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: 19
31
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

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?



Absolutely - - an artist should have control of their work. AND charge whatever they want.

If no one buys it - - it is then up to the artist (or distributor) to make the decision to lower the price (or other). OR shelve it - until a later time.

As a consumer -- you have the right to choose to buy it at the original set price or wait for it to go on sale (if it does) - or wait for it to show up on a paid TV site (such as Direct TV) or a commercial TV site. OR view it with a friend who purchased it.

You do not (or should not) have the right or means to enjoy an artists work for free - - unless that artist (or distributor) offers it for free.

It is theft and it is wrong.

Your wants and desires do not over ride profit to artist.

Self Entitlement???? On what basis?




[edit on 6-7-2010 by Annee]




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Durrilll
 


This isn't even a drop in the bucket. Publicly visible websites, carrying low quality extracts and reencodes of scene material.

It's literally a PR move to scare people. This doesn't effect the source of industry piracy at all, it doesn't effect distribution in any way.

It's a kick to those who are too technologically oblivious to use irc, usenet, or ftp. It's a benefit to the masses who are too ignorant to keep their identity protected while actively engaging in the practice.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


I agree, why do they steal and leave fingerprints behind, geez.

One must be sneaky and hidden in plain sight in order to do it right



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by daskakik

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?



Absolutely - - an artist should have control of their work. AND charge whatever they want.

If no one buys it - - it is then up to the artist (or distributor) to make the decision to lower the price (or other). OR shelve it - until a later time.

As a consumer -- you have the right to choose to buy it at the original set price or wait for it to go on sale (if it does) - or wait for it to show up on a paid TV site (such as Direct TV) or a commercial TV site. OR view it with a friend who purchased it.

You do not (or should not) have the right or means to enjoy an artists work for free - - unless that artist (or distributor) offers it for free.

It is theft and it is wrong.

Your wants and desires do not over ride profit to artist.

Self Entitlement???? On what basis?


Calling them on their government granted monoploy to price gouge.

Answer this please. Is seeing a work of art in a museum, borrowing a commercial dvd or lending a book to a friend theft? Because to me it isn't theft if I don't make or keep a copy.

That is what entitles me and it isn't self entitlement if the law entitles me.


Edit to add - Isn't watching it with a friend who paid for it enjoying the artist's work for free?

[edit on 6-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I know of some of the websites mentioned.
2 of which have changed their URL and are already back up and running again lmao.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by daskakik

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?



Absolutely - - an artist should have control of their work. AND charge whatever they want.

If no one buys it - - it is then up to the artist (or distributor) to make the decision to lower the price (or other). OR shelve it - until a later time.

As a consumer -- you have the right to choose to buy it at the original set price or wait for it to go on sale (if it does) - or wait for it to show up on a paid TV site (such as Direct TV) or a commercial TV site. OR view it with a friend who purchased it.

You do not (or should not) have the right or means to enjoy an artists work for free - - unless that artist (or distributor) offers it for free.

It is theft and it is wrong.

Your wants and desires do not over ride profit to artist.

Self Entitlement???? On what basis?




[edit on 6-7-2010 by Annee]


Its a boykott. Thing is, I am not boykotting artists, I am boykotting distribution policies, and their custom made legal basis.
Because I think they are obsolete, and morally questionable in places.
Technology gives me the opportunity to target these 2 aspects rather precisely.
I do support artists, who choose to ask for money directly, instead of resorting to publishers, and I help by making the laws unenforcable. In average 10% of Europes population are filesharers. In Spain its 30 %. Sony pictures has promised (They thought it was a threat. I cant see it that way) theat they will stop distributing in Spain. So, yes. It works. Keep at it my fellow pirates. No surrender, no reatreat.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I prefer to support the artist, and not RIAA or MPAA.

And it's not about supporting the artist, it's about going to the CEOs and their lawyers pockets, which are the true thieves.

So I completely agree, theft is wrong.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
There is NO MONOPOLY.

Where do you keep getting monopoly from?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Does this mean im actually going to have to pay to watch a movie.

Bummer.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Its a boykott. Thing is, I am not boykotting artists, I am boykotting distribution policies, and their custom made legal basis.

Because I think they are obsolete, and morally questionable in places.
Technology gives me the opportunity to target these 2 aspects rather precisely.


You think?

Its not your call. Unless you are the artist trying to get your product noticed.

Let's see - - now which recording artist started by selling his CDs out of the trunk of his car? But later signed with a label?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TVeducated
Does this mean im actually going to have to pay to watch a movie.

Bummer.


Probably not.

But if you find a way to down load it for free - - - maybe you'll be honest about what you are doing.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


when you live accross the atlantic and have to wait sometimes up to a year to watch something,

what is one going to do?

1, watch it now by downloading it

or

2, wait up to a year and then watch it?

if they really wanted to stop piracy they would air them at decent air dates,
most these websites provided TV series that havent aired yet in diffrent countries,

if this hasnt been mentioned yet, Ninjavideo hasnt been seized but was taken down by the site admins on their free will while they do their stuff what ever it is.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


You do realize that many concerts today have canceled dates.

And many artists today are teaming up with other artists to off-set costs and bring in multiple fans.

This is a true boycott. Fans (or regular concert goers) not willing to pay exorbitant prices for tickets.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
Its a boykott. Thing is, I am not boykotting artists, I am boykotting distribution policies, and their custom made legal basis.
Because I think they are obsolete, and morally questionable in places.
Technology gives me the opportunity to target these 2 aspects rather precisely.
I do support artists, who choose to ask for money directly, instead of resorting to publishers, and I help by making the laws unenforcable. In average 10% of Europes population are filesharers. In Spain its 30 %. Sony pictures has promised (They thought it was a threat. I cant see it that way) theat they will stop distributing in Spain. So, yes. It works. Keep at it my fellow pirates. No surrender, no reatreat.


So in boycotting the evil industry, how do you decide how much money to send to the artist in order to support them individually?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
There is NO MONOPOLY.

Where do you keep getting monopoly from?


Here is s snippet from the US Constitution


Ariticle 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides for the creation of a temporary monopoly for authors and inventors on their written works and inventions.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

These words assign to the U.S. Congress the authority and responsibility to write law implementing what we call copyrights and patents.


This is a defenition of copyright from Gillhams - Intellectual Property Lawyers


Term: copyright monopoly 1. Copyright protection is said to be a qualified monopoly as the area of law does not create rights to prevent competing works that are created independently.



Even if it's for a limited time it's a monopoly.

Copyright = monopoly because no one has the right to copy or distibute without the copyright holders consent.

You are fine with this I am not. It's not a monopoly on the market but a monopoly on the individual piece of work.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
Answer this please. Is seeing a work of art in a museum,


You have to go to the museum that DID PAY for that artwork. No one took it from the artist.


borrowing a commercial dvd or lending a book to a friend theft?


If you have someone to borrow from, obviously they bought it and paid the artist. When they lend it to you, they no longer have it in their posession. They did not pay for copies, just one copy. The paid for it. If you lend a book, that would be a book you BOUGH right?


Because to me it isn't theft if I don't make or keep a copy.


That is because you do not have any concern for the person creating the art you enjoy and whether or not they are compensated for their work. You are taking away an opportunity for them to profit from their work. Taking without permission - theft.



That is what entitles me and it isn't self entitlement if the law entitles me.


Scary self justification for taking something that is not yours without permission from the creator.


Edit to add - Isn't watching it with a friend who paid for it enjoying the artist's work for free?

[edit on 6-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

That is what entitles me and it isn't self entitlement if the law entitles me.


Scary self justification for taking something that is not yours without permission from the creator.


It's not self justification if the laws where I live say this does not constitute a theft.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
So in boycotting the evil industry, how do you decide how much money to send to the artist in order to support them individually?


Well if it's an audio cd you could send the band $2.00. That would probably be 25%-50% more than the label would have given then for the sale of the cd.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Interesting.

The more challenged - - - the more truth comes out.

Oh gee - a temporary control of an artists work. Shocking!

Yes Mono - means ONE.

Poly means: -poly, -pole, -polism, -polist, -polists, -polistic, -polistically +
(Greek: used as a suffix; sale, selling; one who sells; pertaining to selling, to sell; trade, barter)

In other words: One - the creator. Has exclusive right of sale - - for a limited time period.

Somehow - - I can't find anything wrong with that.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
In other words: One - the creator. Has exclusive right of sale - - for a limited time period.

Somehow - - I can't find anything wrong with that.


That's what I have been saying all along. Your fine with that but it can lead to price gouging which is what I am not fine with.

On the other hand we have the "legal" defenition of seeing is not taking. Again if I go to a friends house and watch a movie that he paid for. The artist isn't getting a dime from me but I get to see his work. Same with other loaners. Artists never saw additional profit from loaned books, records, movies and it was never a big deal although everyone did it.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join