People who bootleg/download movies

[Badbird]

I've never really taken a stance on this subject, but what I saw tonight kinda pushed me over the edge.

So I was in Wal Mart, getting AVP and Predator 2 right at the stroke of midnight when I hear someone playing something really loud on some TV. I ignore it at first until I hear dialogue I recognized. It was from Blade Trinity.

I walk around to see the TV and there's this Wal Mart employee standing there watching it while eating a bag of chips. I casually look at the screen and sure enough, there was Blade Trinity in all its bootlegged glory. It was obviously cammed in a movie theater. Remember, this guy has it up really loud too, so you can hear all the screams and "fucks" halfway across the store.

And it really pissed me off. Look, if you're going to buy bootlegged movies, or download them, don't be a jack ass and brag about having it. But this guy had no problem with the fact he was playing an illegal bootleg on the company's equipment.

So I went to the manager on duty and informed him that it would only take one wrong person to see what was going on before someone got into a lot of trouble.

This is the first time I've ever taken something like this serious. It's a bit personal for me becaue I work in a movie theater, and if people are going to be so cavalier about bootleg movies, I find that insulting to my profession.

Then it got me thinking about all the offhand comments I've heard around here on this very message board to the effect of "I wouldn't pay money to see it. Maybe I'll download it."

Am I the only one who takes offense to that? Doesn't it seem wrong not to chastize such behavior on such a visible, large community of movie fans? I mean, there are music sites that will practically ban you right away simply for mentioning the D word (as in download), yet here some people talk about it as easily as they talk about going out to get a pack of smokes.

Forget about those corny "Who makes movies" promos with the painter guy. What about all the other schmoes who actually pay their own hard earned money to go to the theater to see these movies? Why don't they criticize downloaders?

[James Logan]

I hate people who bootleg and download movies. This'll sound corny, but it's theft, period. Some people make these movies and their careers and whether or not they'll make a living doing so depends on whether or not their movies make money. And if you want to see those movies, then those people deserve the money you pay to see the flick or rent the flick or buy the DVD.

So yeah, the fact that some people are actually proud of it or don't give a fuck about it makes me want to smack 'em. Hey Wal-Mart dude, what if people could just download the information you give them, and then you'd be out of a job -- would that be cool?

[drago25]

The dude was actually watching it while working?? wow, thats f'ed up. Well, I do download movies from time to time, but only DVD rips, none of that shitty cam stuff. However, to be fair, I don't do it that often, and 99% of the time, the movies I download are ones I have already payed to see before at the theater, or intend to buy on DVD at a later date.

[chilli pepper]

My computer couldnt possibley handle downloading movies, and even if it could, I wouldnt anyway. Basically, it IS theft after all. I'll just quote James on this one...

I hate people who bootleg and download movies. This'll sound corny, but it's theft, period. Some people make these movies and their careers and whether or not they'll make a living doing so depends on whether or not their movies make money. And if you want to see those movies, then those people deserve the money you pay to see the flick or rent the flick or buy the DVD.

[Redneck Punk]

I agree it's wrong to download movies, unless it's porn of course. :D

[Draccoca]

Go ahead and smack me logan i really don't care,

I'll dl any movie i want to see and if i like it i normally buy it, I refuse to goto the theater unless someone else is paying,

Also here in Canada it may still be stealing but it's far from illegale, I can download and upload and burn it for friends i just can't make money off of it.

So if you hate me then be my guest i don't care at all

[kungfuchris]

I don't give a shit if people bootleg or download movies.

[jaw2929]

I don't either... Hell I don't see anything wrong with it in the least... If the movie's good and someone wants a DECENT copy of it, they'll eventually buy it on DVD/Video once released...

[AceD]

True movie fans don't download bootlegged movies. Period. Two reasons:

1 - It damages the industry we love. It raises the price of everything related to movies. Who knows when some star or director will boycott the industry until they take care of bootleggers?

2 - Don't call yourself a fan of film if you want to watch a copy of HOTEL RWANDA that was filmed with a video camera inside the theatre. Moviegoing is an experience. Pony up the dough, and don't say you can't, because if you can afford a computer that will download movies you can fork up 10 bucks every weekend.

I don't know about the Canada thing, if it's not against the law than I can't say anything except the above. If you live in a country where it is illegal and do it, then when you get robbed or when your car gets stolen or your computer gets jacked don't come crying, because it's totally hypocritical. DOWNLOADING MOVIES IS A FELONY. I know personally of a girl, 12 years old, that lives in a nice development that's in jail till she's 18 for downloading music. Not worth the risk.

[jeo4]

I won't see some movies unles they're free, but the other day we watched a friend's copy of a film they got which turned out to be bootlegged from the theater (they have a friend who works at the theater in the projection room, BTW). It was horrible to begin with because the sound was terrible. Add to it that the film was awful. Add to it that we both felt bad for seeing a bootleg, though I'd sure as hell not spend a nickel on it in theaters. We will never see another bootleg copy of a film as a result of this experience.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by Draccoca
Go ahead and smack me logan i really don't care...


I don't smack people. At least not here -- too many witnesses. ;)

But I do think that in that case, then, it'd be pushing to call yourself a movie fan. Whether it's illegal or not isn't truly the problem to me -- you're watching somethig for free, when people have spent money and busted their asses to make it, and would at least deserve some money as a recognition. A movie's a product, and some people have to live their lives off it. You not paying to see the movie is like you taking away part of that person's income. Meaning you've had his product, you might've enjoyed it, but he's not getting paid for it. That's called theft.

Just read AceD's post and understand the logic. You, and a lot of other people, think that their watching movies for free doesn't hurt anybody. Well yes it does. A movie could tank despite being good -- because if people can download it for free instead of paying eight or nine bucks to see it, if they don't have the right principles, they'll dl it. And when a movie tanks, the people who made it don't get jobs anymore. And if that happens two or three times, then, well, there goes their filmmaking dreams.

If you want to see a movie for "free", at least wait for it to come on TV. Then watch it. I know it's a pain in the US because of the commercials, but that way at least people get some monies for their work.

I personally feel the same way AceD does: if you're downloading movies, then you're not a true movie fan. Or you are, but you're just too thick or near-sighted to see that it's hurting and potentially slowly destroying the very industry you love.

You make your pick. ;)

[Cronos]

i dont agree with downloading a film that is readily available whether at the cinema, to rent or buy...if however a film is practically impossible to find without paying a shitload of import it or buying a bootlegged version (worse than d/l IMO) im kinda undecided about it

[miguel_montes]

Originally posted by AceD
...It raises the price of everything related to movies...

I always thought the high prices of movie tickets or DVD's were the main reason for people to download, not the other way around...

I download a LOT of movies. In two weeks, I downloaded 12 movies. Of those, I'm only planning on buying 5.

And no, I don't think I'm hurting the movie industry. They wouldn't get my money anyway, so...

Hollywood is already too rich. Do you see Tom Cruise asking for money on the streets? I didn't think so... Gee, now Brad Pitt will only earn 19 million bucks... the other million, the illegal movie downloaders stole... that sucks... Too bad now that Mel Gibson can't buy his 7th "all-luxury spared-no-expense with a helipad and a 50-car garage" dream house due to illegal downloads... what a shame...

What they should do is start making more good movies, and stop wasting so much money on pieces of shit like "Catwoman" or "You Got Served"...

And that law... again, the US government should hunt the real and important crimes... like drugs, mafia, corruption and so on. Not some teenagers on their computers...
Note: Now, there's a difference between the guy that downloads movies for personal use only, the other thing is when they try to earn money for that. THAT, I don't agree.

Glad I'm portuguese.

Just my .02 cents.

[Beeblebrox]

Admittedly, the studios face a real uphill battle here. Calling your own customers thieves and criminals only gets you so far. You have to give them a reason to pay for your product, and you have to make it really easy to do or make it simply not worth it to download them.

Put it this way, if it was possible to perfectly duplicate a friend's car for free, the car companies would be hard pressed to convince anyone to shell out $20K for a legit version of the car instead. The consumers wouldn't consider themselves thieves, and rightfully so, because they aren't really stealing anything.

Ticket prices keep going up and up and up while the films just aren't getting any better. Ticket price increases accounted for the ONLY reason why 2004 grosses outpaced 2003 grosses at the box office. Ticket sales were actually down. And the studios wonder why people are turning to alternative forms of distribution.

So whats' the solution? I hope to god it isn't suing consumers. That was a huge mistake by the music industry when they actually came up with two much more effective means to combat piracy:

1) Cheap downloadable legit music. Singles used to cost $6. Now they cost $1. They should cost even less, but at least the music industry is moving in the right direction.

2) Dummy files. I'd bet that dummy files on P2P networks have discouraged far more downloading than the lawsuits have.

Movie studios are making some good moves. The $15-20 price point for DVDs makes downloading basically not worth it. What they have to do is work with theatre chains to make going to the movies more affordable. In LA, it costs about $10 for one person to go to the movies, just for the ticket. For a family of four, that's $40 before you've even gone through the door.

Lawsuits and disengenuous commercials just aren't going to cut it, IMO. It makes me sick when I see them exploiting some grip telling the audience how pirating endangers his job when I know that the studios don't actually give a rat's ass about that grip's job. Otherwise, they wouldn't go to Canada to film. That grip has much more to fear from production outsourcing than he does piracy.

The bottom line is that the studios have to give consumers a reason to spend money. With P2P, the studios can no longer assume that audiences have no choice but to go to their movies and pay whatever the studios want them to pay for a ticket.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by AceD
I know personally of a girl, 12 years old, that lives in a nice development that's in jail till she's 18 for downloading music. Not worth the risk.

Bow to the Chancellor of the RIAA, our grand absolute leader!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/es/thumb/4/44/180px-Hitler.jpg

Sie müssen zum Führer beugen! Sie können nicht bei den Drohungen beim arischen Rennen einreichen! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL!

I am not risking my ass at all, as the only people who can access my P2P files are people on my User List. :)

BTW-us downloaders don't give a shit if you call us thieves are not, we won't have some kind of "moral revelation" and stop downloading. Not pointing to you, AceD, but to people in general. If studios want downloading to subside, start lower ticket prices. And no, a Universal grip won't lose his job because White Noise opened with $24 million rather than $25 million. Universal gives less a shit about the "little people" than downloaders do.

[kungfuchris]

Jail(or whatever the youth equivalent is. a juvenile detention center?) until she is 18? Thats fucking bullshit.

[Genghis Khan]

Originally posted by miguel_montes
I always thought the high prices of movie tickets or DVD's were the main reason for people to download, not the other way around...

I download a LOT of movies. In two weeks, I downloaded 12 movies. Of those, I'm only planning on buying 5.

And no, I don't think I'm hurting the movie industry. They wouldn't get my money anyway, so...

Hollywood is already too rich. Do you see Tom Cruise asking for money on the streets? I didn't think so... Gee, now Brad Pitt will only earn 19 million bucks... the other million, the illegal movie downloaders stole... that sucks... Too bad now that Mel Gibson can't buy his 7th "all-luxury spared-no-expense with a helipad and a 50-car garage" dream house due to illegal downloads... what a shame...

What they should do is start making more good movies, and stop wasting so much money on pieces of shit like "Catwoman" or "You Got Served"...

And that law... again, the US government should hunt the real and important crimes... like drugs, mafia, corruption and so on. Not some teenagers on their computers...
Note: Now, there's a difference between the guy that downloads movies for personal use only, the other thing is when they try to earn money for that. THAT, I don't agree.

Glad I'm portuguese.

Just my .02 cents.

Dude, I totally agree with you! So what if they don't make another six million dollars so they can buy something stupid and expensive. Fuck Them!

Rock On!!
:cool:

[syxxpac]

Originally posted by James Logan
And when a movie tanks, the people who made it don't get jobs anymore.

Hmmmm...

Everybody download Alone In The Dark when it comes out.

[Jamesadin]

Manny Perry hates Wal-Mart employees.

[adamjohnson]

Originally posted by miguel_montes
I always thought the high prices of movie tickets or DVD's were the main reason for people to download, not the other way around...

I download a LOT of movies. In two weeks, I downloaded 12 movies. Of those, I'm only planning on buying 5.

And no, I don't think I'm hurting the movie industry. They wouldn't get my money anyway, so...

Hollywood is already too rich. Do you see Tom Cruise asking for money on the streets? I didn't think so... Gee, now Brad Pitt will only earn 19 million bucks... the other million, the illegal movie downloaders stole... that sucks... Too bad now that Mel Gibson can't buy his 7th "all-luxury spared-no-expense with a helipad and a 50-car garage" dream house due to illegal downloads... what a shame...

What they should do is start making more good movies, and stop wasting so much money on pieces of shit like "Catwoman" or "You Got Served"...

And that law... again, the US government should hunt the real and important crimes... like drugs, mafia, corruption and so on. Not some teenagers on their computers...
Note: Now, there's a difference between the guy that downloads movies for personal use only, the other thing is when they try to earn money for that. THAT, I don't agree.

Glad I'm portuguese.

Just my .02 cents.

Go steal a dollar from a starving Ethiopian. It wont be enough to buy him any food anyway, right?

[syxxpac]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
The Arrow is in that movie.

Fine.

Make it Bloodrayne.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by adamjohnson
Go steal a dollar from a starving Ethiopian. It wont be enough to buy him any food anyway, right?

Yeah, because I'm sure all these Hollywood fatcats are emaciated Ethiopians who live in desert tribes. And for the "lowly" grips, as the studios would call them, how many of them are starving and panhandling anyway?

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by syxxpac
Hmmmm...

Everybody download Alone In The Dark when it comes out.

The Arrow is in that movie.







BTW, does anyone get similarly outraged when people sneak into other movies?




The answer: probably not.

[someguy]

People downloading movies for personal use: Yes

People downloading movies to sell it and get money off of it: No

Downloading a movie for personal use doesn't hurt anyone really. The MPAA thinks they're smart by stopping the people from downloading period since that will stop them from selling. True, but it's a lost cause. The RIAA tried to stop music and that did not happen. They need to go after the people selling the movies and stopping them from recording it in the theatre. There's an idea to put something on the projectors which will screw up the video if someone records it without detracting from the quality of the screen, and that is a good idea. If a person downloads a film and has it for personal use ONLY, then that's fine for me since that person might have not even seen the movie in theatres even if they didn't download.

That's my opinion though

[adamjohnson]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Yeah, because I'm sure all these Hollywood fatcats are emaciated Ethiopians who live in desert tribes. And for the "lowly" grips, as the studios would call them, how many of them are starving and panhandling anyway?

But is that the point? Theft is theft, and saying 'it wont hurt them anyway" doesnt really fly with me in general.

Hey, I'm not holier than thou. I've done it. I did it with Ju-On and Haute Tension. I ended up buying international DVD's off eBay.

Lately, I've had issues with my little bro stealing things from my room constantly, so im a little bit upset at the moment. And possibly drunk. I found my fuckin Fight Club DVD in his room yesteday! Don't worry... I know where he lives. My house. The point is, you can sympathize with those prodcos. My DVD cost me 20 bucks, and i was ready to throw down. Their film cost them 200 million, and it gets stolen on a daily basis. Its gotta be frustrating. (I know I'M testy now, as you can see)

It certainly doesnt mean they should throw down on granny's house cuz little johnny wanted to download, oh what the devil are young kids into these days????, the latest Morgan Freeman movie.

BTW, fuck those whiny grips. They get paid up front.

[Country1969]

I can't see downloading a movie and burning it to dvd.A shakey Bootleg or a clearly downloaded movie. I rather buy the dvd. Original packaging and video/audio sounding like it should be. Why would anybody watch a shakey movie and hear static or talking. The whole experience on watching movies is for entertainment and I don't think I could enjoy something like that when I have lots of moiney invested in a home theater system. I'm sorry, but I find it very strange that people like doing this stuff.

If people are too cheap to pay at the theater or buy the dvd then they should not see the movie. I read and heard, "I would never pay a nickel to see that movie."

Sure you people complain about how much actors/actresses make for making movies. And they don't need another 10 million dollars.
But you same people don't bitch about football players making millions.
If you make millions you should catch the football with your teeth and don't drop it every time it's throw to you.

About high ticket prices: A matinee here is $4.00. How cheap do you people want the price of the tickets? Popcorn and a soda costs more than the ticket. If you don't want to spend the money at the theater then wait until the dvd comes out for a rental fee around $4.23 or buy it for $15.00. I, myself, prefer to stay at home and watch it on my home theather system. No talking, no standing up, you can stop it to get a drink and go to the bathroom.

One thing I have to say:

I am very disappointed on the movies that are coming out.

[Badbird]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
The Arrow is in that movie.

BTW, does anyone get similarly outraged when people sneak into other movies?

The answer: probably not.

Um, being that I work in a movie theater - make that run the theater, you better believe that shit pisses me off. And it pisses off any other self respecting theater manager.

Sneaking into movies. Downloading movies. Buying a cammed bootleg out of a guy's trunk - whatever. I think it's the "something for nothing" attitude that pisses me off more than the actual copyright violation. This shit is a fucking luxury, you aren't entitled to any of it just because you want it. I want a supercharged firebird, that doesn't mean it's my god given right to have one.

And quit your bitching about ticket prices. First of all A) The price of tickets go up just as everything else goes up along with minimum wage. It's called inflation. Yeah, tickets were $2.75 in 1991. How much did you make an hour?

And B) You probably waste far more on junk food, internet connections, and cable TV in a month than you would going to a theater.

People worked hard to make these things. Other people work hard in theaters and stores selling you this shit, and you want it for free? Without consequence? Tell you what. How about you mow all the lawns in my neighborhood without any of us giving you a dime. While you at it, wash my car. Oh, but don't bother to expect me to so much as give you the time of day or give a shit that you mowed the yard perfectly.

Real music fans don't download 5000 mp3s, they buy CDs. Imports even. Real movie fans don't watch downloaded bootlegs on their computers. They go to theaters and they show up at Wal Mart at midnight on Monday to get Tuesday's new releases.

[TheDeadWalk]

I really doubt that the issue is that black and white here.

"It's Saturday."

...

"I have two options. I can go to the movies to see that movie I wanted to watch, or I could sit here on my ass and download it."


.....


"I think I'll sit here on my ass and download!"


Downloading is an alternative for people who were most likely not going to go to the theater and watch "film x". They don't lose any money, because they were never really consumers to begin with. You cannot convince me that any of the Lord of the Rings fans (or since you guys are staking claim on the word "fan" and "true fan", I'll use this phrase: PEOPLE WHO LIKE THE LORD OF THE RINGS) opted to download any of the trilogy prior to watching it in the theater or on DVD/VHS.

Downloading isn't like music. It's a bonus alternative for people who would have never watched the film anyways, or people who already paid money for the film.

There is no lost money, if you took away downloading, I don't think people would cringe and say "ALRIGHT DAMNIT! I'll go buy tickets to go see Christmas with the Cranks now!"


* I also would like to note that some (including myself) have downloaded before because a film simply would not play within a 50 mile radius of where I lived. With all the talk, hoopla, and hype, I didn't want to wait until DVD to check out Shaun of the Dead.

Sigh.

I guess you'll want my badge and gun now.

[Draccoca]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk

Downloading is an alternative for people who were most likely not going to go to the theater and watch "film x". They don't lose any money, because they were never really consumers to begin with. You cannot convince me that any of the Lord of the Rings fans (or since you guys are staking claim on the word "fan" and "true fan", I'll use this phrase: PEOPLE WHO LIKE THE LORD OF THE RINGS) opted to download any of the trilogy prior to watching it in the theater or on DVD/VHS.

Downloading isn't like music. It's a bonus alternative for people who would have never watched the film anyways, or people who already paid money for the film.


Exactly, Before i got high speed internet I went to the theaters maybe once every 2 years and still it was when someone else paid for me so they still didn't get any money from me. When i buy a dvd or vhs i buy second hand from a pawn shop, (so once again they aren't getting my money)

Also about the sports anaolgy yeah i bitch about how much they get paid so I don't go to see it live i watch it on tv and i don't buy their hats jersey's etc. Yeah i like getting something for free who wouldn't, Do i care because in your words i'm not a "true fan" no, do I care about what anybody in an internet forum thinks of me? No

Maybe I'm not a true fan but that doesn't take away the enjoyment of a movie, I'd say it increases it, I don't get pissed off when say Ben stiller is cast into a movie that had high hopes or when a director like boll gets to make a good movie.

[bigred760]

I hate bootlegged copies of movies. The video, audio, quality, of the movie just plain freakin' sucks. You miss half the movie. A friend of mine said he didn't like The Incredibles and I couldn't believe him. Then he told me he saw a bootlegged copy of the flick and I said "no freakin' wonder, dumbass."
I don't understand why anyone would watch a tape of the movie playing in the theatre. The whole theatre experience is half the fun of watching a movie.

[BorderEevilIII]

I happen to work w/ these co-workers who partake in bootleg movies and DAMN.....
Its ALWAYS gonna be out there NO MATTER what but DAAAAAMN!
The quality is just fucked up looking..... I briefly saw one of em via DVD and its HORRIBLE looking. I'd rather watch a legitimate copy than some poorly done third rate reproduction.:rolleyes:

As for that guy watching Blade 3 at work, I am suprised that a manager has not caught wind of this.:confused:

[deppjolieperabo]

the quality and sound of them is shit... but if movies wouldnt cost soo freakin much to go see maybe not as many ppl would download! Because it really is a rip off there.... :mad:

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by adamjohnson
But is that the point? Theft is theft, and saying 'it wont hurt them anyway" doesnt really fly with me in general.

If there was no option of downloading From Justin to Kelly, I'm not going to cave in and pay to see it. TheDeadWalk, as always, hit the nail on the head.

[Lord Nikon]

Get off your soapboxes people. Of all of you who are disgusted by how many people are bragging about downloading movies how many you have downloaded music before? Now shut up and get off your high horse.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Get off your soapboxes people. Of all of you who are disgusted by how many people are bragging about downloading movies how many you have downloaded music before? Now shut up and get off your high horse.

http://jovan.ru/pics2/owned.jpg

[someguy]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
http://jovan.ru/pics2/owned.jpg

that's not even an ownage. That's not even an oh snap.

[AceD]

"BTW-us downloaders don't give a shit if you call us thieves are not, we won't have some kind of "moral revelation" and stop downloading. Not pointing to you, AceD, but to people in general. If studios want downloading to subside, start lower ticket prices. And no, a Universal grip won't lose his job because White Noise opened with $24 million rather than $25 million. Universal gives less a shit about the "little people" than downloaders do."

I see your point, but a million dollars a movie adds up. Not that we're going to put Spielberg on the streets by douwloading movies, but I don't see how that's a fair point. I know nothing I say is going to stop you, and I don't think you're a bad guy, but like I said earlier it's theft no matter how you slice it. People will steal from the corner store, and they don't put them out of business by themselves, but if everyone started doing it they wouldn't last.

"Get off your soapboxes people. Of all of you who are disgusted by how many people are bragging about downloading movies how many you have downloaded music before? Now shut up and get off your high horse. "

I've never downloaded music and don't see it as any worse or better than downloading movies.

This is funny and related...at the Movie Gallery I manage, a customer came in and was looking at the DVD players we sell.

"Will these play burnt DVDs?" he asks me.

"Nope," I reply, pointing to the "will not play DVDRs" label.

"So if I burn a DVD it won't play on here?"

"Nope"

"Well this is some stupid shit!!! Why not?"

Umm, look around bro. You're in a video store. We don't exactly want you renting and burning our DVDs.

"That's what the company wants to sell."

"Well I'm leaving!"

Now I know you can play legal stuff on DVDRs, but why would a video store want to even allow the possibility? Duh.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by AceD
it's theft no matter how you slice it.

Downloading a movie is the same moral violation as photocopying a cartoon and pasting it up in your office. There is absolutely no difference between the two, other than the huge propaganda campaign waged by the studios and the music industry to make people believe there is one.

Well, now the music industry and the movie studios have rewritten US law to make it worse, but that's another issue.

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. First of all, it isn't stealing like robbing the corner drug store is stealing. That comparison is totally preposterous. It's more like copying a cartoon out of the newspaper and passing it around the office. But somehow that doesn't sound quite so alarming or disuading as telling people it's THEFT!

[AdrenalineMJ]

I only ever downloaded one movie, and I ended up buying it on DVD anyway. No harm done.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. First of all, it isn't stealing like robbing the corner drug store is stealing. That comparison is totally preposterous. It's more like copying a cartoon out of the newspaper and passing it around the office. But somehow that doesn't sound quite so alarming or disuading as telling people it's THEFT!

But I bet you that office doesn't hold 50 million people.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by LordSimen
But I bet you that office doesn't hold 50 million people.

The morality of copyright infringement isn't based on how many people see whatever it is you're copying. But in any case, I'd bet that more people have made illegal photocopies of copyrighted material over the years than have downloaded movies. It's all the same thing.

[miguel_montes]

Originally posted by AceD
it's theft no matter how you slice it.

Ok, so another example. Your avatar. Did you take those pictures? I'm guessing no. Did you ask the photographer permission to use them? Again, I'm guessing no. So, if theft is theft, and according to copyright laws.... you just stole those pictures.

.....stupid, isn't it???? :rolleyes:

Everyone makes copies of something else. Everything we have today is a copy of a copy. When you print some image, when you (!!!!) copy/paste, when you buy those Lee jeans (that the other store has the same pair but from a different brand), when you buy that 17" Samsung LCD monitor that looks just like an LG, when you use some Freud quote on a essay...

If all thefts are equal, everyone should be in jail.

[James Logan]

So two wrongs make a right? ;)

I'm definitely not saying this is hurting the big buck owners, and I'm definitely not going to cry if the Weinsteins make a couple million dollars less every year.

But that's not the question to me. Nor is the legal difference between this stealing and that stealing. What's on my mind is this: as someone who hopes to be part of the movie industry one day, and to get to make his own movies and show them to the world, I just wonder how I'd feel if, instead of getting the rightly-earned few bucks I would've gotten if a few hundred thousand people had gone on the Internet, I'd get nothing, because everyone just downloads the movie for free or buys an illegal copy of it from a weird pipe-smoking dude in Bangkok or Taiwan.

Maybe someone's making a low-budget movie. Maybe it won't be a big success, but maybe a few hundred thousand entries will get his name in the trade papers, his foot in the door, and enable him to buy food for dinner next week. That's not the same as taking a million away from Spielberg.

Of course movie ticket prices are way higher than we'd all like, especially for buffs like us who'd like to see three movies a week and see CLOSER fourteen times because Natalie's butt wiggling on the silver screen is the most beautiful new piece of art since the Renaissance. But the people who worked hard to bring you those beautiful pictures you silently wack off to in the back of the theater -- don't they deserve their money, if they're paid in profit shares? Don't they deserve their movie to be considered a success and not a bomb (Natalie being the sex bomb, in this case)? ;)

It's not in my habits to preach to people (even though it does happen to me occasionally -- so spank me), it's just something that feels wrong to me. I understand how downloading the movie just for you, or how you downloading it before buying it, might seem like it makes it all right. But that's still nine bucks you're not giving people who work to bring you these movies, and how do you know for SURE you're going to buy the DVD? After all, maybe you'll decide that the movie was only worth seeing once.

I also understand the point of view that "hey, if I hadn't downloaded it, I wouldn't have bought it anyways either". Then why are you downloading it? If the movie looks decent / weird / ridiculous in a cult kind of way / packed with nudity for you to want to see it, and to get on your computer and download it, then maybe you would've. But it's so much easier and cheaper to just download it, so why wonder about it?

I know Beeble is gonna lay another sheet of science and long words on me for saying this, but to me, downloading a movie (or music, for that matter) is just the same as any other kind of stealing. Because you're stealing, directly or indirectly, part of someone's income. I don't think it's morally the same as showing a cut-out cartoon around the office -- I think it could be considered technically the same thing, and perhaps at some point and in some countries (although probably not anymore) legally similar, but to me it's not morally the same thing. Besides, I don't know many people who make 500 bucks a month cutting out cartoons and selling them to their friends on DVD-Rs.

Maybe you figure it's not that bad now. Hey, only a few hundred thousands of us do it, but families and friends and old people still see movies. But what happens when, seeing how easy and free it is for YOU to download movies, the majority of people just casts principle aside and does the same thing? What happens if, or rather when, people find a better way to pass movies on their Internet in their optimum quality, and not in the piss-poor quality most copies are now? Then what'll stop EVERYONE from downloading movies, and filmmakers from getting broke?

One of my friends compares movie downloading to book theft. Sure, books are expensive, and the biggest part of the price goes to the publishers and shops selling them. And sure, someone just stealing one book won't hurt the author if he still sells fifty thousand others. But what if there was a way to make book stealing so simple that out of those fifty thousand, five or ten would be able to get the book for free instead of paying for it? Wouldn't that be theft?

I do know it's very hard to convince people who're downloading movies that they're in the wrong -- mainly because downloading movies makes life so much easier on you and on your wallet, that it's hard to see why you should even stop. And I definitely do NOT have the right answer to everything. It's my opinion, though, that it's just plain wrong, and akin to stealing (no matter which way you split it or how well you can play on the different "kinds" of stealing), and if I were making movies, I wouldn't want people doing it to me. And even though that's not going to keep anyone else from downloading these flicks, it'll at least stop me, which means it could be worse. ;)

Oh, and I don't think the above examples Miguel evokes make any sense -- "quoting Freud in any essay"? Funny, I didn't know Freud was lawfully and rightfully entitled to fifty cents each time someone quoted him. I don't think I owe nine bucks to the movie theater when I use the sentence "you're about as useful as a cock-flavored lollipop" -- but if I did use the whole DODGEBALL movie to watch with my friends, then yeah, I would. And if I reproduced a whole Freud essay book, all 300 pages of it, then...yeah, that would be stealing, too.

The different-brand Lee jeans? I'm not stealing, I'm buying a pair of jeans at the price they're sold. What? They're jeans just like Lee made 'em? Well, the jeans are authorized to be sold, and I don't see Lee suing this specific brand for anything, and I am, after all, paying fifteen bucks for these jeans...How is that stealing?

As for the avatars, I'd be surprised if we stole anything from anyone by using them -- I don't think we're depriving anyone from money they're rightfully entitled to make off us using these photos for non-profit, non-publicity ends on a free website and in personal posts. And if it IS, indeed, copyright infringement...then I'm damn surprised no photographer or artist ever sued people for using these pics. Especially in the US, where you can apparently sue anyone over anything at anytime for any reason. ;)

[jaw2929]

James Logan, if I wasn't as strong willed, defiant, and overall selfish :p
you definately would've sold me and convinced me that downloading movies is "wrong".... BUT, I am me, and I'll do what I will! ;)

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by James Logan
Maybe someone's making a low-budget movie. Maybe it won't be a big success, but maybe a few hundred thousand entries will get his name in the trade papers, his foot in the door, and enable him to buy food for dinner next week. That's not the same as taking a million away from Spielberg.

History shows that people will plunk down money for movies they want to see. Spider-man was one of the biggest grossing movies from last year. I'd be willing to bet it was also one of the most downloaded..

Studios are using downloading as a scapegoat for their lackluster product. Make something great, like Napolean Dynamite or Spider-man 2, and people WILL pay to see it.

And as a struggling filmmaker, your first goal isn't to make money. It's to get your movies seen. You can actually use the internet and P2P to your advantage for marketing and distribution. The studios have done that with trailers.

I don't think it's morally the same as showing a cut-out cartoon around the office -- I think it could be considered technically the same thing, and perhaps at some point and in some countries (although probably not anymore) legally similar, but to me it's not morally the same thing.

It IS morally and technically exactly the same. Think about this way: When you photocopy a cartoon out of the newspaper, you're saving someone the trouble of buying a copy of that newspaper. They are no more entitled to see that cartoon for free than anyone is to see a movie for free.

Maybe it's just 50 cents instead of a $10 movie ticket, but it adds up. And the lower the newspaper circulation, the less the cartoonist gets paid. And don't cartoonists deserve to get paid for their work?

Dismissing copyright infringement of a newspaper cartoon as no big deal is EXACTLY the problem with making a moral argument about movie or music downloading. It's no big deal to YOU because you've probably looked a bunch of photocopied cartoons in your life without considering yourself a THIEF.

But now that it might affect you, suddenly you're a moral crusader.

I hope you understand then, why 50 million people who aren't in the movie business don't consider themselves thieves any more than you do when you look at a photocopied cartoon.

Besides, I don't know many people who make 500 bucks a month cutting out cartoons and selling them to their friends on DVD-Rs.

Ah, now SELLING bootlegged movies is ENTIRELY different from downloading. That's a separate issue from simply downloading a movie for your own amusement. There is a clear legal distinction and economic impact between the two.

I do know it's very hard to convince people who're downloading movies that they're in the wrong

How hard do you think it would be to convince a bunch of people in an office that looking at the photocopied cartoon on the wall of their coworker's cubicle makes them thieves?

Yes, it's hard.

And I'm not trying to advocate downloading. I'm simply saying that these moral arguments are not only a waste of time, they're hypocritical and disengenuous, particularly when it comes from the studios and music labels.

I mean, music labels complaining about stealing? Are you fucking kidding me?!

The studios should be expending their energy on better movies for their audiences instead of suing the customers or trying to shutdown legit businesses.

[someguy]

It's also like photocopying book pages in a library. You should buy that book, shouldn't you? You must be stealing then.

Plus I don't want people confusing "downloading movies" to "selling bootlegs." They are two different things, and selling bootlegs actually hurts the movie industry.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by AceD
I see your point, but a million dollars a movie adds up.

Hardly. A million dollars for a movie that opens in the mid-20s range being lost because of downloading and bootlegging is really, really pushing it. I only was using an example, really. A million dollars of lost revenue on an opening weekend is only realistic if it has an insane opening of like $90+ million, and any movie that opens that high will end up safely in the black, and I am really pushing it (the most any movie would lose to downloading would be maybe $3 million, and that's for a super-megahit). For totals (read: totals) on an average-performing movie, it probably won't even lose half a million from downloading or bootlegging.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Badbird
Real music fans don't download 5000 mp3s, they buy CDs. Imports even. Real movie fans don't watch downloaded bootlegs on their computers.

Real music and real movie fans WATCH AND KNOW lots of music/movies, period. I'd appreciate it if you never again tried to suggest I'm not a fan of something because I don't spend $1,000 a year on Cds (which is just about what it'd cost me considering how many albums I listen to during the year). What the hell do you expect me to do, listen to 5 albums a year and then proclaim myself a music fan because I paid for them?

[<3mekthx]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Real music and real movie fans WATCH AND KNOW lots of music/movies, period. I'd appreciate it if you never again tried to suggest I'm not a fan of something because I don't spend $1,000 a year on Cds (which is just about what it'd cost me considering how many albums I listen to during the year). What the hell do you expect me to do, listen to 5 albums a year and then proclaim myself a music fan because I paid for them?

What he said!

[James Logan]

Originally posted by Trail_Blazer
BUT, I am me, and I'll do what I will! ;)

Yeah, that's why this debate is fun -- we all know no one's convincing anyone of anything either which way. ;)

Like I said before, it just doesn't sit right with me. People put two years into making a movie for me to see, and their movie has the potential to make my day/week/lifetime, so if I want to see it, they at least deserve some money for it. Do I like paying nine bucks? No, I think it's a little expensive. Do I like having to ride the subway for an hour to get to the nearest theater where they play movies in English? No, it sucks, French people smell like cabbage (and that's only the best-smelling ones). But I'll do it, because if I want to see it, then I should pay to see it. And see it on a fuckin' big silver screen, too -- that's part of what movies are all about to me.

Maybe it ain't that bad now. I can believe that. It's not like I think it's a sign of the Armageddon. But I do think that if it just being free and easy justifies us doing it now, then it'll justify anyone doing it later, when everyone knows how to use the Internet, when everyone has fast speed Internet, and when the quality of these bootlegged copies get better. Maybe it'll never happen, and I hope it won't, but if in fifteen, twenty-five years the problem's a bigger, more serious one, it'd be a bit easy to blame it on the economy, on our kids, or on "fucking movie tickets being too fucking expensive, fucker!" later.

[miguel_montes]

Originally posted by James Logan
Oh, and I don't think the above examples Miguel evokes make any sense -- "quoting Freud in any essay"? Funny, I didn't know Freud was lawfully and rightfully entitled to fifty cents each time someone quoted him. I don't think I owe nine bucks to the movie theater when I use the sentence "you're about as useful as a cock-flavored lollipop" -- but if I did use the whole DODGEBALL movie to watch with my friends, then yeah, I would. And if I reproduced a whole Freud essay book, all 300 pages of it, then...yeah, that would be stealing, too.

The different-brand Lee jeans? I'm not stealing, I'm buying a pair of jeans at the price they're sold. What? They're jeans just like Lee made 'em? Well, the jeans are authorized to be sold, and I don't see Lee suing this specific brand for anything, and I am, after all, paying fifteen bucks for these jeans...How is that stealing?

As for the avatars, I'd be surprised if we stole anything from anyone by using them -- I don't think we're depriving anyone from money they're rightfully entitled to make off us using these photos for non-profit, non-publicity ends on a free website and in personal posts. And if it IS, indeed, copyright infringement...then I'm damn surprised no photographer or artist ever sued people for using these pics. Especially in the US, where you can apparently sue anyone over anything at anytime for any reason. ;)

I guess I didn't make myself clear (on the jeans part). Let me try to explain a little better:

Freud quotes:
Yeah, it's a bad example. I should have used anothers: making a mirror to host the latest star wars trailer before of being released to the non-paying public (remember?... the trailer was out on mirrors when it was at the beginning only released on "Hyperspace"), singing a Beatles song in some concert when Michael Jackson owns the rights to all the Beatles songs (at least, I think he does), using some code from Firefox 1.0 to tweak your own version of Mozilla 1.7.4 (actually this is open-source, so there's no problem, but I think I make a point), using some Hubble picture to make your desktop wallpaper, ...

Jeans:
I'm not saying you, me, the costumers, are the thieves... I'm saying all the other companies that make them... I think Levi Strauss invented them in 1872. So, all the other companies that make them, are copying him (or Levi, the company that carries his name)... that is what I meant.

Some (if not all) are very stupid examples!! I know that!! But if we strictely follow the copyright laws, some may qualify as theft!!
You use a very good quote in your post (section about the avatars):
" I don't think we're depriving anyone from money they're rightfully entitled to make off us using these photos for non-profit, non-publicity ends on a free website and in personal posts..."
That's how I feel about downloading movies. I don't think I'm depriving anyone from money. I download movies for non-profit, non-publicity ends...

But here we surely have to draw a line:

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOWNLOADING A MOVIE FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY, AND SELLING THEM!!!

THAT, I qualify as stealing.

OK... let me, then, share my "downloading schematics": I said in a previous post that in two weeks I dowloaded 12 movies. Those movies are:
1. Cellular
2. Finding Neverland
3. Garden State
4. King Arthur (Director's Cut)
5. Man On Fire
6. Saved!
7. Saw
8. The Aviator
9. The Butterfly Effect (Director's Cut)
10. The Grudge
11. The Incredibles
12. The Manchurian Candidate
13. The Terminal
.... ok, that's 13 movies... :cool:
(all of them are DVD-RIP or DVD-SCR, no cams, I hate cams)

Movies I saw at cinema/rented: n.º 2, n.º 4, n.º 5, n.º 11, n.º 12, n.º 13.
Movies I rented: n.º 4 (there are others that didn't come out for rent yet)
Movies that have yet to be released in Portugal: n.º 3, n.º 6, n.º 7, n.º 10
(of those, I will not go at the movies when they do come: n.º 6, n.º 7, n.º 10; love Garden State, will definitely go)
Movies I'm planning on buying: n.º 2, n.º 3, n.º 5, n.º 9, n.º 11 (and maybe n.º 13, I'll decide later)
Movies that didn't (or wont) get my money upon release or on renting/buying: n.º 1, n.º 6, n.º 7, n.º 8, n.º 10.

Number of movies that received (or will receive) my money: 8 in total (n.º 4 twice, n.ºs 2, 5, 11 (and 13, we'll see), also will be twice)
Movies that didn't received (or won't receive) my money: 13-8=5 in total. That's 38% of the movies. Considering I saw/rented/will buy the other 62%, no, the movie industry will no not go out of business because of me. :p

[mcquade]

the movie industry doesnt give a shite about you- do you think miramax put out naked versions of kill bill vol 1 and 2 thinking about the consumer? no they decided to release those so they could later release a special edition, then a ultimate edition, a supersized edition a boxed set a directors cut a uncut version and then a few years down the line they will find 2 minutes of "lost" footage to release a very very special edition - its hard to care about an industry that constantly takes a dump on you

[slasherfan]

The only time I ever download a movie is if it takes FOREVER to come out in the UK. Seed OF Chucky STILL isn't out here yet so I downloaded it. If it does hit UK cinemas I will see it and I will buy the DVD.
If it's a choice between going to the cinema or downloading, I'll go the the cinema, if it's a choice between waiting months and months, sometimes years or downloading, I'll download.

[someguy]

MPAA=<3

[Badbird]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Real music and real movie fans WATCH AND KNOW lots of music/movies, period. I'd appreciate it if you never again tried to suggest I'm not a fan of something because I don't spend $1,000 a year on Cds (which is just about what it'd cost me considering how many albums I listen to during the year). What the hell do you expect me to do, listen to 5 albums a year and then proclaim myself a music fan because I paid for them?

What did I say? This shit, movies/music/video games/whatever - they are LUXURIES! You aren't entitled to any of it just because you like it. That doesn't give you the right or excuse to steal it.

I don't spend $1000 on CDs a year. I don't need that much new music. I buy a CD and listen to it a lot. Then I buy one later and listen to it a lot. Even at $20 a CD, that's 50 CDs in one year. More than 4 a month. No one needs that much music at one time. I buy a CD or two a month sometimes. Other times I don't buy any. But I do buy them.

How old are you? Do you have a job? I've found that the biggest proponents of free shit (movies, music) tend to be the type without any income. If this isn't the case, hey, whatever. But if it is the case, just get a job that allows you to indulge. That's what I do. That's what a huge amount of people on this board do.

If your blasting through that much music, I'd say it's time to settle down and take time to smell the roses.

And the "I wasn't going to see it anyway, so they never had my money" excuse is the biggest fucking copout of all time. I guess before high speed internet you never, ever saw/payed for a movie.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Badbird


And the "I wasn't going to see it anyway, so they never had my money" excuse is the biggest fucking copout of all time. I guess before high speed internet you never, ever saw/payed for a movie.

You did not get the point. I apologize for not clarifying myself enough on this when I brought it up.

The example I used for this was that people are likely to download the movies that they are not going to pay for. For example, I plan on seeing White Noise tonight, a film I am paying for. I am more likely to download a film like 'The Forgotten', because I think it looks shitty and don't want to spend any money on it. If I didn't have high speed internet, or if this were 1994, I just wouldn't bother with The Forgotten.

There is even a schmoe thread around here in the movie games section called "Theater, rent, or download" A schmoe names a movie, and the next schmoe says whether the film is worth a trip to the theater, paying 3 bucks for a rental, or the worst of all: just simply a download. By saying 'download', the schmoe is stating that the film is horrible and is not worth paying money for.

Does this make more sense?

Please let me know if it doesn't.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Badbird
What did I say? This shit, movies/music/video games/whatever - they are LUXURIES! You aren't entitled to any of it just because you like it. That doesn't give you the right or excuse to steal it.

I don't spend $1000 on CDs a year. I don't need that much new music. I buy a CD and listen to it a lot. Then I buy one later and listen to it a lot. Even at $20 a CD, that's 50 CDs in one year. More than 4 a month. No one needs that much music at one time. I buy a CD or two a month sometimes. Other times I don't buy any. But I do buy them.

How old are you? Do you have a job? I've found that the biggest proponents of free shit (movies, music) tend to be the type without any income. If this isn't the case, hey, whatever. But if it is the case, just get a job that allows you to indulge. That's what I do. That's what a huge amount of people on this board do.

If your blasting through that much music, I'd say it's time to settle down and take time to smell the roses.

Ok, so we've settled the fact that you need to GET A GREAT JOB WITH GOOD MONEY to just buy music. Because everybody gets jobs with great pays....:rolleyes:

And when you are saying just to buy an album and listen to it a lot is just ludicrous. There are a lot of music fans who can't do that and have to buy the album. If they like 9 songs released from 9 different bands/singers a months, what are they gonna do? Just buy three and listen to them a bunch of times? And what if they end up hating those albums excluding 1 or 2 songs?

(note: I never tend to download albums because I am more about singles and just songs from that band-I have downloaded 6 albums from my count in the past few years. One I already own, Four I am going to buy when I have the money, and 1 I can't find anywhere).

And the "I wasn't going to see it anyway, so they never had my money" excuse is the biggest fucking copout of all time. I guess before high speed internet you never, ever saw/payed for a movie.

I was soooooooo gonna see Gigli and pay ten dollars(actually 14 in Canada at the big screens!) for that. Yeah I'm a fucking copout and was actually going to see that movie. Most of the movies I have downloaded I never see in theatres or rent. Or even see for that matter. I contemplated downloading Return of the King one day but decided not to, and I have not seen it yet. Most people will download movies that they can't get a chance to see at all until video or DVD, and personally don't like waiting that long. I'm personally not for the 'download DVD-rips months before the movie comes out' thing since I would rather watch it on a DVD.

I only tend to download movies that are not liscensed by the MPAA. I only really download the more mainstream movies when it's Oscar season and screeners are out, but after that I will only download another one if I already saw it in theatres. And if you say to just wait for it to come over here, that's a crock. I downloaded Battle Royale, a movie about grade nines having to murder each other. How long do you think it'll take for that movie to come over here?

[Damone]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I am more likely to download a film like 'The Forgotten', because I think it looks shitty and don't want to spend any money on it.


I've heard this reason before and just out of curiousity, if it looks shitty then why bother watching it? If I'm on my deathbed in 50 years I don't think my dying regret will be, "Oh why didn't I watch Superbabies 2?" :)

[James Logan]

Originally posted by Damone
I've heard this reason before and just out of curiousity, if it looks shitty then why bother watching it? If I'm on my deathbed in 50 years I don't think my dying regret will be, "Oh why didn't I watch Superbabies 2?" :)

Yeah, I wonder about that too. :) If it's shitty, why watch it? And if you're going to answer "curiosity"...then should we grade curiosity? Is there a level of curiosity that means your curious enough to pay ten bucks, but under that level you should get a peak at it for free? :)

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Badbird
How old are you? Do you have a job?

If your blasting through that much music, I'd say it's time to settle down and take time to smell the roses.

How old are YOU? Because I doubt you're old enough to be our friggin mother.

So not only are you the expert in moral advice, now you're the expert on just how much music we should be listening to and how much is too much?

Maybe it's time for you to mind your own beeswax. Being a moral crusader is one thing. Dispensing advice on music listening and buying habits is another.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by James Logan
Is there a level of curiosity that means your curious enough to pay ten bucks, but under that level you should get a peak at it for free? :) [/B]

That's easy. If they're curious enough to pay ten bucks, they'll go and pay ten bucks.

Did you get a peak at those cartoons for free, James, or did you hide your eyes and run out and buy the newspaper? "No, I can't look or I'm ripping off the artist who deserves to get paid for his work! If I want to read that cartoon I'll go and buy the newspaper!"

What did your colleagues think of you when you did that? Because you did do that, right? You wouldn't look at some person's artwork illegally without paying for it, right? You made sure to lecture them about stealing an artist's work, right?

[Damone]

Originally posted by James Logan
Yeah, I wonder about that too. :) If it's shitty, why watch it? And if you're going to answer "curiosity"...then should we grade curiosity? Is there a level of curiosity that means your curious enough to pay ten bucks, but under that level you should get a peak at it for free? :)

Sure. Put it next to the overall grade.

Gigli 1/10 Curiousity grade 4/10 :)

[James Logan]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
That's easy. If they're curious enough to pay ten bucks, they'll go and pay ten bucks.

Did you get a peak at those cartoons for free, James, or did you hide your eyes and run out and buy the newspaper? "No, I can't look or I'm ripping off the artist who deserves to get paid for his work! If I want to read that cartoon I'll go and buy the newspaper!"

What did your colleagues think of you when you did that? Because you did do that, right? You wouldn't look at some person's artwork illegally without paying for it, right? You made sure to lecture them about stealing an artist's work, right?

Beeble, Beeble, Beeble...and you give people lectures about self-righteousness and condescendance. ;)

I'd find a snappy answer to that whole little speech (which was lovely, by the way), but I don't really have to, as...there are no cartoons in French newspapers, except in the free paper you get on the subway. Here we get cartoons in album form -- if I want to read a Garfield strip, I buy 50 pages of 'em. Hey, look, here comes that funny word again... BUY!

But sure, that's just a technicality (or something I'm making up -- heck, if you've never lived in France, there's no way you could be sure. But be my guest and come check). And it's not even relevant to my question. All I'm asking is this: someone, or several people, work on their movie, on the trailers, on the poster, on the promotional work...and so on to make you interested enough to come see the damn thing. If all that has sparked enough interest in you to want to see it, then wouldn't it be right to pay for it? And if it hasn't interested you enough to pay ten bucks, then why do you want to see it, if you're not interested? Or can't you at least wait for it to be on TV to check it out for pretty much nothing?

Not that I'm saying it's wrong per se -- I'm saying I, in my gut, believe it to be wrong. Wrong or right depends on perception -- it's not "right" is what you think, then everyone who disagrees must be wrong. I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm trying to convince people or, to the very least, understand the logic of something I, for one, do not get.

Who knows? Maybe you'll convince me and get me downloading movies too, someday. But snapping at people like you have the Word and telling them to mind their own...what was it, beeswax?...(sexy figure of speech, by the way)...isn't the right way to go about it, if you want a teeny weeny piece of advice.

Now, let's see where this goes. Promises to be fun.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by Damone
Sure. Put it next to the overall grade.

Gigli 1/10 Curiousity grade 4/10 :)

You gave GIGLI a 4?

Dude... ;)

[Damone]

Originally posted by James Logan
You gave GIGLI a 4?

Dude... ;)

Keep in mind that was the curiousity grade and not the actual "how good was it" grade. :)
I base it on the fact that it got trashed so bad that it makes you wonder...."Can it really be that awful?" :)

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by James Logan
I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm trying to convince people or, to the very least, understand the logic of something I, for one, do not get.

Oh, of course. You're trying to "understand."

So when you said:

I hate people who bootleg and download movies. This'll sound corny, but it's theft, period...So yeah, the fact that some people are actually proud of it or don't give a fuck about it makes me want to smack 'em.

....that was simply your way to trying to "understand the logic" of why people download. Got it.

Maybe something just got lost in the translation and that's how they do it in France. But around here it might sound just a little bit like lecturing.

Who knows? Maybe you'll convince me and get me downloading movies too, someday.

I'm not trying to convince you that downloading is right. I'm simply saying that it's not the same thing as stealing. Among the myriad of moral transgressions, making a copy of someone else's work for your own personal use is a minor one. This is about perspective, and the holier-than-thou anti-downloading crusaders clearly don't have any.

But snapping at people like you have the Word and telling them to mind their own...what was it, beeswax?...(sexy figure of speech, by the way)...isn't the right way to go about it, if you want a teeny weeny piece of advice.

Ah, I see. So that "isn't the right way to go about it."

So when you said:

I hate people who bootleg and download movies. This'll sound corny, but it's theft, period...So yeah, the fact that some people are actually proud of it or don't give a fuck about it makes me want to smack 'em.

Again, must be a translation thing. Maybe you could explain how telling someone to mind their own business IS snapping, but telling them you want to smack them for doing what you don't like is NOT snapping.

[James Logan]

Oh, why, my pleasure. Allow me. :)

It'll be pretty quick, I got a ball game in twenty minutes, but shouldn't take too long:

a) That paragraph is what someone would call a "starting point". That's my opinion. Am I passionate about my opinion? Sure, because if I didn't, then why bother having an opinion?

b) You'll notice, I believe, that I said I was talking about "people who are proud" of downloading those flicks, or "don't give a fuck" about watching them clear in the open. That was in reference to the original post about the guy from Wal-Mart.

c) And Beeble...you've been here long enough to know what I mean and don't mean, man. :) Someone who downloads movies came up later and told me to smack him if I would, and I replied I didn't usually smack people. Oddly enough, relative newbies get the humor in it, but you don't. Must be because if you got the humor, then, hell, you couldn't really use that quote for your own purposes, now could you? (I also find it funny that that quote has been there for days, and you didn't notice it while you were taking on everyone else, but now that it might be suddenly of some use, it becomes interesting to you. Curious, curious, curious.)

d) Oh, and this might be a technicality that deserves a whole other thread of conversation, but...is feeling like slapping people and actually slapping them the same thing? If I feel like fucking someone's wife, is that the same thing as actually humping her dry on the balcony? The whole debate, tonight, on Larry King Live.

C'mon, man. :) I love having you around because you generally make the smart points no one does -- but c'mon, let's keep it relaxed (and you can't blame me for not being a relaxed kind of guy -- I mean really). All I'm saying is this: read the posts you've written in this thread since the beginning, and try to get into the other guy's shoes. We both write, so I guess we can both do that. Maybe you'll admit that you didn't always make your points in the friendliest of ways -- I, for one, will gladly admit that, despite me not intending it that way and no one else complaining, sure, maybe I was a little virulent in the one post you quoted. No harm intended, will try not to do it again, live and learn. :)

[someguy]

hahahahaha....he makes the smart points only when you agree with him ;)

I just want to refer to what Logan said here

All I'm asking is this: someone, or several people, work on their movie, on the trailers, on the poster, on the promotional work...and so on to make you interested enough to come see the damn thing. If all that has sparked enough interest in you to want to see it, then wouldn't it be right to pay for it? And if it hasn't interested you enough to pay ten bucks, then why do you want to see it, if you're not interested? Or can't you at least wait for it to be on TV to check it out for pretty much nothing?

I just don't understand how you see it so black and white. You are either interested enough to pay for it or not see the movie at all. You are either curious enough to pay for it or not curious enough to watch it. Isn't there a middle ground? What if there's a movie that looks ok to you but you don't want to pay for it(aka wait for it on TV). Why wait for over a year(or two depending)for the fucking thing when you can just download it?

And Logan, stop trying to act cool about this ;)

[James Logan]

Originally posted by someguy

I just don't understand how you see it so black and white. You are either interested enough to pay for it or not see the movie at all. You are either curious enough to pay for it or not curious enough to watch it. Isn't there a middle ground? What if there's a movie that looks ok to you but you don't want to pay for it(aka wait for it on TV). Why wait for over a year(or two depending)for the fucking thing when you can just download it?

And Logan, stop trying to act cool about this ;)

I don't act cool, I am cool. ;)

On the questions, though...Well, let's say first off that I don't mind waiting for something to be on TV, because if it's not interesting enough for me to pay ten bucks, then it doesn't make me impatient enough to not be able to wait 18 months to see it on TV. If GIGLI were on TV, I'd definitely take a look at it, "to see how bad it is", as we all put it, but I can wait a year and a half or two years for that. If something isn't interesting, then where's the urgency?

Now, I will admit to two things: the first one is yeah, I have a tendency to see things in black and white. I'm a last century boy. ;) Or rather, I see what other people do in shades of grey, but what I do in "good" or "bad". When you ask me why wait two years when I could just download it, my reflex, boy scout answer would be "because it's just not right". Then I'll develop some, of course, but that's my first instinct. I'm simple. ;)

And yeah, I'm probably influenced on this particular matter because I feel I might have a personal stake in it someday -- more than just not hurting the movie industry (which I still think is a valid point), I feel like maybe someday, I'll be making movies, and I wouldn't want to be ripped-off.

The other thing I'll admit to is this: I don't live off minimum wage. I can definitely understand how that can be a factor. I live in a family where we've never really had money problems, and yes, I've paid for my movie tickets since age 15 -- but I've also had summer jobs since my mid-teens, small paychecks here and there, and movies being my only main hobby, then I never really asked myself the question "is that movie worth ten hard earned bucks? Or do I really need the money to buy groceries?". One part of me feels that that isn't a factor, because, out of belief, I wouldn't download movies even if I couldn't afford them -- but that's easy to say when you're not in that situation, you know?

So yeah, that's probably been a factor in how I see this too. Although, I would have to say, most people I know who download movies don't do it because they need those ten bucks to pay rent -- they're middle class teenagers or young adults, and they do it because it's just frigging free, and easier, and sometimes just because it feels cool to do something illegal.

I guess, in my mind, I just don't count downloading as a fair option. For all those reasons, I guess. I hear about a movie, see the trailer and news and previews, and it goes in one of the following categories: "will see opening day", "will see at theater after a week or two", "will rent", "will check out on TV". And that's it. That's how I think of it.

Oh, and the final thing I have to state is this: movies in France (I think in a lot of Europe, but at least in France) aren't disturbed by commercials. I know it's a pain in the US to have a fun flick split by dozens of commercials, but here, if I watch a flick on cable, it's all the flick and nothing but the flick, from the fade in to the end of the credits roll. That's also why I've never thought of watching a movie on TV as a pain in the ass, or as a loss of quality, or whatever.

I guess that's as fair and complete an answer I can give...and I guess I can understand that you don't understand, seeing as I don't understand downloading movies either. I understand the logical points, the financial points, and so on -- but the principle barrier still kinda bugs me. Despte what Beeble says, and despite what lawbooks might say, I still feel like it's stealing. Maybe I'm brainwashed -- but that's what I feel in my gut, so that's what I believe in.

[TheDeadWalk]

"Opportunity Cost
An item we want costs money when we buy it, but there is another kind of cost too. When we choose the one item that we want the most, we also choose what we will not get. The loss of a chance to have something else that we want is called the opportunity cost by economists. For example, when we choose to buy a soccer ball with our limited money we lose the opportunity to use the money to get the beach towel we also want. Not getting the towel is the opportunity cost of getting the soccer ball. "

I like zombie movies, but didn't want to pay money for House of the Dead. I said that when I did watch it, I would watch it on someone else's dime, and I did. (A friend rented it.) If I didn't see it and loathe it that day, no big deal. If it was two clicks away, I might have indulged into it just to see if it was as bad as I thought it was, and then deleted it once I've seen enough.

But basically, the films that usually get downloaded are the ones that people would rather spend their money elsewhere than on this movie. Because there is no opportunity cost other than the time willing to be spent watching the POS, it is more appealing to want to download. If you don't download it, it's not as if some indulging urge is going to pound inside of you to pay for it somewhere.

On the internet, curiosity intent raises because it is free, no other reason. That freeness allows a gap in the opportunity cost for a download, because it has finally lowered itself to a bar that we are willing to meet.

Even still, as someone said earlier, the quality on these bootleg films are horrible. If you download a film and like it, you will be more likely to want to purchase it. I don't see anyone who would want to consistently watch a picture with wishy washy video quality with scratchy sound over and over again.

But again let me restate, there is no money lost to the film industry. The people that are downloading these films have decided that it is not worth the opportunity cost to take a trip to the theater, or to the rental store. If you suddenly took away the shitty bootleg films, there isn't going to be any massive influx of dollars to the film industry.

Curiosity level increases once the cost of the film is reduced to nothing.:) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[James Logan]

Yeah, I know opportunity cost, I had school papers on it. :) And I guess I "get" that, as much as I "get" someone agreeing to see some movies, but only if someone else pays for them. I never let anyone else pay for my ticket. I know it means I'm losing ten bucks I could save, but I wouldn't feel right watching a movie on someone else's dollar just because it saves me money.

The opportunity cost + ten bucks is the same thing to me. I get the logic that the movie doesn't appeal to you as much because you have to drive there and back, spend two hours there, wait in line to get a ticket, wait in line for popcorn, get stuck in traffic, AND pay ten bucks. But if you could get the movie for free, right here at home, and your computer's the only one doing the work, and you can go do something else during those four hours you otherwise would've lost, then...yeah, all of a sudden, you're more curious, because the offer appals to you more.

That, I get. But I guess in my mind, the opportunity cost just always enters the calculation, but not in those terms. If the movie seems worth seeing when it comes out, then it's worth giving away those four hours (and ten bucks) to. If the movie sounds interesting, but not interesting enough to go through ALL THAT, then it's TV for me. Why? Because, well, it's great quality, it's right here in my living room, and the guys who made the movie (be it producers, distributors, or whatever) got paid their honest share by the TV channel for the broadcasting rights.

And that feels like the honest alternative to me. Downloading doesn't. But I do believe that the movie industry still loses some money on it, even though it might be a very small amount now, being on movie theater tickets (high opportunity coast) or rentals (lower, considering there might be a Blockbuster just down the street) or TV (even lower -- but if no one went to see the movie in theaters or rented the movie or expressed any interest in it, then why would a TV network pay good money to broadcast it?).

TV's free, the electricity bill set aside. Quality's good. And yeah, you have to wait, and that could be considered as an opportunity cost, too, but I personally feel that that's compensated by the fact that it feels right. And that besides, if that movie's not worth losing four hours, then why would I feel in such a hurry to see it right away?

[Psychocandy]

I have downloaded movies. Do I think it's wrong? Yes. I'm not stupid. Of course it's wrong. Do I think it's harmful? No. Not in the least. I spend a lot of money on DVDs every month. As much as I could spend without going without food and clothing etc. So I don't feel especially guilty. As for the myth that copies are crap quality. Complete bullshit.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Psychocandy
I have downloaded movies. Do I think it's wrong? Yes. I'm not stupid. Of course it's wrong. Do I think it's harmful? No. Not in the least. I spend a lot of money on DVDs every month. As much as I could spend without going without food and clothing etc. So I don't feel especially guilty. As for the myth that copies are crap quality. Complete bullshit.

Many bootlegs are crap quality, but they aren't downloaded versions, either.

[Draccoca]

A little off Topic but..........

Cams = crap plain and simple, I've only seen 1 good one and that was spiderman 2

DVD Rip/scr - near perfect without 5.1

DVD-R - perfect quaity

just to clear it all up

[jeo4]

There is a bright side to this debate, one that I hope studios pay heed to. People already watch movies at home via pay-per-view, Netflix, etc. And downloading will never stop. More than likely, it will only become more popular. If studios think ahead, they can make mad cash off of this deal.

Many people are purchasing expensive home theater systems, high definition cable packages, Tivo boxes, and large screen TV's from which to view them. This trend is exploding, in fact. Many home computers are attached to the family television for access in the main living room. Computer manufacturers designed them for just this kind of use.

What could happen here is studios could set up pay sites and charge a nominal fee to see the films at home as opposed to making a trip to the theater.

Benefits for the comsumer:

No gas money spent
No obscene ticket prices...lower cost for viewing the film once at home
No traffic
No deadline for start times, just start the film when you're ready

Benefits to the studios:

Profits still made - instead of making nothing, they make some money off of home viewing. Since this is a new market, there could be a niche for putting films online for downloading. This could be a booming industry.

Cross-product marketing - not just in previews, but in DVD sales based on increased viewing online.


There are downsides:

Possible system errors/failure
Hackers can steal information online, destroy the site, etc.
Viruses/Worms

Viewer fraud - that's kind of a problem now, of course...but it could be less of a problem if people could see the film online anyway. How many people would cough up the cash to see a film with a room full of people where everyone donates a dollar to the movie instead of $6 to $8?

Equipment upgrade costs - This includes new hardware, software, and encryption of the material being offered. But ultimately, this would be the way to not only prevent hackers from stealing the product, but it would also give a lot of IT people jobs installing and maintaining the sites as well as fixing the bugs.

Would this be a valuable service in the future? Or would it just be more hassles?

[TheDeadWalk]

I never let anyone else pay for my ticket. I know it means I'm losing ten bucks I could save, but I wouldn't feel right watching a movie on someone else's dollar just because it saves me money.

I find this strikingly odd. You would never let anyone else pay for your ticket? To me this is the same as someone else picking up your dinner bill, cab fare, or buying you a beer at the bar. If everyone had that mentality, most men in America would have to re-think their dating strategies with women.

I have never forced anyone to pay for my film, I merely said a friend rented the film, we were at his place, and he wanted to watch it. I would have found it odd if someone else in the room would have stood up and said "Eric, I don't want to see this film, but if I ever do see it, it will be with my money going across the register for it. Good day, sir."

If the movie sounds interesting, but not interesting enough to go through ALL THAT, then it's TV for me.

For reasons that you stated, I don't watch films on TV. The quality is not great. Foul language is edited or voiced-over, there are multiple commercials throughout, and excessive gore/violence/nudity is taken out, and often a film is cut due to time constraints. I couldn't imagine watching Goodfellas on TV. It would be horrible.

Also, there is an opportunity cost for watching the film on TV. I either have to schedule around my day to make sure I turn it on TBS at 8pm to watch the film, or I am giving up another television show/movie that I would regularly watch. If I had to choose between House of the Dead and Monday Night Football, I'll be watching MNF.

When the film comes on the computer, I can catch the first five minutes and say "Holy shit this is bad!" and then keep watching, or with one mouse click float to the middle, or climax of the movie. Hell I can even close it out once I've had enough. Or I can be enjoyed, and go give it another go around at the theater, or wait until it comes out on DVD and give it a good honest rent or buy.

I don't see how you studios lose by downloading, because if their films were any good, they would be bought in tickets or DVD sales. People would want to make the effort to get Gigli or House of the Dead if they were good enough, and the sales would show that.

TV's free, the electricity bill set aside.

My standard cable bill is $40.04 per month with no extras. It's no big deal, I just wanted to lay that out there.

but if no one went to see the movie in theaters or rented the movie or expressed any interest in it, then why would a TV network pay good money to broadcast it?

Why would a TV network pay good money to broadcast a show like "Nanny 911"? Why would they ever think that a sitcom starring Emmeril the chef would be funny? Why would they give Fran Drescher her own TV sitcom? These are questions that may never be answered.

And that besides, if that movie's not worth losing four hours, then why would I feel in such a hurry to see it right away?

As stated before... when it's in front of you... why not click on it?

It all comes down to your personal opinion of morals and how strict you should be on your morals. For me, I don't care. I care passionately about a lot of things, and hold myself to a strict moral code on many more things, but this is one of those issues that I don't give a shit about being fair on. I don't get butterflies in my stomach when I feel I may have ripped a movie studio off, and I don't care when I see the anti-pirate commercials before a film starts.

Of all things in the world that America exports, the film industry is number one. Because a few college/high school level kids are downloading White Noise right now doesn't break my heart. People stealing orphans of the tsunami disaster and auctioning them on the black market does.

I'm not trying to ridicule anyone for their beliefs, I just don't feel as if the moral code that schmoe A has should be the moral code held for schmoes B thru Z.



Jeo -

If you could buy and download movies onto your television set and save them on your TiVo box or what not, that would be great. But I know that I personally don't like to make a habit of watching films on the computer.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I find this strikingly odd. You would never let anyone else pay for your ticket? To me this is the same as someone else picking up your dinner bill, cab fare, or buying you a beer at the bar. If everyone had that mentality, most men in America would have to re-think their dating strategies with women.


Well, I know it's odd, and I know most people are like this. I'm glad they are, because that's how I pick up women, too -- paying for the dinner, the movie, and what have you. :) But I just personally don't let people put anything for me "on them". I pay for my beers, my movie tickets, my cab fare. If I'm sharing a cab with someone, we split the fare two ways. I don't have birthday parties either, because I don't like the idea of people spending money on stuff for me, while getting nothing back for it. Call it my disease, that's just how I was raised -- I like to get everything on my own dollar. :)

I've watched movies at a friend's, when he's rented the movie, yeah. But I either left him some money while going away to make up for the rental, or paid for the pizza, or paid for the drinks, so we'd break even. That's just how I feel about this kind of thing.



For reasons that you stated, I don't watch films on TV. The quality is not great. Foul language is edited or voiced-over, there are multiple commercials throughout, and excessive gore/violence/nudity is taken out, and often a film is cut due to time constraints. I couldn't imagine watching Goodfellas on TV. It would be horrible.


That's a bummer. Like I said, I understand it completely -- I'm fortunate enough to get French TV. Great quality, no commercial breaks, no cuts, full theatrical versions, foul language, nudity, gore, and violence to pets and children included. This is one aspect of life where I hope America will follow the European example in the future and not the other way around -- because watching a movie here is like watching it on a DVD, pretty much.



Also, there is an opportunity cost for watching the film on TV. I either have to schedule around my day to make sure I turn it on TBS at 8pm to watch the film, or I am giving up another television show/movie that I would regularly watch. If I had to choose between House of the Dead and Monday Night Football, I'll be watching MNF.


What about recording a flick? What about that supposedly revolutionary TiVo thing, which I know nothing about because we don't have it here? What about those hard disk DVD recorders they have out now? They eliminate the opportunity costs. Sure, they cost some bucks, and I'm not saying everyone can afford them, but for movie buffs, after putting a hundred movies on there and checking them out at will, it's worth it. Again, this is excluding the whole TV disadvantages, which are a real pain in the ass -- I can believe that.



Why would a TV network pay good money to broadcast a show like "Nanny 911"? Why would they ever think that a sitcom starring Emmeril the chef would be funny? Why would they give Fran Drescher her own TV sitcom? These are questions that may never be answered.


Well, my answer is people watch them. :) I hear the average American (the specifics of the group -- ages, owns cable or not, and so on -- I don't remember) watches over ten to thirteen hours of TV shows and soap operas a week. That's a lot of TV -- who knows what kind of crap some people watch?


Of all things in the world that America exports, the film industry is number one. Because a few college/high school level kids are downloading White Noise right now doesn't break my heart. People stealing orphans of the tsunami disaster and auctioning them on the black market does.
[/B]

Well, that's pears and apples, there. :) One thing being more wrong than another, to me, doesn't make the other thing right.
What I'm worried about is later on. Like you said it yourself, "when it's in front of you...why not click on it?". No one's answered my question yet. What happens when everyone gets fast speed Internet? What happens when everyone clicks on it when it's in front of them? Maybe it's just a few college or high school kids right now, but maybe that's just how it starts out, too. Jeo's prediction of studios institutionalizing the whole thing isn't probably too far off (after all, it's happening for music), but I don't like that idea much either. I'll probably be one of the last people in the world taking the subway for two hours to get to the movie theater. ;) I just love that fucking big silver screen.


It all comes down to your personal opinion of morals and how strict you should be on your morals.
[/B]

Well, I guess that's the trick in our little debate. :) I'm like you (and I hope people did notice it, because if I come off as lecturing, please, slap me out of it), I don't want to ridicule anyone's beliefs either -- in my opinion, any belief (the obvious exceptions not included) is worth listening to and not judging, because it's not right or wrong, just different. My gut feeling is that downloading is wrong, sure, but I could be wrong.

I guess the trick with this debate, like I said, is that. No one's convincing anyone here, we're just making the usual points for our own side. But hey, at least we understand each other better, I guess, which isn't all that bad. :)

[James Logan]

Originally posted by Psychocandy
I have downloaded movies. Do I think it's wrong? Yes. I'm not stupid. Of course it's wrong.

So, what, it's like humping the bridesmaid the night before your wedding? It's wrong, but it feels so right?

Because that's a comparison I can get. ;)

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by James Logan
So, what, it's like humping the bridesmaid the night before your wedding? It's wrong, but it feels so right?

Because that's a comparison I can get. ;)

I would compare it more to free porn.

I might get off, I might not... but either way I'm not going to be hunting down Kobe Tai in L.A. just to shove 20 bucks down her G-String.

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by Badbird
Um, being that I work in a movie theater - make that run the theater, you better believe that shit pisses me off. And it pisses off any other self respecting theater manager.

Sneaking into movies. Downloading movies. Buying a cammed bootleg out of a guy's trunk - whatever. I think it's the "something for nothing" attitude that pisses me off more than the actual copyright violation. This shit is a fucking luxury, you aren't entitled to any of it just because you want it. I want a supercharged firebird, that doesn't mean it's my god given right to have one.

And quit your bitching about ticket prices. First of all A) The price of tickets go up just as everything else goes up along with minimum wage. It's called inflation. Yeah, tickets were $2.75 in 1991. How much did you make an hour?

And B) You probably waste far more on junk food, internet connections, and cable TV in a month than you would going to a theater.

People worked hard to make these things. Other people work hard in theaters and stores selling you this shit, and you want it for free? Without consequence? Tell you what. How about you mow all the lawns in my neighborhood without any of us giving you a dime. While you at it, wash my car. Oh, but don't bother to expect me to so much as give you the time of day or give a shit that you mowed the yard perfectly.

Real music fans don't download 5000 mp3s, they buy CDs. Imports even. Real movie fans don't watch downloaded bootlegs on their computers. They go to theaters and they show up at Wal Mart at midnight on Monday to get Tuesday's new releases.

Oh get off your high horse buddy. Don't give me that "real fan" shit. So hollywood is making 150 million instead 152 million, BIG FUCKING DEAL.

Really, hollywood is the greediest town in the world, and if I ever make films, you know what, I dont give a shit if people bootlleg them. I can go back and be a biologist, but hollywood's pussy whining gets annoying.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I would compare it more to free porn.

I might get off, I might not... but either way I'm not going to be hunting down Kobe Tai in L.A. just to shove 20 bucks down her G-String.

I would. And I'd feel her up while I'm at it. ;)

And (this to Briare Rabbit's post), yeah, maybe the "real fan" analogy is pushed. True. And I'm not answering in Badbird's place here, but I also like his...

Tell you what. How about you mow all the lawns in my neighborhood without any of us giving you a dime. While you at it, wash my car. Oh, but don't bother to expect me to so much as give you the time of day or give a shit that you mowed the yard perfectly.

...analogy. Sure, I understand, yeah, the Weinsteins make a lot of money, Jeffrey Katzenberg makes a lot of money, Steven Spielberg makes a lot of money, John Travolta owns a Jumbo jet, so sure, it's tough to feel bad for those guys when they make a couple millions less on bootlegging. So what, they'll live. I hear you. But what about the other people who actually work hard at this flick and want it to succeed? The screenwriter, the director if it's a low or medium budget film, the actor who's trying to make his break and needs to be considered bankable, even the dedicated gaffers or grip boys who worked eighteen hour days and would like this movie to be successful, as a well-deserved reward, they feel. They're not paid millions. Some of them even make minimum wage. And sure, they'll get another job, because gaffers and grips don't get judged based on the money their movies make, but can you honestly, in your heart, tell me it is fair for you to download these movies for free after so many people spent so much time and so much effort trying to bring them to their end, trying to make them as good as they could be for you to see? Because if you tell me you feel it's fair, then I probably even shouldn't be here, because we just won't get each other.

It's the "something for nothing" thing, like Badbird called it. And like everyone said -- it's about the principle. If you don't mind getting something for nothing, even if that something took a lot of time and effort from other people, then let's just say our principles are different and call it a day, because we're never even gonna come close to agree or to changing each other's minds.

Because that's what it is: the principle thing. There's so many other options you could go to than the bootlegging or downloading and in which the people who made the movie get their pay. But bootlegging and downloading is practical because it's free and easy. And that's where people make their decision: if they have a principle that keeps them from picking it up, despite it being free and easy, because it's wrong; then they won't download. If they don't think it's wrong, or if they don't have a principle that says that should stop them, they'll download. (And let me also say that I'm not saying anyone here has no principles, or that I'm saying some principles are higher and mightier than others -- I'm saying people have DIFFERENT principles, no other consideration attached).

And sure the Hollywood whining is annoying. But does it make it right to steal from them? You know, there was a kid back in my high school, kid from a real rich family, had fifteen Snicker bars every day in his bag. And kept whining that people didn't like him. But tell me, does that make it right for me to steal a Snicker from him? After all, he's got the fourteen others. And he's really annoying. Big deal, right?

And yeah, I know, movie tickets are expensive. But that's the lamest excuse for bootlegging and downloading I've ever heard. Like Badbird pointed out, a fair share of the rise in prices of movie tickets is linked to inflation -- even though, yeah, they probably are a little more expensive now than they ever were, even inflation adjusted. But there're other ways to fight that than to bootleg and download -- who tells you that, in answer to that, studios won't make the Internet a share of their market, and put their expensive prices on there? Who tells you the distributors won't RAISE their prices, so they can keep the same profit despite having less paying customers? Send petitions. Send envelopes full of cow dung to the Weinstein's office, four a day for three weeks. Get a hundred friends and protest in front of the Miramax office.

There's a thousand different ways to try and make things change without screwing the wrong (well, the right, but also the wrong -- what's the crew done to deserve their movie to bomb?) people, who deserve their payday. Some people say they download because going to the movie theater is to expensive. Bullshit. It's a fair point, but it's not true. You download because it's free and easy and because it saves you the trouble of going down to the movie theater and back, and in the same time, it saves you ten bucks you can put in the kitty can for the next trip to Pamela's, the russian hooker (not being judgmental, I have a kitty can just like that).

And saying you download to get back to the whiny, greedy, filthy-rich Hollywood bastards? C'mon. Puh-leeze. You're just giving them an excuse to get more greedy and more filthy-rich, while cracking down on your ass, when truly, in your heart, you're just someone who likes seeing five movies a week and should be their favorite customer. Downloaders, like it or not, give the people they hate and despise an excuse to do whatever they're doing that's not fair.

[Underground]

first off blaming downloaders is misplaced

Think about who's stealing or bootleging these films. The grips, the movie theater employees, and the editors of these films are the ones. Before P2P or torrents, i saw plenty of bootleg films. Most of the time they were just passed around from people that get academy prints or editors sneeking out unfinished copies. But just like what was said before the copies were hard to watch cause of the quality.

Now the electronic age come ahead and we have contact via the internet, so the problem has always been there just with recent technolgy it's easier to copy/share them.

So the industry wants to get rid of it? It's easy... start paying your employees enough not to steal.

And I sympathize with the film makers. Some are in the situation of making good low budget films and still want to make a few bucks off it. I also wonder if people go to video stores to rent anymore. No one even talked about how the video stores are effected by this.

[someguy]

Originally posted by James Logan
Tell you what. How about you mow all the lawns in my neighborhood and you make 45 dollars instead of 50. While you at it, wash my car. Oh, but don't bother to expect me to so much as give you the time of day or give a shit that you mowed the yard perfectly.

Quote fixed for truth

[ChemicalRomance]

I didn't realize it's wrong to pay $9 dollars for a movie then wait through almost 20-30 minutes of previews, then have the possibilty of the movie being shitty and a waste of money. I would type more but I'm lying in bed and it's hard to type.

[The Heart Collector]

Does anyone here buy clothes NOT made in sweatshops in the middle of Asia by children who are mistreated? I mean, since evidently not downloading movies is the clear sign that one is Mr. Principles, I was wondering if you guys have similar principles with regards to the blood, sweat and tears of the children that made your GAP jeans.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by James Logan
But what about the other people who actually work hard at this flick and want it to succeed? The screenwriter, the director if it's a low or medium budget film, the actor who's trying to make his break and needs to be considered bankable, even the dedicated gaffers or grip boys who worked eighteen hour days and would like this movie to be successful, as a well-deserved reward, they feel. They're not paid millions. Some of them even make minimum wage. And sure, they'll get another job, because gaffers and grips don't get judged based on the money their movies make, but can you honestly, in your heart, tell me it is fair for you to download these movies for free after so many people spent so much time and so much effort trying to bring them to their end, trying to make them as good as they could be for you to see? Because if you tell me you feel it's fair, then I probably even shouldn't be here, because we just won't get each other.

Oh, jesus. What the fuck do I care? It's their job! They get paid upfront for working on the fucking movie. They get paid for writing their script.

James, have you ever felt bad about not going to a party because of all the hard effort that the caterers and waitresses and the band and the DJ must be doing?

NO! Because it's their fucking job!



If this sanctimonious "think of the gaffer" shit were true, I wouldn't even be able to walk the floors of an office building because I'd stain the floor that the poor worker who's making an effort to clean it and shine it and have it be up to a standard of quality is doing.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by James Logan
(I also find it funny that that quote has been there for days, and you didn't notice it while you were taking on everyone else, but now that it might be suddenly of some use, it becomes interesting to you. Curious, curious, curious.)

What's curious about it? It doesn't matter that to me that you want to smack people who disagree with you, as long as you don't then turn around and criticize ME for snapping at someone. Like this whole ridiculous moral crusade, it means either that you're blind to your own transgressions while lecturing everyone else, or worse, that you're applying a different standard to yourself than you apply to everyone else.

Maybe you'll admit that you didn't always make your points in the friendliest of ways

I do admit it. But at the same time, I don't take kindly to someone who just told everyone how he wants to smack them getting on me about being rude to others.

See where I'm coming from?

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Does anyone here buy clothes NOT made in sweatshops in the middle of Asia by children who are mistreated? I mean, since evidently not downloading movies is the clear sign that one is Mr. Principles, I was wondering if you guys have similar principles with regards to the blood, sweat and tears of the children that made your GAP jeans. [/B]

And which of these lecturing moral crusaders breaks the speed-limit every day? Maybe that's no big deal to you, but it is to someone. That's why there's a law.

The problem here isn't that downloading is right or wrong. The problem is that the moral crusaders are blowing way out of proportion both the effects of downloading and the moral transgression of copyright infringement.

Downloading, for better or worse, is NOT taking food out of the mouths of grips, screenwriters, gaffers, et al. There is no definitive link between downloading and lost revenue. Grips and gaffers are MUCH more affected by "runaway" productions than they are anything else. And if the studios actually gave a shit about grips making money, then wouldn't fly off to Vancouver or Sydney just to save a few bucks by hiring cheaper labor.

And it's NOT the same as stealing a car, a candy bar, etc. There is a CLEAR and definite legal difference between me taking your car from you, and me making an exact duplicate of your car with your permission and driving off with the copy.

It's that kind of hypocrisy that truly undermines Hollywood's efforts to stop downloading. There are ways to convince people, but lying and hypocrisy is no way to do it.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox

I do admit it.

Good. Now relax, I think there's a vein on your forehead that's about to pop. ;)

And yeah, I know Hollywood is hypocritical, said it before. But now, apparently...THINKING that downloading is the same kind of stealing as stealing anything else material is "hypocrisy", too (quoting you, Beeble), and even, if I want to agressively interpret your words..."lying"?

Uh-huh. So, as I actually believe that it IS the same kind of stealing, then I'm a hypocrit. And, if I want to be sensitive about everything, a liar. My, oh my.

And apparently, according to someone else, it's not bad to take money away from the people who made the movie, because, hey, it's "THEIR JOB!" to make the movie, and so it's logical to rip them off. Oooooh. Now I...still don't get it.

Let me just say this: we all have our opinions, and hey, they're all respectable. But I'm outta here. :) Everyone made their points, and like I've been saying for a few days now, this conversation isn't going anywhere -- except delirious (which always happens when we all realize we're not convincing anyone but still need to have the last word...which I'd like to, of course, but at least I know I don't). So I'll do the smart thing and just call this a conversation, because I'd be surprised if it brings anything else to anyone from here on.

See y'all around. ;)

[Lord Nikon]

You are all blowing this whole conversation out of proportion. This argument can be boiled down to a short paragraph...and it would look something like this....

Is downloading movies wrong? Of course it's wrong. Someone made a movie, and you are seeing it without properly compensating them for it. But do we all do things that are wrong every day? Of course we do. Who here hasn’t speeded, or J-Walked, or parked in a 15 minute parking spot and spent 20 minutes in a store? Everyone has done something like that! So while it is wrong it doesn't mean legal action must be taken with swift force. I consider speeding a much grander offense than someone stealing a movie. After all, who can I kill by downloading a movie? No one. But speeding can cause bodily harm to many people. So in the end is it wrong to download movies/music? Clearly it is. But something being wrong won't stop the masses, because I know for sure I don't want to spend 15.99 on a CD for 1 good song, or spend 12 bucks or so to see the crap Hollywood is putting out, and then making 10 DVD's of one movie anyway.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by James Logan
And apparently, according to someone else, it's not bad to take money away from the people who made the movie, because, hey, it's "THEIR JOB!" to make the movie, and so it's logical to rip them off. Oooooh. Now I...still don't get it.

Of course you don't get it. I'm not arguing that it's not wrong. I'm arguing against the fact that people like you try to turn this into some sort of "drama about the common american man" who's being unfairly treated by those evil villains who steal movies after he's worked his ass off as a grip. That kind of shameless and absurd manipulation does nothing to help your case, and is in fact completely wrong from a realistic standpoint, since these people are paid beforehand. They are paid for writing a script, or for allowing themselves to be filmed, or for constructing a bunch of sets. They are not paid for the end product's results.

[jaw2929]

Wow Heart Collector, you really have a good point... I've gotta say while I can see James' argument as valid to a certain extent, I also gotta say I agree moreso with you and some of the others about downloading... I see nothing wrong with it at all....

[AceD]

"Of course you don't get it. I'm not arguing that it's not wrong. I'm arguing against the fact that people like you try to turn this into some sort of "drama about the common american man" who's being unfairly treated by those evil villains who steal movies after he's worked his ass off as a grip. That kind of shameless and absurd manipulation does nothing to help your case, and is in fact completely wrong from a realistic standpoint, since these people are paid beforehand. They are paid for writing a script, or for allowing themselves to be filmed, or for constructing a bunch of sets. They are not paid for the end product's results.'

True enough. However, there are some people who work in film who's primary money source is from revenue from box office, rentals, etc. Not that they don't make a ton already, but that's where you can make an argument that people who dl movies are stealing from.

[someguy]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Of course you don't get it. I'm not arguing that it's not wrong. I'm arguing against the fact that people like you try to turn this into some sort of "drama about the common american man" who's being unfairly treated by those evil villains who steal movies after he's worked his ass off as a grip. That kind of shameless and absurd manipulation does nothing to help your case, and is in fact completely wrong from a realistic standpoint, since these people are paid beforehand. They are paid for writing a script, or for allowing themselves to be filmed, or for constructing a bunch of sets. They are not paid for the end product's results.

It's the fact that if a movie doesn't make enough money the next time that grip works his/her pay will be less.


...............But that's bullshit since they're in a union

[boombche_stum]

I don't download movies myself (it only costs 6 bucks to see a movie here... Ha! Eat it suckers!), but I don't see anything particularly wrong with it either. The first thing that always comes up is that downloading a movie is stealing. Well, not really. In a sense, it would be considered stealing if you were to download the movie, burn a couple thousand copies and sell them for two bucks a pop without giving any compensation to the studio. You'd be making a profit on someone elses work without having the proper consent to do so. However, most downloaders simply watch movies from the comfort of their own homes for enjoyment purposes.

Now, one could argue thats still stealing but not in my mind. I think the real problem is how Hollywood handles these situations. Rather than capitalizing on downloading, they attack it and attack those who do it, which in turn, alienates fans. What they need to do is crack deals with these downloading companies to get movies shown on their sites for a low fee of some kind.( I know it would also help if they lowered ticket prices in some areas as well.). Either way, in doing that Hollywood would gain more credibilty and trust with it's fans again but I doubt Hollywood will ever do that because they are in fact greedy.

[GingerNjack]

I don't konw -- after pondering this issue for the past few months I just don't think it's a good idea, and I don't think anyone is a true entertainment fan if they do it.

and hey, even the creator of BitTorrent software Bram Cohen doesn't download illegally according to this article from Time mag (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1025138,00.html?promoid=rss_business )


Cohen, who lives outside Seattle, supports his wife and two kids with donations from BitTorrent users and says he would be the last person to download content illegally. "People want to make an example of me," he says. Sure, he has a DESTROY CAPITALISM sticker on his PC. But he still gets his movies the old-fashioned way: with a mail-order subscription to NetFlix.

[Solid Snake]

In some cases the only way of seeing certain movies is to download it, theres no other way of getting some rare OOP films.

The industry needs to wake up and realise people are pissed at how much theyre ripping us off. Making crap like Catwoman loses them more money and causes more pain then internet piracy.

They should set up there own file sharing system to get more movies to more peoples computers at cheaper prices.

Also how much money do you think hollywood has made by conning people to see some of their crap fests. Alien vs Predator is a good example, its the top selling dvd at the moment and its crap, people are buying it because of the title.

I say download the crap and have a go at hollywood and teach them a lesson.

But obviously if you like a film buy the DVD even at the ridiculous prices.

[GingerNjack]

Originally posted by Solid Snake
In some cases the only way of seeing certain movies is to download it, theres no other way of getting some rare OOP films.

The industry needs to wake up and realise people are pissed at how much theyre ripping us off. Making crap like Catwoman loses them more money and causes more pain then internet piracy.

They should set up there own file sharing system to get more movies to more peoples computers at cheaper prices.

Also how much money do you think hollywood has made by conning people to see some of their crap fests. Alien vs Predator is a good example, its the top selling dvd at the moment and its crap, people are buying it because of the title.

I say download the crap and have a go at hollywood and teach them a lesson.

But obviously if you like a film buy the DVD even at the ridiculous prices.


I don't know -- the thing is is that not everyone thinks the films you mentioned, let's say, are crap. I'm sure you could find plenty of folks who liked Catwoman and Alien v Predator. Plus, it's a biz. If you were in biz and put out a couple of bad products -- say..books -- would you be like..yeah, they weren't the best so it's okay if people steal them. Plus that act of stealing would inflate the prices of the next books you put out, right?

Just the way I see it. (And yes, I am a Halle Berry fan...
:cool: )

[JazzcatCB]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I really doubt that the issue is that black and white here.

"It's Saturday."

"I have two options. I can go to the movies to see that movie I wanted to watch, or I could sit here on my ass and download it."

"I think I'll sit here on my ass and download!"


Using your own logic, let's analyze this post.

First, the guy in question *wants* to watch a particular movie.

Second, he has two alternatives: either 1) go to the theater and watch it, or 2) download it.

If option 2 didn't exist, then it's likely that this guy would go watch the movie at the theater (we did establish that he *wanted* to see this movie, right?) So by your own logic, downloading the movie costs the theater and the movie producer lost revenue.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by JazzcatCB
Using your own logic, let's analyze this post.

First, the guy in question *wants* to watch a particular movie.

Second, he has two alternatives: either 1) go to the theater and watch it, or 2) download it.

If option 2 didn't exist, then it's likely that this guy would go watch the movie at the theater (we did establish that he *wanted* to see this movie, right?) So by your own logic, downloading the movie costs the theater and the movie producer lost revenue.

Also, given the context here, I was being sarcastic. I was intentionally feeding a ridiculous black and white issue that it seems anti-downloaders are only able to see.

I would like to believe that anyone sitting by themselves on a Friday or Saturday WANTING to watch a movie would not sit on their ass and download it.

However, if you take away the sarcasm from my post, and place it with seriousness... I still don't think I would care if it costed the theater and producer another six dollars. I tend to look out for myself, and where I can rip other people off in an underhanded fashion without getting caught or being at a high-risk, I will do it.

If I have a friend who works at McDonald's and is willing to give me free food or a heavy discount, I take it. I just don't care. I don't care about your business or the producer, or the entrepreneur. I care about myself alone, and how I can save a few bucks. The only reason I don't commit felonies in life like bank robbery is because I care more about my health, life, the fact that I don't want to spend life in prison and I also don't know how you could spend serial coded bills.

Having said that, I don't traditionally download movies. Shitty quality, and I don't have the resources/knowledge to burn DivX or .AVI files onto a DVD+R. But once someone I know gets a bootlegged copy of some software that does that, I'll have it, and then I'll consider downloading if the quality increases.

[coconut84]

I personally think it's Ok even thoug I don't do it. I simply feel that the the quality is not good enough with downloaded stuff. I'm more of a collector and can't stand pirate dvd:s on my shelf.
The positive side of the downloades stuff is, of course, the chance to see very rare pieces. I wouldn't have seen 'Within the woods' if my friend hadn't downloaded it. And I am happy she did.

[someguy]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Having said that, I don't traditionally download movies. Shitty quality, and I don't have the resources/knowledge to burn DivX or .AVI files onto a DVD+R. But once someone I know gets a bootlegged copy of some software that does that, I'll have it, and then I'll consider downloading if the quality increases.

There's a 50 dollar DVD player out there that plays AVI and DivX, all you need to do is just burn it on a Data CD

That company is making big bucks off of it, it was a brilliant idea.

And while your whole post is very selfish, it's true.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by someguy
There's a 50 dollar DVD player out there that plays AVI and DivX, all you need to do is just burn it on a Data CD

That company is making big bucks off of it, it was a brilliant idea.

And while your whole post is very selfish, it's true.

Yeah, and that 50 dollars is the only reason why I don't currently own it. :D

Yeah it was a little radically selfish, but I think it served the point. I'm not cleptomaniacal or anything, I actually care about my local community, other individuals, and that sort of thing. If I found your wallet, I would definately return it, but let's just say that if you gave me back an extra $20 at the grocery store for change, I would just nod and smile.

[The Postmaster General]

The thing that get's me about downloading isn't so much the moral issue, it's just mostly the taste issue.

It seems like people download really shitty movies that they wouldn't "pay to see anyways" If you are watching From Justin To Kelly because of downloading, then maybe downloading is a bit lame.

I could give a rat's ass less, but people think they are invincible, and I'm not so sure. My concern wouldn't even be getting caught, it's getting caught and having court papers with my name on the same page as "From Justin To Kelly"

I've done it, yeah , but I don't defend it by any means. It's always seemed a bit weak, to me, when people act like they have to justify their theft of copyrighted material. I always feel kind of like, "Shhh. Be quiet, man. You just told everyone you watched From Justin To Kelly."

No shame, man.

[TheDeadWalk]

Eh, I wouldn't download something like From Justin To Kelly, sure it's in my something I wouldn't pay money to see category, but it's also in my "Refuse to see" category, at all costs.

Something like the upcoming Fantastic Four movie, I would not pay money to see. I will not rent. I don't refuse to see a movie like this, I just have no excitment to open up my wallet for this film. So a download or bootleg would probably be the only chance I'd ever watch that film. But even then, my chances of doing that are about 5%. Daredevil is the same way, I have STILL not seen that movie, and the only chance that I will, is if I borrow it from a friend who has it on DVD+R. Don't really care if I do, or don't.

Completely different category than From Justin To Kelly, or the latest Olsen Twins movie.

That's like me saying I only take free food from places I would never eat at, and then you retorting with "You mean you actually go into public restrooms and eat shit out of the toilet?"

[Misanthrope]

Originally posted by someguy
There's a 50 dollar DVD player out there that plays AVI and DivX, all you need to do is just burn it on a Data CD

That company is making big bucks off of it, it was a brilliant idea.

And while your whole post is very selfish, it's true.

You ever wondered why the MPAA does not goes after the manufacturers of this kinds of players ?( there's more than 1 by the way, some made by big name companies ). Sure people has legitimate reasons to use other digital video formats but they are also many legitimate reasons to use p2p software and the MPAA does persecutes said software pieces, when in fact DivX and Xvid and other mpeg-4 players have been around for quite some time now and its evident that a good portion of DivX material is copyrighted material, probably the same portion of legitimate vs illegitimate files one can download.

If the MPAA would go for pushing for a secure DivX and Xvid and other mpeg-4 formats among others so that they were better protected against illegal use they would really slow down movie piracy alot more than with their futile atempts to stop p2p software.

That just makes me thing that the MPAA does not really wants to stop it all togheter, they just want to scare regular users into not doing it. The MPAA knows that a certain ammount of piracy actually helps their bussiness ( following the "there is no bad publicity" rule ) and they only want to stop things from completly getting out of control. Thats why they play the morality card more often instead of attacking the issue from a technical point of view.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by Misanthrope
You ever wondered why the MPAA does not goes after the manufacturers of this kinds of players ?( there's more than 1 by the way, some made by big name companies ). Sure people has legitimate reasons to use other digital video formats but they are also many legitimate reasons to use p2p software and the MPAA does persecutes said software pieces, when in fact DivX and Xvid and other mpeg-4 players have been around for quite some time now and its evident that a good portion of DivX material is copyrighted material, probably the same portion of legitimate vs illegitimate files one can download.

If the MPAA would go for pushing for a secure DivX and Xvid and other mpeg-4 formats among others so that they were better protected against illegal use they would really slow down movie piracy alot more than with their futile atempts to stop p2p software.

That just makes me thing that the MPAA does not really wants to stop it all togheter, they just want to scare regular users into not doing it. The MPAA knows that a certain ammount of piracy actually helps their bussiness ( following the "there is no bad publicity" rule ) and they only want to stop things from completly getting out of control. Thats why they play the morality card more often instead of attacking the issue from a technical point of view.

Bingo. I believe this to be true also. There is real wisdom to these words.

[Mr. HokeyPokey]

Because Divx, vcds, xvid are all used for personal use to. Whether you make a graphic animation online to big to send, or for saving on yoru computer you can make it a divx. home movies become VCDs.

The MPAA cannot stop all of it because a SMALL percentage of people are downloading movies in high numbers.

[Misanthrope]

Originally posted by Mr. HokeyPokey
Because Divx, vcds, xvid are all used for personal use to. Whether you make a graphic animation online to big to send, or for saving on yoru computer you can make it a divx. home movies become VCDs.

The MPAA cannot stop all of it because a SMALL percentage of people are downloading movies in high numbers.

Small percentage? Download emule or check bit torrent and then tell me that is small percentage. I believe it came to a point when bit torrent protocol represented a very significant portion of the internet ( no 1 or 2% it was like 20% or more if i recall ). Thats more than a "small" percentage.

And the same thing can be said about p2p application: people sharing diverse shareware and freeware programs, game demos, personal files people create like short film, garage bands, public domain things like movie trailers etc. Hence: Fair use, which is exactly why its perfectly legal to create a p2p or filesharing application, but the MPAA and RIAA and others are actually trying to change that.

To what propose? Ill tell you: bit torrent system just made it too easy for people to download things: They log to a page, click on an archive, and it downloads at premium speeds, there is no central server or company to go after, so they go after the protocol itself which makes absolutely no sense, and they go against a few isolated uses to scare the majority of people away.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Eh, I wouldn't download something like From Justin To Kelly, sure it's in my something I wouldn't pay money to see category, but it's also in my "Refuse to see" category, at all costs.

Something like the upcoming Fantastic Four movie, I would not pay money to see. I will not rent. I don't refuse to see a movie like this, I just have no excitment to open up my wallet for this film. So a download or bootleg would probably be the only chance I'd ever watch that film. But even then, my chances of doing that are about 5%. Daredevil is the same way, I have STILL not seen that movie, and the only chance that I will, is if I borrow it from a friend who has it on DVD+R. Don't really care if I do, or don't.

Completely different category than From Justin To Kelly, or the latest Olsen Twins movie.

That's like me saying I only take free food from places I would never eat at, and then you retorting with "You mean you actually go into public restrooms and eat shit out of the toilet?"


I think a better analogy would be that it's like me asking why the chicken crossed the road, then you having no idea how the hell does that pertains to you. Then me winking at you as if to say, "Relax."

;)

[Misanthrope]

According to Yahoo News India, BitTorrent traffic has grown to take up a whopping 35% of Internet bandwidth, which is more than all other peer-to-peer programs combined, and makes "mainstream" traffic like web pages seem like almost nothing (Pasick, 2004). So, while the Induce Act doesn't specifically target BitTorrent, it would surely be one of the more prominently affected technologies.

Source

http://threadbox.net/index.php/archives/2004/11/14/why-bittorrent-is-here-to-stay/

Acording to the following link there are aprox 888,681,131 internet users around the world

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Lets say your average bit torrent user uses more bandwidth than your average user, asuming 5 times more each bittorrent user counts as five for the proposes of calculating bandwidth. That is still 53,320,867 users of bit torrent most of which are using divx and xvid files.

So how comes the mpaa does not attack mpeg4 based video formats, given it is an EXTREMELY viable way to hinder piracy since its way easier to code another filesharing protocol than another equally effective compression technology.

[The Postmaster General]

BIttorrent isn't all movie files -- a large portion of the users are seeking music and applications. They can't hinder the compression because of that law they made back in the early 80s. Besides, they know that someone will come up with another compression tool.

The MPAA is targeting bittorrent pretty effectively. I got a letter from my service provider saying that I was in violation of the MPAA Digital millinium act. It listed which files I was illegally sharing, the time - everything. Then my ISp threatened to boot me if there were further complaints. It even said on the letter that they knew it was a bittorrent file. You will also notice how many torrent sites go down, and pretty much all of them talk about their woes on the main page - constantly having to shut down then back up again.

There are more than a few bulletin boards on the net dicussing others who have gotten letters. I posted it before, but more of the people here treat it like some kind of "double dare" situation where the consequences don't really matter, because if they've gotten away with it for this long, why not longer?

Doesn't matter to me either way, but most of what is discussed about downloading, specifically on this site, is short-sighted in details and in most people's understanding about how the laws and how the tracking of downloading works. I've made attempts to explain how everything works before but have generally been responded to like I'm Chicken Little or am just talking out of my ass. Whether or not people get busted is secondary to me, but a majority of the people here don't want to be told what they are targeting and who is at risk of getting "busted", in my experience, so I just watch everyone give false information and talk about how they know all about what they are doing.

There are ways around all of this still , and the people who actually take the time to listen about how all this works (instead of defending why they aren't scared of getting caught) will actually learn and figure out what to do in order to keep stealing movies, music, and apps. I've been involved in this sort of crap since 1998, and I have followed everything pretty closely. Anyone who says they can't get caught obviously doesn't know what they are talking about. Anyone who says the reason the haven't gotten caught sharing is anything other than luck also doesn't know what they are talking about.

[Mr. HokeyPokey]

Originally posted by Misanthrope
Source

http://threadbox.net/index.php/archives/2004/11/14/why-bittorrent-is-here-to-stay/

Acording to the following link there are aprox 888,681,131 internet users around the world

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Lets say your average bit torrent user uses more bandwidth than your average user, asuming 5 times more each bittorrent user counts as five for the proposes of calculating bandwidth. That is still 53,320,867 users of bit torrent most of which are using divx and xvid files.

So how comes the mpaa does not attack mpeg4 based video formats, given it is an EXTREMELY viable way to hinder piracy since its way easier to code another filesharing protocol than another equally effective compression technology.

The percentage is still far lower for people who do not download illegal movies/software/ anything. Once that percentage gets over 2/3 of internet users/movie goers then the MPAA may do something, but for now the MAJORITY is not doing it, and a lot of people are still using it for personal use. That is why we need the player to play these type of formats.

I'll download a dvd occasionally from bit torrent due to the fact that now you have to double, triple, or even quadriple dip a dvd. They piss me off, i'll piss them off.

The argument you always hear is "stealing from the studio", or taking from the producers, actors or whatever is bogus. Movies now a day are pulling in 20-50 million opening weekend, they're doing just fine. God only know how much they get w/ dvd sales. the day blockbuster actors are finding new jobs because acting doesn't pay good anymore is the day i'll stop downloading movies.

[Misanthrope]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
BIttorrent isn't all movie files -- a large portion of the users are seeking music and applications. They can't hinder the compression because of that law they made back in the early 80s. Besides, they know that someone will come up with another compression tool.

The MPAA is targeting bittorrent pretty effectively. I got a letter from my service provider saying that I was in violation of the MPAA Digital millinium act. It listed which files I was illegally sharing, the time - everything. Then my ISp threatened to boot me if there were further complaints. It even said on the letter that they knew it was a bittorrent file. You will also notice how many torrent sites go down, and pretty much all of them talk about their woes on the main page - constantly having to shut down then back up again.

There are more than a few bulletin boards on the net dicussing others who have gotten letters. I posted it before, but more of the people here treat it like some kind of "double dare" situation where the consequences don't really matter, because if they've gotten away with it for this long, why not longer?

Doesn't matter to me either way, but most of what is discussed about downloading, specifically on this site, is short-sighted in details and in most people's understanding about how the laws and how the tracking of downloading works. I've made attempts to explain how everything works before but have generally been responded to like I'm Chicken Little or am just talking out of my ass. Whether or not people get busted is secondary to me, but a majority of the people here don't want to be told what they are targeting and who is at risk of getting "busted", in my experience, so I just watch everyone give false information and talk about how they know all about what they are doing.

There are ways around all of this still , and the people who actually take the time to listen about how all this works (instead of defending why they aren't scared of getting caught) will actually learn and figure out what to do in order to keep stealing movies, music, and apps. I've been involved in this sort of crap since 1998, and I have followed everything pretty closely. Anyone who says they can't get caught obviously doesn't know what they are talking about. Anyone who says the reason the haven't gotten caught sharing is anything other than luck also doesn't know what they are talking about.

A few points bubba. First check www.nforce.nl ( and no the link its not illegal it doesnt actually has any illegal files or links to illegal files at all is just a list ) and see just how many videos of both movies and tv shows you can find.

Second im really sad you have a bad isp and im really sad that the americans get their rights to privacy taken away from them and im really sad americas do not throughoutly read they isp contract agreements when alot of them include a privacy policy that can be used to defend yourself, but look at the links i provided: North america ( that includes Canada and Mexico too ) only makes 24.9% of all internet users and i can tell you piracy is far more common on Asia for example.

So the MPAA succesfully persecutes their own citizens oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of the piracy occurs outside their country. As for the sites they do a succesfull job at tracking down the most noticeable ones but you forget that the nature of bit torrents makes even a handfull of users on a small forum with a private tracker an extremely effective way to get files. For each big site closed down 3 smaller ones come up to take their place. The only thing accomplished is taking off the huge popular site kids talk about in highschool so the bit torrent traffic doesnt rises to massive levels.

And lets also remember that alot of sites can be hosted on countries where they cant be succesfully persecuted, a swedish site called the pirate bay even threaten to sue the mpaa for harrassement if they kept sending them letters to sease and decist because they are not braking any swedish laws. And what do you know? a few weeks after said incident when everyone was laughing at the MPAA the letters to the isps begin.

If you have been following this since 98 or lately you will also realize none of the information i just gave you is false information, so can you honestly tell me the atempts the mpaa has made are succesfull at stopping piracy all togheter? Cause i honestly think they make noise and waves just to scare people and keep things small and under control.

[Misanthrope]

Originally posted by Mr. HokeyPokey
The percentage is still far lower for people who do not download illegal movies/software/ anything. Once that percentage gets over 2/3 of internet users/movie goers then the MPAA may do something, but for now the MAJORITY is not doing it, and a lot of people are still using it for personal use. That is why we need the player to play these type of formats.

I'll download a dvd occasionally from bit torrent due to the fact that now you have to double, triple, or even quadriple dip a dvd. They piss me off, i'll piss them off.

The argument you always hear is "stealing from the studio", or taking from the producers, actors or whatever is bogus. Movies now a day are pulling in 20-50 million opening weekend, they're doing just fine. God only know how much they get w/ dvd sales. the day blockbuster actors are finding new jobs because acting doesn't pay good anymore is the day i'll stop downloading movies.

And how is it that you know the percentage of people who uses xvid and divx for legitimate proposes is higher? On what do you base this asumption? On how many people you know? The percentage of movies its big, add the tv shows and the copyrighted pornographic videos and it adds up to much more.

Also your argument still fails to address my other point: there are also many legitimate uses for p2p networks and the mpaa still fights to get them banned: the same could be said about video formats since there are just as many legitimate uses for them and fair use still applies, yet they "respect" the fair use of mpeg-4 but they do not respect the fair use of p2p networks and protocols? Instead of trying to stop people from producing extremely convenient high quality pirate videos they are trying to stop them from sharing them? Wouldnt you think that it would be easier to stop the former to trully end piracy or give a major blow?

[The Postmaster General]

Misanthrope --

You are a rarity. In fact, from what I can gather, you're all facts, and not all "I know, just because.".

I should have specifed that I was refering only the US (i'm not sure how it works elsewhere, but they seem to be less rigid than they are here)

If I'm not mistaken, you are arguing more toward WHY they can't stop p2p use -- I'm with you on that one. They can't stop the technology, despite how popular it gets for illegal use.

Right now, with P2P, the thing I am SURE that they are looking for is sharers. I don't think it matters where you initially got the file, but if they nab your IP, they assume it's unauthorized and tag you. You're right that it sucks that the ISPs don't protect privacy, but I think they are too worried about protecting their own butt. Let me real quick though, shout out to Verizon who fought to protect privact.


If you have been following this since 98 or lately you will also realize none of the information i just gave you is false information, so can you honestly tell me the atempts the mpaa has made are succesfull at stopping piracy all togheter? Cause i honestly think they make noise and waves just to scare people and keep things small and under control.


Not at all. I just think that people (especially in my neck of the woods) have more to be worried about than they think.

I really think people should pay attention to the schmoes who obviously know what they are talking about, because they could use some pointers.

Downloading, to me, is like casual sex -- if someone is telling you to wear a rubber, you probably should at least listen to the reasons why. Yeah, maybe all you need to do is avoid downloading from chicks with big sores on their mouth, but my point is -- I don't think this is really the kind of situation where you would laugh at danger.

You're right though - I'm with 100% about the attempts to stop it have been unsuccessful. The smartest things I've seen them doing is putting out "dummy" files that use up bandwidth, only to have someone end up with a 700meg file of blank screen and hiss. Also, I think they are on the right track by allowing movies over the internet, like Apple's iTunes Store, and the sort.

About the "sharing" thing -- when the RIAA was hardcore, on their website they had a FAQ about how not to get in trouble downloading music. The main recommendation was just not to share. I thought that was pretty wild coming from the RIAA -- I think that shows that even they understood they couldn't stop people from downloading. Their only recourse is to just make it difficult.

[Mr. HokeyPokey]

Originally posted by Misanthrope
And how is it that you know the percentage of people who uses xvid and divx for legitimate proposes is higher? On what do you base this asumption? On how many people you know? The percentage of movies its big, add the tv shows and the copyrighted pornographic videos and it adds up to much more.

Also your argument still fails to address my other point: there are also many legitimate uses for p2p networks and the mpaa still fights to get them banned: the same could be said about video formats since there are just as many legitimate uses for them and fair use still applies, yet they "respect" the fair use of mpeg-4 but they do not respect the fair use of p2p networks and protocols? Instead of trying to stop people from producing extremely convenient high quality pirate videos they are trying to stop them from sharing them? Wouldnt you think that it would be easier to stop the former to trully end piracy or give a major blow?

Misanthrope - You're fighting a losing war here. As long as there are still legal ways to use the formats it's never going to get shut down. NEVER. It's like Marijuana, Highly illegal but still legal in some ways. Do you really think the U.S. and other parts of the world will be able to get rid of weed? You're argument would say "Just get rid of all the plants" That makes it harder for the people with legitimate reasons of why they need it. So... You can't just get rid of the players that play the formats. Because if you do, there will be a whole lot more complaints about players not playing the quality of their video camera, or what their computer program saves it as. If they take out the DVD Player that plays the formats they're taking out a lot more then just that. (i.e. video cameras, software, easy access.)

Pirating movies has been around for a very long time now, it's gotten to big too fast and now cannot be stopped (thank god.)

[Misanthrope]

Yes i understand all that but dont you think fighting against p2p programs and protocols is as pointless too? Yet the MPAA keeps trying to close bit torrent sites and threat people with letters.

[The Postmaster General]

I think the smartest thing the MPAA has done so far is in posting "dummy" files.


IMO they know they'll never stop the act and are only trying to hinder it, and make it more difficult, and with that they've succeeded. Despite the formats, it's much harder to get movies than it was a few years ago. The formats and the bandwidth are better, but in reality the amount of high quality captures has decreased significantly. Much of what you find now are cam captures with only the occassional screener or telesynch cam capture (which is usually a really decent version) - it used to be the opposite. There are more DVD-rips, and TV shows out there than before though. That's something that hasn't gotten worse. However, that has nothing to do with the MPAA.

Anyway - Im sure I'll be corrected by someone who just got a high-quality version of some kick ass movie like House of Wax, or Beauty Shop.

[Twisted Sister]

My neighbor wanted to thank me for some stuff I had helped him with, so he gave me a bunch of burned dvds. No labels, nothing. I thought it was odd that he didn't even know what he was giving me. Then I popped one in my dvd player, and it was the Ice Cube flick, "Are We There Yet?"

Wellllllllll... It was a bootlegged copy that was shot with a recorder IN THE THEATER. I mean, you could actually see people getting up and walking around, hear their conversations, etc. I felt like I was watching MST. Funny shit.

To seriously address the issue, though, I feel the same way about pirating dvds as I do cds: I support those who need support and take away from those who screw the consumer.

[Iacon5]

i download movies like its my job. there are really only 3 reasons i and i believe anyone downloads movies

1) the excitement for a really awesome movie is killing me and i dl a shitty cam version to hold me over till the real thing comes out in theaters or dvd, at which time i rush to buy it anyways.

2) you kind of want to see the movie, but the shame of seeing it in theaters/renting/buying it is too great so you get it in secret via download ex: mean girls, herry potter.

3) you cant find the movie by any other means and downloading is the only option, (in which case its usually a higher quality dvd rip)

and one more thing is sneaking into movies, i do that all the time as well. partly because the ticket prices are too high and im dirt poor, partly because i cant get R rated tickets but dont understand how the mpaa (those fucks) has so much power, and partilly because it makes me feel like batman.

[Draccoca]

Plain and simple for me as to why I download movies, I'm a cheap bastard, I rent the occasional movie if I really want to see the extras, then I copy the movie.

If I can get it for free then great I will

[JCPhoenix]

I'd say Iacon5 is pretty accurate in his reasons...at least for me anyway. I download lots of movies. I also download them in full dvd versions which are not hard to find at all (usually 2-3 weeks before their releases).

Generally, there are occasional times when I've wanted to see a movie so badly for the longest time that if it comes out early on the net, I'll download it, just cause I can't wait any longer. (Movies that come out overseas and not here, etc)

But someone asked why download shitty movies that you wouldn't have seen otherwise. The answer is -> quite simply, it's expanding my film knowledge. Whether or not it's a shitty movie, every movie adds to sort of the wealth of knowledge of films. It helps to watch the shitty movies imo - "the sweet is never as sweet without the sour (Vanilla Sky) - it's a good examination of where the film went wrong, or also so you can realize what are the main stereotypes and cliches in film, etc.

I think there's more value in watching shitty movies than people give them credit for.

And yes, I download tons (though not as much anymore). But again, expanding film knowledge was always sort of at the top of the list. Which is why I was saddened to see one of the greatest bit-torrent sites, Delirium-Vault go down (it's back up but minus the tracker). That site was perfect. It had all the rare movies, cult movies, documentaries, and old classics that are almost impossible for me to find in Ottawa. Sad to say, I won't find The 400 Blows or any of the old films in a Rogers Video or Blockbuster.

And yet, I still spend most of my money on movies. I still go see as many movies as I can. Hell, I still buy movies when the dvd versions are online and I could just download them. The movies I would've bought before I started downloading, are the same ones I will still buy even after downloading tons and tons of movies. Eternal Sunshine I was able to get a dvd copy of it online. And yet, when the collector's ed came out, I immediately went out and forked over $30 for it. I had a dvd version of Fear and Loathing - > Still went out and bought the $56 Criterion Collection version. Ditto with Motorcycle Diaries, I had to buy that movie just cause I loved it so much. It's the same with music...if I like an album enough, there's a good chance I'll go and buy it. and if it's from an indie or smaller band, and especially if it's CDN, then more of a chance I'll go buy the CD. I'm sure the retail dvds of Lost (Season 1) will be out online before its September release date - and yet, I'll still buy it.

I'm spending the exact same money, or maybe more, on films then I did before I started downloading. Whoever mentioned opportunity cost, that's exactly this. I don't regret downloading those movies cause, well - I wouldn't have spent my money on them anyway when I've already spent it on things I would've spent it on to begin with. All that's changing is that I'm increasing my knowledge in film.

Without downloading, I just wouldn't have been able to watch films and analyze them. The fact is, I would've seen a lot less films cause I'd have had to pick and choose only the ones that I thought I would like. I'd never get to expose myself to different movies, evne so-called shitty movies that I might actually like and hey, end up buying on DVD.

It's the same with music as well...I could never have exposed myself to so many genres of music and learn to develop my musical tastes. Seriously, without the internet, I'd still probably be loving mainstream drudge that I can't stand now (not saying mainstream as a whole cause i still listen to tons of mainstream stuff, just i mean some of the bubblegum pop and crap in particular)...it's only through listening to dfiferent bands do different things or variations on different things that I'm able to truly find the kind of music I like and find my own musical taste.

Quite simply, without downloading, I wouldn't have stumbled on some of the gems I have. There are so many movies I would never have seen cause they didn't look at all to my taste. But especially, there is so much beautiful music I would never have realized I liked or loved.

And whoever said people who download are not real movie fans or music fans - that's low, man. That hurts. I have more passion for movies and music than almost anything else in my life. That's what everyone on this board is united in, their absolute passion for talking about movies. And while I haven't gottene xposed to as much music as many people around me, good music really gets to me. That's why Almost Famous is one of my favorite movies. Cause it describes the feeling so perfectly "to love some silly piece of music so much, it hurts". it may seem stupid to some people, but I feel that way about a lot of songs. More than movies curiously, even though I love a lot of films. I guess it's cause songs are generally more an emotional statement than movies which are a variety of different emotions.

[jackknife lee]

Dudes, I've been reading your posts for quite some time now and I gotta say how things are truly diffrent here in Asia, particularily in SE Asia. Sure we bootleg movies and music. We bootleg it like nothing you ever seen.

Here, its commonly known as 'piracy' and we don't refer to these things as 'bootlegs' but we call 'em 'pirated movies' or 'pirated music'. I personally have no idea how these things come together but all I can say is that there are heaps of them here. And its already in perfect DVD format. Thats right, I had purchased and seen SIN CITY just at it was still showing in theaters overseas and just to inform you all, the quality was excellent. In most malls here, you could find rows upon rows of stalls selling pirated DVDs and music CDs at unspeakably low prices. No shit. And rarely will you find any film thats been cammed while in theaters 'cuz everything thats pirated seems to be in perfect DVD widescreen format.

I've seen plenty of foreigners come to these malls that exhibit these piracy stalls on thier third floors and they leave with at least fifteen pirated films. Plastic bags filled with DVDs. And not just any films. New films. I'm talking KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, CRASH, KUNBG-FU HUSTLE, hundred of films. And the folks that sell them make money like crazy. Hell, there's even a bill acted in the Philippines to police these sort of things but I seriously doubt any of their efforts can cripple this industry.

We Asians are massive movie fans and we'll do anything to see the lastest film, regardless of how its formatted.

I guess you have to look at these 'bootlegs' in two ways for us film buffs. True, its sad on the part of the real folks behind the movies that their getting screwed over for their cash and profit. But when you think about, just like many of you have posted, the realy good 'screen gems' do become more accessible through this method. I mean, if it weren't for pirated films, I would never have seen THE MACHINIST, or BATTLE ROYAL, or THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES, or even SIN CITY.

'Cuz for some reason, it was never shown in our cinemas.

[jimmyjdmb]

I'm against downloading movies too. But then again...I don't even burn CDs. It's all theft to me.

Here in El Salvador, they sell pirate movies outside the movie theaters (no joke) and they dont like hide them or anything. They have big racks of movies, lots of which are showing in the movie theaters at that time.

[Misanthrope]

Well this might shock alot of people but for everything that has some short of value to someone there is always, always has been and always will be someone stealing it. The reason we have laws against theft is NOT to stop theft all togheter, but to avoid theft to reach the general population as a viable option. If there were no car alarms or strict, enforced laws against stealing cars everyone would steal cars and you would see people on the street selling car-starting kids to steal them.

The reason the mpaa is trying to enforce is not to stop piracy and downloaded movies all togheter, but to keep them from becoming a common occurance everyone has access to, Like all laws and law enforcement institutions they know they will always have jobs because crime will never be stopped, we can only hope to control it.

[the_sneaker]

Originally posted by AceD
True movie fans don't download bootlegged movies. Period.

That's funny. I thought I was a true movie fan. Interesting opinion.

[Misanthrope]

What if a true movie fan wants to see an old unreleased movie thats not availble on dvd and the owner is just sitting on the rights without giving any explanations and the best he could do is get illegal copies for as much as 100 dollars for a region that is not mine an without any support for my native language?

So i decided to download the movie and spend 5 hours trying to get the audio to sync with the movie due to bad movie compression so i could have the movie on dvd, am i not a true movie fan?

[EvilDeadGirl]

Figured I'd toss in my $.02 here.

I download movies.

Here's how it all happens.... Cue flashy lights n wavy images.

Here's an example. I went to the theatre to see Sin City. I loved it! So I went home and downloaded it so that I may watch it until the DVD comes out. Once the DVD comes out I'll be purchasing that. I download to sate my thirst for the film until the DVD is released. Done this with a number of films. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with that. :)

[ParileseMonster]

The first problem is that it is an easy thing to do. I have said before that if the movie or music selection that I want, is available for me to buy then I will. If it is not and I really want to see or hear what my heart desires at the moment. I will do so by using any means necessary.
However I will not currently care about this problem until another one that makes me personally upset is addressed and I am sure it will never be and that is, Cell phone use in cars and in Theaters which should upset you professionally as well. Am I wrong?

[Genghis Khan]

Originally posted by EvilDeadGirl
So I went home and downloaded it so that I may watch it until the DVD comes out. Once the DVD comes out I'll be purchasing that. I download to sate my thirst for the film until the DVD is released. Done this with a number of films. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with that. :)

That's exactly what I do. Like I downloaded Battle Royale until me and my friend can buy it. I also download movies because my parents won't let me watch R-rated movies so I download those until I can get the money so a friend can buy it for me. I have no problem with downloading movies, a lot of these actors and directors are rich enough already.

Rock On!!
:cool:

[The Postmaster General]

What's with all this "true movie fan" stuff I hear? Is there like a FAQ somewhere, because I'd like to get up to speed on this kind of stuff.

[Misanthrope]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
What's with all this "true movie fan" stuff I hear? Is there like a FAQ somewhere, because I'd like to get up to speed on this kind of stuff.

The only rule is the lenght that you go for the movies you love, and i think you'd qualify.