Feds shut down nine websites in movie piracy crackdown

reply to post by v3_exceed

If you knew what really happened to your food in these restaurants, you might sing a different tune.

I grew up in the food and beverage industry and know full well the care and consideration that is put into food at gourmet restaurants, and clearly you don't have a clue in this matter, and are merely inventing some fear that is relatively non-existent. I say relatively because upon occasion a high end restaurant will get a C rating from inspectors, but this is rare, and often times due to politics more than it has anything to do with poorly prepared food. Your argument is a straw man argument obviously used to keep justifying theft.

3000$ +/- in steel and plastic, but 80k in the market. Grossly inflated because they know you WILL pay for it.

Far more than $3,000 dollars in steel and plastic go into the design and manufacture of a Lexus, which is a well made automobile that has many satisfied owners. At this point, it is clear your understanding of economics is grossly underwhelming, and again you create a straw man in order to justify theft.

Nice 3 cents a day in sweatshops by workers who have no choice... "Just do it"

So, instead of taking the ethical route and simply boycotting Nike, you advocate stealing from them. Nice...Just do it!

Those same diamonds are carefully controlled by a select few to keep the supply short and the prices up. Many tons of diamonds are destroyed just to keep scarcity of the product. This isn't even considering the horrors suffered by those people forced to mine for the African conflict diamonds.

Again, no one is forcing you to purchase diamonds. You can pat yourself on the back all you want for pointing to inequities and atrocities of certain industries, but when you do so to justify theft, you are no better than those of whom you seek to demonize.

Be careful when slaying dragons that you don't become the dragon.



[edit on 2-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by hippomchippo


im thinkin i have and chose not to talk to a low life thief any more, if you would steel this what else might you steel, you sir are a low life thief and all those who try and justufy this postion are the same and dont deserve to live in a land such as ours, go some where and be with your own kind.
yes there is corruption in our govt, big industries and i'm sure in places that i havent even thought of, but thats no reason to become as them or even worse. theres only a few thing worse than a thief, a thief looks for ways to take something that doesnt belong to them. our fore fathers fought for ways to strike back at corruption, they threw the tea over board, they didnt drink it, stop downloading and stop being a thief.
i wait for debunky info and im done with the low life are living in this thread

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

im thinkin i have and chose not to talk to a low life thief any more, if you would steel this what else might you steel, you sir are a low life thief and all those who try and justufy this postion are the same and dont deserve to live in a land such as ours, go some where and be with your own kind.
yes there is corruption in our govt, big industries and i'm sure in places that i havent even thought of, but thats no reason to become as them or even worse. theres only a few thing worse than a thief, a thief looks for ways to take something that doesnt belong to them. our fore fathers fought for ways to strike back at corruption, they threw the tea over board, they didnt drink it, stop downloading and stop being a thief.
i wait for debunky info and im done with the low life are living in this thread

Ah, insults again.
And please, if you consider all people who download music and videos "low lifes", you must not have very many friends, or very old friends.
But whatever, I'm sure you love not questioning laws and being a slave to the government.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

So, when we all watch True Blood

We don't all watch True Blood. All these new series are crap, with teenage actors and an overdramatic script. V was interesting at first, then came the terrorist-sleeper cell-stress propaganda. Blah.

Anyway. I wouldn't parallel downloading movies with stealing 'tho. When you're buying the movie on DVD, you get the physical, quality item with extras and all. But downloading has environmental effects too: all the disc formats become obsolete anyway, and they pile up at the dump.

Musicwise, I wish I had started collecting vinyl back in the day, damn CDs are trash now.

Originally posted by calstorm

Let me ask you this, did the fact that Eclipse was on line for a month before it came out in theater hurt its sales so far? Nope, not at all.

Really. What does one have to do with the other.

Theft is theft. It can't be justified away.

Originally posted by Tryptych


We don't all watch True Blood. All these new series are crap, with teenage actors and an overdramatic script. V was interesting at first, then came the terrorist-sleeper cell-stress propaganda. Blah.

Anyway. I wouldn't parallel downloading movies with stealing 'tho. When you're buying the movie on DVD, you get the physical, quality item with extras and all. But downloading has environmental effects too: all the disc formats become obsolete anyway, and they pile up at the dump.

If you are downloading a movie that is a product for sale - - - free. You are stealing. It is theft.

Nothing can justify theft. Theft is theft.

If you are downloading a movie you paid for - - that is not theft.

In General Fair Use - - you are allowed to make ONE copy for your own use - - in order to protect the original. (some Fair Use contracts may differ).

Someone mentioned sharing movies with neighbors. Technically - if you read the license - that is illegal.

reply to post by Annee


In a way yes. But in this case (let's say, downloading a basic 700MB dvdrip) you get highly reduced product in quality terms. It's not like you're stealing the DVD from the store.

I know that many people who make music (and have contracts) secretly hope for the piracy to end, simply because they would get paid more in royalties But also, the distribution of entertainment also brings some fame to the makers, so it's not really that simple. But being against piracy is "lame", so they won't say it aloud.

It's not really these big Hollywood studios i care about (actually, I couldn't care less), but it's the indie studios/labels that take the hit too.

I never saw any point burning these high quality rips to DVD/CD. They're still bootlegs, and worth squat. I'd rather get the original, which has some real value.

[edit on 2/7/2010 by Tryptych]

Originally posted by Tryptych
reply to post by Annee

 

In a way yes. But in this case (let's say, downloading a basic 700MB dvdrip) you get highly reduced product in quality terms. It's not like you're stealing the DVD from the store.

Unless a product is released by the producer as a FREE product - - if you don't pay for it - - it is Theft.

No attempt at justification changes that.

Of course there are products that have been sold off to distributors - - who then make their own requirements.

But - this thread is basically talking about New Movies.

So - if you didn't pay for it - - you Stole it. Black and White. It's Theft.

Oh, it's THIS thread again.

Once again, I need to remind people the differences in the terms and words they use with a simple image.

Am I the only one that finds it odd that the US's political agenda is executed at the "global theatre' and here we are using federal resources to protect corporate Hollywood's investments.

I don't see the Army stopping the shoplifters at Wal-Mart and I sure as hell don't see the federeal government stopping the federal reserve from raping us either.

WTF is wrong with this picture? The US government is the attack dog for the Zionists and they also happen to own the MSM and Hollywood.

Originally posted by Tryptych


It's not really these big Hollywood studios i care about (actually, I couldn't care less), but it's the indie studios/labels that take the hit too.

My kid works in Hollywood Production.

You obviously have no concept of how many individual "little" people have jobs because of Big Hollywood Studios.

Where an Indie label may employ 50 individuals - - a Hollywood Production will employ thousands.

So to say you don't care about Big Hollywood productions - - but care about the Indies - - - is not justified and illogical when considering how many regular people are working.

Drivers
Electricians
Food Service
Lighting
Janitors
Sound
Artists for storyboards
Make up artists
Wardrobe
Personal Assistants
Runners/Delivery
. . . just to name a few.

Big Hollywood - - - many many many people employed.

Originally posted by Annee

If you are downloading a movie that is a product for sale - - - free. You are stealing. It is theft.

No.
Its copyright infringement.

Nothing can justify theft. Theft is theft.

Yes. And blue is blue.
But we are not talking about theft, we are talking about copyright infringement.

If you are downloading a movie you paid for - - that is not theft.

In General Fair Use - - you are allowed to make ONE copy for your own use - - in order to protect the original. (some Fair Use contracts may differ).

Fair use isnt a contract
Its a part of US copyright law
Outside of the US it does not exist.

Someone mentioned sharing movies with neighbors. Technically - if you read the license - that is illegal.

Technically?
What are you weaseling about? It either is or isn't. You mean its illegal, yet you do it anyway? What exactly do you mean by "technically"?

Oh, you mean the "Must not be shown were people might see it" blurb in the beginning of movies?
Thats not a license. That text has as much legal weight as description on the back of the box and less than the age recommendation.
In most civilized countries you would have to show it with financial intent, publicly (your living room is not public) to start infringing on the rightholder (You see? lawyers even call the "owners" differently in IP. Why if they werent different to real owners?)

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by Annee

If you are downloading a movie that is a product for sale - - - free. You are stealing. It is theft.

No.
Its copyright infringement.

Great.

Explain to me how copyright infringement is not theft.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Annee]

Wait - - let me do it for you. Different terminology does not negate the fact that it is still "theft" under different labeling.

You are still trying to justifying stealing or infringing.

There is no justification - - - it is what it is.

-----------------------------------------

Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works covered by copyright law, in a way that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is also commonly referred to as piracy. An early reference to piracy in the context of copyright infringement was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel The True-Born Englishman that "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates".[2] The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne 1709, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh boy...
Again?

All right.
1) Theft gets prosecuted by the DA, wether the victim likes it or not.
Copyright infringement can only be brought to court by the rightholder who believes his rights to have been infringed upon

2) Theft is a felony, copyright infringement is a civil matter

3) If I steal something from you, you dont have it anymore, if I infringe on one of your rights, you still have all possibilities to use your rights.

4) IP expires, Real property does not

5) Property is real ownership: You can sell your property, or keep it. But if you sell it its gone.
Copyright on the other hand is a state-granted monopoly for the commercial exploitation of IP.

Now lets look at your definition above:
You get something for free, that is a product that is sold for money.
Shall we try a few situation where that definition might fit? Ever got a gift from somebody who bought it in a shop? Did that make you a thief?

Edit to add a little tiny bit from your wikipedia article, that you left out for some reason:

Comparison to theft Further information: Dowling v. United States (1985) Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, but differs in certain respects. Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing: interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. —Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218 The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright. That information can be replicated without destroying an original is an old observation,[56] and a cornerstone of intellectual property law. In economic terms, information is not a rival good; this has led some to argue that it is very different in character, and that laws for physical property and intellectual property should be very different.[57] A British Government's report, Digital Britain, characterizes online piracy as a form of theft: "Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."[58]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by debunky]

reply to post by Annee


Maybe. But they usually still make huge profits, which keeps the the people working and the company even growing. They are not so dependent on the small profits they make as small, indie companies (small labels etc.). They're usually lucky if they even make any profit.

So in a way you're right, but I'm just saying it's not the same as stealing a DVD/CD from a store. There IS a difference.

[edit on 2/7/2010 by Tryptych]

Originally posted by debunky

You get something for free, that is a product that is sold for money.
Shall we try a few situation where that definition might fit? Ever got a gift from somebody who bought it in a shop? Did that make you a thief?

Huh? The producer received their money for the product.

I mean - that is the bottom line. Isn't it? You create a product with intent to sell for profit. You are entitled to that profit.

Providing that product for Free - - without a license to distribute is theft. So - the website is the thief?

But if you are downloading from these sites - - isn't that receiving stolen property? Ignorance is not an excuse.

------------------------------------------------

I think copyright infringement is getting off topic.

Originally posted by Tryptych
reply to post by Annee

 

Maybe. But they usually still make huge profits, which keeps the the people working and the company even growing. They are not so dependent on the small profits they make as small, indie companies (small labels etc.). They're usually lucky if they even make any profit.

So in a way you're right, but I'm just saying it's not the same as stealing a DVD/CD from a store. There IS a difference.

What difference does the size of the profit make?

That has nothing to do with anything. That is not a reasonable excuse.


[edit on 2-7-2010 by Annee]

Originally posted by Tryptych

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

So, when we all watch True Blood

We don't all watch True Blood.

Not sure why you would respond then.

I am not sure when you were made part of the group I called "we" but I have not seen you at the meetings. Context is everything though.

Originally posted by Durrilll
I was about to watch True Blood. I noticed the domain wasn't responding. This has never happened to me for this domain. I decided to google it up and found the LA article. Came to ATS and ran a search, found nothing. Thus, I made this thread.

I do not even have HBO, let alone watch that crap.


Apparently the point was sorely missed. When you watch your favorite tv show, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, by avoiding any and all supporting commercials - you are killing that show.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Good, it pisses me off to know that I have been paying for movies and videos while others get the content for free.

They don't get what you pay for for free.

They get a bad copy with bad sound and bad picture quality. You get the whole ball of wax.

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by nerbot

 

I dont know if you have kids or a wife.. But is your freedom worth losing either?

If you dont like the law..CHANGE IT... if you cant abide by it... seriously... Your the problem!!!!.. end of conversation..

This is far from a conversation...and you assumed I was a: a man, b: had a wife, and c: had kids. That is why you launched your verbal tirade.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie

so its their money, they can spend and invest in what they like, they also own the rights to it. so what gives you the right to steel it from them, did you spend your money on it, did you pay the actors, camera men, sound techs, cgi techs, editors, screeners, or the blah blah blahs you spoke of, no i dont think so, you just dont want to pay for something so you steel it.

its not like your hungry and stole to feed your family, you stole something that you can live with out a movie. you dont need a movie to stay alive. you need other things to stay alive, but a flippin movie, man whats wrong with people, cant see that they are wrong in every sense

You presume that I am a thief when I have made no such admittance to downloading anything. Ignorant and presumsious! Read before you post.

My comments were merely observations.

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

wow ...are you that oblivious? You steal = you dont pay = You just received a costly product for free... and broke the law doing it!!!

How old are you 15?

There you go again with the personal insults.

I thought you'd had enough of this thread? Why do you persist in your banner waving and rudeness? And I don't think you quite understand that people who download movies rarely get the same product with all the features that shoppers and cinema viewers get. Ever heard of "cam"?

And to all those out there who feel the self righteous need to cry "thief" and say the law is the law and all that....

Ever driven a car over the legal speed limit? I'm 99% sure you have. YOU are guilty of breaking the law.
Ever broken ANY law..I'm 99% sure you have.

Hypocricy and delusion makes me sick.