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: 21
31
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Cito
 


So basicly just a leach off of society and every single friend you have ever had... Brilliant way of life.. Glad I chose my path.. Yours sounds very icky!!




posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
I'm amazed that any of you, being here on the internet. Can call downloading a movie theft.

You're honestly stealing nothing. There is nothing physical. You aren't taking from one person to have for yourself.



AGAIN: Denial of Profit.

Product produced for sale is entitled to profit.

You can't get any more plain then that.

Choosing to dismiss or deny this for self gratification - - does not change fact.

It makes you a thief.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Anne,

This is an argument that we will never win.. They feel they way they do.. Some for semi logical reasons and others for just plain lack of morals.

Their logic works for this argument only.. If applied to other products and services, it would erode like a sand hill.

I believe that several of you feel you are standing up to "the man"

But... I also believe some of you are just theives that will take anything not nailed down.

But to argue this anymore would be ignorant on our part... I even saw one guy say that they were a "monopoly" LMFAO... what a stretch....

I guess a hooker is a monopoly too? She is the only one with that specific vagina!!!!.. So does she have a monopoly? Pathetic, absurd and misguided argument!!

Sorry about the anology... it was no more absurd than his "monopoly" claim!!



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

And one more time I ask:
If you dont care about the laws, why again should I?



Don't deflect.

One question: do you download from a legitimate site sanctioned by your country/government.

OR - a piracy site?

If it is legitimate - - then some contract/license of compensation is most likely the case. SOMEONE is compensating the producer/distributor. If these sites begin to lose money because customer's are taking advantage - - there will be changes.

IF - you are downloading from a piracy site - - then I doubt that falls under your country/government laws.

So - are you lawful or not?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by mryanbrown
I'm amazed that any of you, being here on the internet. Can call downloading a movie theft.

You're honestly stealing nothing. There is nothing physical. You aren't taking from one person to have for yourself.



AGAIN: Denial of Profit.

Product produced for sale is entitled to profit.

You can't get any more plain then that.

Choosing to dismiss or deny this for self gratification - - does not change fact.

It makes you a thief.


You aren't denying them from selling the manufactured product for sale. People simply aren't buying it. Totally different.

File sharing also isn't the same as distributing with intent to sale.

You are allowed under law to make personal copies. "Backups". Who says the backup has to be physical? And if you can share your physical backup, why can't you share your virtual backup?

The bottom line of the argument is monetary motivation. The older generation thinks the world will come to an end if the younger generation stops buying overpriced products.

When the reality of the situation has been stated quite nicely.

Movies continue to make record profits. All parties involved recoup all costs. And then added profit. Despite piracy being on the rise.

Theres an underlying shifting-baseline where those who can afford to pay for media, pay more for media. And those who could only afford to pay for so much, and download the rest still do.

All lost costs are offset to the part of society who is content paying the prices to absorb the lost potential revenue.

Not actual lost revenue.


And you can loosely quote a law all you want. You still completely ignored the simple fact that nothing is being stolen. Hence it's not theft.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by Annee
 


Anne,

This is an argument that we will never win.. They feel they way they do.. Some for semi logical reasons and others for just plain lack of morals.


Oh - I am fully aware of that.

Here's a different twist. You and I probably came from the generation of integrity "your handshake is your bond" - and all that.

I'm sure you've heard of the Starseeds - a generation incarnating to help humans evolve spiritually.

I'm seeing another side. A side of self-preservation. Definitely the ME generation. But is there a reason for it? My 10 year old granddaughter is one of the most self-important people I have ever met.

Is it the environment or social changes - OR is this generation a planned incarnation to survive a very uncertain future?

Were they intentionally wired that way in the pre-existence?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Here's a different twist. You and I probably came from the generation of integrity "your handshake is your bond" - and all that.


I hope my view that there's nothing be stolen, hence it's not theft doesn't exclude me from this mentality.

Because I feel quite the same when it comes to integrity and personal values.

These are things which the industry cares nothing for, and as such is a sentient entity powered by human greed not worthy of me caring what happens to it either way.

It is not a person. It is not a moral beacon. It is deserving of no kindness, because it has no emotions with which to accept and reciprocate.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by mryanbrown]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

You aren't denying them from selling the manufactured product for sale. People simply aren't buying it. Totally different.

File sharing also isn't the same as distributing with intent to sale.



NO - its not different. Denying Profit - is Denying Profit. Period.

As far as file sharing and fair use etc. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

When its your business - you learn the laws.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

I hope my view that there's nothing be stolen, hence it's not theft doesn't exclude me from this mentality.

Because I feel quite the same when it comes to integrity and personal values.

These are things which the industry cares nothing for, and as such is a sentient entity powered by human greed not worthy of me caring what happens to it either way.



Obviously not.

It is not your job as a consumer to regulate the industry - - whether you agree with them or not.

Intentionally acquiring a commercial product without paying - - because you don't agree with the price - - is not moral or ethical - - it is stealing.

If you were truly moral/ethical - - you would go with out - boycotting the product completely.

No matter how you try to twist it to justify it - - does not change the fact.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974

But... I also believe some of you are just theives that will take anything not nailed down.

But to argue this anymore would be ignorant on our part... I even saw one guy say that they were a "monopoly" LMFAO... what a stretch....


Oh yeah - - its the trying every way possible to justify theft as not-theft - - that gets me.

If someone said "the opportunity is there and I'm taking it" - - at least that would be honest without denial.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
sometimes i dont understand you people..
okay continue to :
pay 30$ to some "specialist" to clean your pc with a towell
pay 50$/hour to some "specialist" to run antispyware on your pc,couse you still use stone age web browser.
pay 90$ for a terrible game made only to profit from you without any design or fun.
pay 90$ for antivirus that clogs your system and you dont even need it.
PAY PAY PAY for itunes to download a SONG!!!
in the end of the day i would be laugthing at you,couse with the money i DIDNT spend, i became RICH
xaaxaxaxxaax



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
NO - its not different. Denying Profit - is Denying Profit. Period.


Agreed. But they aren't denying profit. They simply aren't providing it. Easy to confuse the two if you only look at it with monetary considerations. (ie GREED)


When its your business - you learn the laws.


I'm quite aware of the laws. Which is why courts are unable to prosecute citizens for file sharing, and 3rd parties end up resorting to legal intimidation to settle out of court.

But hey what do I know. I'm only a technical savvy internet generation kid born and raised in cyberspace. Who loves laws, and knowing what my rights are.

You can cite copyright laws and all that jazz all day. In the end, I'm still fully aware of what my rights on the INTERNET are.

That virtual word that doesn't actually exist.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Stillalive
 


Hopefully when you get "rich" you will continue your edumication (sic).. To improve your grammar.

At least your honest and can just come out and say "I am perfectly ok with stealing someones hard work". "I also find it funny that you productive members of society keep paying for things that I am stealing".

I have an odd respect for your honesty.

You will fit in perfectly when society breaks down and you have to steal things to survive... You will be well trained in the subject.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Mobius1974]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by mryanbrown

I hope my view that there's nothing be stolen, hence it's not theft doesn't exclude me from this mentality.

Because I feel quite the same when it comes to integrity and personal values.

These are things which the industry cares nothing for, and as such is a sentient entity powered by human greed not worthy of me caring what happens to it either way.



Obviously not.

It is not your job as a consumer to regulate the industry - - whether you agree with them or not.

Intentionally acquiring a commercial product without paying - - because you don't agree with the price - - is not moral or ethical - - it is stealing.

If you were truly moral/ethical - - you would go with out - boycotting the product completely.

No matter how you try to twist it to justify it - - does not change the fact.


That's exactly what it is. The job of the consumer to regulate. Through purchasing habits, government representatives, opinion, and voice. Because consumers are citizens. They are the sovereigns who decide how their government is ran, and in turn their government oversees regulations.

It is not the job of the soulless entity known as a corporation to decide what the sentient souls of the masses need. It is that OF the people.

There is a difference between a private individual sharing something for personal use. And a company illegally acquiring software or anything of the sort to make profit from without paying.

I know how much people in the business world would love to apply corporate statute law to private citizens. But the sad news is that we are the sovereigns.

I fail to see how as an example, morals relating to boycotting say software come into play. Software is amoral. So there is no moral justification for boycotting it.

And again you come back to your assumption that you believe creating a virtual non-existent duplicate constitutes theft.



theft
–noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.



Let's let that sink in a moment shall we. Let's notice the semicolon there, second clause clearly states...

taking AND CARRYING away of the personal goods (physical) or property (physical) of another.

As a digital copy is a non-physical, virtual duplicate. It is not theft of anything.

If you have a problem with this logic, contact Oxford or someone else responsible for English language definitions.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

But they aren't denying profit. They simply aren't providing it. Easy to confuse the two if you only look at it with monetary considerations. (ie GREED)


WHAT?!?!?



I'm quite aware of the laws. Which is why courts are unable to prosecute citizens for file sharing, and 3rd parties end up resorting to legal intimidation to settle out of court.


Then you are also aware the government is in legal catch up mode to the electronic world and cyberspace. Which of course they can't win.

Lay it on your own moral conscience.

Knowledge you say? Therefore - you are fully aware and knowledgeable with what ever your intent is.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by Annee
 

But to argue this anymore would be ignorant on our part... I even saw one guy say that they were a "monopoly" LMFAO... what a stretch....


That would be me and I included sources.

Where are your sources? Right just your sense of morality. Other than that?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
WHAT?!?!?


They are not being denied profit, because someone is stealing their retail item.

People simply aren't buying the product, which is different than stealing the retail product.

You seem to like morals. Let me ask you..

If a standard album costs say $8-15 depending on digital/digital quality or physical product.

And a person downloads 1 (ONE) song. They are threatened with a penalty of what is it now? $1,500 PER song?

Do you believe it's honestly fair to be charged a rough estimate of $100,000.00USD per album you download?

Does that seem morally right to you?

Further more does it seem morally right that a 16yr old child be forced to pay that $100,000 if found guilty, and then experience a prison term.

For an ALBUM?

I'm really curious what your moral stance is on that.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Right so the sources that I cited mean nothing? Cool we're back to the sad game of you having your mind made up and that's that.

The law says your wrong, the Audio CDR system that RIAA set up says your wrong, and básic economics theory says your wrong but your morals say you are right.

Like I said agree to disagree cause your wrong and just can't accept it.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I find it disheartening when threads begin to fade in this manner. I'm blunt around the edges sure. But I always hope that through aggressive debate (not arguing) people can bridge their differences through logic and passion.

But in order for that to occur, people must help set the stage to convey their mentality. This can include personal experiences. But in matters of law, it's best left citing relevant sources.

And really I don't see any of that from file-sharing antagonists.

See I can admit that these websites, who make profit from ad revenue from works which they did not license are preventing profit.

However some here wish to expand commercial law to private individuals partaking in personal use. And that just simply doesn't make sense when you look at it simply.

Commercial law...
for business...

applied to individual citizens...

I AM NOT A BUSINESS.

Annee, you mentioned "starseeds" and potential human spiritual evolution.

You treat inanimate virtual bits as a physical possessions. That extends the sense of materialism beyond the flesh into the psyche.

And I would hope someone who would even bother to mention something like "starseeds" would agree that materialism doesn't do us any good.

Yet you are extending the concept of materialism to a place where it literally CAN NOT exist.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

You treat inanimate virtual bits as a physical possessions. That extends the sense of materialism beyond the flesh into the psyche.

And I would hope someone who would even bother to mention something like "starseeds" would agree that materialism doesn't do us any good.

Yet you are extending the concept of materialism to a place where it literally CAN NOT exist.


Other then the one post to give a possible explanation as to why a whole generation seems to be about self-importance and self-gratification and self-preservation - - - my personal philosophy and belief is not part of this discussion.

As said in a previous post: I lean toward Atheism and Socialism.

Also - I believe everything is energy -- and physical is a thought creation. Every thought is an action.

How I personally feel -- has nothing to do with this discussion.

Oh yeah - - and continue to believe that because you download something that isn't physical - - it changes the fact. It doesn't.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join