Do you pirate movies online?

[Don Penguinoini]

They already get paid a set amount. Ok, maybe if it was a huuuge success, then they would get their bonus. I only watch films on the internet which i know i would not watch in the cinema. I still go to the cinema. The last movie i watched was Transformers. If it is worth watching a movie in the cinema, then i will, no doubt. But a movie like...Day After Tommorow, i would HAVE to watch in the cinema. You need to experience the special affects to make the movie worthwhile.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

"They"? "They" who? What set amount? How much do you think you know about show business, sweetheart?




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Don Penguinoini]

They, in the films, like the stunt co-ordinators, cameramen etc. The little jobs, which you still need. Im not claiming to know tonnnes about show biz. Enough.

 

[Pardus]

IP (in it's current form) is morally offensive. Against Intellectual Monopoly

Musicians get majority of their money from live performances, so really only the record companies profit from it. I believe that if there was removal of copyright (remember selling someone else's work as your own is fraud) there would be more live shows and more small time performers would get a leg up into the industry and the CD's would still sell, but at a more reasonable price.

All forms of Art would still sell, there would just be more competition.

I believe rolling back IP into the ability to claim a percentage of the profit made on any sale of your creation is a fair idea, but i can not and will not support the monopoly on the use of ideas.

If a charitable organization wanted to produce a medical treatment and only charge the cost to the end user, then the law should not stop them. If they wanted to make a profit, then the law should not stop them. The law should only make sure the person who made the treatment possible gets rewarded.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Also, great thread Nutshell.

 

[nutshell]

Also, great thread Nutshell.

Thank you.

I must admit I'm glad I found out about your age. That's not to say your argument isn't valid - It just put things in perspective for me.

I think that the younger generation, the generation who grew up with the technology that exists today, is more accepting of the technology and what it can do (whether technically legal or not).

 

[nutshell]

IP (in it's current form) is morally offensive. Against Intellectual Monopoly

Musicians get majority of their money from live performances, so really only the record companies profit from it. I believe that if there was removal of copyright (remember selling someone else's work as your own is fraud) there would be more live shows and more small time performers would get a leg up into the industry and the CD's would still sell, but at a more reasonable price.

All forms of Art would still sell, there would just be more competition.

I believe rolling back IP into the ability to claim a percentage of the profit made on any sale of your creation is a fair idea, but i can not and will not support the monopoly on the use of ideas.

If a charitable organization wanted to produce a medical treatment and only charge the cost to the end user, then the law should not stop them. If they wanted to make a profit, then the law should not stop them. The law should only make sure the person who made the treatment possible gets rewarded.

I concede there are problems with IP, but if you remove copyright then what's to stop others from copying the work and pushing you aside because they do it "bigger, better, stronger" than you do? Do you think a % to the original artist compensates for that? What if it's not money, but recognition you want?

Say you're the next budding Michaelangelo, but nutshell sees your work, copies it, and because of his mass resources (not) is able to overshadow you, leading to more opportunities for nutshell (such as derivative works) and nothing for Mikey???

Also note: ideas are not copyrightable, only original works of authorship in a tangible medium of expression.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Well, thats sad that my age makes a difference at all. But still. I would not have bought it the DVD in the first place, or watched it in the cinema anyways. Thats except for a film with special effects, then id go to the cinema.

 

[nutshell]

Well, thats sad that my age makes a difference at all. But still. I would not have bought it the DVD in the first place, or watched it in the cinema anyways. Thats except for a film with special effects, then id go to the cinema.

I'm sorry if I stated it wrong. The age doesn't affect your argument, it just added a new element for me to consider: the generation gap and how it relates to technology. I apologize if my previous post was offensive.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Oh no it wasn't offensive, just i found it a sad case.

 

[Smoke]

I think that the younger generation, the generation who grew up with the technology that exists today, is more accepting of the technology and what it can do (whether technically legal or not).

I think technology makes it easier for them to bypass legality. Thirty years ago, you had to be pretty brazen to try to walk out of K-Mart with a vinyl LP under your shirt.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Braznen? I am not trying to break the law. It is file sharing. It's a file he has, im watching it

 

[Smoke]

All this talk about pirating movies is making me want to watch pirate movies. irate:opcorn:

 

[Don Penguinoini]

It isnt as bad they say it is...


OVGuide: Online Video Guide - It's what's ON the Web knock yourself out!

 

[Pardus]

I concede there are problems with IP, but if you remove copyright then what's to stop others from copying the work and pushing you aside because they do it "bigger, better, stronger" than you do? Do you think a % to the original artist compensates for that?

Then both society and the artist gain. The artist still gets money (it will be less, but he doesn't have to do anything).

What if it's not money, but recognition you want?

That's where fraud plays a part.

 

[kadzbiz]

.....I would not believe there to be a significant difference between downloading a movie online and borrowing a copy of the movie off of a friend...... Not a single downloader has yet been charged and so it is immensely unlikely that admitting to having downloaded copywrighted material will result in prosecution.

I believe, as stated in the opening warnings of a DVD, that it is also illegal to loan a DVD.

Wasn't there a girl just recently in the USA who was charged and fined a severe amount for downloading music files. She was offered a measley fine initially, but she wanted to fight the case and lost big time.

So it's legal to download and watch a movie in your home for free, using a file sharing program, just as long as you don't burn a DVD and sell it to another? .....

I believe that once you SAVE a file to your PC, you have committed an offence, but I can't be positive about every state and international ruling.

I would like to add, in this country at least, it IS legal to make ONE backup copy of a DVD movie you own in case the original is lost or stolen, but the backup must be stored securely away and never used unless the aforementioned events occur.

 

[Fluffy]

I believe, as stated in the opening warnings of a DVD, that it is also illegal to loan a DVD.

You are absolutely correct. I believe that the legality of an act holds no bearing on the morality of an act.

Wasn't there a girl just recently in the USA who was charged and fined a severe amount for downloading music files. She was offered a measley fine initially, but she wanted to fight the case and lost big time.

If you have a link to the article then I would be very interested. As far as I know, it would be the first case in which a person is prosecuted for downloading rather than uploading.

A much more common event is for a company to contact a third party who has control over a person's internet access. For example, if I were to download copywrighted material whilst at Bristol university then the owner of the copywright would threaten Bristol university with legal action unless they disconnected me. This is far more effective than pursuing individual cases against the millions of people who breach copywright.

It is also why you will never hear of a person who has been prosecuted for lending a dvd to their friend.

 

[Kungfuzed]

Here's an article about a 30 year old single mother who got sued by the RIAA for sharing 24 songs. She now has to pay $220,000 but no criminal charges were ever brought against her.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Its all to do with money.

 

[nutshell]

Its all to do with money.

I disagree.