Feds shut down nine websites in movie piracy crackdown

reply to post by debunky


I'm not so sure production costs have dropped so much. They've just changed on what costs. A lot more technology is used today - - which is quite expensive. I always read credits - - and that list gets longer and longer. (I know almost everyone has to be listed now) - - but the artists/special effects etc etc just keeps growing.

Distribution might be easier - - not so sure its cheaper.

Equipment is cheaper.

Well isn't this a heated discussion. After reading the first 10 pages I finally pushed the "Post Reply" button, I really didnt want to read the rest of the pages because I assumed they were just the same posts over again.
Now, that being said; I'm not sure I can pick one side over the another on this issue.
Both sides have good points, although, the way they are presented is idiotic at times.
So anyway, here is some rambling from me to this issue, if you dont care then please, skip. Otherwise I might waste your time and that would be bad.

"Piracy". A nasty topic in a way, almost like talking about religion or sports. First thing I'd like to remind everyone is that while making an argument and/or debating with someone about an issue, namecalling is childish and frowned upon. Seriously, if your only argument is "lol ur a thief" then you'll look like an idiot. Then again, if your only argument is "but dem fat kats has lot of money i dont make a change!1" then you're not any better.
Now that I've probably gotten most of the people pissed off, let's move on.

Personally, I use torrents. One thing most people fail to see is that services like the pirate bay don't actually do anything illegal - they just provide information on how to get data. You cant blame the guy who made the highway for the actions of another guy who robbed a bank and used the said highway to get away, can you?

Now, to the famous "justification" part - The reason I use torrents is simple, there actually exists some TV series that I want to watch but I have no way available of doing so. I dont live in the US, but I like to watch some US tv series, like..House.
Now, I could wait 5 years to see it in here. (Not even kidding, they're airing house in here and last time I checked it was season 2.) Ok, I understand if someone is going to yell "THEN YOU SHOULD JUST WAIT 5 YEARS!!1" but..do I have to? =(
Ok ok, seriously though, I choose to download a new episode of house whenever one is available because it is the only way for me to see it.
Sure, there's hulu right? Well..sure, except that it doesnt work in my country of residence. I would give it a try if it did work in here, even if it has ads. So, am I a horrible thief now because I'm watching a TV series I would otherwise probably miss completely, and thus I would provide no profit to the company who makes it anyway.
Well..I like to think not. Then again, I dont really care if people think I'm a thief, it's their opinion.
I have to admit though, I dont like if people are profiting from sharing those files. Now, thats just abuse in my eyes. Making profit using other peoples work. Then again, if you keep an information database that lot of people use, that creates traffic. So, I guess it's understandable to have a banner or two in your site to offset the hosting costs.
So, as long as the sharing of the files happens freely and no 3rd party makes any profit from it - I'm OK with it. Because some people actually do things like this:
Download a CD - if it's good, they'll buy it.
Download a movie - if it's enjoyable, they'll buy it.
"Yay" for everyone, right? Well, Not exactly. Not everyone is like that which brings me to the whole reason I'm posting anyway..

HOLLYWOOD PRODUCERS AND SUCH, READ THIS!

Do something INTELLIGENT about it. Trying to scare people obviously doesn't work, just take a look at the whole marijuana thing. Just because something is illegal or they might get punished for it doesnt matter to most people. In fact, it might even increase the users, thrill of doing something that's "wrong" and all that you know?

Now, if you'd hire me I could get you much better results than those RIAA and MPAA folks do with 99% less money. How? Because I would go on about it by doing something smart!
Like lets say...CREATE BETTER SERVICES!
The world is evolving around us, the technology is evolving. Naturally, the services have to evolve too! I could go on, but char limit is upon me.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Is the only way you value something through money?

Me personally? Hardly. Not sure how that applies. Would you like to discuss financial obfuscation in terms of apples? fresh water? shiny rocks? sea shells? Tell me.

I like the music hollywood produces, I just don't like to support corporate greed and overpriced music.

So the moral choice is to take it without compensating anyone. I guess you suppose the artists that make that music you like so much just automatically make money whether they can sell a cd or not?

Thanks for attacking me for stating my opinion though, I wonder where your interests lie.

If you feel attacked then perhaps you should take another look at your stance. Calling a thief is only an attack if it is not true. You admit you are a thief so please do not cry about it.

Hollywood isn't producing crap, they're producing good movies(well not lately) and good music, I just don't like to pay grossly inflated prices for those products.

You do not see how ridiculously hypocritical that is? Who are you to decide whether or not the price is fair? When was the last time you offered double for something?

Originally posted by hippomchippo
They are charging up to 40 dollars for a CD.

Here is a big part of your problem.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Really? Is it worth the 40 dollars profit they receive for every single sale?
And how much of that goes to the people who produced the material on the CD?

If they are charging 40 bucks for it, they are hardly profiting 40 bucks. Perhaps you feel entitled to steel because you have no idea how anything works. Must be a nice place to live.

So they shut them down, and now they moved to new sites.

What got accomplished?

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Not really. Come to my home and try and take my stuff without my permission. It will be interesting to see which of us reaches for the law first.

This has nothing to do with me downloading a copy of something that you have offered to the públic.

Yes it does. If I am offering it for sale, I STILL OWN IT TILL YOU BUY IT FROM ME. Therefore, it is still my stuff - copy or not.

I don't have to go into an artists home to buy a copy of his album so why would I have to do that to get a bootleg?

Fine, download something from my computer then. I still promise you will be the first one to cry "police!"

The thing you fail to understand is that the country where I live gives me the chance to obtain copies of your stuff without it being illegal.

So if I take your family to a place where there is no law against murder, you would not be upset when I killed all of them? If you want to cry technicality in order to justify taking what does not belong to you, great. I am sure you sleep well at night.

Call it whatever you want I am within the laws of where I live and when all is said and done those are the rules that I must live by.

I never said a damn thing about laws. Theft is theft, laws or no laws.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Not really. Come to my home and try and take my stuff without my permission. It will be interesting to see which of us reaches for the law first.

This has nothing to do with me downloading a copy of something that you have offered to the públic.

Yes it does. If I am offering it for sale, I STILL OWN IT TILL YOU BUY IT FROM ME. Therefore, it is still my stuff - copy or not.

I don't have to go into an artists home to buy a copy of his album so why would I have to do that to get a bootleg?

Fine, download something from my computer then. I still promise you will be the first one to cry "police!"

The thing you fail to understand is that the country where I live gives me the chance to obtain copies of your stuff without it being illegal.

So if I take your family to a place where there is no law against murder, you would not be upset when I killed all of them? If you want to cry technicality in order to justify taking what does not belong to you, great. I am sure you sleep well at night.

Call it whatever you want I am within the laws of where I live and when all is said and done those are the rules that I must live by.

I never said a damn thing about laws. Theft is theft, laws or no laws.

Ohhh great.
Now we compare filesharing to murder.
Of course, by your reasoning, that works. Both things get judged in court, with lawyers present, and there are laws about it.
You may not like it gunderson, but when it comes to Law it is all about those little "technicalities"
Finding out, what laws were broken, and what the penalty is.

2 quotes for you, from an "Interview" by Billboard Magazine with Geoff Taylor, Head of the BPI about the Digital Economy Act:

But there had been a huge amount of debate and scrutiny of the bill for quite an extended period and we think that it will have a significant effect over time on reducing levels of P2P infringement.

See what word he uses? Infringement. Not theft. He is smart enough to know that it isnt theft, and that those ads are just propaganda for the unwashed masses.

And this one:

It's interesting that Talk Talk talked about how they will never disconnect anybody. There's nothing in the [Act] that provides for disconnection. So they won't do something they're not going to be asked to do anyway? Well that's very brave of them. Whether or not they are right to object to temporary account suspension as a potential remedy, we don't believe they are in the last resort.

"It's not disconnection, it's temporary account suspension!" I'd love to hear him argue that, and what the distinction really is.

The whole "interview" is here:
www.billboard.biz...

@Annee: I was thinking about reduced variable costs. The shooting budget I would classify as fixed costs. And fixed costs have very little influence on price.

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.

Yes and they need to move abroad to places like Russia and possibly iceland if plans go ahead plus remember obama wants a internet kill switch.

My torrents are working just fine and i've never had a notice from my ISP so may i recomend Jaybob at isohunt.com but do avoid the ones with no download and neg feedback that goes to show how the industry is trying to take jaybob down.

if they realy want to stop piracy then they had better start at the FED and the BoE and then maybe people could aford silly prices to watch a film.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Yes it does. If I am offering it for sale, I STILL OWN IT TILL YOU BUY IT FROM ME. Therefore, it is still my stuff - copy or not.

Not according to the laws where I live. Don't like it? File suit.

Fine, download something from my computer then. I still promise you will be the first one to cry "police!"

Don't have to get anything directly from you but if your work is on the net I may very well download a copy. If I like it and want to keep it I will gladly pay for it but you getting aggresive isn't going to scare me into paying you so just calm down and try to work with me.

So if I take your family to a place where there is no law against murder, you would not be upset when I killed all of them? If you want to cry technicality in order to justify taking what does not belong to you, great. I am sure you sleep well at night.

I never said a damn thing about laws. Theft is theft, laws or no laws.

Right many things anger us. My electricity bill just went up 30%. NGO's filed suit and lost. Courts said the electric company is within it's rights and within the limits of the rates authorized by the ministry of energy.

What am I gonna do? Tell the electric company execs "how would you like it if I murdered your family?" Of course not. I'm gonna unplug anything not being used and complain about anyone leaving lights on when their not in that room.

Laws are what entitle us. The law in your country entitles you to a monopoly on the copying of your work and the law in mine strips you of it.

[edit on 5-7-2010 by daskakik]

Originally posted by daskakik


Not according to the laws where I live. Don't like it? File suit.

Anyone not honestly admitting & knowing in their own head its theft - is very sad.

Legal or not.

As said in a previous post "if you commit murder in a country where it is legal - - it does not change the fact it is still murder".

Doesn't matter if you are horrified by that analogy or not. It is the same thing.

Theft is theft. Murder is murder. Law or no law.


[edit on 5-7-2010 by Annee]

Originally posted by daskakik

My answer remains the same the law where I live entitles me. Just like the law where you live entitles you to hold a monopoly.

I'm not understanding how monopoly relates to this subject. Or was that just a reference to different laws in different countries?

So - in your country - if a movie is produced in your country - then released - it is available for free?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by daskakik


Not according to the laws where I live. Don't like it? File suit.

Anyone not honestly admitting & knowing in their own head its theft - is very sad.

Legal or not.

As said in a previous post "if you commit murder in a country where it is legal - - it does not change the fact it is still murder.

Doesn't matter if you are horrified by that analogy or not. It is the same thing.

Theft is theft. Murder is murder. Law or no law.

Right theft is theft but copyright infringement is not theft.

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement.

If you think it's just fancy lawyer talk then you are right but, the same could be said about copyright laws.

Originally posted by daskakik


Right theft is theft but copyright infringement is not theft.

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement.

If you think it's just fancy lawyer talk then you are right but, the same could be said about copyright laws.

If the producer of a product is denied profit - - because someone else is offering their product for free - - especially in mass quantities - - it is theft.

Hopefully - this latest crackdown will take it back to court.

Originally posted by Annee
I'm not understanding how monopoly relates to this subject. Or was that just a reference to different laws in different countries?

So - in your country - if a movie is produced in your country - then released - it is available for free?

Monopoly comes into the subject because that is what copyright gives the right holder.

As to your other question, yes and no. There is copyright here but if you download a copy then you could say it is available for free. The law actually says it may be held for 24 hours before there is copyright infringment. Which is a cool law cause it makes it legal to check something out but if you keep it without paying then it's illegal.

Originally posted by daskakik

Monopoly comes into the subject because that is what copyright gives the right holder.

As to your other question, yes and no. There is copyright here but if you download a copy then you could say it is available for free. The law actually says it may be held for 24 hours before there is copyright infringment. Which is a cool law cause it makes it legal to check something out but if you keep it without paying then it's illegal.

OK - I love to learn - - need more understanding of how that is a monopoly.

OK - I understand ability to review. There is some of that here in the states.

However - - - are you free to download foreign movies without the 24 hour hold? Are you saying the 24 hour preview applies only in your countries laws?

[edit on 5-7-2010 by Annee]

reply to post by Annee


As to monopolies wiki says this here:

In economics, a government-granted monopoly (also called a "de jure monopoly") is a form of coercive monopoly by which a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or firm to be the sole provider of a good or service; potential competitors are excluded from the market by law, regulation, or other mechanisms of government enforcement.

Now as far as the 24 hour preview clause in local law, this applies to all copyrighted material. That is part of the agreement under WIPO. When a country signs they agree that their local law covers any and all copyrighted material.

The catch is that the material is only covered by local law so whatever the laws are in the country where it was made do not apply.


[edit on 5-7-2010 by daskakik]

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Annee

 

As to monopolies wiki says this here:

In economics, a government-granted monopoly (also called a "de jure monopoly") is a form of coercive monopoly by which a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or firm to be the sole provider of a good or service; potential competitors are excluded from the market by law, regulation, or other mechanisms of government enforcement.

Yes - but movie making is fair market - not a monopoly - - as far as I understand it.

Anyone can make a movie and sell it. There is no exclusive or monopoly on who can make a movie.

Believe me - - - there are plenty of competitors.

So I honestly don't see how monopoly applies.

Originally posted by daskakik

Now as far as the 24 hour preview clause in local law, this applies to all copyrighted material. That is part of the agreement under WIPO. When a country signs they agree that their local law covers any and all copyrighted material.

The catch is that the material is only covered by local law so whatever the laws are in the country where it was made do not apply.

If that is the case -- you are saying you can watch a movie for free as a preview. But you are not obligated to purchase it. But - I assume - you need to downloaded to your own computer - - - or am I not up on my bandwidth info.

Personally I would not consider a Preview - - viewing the entire product.

There is a flaw in the law there.

reply to post by Annee


From the same link from my previous post:

Copyright gives the author of an original work exclusive right for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation, after which time the work is said to enter the public domain.

Not that the monopoly is of the movie market but of the one particular movie.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by daskakik

Now as far as the 24 hour preview clause in local law, this applies to all copyrighted material. That is part of the agreement under WIPO. When a country signs they agree that their local law covers any and all copyrighted material.

The catch is that the material is only covered by local law so whatever the laws are in the country where it was made do not apply.

If that is the case -- you are saying you can watch a movie for free as a preview. But you are not obligated to purchase it. But - I assume - you need to downloaded to your own computer - - - or am I not up on my bandwidth info.

Personally I would not consider a Preview - - viewing the entire product.

There is a flaw in the law there.

Right you can download using any means and view the entire movie and delete before the 24 hours are up. After 24 hours you either have to pay or it's copyright infringment.

I could hear an entire song on the radio before downloading from itunes. Probably listen to an entire album on internet radio before buying a cd.
So to me watching a movie once isn't the same as owning a copy. You could even borrow a dvd from a friend watch the whole movie and no one is complaining so why would downloading be any different?

I think this is why spain ruled it no different then loaning a friend a book.



[edit on 5-7-2010 by daskakik]