Feds shut down nine websites in movie piracy crackdown

it's stealing, no matter what kind of justification you try and make. if you want to see movies, pay for it, or wait till it comes out on the TV.
so what if the actors make alot of money, if you don't like the actor, don't go and see the movies they are in. and if your stealing from hollywood, who else are you stealing from...your employer?, your family?, your friends?, from stores?...

gees, try and have a little integrity, and honor, and quit being so damn selfish, and arrogant.

I think that some people lack the understanding as to what is actually involved in making a film. The following clip was something I did as a gift for those that had an entry in the ATS Live Show tinfoil hat competition. I was not a moderator at the time, but made it as non-competitive entry because I had won a contest earlier. My sense of fairness, not that there was any rule against it. But let me detail the process:

The finished clip itself is 22 seconds long. Was shot in one take. The music is culled to a 22 sec clip from a song that was about 7 minutes long. The actions and music sync were poorly done on purpose. Total time involved from start to finished upload was nearly 6 hours. At just minimum wage rates, that 22 seconds would have cost $43.50.

Now nothing in the film industry is federal minimum wage. So let's look at it from Hollywood minimum contract standards. Costuming for the hat: $20.00 for materials (everything is charged full retail price even when using leftovers plus additional charges for tools, scissors in this case), $30 labor (for 2 hours work), Wardrobe gets $10-$15, SAG minimum for the actiong is $782 per day, camera would $500 (add another $60 for the tripod), Editing would be close to $500 (labor and percentage of equipment/software used), The musicians (if found) would be entitled to $150-$250 for the song plus royalties (per airing---depending on the contract could be as high as $.05 per view). And I have glossed over the location, film permits, catering, director, producer and distributor fees (cost of ATS hosting the video) here. So in the neighborhood of $2157 of upfront cost for that same 22 sec clip had it been a "Hollywood" piece.

Now remember this was all done for the entertainment of the membership, technically I have over $1500 wrapped up in this between the camera, computer and other things but I am also free to use them however I wish. Not the same situation for a "professional studio" that does work for profit.

The try before you buy argument just doesn't hold water when you look at the big picture. And the $2157 didn't touch on all upfront expenses nor reflect hiring above minimum production standards. And some costs could have been reduced, being an independent production. Such as not paying the SAG minimum, since I am not a member of SAG.

But this is why piracy hurts. Why gamble an upfront cost if too much of the potential profit can be lost? With the exception of a few independent films that have been picked up: Clerks, Blair Witch Project. Things of this nature tend not to make money enough to recuperate the loss of making the film. Had Clerks been pirated to the extent of many films are, Kevin Smith would have been done a long time ago. The same could be said for Trey Parker and Matt Stone and their complete flop of Cannibal: The Musical.

But for your comedic musings and because I talked about it so much.

reply to post by Ahabstar


Interesting. I did a 25 minute piece for a NGO. It involved taking video shots that they had taken on a few of their projects, editing, laying a soundtrack and narration. Adding a few titles and about half a dozen powerpoint slides. Duplicated 15 times to vcd with original cover art. Total cost = $70.00. Price per aditional copy $1.50. If they want to pirate it they can go ahead. I was paid for my services.

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.


[edit on 5-7-2010 by Annee]

2 Problems here:
1) There is US precedent that transporting bootleg records across statelines (To be sold for a profit) can not be considered transporting stolen goods. If they arent stolen goods, according to US law, how could the aquisition be theft?
2) Murder is Murder, no matter what the law says? Wow, how do you guys in the US find Soldiers, Police Officers ... and people who carry out the death penalty? Of course, since your average militant vegetarian claims eating meat is murder, you should all go to jail anyway.
Euthanasia anyone?
Bottom line: Not even Murder is Murder, even without the whole Manslaughter/Murder 1st, Murder 2nd, self defense division.

The problem with morality is that it's a rather relative beast. Of course my moral standards are absolutely right, and its the world who is sometimes in error.

But the real question is this: If the pro-copyright side (as repeatedly stated) does not care about the law, why should I?

Originally posted by daskakik
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.

Yes - but we are primarily talking about new releases.

And older movies are probably under new ownership for distribution - - so it really doesn't apply.

Originally posted by Annee
Yes - but we are primarily talking about new releases.

And older movies are probably under new ownership for distribution - - so it really doesn't apply.

Actually it applies for the life of the right holder +75 years if i'm not mistaken. And if the right holder is a corporation well I guess it could be centuries. That is why they are so interseted in signing you.

They (the old time players) don't want to rent you their studios, actors props or musicians. They don't just want to copy and distibute your art. They want you to sign. Because once you sign your art is theirs and they now have the monopoly.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Annee
Yes - but we are primarily talking about new releases.

And older movies are probably under new ownership for distribution - - so it really doesn't apply.

Actually it applies for the life of the right holder +75 years if i'm not mistaken. And if the right holder is a corporation well I guess it could be centuries. That is why they are so interseted in signing you.

They (the old time players) don't want to rent you their studios, actors props or musicians. They don't just want to copy and distibute your art. They want you to sign. Because once you sign your art is theirs and they now have the monopoly.

It is not a monopoly. Distribution is a competitive business.

In most cases I believe you can re-apply for Copyright. Like Disney does. I'm not an expert on the whole Disney thing - - - but I believe they represent a brand - - and want to keep the integrity of that brand.

Seriously - I can't even imagine what would happen to Snow White if Disney lost control.

Sometimes the ethical reason is justified. Let's just leave the money alone on this one.

Originally posted by debunky
The problem with morality is that it's a rather relative beast. Of course my moral standards are absolutely right, and its the world who is sometimes in error.

OK - had to laugh at this.

I won't even bring my personal belief's into this. But I lean Atheist Socialist - - which will now scare the "bull pucky" out of several of the remaining posters.

I know - I'm going to Hell. How dare I have an issue with morals.

reply to post by Annee


They don't just get the distribution right they also get the copyrights if you sign them over to them.

Copyright from wiki:

Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. These rights can be licensed, transferred and/or assigned. Copyright lasts for a certain time period after which the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to a wide range of works that are substantive and fixed in a medium. Some jurisdictions also recognize "moral rights" of the creator of a work, such as the right to be credited for the work.

So when you sign with them they may very well become owners of the copyrights.

If you don't see how having exclusive rights equals a monopoly then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by daskakik
Total cost = $70.00. Price per aditional copy $1.50. If they want to pirate it they can go ahead. I was paid for my services.

Lovely sentiment. Good thing no one else was involved.

If someone chooses to give up their right to profit - - that's an entirely different matter.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Annee

 

They don't just get the distribution right they also get the copyrights if you sign them over to them.

Copyright from wiki:

Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. These rights can be licensed, transferred and/or assigned. Copyright lasts for a certain time period after which the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to a wide range of works that are substantive and fixed in a medium. Some jurisdictions also recognize "moral rights" of the creator of a work, such as the right to be credited for the work.

So when you sign with them they may very well become owners of the copyrights.

If you don't see how having exclusive rights equals a monopoly then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

If there was only one company doing it. If only one company was allowed to do it. That would be a monopoly.

But that is not the case. There are many competing distributors. It is a fair market.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Annee

 

They don't just get the distribution right they also get the copyrights if you sign them over to them.

Copyright from wiki:

Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. These rights can be licensed, transferred and/or assigned. Copyright lasts for a certain time period after which the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to a wide range of works that are substantive and fixed in a medium. Some jurisdictions also recognize "moral rights" of the creator of a work, such as the right to be credited for the work.

So when you sign with them they may very well become owners of the copyrights.

If you don't see how having exclusive rights equals a monopoly then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

If there was only one company doing it. If only one company was allowed to do it. That would be a monopoly.

But that is not the case. There are many competing distributors. It is a fair market.

That's where we're stuck. The producer has bought the rights from the screen writer (author if an adaptation) to the post production. They have the rights. They license a distribution company but that isn't where the monopoly is it's in the producers hands. They can redit the film or shelve it or even send it straight to video. As long as the company doesn't sell the right to someone else or another company no one has any say in what happens to the film.

Let's say the original idea was yours. The producer sent it straight to video and after the first year they let it die. You always thought it would make a good stage show. Well too bad cause you sold it and if the producer doesn't want to license it to broadway it will not happen.

It won't see a reissue in dvd with extra content or digital download or midnight screening in quirky coffee houses if the rights holder (the producer) doesn't like the idea.

reply to post by daskakik


No No No

Every contract is different.

If you are the author - - you can option your work to a producer (or whoever). You can give them complete control - partial control - retain creative control - etc. - - for a period of time. During this time you (as the author) may be limited or prevented from profiting from your work. (completely depending on the contract).

OR - - you can sell the rights.

OR - - any other contract you work out with who is going to produce your work.

If you sell your work and copyright outright - - - you have no say - - because you are no longer the owner.

There is No monopoly. Its fair business practice.

I never try to justify it really

I've pirated for about 15 years, and in the 80's I used to make copies of VHS tapes I rented from movie houses like blockbuster/movie gallery to pad my movie collection or give out to friends.

I also made mix tapes and when a friend back in school had the brand new hot tape of the time I'd borrow it, slap it in the dual cassette deck and copy it.

So to be honest I've pirated since I was 7 or 8 hehe.

and I'll pirate until my dying breath.

I also help out as a link finder for forums like movieplex.org or icefilms.info both great places and really awesome community.

I stopped trying to debate my reasons since it's like atheists arguing with christians, they will scream and argue until blue in the face, it's like they will argue with a fence post and dare the fence post to talk back.

So I'm a pirate from age 7 to 34... I don't have to argue or justify it
and if you dont want to pirate thats your own perogative.

People that argue, defame, scream and yell just to try and get someone to conform to their personal moral and ethics are just disgusting. That is about the only thing I'll say about it.

Originally posted by Cito

I stopped trying to debate my reasons since it's like atheists arguing with christians, they will scream and argue until blue in the face, it's like they will argue with a fence post and dare the fence post to talk back.

l and ethics are just disgusting. That is about the only thing I'll say about it.

Who? The Atheists or the Christians? Since you listed Atheists first - - I assume you consider their position invalid.

I doubt there is anyone - when video's first came out - who did not copy. It was new - few really understood. A lot of innocent/naive/ignorance.

Ignorance is one thing. Intentional knowledgeable theft is something else.

Prince has a very good quote for this:

“The internet’s completely over. I don’t see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They
won’t pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can’t get it. The internet’s like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated. Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no
good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can’t be good for you." - Prince

Like him or hate him, Prince is one artist that does not continue to allow himself to fall victim to the system.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


They are making remakes because they are running out of ideas. They need to bring in fresh blood so they stop ruining great classics.

For movies copyright expires 50 years after publishing.
For books its death of author +70 years
(These are the WIPO Minimums. If your Laws say something below that you cant be a member, if they say more, good for you)
Its fortunately not *that* insane that "life of the right holder" gets used.
Of course, if you wonder if, say, Key Largo from 1948 is free of copyright: The original 16 mm rolls should be. The VHS or DVD is not.

Originally posted by debunky
For movies copyright expires 50 years after publishing.
For books its death of author +70 years
(These are the WIPO Minimums. If your Laws say something below that you cant be a member, if they say more, good for you)
Its fortunately not *that* insane that "life of the right holder" gets used.
Of course, if you wonder if, say, Key Largo from 1948 is free of copyright: The original 16 mm rolls should be. The VHS or DVD is not.

Well - that's all and good.

But - aren't you getting a bit off topic?

reply to post by Annee


Let's stay away from the licensing or transfering of rights. The simple answer is that being the owner is the monopoly. Only the owner can allow the work to be reproduced and distributed in anywhich way they see fit and at the price they want.

I can get a copy of "X" and duplicate it and charge the end buyer $1.00. The owner (copyright holder) can sue and I would have to pay up because the government has given him exclusive rights and he says only "Such and Such Inc." can make copies of "X" and sell them. They do this at $10.00 a copy.

That is the monopoly. Now you can say that I am free to not buy "X" but instead I can buy "Y" and this is true so the market for XYZ is not monopolized but the supply and/or the price of "X" is manipulated because the government has given the copyright owner exclusive rights.

You feel that this is right. I say if they know they can offer it for less but use their exclusive rights to overprice then, why should I feel sorry for them?



[edit on 6-7-2010 by daskakik]