Motion Picture Theft

[Guest]

Well Daniel, on the one hand you say this....

 

"Taxes aren't owned by the government. They're owned by the public, kept in a public fund, controlled by the government that would soon be booted out if they were caught using it for anything out of the publics interest."

 

Then in reference to my: "They lie, they cheat, they steal, but for some reason it's ok when they do it."

 

You say: "Because it's in the publics interest."

 

I'm assuming you see how you don't make any sense at all???? In one breath you condemn governments that violate the public trust, then in the next you endorse it.

 

Strange?????????????

 

In Canada we just removed from a power a party that had grown drunk on corruption. They where caught red handed taking money from the public purse and handing it in cash, and in secret, to their political buddies.

 

Now this is Canada not Angola, and look what happened!!

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Of course it's stealing because it deprives the seller of his market.

 

Only it doesn't if it's something you'd never have bought anyway. The "I would never have paid for that" is a legitimate defence.

 

> free is a number that is cannot be competed with.

 

Actually it can; offer me a better service. If what you say was true nobody would ever buy a DVD. Internet film piracy is technologically difficult and usually offers fairly poor quality; that DVDs continue to sell indicates that it can be competed with.

 

> If people want to see a movie a year after it's been released, that is no where near as big of an offense as

> seeing the movie before it's even been released.

 

Why? Because Jack Valenti wants notification every time I inhale?

 

> I believe that it could be easy to detect internet piracy. The Motion picture industry would register certain

> algorithmic patterns from throughout a movie

 

They do, hence the annoying red flickery dots.

 

> and when theose algorithm's are detected

 

Detected by who or what?

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Well Daniel, on the one hand you say this....

 

"Taxes aren't owned by the government. They're owned by the public, kept in a public fund, controlled by the government that would soon be booted out if they were caught using it for anything out of the publics interest."

 

Then in reference to my: "They lie, they cheat, they steal, but for some reason it's ok when they do it."

 

You say: "Because it's in the publics interest."

 

I'm assuming you see how you don't make any sense at all???? In one breath you condemn governments that violate the public trust, then in the next you endorse it.

 

Strange?????????????

 

In Canada we just removed from a power a party that had grown drunk on corruption. They where caught red handed taking money from the public purse and handing it in cash, and in secret, to their political buddies.

 

Now this is Canada not Angola, and look what happened!!

 

R,

Sorry, I misunderstood the way you said it. If politicians are stealing for their own good, then yes, they are obviously corrupt and should be booted out.

 

My comment was saying that, of course they rip people off, they find one way or another to get more money out of the tax payer, which is considered stealing to some, but it's all in the interest of the public. The money will eventually come back to them in some form. Wherether it's in the form of better roads or safer streets, it's all for the public.

 

 

 

Anyway let's 'avoid' turning this political.

 

 

 

They do, hence the annoying red flickery dots.

 

Can't say I've noticed them before, what are they all about?

 

 

 

Well it can be stealing stealing sort of. So it wouldn't neccesarily be bad to say it was stealing, just misinformation. To say so confuses people because stealing is a word laden with connotations. Even worse that isn't really what people are saying. People are saying things like it is the same as murder or the same as robbing a bank or even the same as stealing coke or a mars bar, and it is very different to all of those things, partly because copyright is a very special thing and the work of artists is a special thing and a bottle of coke. Well that isn't special at all really.

 

...but strictly speaking it's not really about stealing.

 

 

 

Yes but that is the fundamental problem with the way everything is viewed these days. Purely in terms of economics, but there are other things that are important other than economics, economics is only a part of the equation and to see it that way is bad.

 

From an economic point of view it isn't always stealing because often people will watch pirate copies of things that they might never pay for anyway, so there is no economic loss.

 

I should point out that having a free ride on someone elses money isn't neccesarily stealing either! ;)

 

 

 

I guess because people will misunderstand as is clear from the comparisons with stealing a bottle of coke.

 

Copyright is a right. It is the right for people to make copies of their own work. It is important to society and was created to protect the free flow of ideas and art. It was created to protect the creators of such works from unscrupulous large companies (oh the irony!). When you infringe copyright you are actually infringing on the freedom of people to express themselves. Surely a much more terrible thing than stealing a bottle of coke from a supermarket.

 

It is nothing like murder etc.

 

The reason the whole world of copyright has become a mess is because someone allowed companies and corporations to own copyrights, and this should never have been done. It is only individuals who should own copyright.

 

People don't tend to feel bad about infringing on the rights of Fox corporation for example. Why shold they when News Corp stamp all over the lives of innocent citizens.

 

It is very sad to see that something as beautiful as copyright has become so perverted.

 

So much so that people have actually been led to see copyright as a bad thing, which is of course what the corporations would love to have. To see copyright replaced by something else, something that would allow them to control peoples actual ability to copy things.

 

 

 

Theres a lot of terrible things that happen in the world maybe it would be better to hit hard, on say the people who threatened me on my own doorstep or the people who make me afraid and scared when I am in my own house, or countless other things.

 

love

 

Freya

 

I know this is kind of, 'avoiding' the issue, but as artists we really shouldn't be hugely bothered about making our millions, enough to keep the mortgage paid and food in the fridge should be enough. Although, that's a whole different matter.

 

The way I see they should go for the bigger fish. I mean, sure I used to download loads of movies all the time. But I was just a kid saving his pitiful wages by downloading and enjoying some good movies. It's the ones that go to car boot sales and flog their merchandise that should really be cracked down on. There are many web sites that don't host the movie files themselves, but instead host the torrents. Suprnova got shutdown, why cant the rest?

Edited April 17, 2006 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Rik Andino]

It just proves how powerful and dangerous the internet is.

 

Ripping DVDs and downloading pirated movies isn't really dangerous...

If you want to see how dangerous the internet really is...

Research the thousands of teens who've been abducted, raped, killed, and etc...

Because they were preyed upon by internet stalkers and predators.

 

Or how about identity theft...?

 

If Law Enforcement can't prevent these REAL & SERIOUS crime pertuated through the internet

How can they enforce against millions comitting copyright violation--at worst it's petty (real petty) theft.

 

We need to adress the serious problems the internet poses first than the trivial.

Internet pricacy doesn't kill people--internet predators do.

[Alessandro Machi]

> Of course it's stealing because it deprives the seller of his market.

 

Only it doesn't if it's something you'd never have bought anyway. The "I would never have paid for that" is a legitimate defence.

 

Not when it's combined with having to have it before the official release. Back to the "a year later" argument, a year later it's not quite the same offense.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

> free is a number that is cannot be competed with.

 

Actually it can; offer me a better service. If what you say was true nobody would ever buy a DVD. Internet film piracy is technologically difficult and usually offers fairly poor quality; that DVDs continue to sell indicates that it can be competed with.

 

It's a diminishing return. At some point in the future, some films won't get made at all because the realized return will be diminished because of piracy.

 

We'll end up with boring talkie movies rather than cool over the top action films. Well, the first part of this response still stands.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

 

> If people want to see a movie a year after it's been released, that is no where near as big of an offense as seeing the movie before it's even been released.

 

Why? Because Jack Valenti wants notification every time I inhale?

 

If Mr. Valenti pirated my comments I'll be very upset because I didn't know he said the same thing, but hey, that should tell you something if I come to the same conclusion without ever having heard Mr. Valenti say it.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

> I believe that it could be easy to detect internet piracy. The Motion picture industry would register certain algorithmic patterns from throughout a movie

 

They do, hence the annoying red flickery dots.

 

I don't know about the dots, are those only on pirated movies or all movies?

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

 

> and when theose algorithm's are detected

 

Detected by who or what?

Phil

 

BILL GATES & MICROSOFT!

[Matt Pacini]

I'm sorry to offend anyone, but I get a bit sick of hearing creative Orwelling definitions of stealing, just to make your conscience feel better.

 

 

Stealing is (and has always been) defined as taking something that's not yours.

Period.

There are no mitigating circumstances, all of I see here, basically add up to "they deserve it".

My mom had a 7-11 franchise, and this is how people would justify ripping her off "the prices are too high, you guys make tons of money" blah blah blah.

One year, my mom made $250 the whole year, while her scumbag employees and "customers" damn near carried the whole store off.

She never made more than $40K a year, tops. It's immoral to say "they make millions of dollars, I have a right to steal from them". There are LOTS of people employed in the entertainment industry that are barely scraping by (do I really need to say this?)

 

Anyway, I think one reason people feel like it's not stealing, is because of radio & TV.

They turn it on, and media comes on, free of charge.

Everyone knows that commercials pay for the content, but that assumption that it's free, that it's a product that is worthless, is there regardless.

 

MP

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Ripping DVDs and downloading pirated movies isn't really dangerous...

If you want to see how dangerous the internet really is...

Research the thousands of teens who've been abducted, raped, killed, and etc...

Because they were preyed upon by internet stalkers and predators.

 

Or how about identity theft...?

 

If Law Enforcement can't prevent these REAL & SERIOUS crime pertuated through the internet

How can they enforce against millions comitting copyright violation--at worst it's petty (real petty) theft.

 

We need to adress the serious problems the internet poses first than the trivial.

Internet pricacy doesn't kill people--internet predators do.

 

Well, obviously that's a different level of 'dangerous'. I was thinking more, the internet could be the end of the music and film industry. A pretty bold statement at the moment, but in time, when everyone's running on super fast connections.. never know what might happen.

 

And yes I realise how dangerous the internet really is, I've had experiences myself, not quite as bad as the ones you mentioned but still pretty bad. 10 years of age building bombs from some guide me and friend found, pretty crazy stuff. (And these things weren't no french bangers neither...)

Edited April 17, 2006 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[K Borowski]

I'm sorry to offend anyone, but I get a bit sick of hearing creative Orwelling definitions of stealing, just to make your conscience feel better.

 

 

Stealing is (and has always been) defined as taking something that's not yours.

Period.

There are no mitigating circumstances, all of I see here, basically add up to "they deserve it".

My mom had a 7-11 franchise, and this is how people would justify ripping her off "the prices are too high, you guys make tons of money" blah blah blah.

One year, my mom made $250 the whole year, while her scumbag employees and "customers" damn near carried the whole store off.

She never made more than $40K a year, tops. It's immoral to say "they make millions of dollars, I have a right to steal from them". There are LOTS of people employed in the entertainment industry that are barely scraping by (do I really need to say this?)

 

Anyway, I think one reason people feel like it's not stealing, is because of radio & TV.

They turn it on, and media comes on, free of charge.

Everyone knows that commercials pay for the content, but that assumption that it's free, that it's a product that is worthless, is there regardless.

 

MP

 

Well said Matt. I agree completely with what you've said. The idea that on a cinematography forum, that someone could justify movie piracy is mind-numbing. It's as illogical as the theatre employees that pirate the movies to begin with. I need not say this, but 2K has made all of this easier.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Freya Black]

Stealing is (and has always been) defined as taking something that's not yours.

Period.

 

Which strictly speaking is not what happens here because nothing is taken.

 

Copying such things is an infringement of rights.

It amounts to stealing in some ways, but it is not the same thing, and as I said, to suggest that it is, is a terrible debasement of copyright.

 

Anyway, I think one reason people feel like it's not stealing, is because of radio & TV.

They turn it on, and media comes on, free of charge.

Everyone knows that commercials pay for the content, but that assumption that it's free, that it's a product that is worthless, is there regardless.

 

MP

 

This is not always true outside of the U.S.A. but I do understand how commercial television might make people think that all moving image media is worthless.

 

love

 

Freya

Edited April 17, 2006 by Freya

[Dominic Case]

Stealing?

or Fraud?

 

I think the argument goes like this: when you watch a film (or listen to music, etc) you are entering into a contract with the owner of the piece, by the very act of watching it. If you don't pay anything, then you are breaking your part of the contract.

 

On this argument, it's not necessary to steal "something". You are failing to pay something.

 

Whether it's fair to say that you have entered a contract is really the difficult point here. It's really stretching a point. Obviously the industry needs to find a model for doing business that can be managed more effectively.

 

The overriding point is, how do you persuade people that free downloading is actually depriving people of thier basic earning power? As someone said before, the extravagances of Hollywood don't make it seem as though anyone needs the money. Professionals in the industry know better,

 

However, if the stars' rich and extravagant lifestyles dpends on them getting $20m to do a picture, and the studios pay that much "because their name is worth that much in the box office", then the solution is very simple. If the box office fails to deliver, because people start getting thier movies for free, then the stars won't be worth so much at the box-office. So they will have to be paid less, or the studio will go broke.

 

Trouble is, a lot of people on average wages might get caught in the squeeze before sanity prevails.

[Josh Bass]

Just curious if anyone here will admit to stealing software. Cause if you do, that's retarded. If you're an editor, for instance, and outraged about movie piracy, but you've downloaded your last 4 version of Final Cut Pro for free, well, then. . .

[Michael Ryan]

Hello All,

 

Wow. I didn?t expect to get this sort of response on a movie business related website.

 

First off, to the vast majority of people who have responded to this post, I?m not your dad or your teacher or a cop...what you think and believe is your choice. I don?t want to get into any kind of verbal war with anyone on this site. But here is a few things you should at least think about. I?m not asking you to believe in what I?m about to say or agree with it...just think about it.

 

The vast majority of ?us? have never had our value system tested. Most of us go to work, watch TV, go out with friends, that sort of stuff. When asked, ?what do you believe in?? most people don?t really know. Not because they are stupid, but because they just never had to think about it.

 

JUSTIFICATION. I would hope that after reading back many of the previous posts, many of you should be able to see the humor in all the ?justifications?. You know you can justify just about anything to yourself if you want. So, from what I have read above, it?s mainly OK to steal from companies that a) we don?t like B) they make too much money c) I wasn?t going to buy the movie anyway, so that?s why it?s OK to steal it (under that logic I should steal a Viper because I wasn?t going to buy one anyway).

 

Unimportant Crime. Another popular thought was that stealing movies was not a very important crime,you know not as bad as murder, so that?s why it?s OK. So what you are saying is that all crime that is not very important is OK from now on. So, who decides what crimes are important and which are not? Then there was the one post where the guy just obeys the laws he thinks are good. Say, there?s some food for thought. From now on, everyone is going to only obey the laws they think are good. Believe it or not, there are lots of places in this world where this is true...trust me, you wouldn?t want to live there (and neither do the people who are there now).

 

One of the best, however, was the person who said it was absurd to compare the theft of a bottle of Coke with stealing a movie off the internet. Because copyright infringement is not stealing. Hmmmm, here? s a thought, next time get some legal advice from a real copyright lawyer, you shouldn?t believe everything you read out of a Cracker Jack box. I have talked to real copyright lawyers. There are lots and lots of copyright holders that have been awarded millions of dollars for the ?theft? of copyrighted material.

 

Last, ethics and morals are a good thing. It?s kind of like the glue that holds our society together, makes it a place where we want to live.

 

I took philosophy once and we had to read Plato?s Republic (everyone above should read it). I can?t remember the exact quote, but Plato described a world in which everyone was ethical, honest and had virtues and morals. The person listening to him said, ?Plato that world that you describe. It sounds fantastic, a place in which I would like to live. But, Plato, I fear the world that you have described does not exist on this earth.

 

Plato turned to the person and said, ?You may be right...but it is the only world in which I can live.?

 

The entertainment industry is made up of lots of workers, most of them are not rich. The more people who rip movies off the internet the more likely it is those people will lose their jobs.

 

Mike

[Alessandro Machi]

Stealing?

or Fraud?

 

I think the argument goes like this: when you watch a film (or listen to music, etc) you are entering into a contract with the owner of the piece, by the very act of watching it. If you don't pay anything, then you are breaking your part of the contract.

 

On this argument, it's not necessary to steal "something". You are failing to pay something.

 

 

Failing to pay for something you now own, a finished, edited piece of work that presumeably you didn't work on in any capacity. Just curious in contrast to that, how many downloads are being made of raw, unedited dailies.

 

So would it be completely ethical to go to your best friends house and make a copy of his mom's favorite recipes without getting permission???

[Micah Fernandez]

Mr. Ryan, I think your contrast is set way too high. ;)

Edited April 18, 2006 by Micah

[Freya Black]

Unimportant Crime. Another popular thought was that stealing movies was not a very important crime,you know not as bad as murder, so that?s why it?s OK. So what you are saying is that all crime that is not very

 

I don't remember anybody saying that at all! Maybe I missed a posting.

 

One of the best, however, was the person who said it was absurd to compare the theft of a bottle of Coke with stealing a movie off the internet. Because copyright infringement is not stealing. Hmmmm, here? s a

 

I suspect you might be reffering to my post. Maybe not, but that certainly wasn't what I said at all!

In my post I suggested that to compare the theft of a bottle of coke with copyright infringment was a gross debasement of copyright.

 

 

thought, next time get some legal advice from a real copyright lawyer, you shouldn?t believe everything you read out of a Cracker Jack box. I have talked to real copyright lawyers. There are lots and lots of copyright holders that have been awarded millions of dollars for the ?theft? of copyrighted material.

 

They have been awarded whatever amount because their copyright was infringed.

 

Last, ethics and morals are a good thing. It?s kind of like the glue that holds our society together, makes it a place where we want to live.

 

I don't disagree with that but I don't think anyone here did. :)

 

The entertainment industry is made up of lots of workers, most of them are not rich. The more people who rip movies off the internet the more likely it is those people will lose their jobs.

 

Mike

 

That could be true. *shrug* Time will tell. Theres not any evidence one way or another so far however.

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

Hello All,

 

Wow. I didn?t expect to get this sort of response on a movie business related website.

 

Welll people are going to be very interested in these things here because they could relate directly to their work inside or outside of the industry. :)

 

First off, to the vast majority of people who have responded to this post, I?m not your dad or your teacher or a cop...what you think and believe is your choice. I don?t want to get into any kind of verbal war with anyone on this site. But here is a few things you should at least think about. I?m not asking you to believe in what I?m about to say or agree with it...just think about it.

 

Mike

 

I don't think anyone thought you were lecturing them, just giving your opinion, and lots of other people have been discussing their opinions and on the whole I think it has been an interesting and positive discussion so far.

 

Dominics idea of Fraud and the breaking of an unwritten contract is an interesting one for example.

It can be useful to have other ways of looking at things.

 

love

 

Freya

Edited April 18, 2006 by Freya

[Michael Collier]

I downloaded movies from the net when I was young. unfortunatley I saw traffic for the first time this way and missed out on the wonderful cinematography.

 

I felt so bad a few years later I ended up buying every movie I downloaded. However, I wanted to be a film maker, so I figure thats where the guilt came from.

 

I believe anyone who downloads movies arent the type to go out and buy the movies. I wasnt at the time, now that I have a good job and steady money I buy way too much.

 

Its a fact of life. Its overhead, LP whatever you want to call it. It will happen. The key is to prevent it where it starts, with the downloaders. In time the whole copywrite issue will be worked out. There are several very profitable companies which have a huge stake in the issue, and they hold influence over those who produce the technology to play the movies back. With HD dvds I think we will see much better copy protection, and we will see less downloading.

 

I think that one day, however, internet will replace DVD distrabution for SD material. Just like the ipod and itunes effectivley mittigated music theft, so will a good IP video server and internet site help tide the downloads. Maybe the reason people are download is not because of the cost savings (what is 10 or 20 bucks for a good movie) but how difficult it is these days to get out of the house and get to a store. (come on tivo, im looking at you)

 

I think the whole issue maybe seems more pronounced than it is, because the general populous does not know how to download stolen movies, and really dont have the time to wait for a 4hour download (with broadband)

[dd3stp233]

Hollywood was in part founded on patent and copyright fraud. Many early film makers moved from the east coast to the west coast to avoid "draconian" patent and copyright enforcement by Thomas Edison and his companies. Edison's companies, at the time basically owned all the patents for the motion picture equipment and processes. To avoid having to pay high patent and royalty fees, the movie companies had the trains to the west coast watched to find out when people from Edison's companies were coming and then they would hide out until after they were gone. I thought this was an interesting side note on how the motion picture business got its start.

[Rik Andino]

Well, obviously that's a different level of 'dangerous'.

I was thinking more, the internet could be the end of the music and film industry.

A pretty bold statement at the moment, but in time, when everyone's running on super fast connections... never know what might happen.

 

I think that might be an unaccurate assesment...

If anything the internet is creating a larger demand for music and media...

So how could this destroy the industry?

 

What the film industry needs to do is stop complaining about the pennies it's losing

And figure out a new way to compete.

I'm sure someone will eventually learn how to harness the power of the internet & filmmaking.

[Daniel Sheehy]

Which strictly speaking is not what happens here because nothing is taken.

 

Copying such things is an infringement of rights.

It amounts to stealing in some ways, but it is not the same thing, and as I said, to suggest that it is, is a terrible debasement of copyright.

 

I agree, stealing... a bit hard to make that one stick. I mean, you own the disk tape etc that it's on, but not the content. That sounds much more like copyright infingement.

 

I mean, how come it's permissable to record and keep (for your own use of course) copies of programmes/movies that air on television. (Yes, you ARE allowed to.)

I believe this argument was had a while ago at the birth of the consumer VHS deck, and the courts refused to allow movie companies/content generaters the right to tell people what they could or couldn't record for their own personal use.

 

We have a big problem with this issue over here in Fiji, the are shops that sell pirated (crap quality) DVD's and VCD's and the police aren't able to handle them. These guys advertise in the papers and on radio... yet no one knows how to shut them down.

If it was a simple matter of theft, they'd have closed them down long ago! However the problem lies in the fact that it is an 'infringment of copyright' issue which legislation hasn't covered well here.

 

I am not for a second condoning what they are doing, but merely pointing out that the issue is much more complex than the big companies would have us believe. I agree with the point someone made, that the people who are really getting ripped off here are the little people.

[Rik Andino]

Wow. I didn?t expect to get this sort of response on a movie business related website.

 

You figure people were going to agree with you..cause we don't like piracy...

I guess you were wrong.

 

Last, ethics and morals are a good thing. It?s kind of like the glue that holds our society together, makes it a place where we want to live.

 

Ethics are also used by despots, totalitarian regimes, unscrupulous religious leaders and corporations

To push their own agendas and dictate how they would want people to behave...

 

People justify everyone of their actions that's just humanity

I'm sure you've got lots of dubious reasons for some of your questionable actions

Accusing people of justify their misdeeds is like cat accusing a dog of shedding fur.

 

No-one here is dismissing that piracy is harmful to the industry and wrong on some moral level

But is it the problem the MPAA would like you to think...

 

This years Academy Awards was filled with blatant propaganda advocating theater- attendance over DVDs.

Because folks in the industry are in a panic they seem to think that theater attendance is low.

 

Yet more and more movies have box-office record-breaking openings now than ever before...

 

It seems that this piracy scare is just a scare--it's making an anthill into a mountain

It's terror propoganda similar to what the Bush Adminstration is doing with terrorist threats...

Which is just as wrong as piracy itself.

 

Yes piracy is a problem--but it isn't that big of a problem...

The majority of Americans don't do (unlike popular assumptions)

And everyone who watches a pirated copy can agree the quality is sub-par...

 

So the future of the Film industry is not in danger

It's just a ploy to push some agenda granting giant corporations power.

 

And no people won't lose their jobs because of piracy

They still have to make movies and they will still need all the crew members to do these jobs

And from what I recall most crew people's salary is not dependent on the sucess of a film.

 

 

I took philosophy once and we had to read Plato?s Republic

 

I could quote some Nietzsche or Hobbes that would contradict Plato....

But then these would get into a futile philosophical argument...it be plently of fun

But we'd arrive at the same place we started.

[Alessandro Machi]

That's an oversimplication of the issue.

 

The key issue is the films are not even released yet. It gives someone tremendous bragging rights to say they saw a movie that hasn't even been released yet. If the pirateers can show that most people who see the pirated movie before it is released also go and pay to see the movie when it is released, that would minimize the bad effect of piracy.

 

But I doubt that would be the case.

 

A Convention of Pirateers would make for a very funny convention, each speaker cajoling the crowd into a frenzy as to why it's right to download whatever they want, for free.

[Matt Pacini]

Stealing is stealing.

Saying it's not stealing, because it's copyright infringement, is absurd.

Copyright laws were created for this exact purpose; to make a clear definition so people couldn't say they're not stealing anything

 

Saying it's not stealing, because you're not taking an "object", is the same as your boss telling you at the end of the week, that he's not paying you for your labors, then saying he's not stealing anything from you, because he hasn't taken an object from you.

 

Sorry guys, ludicrous excuses. If you're supposed to pay for something and you don't, you're stealing.

Just remember this someday when you make a film, and a producer or distributor screws you out of money you should have gotten in wages or royalties.

Hey, it's not like they broke into your house and took a couch or something from you, eh?

 

MP

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Stealing is stealing.

Saying it's not stealing, because it's copyright infringement, is absurd.

Copyright laws were created for this exact purpose; to make a clear definition so people couldn't say they're not stealing anything

 

Saying it's not stealing, because you're not taking an "object", is the same as your boss telling you at the end of the week, that he's not paying you for your labors, then saying he's not stealing anything from you, because he hasn't taken an object from you.

 

Sorry guys, ludicrous excuses. If you're supposed to pay for something and you don't, you're stealing.

Just remember this someday when you make a film, and a producer or distributor screws you out of money you should have gotten in wages or royalties.

Hey, it's not like they broke into your house and took a couch or something from you, eh?

 

MP

 

Exactly what I meant. Even if it's not 'technically' stealing, it's still theoretically, stealing.

 

Thanks Matt, you made my point clear.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Keneu Luca]

Saying it's not stealing, because you're not taking an "object", is the same as your boss telling you at the end of the week, that he's not paying you for your labors, then saying he's not stealing anything from you, because he hasn't taken an object from you.

 

I don't think it's exactly the same.

 

We're talking normal job conditions right - you work a full week and are denied pay for no good reason - thats different because you put forth labor fully expecting to be compensated as you have been since day one of the job. Your boss definitly denied you money. But illegally downloading a film does not definitly deny the studio any money.

 

With a film , there is never a guarantee as to how much money it will make at the box office. Also, as I stated in my previous post in this thread, just because you illegally downloaded a film or bought a bootleg off the street doesnt mean you would have paid full ticket price in the theater to see the film. There could be a film that does not interest you at all, but you see that its availalbe on the computer, youre home on a rainy day, you wanna kill some time without spending money, so you download the film.

 

I think many people automatically assume that those who illegally download films would definitely have otherwise gone to the theater and paid to see the film, and that just isnt true.

 

In other words, each illegally downloaded film DOES NOT always equal $10 (or whatever the ticket costs) from the studio.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Keneu