Motion Picture Theft

[Jonathan Spear]

Ultimately, the biggest losers are the people who download films themselves:

 

1. You don't care about the actual film. What matters to you is being the first on the block to see it.

Classic "Alpha Male" inferiority complex.

 

2. You have no appreciation for the visual or audio aspects of the film because there's a 99.99% chance you downloaded, at best, a downgraded version of the film.

 

3. You could care less about the industry or the law.

 

4. You're too lazy too get off your a$$ and go to your local theater.

 

5. You're too cheap to pay 20$ for a ticket and something to nibble on.

[Alessandro Machi]

This is getting silly.

Do you see the question mark at the end of the sentence that I wrote? The question mark denotes that I am asking a question.

Here it is again: "So you're saying that it's OK to use the song because you can't afford it?"

I don't know how much more clearly I can show you that it's a question. A question, by the way, that you still haven't answered. Should I assume that since you haven't answered it that the answer is yes?

How does the fact that you never said it mean that I assumed something? That doesn't make any sense.

 

What you did, which either you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge, is to follow up your assertion of what you thought I meant, with an answer of "that's ridiculous". Which made it sound like I actually said something that you then responded to.

 

If you had written "that would be ridiculous if you think that way"... that would be grammatically accurate.

 

So you're saying that it's OK to use the song because you can't afford it? That's ridiculous

 

......"that would be ridiculous if you think that way", at least lets it be known that YOU think I think a certain way, rather than making it sound like I actually said something which I did not say.

 

 

It's not a fair discussion if you make it sound like I said something that I did not say nor even imply.

 

Again, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. It really is that simple.

I want to live in a $10 million house, should I just go squat in one since the owner refuses to lower the price and I can't afford it?

 

In terms of situational ethics, I have answered you by pointing out that you would most likely not accept it if you were charged more for a product or service than the person standing in front and in back of you was charged, yet legally the service provider could do that very thing.

 

I further answered your position with my example of how Hollywood public image results in increased popularity and sales for a celebrity and that would be lost if musicians actually sued their CD paying customers because the customer used the celebrities music in their own wedding video.

 

The wedding video example was an example of situational ethics. Most laws have situations that arise that allow for the law to be challenged and why stealing isn't always stealing.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

4. You're too lazy too get off your a$$ and go to your local theater.

 

5. You're too cheap to pay 20$ for a ticket and something to nibble on.

 

---MY. but don't we have plenty of spare time and money on our hands

& and a fine nose to look down on others with.

 

---LV

Edited April 21, 2006 by Leo A Vale

[Brad Grimmett]

What you did, which either you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge, is to follow up your assertion of what you thought I meant, with an answer of "that's ridiculous". Which made it sound like I actually said something that you then responded to.

 

No, I answered the question I asked. I never said that I thought you meant anything. That's why I asked. You wrote what you wrote and I wrote what I wrote. It's very easy to see what we've both written. Why are you so defensive about this?

 

If you had written "that would be ridiculous if you think that way"... that would be grammatically accurate.

......"that would be ridiculous if you think that way", at least lets it be known that YOU think I think a certain way, rather than making it sound like I actually said something which I did not say.

It's not a fair discussion if you make it sound like I said something that I did not say nor even imply.

 

Again, I never made it "sound like" you said anything. What I wrote is very clear. I never made any assumptions as to what you "think" or don't think. I simply responded to what you wrote.

 

In terms of situational ethics, I have answered you by pointing out that you would most likely not accept it if you were charged more for a product or service than the person standing in front and in back of you was charged, yet legally the service provider could do that very thing.

 

Is this just a theory? When has this happened to you? Are people getting discounts in front of you and behind you in line at the movie theater?

You're telling me what I wouldn't "likely" accept. Who's making the assumptions around here?

 

I further answered your position with my example of how Hollywood public image results in increased popularity and sales for a celebrity and that would be lost if musicians actually sued their CD paying customers because the customer used the celebrities music in their own wedding video.

 

No matter what you think about celebrity and popularity and public image and it's relation to CD sales, it still doesn't change the fact that if you're using their music without permission you're breaking the law.

 

The wedding video example was an example of situational ethics. Most laws have situations that arise that allow for the law to be challenged and why stealing isn't always stealing.

 

Well, stealing IS always stealing, whether you want to think so or not.

You keep talking about laws as if there is some law to stop someone from charging what they want for goods or services, but there aren't any in relation to what we're talking about. Situational ethics is lying to yourself, so it's never an excuse in my opinion.

[Alessandro Machi]

"Is this a theory"?

 

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

 

 

What does that mean?

 

I posed a situation. You call it a theory.

 

If you went to pump gas and the attendant felt like charging you 50 cents more per gallon than anyone else, according to your position, it appears your only recourse would be to go somewhere else because it isn't against the law to do what the attendant is doing, although I don't know for sure that that is your position because you haven't acknowledged the scenario up until now.

 

But if that gas station was the most convenient one to use, closest to home, open the latest, etc.... going some place else probably woudn't be acceptable to you, would it? One recourse would be to argue that the law was not fair and possibly only pay the amount everyone else was paying and take your chances, and that would not make you a thief nor would it mean you "stole" something either.

[Michael Ryan]

Hello Freya,

 

Remember, nothing I'm about to write is meant to offend, just to enlighten. I can see that we disagree on a few points and that's OK too, it's all part of life.

 

Freya, I have to make an observation about your copyright information. It reads like you have read a few books on copyright and while some of what you say is "in the ball park", I believe that it could easily be misunderstood by anyone who didn't have a general knowledge of copyright law.

 

Freya, I've lived a few years now and I'd like to think I have some smarts (although my 6th grade math teacher wouldn't agree). You know in the last 15 years I've paid real money to talk to five different copyright lawyers and in general conversations I've spoken to about 30 or 40 professional writers and we all understand copyright law the way I spoke about it in my original post.

 

In several of the points that you made, you are not really disagreeing with what I said, so it's kind of like you are disagreeing just to disagree?

 

I said, "In a nutshell, copyright is proof of ownership."

 

Your quote: "Well not really. If it comes down to the crunch you may well have to prove that you are the creator of the work. Copyright is the right to make copies of the work once you have created it."

 

In my opinion your thought is not really to the point and it gives a bit of information that while in a general sense is correct, it is missing the point. If you sue someone (let's say a magazine publisher) for stealing your work you will "in fact" have to prove to a judge that you are the copyright holder. Your last sentence implies (especially to someone who doesn't know anything about copyright law) that copyright is the right to make copies. Well, if you are the copyright holder you can do ALL KINDS OF THINGS with your work. Making copies is just one of them, and speaking as a person who holds copyright on a great deal of written work, making copies is something I almost never do. Someone pays me to use my work and they print it in their magazine (I guess that's where you get the "making copies" point). Again, I think to those who don't know they would think you meant, "Hey, I can go down to the general store and make photo copies of my work. Freya says that's what copyright is." Can you see my point now?

 

 

 

 

 

Your quote: "As I understand it there are still places outside of the berne convention where displaying a notice like this is needed to declare that the item is copyright in order for you to be covered by the law. In Berne convention countries the notice is not needed, however, you might as well stick it on to be clear and to protect yourself in other places too! It can't hurt and it may well help you, both inside and outside of the Berne convention as you are making it really clear to people that you consider the work to be your copyright. It makes it hard for people to claim ignorance in the matter!"

 

So, in a general sense you are correct, but If I just wrote the next HARRY POTTER novel, trust me, I'm getting a real lawyer to reregister it with the appropriate government agency I would HIGHLY recommend to any writer that when he sends his work to a magazine he always prints ©your name 2006 on the first page. If you think the work will have a great value, then I would say you MUST reregister (copyright) your work with the appropriate government agency. You would be a fool not to.

 

 

Your quote: "You mention the "act of copyright" in quotes which makes it sound a little as if copyright is something you do! That seems a little strange to me. Copyright just is, although obviously there is the act of creating the work, and there may well be the act of doing things to protect your copyrights too but copyright in law is just something you automatically have at least within the Berne convention."

 

Yes, you are correct that when you create a written work copyright automatically "exists". However, if you create something that you believe has great value you will need to register your copyright with the appropriate agency (it's different agencies all over the world, check in your country). Because If I ever have to sue someone for stealing my work, can you imagine when the judge asks me, " Now Mr. Ryan can you show me proof that you are the copyright holder?" "Well, your honor, don't you know that it just exists?" Then after everyone in the court room stopped laughing, I would have a big, up hill battle proving that I was the owner.

 

Also, in several of your posts you come across as a person who thinks it is OK to steal or "infringe" on a copyright holders work, which I would think is not what you believe?

 

 

Mike

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

---MY. but don't we have plenty of spare time and money on our hands

& and a fine nose to look down on others with.

 

---LV

 

 

So lacking those two things gives you the right to download the movie for free where as everyone else has to pay for it. Riiight.

 

That's almost as bad as me saying, I can't afford my next door neighbours Lamborghini Diablo, so I'll just steal it. If he can have it, then why can't I.

[Brad Grimmett]

"Is this a theory"?

 

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

What does that mean?

 

I posed a situation. You call it a theory.

 

I didn't call it a theory. I asked if it WAS a theory. What I'm really asking is if this particular thing has happend to you or if you just made it up. It sounds so contrived that I didn't think it had actually happened to anyone.

 

If you went to pump gas and the attendant felt like charging you 50 cents more per gallon than anyone else, according to your position, it appears your only recourse would be to go somewhere else because it isn't against the law to do what the attendant is doing, although I don't know for sure that that is your position because you haven't acknowledged the scenario up until now.

 

But if that gas station was the most convenient one to use, closest to home, open the latest, etc.... going some place else probably woudn't be acceptable to you, would it?

 

It just so happens that the closest gas station to my house has the highest prices of any gas station within 10 square miles. To get higher prices you have to go to Brentwood or Santa Monica. To answer your question....Yes, I DO go somewhere else to buy my gas. I'm not so lazy that I HAVE to go to the closest place. They can charge whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that I have to buy gas there.

 

One recourse would be to argue that the law was not fair and possibly only pay the amount everyone else was paying and take your chances, and that would not make you a thief nor would it mean you "stole" something either.

 

What "law" do you keep talking about? You're so fixated on some fictional "law"....it's just baffling to me.

And you're saying that I should only pay what I think is right and take my chances? And that if I did that I'm not a thief? You're joking right? What world do you live in where you think that stealing gas isn't a crime?

Honestly, I'm so baffled by what you're saying that I'm starting to think that you're just saying ridiculous things to perpetuate this discussion.

If you don't mind I have a few questions for you:

How old are you?

Are you in school and/or are you supporting yourself?

Have you done jail time?

How many times have you been arrested?

 

I'm really struggling with how you've come to some of the conclusions you have, and if you answer these questions the answers may shine some light on that.

[Alessandro Machi]

I guess you don't understand what "scenario" means, which would also explain why you're having difficulty with the concept of situational ethics.

[Jonathan Spear]

""---MY. but don't we have plenty of spare time and money on our hands

& and a fine nose to look down on others with.

 

---LV""

 

At least I'm not a cheapskate.

 

:)

[Jonathan Spear]

"""One recourse would be to argue that the law was not fair and possibly only pay the amount everyone else was paying and take your chances, and that would not make you a thief nor would it mean you "stole" something either."""

 

If you decide to "take chances" with a specific law you truly believe isn't just or doesn't apply to you, at least be honest enough to acknowledge that what you're doing is against the law.

 

"""Most laws have situations that arise that allow for the law to be challenged and why stealing isn't always stealing."""

 

Unless we're talking about the occaisional starving homeless mother (or father) of three stealing a loaf of bread at 7-11 (and even then) -- stealing is stealing. That's the law.

 

Downloading the newest Star Wars flick in the comfort of your living room is safe and harmless.. if it weren't for the internet you'd be shoving a DVD down your pants, voiding surveillance cameras and security guards.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

So lacking those two things gives you the right to download the movie for free where as everyone else has to pay for it. Riiight.

 

That's almost as bad as me saying, I can't afford my next door neighbours Lamborghini Diablo, so I'll just steal it. If he can have it, then why can't I.

 

---I've never downloaded a movie.

 

But some people are sitting on too high of a horse.

 

The reference was about arrogant attitudes, rather than actual downloading.

Which I suppose is getting off topic.

 

---LV

Edited April 22, 2006 by Leo A Vale

[Jonathan Spear]

(At least I'm not a cheapskate :P )

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

---I've never downloaded a movie.

 

But some people are sitting on too high of a horse.

 

The reference was about arrogant attitudes, rather than actual downloading.

Which I suppose is getting off topic.

 

---LV

 

Well as far as I know, the comment was aimed at people who download movies. No one else, so I'm not sure why you are bothered about it.

[Brad Grimmett]

I guess you don't understand what "scenario" means, which would also explain why you're having difficulty with the concept of situational ethics.

I'm not surprised that you've decided not to even respond to my post. You're "argument", if you can call it that, is wearing very thin.

I have no problem understanding situational ethics. As a matter of fact, I think you understand it as well. Where we differ is that you think it's a valid way to defend theft, and I don't. You refuse to admit that it's simply lying to yourself.

You come up with all these silly "scenarios", as if they have anything to do with anything, and they don't. They're just a feeble attempt to try to find some way in which stealing would be considered OK. Well, breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how you slice it.

[Matt Pacini]

The shape this debate has taken on, is further proof of what I mentioned earlier; that in the last 25 years or so, situation ethics has become so prevalent in our society, culture, and education system, that it has eroded the general morals of the average person raised with these ideals.

 

It seems to me that the sides of this argument on this forum can be devided roughly into two groups:

Those approximately older than 35-40 years old, and those younger than that.

This proves my point:

 

Us "older folks" were taught that STEALING IS STEALING, PERIOD, and it doesn't make any difference how you "feel" about who you're stealing it from.

 

Those "younger folks" have been raised with "social conciousness" (i.e socialist ideology), just automatically divide all people into the "haves" and "have nots" without even thinking about it, then not only justify stealing from the "haves", but actually feel morally superior for doing so!

 

This is obvious by this whole "they deserve it because they're making so much profit that it's unfair" attitude that just reeks from the posts. This is one of the huge problems with socialism, in my opinion, because it teaches people tthat it's OK to mistreat other people, (anything from stealing from them, to killing them),

while feeling that they have justification for it, because "they're the bad guys" when you don't even know these people. They belong to "a group" that you define as "the bad guys", and guess what? That's bigotry, plain and simple. Class bigotry is no different that racial bigotry.

 

Sorry kids, but treating fellow human beings (yes, even studio heads are human beings) as if they're criminals, just because you THINK they are unfairly profiting from you, is not good for mankind, no matter how you spin it, and this will come back to bite you in the ass someday, believe me.

 

MP

[Alessandro Machi]

Well said Matt, however....

 

Let's also acknowledge that if one bought a home in California in 1980 for $80,000 it would now be "worth" over $600,000, whereas nowadays what percentage of youth can really afford to purchase their first time home? Wealth has become concentrated in the older percentile of our society and the young don't have much hope for a home of any kind in California. Somebody who bought a home in 1980 has basically been making a thousand dollars a month, every month via real estate appreciation, above and beyond whatever the money they make from their regular job. In essence, every month their house was appreciating 2-3 times times faster than their house payment!

 

Young people living in an apartment have a very minor chance of ever moving into a home because every month they get farther behind because they have nothing appreciating except their credit card bills. Simply saying tsk tsk tsk and being judgemental toward people who are younger comes off as being a bit upper crust.

 

Then to top it off it's the older population in charge of business that cuts manufacturing jobs for American citizens. Should these same people who cut off chances for the younger population to ever have a decent job so they can eventually own a home then sit in supreme judgement of the younger generation?

 

Go see "Thank you for Smoking" and then tell me the lead character has a right to judge others.

 

Situational ethics do exist. A police officer recently explained to me that he uses situational ethics before he decides if he thinks someone is breaking a law or not and as a result, I got to stay and continue filming my time-lapse shots even though he had the authority to make me leave.

[Michael Ryan]

Right on, Matt!

 

It's funny I was thinking the same thing myself. I was going to say, It's EASY to tell who is under 30 and who is over 30.

 

There is a reason why this thread is so popular. Because I started it as a discussion on Motion Picture Theft, but, really at the heart of all this is the decline of morals and ethics in the Western world. And this bothers a great many people. People who care about the world we live in. It's not just about ME. As you move through life, you find out it's really about US. How we treat each other, how we respect each other, how we help each other.

 

I mentioned this before, but it is really worth saying again, morals and ethics are very good things. It holds our society together. It is the thin line that pulls us all back from what would be chaos and a world that would not be worth living in.

 

You can spin it any way you want if it makes you feel better, but when you take something that is not yours and you don't have permission or you don't pay for it....it's stealing.

 

I'm a little upset that more responsible people have not stood up and posted on this thread. I know there are some major Hollywood types here and Motion Picture Theft effects you directly. You know who you are. You need to post and show your "colors". You need to lead by example, even if you won't come off as cool or hip.

 

To those of you on this thread that are totally OK with stealing, I'm not that naive to think that this post is going to convert you. What I truly hope it does is make you THINK. Because most people have never had to think about serious matters. They shuffle through life following the crowd. Doing what everyone else is doing. You need to THINK, QUESTION, REASON, BELIEVE and hold close the important things in life. You need to think about who you are and you need to realize that your actions will make this world a better or worse place to live.

 

 

Mike

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Where did this spring up... I personally thought it was mainly the older people that were going on about how video piracy is not stealing. I was all against that. Well whatever.

[Brad Grimmett]

Well said Matt.

 

So you agree with Matt? He said basically the same thing I've been saying over and over again to you. The same thing that you've been arguing vehemently against for pages and pages in this thread. But now it's "well said"? Did this change of heart just come in an instant? What changed?

 

Situational ethics do exist. A police officer recently explained to me that he uses situational ethics before he decides if he thinks someone is breaking a law or not.

 

Yet you still continue to argue against exactly what Matt said....

Of course situational ethics exist. Who said they didn't? Matt even made a point about how prevalent they are in society today in his post.

How does this police officer "use" situational ethics? And why is he "deciding" whether he "thinks" someone is breaking the law or not? Honestly, this just sounds like something you made up to try and prove your point.

[Alessandro Machi]

So you agree with Matt? He said basically the same thing I've been saying over and over again to you. The same thing that you've been arguing vehemently against for pages and pages in this thread. But now it's "well said"? Did this change of heart just come in an instant? What changed?

Yet you still continue to argue against exactly what Matt said....

Of course situational ethics exist. Who said they didn't? How does this police officer "use" situational ethics? And why is he "deciding" whether he "thinks" someone is breaking the law or not? Honestly, this just sounds like something you made up to try and prove your point.

 

I went back and added to my last comment to make my point perfectly clear.

 

How does this police officer "use" situational ethics? And why is he "deciding" whether he "thinks" someone is breaking the law or not? Honestly, this just sounds like something you made up to try and prove your point.

 

You have this over the top caustic style of responding that is quite irritating. Rather than simply asking me to further explain or clarify what I mean, you simply accuse me of lying.

 

Dang you remind me of someone from a few years ago. He used to do the same thing over and over. It's a creepy tactic and I've learned to avoid such types.

[Brad Grimmett]

I went back and added to my last comment to make my point perfectly clear.

 

Oh, it's clear, but not in the way you mean it. The situation you describe has nothing to do with situational ethics in my opinion. So the cop was nice to you when he could have told you to leave. This situation is much different than what we've been talking about. We've been talking about theft, which is a much bigger and much different issue than shooting without a permit.

 

You have this over the top caustic style of responding that is quite irritating. Rather than simply asking me to further explain or clarify what I mean, you simply accuse me of lying.

 

Dang you remind me of someone from a few years ago. He used to do the same thing over and over. It's a creepy tactic and I've learned to avoid such types.

I've asked you a lot of questions, most of which you haven't answered. You just keep coming up with different "situations" and "scenarios" to try to prove your point. If I'm caustic it's because I don't like people that constantly sidestep issues, don't answer my questions, and constantly try to prove that theft is OK.

I'm sorry I called you a liar, but the reason I did is because you've come up with countless situations and scenarios that are so off the wall that I simply can't believe that all, or most of them are true. And that includes your last example. I simply don't believe that a cop started randomly talking about situational ethics to you on the street. It's a little too convenient.

You may find me irritating, but at least I respond to your posts and points, as oppossed to just trying to use random examples to support my own points. I ask questions to try to understand your points better, and you ignore them.

[Keneu Luca]

Has anyone here ever driven 60 mph in a 55 mph zone?

 

If so you are breaking the law. Shame on you. And not only are you breaking the law, but you are endangering the lives of innocent people. Women and children. And some of those women may even be pregnant. Hell, some of those children may even be pregnant...kids these days and their raging hormones.

 

But anyway, yeah, 60 in a 55...shame on you. Dont you realize that's stealing. Because while the rest of us are driving the speed limit, you are getting to your destination faster, thereby saving yourself time....stolen time. You stole that time because you drove beyond the speed limit.

 

Shame on you.

Edited April 24, 2006 by Keneu

[Josh Bass]

Yeah, the thing is, when driving over the speed limit, literally EVERYONE else is doing the same. We even learned that in fu**ing driver's ed, you don't drive the speed limit on the freeway, you keep up with the flow of traffic, even if it be 10-15 miles an hour faster than the posted speed. Seriously, NO ONE goes the speed limit, except maybe in bad conditions. And this is coming from the slow guy. I think there's even a sort of "unwritten rule" that you can go around 10 miles over the limit on a regular street (not so much in a school zone or residential area--but in in more urban areas) and not have any problems. Sure, you CAN get a ticket, but unless the cops are feeling especially prickish that day, you won't.

 

 

Anyway, how do we feel about copying? It's the same thing, isn't it? Not any more justifiable? I'm talkin' when you buy a movie and make copies to hand out.

[Alessandro Machi]

 

repeating your quote won't do any good, but it's you I'm replying to.

 

I proposed a couple of scenarios. A scenario is simply "What if" the following happened??? Rather than answer my scenario, you simply asked if it had ever happened to me.

 

That pretty much ends the discussion if you aren't willing to offer an answer to a scenario If you think the scenario does not match the discussion at hand, you can say that, but you never even did that.

 

The police incident happened, and another interesting discussion about the location I was filming at happened as well, and it too was about situational ethics, and again, the officer said it depends on the situation, not just what the law states.

 

I believe in situational ethics, and I also believe that downloading copyrighted movies BEFORE they have recouped their costs and a hefty profit is stealing.