ATV and piracy

[laurim]

For those holding such a strong position of "anti-piracy", as you see it, have you pushed you viewpoints and morals to the lawmakers or promoted legislation?
Or is pushing your morals and judging others your contribution to bring some sort of awareness to this issue.

Perhaps most seem to forget that even even 40 years ago you were able to copy 8 tracks, then the ability to copy cassette to cassette, vinyl to 8 track/cassette, VHS to VHS, VHS to disc, DVD to DVD, etc.
All which can be easily shared with friends via thumb drives, LAN, portable harddrives, etc.
All materials needed to execute such operations have been readily available to consumers.
I remember making well over 20 copies of pink Floyd dark side of the moon when I was in HS.

The Internet is just a new medium.

yet Hollywood has survived.

It's a matter of scale. When people made a mix tape of songs off the radio a) the quality was crap and b) it was difficult to make more than one. Now you can make a perfect copy of anything you want and provide it to millions of people instantly. Kind of different now and actually a real threat, huh?

And yeah, I think it IS good for people to stop letting other people do bad things without calling them out on it. If more people said "That's not right", maybe fewer people would do things like steal and bully because they wouldn't have the feeling that "everybody else is doing it". It's called positive peer pressure.

 

[bruinsrme]

It's a matter of scale. When people made a mix tape of songs off the radio a) the quality was crap and b) it was difficult to make more than one. Now you can make a perfect copy of anything you want and provide it to millions of people instantly. Kind of different now and actually a real threat, huh?

Perfect copies, you for real?
I and others have encountered all sorts of issues with cross overs in surround sound and even simple copying of chapters.
There is no such thing as a "perfect" copy.
There are excellent copies and crappy copies.
A pressed copy will always be superior to a burned copy or converted copy.
I have yet to download an mp3 or mp4 that is as good as an original.


I myself absolutely love the movies with the additional silhouettes of patrons that come in line of sight of the camera.

The issue of piracy, if you will, has evolved.
The tools are readily available to make legal copies of your "purchased" media.
How those tools are exploited is the real issue.
A couple years ago a few students were arrested for counterfeiting money using high quality printers. Again, tools to reproduce were exploited in a manner in which it was never intended.
As technology expands and progresses today's challenges will be old news.

Do I buy media still. Yes, only if it is reasonable priced, used or the newer boxes with bluray DVD and digital copy. Only because I watch and listen to movies on a very nice HT system.

You say you have downloaded material but had a paradigm shift.
What really drove that shift?
For me it was tiring up my Internet connection and interrupted down loads.
I much prefer ripping DVDs, that I intend to watch.

My son is in college and I am very familiar with the torrents and the students
practices.
Regardless of how affordable things are or what stop gaps are in place it will still exist.
What should be done, blind eye or law enforcement?

 

[laurim]

Perfect copies, you for real?
I and others have encountered all sorts of issues with cross overs in surround sound and even simple copying of chapters.
There is no such thing as a "perfect" copy.

I knew someone would jump on that. But, in the context of comparing something taped off the radio and nowadays uploading a digital copy, today's copies are much closer to perfect. Nobody would be interested in my cassette-taped copy of a Kenny Loggins song circa 1978, let alone a million people looking for a free version.

You say you have downloaded material but had a paradigm shift.
What really drove that shift?

To be perfectly honest, a big part of the shift was the sheer inconvenience of the process. Spending hours downloading as seeders come and go, disrupting the download, slowing down my internet to unusable speeds, only to find the final product was sometimes a crappy copy. Not to mention the possibility of getting caught or getting a virus because there's no telling what kind of person uploaded that video in the first place. The whole "lay down with dogs you get fleas" thing. Made me think, "I'm lowering my personal integrity to go through all this trouble and break the law to watch a crappy copy of a tv show. I'm an intelligent adult, I'm not poor, my time is worth money and I try to live a law-abiding life so why am I stooping to this level for something so unnecessary to my life?". And, my current income is based on creating original digital art so how would I feel if someone gave copies of my work to other people and put me out of business? So, I learned my lesson and I'm done with it. The last movie I downloaded was one I purchased on iTunes. Came with two resolutions for different devices, extras, easy to download, already indexed with meta data for my ATV
and looks/sounds beautiful. Much better way to go.

 

[peterjcat]

What you don't understand is that your action deprives someone of the rental MONEY, not of their CAR. This is the basic thing you -just-don't-understand. You are stealing MONEY not a car. In the end, you are stealing MONEY, not a movie. If you take a dollar bill, you're taking MONEY. Just because the fed can make another bill doesn't mean you aren't stealing money.

Seriously, you're not reading this stuff carefully enough. Go back and read it again. If you take your example, with my amendment, it's exactly analogous to piracy. You have an infinite number of cars, you want to rent them out to people, but someone is giving away copies of the keys. That action may well be depriving you of potential rental money (though it's hard to say how much). It is not depriving you of your car, or of your ability to hire out your car to people who want to pay -- as it would be if you only had the one car. That is a critical difference. Depriving someone of something they own (eg one of a non-infinite number of cars) is stealing. Preventing someone from making money may be bad and immoral and illegal but it's not stealing, it's something different -- and there are literally centuries of case law and legislation that make that difference clear.

 

[laurim]

Seriously, you're not reading this stuff carefully enough. Go back and read it again. If you take your example, with my amendment, it's exactly analogous to piracy. You have an infinite number of cars, you want to rent them out to people, but someone is giving away copies of the keys. That action may well be depriving you of potential rental money (though it's hard to say how much). It is not depriving you of your car, or of your ability to hire out your car to people who want to pay -- as it would be if you only had the one car. That is a critical difference. Depriving someone of something they own (eg one of a non-infinite number of cars) is stealing. Preventing someone from making money may be bad and immoral and illegal but it's not stealing, it's something different -- and there are literally centuries of case law and legislation that make that difference clear.

There's one real movie (one car), let's call it "The Greatest Movie Everyone Wants to See". The thing of value people want is to "experience it" (that's the ride in the car) .The infinite illegal copies of the movie you speak of are the infinite number of keys made to get that ride for free. The thing being stolen is the ride (the experience the movie provides). The paying for the ride pays for the car but if people get free keys, it takes a long time to pay for the car. If it takes too long to pay for the car, why would anyone buy a nice car to rent out? Do you get it now?

 

[peterjcat]

There is no such thing as a "perfect" copy.

Actually this time I agree with laurim. There may not be a perfect copy of a studio master of a film (or of a first-run film), but there are perfect copies of DVDs, TV broadcasts, and even Blu-rays available -- not always but often. Unless you count the physical packaging as part of the thing you buy -- which would be arguable. And I think it makes some difference, because VHS copies were terrible and got more terrible if you copied them on, so you'd be more likely to buy an original, whereas digital copies don't degrade. But I don't think it makes a huge difference, I think you're right too -- the entertainment industries have survived copying with increasing levels of fidelity, and they'll survive this too. Though they may have to adapt in order to do so.

There's no hope in you understanding this. It's clear it's too complicated for you or you simply refuse to. There's one real movie (one car), the infinite copies of the movie you speak of are the infinite number of keys made. sheesh

Sheesh all ya like! With movies, there's not one real movie. Anyone can make an identical copy of the movie for a zero incremental cost -- you can do it legally, and other people can do it illegally. An illegal copy of the movie doesn't take the movie away from you -- this we agree on. It may deny you some money that you deserve -- this we agree on too -- but it doesn't stop you from keeping on making money off the movie -- from good law-abiding people like yourself (and even, believe it or not, myself). This is different from a car. There's only one real car. If the car is always being used by people with duplicated keys, not only have you lost rental money from them, you've also lost the car -- you can't make any money from that car while other people are using it. Unlike movie piracy.

I think I do understand your analogy, I just prefer mine. It's really just a small tweak. But we can agree to disagree.

There's one real movie (one car), let's call it "The Greatest Movie Everyone Wants to See". The thing of value people want is to "experience it" (that's the ride in the car) .The infinite illegal copies of the movie you speak of are the infinite number of keys made to get that ride for free. The thing being stolen is the ride (the experience the movie provides). The paying for the ride pays for the car but if people get free keys, it takes a long time to pay for the car. If it takes too long to pay for the car, why would anyone buy a nice car to rent out? Do you get it now?

Oh well if you're going to change your whole post while I'm thinking about the last one then we'll definitely have to agree to disagree

 

[laurim]

Oh well if you're going to change your whole post while I'm thinking about the last one then we'll definitely have to agree to disagree

I had second thoughts about being so harsh and wanted to try to help you understand instead. It's obvious you think of a movie as a way to take up space on a hard drive with 1s and 0s and I think of a movie in more esoteric terms. We both know breaking the law is wrong so I'll never understand or accept your reasons for doing it. You have to live with your choices in life, as do I. When someone can justify breaking the law in one case, one has to wonder what else you can justify.

 

[newagemac]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)



You are absolutely welcome to clone anything i own.

Please bring your cloning device to my house. Heck clone my wife if you want (dare)

But can I clone anything you sell?

 

[peterjcat]

I had second thoughts about being so harsh and wanted to try to help you understand instead. It's obvious you think of a movie as a way to take up space on a hard drive with 1s and 0s and I think of a movie in more esoteric terms. We both know breaking the law is wrong so I'll never understand or accept your reasons for doing it. You have to live with your choices in life, as do I. When someone can justify breaking the law in one case, one has to wonder what else you can justify.

I do appreciate the less harsh version. But you seem to be interpreting everything I say through the assumption that I'm encouraging piracy. I'm not. As I said, I make my living through the sale of intellectual property, and I spend a frightening proportion of that living on movies, music, books, cable TV and so forth. But I think that to deal with the new situation we find ourselves in, to make sure we promote a thriving creative culture in which artists get paid, we first need to understand exactly and precisely what we're dealing with, and call it by its right name.

For example, I don't think that we're going to solve piracy by making people feel scared to do it or even bad about doing it. We're more likely to solve it by making it pointless -- by providing a legal service that is so convenient and provides such perceived value for money that there's no point pirating. Netflix is a great start -- if it had streaming rights to everything it has on disc, who wouldn't pay a lot more than $8 a month to use it, and who's to say the studios wouldn't come out on top? Serious movie pirates actually spend a lot of money -- on superfast unlimited broadband, on Usenet access, on file hosting access, on hard drives and servers -- plenty of which could go to copyright holders instead of infrastructure providers if the mechanisms to allocate it were in place.

Those particular ideas might not work, but something like them has to work, and if our thinking about the issue doesn't go beyond equating piracy with car theft then I think we're in trouble.

 

[laurim]

I do appreciate the less harsh version. But you seem to be interpreting everything I say through the assumption that I'm encouraging piracy. I'm not. As I said, I make my living through the sale of intellectual property, and I spend a frightening proportion of that living on movies, music, books, cable TV and so forth. But I think that to deal with the new situation we find ourselves in, to make sure we promote a thriving creative culture in which artists get paid, we first need to understand exactly and precisely what we're dealing with, and call it by its right name.

For example, I don't think that we're going to solve piracy by making people feel scared to do it or even bad about doing it. We're more likely to solve it by making it pointless -- by providing a legal service that is so convenient and provides such perceived value for money that there's no point pirating. Netflix is a great start -- if it had streaming rights to everything it has on disc, who wouldn't pay a lot more than $8 a month to use it, and who's to say the studios wouldn't come out on top? Serious movie pirates actually spend a lot of money -- on superfast unlimited broadband, on Usenet access, on file hosting access, on hard drives and servers -- plenty of which could go to copyright holders instead of infrastructure providers if the mechanisms to allocate it were in place.

Those particular ideas might not work, but something like them has to work, and if our thinking about the issue doesn't go beyond equating piracy with car theft then I think we're in trouble.

I guess my point is, defining it by a narrow definition of the word "theft" or by "copyright infringment" is immaterial when both are illegal and both actions hurt the studio and the people who work on the movie. You are concentrating on what to call it and I'm concentrating on the act and its consequences. I think studios need to do two things: get more hardcore about prosecuting people who commit the act so it doesn't seem so normal and make their products more available to get by legal means, like you said. There will always be people who want to get something for nothing. I think these people don't even want the movies themselves, they just want to commit an illicit act and collect trophies. Why else have terabytes of movies that can't possibly all be your favorite must watch again and again? Seems like men, in particular, love to have large collections of things, like baseball cards, and brag about how many they have.

 

[zin]

I wrote a book. If you photocopy it instead of buy it, I don't get paid. You are stealing from me. I worked damn hard puting it together and just because you might think the end product is expensive, it doesn't justify you stealing it.

There are plenty of real people who make their living from the entertainment industry, not just faceless corporations.

That argument assumes that, without the process of 'pirating', a user would buy the piece of work instead. You are wrong.

Also, one other problem with that argument. It is not really stealing if you consider the likelihood that such person would not buy the works if they could not obtain it some other way. So, if they had no intention of buying it in the first place, then please explain where your profit loss comes from.
____________________
Also, it amuses me reading these petty comments relating to, “Oh but the movie studio will go bust!” Please, get real. The amount of movie piracy affecting studios today is insignificant to their profit margins. If it really was affecting them in the slightest they would be pro-actively trying to stop it (and no, silly little messages which waste genuine movie time do not count).

I'm not condoning piracy, but it is important to be logical rather than “moral” in this discussion.

EDIT: Just to be absolutely clear, when I refer to 'piracy' in this post, I am referring not to the vast organised crime networks of people, but to the individuals who 'pirate' movies. The former definitely is damaging to the movie studios and actors etc. because these networks actually attempt to make a profit from others' works (compared to an individual 'pirating', where the only real viewer is likely to be him or her). Again, definitely not condoning any form of movie piracy. Just being logical..

 

[diminiko]

That argument assumes that, without the process of 'pirating', a user would buy the piece of work instead. You are wrong.

Also, one other problem with that argument. It is not really stealing if you consider the likelihood that such person would not buy the works if they could not obtain it some other way. So, if they had no intention of buying it in the first place, then please explain where your profit loss comes from.
____________________
Also, it amuses me reading these petty comments relating to, “Oh but the movie studio will go bust!” Please, get real. The amount of movie piracy affecting studios today is insignificant to their profit margins. If it really was affecting them in the slightest they would be pro-actively trying to stop it (and no, silly little messages which waste genuine movie time do not count).

I'm not condoning piracy, but it is important to be logical rather than “moral” in this discussion.

EDIT: Just to be absolutely clear, when I refer to 'piracy' in this post, I am referring not to the vast organised crime networks of people, but to the individuals who 'pirate' movies. The former definitely is damaging to the movie studios and actors etc. because these networks actually attempt to make a profit from others' works (compared to an individual 'pirating', where the only real viewer is likely to be him or her). Again, definitely not condoning any form of movie piracy. Just being logical..

Are you seriously suggesting that you don't have to pay for a product if you did not intend to buy it in the first place?

I am not going to pay the gardener for mowing my lawn today because he is too expensive and I would have let the grass grow anyway! As far as you are concerned you have not taken anything material away from the man and he is not out of pocket by your actions but you have used his labour without paying for it. Movies, music, art and literature are all someone's labour and if you want to enjoy it you should pay the producer for the privilege!

I just can't understand why people are using such round about arguments to justify what they do. Intellectual property is owned by the producer. If you want to reap the benefit of it then you should pay the asking price or just walk away. Whether it's a multimillion dollar movie studio or some poor schmuck producing his bands CD's and selling them at concerts, your measure of the financial impact of your actions is irrelevant and is no justification for piracy in any way shape or form.

This is not shades of gray people. If you pirate then you are taking what does not belong to you!

 

[thetaylor13]

Netflix. Oh dear, there goes your entire point.

Get some morals.

Wait whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I do have Netflix....

How has Netflix ever allowed anyone to watch a new movie?

 

[thetaylor13]

Restaurant food. College education. Marriage. Vacation trip.

Life's full of unknowns. Geez, good thing you didn't live in the world I grew up in before the internet, dvd rentals, etc. Everything was just all scary and unknown and full of disappointment, lol. You actually had to hear from your friends whether a movie was good or a record was worth owning. No instant gratification and a thousand ways to steal things. The worst thing you could do is tape a song you liked over the radio. No way to share that with thousands of other people.

.....

I guess I can give you restaurant food...but college...marriage...vacation...?

I was talking about movies which is like a max of $15.

I've gone through college, marriage and vacation and I think each of those were slightly more expensive and took years in the making. Not really sure how those are related or can be compared to purchasing a movie ticket.

I'm not sure what I put in my post that made you think me not wanting to buy a movie without knowing I liked it meant I was scared of the world, but I'm sorry you took it that way.

I guess I will have to read back through it and see what made you reply how you did.

 

[Mr-Kerrse]

This could go on for ever ! The upshot of it is no matter what the product or what the format you will always have people who will pay & people who won't pay.

 

[zin]

Are you seriously suggesting that you don't have to pay for a product if you did not intend to buy it in the first place?

I am not going to pay the gardener for mowing my lawn today because he is too expensive and I would have let the grass grow anyway! As far as you are concerned you have not taken anything material away from the man and he is not out of pocket by your actions but you have used his labour without paying for it. Movies, music, art and literature are all someone's labour and if you want to enjoy it you should pay the producer for the privilege!

I just can't understand why people are using such round about arguments to justify what they do. Intellectual property is owned by the producer. If you want to reap the benifit of it then you should pay the asking price or just walk away. Whether it's a multimillion dollar movie studio or some poor schmuck producing his bands CD's and selling them at concerts, your measure of the financial impact of your actions are irrelevent and is no justification for piracy in any way shape or form.

This is not shades of gray peolple. If you pirate then you are taking what does not belong to you!

No, I'm not. I'm talking in the context of the OP; unable to afford the product.

And yet again, you're accusing me of justifying piracy. I am not. I am being logical. If someone is poor, and they cannot afford a movie, then they may obtain it some other way. If such method was not available, then they wouldn't have bought the movie to begin with; thus, there was no profit loss caused. This is not a justification for piracy.

Your argument is really reflected in a perfect world; this isn't. If somebody does not agree with the price of something, then they may, or may not, obtain it illegally. Whether or not they do, no profit loss is caused because they would not have bought it to start with. This is strictly applied only to the "too poor to purchase the product" analogy, or in the "I really don't agree with the price of this" scenario. This doesn't work when you apply it to something like a computer or car cleaning services.

Your analogy of the gardner is irrelevant. We are talking about movies. In that analogy, you are stealing from him (by benefiting from his gardening without paying him for his services; you are causing him to be out of pocket). From a movie perspective, if it was too expensive to start with, you would not be paying for it anyway. You are not causing any "out of pocket" or profit loss to the major movie studios. No matter which way you spin it, you aren't.

Now, if you had stated what context the 'piracy' was in, then perhaps my side of the argument would be different. For example, downloading a movie, illegally, then selling it for profit is stealing; you are stealing potential profit from the movie studios. But in the strict context of the OP, you are not stealing anything; nothing of value would have been lost if the movie was downloaded or not.

 

[johnnj]

I don't understand what the point is of this longwinded thread.

No one on either side is going to have their minds changed by 200-300 word posts expounding on the moral, legal, and ethical aspects of downloading movies and other content for free. Other than the pride the posters take in constructing such well worded and logical arguments and analogies, what's the constructive outcome of this exercise?

Really, I would like to know what the goal is.

As for as the OP's moral dilemma on what to tell his small kids when they're older, maybe he should just cross that bridge when he comes to it. The state of "piracy" is different today than it was 10 years ago. It would be safe to assume that in 10 years time it will also be different. Perhaps by that time the movie industry will get its head screwed on straight and provide content in a reasonably priced way that allows the consumer flexibility in terms of storing and playing it back.

Crap. 180 words. I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

 

[cadillac1234]

I actually feel horrible if I pay for a piece of music or video that is part of the old distribution model. It is a very unfair system that has exploited consumers and artists for decades. IP and copyright laws are extreme and are getting worse.

Check out Lodsys, Monsanto and hundreds of other examples and tell me if the system functions correctly. It is not fair and actually hurts overall growth for the profit of a few.

If it's not available on Netflix, cable or VOD I don't even bother with it until it is available. It helps a lot that there are very few things being produced of value.

 

[diminiko]

No, I'm not. I'm talking in the context of the OP; unable to afford the product.

And yet again, you're accusing me of justifying piracy. I am not. I am being logical. If someone is poor, and they cannot afford a movie, then they may obtain it some other way. If such method was not available, then they wouldn't have bought the movie to begin with; thus, there was no profit loss caused. This is not a justification for piracy.

Your argument is really reflected in a perfect world; this isn't. If somebody does not agree with the price of something, then they may, or may not, obtain it illegally. Whether or not they do, no profit loss is caused because they would not have bought it to start with. This is strictly applied only to the "too poor to purchase the product" analogy, or in the "I really don't agree with the price of this" scenario. This doesn't work when you apply it to something like a computer or car cleaning services.

Your analogy of the gardner is irrelevant. We are talking about movies. In that analogy, you are stealing from him (by benefiting from his gardening without paying him for his services; you are causing him to be out of pocket). From a movie perspective, if it was too expensive to start with, you would not be paying for it anyway. You are not causing any "out of pocket" or profit loss to the major movie studios. No matter which way you spin it, you aren't.

Now, if you had stated what context the 'piracy' was in, then perhaps my side of the argument would be different. For example, downloading a movie, illegally, then selling it for profit is stealing; you are stealing potential profit from the movie studios. But in the strict context of the OP, you are not stealing anything; nothing of value would have been lost if the movie was downloaded or not.

It is a slippery slope when you accept that it is ok for anyone to take what is not theirs based on their own perception of financial value. The behaviour of anyone who copies a film rather than pay for it is purely selfish and for personal gratification. We are not talking about water or air that are human rights, it's a commercial product like any other and we have a choice as to whether we see enough value in it to spend our dollars on it.

"I am too poor to buy it" or "it's not worth that much" or "I am not hurting anyone" or "get real, everyone is doing it" are just smoke screens for what is fundamentally wrong, morally and economically.

 

[handsome pete]

Wait whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

I do have Netflix....

How has Netflix ever allowed anyone to watch a new movie?

I think his point was there are avenues that allow you to watch a movie at a lower cost instead of buying it. Netflix, redbox, itunes, etc. allow you to watch a movie cheaply. Should you enjoy it, then you can decide if you want to fork over the $20 or so to own it.

If you're talking about being able to preview new releases that are in theaters, then that's just an asinine argument. That's not how the business works and to compare it to test driving a car is just dumb.


As for others reasoning, not being able to afford something is no excuse. No one is entitled to any of these "luxury" items. You also don't get to determine fair price. The market dictates that. Until the consumer as a whole decides that it isn't worth it, then the price will remain the same. For now though, millions don't seem to have a problem with the pricing structure.

 

[bluemonkeyguy]

That argument assumes that, without the process of 'pirating', a user would buy the piece of work instead. You are wrong.

Also, one other problem with that argument. It is not really stealing if you consider the likelihood that such person would not buy the works if they could not obtain it some other way. So, if they had no intention of buying it in the first place, then please explain where your profit loss comes from.
____________________
Also, it amuses me reading these petty comments relating to, “Oh but the movie studio will go bust!” Please, get real. The amount of movie piracy affecting studios today is insignificant to their profit margins. If it really was affecting them in the slightest they would be pro-actively trying to stop it (and no, silly little messages which waste genuine movie time do not count).

I'm not condoning piracy, but it is important to be logical rather than “moral” in this discussion.

couldn't have said it any better.

By the way, why do people have to always apply entertainment related media only to piracy. i will admit my "unlawful" duty of downloading the adobe master suite, but that's because the whole suite cost $2500+ and i could never afford that. but that suite has helped my brother and i to help my fathers business increase revenue, through advertisements, commercials, and websites that we created with that suite. but in zin's logic, i really wasn't going to purchase this suite anyway so adobe doesn't lose at all.

And don't reply to this comment saying "you should use gimp, (all of the other free stuff),trials, etc. Look i don't want to mess with that stuff. please, i want to stay industry standard while maintaining quality.

Also, the whole "slowing my internet" "wasting my time" "risk of getting caught" "crappy download with virus" excuses are retarded. there are download/upload limiters, schedulers, and encryption available. and honestly if you get a virus for downloading a torrent, you probably deserve it. do your research, read comments, and go to quality sites like demonoid. the internet is like sex, you cant have it without protection. and depending on the level of research and antivirus/encryption you conducted will dictate if you are sleeping with your girlfriend or a downtown prostitute.

with all of that said above, including the "provocative" statements on torrenting/piracy, i still don't condone it. yeah i know i torrent things but you shouldn't follow my model and don't judge me. do your research, read books on piracy, and fully assess why or why not you should be involved in piracy/torrents.

OHHH and BTW, if anyone took my image post seriously, get off you moral high-horse, please, and just live life and play with your family or something.

 

[diminiko]

I don't understand what the point is of this longwinded thread.

No one on either side is going to have their minds changed by 200-300 word posts expounding on the moral, legal, and ethical aspects of downloading movies and other content for free. Other than the pride the posters take in constructing such well worded and logical arguments and analogies, what's the constructive outcome of this exercise?

Really, I would like to know what the goal is.

Crap. 180 words. I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

It's a forum. A place for exchanging ideas.

I don't think any of the authors are likely to change their minds but anyone else interested enough to read this amicable debate may be swayed to act one way or another. Pretty good outcome I suggest.

 

[handsome pete]

couldn't have said it any better.
but that suite has helped my brother and i to help my fathers business increase revenue, through advertisements, commercials, and websites that we created with that suite.

How were you able to afford to place ad buys and web presence, but not software?

 

[bluemonkeyguy]

How were you able to afford to place ad buys and web presence, but not software?

not giant billboard ads if thats what your thinking but professional business cards, brochures, flyers, and a video commercial. we use free dropbox for hosting and pay cheap for the domain from godaddy

 

[thetaylor13]

I think his point was there are avenues that allow you to watch a movie at a lower cost instead of buying it. Netflix, redbox, itunes, etc. allow you to watch a movie cheaply. Should you enjoy it, then you can decide if you want to fork over the $20 or so to own it.

If you're talking about being able to preview new releases that are in theaters, then that's just an asinine argument. That's not how the business works and to compare it to test driving a car is just dumb.


As for others reasoning, not being able to afford something is no excuse. No one is entitled to any of these "luxury" items. You also don't get to determine fair price. The market dictates that. Until the consumer as a whole decides that it isn't worth it, then the price will remain the same. For now though, millions don't seem to have a problem with the pricing structure.

In my original post I referenced having cheaper alternatives to watching a movie, but my point was that I probably spend more money on movies than most people here. When we have a couple hundred bucks leaving our pockets each month on movies, I do anything I can to save myself some money. So if I have a choice of spending $5 and renting from On Demand, or taking 8 minutes to download it for free...well then I'll go ahead and do it for free and then spend the money on the DVD.

If you read my post I prefer to buy movies, I love buying movies. But only movies that I feel are worth buying.

And I wasn't necessarily comparing movie theaters and sales to buying a car. I was pointing out how strange it is where basically every other industry allows us to sample products, where as with movies that never happens (again, except for their 2 minute trailers).

I assumed this forum was about opinions on the subject hence me stating mine.

Every subject in the world will have multiple sides, just thought I could easily prove that there are those out there like me who blow loads of money on movies and wouldn't if it wasn't for the ability to pirate the movie in the first place.