Am I the only guy that doesn't see anything wrong with illegal downloading?

[Adrock-JD]

If I buy a movie, and then invite 15 people over to watch it and do this several times would I still be a pirate?

Dozens of people got to watch it without paying for it.

... or if I go into a book store and just read the comics there without purchasing them, is that piracy?

If you purchased the movie, then you aren't "copying" it if you play it and others watch. On the other hand, purchasing it doesn't allow "public performances" and inviting 15 strangers to watch, even without monetary gain, is probably illegal.

Bookstores usually have coffee shops and chairs for customers to read. It isn't copying it if you read it. It also isn't distributing it. The bookstore probably has a license for allowing customers to read the material or some sort of rights.

I know Barnes & Noble and Amazon will allow you to read the first 10 pages of a book for free if you sign-in, have an account with them.

Personally, I think YouTube is the best advertising music has had since the radio. I often buy songs after hearing them for the first time on there. The links to purchase are usually right under the video or in it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Oh my fuck, guys. I wasn't even making any moral commentary on downloading.

I'm just trying to blackmail somebody so I can get some free shit.

By all means carry on then! It will prompt some colorful posts from Refuji.

 

[borg69unimatrix]

If you purchased the movie, then you aren't "copying" it if you play it and others watch. On the other hand, purchasing it doesn't allow "public performances" and inviting 15 strangers to watch, even without monetary gain, is probably illegal.

Perhaps I'm dense. I just don't see much difference between inviting them over to watch it, or just giving them copies to watch it.

I've borrowed movies from friends before. Still the same to me if I borrow their original, or they give me a copy.

 

[AlmondMilk]

Well, I purchase music that I really like. Everything else I usually just stream. I download it if streaming is not available.

 

[ruivinho]

Actually, yes, he hasn't. The movie is intact, and anyone who wishes to purchase it is free to do so.


And before people start those absolutist rants about how it's illegal and that's that, maybe it is worth addressing the issue of movie companies being about ten years behind on the times. Piracy is not only a fact of life, it is virtually impossible to stop in the digital age. So instead of wasting resources fighting it, why not try to offer a better product than the one people are pirating?

I totally agree with everything you said, and i never said anything that went against it.^
(except, of course, the first sentence)
But saying that it is copying and not stealing is a lazy argument....

I agree with you even more so because fighting piracy has has privacy costs implied and i believe that protecting privacy is way more important than the lost profit.

Just to clear things, my opinion:
I think that CDs and DVDs are way too expensive, and that we shouldn't have to pay for something we might not enjoy at all, especially when it is so highly priced. Therefore, i only buy CDs or DVDs when i like the album or the movie enough. Nowadays i admit i don't buy them a lot, because i don't earn my own money yet, but as soon as i will, i will buy more of the albums/movie that i've enjoyed enough.

 

[ruivinho]

Oh ok. So since it's a gift, I can do what I want with it, right? Cause like, I'll convert it to an .mp3 file and play it on my computer on Winamp. Oh, I guess I've somehow turned into a criminal because I don't have to open youtube to listen to it.

I know it comes off as lazy, but I'm going to quote this in reply:

Let me just throw in for consideration-- any well known song will have like, hundreds of postings of it on youtube. Many of them with individual users setting their own backdrop, scenery, video footage, fan tribute, or even just a blank screen with the lyrics in the video. None of those hits are going to the artist. So to me, the difference between "saving it for winamp" and "pulling up a youtube to listen to it", not paying money either way, is still paper thin.

 

[Adrock-JD]

Perhaps I'm dense. I just don't see much difference between inviting them over to watch it, or just giving them copies to watch it.

I've borrowed movies from friends before. Still the same to me if I borrow their original, or they give me a copy.

I agree. (not that you're dense, but with your argument)

Here is what I found on public performance law:

The Law
The Federal Copyright Act (Title 17 of the U.S. Code) governs how copyrighted materials, such as movies, may be used. Neither the rental nor the purchase of a copy of a copyrighted work carries with it the right to publicly exhibit the work. No additional license is required to privately view a movie or other copyrighted work with a few friends and family or in certain narrowly defined face-to-face teaching activities. However, bars, restaurants, private clubs, prisons, lodges, factories, summer camps, public libraries, daycare facilities, parks and recreation departments, churches and non-classroom use at schools and universities are all examples of situations where a public performance license must be obtained. This legal requirement applies regardless of whether an admission fee is charged, whether the institution or organization is commercial or non-profit, or whether a federal or state agency is involved.

Legal Sanctions
"Willful" infringement of these rules concerning public performances for commercial or financial gain is a federal crime carrying a maximum sentence of up to five years in jail and/or a $250,000 fine. Even inadvertent infringement is subject to substantial civil damages.


It says "a few friends or family" that sounds a bit vague. The "or family" part bothers me. Does that mean any size family? or a few of the family?

 

[Adrock-JD]

btw: I read a court case years ago that our avatars and signature images aren't considered copyright infringement. They were ruled to be personal expression. Of course, they can't be too large and they can't be posted on a website/blog not as an avatar or siggy.

 

[borg69unimatrix]

I agree. (not that you're dense, but with your argument)

Here is what I found on public performance law:

The Law
The Federal Copyright Act (Title 17 of the U.S. Code) governs how copyrighted materials, such as movies, may be used. Neither the rental nor the purchase of a copy of a copyrighted work carries with it the right to publicly exhibit the work. No additional license is required to privately view a movie or other copyrighted work with a few friends and family or in certain narrowly defined face-to-face teaching activities. However, bars, restaurants, private clubs, prisons, lodges, factories, summer camps, public libraries, daycare facilities, parks and recreation departments, churches and non-classroom use at schools and universities are all examples of situations where a public performance license must be obtained. This legal requirement applies regardless of whether an admission fee is charged, whether the institution or organization is commercial or non-profit, or whether a federal or state agency is involved.

Legal Sanctions
"Willful" infringement of these rules concerning public performances for commercial or financial gain is a federal crime carrying a maximum sentence of up to five years in jail and/or a $250,000 fine. Even inadvertent infringement is subject to substantial civil damages.


It says "a few friends or family" that sounds a bit vague. The "or family" part bothers me. Does that mean any size family? or a few of the family?

Gay bars around here used to have "events" where everyone would show up to watch "Will and Grace" or whatever, and most all sports bars has a TV going. I wonder how many of them have a performance license?

 

[frankfrank]

You just spent $1000 out of your own pocket to produce some good quality porn. Everything came from your head, and it is ultimately your baby. Hell, you might even be more proud of it than your real child. Now it's time to put it out there for the world to behold and hopefully recoup your personal financial loss and launch a career ultimately. Your porn is well received and word of mouth starts to get around. Everyone knows it is conviently found on your website, for a reasonable price. Hell, it is even in the teaser video where to buy, but 90 out of 100 people download it illegally. You can't afford to make anything new, and the $1000 you put into it is lost forever. You also have angry actors who expected to be recouped handsomly from the sale of this video, but you can't give them the money they want.

95% of the events in your premise is speculation/fabricated. I'm revoking the Vulcan in your avatar. You're not very logical.

It all sounds pretty logical to me. The only thing possibly illogical at all about it is the low dollar amount. I think nowadays it costs more than $1,000 to make a good porno video, all costs considered - and losing out on $1,000 (or, more likely, part of it) is a hurdle that can likely be overcome enough to pay whoever is owed.

No additional license is required to privately view a movie or other copyrighted work with a few friends and family

It says "a few friends or family" that sounds a bit vague. The "or family" part bothers me. Does that mean any size family? or a few of the family?

Sometimes gay people are slangily referred to as "family." ("That looks like women's shoes that he's wearing. I think he is probably family.")

That means that NO MATTER HOW MANY gay people are assembled, even if filling an entire football stadium, it violates no law because everybody there is "family" LOL

 

[blackbeltninja]

most all sports bars has a TV going. I wonder how many of them have a performance license?

Here in .za we all have to own a tv licence in order to have a tv. Funds from that go towards offsetting the cost of producing local content for tv and radio. Businesses like restaurants, bars and clubs have to pay for a business tv licence, which costs much more than a normal tv licence and encompasses the potential for their hosting of events like the finals of the World Cup or anything which would be construed as boosting business from televised events.

This additional business licence includes a portion to cover royalties for playing music or hosting live cover bands. So in short, yes, some bars do indeed have a performance licence.

-d-

 

[Adrock-JD]

It all sounds pretty logical to me. The only thing possibly illogical at all about it is the low dollar amount. I think nowadays it costs more than $1,000 to make a good porno video, all costs considered - and losing out on $1,000 (or, more likely, part of it) is a hurdle that can likely be overcome enough to pay whoever is owed.


Sometimes gay people are slangily referred to as "family." ("That looks like women's shoes that he's wearing. I think he is probably family.")

That means that NO MATTER HOW MANY gay people are assembled, even if filling an entire football stadium, it violates no law because everybody there is "family" LOL

I've seen some bad porn that was still good.

yes, we are family
wait, is that copyrighted?

 

[Lord Booticus]

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/music_industry

 

[Benjoe]

The reason why piracy is so widespread is because of a horrendous lack of decent options by the movie / TV / music industry.

Here in the UK I always see these offers at the cinema (I think you call it a movie theatre) anyway, for £12.99 you can go to the cinema anytime you like and watch unlimited movies all for that price. I think this is great value for money and if I had a friend that liked going as often as me I would definitely do this. But I don't and I hate to go alone.

If there was an equivalent DVD option I would love to pay for this. The only choices we have here are stuff like Netflix but the stuff that comes out on that is just way way too old and I don't have the patience to wait a year or two after it comes out to watch something, so I pirate instead. Give me a decent option that can match the torrents and I would be the first to pay it.

As for pc games I nearly always pirate them first and if I find I like them I will buy them, especially so I can play online.

The individual prices of movies and season box sets of TV shows is just way too expensive. I can download a 1.4GB movie in usually about 10 - 15 mins. The quality is brilliant. Paying $20 for a single film that you may not even like is just too expensive for most people if you like to watch a lot.

 

[borg69unimatrix]

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/music_industry

This is too good and deserves more then just a link.

 

[PreTTy PeTe]

I just downloaded a couple of movies and they said "For Your Consideration"

so I assume I was given permission

 

[xbuzzerx]

This is too good and deserves more then just a link.

DAT. Victory dance.

 

[borg69unimatrix]

While I agree with it, I can't take credit for it.

Lord Booticus provided the link to it. I just posted the pix from the link.

 

[72-Jay]

Here in the UK I always see these offers at the cinema (I think you call it a movie theatre) anyway, for £12.99 you can go to the cinema anytime you like and watch unlimited movies all for that price. I think this is great value for money and if I had a friend that liked going as often as me I would definitely do this. But I don't and I hate to go alone.

. Atleast where I am most people do call it a Movie Theater...but 'Cinema' is also used.
I rarely go to movies because they're too expensive...(last couple I've went to were all free pre-screenings, but thats been a couple years). That deal they have in your area doesn't seem too bad.

I can download a 1.4GB movie in usually about 10 - 15 mins. The quality is brilliant. Paying $20 for a single film that you may not even like is just too expensive for most people if you like to watch a lot.

WoW fast ... I wouldn't even attempt to download something that size, probably take a weeks worth of nights to get simply not worth it to me LOL...especially when a DVD thats a few years old can be had for around $5 *if* you wait for sales. ("black friday" being one of the best times to buy...but I believe thats also mainly a US thing?)

 

[xbuzzerx]

No matter how teasingly low the apple is to plucking, how stealthily you can pluck it, or how wealthy the apple tree is, stealing from it is still wrong, and it is still a crime.

Why shouldn't entertainment stars be worth millions? They have made something enriching for the whole dreary gray world that nobody else has ever made, and after all, public market forces are the ones that determine how much they are worth.

As others have pointed out early in the thread, pirating is never the reason that a successful piece of intellectual property-- videogame, movie, or song-- succeeds or doesn't succeed, and that likewise, that a bad one that does poorly failed.

There's even a debate as to whether people who do pirate heavily would have ever bought anything anyway, were pirating not available.

Yup, it's still stealing.

The concept that demonstrable harm was done, though, would require substantiation.