It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feds shut down nine websites in movie piracy crackdown

page: 12
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

If I steel everything you own and then someone kills the entire family next door, will you be waving off the cops "Don't worry, I just lost all my stuff. Those folks got killed so do not waste any time investigating this crime?"



A stupid analogy if you ask me. If the family next door had just been killed, your invisible loss should be the last thing on your mind. Your logic does not apply here.

If you had something stolen but were still in possession of the original with which to still profit from then you haven't really lost anything have you? , and presuming that the accused thief would go and pay for what they would not buy in the first place is naive and assumes that everyone has surplus money to waste or would buy something just because it's there.




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

All the technicality in the world does not change the fact that taking something without permission is exactly that.


And all the logic in the world should tell you that if something is stolen then it is no longer in the owners possession.

What we are talking about here is the wrongful presumtion that those who could not get movies for free online would go and pay for them all instead.

Maybe they'd just not bother, not pay and are maybe not the ideal consumer that hollywood depends on.

Stopping online viewing and downloading of their products WILL NOT make more consumers. Just fewer viewers to talk about their fodder.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

A stupid analogy if you ask me. If the family next door had just been killed, your invisible loss should be the last thing on your mind. Your logic does not apply here.


Luckily I did NOT ask you. It seems your logic is completely lacking. Where in the world do you get "invisible" loss from?

Why the hell should I be so concerned with their deaths that I should ignore my complete financial devastation?


If you had something stolen but were still in possession of the original with which to still profit from then you haven't really lost anything have you?


Maybe you need to read what I said. I said if someone stole EVERYTHING YOU OWNED. Did you even read any of what you responded to?

To answer your question though, no. Who is going to pay me for it when they can get it cheaper from a thief with copies.


, and presuming that the accused thief would go and pay for what they would not buy in the first place is naive and assumes that everyone has surplus money to waste or would buy something just because it's there.


You are not making any sense at all.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
And all the logic in the world should tell you that if something is stolen then it is no longer in the owners possession.


You are trying to engage in a semantic war for which you came ill-equipped.

If I create something and you take a copy without my permission, you have stolen my opportunity to profit from my work. Theft is a broad category. Stealing a song plays really well into your myopic dictionary driven ramblings but unfortunately, reality has a different view. It is not about "stealing" the song itself, it is about stealing the opportunity to use your own creation in the manner in which you intended, even it be to make money.


What we are talking about here is the wrongful presumtion that those who could not get movies for free online would go and pay for them all instead.


Maybe you are talking about that but that has not come up in any of the posts I have responded to.


Maybe they'd just not bother, not pay and are maybe not the ideal consumer that hollywood depends on.


Maybe. Maybe if the internet vanished and tools for piracy went away, Hollywood would crumble. Just imagine it trying to survive in the 1920s. Oh wait...


Stopping online viewing and downloading of their products WILL NOT make more consumers. Just fewer viewers to talk about their fodder.


Maybe but it will make for fewer thieves.


XL5

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Reposting for those who missed it. Its like every one wants black and white so they can argue about it all day and anyone who shows any thing other then that is ignored.

IMO this is like when cars started to be made and everyone still using horses tried to make laws to protect their outdated way of life (cars may frighten the horses). However, what would happen today if everyone went back to the old way of life and used horses. We can not go backwards.

-----

Heres the problem, we have technology and will not let it be taken away. I bet if we had a way to tap another dimension full of never ending energy supplies and some oil guys lost money, they would make it against the law to tap this energy. People would still defend the oil men who risk their lives/health to "create" gas.

Imagine, one day some one makes a device thats hooked to your toilet and converts "used food" into "copied" food and other elements and devices including gold, diamonds and even cars. You can also put other waste into it as well and could filter water to its untouched natural state. It could put almost everybody out of work, yet, if it were made illegal since we can survive like we have without it, would poeple NOT use it? Would any one pay for a meal out of it over the internet if they could get it for free even though they still have a job and can get the same meal made by a real person? Is it right to ignore that things change and an idea and technology cannot be stopped?



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by XL5
 





Imagine, one day some one makes a device thats hooked to your toilet and converts "used food" into "copied" food and other elements and devices including gold, diamonds and even cars.


This perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the arguments being made to justify theft. They imagine their crap is golden and actually possesses value, while simultaneously dismissing the value of another persons efforts. They live in imaginary worlds where all they have to do is poop and present that as value, apparently believing their poop doesn't stink.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
Reposting for those who missed it. Its like every one wants black and white so they can argue about it all day and anyone who shows any thing other then that is ignored.

IMO this is like when cars started to be made and everyone still using horses tried to make laws to protect their outdated way of life (cars may frighten the horses). However, what would happen today if everyone went back to the old way of life and used horses. We can not go backwards.



Did someone steal someone's working horse?

Bottom line of this subject is: DENIAL OF PROFIT.

If someone stole another person's working horse. They would be stealing that person's ability to make a profit.

I don't see where technology has changed the bottom line.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Annee]


XL5

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Yes it is a denial of profit but it will not change as long as there are people who just don't care. Video killed the radio star, VHS killed beta, cars killed horses (the idea of needing them), internet killed many things. If I made something that killed blu-rays and all other forms of data storage, would I be killing some ones profit, yes but its not theft. Music and movies are now just ideas and not really items since we can copy that idea at will.

If you had a device that could copy/produce everything in this world including energy (but not living things), without altering the original but it was illegal, what would happen? Could you stop it? You can live without it but your job making a product will end because of it, would you try to stop it? Would you still hang on to your way of life?

I think its wrong to increase the price of things that are COPIED based on the logic that it really doesn't help that cause. Sure, you would try to compensate by rising prices, but it just reinforces the copiers to copy more. They should innovate, make music and movies disks with FAN made games that work for all systems, music vids, pictures and paper coupons!

The thing I wonder about is, back in the day of VHS, porn was bought, now its free, why is there still porn? Why don't they fight free porn sites?



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by Annee

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.




Oh, no worries, your ignorance is excusable. It's a complex topic, and you propably saw lots and lots of "downloading is stealing" ads ...

Ok: I download a DVD rip. The DVD was bought. The producer got his money. That is the bottom line isn't it?



HOLY CRAP! YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND!!!!!!

I had no idea it was the intention of the producers to have the movie seen once, the DVD sold once, and then it is automatically put into public domain!

YOU ARE INGENIOUS.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judohawk
They will not defeat anyone.

For every 9 sites taken down there will be 20 more that pop up just to spite them.


lol, I was about to say, more sites will pop up. This is the only time that I like spam when it annoys the Fed Government. Wonder though how much money they had spent? :p



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
This is a victim less crime, people are against it simply because big brother told them it was bad(illegal) and that you're going to kill the movie industry.


[edit on 2-7-2010 by hippomchippo]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
Yes it is a denial of profit but it will not change as long as there are people who just don't care.


People? You mean Crooks - Thieves - Criminal Opportunists?

Its Stealing.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Why the hell should I be so concerned with their deaths that I should ignore my complete financial devastation?


Because they are your neighbours and life should be more important than money.

Obviously you disagree and would sell your mother if it made a buck!


Maybe you need to read what I said. I said if someone stole EVERYTHING YOU OWNED. Did you even read any of what you responded to?


This is not about everything someone owns is it? This is about someone watching a copy and never having the intention of buying it in the first place.


To answer your question though, no. Who is going to pay me for it when they can get it cheaper from a thief with copies.


The same people who go to the movies or buy DVDs of course.


You are not making any sense at all.


That's because you refuse to see both sides and consider this from anything but the profiteer's point of view.


You are trying to engage in a semantic war for which you came ill-equipped.

If I create something and you take a copy without my permission, you have stolen my opportunity to profit from my work.


What utter nonsense!
Do you mean to say that you would just throw your master copy in the bin? I think not. You would carry on as usual and continue to profit from sales.


It is not about "stealing" the song itself, it is about stealing the opportunity to use your own creation in the manner in which you intended, even it be to make money.


Are you blind to the fact that the opportunity would still be staring you in the face...or would you still give up and throw away your masterpiece just so you felt justified in pointing a finger and yelling "thief"?

Carry on thinking inside your little box, good luck.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Because they are your neighbours and life should be more important than money.



Are you just off in your own little world - or something.

There a new Socialist thread that just started.

What does anything you're saying have to do with Theft and Denial of Profit?



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by nerbot

Because they are your neighbours and life should be more important than money.



Are you just off in your own little world - or something.

There a new Socialist thread that just started.

What does anything you're saying have to do with Theft and Denial of Profit?

Wow all you do is keep talking about the analogy in the beginning, why skip the rest of his post which has valid points?



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by nerbot

Because they are your neighbours and life should be more important than money.



Are you just off in your own little world - or something.

There a new Socialist thread that just started.

What does anything you're saying have to do with Theft and Denial of Profit?

Wow all you do is keep talking about the analogy in the beginning, why skip the rest of his post which has valid points?


There are no valid points in his posts. There is only Twisted manipulation.

You CAN NOT justify Theft - - causing Denial of Profit.

No matter how hard you try - - - it Can Not be done.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Annee]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by nerbot

Because they are your neighbours and life should be more important than money.



Are you just off in your own little world - or something.

There a new Socialist thread that just started.

What does anything you're saying have to do with Theft and Denial of Profit?

Wow all you do is keep talking about the analogy in the beginning, why skip the rest of his post which has valid points?


There are no valid points in his posts. There is only Twisted manipulation.

You CAN NOT justify Theft - - causing Denial of Profit.

No matter how hard you try - - - it Can Not be done.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Annee]

It's theft of a copy, not actual theft.
The people who would normally buy it still will, while the people who normally don't now have an option to get it for free via copying.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
What does immigration have to do with the piracy deal??? Check this site out it used to be a streaming movies website. read the whole thing!


Site seized by immigration?????WTF????


EDIT to ADD I guess this is what they're doing instead of protecting our borders from murderers, thieves, terrorists, drug cartels, etc. etc. etc. Attack us some more brilliant!!!!

[edit on 2-7-2010 by ldyserenity]


[edit on 2-7-2010 by ldyserenity]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo

It's theft of a copy, not actual theft.


Let's go with Intent.

Intent to obtain a product for free - - that you are knowledgeable - - was made to sell for a profit.

You are committing a crime - - because you have knowledge that this product was NOT made to be given away for free.

Your intent is criminal theft. You are not ignorant to your own truth - - even though ignorance is not acceptable.

Few things are Black and White. This is.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
Because they are your neighbours and life should be more important than money.


I never once mentioned money. Things included in "everything I own" would be medication, food, furniture, family heirlooms, my vehicles, my personal information - tax records, contact information, insurance, etc. "EVERYTHING I OWN" is a much bigger deal than money, I never even mentioned money since I keep very little at my home.


Obviously you disagree and would sell your mother if it made a buck!


WOW!

Just wow!

The flaw in your logic is so astounding at this point I am almost in shock. Either you are trying to distort as much as you can to make me something I am not, or you are easily confused by words made up of letters.

Just because I would not wave the cops away in order to go stand around watching the cops already investigating the murder, means I would sell my mom for a buck. OK!


This is not about everything someone owns is it? This is about someone watching a copy and never having the intention of buying it in the first place.


No, genius. What I asked was about everything that someone owned in response to a statement about murder. If you can not follow along, that is not my fault.


The same people who go to the movies or buy DVDs of course.


It must be nice to live in such a simple world where you can ignore the things people say and just toss out words and move on. I do envy you.


That's because you refuse to see both sides and consider this from anything but the profiteer's point of view.


Since when?


What utter nonsense!
Do you mean to say that you would just throw your master copy in the bin? I think not. You would carry on as usual and continue to profit from sales.


Obviously you can share Coca Cola's recipe with me then? How about KFC? Can you give me those recipes?


Are you blind to the fact that the opportunity would still be staring you in the face...or would you still give up and throw away your masterpiece just so you felt justified in pointing a finger and yelling "thief"?

Carry on thinking inside your little box, good luck.


Carry on waiting a few hours to come back and completely distort the original point, get confused, and just insult me based on nothing. I am a blind person that will sell my mother because I do not automatically wave cops away from any crime done to me when I know of greater crimes -ALREADY BEING INVESTIGATED. Gotcha! Obviously you have no clue about the real world and how it works so go back downstairs and download your favorite Justin Bieber song and maybe just stay out of conversations you cannot grasp.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join