Feds shut down nine websites in movie piracy crackdown

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Musicians make most of their personal profit from concerts, which also see increased prices. Albums whether digital or otherwise is primarily .85 - .98 cents to the dollar profit to the monopolistic entity which holds the authors IP in copyright or patent. Not the actual creator.

That dismisses Annee's notion that it's not monopolistic, and that it's theft from the content creators. For music of course.

This is right. Bands often hand over their rights for a shot at the big time. The copyright holder becomes the label and not the artist/band/creator. That's why I say that if you want to support the band, not the label and still be within the law you could DDL the album burn it to Audio CDR which costs less than $1.00 and pays the royalties and then you could send whatever amount you wish to the band to support them directly.

I know that not all labels are the same but if part of the record deal involves handing over your rights then I would have to say they may not have the artists best intrest in mind.

reply to post by wmd_2008


I don't reply to emotional rants, so I will just simply let you have you day in the sun. Better to let it out than to keep it bottled inside, even if is irrational.


Now, what I would rather want to logically address are the issues of 'copyrighted' materials.

No person or idea is born out a vacuum. Where does a writer draws his inspiration from? None other than real life. In the area of sci-fi or fantasy novels, where were those inspirations from? None other than stolen from history.

So who owns the actual copyright? Our ancestors. Had the what you called 'talented' writers or movie producers paid a cent to our ancestors? Nope. They stole it outright and profited from it. Who are the thieves now?


In the case of productions, who taught them the art in the first place? Again our ancestors who passed down their experiences, trial and errors science and mathematics. Who owns the copyrights? Again our ancestors. Did your so called 'talents' paid them for copyright infringed? Nope. They stole outright and even profited from teaching others. So who are the thieves now?

Even in the case of IT, do know that piracy played a practicable and profitable part to the producers who paid our ancestors nothing. If it was not for the huge amount of pirated discs, the spread of IT would not had been possible for kids to just try it out before buying the real stuff.

When you have crossed that bridge, best not destroy it and deny others a chance to cross it as well, unless you want enemies and be hated forever.

And as for your 'talents' who are nothing more than thieves themselves, get off that moral high ground. You and your kind are no better than the rest. The truth hurts, but you gotta live with it before casting that first stone.

the problem is that most of the movies coming out from Hollywood are crappy,
so that is the reason people are not watching movies, not the piracy

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


The "talent" is in taking an idea and developing it into a commercial product.

Really can't believe you chastise others for emotional rants.

Nope. I did not chastise anyone for their emotional rants and even let it stand unreplied. Read my post again.

So 'talent' means taking an idea and developing it into a commercial product. I am sure then by your logic and critical thinking process, pirates too are talents for making linking pages of downloadable movies and earning advertisement revenue from such linkages!!!

C'mon Anee, you can do better than that. Thieves are thieves no matter the justifications - pirates or producers. Talent is over-rated word to be used upon mortals.

When a monkey with no training is able to write, now that's talent. When a child unschooled could play a tuneful melody on the piano, now that's talent. When an ordinary man can turn water into wine, that's talent. It is a gift.

Talent is not some dumbsmuck who stole a tune or two from others, turn it into a different song and then copyright it for 50 years. Talent is not some slowjoe who filtches a script here and there, combine it and then make a movie out of it.

Talent is not some nerd who saw how a special effect can be created, borrowed that concept, twist it around a bit by adding a few more buttons on the software and then copyright it.

Thieves or no, I do personally respect the work of others. It takes effort to write a book or produce a song or movie, and they should be paid, just as pirates are paid as well in other forms.

The only thing is HOW LONG they should be paid for stolen works politically corrected to be known as creative art.

One year of royalties oughta be enough before it becomes open source for the furtherances of humanity.

Mankind's knowledge and progress had always been built upon the works of others anyway. Either that or we remain in stasis for evolution, enslaved by monopolies.

Did you pay for that movie or CD?
Is it illegal to download a movie from a piracy site?
Will they prosecute you for it?
Have hundreds of people been prosecuted for this?

Checkmate Pirates !!!! 2nd corinthians in your face !!!

Or just keep blurring definitions to back up your excuses!!!

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Nope. I did not chastise anyone for their emotional rants and even let it stand unreplied. Read my post again.

I don't reply to emotional rants, so I will just simply let you have you day in the sun. Better to let it out than to keep it bottled inside, even if is irrational.

Personally - I would consider that statement a chastise to those who post emotional rants.

AND - I consider your posts emotional rants.

So 'talent' means taking an idea and developing it into a commercial product. I am sure then by your logic and critical thinking process, pirates too are talents for making linking pages of downloadable movies and earning advertisement revenue from such linkages!!!

C'mon Anee, you can do better than that. Thieves are thieves no matter the justifications - pirates or producers. Talent is over-rated word to be used upon mortals.

I know the difference between a legitimate licensed business and an unlicensed illegitimate operation. Are there talented criminals? Absolutely! Talent is taking and idea and developing on that idea.

Your concept that Mother Nature has the copyright - - is silly. I consider it an emotional rant.

How the world should/could be - - - has nothing to do with how it is today - - or the subject of taking a Profit product for Free.

You're trying to twist the subject to fit some personal belief.

If you do not like a product or think it is over priced - - - Do Not Buy It. But you do not have the right to take it for free.









[edit on 9-7-2010 by Annee]

Originally posted by Mobius1974
Did you pay for that movie or CD?
Is it illegal to download a movie from a piracy site?
Will they prosecute you for it?
Have hundreds of people been prosecuted for this?

Checkmate Pirates !!!! 2nd corinthians in your face !!!

Or just keep blurring definitions to back up your excuses!!!

All good questions but you left out the most importan.

Is it illegal where you live?

For me the answer is that I have a 24 hour grace period to check things out before it is considered theft.

In other countries it is 100% perfectly legal.

So my answers would be:

Did you pay for that movie or CD? No
Is it illegal to download a movie from a piracy site? No
Will they prosecute you for it? No
Have hundreds of people been prosecuted for this? Not in my country.

Checkmate? I thought we were playing Monopoly.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by daskakik]

reply to post by Annee


What you consider or word twist is none of my biz, nor would I care, for you live your own life. I do not live it for you.

However, facts remain. If you do not wish to see it, then it is entirely up to you. It's your life and your choice. You are not the one that I wanted to convince anyway, for your mind is already made up - to profiteer through monopolies and regress mankind. It's the open minded reader I seek, and I thank you for such opportunity to do so.

Cheers.

Seeker - - its not that I don't agree with some of the concepts you put forward - - I do.

But - that is a different discussion. Beliefs and Concepts of how life should/could be - - - and how commercialism should/could run - - - needs its own thread.

As previously stated: I lean toward Socialism. But that is not what this discussion is about.

Any product created to be sold for a profit - - deserves that profit - - unless the producer/distributor makes other arrangements.

NO ONE - - - has the right to take a Profit Product and provide it for free to "customers" (mass general public).

Its real simple.

Copyrights are retarded overall. But good in theory.

Let's look at a few examples.

Most US DVD players WILL NOT play a compatible DVD if it's from a different country. Because of copyright laws.

Is it illegal for me to download a version of movie copyrighted in another country in America? Only if it's not copyrighted in America.

Because I am not violating my countries copyright laws. Nor is it immoral if the video isn't being sold in America. Because EVEN IF I paid to have it imported... Region restrictions for copyrights would prevent me from viewing it

Let's take that a step further.

If someone in another country buys a DVD and is allowed to make copies for personal use per his countries laws. And then sends that copy to me in America...

Has a copyright law been broken?

He legally sent me a copy per that countries copyright restrictions. The circumstance applies digitally also.

I bet someone will reply "for personal use means YOUR OWN personal use". And that is incorrect.

There is general commercial use, and
there is general personal use (which is anything but commercial).

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Is it illegal for me to download a version of movie copyrighted in another country in America? Only if it's not copyrighted in America.

Because I am not violating my countries copyright laws. Nor is it immoral if the video isn't being sold in America. Because EVEN IF I paid to have it imported... Region restrictions for copyrights would prevent me from viewing it

Good point. If the copyright owner can't be bothered to make it available to you then does he deserve to profit from you?

If someone in another country buys a DVD and is allowed to make copies for personal use per his countries laws. And then sends that copy to me in America...

Has a copyright law been broken?

He legally sent me a copy per that countries copyright restrictions. The circumstance applies digitally also.

I bet someone will reply "for personal use means YOUR OWN personal use". And that is incorrect.

There is general commercial use, and
there is general personal use (which is anything but commercial).

Here I think you would be breaking your local law. I don't think that laws that allow filesharing are negating the recognition that the copyright holder is the owner of the intellectual property but are saying that if he isn't providing a physical copy then he doesn't have a right to the profit.

If a friend has a copy of a movie in spain. The law recognizes the copyright holder as the owner of the IP but does not allow him to demand a profit from your friend.

Now he sends you this movie on a DVD. In your country the law allows the copyright holder to demand payment for every copy of the IP even if they did not provide the physical copy.

So in the end it isn't about the Intellectual Property but of the right to demand profit.

Edit to add - Of course if a group like the RIAA or MPAA have used this "right to demand profit" as a way to get laws passed that criminalize copyright infringement you may find yourself paying more than the IP is even worth in fines or maybe even jail time. That's why I call it strong arming. A good example of TPTB.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by daskakik]

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by mryanbrown
1. Piracy increases.
2. Media prices increase.
3. Media profits increase.

.

How come I pay less for dvd's and cd's now

How come MGM are in trouble

If they just increase prices your logic is flawed plain and simple

Media is broad, not stricly dvd/bd/hddvd/cd.

When a movie releases to theater it generally recoups all costs, and breaks expected profits which amount to the millions to hundreds of millions.

Movies make a majority of their profit from theater, which does indeed raises prices continually. DVDs and the like are additional revenue.

So my theory does indeed hold true.

If you want to get to IP theft. Let's discuss music.

Musicians make most of their personal profit from concerts, which also see increased prices. Albums whether digital or otherwise is primarily .85 - .98 cents to the dollar profit to the monopolistic entity which holds the authors IP in copyright or patent. Not the actual creator.

That dismisses Annee's notion that it's not monopolistic, and that it's theft from the content creators. For music of course.

You folks argue the surface layer issues, and never dig deeper. Never account for all the subtle nuances of the underlying issues.

I find cinema in this context very interesting.
Remember, how they were declared dead in the 80ies when video rental stores mushroomed?
But theaters rose up to the challenge, and succeded. When I went to the movies as a kid, you could buy some sweets, if you were lucky. Now there are whole restaurants attached. Theaters realized that they can't compete with just "showing a movie", and concentrated on the social experience part.

*chuckles*
gotta ask, annee:
According to your "right to profit"-doctrine, who was the thief in the above situation, the cinemas or the video rental stores?

Ok, I am back.
Right now I am imagining a world with 5 years Copyright protection, and cinemas specialising in royalty free movies. I know, I would go there.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


You are a total ASS, ideas come from experience you TRY to justify whats being DONE by trying to link it as far back as possible so lets see.

I buy a car run it for a few years a NEW model appears I walk into the showroom and try to drive out in the new model if the sales guys stop me all I HAVE to say in the world you live in is WELL I bought the last one so I should just be able to walk in and drive out with a new one FOC.

Or I go into a supermarket and lift a loaf of bread and walk out without paying I can just say I bought one before so I dont have to buy it again.

What DO you do for a living if I TOOK your way of earning a living away would you be happy NO!

Good help us if you apply your logic to everything you do!

I just hope the extant to how you earn a living is
DO YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT!

you know, what I like about this topic?
There is so much little known stuff out there, UMG vs Lindor was new to me until a few minutes ago.
arstechnica.com...

Summary:
Judge asks: "What was the damage?"
RIAA: "Ah well... Nevermind"

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

 

You are a total ASS, ideas come from experience you TRY to justify whats being DONE by trying to link it as far back as possible so lets see.

I buy a car run it for a few years a NEW model appears I walk into the showroom and try to drive out in the new model if the sales guys stop me all I HAVE to say in the world you live in is WELL I bought the last one so I should just be able to walk in and drive out with a new one FOC.

Or I go into a supermarket and lift a loaf of bread and walk out without paying I can just say I bought one before so I dont have to buy it again.

What DO you do for a living if I TOOK your way of earning a living away would you be happy NO!

Good help us if you apply your logic to everything you do!

I just hope the extant to how you earn a living is
DO YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT!

Rival vs non Rival good.
Even mobius1974 had to concede that the two are radically different. Economics has known this for centuries. In the context of IP Jefferson, who wrote the IP clause of the US constitution, poetically likened it to lighting a kindle on another mans fire. What do you charge for Fire WMD_2008?
I am tired of teaching the basics of economics here. Look it up. Ask google: Rival goods, Non Rival goods, monopoly, substitution, price and marginal cost of production are the terms you will want to look up. It might be educational.

Anyone posting "how things SHOULD be - - is an emotional rant - in my opinion.

Today - - things "are as they are". And the subject discussion needs to reflect that.

Originally posted by Annee
Anyone posting "how things SHOULD be - - is an emotional rant - in my opinion.

Today - - things "are as they are". And the subject discussion needs to reflect that.

No deflections please:
If i understood your right to profit thesis correctly, there must have been a thief when first video stores denied profit to cinemas, and later when cinemas denied profits to video stores.
Who was it, and what penalty should he have to suffer?

reply to post by debunky


WHO supplied the videos to the first video store.! Where I live it was a distributor who had the rights.

What you claim is a MONOPOLY is NOT if a company makes a sci -fi film YOU COULD TO and if people thought yours was better they would go to watch yours or buy the dvd etc.

There is NOT only one movie company SO there is more than one option for YOU or anyone else.

You pay your money for the good or services you wish to have from ONE film company or the goods and services from another.

If you do not wish to pay for the goods or services YOU are not entitled to them.

I would really like to know what you do for a living probably nothing becuase it seem you think you are entitled to take what you want for nothing!