copies of that movie, but I don't distribute them, so I'm not breaking the law.
So, basically, the US justice considers the distribuitors of the so-called unauthorized copies the "criminals", not the ones who actually receive them, like me.

Making unauthorized copies aren't the problem by itself. You bought the movie, make yourself as many copies as you like. That by itself does not hurt anyone or anything. It's distributing them to the world for free, essentially undermining the entire company that produces the product, that really makes.

EDIT: I just realized that I misread this section a bit. I'm going to fix that right now.

I disagree in a way with the court's decision. While I find nothing wrong with making an unauthorized copy of a movie, song, whatever, for yourself and definitely find the distribution to be the problem, I also think that by ACCEPTING an unauthorized copy with from another person with the knowledge of knowing that's exactly what it is would be aiding in a crime. I don't know well enough about the law how much that holds water, I could be completely insanely wrong about that.

I strongly disagree. If the future of the industry is being destroyed, it's being destroyed within. It's not the piracy that is destroying the movies, it's the movie companies unwillingness to broaden their scope of distribuition, the growing lack of quality (quantity vs. quality), and the "suits" who think of movies as a business instead of as a form of art. An example of this is the growing watering-down of R-rated movies to PG-13 in order to increase revenues by allowing the expansion of the movie's target market.

People don't want to pay to see a movie that looks shitty, like Disaster Movie, but are willing to pay to see it if they think it's good, like The Dark Knight, hence its commercial success. I do believe movie piracy takes a toll on the movies box-office, but it's unbelievabely microscopic and negligible when compared to the toll movie companies suffer from constant low-quality movie releases.

A couple studio heads making a bad decision leads to a couple bad movies. Millions of people deciding that they're entitled to movies for free and no longer paying those who make them for their hard work leads to NO MOVIES.

There's no question that what the studios do is dangerous, and that their decisions may destroy a few movies potential. However, I'd take a few movies destroyed by a studio head over the entire destruction of the film any day of the week.

So while I agree that the studios need to stop making horrible decisions, I disagree with you about everything else. Their decisions won't kill movies. The guy at home downloading movies for free, because for some reason he's entitled to it by some selfish view that can only be explained by a horrible turn in society's youth culture, is the guy that will ultimately destroy it.



This paragraph got me thinking. So, if what they're selling is the movie itself, and the plastic is just a mean of distribuition, that means that if I own the movie on DVD or on VHS, it would be legal, for me, to download a digital version of it, like an HD-version? Since I already own the movie, I have the choice to watch it the way I please?


I suppose I chose my words badly. Allow me to clarify. They are selling you a COPY of the movie, would be a better way to put it. Because selling you the actual movie itself would mean you own everything, the copy writes, the original film, and the product itself. You own a microwave but you don't own the patents or the right to make that particular model of microwave yourself and distribute it to the public for free.

[The Heart Collector]

I don't see that any different than the grotesque apologism for the person who claims to be a fan of a film maker, musician or artist in general yet refuses to pay the artist for his hard work and sweat. THAT is what I find profoundly bizarre.

The artist already got paid. Filmmakers, actors, crew, etc all get paid a salary for doing their job. Then the film company sells the film they created.

Even in the case of an actual, physical product, this doesn't qualify. If I steal a computer tomorrow, I didnt "refuse to pay the assembler and programmer for his hard work and sweat". The assembler and programmer already got paid for their labor.

Artists having a share of the profit is a completely different thing. That is an investment they made on something. You are not "stealing" from their labor there either.

There are countless films that aren't currently sold in any way. This doesn't mean the makers are not getting paid. They were paid already.

I posted a bunch of examples previously, and I'll repeat them again. If you go to Borders and browse magazines and don't buy them, are you refusing to pay the writers for their hard work and sweat? If you go to a friend's house and watch a movie, are you refusing to pay the director for his hard work if you don't buy a copy or pay a licensing fee? If your friend lends you a cd and you listen to it, are you refusing to pay the musician his dues by listening to a borrowed cd instead of an original that you yourself purchased?

If you're going to tell me that you have never done this things, then congratulations for being ultra-extremist, I guess.

An industry creates, distributes and profits off of them. That profit, in turn, is the only reason the movies themselves can even get made. Because movies are expensive as hell to make, even the more relatively cheap ones tend to still cost more than a new car. No one's going to pay for the creation of something if it's intent isn't to give something back to them, unless they're incredibly generous which is a rather rare chance.

This doesn't make it any more or less a product. If a studio invests 400 million in making a movie, that movie isn't more of a product than my 0 dollar movie made using a personal computer by virtue of the expenses the studio made.

Produced by labor? Check. Are movies the totality of goods and services a company makes available? All film studios do, independent or otherwise, so double check.

Yup. Looks to me like movies, much like music, video games, and any other medium that can be copied and transferred into cyberspace are all products.

Everything is produced by labor. Your posts online are "produced" by labor. Yo can hire someone to fart on command, but that doesn't mean the person is "producing" farts by labor. Don't be preposterous. I can charge someone for the price of my posts. They're "labor". The labor of being a Joblo.com shitposter.

You are using a dictionary definition of labor that is so simplistic that it is completely useless, because everything can be defined that way. I can provide the "service" of allowing people to watch me scratch my nose, but that doesn't mean I am actually providing a real service in any meaningful way, let alone producing anything.

Are you honestly going to tell me that after countless examples, your defense is going over to a dictionary website and posting a definition? Christ almighty.

I'll tell you the difference: In the examples you gave, every single one of them involves someone purchasing the product. Viewing a product someone else purchased, someone around you, there's nothing wrong with
that.

This is not an argument. I already demolished this, and you are just restating your demolished thesis statement.

You are arguing to me that I am a thief for refusing to pay the artist for his work. Now you are saying that it is ok if I refuse to pay the artist for his work because someone else paid.

That doesn't make sense, and as I mentioned before, the only reason that seems to make sense to you in your head is because that's the stupid definition the industries have accepted on the basis that they cannot prosecute you for lending movies to other people. You are not making an argument. You are telling me what the bad and nonsensical law says.

You claim that I am refusing to pay for people's hard work. If you watch a movie borrowed from a friend, you didn't pay for people's hard work. It is a +1 human being watching the movie but a 0 additional gross. It is, by definition, refusing to pay for the person's work. That is reality. The studio ends up without a potential client.

The only way you can escape that issue is by saying that somehow, watching a movie that someone owns even though it's a +1 human but 0 additional gross doesn't qualify as "refusing to pay for people's hard work" because the movie industry says that it's ok to do that. However, as I mentioned before, that's not an argument. That's just parroting a law that people profoundly disagree with.

So don't give me this nonsense. If you want to be a credible moral crusader for the fruit of the actors' labor, never watch a movie with anyone again. Never show a movie to friends. Never read a book at a bookstore. That is the only way to be that credibly, not simply in terms of following the law. If the studios tell you tomorrow that it's ok to download movies, will that suddenly have made it good?

And frankly, even if I took your proposition seriously, it breaks down eventually. What if I lend the movie to 5 people, and not 1? What if I lend the movie to 50 people? What if it's 10000 people? What if more people watch the movie by lending than by downloading? Is there some magic number? What if I rip a movie and lend it to someone?

Illegally downloading requires no one to purchase the product.
Many times the people download movies before they're even released in theaters or music before the album even drops, sometimes due to another country getting it before hand and other times due to someone getting a copy to review and abusing that kindess.

A considerable amount are not screeners or anything of the sort, they are dvd rips. Are those alright, because "someone purchased the product"?

Not only that, it involves the copy of said product and distribution of said product without the authorization of the company who produced said product. The only difference between a digital copy and a physical copy is that one occupies bits and bytes in cyberspace and the other occupies space in real time. But the effect is the same.

Those things happen all the time and no one bats an eyelash.

Again, let's go with nice examples. A tv company pays for the rights to broadcast a film. If I record a copy of that film when it plays on tv, is that illegal? Why? I am not authorized by the company that produced it to
reproduce it. I am not purchasing the product. There is no "product". That is a net +1 person that has the ability to watch that movie, but a net +0 people who purchased it. The film company objectively lost a purchase. So why is it not some giant crime to keep copies of movies off tv?

The only reason why is because they can't prosecute you for recording things at home. That's why there's some distinction between recording it/keeping it and actually selling it. They don't want you profiting from it, or making it too obvious, but they'll let it slide as long as you're at home.

It should be added, of course, that movie companies did make a fuss over VCR and recording techniques originally, they did try to suggest it was theft, they did try to attack people for it. Eventually they let go because they accepted it was a lost cause.

This is what you don't seem to understand: the medium. The medium has changed a lot. It is ridiculously easy to obtain a digital "copy" of a movie, and by copy I mean it is easy to reproduce a movie. As I said before and showed clearly, a movie isn't an actual physical product, it's a work that can be reproduced/played. Downloading a movie and watching it on your computer is not "making a digital copy", because a "digital copy" is just a movie being played on a computer. It is nothing tangible or anything close.

The medium has changed. The act of watching a film is extremely easy today. The only medium you need is the internet. You can play the film from a computer.

I am reasonably sure that in many years, it won't be illegal to do any of these things. It won't be illegal to download a film, it won't be illegal to make unauthorized "copies" of a film, etc. Internet companies and other funds will simply have to pay some sort of royalty to movie and music industry for bandwidth used to download music and movies. I am reasonably sure of that because movie companies don't care about some objective moral reality in which watching a film without having paid a company the fee for the film is immoral, they care about making a profit. When they realize that it is a losing battle, when they realize the concept by which they judge people currently doesn't make any sense within the context of modern technology, they will change their definitions, and then it'll be perfectly legal to reproduce movies and music and books digitally because someone will be getting paid.

Would they possibly try to enforce that if they could? Most likely, but I'd argue against that. The fact is, as I mentioned before, that instance involves someone purchasing the product. He didn't copy it nor distribute it amongst his friends, he allowed them to watch HIS copy that he paid for. That is perfectly fine.

I already destroyed this, but to reiterate, it is not perfectly fine. The end result is exactly the same: +1 movie watchers, +0 movie purchasers. Objectively, in terms of money, in terms of the bottom line, in terms of contracts between the observer and the industry, nothing is different. A friend having paid for it doesn't justify shit. Stop watching movies with your friends. You are a criminal.


I've already gone over the difference between illegally downloading a movie and watching your friend's DVD. The laws may not make any sense at times, it's true, that's the nature of law, but right now it makes a lot more clear sense than you're making right now I'd say.

The laws don't make any sense because they are based on an obsolete medium and they are lobbied for by an industry that buys congressmen.

Look, if you want your argument to be "but the movie industry writes laws and the laws say this and I obey the law", be my guest, but that is not an argument for anything.

I'm really not going to go into whether or not they'd try to enforce that at home, they probably would, but I'd argue that wouldn't really fall into what I'm arguing. They're two totally different situations and arguments.

The only reason they are totally different situations is because of their inability to enforce it.

No, they are selling you the movie. The plastic is how they are delivering the movie to you, the movie is what you're purchasing. The studio didn't spend 200 million dollars on pieces of plastic to sell to the public, they spent that money on the movie to sell to the public. They are selling you the movie. It's a physical property AND and intellectual property, it is both. That is the way movies, video games and music work. They are both at the same time. To think of them as simply one or the other would be incredibly incorrect.

They are not selling you the movie. I already explained to you why they are not. You didn't even refute that. You just said "no, u".

They can't sell you the movie. You don't own the movie. You own a horrible and obscene contract to be allowed to reproduce the movie. The contract lasts for the expiration date of a piece of plastic that you might lose.

Your arguments are horrible. Every argument you make just goes back to "well, the law says this, and the studios are fine with that law". The entire point of this discussion is that law is terrible. You need to stop using a terrible and idiotic law to get on a high horse and act like everything here is some sort of worthless criminal for having downloaded a movie once. You're going to look like a fool when these laws change and you have to take back every word you said about how awful it was and how terrible it is to reproduce or copy digitally because the movie industry won't give a shit in 20 years.

[The Heart Collector]

There's no way you can without a shadow of a doubt prove that to be true.

What is this supposed to mean? Yeah, of course I can't prove the future. But it is a pretty sensible point.


Do you think monks writing down books thought that books were a product and intellectual property? Of course not. The only reason a book is "a product" and "intellectual property" is because of capitalism.

[BakeTheMooCow]

THC, I think you failed to take into consideration one factor:
I'll tell you the difference: In the examples you gave, every single one of them involves someone purchasing the product. Viewing a product someone else purchased, someone around you, there's nothing wrong with that.

Proximity. That's what makes it OK.

Really, LordSimen, you are so passionate about your nonsensical arguments that I almost want to believe you.

[countchocula]

Am I fucking dreaming or did The Heart Collector just type more than two sentences in a single post? He made several salient points, but the bottom line is that downloading music/movies is theft. That's all there is to it. I don't care who does it, but don't dance around with euphemisms and try to tell me that entertainment is somehow a basic right that all men are entitled to. You'll fucking live if you have to wait 3-6 months to see a certain film.

You're not an amoral person if you happen to download movies. No one is killing babies here. However, I'm tired of reading whiny, petulant bullshit like "the movie didn't open around me!" Or "I shouldn't have to pay for stupid movies!" I really love "Hollywood has enough money!" This is a High School mentality of impatience, self-importance, self-indulgence, and immaturity. The Internet has engendered a sense of immediacy that has distorted society's ability to prioritize and to put things into perspective. Everyone wants everything RIGHT NOW.

[miguel_montes]

^^ I still would like to know why you download files if you think that way.

Like, right now... :)

[countchocula]

I don't have to spill personal details if I don't want to, and it's not terribly important anyway. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't want to get into it (it's not so easy to "sum up").

I realize that I just made you more curious, but...um, wait until my biopic is released. ;)

[miguel_montes]

^^ Awh, come on!! If you don't say it, it will feel like a copout!!

[countchocula]

Feels pretty good to me. ;)

[Lawgick]

No one's going to pay for the creation of something if it's intent isn't to give something back to them, unless they're incredibly generous which is a rather rare chance.



Maybe you don't know many artists but I can tell you without a doubt that movies(yes even the big budget ones) would still be made even if there was no profit(money) in it. Most artist create because they love art not because they love money.

[countchocula]

Artists love art, but studios love money. Independent films will always be around, but they would be harder to make without big-budget "tentpole" pictures. Many filmmakers sustain themselves with major studio gigs so that they can afford to make Pan's Labyrinth.

[MoovEDude]

your kidding right!
we go to the movies for entertainment value! if there is no entertainment why should you have to pay. and add to that the theaters make more money on consessions so if i ask for my money back on tickets they still made money off me anyway
and entitlement please... i dont know about anyone else but im sick to death of sub par service and products being shoved in my face on a daily basis if something is crap then you should let someone know. if more people did then maybe people would take a bit more pride in thier products and sevices.

I believe many theaters have a policy that if you want a refund within the films first 30 minutes they will oblige. But if you are saying that one should have the right to watch a movie in its ENTIRETY and THEN demand a refund you are wrong. Its like eating an entire meal at a restaurant, not complaining at all and at the end after your belly is full, tell the waitress you dont wanna pay.

[silentasylum]

yes, there is something wrong with that, I think. I dont watch them because I dont like watching mystery science theatre 3000 haha.


what about some situations in the US? you know where most of us live. its easy to see why a place like Norway wouldnt care. how many movies a year do they produce?

I'm tired of hearing the excuse that it was a bad movie and that is the only way they would watch it, so dont watch it then. if you are a true movie lover you should feel uneasy about doing something like that.

it also seems that most of the people who do this can easily go in a store and purchase it so it just sounds like a bad habit that some people start, you know, kind of like stealing.

[DME]

The artist already got paid. Filmmakers, actors, crew, etc all get paid a salary for doing their job. Then the film company sells the film they created.

Even in the case of an actual, physical product, this doesn't qualify. If I steal a computer tomorrow, I didnt "refuse to pay the assembler and programmer for his hard work and sweat". The assembler and programmer already got paid for their labor.

Artists having a share of the profit is a completely different thing. That is an investment they made on something. You are not "stealing" from their labor there either.

There are countless films that aren't currently sold in any way. This doesn't mean the makers are not getting paid. They were paid already.



Of course, the payment in advance was provided by investors who are expecting to recoup their money plus profits when they sell the finished product. If no one is purchasing the finished product then that well will eventually run dry and the creators will stop seeing payment.

In my time on the board I haven't agreed often with LordSimen, but in this situation it's all too easy.

Maybe you don't know many artists but I can tell you without a doubt that movies(yes even the big budget ones) would still be made even if there was no profit(money) in it. Most artist create because they love art not because they love money.

Where would the money for those "big budgets" come from? Someone would just spend 100 million dollars on a film just for the sake of making it? Doubtful. Even if that did happen I'd venture to call it reckless and self-indulgent. You might as well give that money to those in need.

I'm an aspiring author, I've had some work published. I enjoy having my work read, but I put a hell of a lot of effort in putting those words on the page. I tell the stories because I love to tell the stories, but I have also enjoyed being compensated for my work. If I didn't have the goal of doing this professionally some day, making a career of it, I would only do it recreationally. I couldn't afford to do it otherwise.

I love writing but I also love paying bills and keeping my fridge well-stocked. If I knew there was absolutely zero hope of selling my short stories or landing a book-deal that would earn a solid paycheck I would probably spend more time at a second job securing my future than carefully crafting imaginary worlds...

[LordSimen]

The artist already got paid. Filmmakers, actors, crew, etc all get paid a salary for doing their job. Then the film company sells the film they created.

Even in the case of an actual, physical product, this doesn't qualify. If I steal a computer tomorrow, I didnt "refuse to pay the assembler and programmer for his hard work and sweat". The assembler and programmer already got paid for their labor.

Artists having a share of the profit is a completely different thing. That is an investment they made on something. You are not "stealing" from their labor there either.

There are countless films that aren't currently sold in any way. This doesn't mean the makers are not getting paid. They were paid already.


You're missing the point about how a market works. Yes. They were already paid by their bosses before the product was released, this is true. However, if you destroy that product's worth. If movies stop actually making as much money as they do, if movies slowly become FREE. Then those film makers who get paid to make movies, over time will no longer have any pay check. Because no one is going to pay someone to do something that has no value.


I posted a bunch of examples previously, and I'll repeat them again. If you go to Borders and browse magazines and don't buy them, are you refusing to pay the writers for their hard work and sweat? If you go to a friend's house and watch a movie, are you refusing to pay the director for his hard work if you don't buy a copy or pay a licensing fee? If your friend lends you a cd and you listen to it, are you refusing to pay the musician his dues by listening to a borrowed cd instead of an original that you yourself purchased?

If you're going to tell me that you have never done this things, then congratulations for being ultra-extremist, I guess.


I already destroyed those examples by showing you how they're different than something such as downloading a movie.



This doesn't make it any more or less a product. If a studio invests 400 million in making a movie, that movie isn't more of a product than my 0 dollar movie made using a personal computer by virtue of the expenses the studio made.

Yes, it does. A studio spends money on it, a studio sells it, it becomes pretty much a large basis for the studio's existence: It's a product.

Just because you made a movie that doesn't sell, or you made a movie without any intention to sell, doesn't mean that movies as a whole are products.



Everything is produced by labor. Your posts online are "produced" by labor. Yo can hire someone to fart on command, but that doesn't mean the person is "producing" farts by labor. Don't be preposterous. I can charge someone for the price of my posts. They're "labor". The labor of being a Joblo.com shitposter.

You are using a dictionary definition of labor that is so simplistic that it is completely useless, because everything can be defined that way. I can provide the "service" of allowing people to watch me scratch my nose, but that doesn't mean I am actually providing a real service in any meaningful way, let alone producing anything.

Are you honestly going to tell me that after countless examples, your defense is going over to a dictionary website and posting a definition? Christ almighty.


I'm more likely to trust a dictionary for the definition of a product over you, my friend. Coming up with crazy examples of what could qualify of a product doesn't make movies any less of one.


This is not an argument. I already demolished this, and you are just restating your demolished thesis statement.

Then your argument is not an argument. Because mine's more valid than yours, mine destroys yours. If you don't like it, too bad.




You are arguing to me that I am a thief for refusing to pay the artist for his work. Now you are saying that it is ok if I refuse to pay the artist for his work because someone else paid.

In the cases you mentioned, someone paid for the product and allowed you to view their copy. They didn't have any ownership of that copy nor did you claim any. In the instance of illegal downloading, they are giving you and distributing to you an illegal copy of a movie.

When you are just watching it at their friends house, you and the rest of your friends aren't leaving with free illegal copies of the movie, now aren't you? The difference is very clear.


That doesn't make sense, and as I mentioned before, the only reason that seems to make sense to you in your head is because that's the stupid definition the industries have accepted on the basis that they cannot prosecute you for lending movies to other people. You are not making an argument. You are telling me what the bad and nonsensical law says.


I'm making more of an argument than you are. You're just reiterating what you hear every rebellious teenager who downloads says verbatim and expecting to make sense: New's flash, it doesn't make any sense as I've clearly shown.


You claim that I am refusing to pay for people's hard work. If you watch a movie borrowed from a friend, you didn't pay for people's hard work. It is a +1 human being watching the movie but a 0 additional gross. It is, by definition, refusing to pay for the person's work. That is reality. The studio ends up without a potential client.

You keep saying that I'm reiterating something you destroyed, however YOU are the one who keeps reiterating something I'VE already destroyed.

Sorry buddy, but in those instances NO ONE has made for you an illegal copy and NO ONE has distributed it to you. They've merely allowed you to watch THEIR copy, which is not the same thing, in any way shape or form.



The only way you can escape that issue is by saying that somehow, watching a movie that someone owns even though it's a +1 human but 0 additional gross doesn't qualify as "refusing to pay for people's hard work" because the movie industry says that it's ok to do that. However, as I mentioned before, that's not an argument. That's just parroting a law that people profoundly disagree with.

It doesn't. The fact that in their nature they're different than illegally downloading, a nature and difference that I've clearly shown in my previous post, makes them different and doesn't make it qualify for refusing to pay for people's hard work.



So don't give me this nonsense. If you want to be a credible moral crusader for the fruit of the actors' labor, never watch a movie with anyone again. Never show a movie to friends. Never read a book at a bookstore. That is the only way to be that credibly, not simply in terms of following the law. If the studios tell you tomorrow that it's ok to download movies, will that suddenly have made it good?

Don't give ME your nonsense. I've already destroyed those examples, stop using them and thinking they hold any valid point anymore: THEY DON'T.


And frankly, even if I took your proposition seriously, it breaks down eventually. What if I lend the movie to 5 people, and not 1? What if I lend the movie to 50 people? What if it's 10000 people? What if more people watch the movie by lending than by downloading? Is there some magic number? What if I rip a movie and lend it to someone?

That's what book stores do, and there's nothing wrong with that. I've already shown the difference between LENDING and distributing illegal copies.



A considerable amount are not screeners or anything of the sort, they are dvd rips. Are those alright, because "someone purchased the product"?


No, they aren't alright. Because they're still distributing and creating illegal copies to give to the world for free.


You're desperately trying to separate my points and take them down one by one. But this is a faulty and futile attempt, because each one is backed up by my other points. You'd have to destroy all of them at once to effectively destroy one.


Again, let's go with nice examples. A tv company pays for the rights to broadcast a film. If I record a copy of that film when it plays on tv, is that illegal? Why? I am not authorized by the company that produced it to
reproduce it. I am not purchasing the product. There is no "product". That is a net +1 person that has the ability to watch that movie, but a net +0 people who purchased it. The film company objectively lost a purchase. So why is it not some giant crime to keep copies of movies off tv?


That's perfectly fine. The movie company purchased the rights to show the movie on their television screen, you as a cable or satellite user are paying the companies in order to watch it. In a way, you are paying for that movie by watching it. Creating a copy of it for yourself is fine.


The only reason why is because they can't prosecute you for recording things at home. That's why there's some distinction between recording it/keeping it and actually selling it. They don't want you profiting from it, or making it too obvious, but they'll let it slide as long as you're at home.

It should be added, of course, that movie companies did make a fuss over VCR and recording techniques originally, they did try to suggest it was theft, they did try to attack people for it. Eventually they let go because they accepted it was a lost cause

I know they made fuss about it in the past, and if this were the past I would argue against them. However, this isn't. And the current state is not the same situation anymore. A person watches a movie they paid the cable company to see and then records it for themselves never really posed a risk to anybody. A person who rips a DVD, records a theater viewing, or any of those cases and then slaps it on a torrenting site to distribute to millions of people around the globe- THAT actually does pose a risk.


This is what you don't seem to understand: the medium. The medium has changed a lot. It is ridiculously easy to obtain a digital "copy" of a movie, and by copy I mean it is easy to reproduce a movie. As I said before and showed clearly, a movie isn't an actual physical product, it's a work that can be reproduced/played. Downloading a movie and watching it on your computer is not "making a digital copy", because a "digital copy" is just a movie being played on a computer. It is nothing tangible or anything close.


This is what you don't understand: A computer is no different from real life. It has space inside of it that can be filled up with bytes and bits. Just like your home, just like your office building.

Just because it isn't tangible doesn't make it any less of a copy. It takes up computer space, and is a digital copy of the original source file. Like a man copying the design of a brand microwave to the distributing it around the world for free. There is not much of a difference between that and what a person who illegally downloads does. That small difference is the word "digital" and nothing more.

Downloading a digital copy of the movie for free from another person is like accepting one of those free microwaves from that other person and then taking it and placing it into your home.


The medium has changed. The act of watching a film is extremely easy today. The only medium you need is the internet. You can play the film from a computer.


The medium hasn't change. The means of distribution, surely, have changed. Digital distribution has changed things slightly, but not much.



I am reasonably sure that in many years, it won't be illegal to do any of these things. It won't be illegal to download a film, it won't be illegal to make unauthorized "copies" of a film, etc. Internet companies and other funds will simply have to pay some sort of royalty to movie and music industry for bandwidth used to download music and movies. I am reasonably sure of that because movie companies don't care about some objective moral reality in which watching a film without having paid a company the fee for the film is immoral, they care about making a profit. When they realize that it is a losing battle, when they realize the concept by which they judge people currently doesn't make any sense within the context of modern technology, they will change their definitions, and then it'll be perfectly legal to reproduce movies and music and books digitally because someone will be getting paid.



The concept of which they judge people makes perfect sense within the context of modern technology. They will most likely change their definitions due to people over time becoming selfish and further are taught by people like you that they are self entitled to everything for free, this is true. They will have no choice at some point.

However, that doesn't mean their fight and argument is not valid. And whether they are arguing about profit or morality, in both cases they win as far as I'm concerned. They are perfectly in the right in both.

However, in your case, what will happen is those distributing those digital copies will not be able to keep up distribution if they're paying companies for their distribution unless they make some sort of profit on it as well in order to keep the balance.

What will happen in those cases? They'll take ads onto their sites, and ads onto their movies, or perhaps make people pay a dollar for each download.

And you know what will happen? People won't like that. Because before, they were getting it perfectly free.

That's the funny part about people who download: they don't actually give a shit about any moral victory over the industry, they don't actually care about sticking it to the man as much as they will argue it. They're like the industry itself in that regard: They aren't being sincere.

The only reason they're doing what they're doing is because they're lazy and think that they're automatically entitled to anything they want. But they won't ever admit that, much like the studio won't ever admit their goals are in profits. However, the difference between the two is that profits actually hold water as an argument, self entitlement holds none.



I already destroyed this, but to reiterate, it is not perfectly fine. The end result is exactly the same: +1 movie watchers, +0 movie purchasers. Objectively, in terms of money, in terms of the bottom line, in terms of contracts between the observer and the industry, nothing is different. A friend having paid for it doesn't justify shit. Stop watching movies with your friends. You are a criminal.


The end result is not the same. Movie watchers is not a problem. Movie watchers who distribute and/or accept free unauthorized copies are the problems. There's a difference and I've already destroyed your point on this a thousand times.


The laws don't make any sense because they are based on an obsolete medium and they are lobbied for by an industry that buys congressmen.

Look, if you want your argument to be "but the movie industry writes laws and the laws say this and I obey the law", be my guest, but that is not an argument for anything.



What's your argument? The laws don't make sense simply because you find them not to? They make much more sense than you're making currently, as I stated before.


The only reason they are totally different situations is because of their inability to enforce it.

No, they are completely different situations because they don't have the same effect. I've already gone over this.



They can't sell you the movie. You don't own the movie. You own a horrible and obscene contract to be allowed to reproduce the movie. The contract lasts for the expiration date of a piece of plastic that you might lose.

You are correct in this. However, you are only correct due to my bad wording on that paragraph. Allow me to clarify: They selling you a COPY of the movie.

The plastic is merely means of distribution of the movie. If they were selling it to you online, it would be the same product, just digital distribution instead of physical.

If you can't see the difference between a means of distribution and a product itself, I don't know what to tell ya. There's a clear difference. That's not a "no u" statement.


What is this supposed to mean? Yeah, of course I can't prove the future. But it is a pretty sensible point.


Do you think monks writing down books thought that books were a product and intellectual property? Of course not. The only reason a book is "a product" and "intellectual property" is because of capitalism.

We live in a capitalist society. Therefore, capitalist arguments are valid.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I'm a rebel man , i download movies for free , it's my right to watch someone else's cinematic creation without paying for it . Who are they to expect me to contribute to their potential profits , they have plenty of money already , they aren't getting anymore of mine .


If they made better movies maybe i wouldn't feel the need to download them , it's not my fault , it's theirs for creating sub par films . I can teach them a lesson in the art of moviemaking if i download films instead of paying to see them .


They also must find a " new " manner in which to distribute these films , they are at fault for not making these films totally accessible to every single person on the planet , even the Yutes in the Himalayas . Every one is guaranteed , under the laws of nature to the right to any form of entertainment they so desire , for free , at any time they feel . Hah , you call me immature , self righteous , lazy , dishonest , no man , i'm enlightening the studios about their questionable distribution practices , i'm a rebel , an advocate for the common man . We must let them know , even though we had no part in the production , save for bitching about it on the internet , they must bend to our desires to watch their creations for free . After all , the studios are running a charity , profit should not factor into the equation , especially if i cannot afford to watch their offering in the theater or i just don't feel like paying .

They must run their studios and operations in the same manner a non profit organization does so everyone can have unlimited access to their wares . They should be funded by the government with tax payer dollars so no child is left behind . Box office , pfft , that should be a thing of the past , it's amoral to simply make a film for profit , art and film creations should be free .


I'm not stealing anything , i'm making a stand against capitalist pigs who feed off the downtrodden and who are motivated by profit . I have as much right to download a film off the internet as i do walking into the nearest establishment that sells these films on dvd / blu ray etc .. and taking whatever i want without paying . Oh wait , that may not be right , although i still contend it's my right to see something without a monetary exchange , because when i download a film , i'm only taking an image , there is no packaging , after all , sight is free , the digital medium exists in an ethereal realm without any true physical aspects . I cannot hold it in my hands , it's an intangible " substance " , how do you steal an image ?



It's also my internet provider's fault , they created the environment by which i can access these digital images . If they didn't want me to engage in these nefarious activities , they shouldn't have allowed me to access the world wide web . How can you expect me to not take what i want when it's readily available , i'm not responsible for my actions .


I still don't see how the studios lose money when i watch their films for free . Everyone is already paid upfront , no loss to anyone , it doesn't matter from a business angle if each film has to make a profit in order to cover costs and if they don't the next project may be in danger of not coming to fruition , there's plenty of money to go around , nobody will be affected , regardless of how much the film makes at the box office . Who cares if they don't finish in the black , they will still make another film , another film which i will download , there are unlimited resources in these situations .



I'm part of the revolution , you may mock my stance on this matter but it's my contention that other people should work in order to please me , and one of the pleasures in my life is watching movies , and i don't feel i should have to pay to do so . It's the studios responsibility to entertain me without expecting any compensation in return .


the end

[The Heart Collector]

Of course, the payment in advance was provided by investors who are expecting to recoup their money plus profits when they sell the finished product. If no one is purchasing the finished product then that well will eventually run dry and the creators will stop seeing payment.

In my time on the board I haven't agreed often with LordSimen, but in this situation it's all too easy.



Where would the money for those "big budgets" come from? Someone would just spend 100 million dollars on a film just for the sake of making it? Doubtful. Even if that did happen I'd venture to call it reckless and self-indulgent. You might as well give that money to those in need.

I'm an aspiring author, I've had some work published. I enjoy having my work read, but I put a hell of a lot of effort in putting those words on the page. I tell the stories because I love to tell the stories, but I have also enjoyed being compensated for my work. If I didn't have the goal of doing this professionally some day, making a career of it, I would only do it recreationally. I couldn't afford to do it otherwise.

I love writing but I also love paying bills and keeping my fridge well-stocked. If I knew there was absolutely zero hope of selling my short stories or landing a book-deal that would earn a solid paycheck I would probably spend more time at a second job securing my future than carefully crafting imaginary worlds...


A grip doesn't depend on how successful the movie is. The overwhelming majority of people working on a movie don't depend on the success of the movie. The only people that depend on the success of the movie are executives and businessmen, for the most part.

To portray the situation as "if you download a movie, some poor light guy who LABORED really hard will suffer" is extremely disingenuous, and little more than a cheap emotional ploy.

If you want to talk about who's fucking over the talent, look at the movie industry itself.

Did the writers go on strike over the meanies downloading the movie illegally? Of course not. They went on strike because the same industry you people want to defend to death treats talent like shit.

The things you are complaining about are a part of a capitalist society. The business model is based on old technologies, old methods of distribution, etc, and the conception and categories that define the art are molded accordingly. Now it's changed, and now everyone's confused.

Countries that exported natural resources were confused when synthetic replacements to those resources were developed. Newspapers are still a bit confused over people reading news online instead of physically.

What you are saying is not something that is specific to this situation. Anyone that gets into a career runs the risk of having that career turning obsolete at some point in his or her life. Anyone that starts a business runs the risk of having that business turn obsolete at some point of his or her life.

Just looking at this from a purely financial standpoint, why should technologies go stagnant and new avenues be closed just to cater to your shitty and inefficient business model?

This is inefficient business, is what you guys are saying. If the movie industry can't survive the realities of the world (people downloading movies), if the movie industry can't find a way to profit from their current business model, then guess fucking what, they are not financially viable and they have to change their model! What a wacky suggestion?

You ever see Boogie Nights? The dream of making high quality and expensive porn dies and it's replaced by disposable, videotape porn. This happens because that is the reality of the market. It is not a God given right for Hollywood to be able to produce 200 million dollar abominations. If the market fails (because obtaining a movie without paying is so fucking easy), that's it.

[LordSimen]

Maybe you don't know many artists but I can tell you without a doubt that movies(yes even the big budget ones) would still be made even if there was no profit(money) in it. Most artist create because they love art not because they love money.

The money for films don't typically come from the artists themselves. And if they do, that money typically nearly bankrupts the artist or the artist themselves were rich before hand. Sometimes this is because of making movies in the past, sometimes it's because of something else.

But what you'd be arguing here is that you're asking for all film makers to be rich before hand in order to get their movie made. Because that's the only way you're going to get one done, that or bankrupting yourself, if you take away the profit of making film.

Is that really how you want to restrict film making? To be an art form only capable of being produced by the rich?

[LordSimen]

A grip doesn't depend on how successful the movie is. The overwhelming majority of people working on a movie don't depend on the success of the movie. The only people that depend on the success of the movie are executives and businessmen, for the most part.

To portray the situation as "if you download a movie, some poor light guy who LABORED really hard will suffer" is extremely disingenuous, and little more than a cheap emotional ploy.

If you want to talk about who's fucking over the talent, look at the movie industry itself.

Did the writers go on strike over the meanies downloading the movie illegally? Of course not. They went on strike because the same industry you people want to defend to death treats talent like shit.

If movies no longer turn a profit, who's going to start production on them? If no one's willing to start production on an expense that will never pay them back, then no one's going to hire a grip in the first place.

[eljefe15]

If movies no longer turn a profit, who's going to start production on them? If no one's willing to start production on an expense that will never pay them back, then no one's going to hire a grip in the first place.

Maybe my illegal downloading is actually providing a service since studios will have to actually make a product that people want to buy instead of producing useless crap.

[LordSimen]

Maybe my illegal downloading is actually providing a service since studios will have to actually make a product that people want to buy instead of producing useless crap.

I love this argument. Because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would subject themselves through a movie they wouldn't even be willing to pay for in the first place.

If you don't want to buy it, or see it in the first place, why are you downloading it to watch it?

It seems like if a movie's not worth your money, it's probably not worth your time either.

[dellamorte dellamore]

It's not worth the 6 dollars for a ticket ( matinee ) to see in the theaters , but it's worth the internet connection fees and electricity ( which sometimes will equal or exceed the price of the ticket , the electricity charge that is, LOL ) .

[The Heart Collector]

If movies no longer turn a profit, who's going to start production on them?

No one.


Why are you asking me that? Why do I care? The movie industry isn't inherently more special than any other industry. If coffee mugs no longer turn a profit, you can't sell coffee mugs.

[LordSimen]

No one.


Why are you asking me that? Why do I care? The movie industry isn't inherently more special than any other industry. If coffee mugs no longer turn a profit, you can't sell coffee mugs.

Because you're a fan of movies, on a site dedicated to movies and arguing that movies being copied and distributed online for free without the consent of the company who produced them is perfectly fine. That's why I'm asking that.

Because even you admitted that more and more people are turning to illegal downloading, it's only a matter of time before the generation that are children right now doing this become the grandpa's, and their children's children are doing it as well.

Do you really want to see movies, as whole, destroyed by the fans themselves and left to be nothing more than an art form that could only be accomplished by the artists who are wealthy? Because that's certainly not the future I hope for my favorite artistic medium.

[The Heart Collector]

Let me explain it in other terms. The reality of the movie industry's consumers is that 1) they don't want to pay exhorbitant amounts of money for movies 2) they want to be able to download movies and watch them on their computer for as little cost as possible.


That is the reality of the consumers. If you want to have a successful business, you adapt to that reality. You don't adapt reality, aka the consumers, to your pitiful desires of "NO ONE EXCHANGE THINGS!!!". The internet and the possibilities of information distribution have ruined that model. The industry needs to come up with a new model.

Look at how the tv industry, which is more similar to internet since it broadcasts things on television, adapted to it and posts tv shows online with limited advertising. They're doing alright.

[eljefe15]

I love this argument. Because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would subject themselves through a movie they wouldn't even be willing to pay for in the first place.

If you don't want to buy it, or see it in the first place, why are you downloading it to watch it?

It seems like if a movie's not worth your money, it's probably not worth your time either.

Nobody here is ever going to agree on this issue. People will always skew the argument to suit their own point of view. Which is why I ask myself why I give a shit enough to actually post any kind of response to this since I don't give a fuck what anybody says about what I do and I really doubt that anybody really cares about what movies I download in return. But with that said, I will give it a shot at posting an answer to this whole issue, not just your question.

Pay close attention that I said, "answer" not "argument" because I'm not arguing either point. I'm not trying to persuade or justify my actions with faulty logic. I agree that downloading pirated movies is illegal. I wouldn't consider it stealing since I'm not taking the dvd directly from the store. I'm not taking the money invested in that dvd nor am I preventing somebody from buying that dvd. The dvd is still there for somebody to buy if they choose to. I don't believe that downloading is immoral for those reasons I just described. I think we often get confused about the legal and moral aspects of issues. Since the beginning of written history we know that there have always been laws that may be considered immoral. After all, at one point Slavery was legal some might even consider it moral by some people. But the fact is that people change and so do their laws and morality. I'm not trying to compare the act of downloading to slavery at all since it's not even close but you get the idea.

I don't know what the hell I'm writing here. The fact of the matter is that I don't give a shit if it's illegal or not. And I don't care if you think it's immoral. The fact of the matter is that some movies are worth my 8 dollars and some aren't. Some are worth my 2 hours and some are not. I will decide which ones do and which ones don't. But I'll tell you this much, I've downloaded plenty of movies, I don't even know how many. And out of those movies that turned out to be shit, I wasn't planning to buy or watch in the theater anyway so the studio didn't lose anything from me. They just didn't get a chance to fuck me like they did all the other chumps that payed their 8 bucks to watch a steaming pile of shit. But there have also been others that I've downloaded not expecting much and I end up going to buy the dvd because I actually liked the movie. So in a way it kind of helped them that I downloaded this film illegally since I wasn't planning to buy the movie but since I was able to sample it for free I ended up buying it because it warranted a buy. Either way, I don't give a shit. This is not a justification. I'm just telling you my experience. And whether or not a movie is worth my money or time is up to me to decide, not you.

It's not worth the 6 dollars for a ticket ( matinee ) to see in the theaters , but it's worth the internet connection fees and electricity ( which sometimes will equal or exceed the price of the ticket , the electricity charge that is, LOL ) .

Well, if I don't watch another movie, good or bad, for the rest of my fucking life, I will still have an internet connection. I don't have one just to download movies. That's pretty obvious, I think.

[The Heart Collector]

Because you're a fan of movies, on a site dedicated to movies and arguing that movies being copied and distributed online for free without the consent of the company who produced them is perfectly fine. That's why I'm asking that.

Because even you admitted that more and more people are turning to illegal downloading, it's only a matter of time before the generation that are children right now doing this become the grandpa's, and their children's children are doing it as well.

Do you really want to see movies, as whole, destroyed by the fans themselves and left to be nothing more than an art form that could only be accomplished by the artists who are wealthy? Because that's certainly not the future I hope for my favorite artistic medium.

Being a fan of movies doesn't mean you're a fan of the movie industry. In its current state, I am not a fan of the movie industry and I couldn't care less if it dies miserably.

Movies aren't going to die if the movie industry dies, don't be ridiculous.

How can you possibly even claim that? Many foreign countries produce movies outside of the Hollywood Movie Industry, and they are doing fine. Many of the great films in the medium's history are relatively cheap, produced outside of a big film industry, and made with no expectations of turning a crazy profit.

It's not "idiotic movie industry that makes 200 million dollar budget movies" or "nothing". There is *shock* a healthy middle ground that produces movies that actually have artistic merits.

What, Hollywood isn't going to have the money to make Transformers? Who gives a shit? Who the fuck cares about any of these bloated pieces of garbage that will be forgotten in ten years. Christ.

[LordSimen]

Let me explain it in other terms. The reality of the movie industry's consumers is that 1) they don't want to pay exhorbitant amounts of money for movies 2) they want to be able to download movies and watch them on their computer for as little cost as possible.


That is the reality of the consumers. If you want to have a successful business, you adapt to that reality. You don't adapt reality, aka the consumers, to your pitiful desires of "NO ONE EXCHANGE THINGS!!!". The internet and the possibilities of information distribution have ruined that model. The industry needs to come up with a new model.

Look at how the tv industry, which is more similar to internet since it broadcasts things on television, adapted to it and posts tv shows online with limited advertising. They're doing alright.

Adapting to the change will in a way slow the destruction but it will not destroy the problem entirely.

Using the T.V. industry as an example, since you did, I've seen more people more likely torrent every season of South Park before they're willing to watch it on Comedy Central's ad infested web site. Unfortunately those ads, much like in television, is how the company can afford to pull off something like that.

Situations like that would become the norm even if the industry did embrace the internet as a distribution system and allow you to watch movies for free on their websites. Because they have to make money somehow, and ads are really the only other way besides merchandise to make money off of a movie. The people who download movies for free don't want to sit through ads. It's only a matter of time after they embrace the system before those people who don't want to sit through adds learn they can get it for free without any ads from a torrent or whatever the future of file sharing site is created.

Either way, the industry has to maintain a profit somehow, and if people aren't willing to pay for anything or sit through ads, then the industry will no longer exist. If the industry no longer exists, it will become all that much harder to make a movie in the first place.

[LordSimen]

Being a fan of movies doesn't mean you're a fan of the movie industry. In its current state, I am not a fan of the movie industry and I couldn't care less if it dies miserably.

Movies aren't going to die if the movie industry dies, don't be ridiculous.

How can you possibly even claim that? Many foreign countries produce movies outside of the Hollywood Movie Industry, and they are doing fine. Many of the great films in the medium's history are relatively cheap, produced outside of a big film industry, and made with no expectations of turning a crazy profit.

It's not "idiotic movie industry that makes 200 million dollar budget movies" or "nothing". There is *shock* a healthy middle ground that produces movies that actually have artistic merits.

What, Hollywood isn't going to have the money to make Transformers? Who gives a shit? Who the fuck cares about any of these bloated pieces of garbage that will be forgotten in ten years. Christ.

Even the middle ground, indy films, the films that cost maybe 1 million dollars as whole, are only even able to be made and paid for because they will eventually make that money back to the investors or the independent studio that paid for it.

If you take away any profit what so ever and make movies 100% free to anyone, no one makes any money. The grips and all the skilled workers within the industry who use their expertise to make the sets, set up the lights, build the special effects, the stunt doubles. Everyone will be out of a job. If they can no longer make a living off of their love, then they will have to turn to other ways to survive.

Good luck finding a crew for a movie if no one's willing to pay the crew. Good luck trying to get a movie made in a world were movies turn no profit. As I stated before, it'd become an art form that could only be accomplished by artists who are already rich.

You may not care about the big budget films, but even the little budget films would be hurt by this eventually. Those precious films of yours that aren't "bloated" and aren't done by Hollywood. Say good bye to them in the future if everyone decides they no longer want to pay for them.

[MisterTwister]

If ticket prices continue to go up I don't blame people downloading flicks and no longer paying. It's getting outrageous.

If it wasn't for downloading I would have to wait until next year to see [Rec]. Fucking Sony.

[LordSimen]

If ticket prices continue to go up I don't blame people downloading flicks and no longer paying. It's getting outrageous.

If it wasn't for downloading I would have to wait until next year to see [Rec]. Fucking Sony.

I can understand that in a way, but at the same time prices for any product, whether they be movies or vegetables, are only decided by how many people pay for them. The less people go to the theaters, the more the theaters will have no choice but to raise their prices in order to stay alive. Sooner or later something's gotta give, and the theaters may be the ones.

That won't happen very soon, of course. None of this will happen very soon. Right now the industry is pretty solid and doing well, but there will come a time when the number of people who download illegally catches up to the number of people who don't. When that time comes, I fear for what might happen to the film industry as a whole.

[KenSPT]

If it wasn't for downloading I would have to wait until next year to see [Rec]. Fucking Sony.

I don't know how you would survive ...

[Reigh Kaufman]

If ticket prices continue to go up I don't blame people downloading flicks and no longer paying. It's getting outrageous.

If it wasn't for downloading I would have to wait until next year to see [Rec]. Fucking Sony.


I paid £34 this evening to go and see 'Tropic Thunder' (which comes out this week over here) and 'Pineapple Express' (which I have seen, but did not have the heart to tell my fiancee) on Friday. Add the popcorn and the rest, you're talking £50 for one day out.

It's my choice - I chose to have a 'double-bill' this Saturday - but £50 is disproportianate for 4 hours of entertainment.

Christ, I watched Mercury Rev, Spiritualized, Elbow, Sigur Ros...bands I know for a fact I love...two week ago and it was 48 hours+ of entertainment.

They have to stop ripping me off, otherwise I will stop bothering to go, full stop.

[MisterTwister]

I paid £34 this evening to go and see 'Tropic Thunder' (which comes out this week over here) and 'Pineapple Express' (which I have seen, but did not have the heart to tell my fiancee) on Friday. Add the popcorn and the rest, you're talking £50 for one day out.

It's my choice - I chose to have a 'double-bill' this Saturday - but £50 is disproportianate for 4 hours of entertainment.

Christ, I watched Mercury Rev, Spiritualized, Elbow, Sigur Ros...bands I know for a fact I love...two week ago and it was 48 hours+ of entertainment.

They have to stop ripping me off, otherwise I will stop bothering to go, full stop.

See I only go maybe once a month because of this shit. It's beginning to cost too much to go out these days.

[MisterTwister]

I can understand that in a way, but at the same time prices for any product, whether they be movies or vegetables, are only decided by how many people pay for them. The less people go to the theaters, the more the theaters will have no choice but to raise their prices in order to stay alive. Sooner or later something's gotta give, and the theaters may be the ones.

That won't happen very soon, of course. None of this will happen very soon. Right now the industry is pretty solid and doing well, but there will come a time when the number of people who download illegally catches up to the number of people who don't. When that time comes, I fear for what might happen to the film industry as a whole.

Agreed:)

[MisterTwister]

I don't know how you would survive ...

I cannot survive without horror films. It's like crack to me.

[The Heart Collector]

LordSimen, is there any particular reason why, realizing that people will download movies illegally and will download music illegally and will even download books illegally, is there any particular reason why internet prices can't rise, say, 10 dollars a month per customer, and those 10 dollars go directly to the studios?

If the medium in which the movies can and will be pirated already exists, why not take advantage of it in a proper business manner.

The industries don't care about surviving or being reasonable AT ALL. They charge almost the same amount of money for a physical cd than they charge for a goddamn MP3. Do you realize how painfully dumb that is?

They just cannot grasp the realities of their new medium.

[LordSimen]

LordSimen, is there any particular reason why, realizing that people will download movies illegally and will download music illegally and will even download books illegally, is there any particular reason why internet prices can't rise, say, 10 dollars a month per customer, and those 10 dollars go directly to the studios?


The studios would have to invest in one hell of a deal with the internet providers, one that I'm not very sure the internet providers would be on board for. If they were to do this, I'd probably be all for it.

But here's where the problem then lies. What if a person uses the internet but doesn't download anything movie related? Wouldn't they then essentially be paying 10 more dollars a month for something that they don't do? If they were to to provide separate deals for these people, what exactly would the providers do to block them from going and downloading those movies in the first place? Block the web sites? That would just lead to someone creating their own and the cycle starts all over again.

If they did provide two separate deals, the people who do download are probably going to be cheap like that always have been, take the other deal, and download movies without paying the extra 10 bucks. If they don't, then people who don't download any movies or owe anything in anyway to any studio will be paying 10 extra bucks for nothing.


If the medium in which the movies can and will be pirated already exists, why not take advantage of it in a proper business manner.


How? That's the problem. There's no real way TO take advantage of it that will be acceptable to the vast majority who download illegally. They don't want ads, they don't want to pay extra for their internet services and they sure as hell don't want to have to wait for the studios want them to watch the movie. They want everything on their own time, when they want it, immediately and with no cost what so ever.


iTunes is a good beginning, but still excessive. The industry expects people to pay almost the same amount for a physical CD. A song costs almost a dollar. That's idiotic.

The industry doesn't give a shit about surviving or being reasonable. The only thing they care about is making obscene amounts of profit. Those days are over.

I wouldn't really call iTunes excessive. A dollar per song is actually pretty reasonable if you ask me. If you purchase that same CD in the store, it'd more likely be 15-20 dollars around here. Paying 10-15 (which usually is the case with iTunes in my experience) is a lot better than paying 20.

But I suppose what's excessive to some may not be to others, so that's incredibly subjective.

However, I do agree that iTunes is a great step towards the industry embracing the internet as a whole. I just don't think the industry can nor will they ever embrace it in the way the downloaders want them to, because the way they want them to would require the industry to not gain any profit from the movies they spent their money on. Which would make the studios lose money, and eventually end up in ruin. No company, no business, hell no art form can survive if no one can afford to do it.

[Lawgick]

Is that really how you want to restrict film making? To be an art form only capable of being produced by the rich?

That's practically what it is right now anyway.

But no, I don't want it to be what it is RIGHT NOW. But artists would get the movies made and to be completely honest with you, even if the did have to work with a shitty budget I sure we would have a much greater library of QUALITY films then we do right now.

If it were up to me I would get rid of every major studio and just let the artists fend for themselves.

[Lawgick]

I love writing but I also love paying bills and keeping my fridge well-stocked. If I knew there was absolutely zero hope of selling my short stories or landing a book-deal that would earn a solid paycheck I would probably spend more time at a second job securing my future than carefully crafting imaginary worlds...


If what your saying is true then you don't LOVE writing you just enjoy doing it. If you LOVED it then you would have to do it to be happy. Sure you would have a job to get necessities but that would be secondary to writing even if you got no profit from it. Speaking as an artist myself.

But maybe you don't know that you NEED to write because you've never been forced to give it up? Or maybe you have...*shrug*

[LordSimen]

That's practically what it is right now anyway.

But no, I don't want it to be what it is RIGHT NOW. But artists would get the movies made and to be completely honest with you, even if the did have to work with a shitty budget I sure we would have a much greater library of QUALITY films then we do right now.

If it were up to me I would get rid of every major studio and just let the artists fend for themselves.

You make no sense.

While yes, today it is the rich who fund the movies, but it's the film makers who make them. The filmmakers themselves are not restricted to having to be rich in order to get a movie, because the RICH are willing to pay for movies to be made. The only reason the rich will give this money to the film maker is the promise to get money in return back from the movie's eventual success.

You take away any potential for any movie of being a financial success, no one is going to pay for them. That will cause it to be that only the artists who have the money can make the movies. That would make it so the only people who could make movies are the ones who are rich anyway.

Film making is not like painting. You can't just go out, buy a cheap canvas and a couple paint brushes and make a fantastic one by yourself. You need crew. You need money. You need people.

You really expect to be able to do all that without any potential of getting money back in the end? You'd be crazy to think movies could survive in a situation like that.

[LordSimen]

If what your saying is true then you don't LOVE writing you just enjoy doing it. If you LOVED it then you would have to do it to be happy. Sure you would have a job to get necessities but that would be secondary to writing even if you got no profit from it. Speaking as an artist myself.

But maybe you don't know that you NEED to write because you've never been forced to give it up? Or maybe you have...*shrug*

That is in correct. Incredibly in correct.

In society, in order to survive you must be able to pay for life's essentials. Food. Shelter. Water. These things cost money. In order to get money, you have to have a job.

Artists want to do what they love. If what they love can also make them money, then they can spend all their time doing what they love. If they can't, and if it what you seem to want happens, film makers won't be able to, it will lead to them spending less time on what they love and more time on a mundane job that they don't care about just so they can pay the rent.

You telling me you're going to tell the struggling artist that he doesn't love art just because he loves the ability to eat and not die? That's cold hearted and wrong.

[jbar1026]

why cant they just create a pay site for downloading movies. its working for the music industry. i would gladly pay between $5.00 - $7.00 for a quality download of say... western django. as ive said in other posts if the film company would get the product to me i would buy it from them. when they wont or dont i get it from some place else. in any logical way of thinking i am not hurting anyone. to simply say you should wait for the dvd is crap! i should be able to watch this movie at the same time as everyone else. they are not waiting why should i have to.

i do understand the impact this could have on the industry and dont want to see movie making suffer from it. i do love to watch movies thats why when one comes out in limited release i see if its playing near me first then i go and get a bootleg or download it. im not a thief i just want to watch a movie that the movie industry thought wouldnt make enough money in my area.


Originally Posted by The Heart Collector
And frankly, even if I took your proposition seriously, it breaks down eventually. What if I lend the movie to 5 people, and not 1? What if I lend the movie to 50 people? What if it's 10000 people? What if more people watch the movie by lending than by downloading? Is there some magic number? What if I rip a movie and lend it to someone?

Originally Posted by LordSimen
That's what book stores do, and there's nothing wrong with that. I've already shown the difference between LENDING and distributing illegal copies.

reading back you really never awnsered the question. why would it be ok for him to lend a dvd movie to say 10,000 friends and not be ok for him to simply make a digital copy for the same 10,000 friends. the exact same people are watching the exact same movie and none of them are paying! why should we let one slide and not the other?

[LordSimen]

reading back you really never awnsered the question. why would it be ok for him to lend a dvd movie to say 10,000 friends and not be ok for him to simply make a digital copy for the same 10,000 friends. the exact same people are watching the exact same movie and none of them are paying! why should we let one slide and not the other?

Because a person lending their DVD to a 10,000 friends is lending their PURCHASED copy to 10,000 friends. He isn't illegally copying his copy and distributing amongst his 10,000 friends to own said copies.

[jbar1026]

Because a person lending their DVD to a 10,000 friends is lending their PURCHASED copy to 10,000 friends. He isn't illegally copying his copy and distributing amongst his 10,000 friends to own said copies.
what if they all agreed to destory said copies after watching

[miguel_montes]

Because a person lending their DVD to a 10,000 friends is lending their PURCHASED copy to 10,000 friends. He isn't illegally copying his copy and distributing amongst his 10,000 friends to own said copies.

So the difference is that the original one was purchased? DVD-Rips, HD-DVD-rips, BD-rips, these all need a purchase of the original disc in order to make a copy of it.

[KenSPT]

If what your saying is true then you don't LOVE writing you just enjoy doing it. If you LOVED it then you would have to do it to be happy. Sure you would have a job to get necessities but that would be secondary to writing even if you got no profit from it. Speaking as an artist myself.

But maybe you don't know that you NEED to write because you've never been forced to give it up? Or maybe you have...*shrug*

I love to write.

I'm constantly conceiving stories, writing screenplays; I'm always creating concepts for book projects that I'd like to work on. Hell, I even started up my own website so that I could have an outlet for the public to read my work.

I love, love, love to write, and in a dream world I'd be able to do it for a living. The reality of the situation right now, however, is that I make very little money writing; not nearly enough to survive.

Due to that, I have to have a 9-5 job to pay my rent, utilities, student loans, car payment, car insurance, credit card bills, and also put food in my fridge and clothes on my back.

If I didn't have a job, and I tried to write full time for a living at this point in my life, I'd not only not be putting myself in deep deep debt, I'd probably have to rely on my parents for shelter and financial support. At 26, I don't want to burden them.

I hate having a 9-5 job. It's mundane, it's depressing, and it sucks. I often find myself sitting in my cubicle working on my screenplays or manuscripts, in many cases it's the only way I have to stay sane. Sadly though, sitting in that cubicle is a necessity of survival.

The best I can do right now is bust my butt attempting to get people to read my work, bust my butt attempting to get one of my screenplays made, and hopefully one day my situation in life will change where all my focus can be on my passion.

Do I not love what I do because I'm financially responsible? Should I quit my office job right now ( making excellent money ), and take a job as a barista at Starbucks for a few hours a week? That way the majority of my focus would be on my writing.

Sure, I wouldn't be able to cover my bills, I'd fall into debt, and I may have to end up borrowing money from my parents; putting the burden on them, but maybe I'd be able to convince other "artists" that I love my passion.

Maybe I should do that, because apparently a true "artist" is someone who is financially reckless, as it proves their "love" for their "art".

On a side note Lawgick, what do you do? ( I'm not looking to take a swipe at you, I'm just curious )

[DME]

I love to write.

I'm constantly conceiving stories, writing screenplays; I'm always creating concepts for book projects that I'd like to work on. Hell, I even started up my own website so that I could have an outlet for the public to read my work.

I love, love, love to write, and in a dream world I'd be able to do it for a living. The reality of the situation right now, however, is that I make very little money writing; not nearly enough to survive.

Due to that, I have to have a 9-5 job to pay my rent, utilities, student loans, car payment, car insurance, credit card bills, and also put food in my fridge and clothes on my back.

If I didn't have a job, and I tried to write full time for a living at this point in my life, I'd not only not be putting myself in deep deep debt, I'd probably have to rely on my parents for shelter and financial support. At 26, I don't want to burden them.

I hate having a 9-5 job. It's mundane, it's depressing, and it sucks. I often find myself sitting in my cubicle working on my screenplays or manuscripts, in many cases it's the only way I have to stay sane. Sadly though, sitting in that cubicle is a necessity of survival.

The best I can do right now is bust my butt attempting to get people to read my work, bust my butt attempting to get one of my screenplays made, and hopefully one day my situation in life will change where all my focus can be on my passion.

Do I not love what I do because I'm financially responsible? Should I quit my office job right now ( making excellent money ), and take a job as a barista at Starbucks for a few hours a week? That way the majority of my focus would be on my writing.

Sure, I wouldn't be able to cover my bills, I'd fall into debt, and I may have to end up borrowing money from my parents; putting the burden on them, but maybe I'd be able to convince other "artists" that I love my passion.
Maybe I should do that, because apparently a true "artist" is someone who is financially reckless, as it proves their "love" for their "art".

On a side note Lawgick, what do you do? ( I'm not looking to take a swipe at you, I'm just curious )

What he said, particularly the bolded (mine). In the real world love (unfortunately) has to take a back seat to manning up to your responsibilities. Very few people get to do what they truly love in the world. Such is life.

As to the actual topic...


If movies no longer turn a profit, who's going to start production on them?

Exactly. It's really not that complicated.

[DME]

what if they all agreed to destory said copies after watching

What if they all lied about destorying said copies? You could go back and forth playing the "what if" game all day but that doesn't make the argument any less nebulous. Realistically, those "10,000 friends" who now own an illegal copy of the DVD are going to keep on watching it at their convenience as they would a legally purchased copy.

[The Heart Collector]

I wouldn't really call iTunes excessive. A dollar per song is actually pretty reasonable if you ask me. If you purchase that same CD in the store, it'd more likely be 15-20 dollars around here. Paying 10-15 (which usually is the case with iTunes in my experience) is a lot better than paying 20..


A dollar per song is absurd for a simple reason. You really have two types of people, the regular listeners who listen to a few hits, and the people who listen to many, many, many albums. It's not uncommon to have thousands of mp3s. Thousands of mp3s cost thousands of dollars. People aren't going to trade their thousands of mp3s for legal files at a cost of thousands of dollars!

You could argue that they shouldn't have those mp3s, and that it's illegal. You'd be right. The reality, though, is that they do have them.

[The Heart Collector]

Because a person lending their DVD to a 10,000 friends is lending their PURCHASED copy to 10,000 friends. He isn't illegally copying his copy and distributing amongst his 10,000 friends to own said copies.

The only reason making a copy instead of literally giving you the physical object with the movie is somehow worse is because of the law and because of how they can chase you. You don't seem to comprehend this. There is no actual tangible difference in the results. In both cases, one person watched the movie without the studio receiving compensation from that person's viewing. In both cases there is a loss of profit. The only difference is that copying is illegal (because the studio can sue and prosecute for that easily, and because copying can turn into a serious business competition).


You still don't seem to understand that. You haven't achieved anything by watching your buddy's copy of a movie instead of downloading it other than "not breaking the law". That's the only thing you've achieved. You haven't put money in the hand of the artist. You haven't entered a contract with the industry. Nothing.

None of these reasons why you are claiming internet downloading is wrong are limited only to internet downloading, they apply to a lot of actions that are legal and people do all the time but that the studio doesn't bother to hunt down.

[DME]

The only reason making a copy instead of literally giving you the physical object with the movie is somehow worse is because of the law and because of how they can chase you. You don't seem to comprehend this. There is no actual tangible difference in the results. In both cases, one person watched the movie without the studio receiving compensation from that person's viewing. In both cases there is a loss of profit. The only difference is that copying is illegal (because the studio can sue and prosecute for that easily, and because copying can turn into a serious business competition).

You still don't seem to understand that. You haven't achieved anything by watching your buddy's copy of a movie instead of downloading it other than "not breaking the law". That's the only thing you've achieved. You haven't put money in the hand of the artist. You haven't entered a contract with the industry. Nothing.

None of these reasons why you are claiming internet downloading is wrong are limited only to internet downloading, they apply to a lot of actions that are legal and people do all the time but that the studio doesn't bother to hunt down.

Actually, there is a very tangible difference. Namely that making a copy conveys direct ownership, while simply lending does not. If I let you borrow something you do not own it, I can get it back when I want to. You have rights of posession. If I give it to you without keeping a copy for myself, now you have ownership. If I want to get it back, I'm left relying on you letting me borrow it, giving it back to me, or buying another copy for myself.

If, however, I make a copy for you and keep my original copy now we both can claim ownership with only one person having made the purchase. If I do this for 10,000 people now there are 9,999 people claiming full ownership of an item based on a single purchase. And each of them can make a copy for another 10,000 people, so on and so forth.

[Superplasmatron]

Actually, there is a very tangible difference. Namely that making a copy conveys direct ownership, while simply lending does not. If I let you borrow something you do not own it, I can get it back when I want to. You have rights of posession. If I give it to you without keeping a copy for myself, now you have ownership. If I want to get it back, I'm left relying on you letting me borrow it, giving it back to me, or buying another copy for myself.

If, however, I make a copy for you and keep my original copy now we both can claim ownership with only one person having made the purchase. If I do this for 10,000 people now there are 9,999 people claiming full ownership of an item based on a single purchase. And each of them can make a copy for another 10,000 people, so on and so forth.


what if i buy the film for £1 and you pay £20 pounds do I own it less than you, ownership is a bit of an arcane construct of a bogus capitalist totalitarian state. We all own everything but don't let that make you think you have the right to have sex with dolphins.

[DME]

what if i buy the film for £1 and you pay £20 pounds do I own it less than you, ownership is a bit of an arcane construct of a bogus capitalist totalitarian state. We all own everything but don't let that make you think you have the right to have sex with dolphins.

But... what else would a blowhole possibly be for?

As far as the rest of your statement, I'm not going to derail the thread into an argument of capitalism vs. socialism.

But whether you spend more or less than me on the film doesn't matter so long as the purchase is legitimate. If I buy it at a mom & pop you buy it at a national retailer like Best Buy, chances are I'll pay more. But we both made separate valid purchases and can claim rightful ownership based on those purchases.

If you bought the bootleg of it for a buck from Louie Knuckles at the corner of 139 and Lennox Avenue, though, that's a different story...

[The Postmaster General]

I think internet downloading of movies supports the creation of shit films because it enables their distribution. The more people who see it, the higher the likelihood that someone will like it. Thereby there are greater chances that a new project by the same team will encourage higher theater attendance. In turn, the studios make money off the movie. They have that luxury because they are cheaply produced films with little artistic matter.

You don't have to justify your compulsory little habits.

[miguel_montes]

Namely that making a copy conveys direct ownership, while simply lending does not.

Does the law (namely, US law) make this kind of distinction? Can anyone point out some kind of source, please?

[Elgyn]

I like to pirate movies just for the heck of it.
Sometimes I don`t even watch them.

[Jannetty]

I love writing but I also love paying bills and keeping my fridge well-stocked. If I knew there was absolutely zero hope of selling my short stories or landing a book-deal that would earn a solid paycheck I would probably spend more time at a second job securing my future than carefully crafting imaginary worlds...

no you dont love writing.

if you loved writing all that stuff would be secondary. youd be fine with not having alot of money becaues it would be in an effort to do what you love and what you love is write and you have to make sacrifices to make that a reality.

bills are just bills. noone is going to arrest you for not paying them. anyone who says they have a passion for writing yet has a second job is lying. you cann't have both. either try to become a writer/filmmaker, or go into the real corporate world.

i have more respect for someone who has no money and spend 100% of his effort becoming something he or she wants to become, then someone who makes the 'safe' choice and does something else just to "make money".

[DME]

no you dont love writing.

if you loved writing all that stuff would be secondary. youd be fine with not having alot of money becaues it would be in an effort to do what you love and what you love is write and you have to make sacrifices to make that a reality.

bills are just bills. noone is going to arrest you for not paying them. anyone who says they have a passion for writing yet has a second job is lying. you cann't have both. either try to become a writer/filmmaker, or go into the real corporate world.

i have more respect for someone who has no money and spend 100% of his effort becoming something he or she wants to become, then someone who makes the 'safe' choice and does something else just to "make money".

See my previous posts about being a responsible adult and how in the real world responsibilities frequently trump love. That's part of being a grown up.

And regarding the bolded, that may be true, but they will turn your lights out. And actually, if that bill is child support they definitely can and sometimes in fact will arrest you.

[countchocula]

no you dont love writing.

if you loved writing all that stuff would be secondary. youd be fine with not having alot of money becaues it would be in an effort to do what you love and what you love is write and you have to make sacrifices to make that a reality.

bills are just bills. noone is going to arrest you for not paying them. anyone who says they have a passion for writing yet has a second job is lying. you cann't have both. either try to become a writer/filmmaker, or go into the real corporate world.

i have more respect for someone who has no money and spend 100% of his effort becoming something he or she wants to become, then someone who makes the 'safe' choice and does something else just to "make money".

That's ridiculous. I think that Ken can decide what he loves. Some people actually like to be financially independent. Having your own house/car/pets is pretty nice. It's a completely different story once children are brought into the picture. Real world responsibilities take precedence over artistic flourishes. You're insinuating that someone can't possibly love doing more than one thing. That's preposterous.

I'm sorry, but I don't have much respect for "budding writers" who live with their parents and refuse to get a job.

[Elgyn]

no you dont love writing.

if you loved writing all that stuff would be secondary. youd be fine with not having alot of money becaues it would be in an effort to do what you love and what you love is write and you have to make sacrifices to make that a reality.

bills are just bills. noone is going to arrest you for not paying them. anyone who says they have a passion for writing yet has a second job is lying. you cann't have both. either try to become a writer/filmmaker, or go into the real corporate world.

i have more respect for someone who has no money and spend 100% of his effort becoming something he or she wants to become, then someone who makes the 'safe' choice and does something else just to "make money".



Wow, what a completely asinine thing to say. How old are you? You HAVE to have a roof over your head and food to eat. You HAVE to pay bills. In some cases yes you CAN be arrested or sued, if you don`t pay your rent or mortgage you can lose your home, if you don`t make your car payment your car can be repossessed, if you don`t pay your utility bills you can have no heat or electricity, etc etc etc

You could love writing more than anything else in the world, but if you don`t have a home and electricity, how would you write? By candlelight, with a quill pen?

[DME]

Wow, what a completley asinine thing to say. How old are you? You HAVE to have a roof over your head and food to eat. You HAVE to pay bills. In some cases yes you CAN be arrested or sued, if you don`t pay your rent or mortgage you can lose your home, if you don`t make your car payment your car can be repossessed, if you don`t pay your utility bills you can have no heat or electricity, etc etc etc

You could love writing more than anything else in the world, but if you don`t have a home and electricity, how would you write? By candlelight, with a quill pen?

If you really, truly, desperately loved writing, yes. By God yes.*

*-denotes sarcasm.

[KenSPT]

That's ridiculous. I think that Ken can decide what he loves. Some people actually like to be financially independent. Having your own house/car/pets is pretty nice. It's a completely different story once children are brought into the picture. Real world responsibilities take precedence over artistic flourishes. You're insinuating that someone can't possibly love doing more than one thing. That's preposterous.

I'm sorry, but I don't have much respect for "budding writers" who live with their parents and refuse to get a job.

Thanks for the backup, Count.

Trust me, and anyone who knows me beyond the internet will vouch for this, I love writing.

I'm 26, I've got a great family and support system. I know if I went to my parents and said, "Listen, I want to pursue this writing thing full time, can you cover me financially until I get my feet underneath me?", they'd do it in a heart beat. That's how awesome they are.

The thing is, I don't want to ask them that. This is my dream, my ambition, my passion; why should I burden them financially?

Not everyone was born into royalty. I can't sit at home all day, write to my hearts content, and still have enough money in the bank to live comfortably. I have to work within the boundaries of where my life is now.

I'm confident that if I'm persistent, and work hard enough, someday I'll reach the level in my life and career that I strive to achieve.

Oh, and you know what? Working hard to reach that level will make the actual achievement that much sweeter.

[countchocula]

I just saw this, and I had to post it.

http://i38.tinypic.com/2dm59c3.jpg

[The Postmaster General]

no you dont love writing.

if you loved writing all that stuff would be secondary. youd be fine with not having alot of money becaues it would be in an effort to do what you love and what you love is write and you have to make sacrifices to make that a reality.

bills are just bills. noone is going to arrest you for not paying them. anyone who says they have a passion for writing yet has a second job is lying. you cann't have both. either try to become a writer/filmmaker, or go into the real corporate world.

i have more respect for someone who has no money and spend 100% of his effort becoming something he or she wants to become, then someone who makes the 'safe' choice and does something else just to "make money".



Ken Kesey was working at a veterns hospital when he wrote One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Mark Twain drove a riverboat before making it.

Hunter Thompson joined the Air Force; Hemingway and Vonnegut were also miltary - the list of writers in the armed serves is extensive.

Vonnegut didn't even go into writing right after miltary.

Arthur Miller had to work a lot of jobs to recover from The great Depression and get into college.

James Joyce was a music teacher.

All those guys who wrote the bible had day jobs.

Stephen King was a teacher before making it as a writer, same with George Orwell.

Chuck Palahniuk was a diesel mechanic.





I might be off on some of those, but clearly a desire to write isn't contingent on how you live.

I'll even go so far as to say a writer without a lifestyle to maintain is probably a shit writer.

[LordSimen]

what if they all agreed to destory said copies after watching

Good luck getting anyone to agree to that.

So the difference is that the original one was purchased? DVD-Rips, HD-DVD-rips, BD-rips, these all need a purchase of the original disc in order to make a copy of it.

Can you not read, or do you just choose to ignore the parts which are equally as important as the parts you do read?

Here, let me help you out since you seem to be so hell bent on ignoring the important parts, allow me to show you my original statement and bold the part that you seem to ignore:

"Because a person lending their DVD to a 10,000 friends is lending their PURCHASED copy to 10,000 friends. He isn't illegally copying his copy and distributing amongst his 10,000 friends to own said copies."

Understand now? Good. Thank you for your time.

The only reason making a copy instead of literally giving you the physical object with the movie is somehow worse is because of the law and because of how they can chase you.

No, it's worse because you are claiming ownership of a product that you have no right to actually own. You never paid for that product and no one ever paid for that product to give it to you, they gave you a copy or you copied their product they paid for without any authorization from the company who owns that copy writes to that product.

That is a huge difference and much worse than lending someone a product you purchased. In that case, you aren't claiming any ownership of anything and are simply using a product that someone did purchase for it's original intent, to watch it.

You don't seem to comprehend this. There is no actual tangible difference in the results.

Uh, yes there is. In one instance, there's one copy of the product, the one produced by the company allowed to copy and distribute it because they own the original copy writes to the material.

In the other instance, there's 10,000 unauthorized copies made by people who don't have the rights to copy and distribute it. That's a very tangible difference in the results.


You seem to think that the problem here is WATCHING the movie or LISTENING to the music. No, that was never the problem. In fact, watching movies and listening to music is very much so a good thing and something that shouldn't be frowned upon.

However, ILLEGALLY COPYING AND ILLEGALLY DISTRIBUTING SAID COPIES of a movie WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COMPANY WHO OWNS THE RIGHTS TO SAID MOVIE are a problem.

Because in those cases you are undermining the profit margin of the company who produced it and are effectively killing chances for the filmmakers, musicians or even software designers you may love to get a job in the future simply because you are too lazy to wait for their film to be released or because you don't feel like paying the 10-20 bucks for the theater ticket, DVD release and/or digital download.

You may, in the end, not care about the movie companies or the capitalist money grubbers Hollywood who run the studios. I can understand that sentiment, those studios can be cut throat and their business practices can be downright destructive to the films their making and to the people making them.

However, when you decide not to wait for a DVD release for movies that get limited theater releases or may not even get a theater release at all due to the nitch market for their film, you aren't hurting the big studios in those case or "sticking to the man." You're hurting the small studios, the small films and the hard workers who make those films and proving the point to the big distribution companies that no one wants to pay for those films. Do you really want to be the basis for those big wigs to say "No one's going to pay to see this film in theaters?"

In both cases, one person watched the movie without the studio receiving compensation from that person's viewing. In both cases there is a loss of profit. The only difference is that copying is illegal (because the studio can sue and prosecute for that easily, and because copying can turn into a serious business competition).

It's real simple.

Copying and distributing said copies = tangible difference.

No copying and no distribution = no tangible difference.

Because in one instance, you have made something new and you have distributed that new something. In the other instance, no new difference has been made. Someone watching a film is not a tangible difference, nothing new is created in that instance.

You still don't seem to understand that. You haven't achieved anything by watching your buddy's copy of a movie instead of downloading it other than "not breaking the law". That's the only thing you've achieved. You haven't put money in the hand of the artist. You haven't entered a contract with the industry. Nothing.

No, what you have achieved is effectively watched the movie. That's it. You haven't made a copy, you haven't distributed that copy and you haven't undermined any profits that movie might make.

The person who watches a movie a friend lent him is more likely to go out and buy it later. The person who watches a movie a friend lent him hasn't created an authorized copy and distributed it amongst people. The person who watches a movie a friend lent him is watching his friend's purchased, completely authorized copy and hasn't done anything wrong.

Watching movies, as I stated before, was never the problem. That's a good thing. Refusing to give the people who make the movies their due by undermining the profit margin of the companies who make the movies by distributing unauthorized copies, that's the problem. That has a tangible difference and can make a tangible difference.


None of these reasons why you are claiming internet downloading is wrong are limited only to internet downloading, they apply to a lot of actions that are legal and people do all the time but that the studio doesn't bother to hunt down.

No one can fight every battle, good sir. To expect studios to be able to fight every battle in the history of battles would be simply crazy. They have to pick and choose the ones that are going to hurt them the most in the time to come. Illegal downloading, like it or not, is more likely to hurt them than most other similar practices done by people.

And once again, just because people do other things or do things all the time does not mean those things are correct.

The person who throws trash on the ground and litters constantly isn't automatically justified in their actions because they're too lazy to walk to a trash can or because they want to stick it to the "environmentalists."

The person who vandalizes private property and sprays graffiti on the walls and windows of a building, or a person's car isn't automatically right with their justification that it's "art" and their "personal expression" and that they're "sticking it to the man."

Those two instances are examples of things that people do ALL THE TIME. But that doesn't make them correct, nor does it make them justified. "People do it all the time" in and of itself is not a real justification for anything.

[Orson-Cockart]

I like to think of it as a test drive. I'm watching a rougher version, but with enough quality to see the film and determine whether or not I like it; if I do like, i'll most certainly buy it on DVD. The reason I don't feel guilty doing it is because of the often misleading nature of trailers. Often i've seen a trailer, watched the film at the cinema, and been completely dismayed that it was nothing like the trailer had promised. If there was more honesty with the retailer, there'd be more honesty with the consumer.

[KenSPT]

I like to think of it as a test drive. I'm watching a rougher version, but with enough quality to see the film and determine whether or not I like it; if I do like, i'll most certainly buy it on DVD. The reason I don't feel guilty doing it is because of the often misleading nature of trailers. Often i've seen a trailer, watched the film at the cinema, and been completely dismayed that it was nothing like the trailer had promised. If there was more honesty with the retailer, there'd be more honesty with the consumer.

Why do you, or anyone, deserve a test drive?

[Tweek]

no you dont love writing.

if you loved writing all that stuff would be secondary. youd be fine with not having alot of money becaues it would be in an effort to do what you love and what you love is write and you have to make sacrifices to make that a reality.

bills are just bills. noone is going to arrest you for not paying them. anyone who says they have a passion for writing yet has a second job is lying. you cann't have both. either try to become a writer/filmmaker, or go into the real corporate world.

i have more respect for someone who has no money and spend 100% of his effort becoming something he or she wants to become, then someone who makes the 'safe' choice and does something else just to "make money".
I'm not sure how to begin responding to this.

One simply having a love for writing isn't going to give them what they need to survive. Secondary things like food or shelter... Medication, stuff like that.

You may not get arrested for paying bills but other consequences arise. How can someone love writing but not have a means to support themselves if they're not successful yet? I don't understand.

[Superplasmatron]

I like to think of it as a test drive. I'm watching a rougher version, but with enough quality to see the film and determine whether or not I like it; if I do like, i'll most certainly buy it on DVD. The reason I don't feel guilty doing it is because of the often misleading nature of trailers. Often i've seen a trailer, watched the film at the cinema, and been completely dismayed that it was nothing like the trailer had promised. If there was more honesty with the retailer, there'd be more honesty with the consumer.

for once i agree with you, you daft racist

[Orson-Cockart]

Why do you, or anyone, deserve a test drive?

Deserve? now that's a tricky one, because no one deserves to do anything which breaks the law, so it is wrong to watch downloaded films etc, I'm not disputing that at all. But the reason I do, without a guilty conscience, is due to the fact that Hollywood doesn't always do what it says on the tin, i.e the trailers are often misleading. If I buy coke, and it turns out to be 7up, i'm gonna want my money back, and more to the point i'd get it back. But that wouldn't work with films, I can't walk out half way through and say the trailer was misleading, and expect to get my money back. I reiterate, if the retailer was honest, then so would I as the consumer. Obviously that doesn't excuse the fact that its still breaking the law, but it is why I don't feel guilty.

[Lawgick]

... The reason I don't feel guilty doing it is because of the often misleading nature of trailers. Often i've seen a trailer, watched the film at the cinema, and been completely dismayed that it was nothing like the trailer had promised. If there was more honesty with the retailer, there'd be more honesty with the consumer.

Very Good Point. False Advertising pays a big part in this too.

[miguel_montes]

I'm by no means someone who knows law, but I had my share of law classes in College (Civil, Commercial, Work).
I've been reading (yes, I can read, what a shocker!! :rolleyes: ) parts of the U.S. Copyright Act, which is freely available here:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

First, I would like to point out, as it has been mentioned before, the definition of a copy. The U.S. Copyright Act says, in point 1 of chapter 1, that, quote:

U.S. Copyright Law, point 1, chapter 1 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101)
"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "copies" includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

Second, and this is a personal opinion, people should separate between distribution (uploading) and reception (downloading). They are two different things. One cannot and should not "put them in the same bag" and apply the simplistic opinion "they're all criminals" because, from what I understand, the US law doesn't do that. But I might be mistaken. If so, direct me to where it says otherwise in the U.S. Copyright Law.

Now, it is my understanding from researching more about these RIAA lawsuits, that the argument it utilizes to sue people who share files is that, according to number 3 of chapter 1, point 6 (Exclusive rights in copyrighted works), only the owner of the copyright has exclusive right, quoting:

U.S. Copyright Law, chapter 1, point 6, n.º 3 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106)
to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending".

This argument is being called the "making available" argument. Basically, it means that the simple fact of making a file available (like putting it in the share folder of a sharing software) is already a violation of the copyright law.
I've also read that this argument is, more and more, failing in court because the US law clearly writes "distribute". Simply "making available" a movie does not constitute copyright infringement (anyone who violates points 6 to 22 of chapter 1). It has to be distributed, meaning that file HAS to be downloaded.

You can check some related links here, there are many others:
http://www.eff.org/cases/atlantic-v-howell
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/14547.cfm
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080403-judge-kills-riaa-subpoena-making-available-not-infringement.html
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/riaa-making-ava.html
http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2008/06/unmaking-of-making-available-right.html
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3922
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003535810
http://www.allbusiness.com/services/legal-services/4467694-1.html

What I conclude from here, is that distribution of copyrighted material is indeed against the law.


But what about the people who actually receive the files from the pirate distributors, the ones that download? Are they commiting a crime? From what I understand, the US law makes no mention of this, so it is my interpretation that the only person who violates the law is the one that uploads the unauthorized copy. Again, if I'm wrong, please share the section in the Act that states otherwise.
It also needs to be mentioned that the people who were and are being sued are indeed for the fact of distributing (uploading), not downloading. But again, I might be wrong. If so, please point to a source that says otherwise: a person being sued for "downloading" and not for "uploading".

More: one thing I found curious about the US copyright law is the doctrine "fair use", section 7 of chapter 1, which states that:

U.S. Copyright Law, chapter 1, section 7 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107)
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This is an interesting point to discuss, especially number one, the part where it says "nonprofit educational purposes". In my opinion, me downloading for personal use fits here.
I don't profit from the copy (don't sell it), and it's for educational purposes (meaning, cultural purposes, like I said a few pages ago).

I'm not american, I'm portuguese. But I followed the US law, my interpretation of it, is that what I'm doing is not against the law and it's not stealing.

[Reigh Kaufman]

for once i agree with you, you daft racist

I just fucking pissed myself laughing at that. I was sipping water and it came out the nose - you know that way where it's not a full spray, just enough to feel like a sneeze that makes your nose hurt?

Great.

Right, fucking hell, this thread has gone on too long. Plus, there are two of them running concurrently.

Here is my final thought before I unsubscribe:

LordSimen makes some great points from a legal point of view, and in principle, as I have always said, I agree that it is wrong - even if I do admit to doing it myself.

The Heart Collector has made me think very deeply about whether or not it is okay, and his arguments are credible, intelligent and thought-provoking. Were it not for the fact - and he has addressed this issue several times - that there are legitimate copyright laws, albeit hazy, he would have my vote. Certainly, in this discussion, I have actually reconsidered my own personal feelings on the matter.

KenSPT, Miguel Montes and all you other contributors have made valid points, and it is great to see a thread stay, for the most part, polite and courteous.

I still think that when I watch an illegally downloaded/uploaded movie that I am breaking the law, but I cannot deny that both sides of the argument have made me think genuinely about the effect it is having on the movie-industry.

Cheers.

P.S. Charles Bukowski worked hundreds of menial jobs whilst he wrote, Janetty. Sometimes he would wait for hours at the employment office just to be hired to pick fruit for a day. He then became a postman. Didn't have a bean to his name, lived in flophouses just to earn enough to drink and eat and write.

The epitaph on his gravestone reads, 'Don't Try'.

[The Postmaster General]

One thing I've found good about this thread. I've started my "List of Schmoes to Not Get Black-Out-Drunk Around"

I can imagine movie studios being like, "I don't get it. We put out this hot ass little film, and yet no one seemed to pay attention. So how is it exactly that we feel like we got fucked in the ass? I don't remember that happening."

[jbar1026]

Originally Posted by jbar1026
what if they all agreed to destory said copies after watching Originally Posted by lordsimen
Good luck getting anyone to agree to that.

i was kidding when i said that. but i still think the whole thing is stupid.
your point is "its illigal and thats bad" and in a way i can agree with you. and my point is "if one person watches it for free the industry loses what difference does it make how that one person watches it".
in many of your posts you show a concern for the future of the industry due to people watching without paying. but you only seem to care when its downloading. suppose i took my dvd player to work every tuesday and played the latest releases for my fellow employees. the guys i work with would never buy the dvds after that and the industry would lose sells. but it seems like that would be ok afterall no one is downloading

[The Postmaster General]

suppose i took my dvd player to work every tuesday and played the latest releases for my fellow employees. the guys i work with would never buy the dvds after that and the industry would lose sells. but it seems like that would be ok afterall no one is downloading


You would have to haul your DVD player to work, bring all the necessary cords and your legal copy of the movie which may get scratched, lost or stolen en route or at your work.

I could also open my own theater and buy movies and show them to people all I want and they'd see the movies for free, but I would lose money and probably risk insurance liabilities.

The point is that all your other options are no where nearly as easy as running a p2p client while you post on Joblo.com, and that's why you go that route.

This thread could have been called: "Give me convenience or give me death!"

[dellamorte dellamore]

Oh man , yet another argument for downloading , supposed false advertising of said product , man people are really reaching now , i mean there's really no more water left in the well , but they are somehow managing to suck every last bit of justification from file sharing of copyrighted material .

The very fact that people feel the need to make excuses for swiping films makes me think they feel or know they are doing something they shouldn't be , you don't have to justify yourself when you're not doing anything wrong .


This is the way i look at it , i'm sure if it was you that was affected by file sharing , and you were losing potential profits , you're attitude would be different . If someone on here made a film that they hoped to distribute for a profit , in order to hopefully make more films in the future , i doubt they would be so cavalier about people downloading their creation without any monetary reward . Some of these people have taken out loans to finance their first production , so they hope they can recoup the investment , but with the attitude that we have the right to take whatever we want without paying will discourage future filmmakers .

Freak the legal or moral angle , because that can always be twisted any way someone feels like it , if you enjoy films , watch them the proper way so we can support them in the future .

I said before , i have done it in the past , and i'm embarrassed that i have , it's not cool , it's pathetic in my personal opinion .


I also thinks it's totally disrespectful to the hard working filmmakers that genuinely love doing what they do , it's like shiiteing on them when people engage in this nonsense .

We have to wake up and start supporting filmmakers , not make excuses why we don't think we should pay to experience their creations .

[jbar1026]

You would have to haul your DVD player to work, bring all the necessary cords and your legal copy of the movie which may get scratched, lost or stolen en route or at your work.


it wouldnt be that hard. i could set up every thing in 5min to the tv in the break room


This thread could have been called: "Give me convenience or give me death!" sounds like a better title name

Oh man , yet another argument for downloading , supposed false advertising of said product , man people are really reaching now , i mean there's really no more water left in the well , but they are somehow managing to suck every last bit of justification from file sharing of copyrighted material . i dont think this was an arguement for it so much as a reason to not fell guilty about it

The very fact that people feel the need to make excuses for swiping films makes me think they feel or know they are doing something they shouldn't be , you don't have to justify yourself when you're not doing anything wrong . most people when called out will defiend thier actions it doesnt matter if they are wrong or wright

This is the way i look at it , i'm sure if it was you that was affected by file sharing , and you were losing potential profits , you're attitude would be different . If someone on here made a film that they hoped to distribute for a profit , in order to hopefully make more films in the future , i doubt they would be so cavalier about people downloading their creation without any monetary reward . Some of these people have taken out loans to finance their first production , so they hope they can recoup the investment , but with the attitude that we have the right to take whatever we want without paying will discourage future filmmakers . i think you are right and cant argure aginst anything you just said

Freak the legal or moral angle , because that can always be twisted any way someone feels like it , if you enjoy films , watch them the proper way so we can support them in the future .again your right and i do 99.999% of the time

I said before , i have done it in the past , and i'm embarrassed that i have , it's not cool , it's pathetic in my personal opinion . i wuold say most people have but not everyone abuses it.


I also thinks it's totally disrespectful to the hard working filmmakers that genuinely love doing what they do , it's like shiiteing on them when people engage in this nonsense . a bit extreme but right again sorta...imo if i could not pay to see it legaly than they lose nothing if i see it using questionable means

We have to wake up and start supporting filmmakers , not make excuses why we don't think we should pay to experience their creations .i would never not want to pay for going to a movie i do believe if you think a movie flat out sucks and half way through leave you should be entitled to a refund.

[KcMsterpce]

People can justify pirating movies with any kind of logic that is sound to them.

I think that if it's something you like and/or really want to see, then SOME KIND of contribution is benificial.

I'd hate to make a movie or a song that everyone loves, but no one buys it because they pirated it. I'd be fucked out of any kind of well deserved income.
It's more complicated than that, but not so much that those who think they're OK to rip everything - even shit they absolutely love - are totally in the right.