Feds shut down nine websites in movie piracy crackdown

Originally posted by DYepes
Yes Anne, they can find random people to work for alot less actually and are even prettier. Many of the highest paid actors just did dirty stuff on the way up from local plays and theatre work or knew someone that gave them a leg up, but in reality it only takes a pretty face and a good talker for many of the highest paying roles.

I disagree that any Joe off the street can be a Salesman/woman actor - - - with continuing success. It takes a special IT factor.

But - what is your expertise on the matter?

As far as opportunity and taking advantage of opportunity (or creating your own opportunity) - - - that is not exclusive to the entertainment business.

Originally posted by debunky

... because it is the basis of a free market system?
A Free market works like this:
Companys choose which goods to produce
Customer chooses whom to give the dollar for the product.
Once Customer has given his dollar to company A, he cant give it to company B anymore. Company B has been denied Profit, by this customer.
We call this "Competition"

It really astounds me - - the attempt to make this Theft - Denial of Profit - - personally deserving.

You can twist it any way you want. It's still Theft.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Durrilll
.. there is something wrong with the whole media/movie industry model.

I would have to agree with that.
Hollywood has all the entertainment
you want .... as long as you are rich
enough to buy it. Doesn't matter to
them the world is in a global recession.
When the world needs a break and a cut
in prices to make ends meet what does
Hollywood do????

Raise the price of ticket sales !!!
And pay the actors record breaking
amounts of dough. It's sick.

Its called Capitalism. Yes it sucks sometimes, but the almighty dollar trumps all.

Originally posted by EspyderMan

Its called Capitalism. Yes it sucks sometimes, but the almighty dollar trumps all.

Thank you.

This subject is about fact and law - - not personal philosophies.

I personally lean toward Socialism - - but it has nothing - zero - to do with fact and law on this subject.

Originally posted by Annee
What are you talking about? My kid has done nothing that would warrant her being granted millionaire status.

Are you jealous of people who have money? I can tell you right now - - nothing pisses me off more then those people jealous of Bill Gates because he is rich.

My original comment was in relation to today's current economic model mixed with my opinion of fair distribution of earnings.

You also keep waving around the statement of Denial of Profit.

You don't seem to understand what everything is pushing towards. We have governments lashing out against the internet. We have banking conglomerates falling apart. We have the populace waking up to how they've been enslaved by debt. We have people losing their homes. All of this is about money. Money is of a benefit to a very select few. The amount of people who have been imprisoned by money number in the billions. You asked about how could Denial of Profit be de-legislated? Easy.

We are pushing towards a paradigm shift of a world without money.

The very idea of "Profit" will become extinct. You make an accusatory claim towards me about being "Jealous" of Bill Gates. Insanely far from it. Soon, not a single soul on the planet will have such wealth. Soon we will work to better ourselves as a whole instead of the few leeching off the great many.

Your way of thinking is dead. Your opinions is no longer welcome. You spout about "Facts" in almost all of your responses. Facts about laws written by the very people who want us as slaves. We are going to break free of this. Every time we discover a tool to help us fight them, that helps us to destroy the world that they are trying desperately to maintain and control, we will utilize it. We can see that they are terrified of piracy. If my generation were to come to the full conclusion that we do not need money in order to flourish, everything would end. There are signs of it all over these forums that point to such a future. Topics such as.

Internet Kill Switch.
Free Energy.
Clean Water.
Organic Food.
Consciousness Evolution.
Government / Banking Corruption.
War.

I thank you for giving birth to my generation. You are no longer needed. The coming wave will change everything. I suggest you seek cover.

Originally posted by Durrilll

Originally posted by Annee

My original comment was in relation to today's current economic model mixed with my opinion of fair distribution of earnings.

You also keep waving around the statement of Denial of Profit.

You don't seem to understand what everything is pushing towards. We have governments lashing out against the internet. We have banking conglomerates falling apart. We have the populace waking up to how they've been enslaved by debt. We have people losing their homes. All of this is about money. Money is of a benefit to a very select few. The amount of people who have been imprisoned by money number in the billions. You asked about how could Denial of Profit be de-legislated? Easy.

NO - - I'm trying to stick to subject. Fact & Law.

What we are pushing towards - - is a different subject.

People losing their homes - - is irrelevant to the Fact & Laws of this subject.

It is not about money - for money sake. It is about a product produced to earn a profit. And that profit is being denied by illegal activity.

The amount of money is inconsequential. It could be 2 cents - - Fact & Law remain the same.

So you are saying currently it is Denial of Profit due to illegal activity. But can easily be legislated to allow Denial of Profit. Is that right?

haha i just found out that tvshack who were shut down ..changed their domain from .org.com.net to .cc ...it seems they are still pumping out streaming movies ..cant keep a pirate down these days it seems ..arrrgh jim lad

Enough with the moral lessons.

If there is any moral lesson - - - it is the immoral self entitlement that its perfectly OK to get something for free - - because the producer has millions of dollars.

reply to post by eliteosbo


How do these pirate torrent sites make any money? It must cost them a fortune to host their site that receive thousands if not millions of visitors who visit them do download free music or films so what is in it for them.

Also when the fed closes down the sites who do they make pay the users of the sites or the hosts, and how do they decide what is a fair amount to pay.

What it is is that the people who make movies now want to profit from them forever. A disclaimer I'll make here is that I believe part of the problem is the "shelf life" of profit and how that has changed from the point in history where movies were seen only in theaters to the advent of the internet.

Also in play here is the perception that there is now and will never again be a free movie for people on the internet like there used to be on TV. You're either shackled to your TV or you pay or you just have no access to it.

Also in play is how the movie industry can't seem to even define any of these things for themselves. They're in constant react mode with the coming of new technology and their reasoning and rules are unclear to many. They don't make first run movies available online. They don't know what to do with personal copies.

It used to be that a movie hit theaters, had a run, and they made their money.

Then, with the advent of TV, they made a bit more money when that same movie was sold to the TV people for broadcast on commercial television to millions. The consumer didn't technically pay for this. To them it was free...the TV networks' money being made from selling advertising time.

Then cable television came into the picture as a way to get people to pay for watching movies without commercials. (Not exactly sure where this goes in the chronology of VCRs but will stick it here).

Later still, with the advent of VCRs, they found that releasing the movies on tape for a given amount of time before they sold it to commercial or cable TV could make them even more money.

Then they discovered a dilemna. People could also record movies on VCRs.

This is where it started to get interesting. It became okay for people to record the movies for their own use...they just couldn't profit from it. So it was perfectly okay for me to record a movie or TV show from TV and let 100s of my friends watch it. If I didn't make money.

Then came the internet. New marketing opportunity that most movie and cable and network television stations were WAY slow on the uptake on. In fact, they're all still piss poor and charge way too much for OLD things that we used to be able to get virtually for free (let's just exclude the price we pay for TV and connectivity here for simplicity's sake).

I can still record the movies shown on network or cable TV or CD to watch and share anytime for free. I can put these movies on tape or DVD and loan them out as long as I don't make money.

However, I can't put an OLDER movie (past the theatrical and VHS/CD/DVD/BluRay release date) out on a website for there for all my friends to see. That would just be too convenient. And in addition, when people started doing this, it gave the TV and movie people $$$ signs in their eyes. The $$$ signs they themselves didn't even see and now they're trying to play catch up.

There seems to be a logical disconnect between things like it being okay to record on things the VCR and DVR but not on the internet.

I think the movie and TV industries need to redefine their fair use acts before they start coming after people in blanket mode. Fair use being something like...if a TV show has been run and rerun, it is open to fair use. If a movie has been in theaters, on VHS, CD, DVD, BluRay, and on cable and it is past X time, it is open to fair use. If you OWN a movie you may also watch it on the internet.

There are too many nebulous and grey areas that have yet to be defined for them to be going after people in blanket mode about ALL the content on a site. Particularly if those sites do not make a profit.

And also, maybe if movie studios and television networks themselves provided the service in a modern thinking and fair priced way, the need for certain kinds of piracy would be eliminated.

Just some thoughts quickly jotted down to say I don't think the people who are putting people in jail have given much thought at all as to WHY this is happening and simply act like greedy children saying MINE and throwing people in jail. It's partly their own fault.

And again, I do NOT agree with true piracy, as in those who release movies before or while they are in theaters or during what is the "normal" profit-making cycle. Think back again to my point on "we used to be able to watch movies past a certain date for free on TV." Why is watching them for free on the web so much different. Oh yeah I forgot...it's a $$$ making opportunity for them. Well guess what? Eventually every product is supersaturated or dated. Especially the crap movies coming out of Hollywood these days.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

Also in play here is the perception that there is now and will never again be a free movie for people on the internet like there used to be on TV. You're either shackled to your TV or you pay or you just have no access to it.

When movies first came out on VHS - they cost approximately $150 to $200. Today you can get most new releases for $20. Older releases can be found for $9 - some $5 or less. Hardly highway robbery.

Many movies are sold to distributors for larger distribution low cost release.

Old Classics rights were bought by distributors. etc etc etc

Its really difficult to say who owns (has rights) to any movie. And when they acquired those rights.

I don't understand the self entitlement attitude that you have the right to Free and not pay for something - - - that "more then not" belongs to someone. Who may not be the original owner.

reply to post by Annee


Don't judge my attitude. I was merely attempting to make a point of how the movie industry has been action and how people have been reacting that may have lead to this. Both sides have issues. I clearly did not state what I was trying to say too well based on your reply.

reply to post by Durrilll


If someone tells me they have seen a movie, I don't ask if it is good, I ask if it is worth the 11$ per person per ticket.

Took my kid to see a movie and it was 32 bucks for a matinee.

so, we see movies, once, maybe twice a year. And it has to be something I really want to see.


The best deal is Netflix, you pay 15 bucks and they have lots of tv series on there. And a great variety of movies.

I am getting ready to go through the Sopranos.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by nixie_nox]

reply to post by nixie_nox

See now NetFlix makes more sense. It's convenience that I'm all about. I can't be tied down to a date and time or place to watch what I want to watch...and they make it easy. But I bet at some point they get cracked down on too. Once some bean counter in Hollywood starts looking at their rental/download/streaming stats.

Personally I think there are some industries that are too important to be left to free market whims (heavy industry needs to be regulated, healthcare, power, education)
Others are not important enough to justify massive government intervention.
Entertainment is one of those.
150 years monopoly is a pretty big intervention!
Lets not forget that this is a favor granted by society to the content producers as an incentive to produce content. We can and will revoke that if the spoilt brat doesnt behave. They are not entitled to it!
Free market for entertainment? That would mean abolishing IP. If thats what it takes... gulp.
Personally I could live with a reduction to 5 years.
And so could the industry.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Annee

 

Don't judge my attitude. I was merely attempting to make a point of how the movie industry has been action and how people have been reacting that may have lead to this. Both sides have issues. I clearly did not state what I was trying to say too well based on your reply.

Sorry - - didn't really mean anyone in particular. It is not the right word. Its just the one that hastily came to mind - - before I had to go rescue the dogs from a 2 year old.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

See now NetFlix makes more sense. It's convenience that I'm all about. I can't be tied down to a date and time or place to watch what I want to watch...and they make it easy. But I bet at some point they get cracked down on too. Once some bean counter in Hollywood starts looking at their rental/download/streaming stats.

My daughter uses Neflix too.

Don't they have licenses and contracts? I'd bet royalties are paid.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I think, not for sure, that the rental industry is a different field altogether. Like a museum, you pay to get in, not to pay to look at each piece.


I am a fence sitter on this issue. Artists should get paid for their art.

BUT, I also believe that free distribution generates revenue.
I have bought movies that I have liked, because I hate watching movies on the computer.

This topic is the reason I stopped being a Metallica fan. I refuse to listen to them or have anything to do with them. And I used to be a fanatic of theirs, until the Napster deal.

They were poor and broke for along time before coming famous. I would be willing to bet 100 dollars that they dubbed quite a few tapes in tehir day.
But liking a tape, that was copied, meant that you would pay to go to a concert, where they make more money.

And if you really liked the group, you ended up buying the tape, for the song lyrics, cover art,a nd band info.

The second thing people notice aobut an album is the cover art.

I have heard a rumor that records are making a come back just for that reaason. The cover and sleeve art says a lot about a band. And downloads are missing that whole aspect. And people are liking analog sound as oppossed to perfect compositions.

How many pictures of the 80s gen is it of kids sitting on the floor next to the record player, staring at the cover?

[edit on 3-7-2010 by nixie_nox]

Let me recount the tale about the last time I gave money to a publisher.
I bought a 6DVD set. Obviously it took me a while to get to DVD 4. I was quite suprised to find that I didnt have that one. Had #5 twice though. Of course at that time, the receipt was long gone. I also recalled the big signs in the shop stating that they will not take back digital media (for obvious reasons) So I decidede not to go back to the shop, but fired up another torrent instead, wondering why i had not done so in the first place.

Its a fact: putting data into a box and put it on a shelf is a very inefficent way to distribute it. I will not pay a premium to prop up that model. Only a few people shoutd be interested in that model ( No computer, no boradband, no secondary graphics card to connect to the tv (btw: nixie nox: got the graphics card that connects to the TV for 20 € on ebay. I use VLC to run a movie fullscreen on the TV, while working on the PC. ))

Thing is, there is money to be made in distribution! The keyword is convenience. I try to act like a homo economicus in this context: i choose the best product for the lowest price. Unfortunately the industry chose to make the paid for product less convinient. (A lot of the stuff on my hardrives would be hard or impossible to obtain legally: out of print, not released on DVD(VHS rips) Not available in my country ... Doctor Who reconstructions...)
I do pay for content, if it is more convenient. I do not pay for unskippable ads, animated menus and threats that I will get sent to prison and raped.

There is a lot wrong with copyright. I would embrace 5 years, I even wouldnt insist on having it bound to the creator. Fortunately where I am from you still need to make a profit from it to open yourself to a civil suit. I wish that for people in other countries as well.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by debunky

Its a fact that i dont have permission
It is also a fact that I am not taking anything
(non rival, non excludable good)

Borrowing? Viewing?

In my opinion - if you are Viewing - - that is an Act of Theft.

That's the problem it's not up to you. Your opinion is just that.

What really matters is the law and I think debunky has pointed out that copyright infringment is not theft according to the laws on the books.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by daskakik]