Motion Picture Theft

[Alessandro Machi]

I'll answer the question you asked first, then I'll answer the question I think you meant to ask.

The first answer is: No, it's not illegal. Viewing something that may have been illegally created is not against the law.

 

Well now you've just given the downloaders a leg to stand on with that reasoning.

 

 

But who's to say all demo reels are illegal anyway? I know for a fact that many of them don't use copyrighted music, or use music with permission.

 

The music issue was specifically mentioned in regards to wedding videos. In terms of the studios, my question was, Is it ok for the movie studios to use illegally created demo reels to help hire people to work on their movies?

 

 

Here's the question I think you meant to ask: 'Is it illegal for someone to make a demo reel?'

No, it's not illegal.

 

Your avoiding the question. Is it illegal for movie studios to use demo reels to hire talent for their movies?

 

Is this question your way of trying to demonize the studios and compare them to people who steal movies off the internet?

 

I don't think the studios are demons for using demo reels to hire talent, but it actually is illegal.

 

How one compares movie studios who illegally use demo reels to hire talent to people who download movies is difficult, but both practices are illegal according to the law. Are you now going to say that one is "less" illegal than the other?

 

Sounds like you are invoking "situational ethics" to imply there is a difference.

[Brad Grimmett]

"I'll answer the question you asked first, then I'll answer the question I think you meant to ask.

The first answer is: No, it's not illegal. Viewing something that may have been illegally created is not against the law."

Well now you've just given the downloaders a leg to stand on with that reasoning.

 

Uh, no, it's VERY obvious that I haven't, and it should be obvious to you.

 

The music issue was specifically mentioned in regards to wedding videos. In terms of the studios, my question was, Is it ok for the movie studios to use illegally created demo reels to help hire people to work on their movies?

 

And I answered your question. The answer is no. Can it be any clearer?

 

Your avoiding the question. Is it illegal for movie studios to use demo reels to hire talent for their movies?

 

Well, since this will be the 3rd time I'm answering the question I'm not sure how you can possibly think I'm avoiding it. Do you have some kind of mental block? You quoted my answer in your response. The answer to you question still is, and always will be, no.

 

I don't think the studios are demons for using demo reels to hire talent, but it actually is illegal.

 

Again....no it's not illegal. Please show me some kind of evidence that watching a demo reel is illegal. If you can do that I may rethink the issue, but I doubt you'll be able to find any such evidence.

 

How one compares movie studios who illegally use demo reels to hire talent to people who download movies is difficult, but both practices are illegal according to the law. Are you now going to say that one is "less" illegal than the other?

 

Huh? "Illegally use demo reels"! It's so funny. You're grasping at straws and you have no idea what you're talking about.

I WILL say that one is less illegal than the other. Stealing a movie is illegal, watching a demo reel is not.

 

Sounds like you are invoking "situational ethics" to imply there is a difference.

 

I'm beginning to think that something is actually wrong with you. I've made my points perfectly clear. Situational ethics has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Are you drunk? Or high? I just don't see how someone could be as confused as you and yet still bang your head against the wall saying the same thing over and over again when it's obvious to everyone that you don't know what you're talking about.

Meanwhile, you still won't respond to any of my points. I'm done with this. It's obvious that you just want to continue to steal movies and you will do anything to make yourself believe that it's OK. I tried to have a real discussion with you, and I responded to almost every point you made, no matter how off the wall and silly, and got very little meaningful response for my effort. So it's obviously a waste of time discussing this with you because you don't care what the truth is, only what your skewed ethical sense tells you. I think I've wasted enough time on this already.

[Alessandro Machi]

If you think that it is not illegal for Movie Studios to use illegally created demo reels to cast a movie because they didn't actually make the demo reel (demo reels are used by the studios to increase the chance for financial gain as they educate themselves in regards to their hiring choices) then you are using situational ethics to justify your position.

 

If we go by the standard you are claiming is legal for the movie studios when it comes to watching an illegally made demo reel, then once a movie is illegally downloaded onto a computer, anyone who wasn't involved in the actual downloading of the movie can legally watch it.

 

I don't agree with any of that but that is what your answers seem to point to. By the way, don't accuse me of downloading a movie, I never have and I don't appreciate your unfounded and wildly inaccurate allegations.

 

You may think situational ethics are beneath you, yet it looks to me like you invoke them without acknowledging it.

 

I think situational ethics are the only thing that separates us from computers.

[Alessandro Machi]

Sure, if you're not using it for profit they probably won't care, as is the case with demo reels. But in the same sentence you talk about using the music in a wedding video, which is very obviously for profit if it was made by someone who makes wedding videos for a living. How can you so consistently contradict yourself and not realize it?

 

You are displaying a very negative bias towards editors. You are saying that it is perfectly legal to view illegally made product as long as someone else made it. A convenient position for a non editor to take as it puts all the blame elsewhere. Sounds like S.E. to me.

[Brad Grimmett]

If you think that it is not illegal for Movie Studios to use an illegally created demo reels to cast a movie, (demo reels are used to increase the chance for financial gain by allowing the movie studios to make educated hiring choices ) then you are using situational ethics to justify your position.

 

I hate to say it, but I'm starting to think that you're just plain stupid. I'm not trying to insult you, but I can't find any other explanation for you to be so consistently dense. You've shown me no signs that you can actually form a thought that makes any sense. And now you're claiming that a movie studio increases it's financial gain by watching a demo reel. This is just plain ridiculous. This has turned into, "What idiotic thing will Alessandro Machi say next"?

 

When you then claim that it is ok for movie studios to use illegally created demo reels "for viewing purposes only" because they didn't actually make the demo reel, that too sounds like you are using situational ethics.

 

Please refer to the above regarding stupid.

 

If we go by the standard you are claiming is legal for the movie studios when it comes to watching an illegally made demo reel, then once a movie is illegally downloaded onto a computer, anyone who wasn't involved in the actual downloading of the movie can legally watch it.

 

Yep. That's what I'm saying. Whether they know it's an illegal copy or not may determine whether they're breaking the law or not, but I don't know, because as I said before I'm not an attorney. Did you have a question, or did you just want to repeat what I already said?

 

I don't agree with any of that but that is what your answers seem to point to. By the way, don't accuse me of downloading a movie, I never have and I don't appreciate your unfounded accusations.

 

Then why are you arguing so hard that using music illegally and downloading movies illegally is OK? Is it some desire to convince the world that you're right even when it's obvious to a 2 year old that you're wrong? I don't care if you appreciate my accusations or not. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. You've already said that you don't think there's anything wrong with it, so whether you do it or not is immaterial. You're in favor of theft, and why would you be so heartily in favor of it if you didn't do it? It makes no sense, much like many of your posts.

 

You are displaying a very negative bias towards editors.

 

I can add one more stupid statement to the ever growing, and already long list of stupid statements you've made in this thread.

 

You are saying that it is perfectly legal to view illegally made product as long as someone else made it. A convenient position for a non editor to take as it puts all the blame elsewhere.

 

I never made it clear that what I meant was that it's not the responsibility of the viewer if someone has made an illegal copy of something and shown it to them. It MAY be illegal (I'm still not a lawyer) for someone to watch something that they KNOW is an illegal copy, but I don't know. Downloading it is certainly illegal.

 

Sounds like S.E. to me.

Yeah, everything sounds like situational ethics to you, as long as it fits your wacky agenda. You've made that perfectly clear with every "situation" and "scenario" that you've conjured up. If I walk to the store and buy a carton of milk you'd catagorize that as situational ethics.

Of course it's not situational ethics, but you don't really care if it is or isn't do you? You're just DYING to be right.

[Alessandro Machi]

Name call if you need to vent, (I had already come to similar conclusions about you several posts ago but I don't think I name called you.) You think it is acceptable for movie studios to look at illegally created demo reels for the express purpose of hiring talent on "for profit" projects and you find that perfectly legal, because the movie studio didn't create the demo reel.

 

Of course movie studios financially gain by looking at demo reels, otherwise they would not look at them. The demo reels enable them to make educated choices as to whom they want to add to their list of possible candidates for a movie. Same thing for the director, DP etc.... The better pool of talent they can pick from, the more likely their project will be successful, of course this is not a guarantee, but it is logical to assume that a better talent pool to choose from probably means a higher chance for a successful venture.

 

Based on what has been said, it sounds like a person could not view an illegally downloaded movie unless it was illegally downloaded onto someone elses computer and they had nothing to do with the downloading.

 

Would that be legal?

 

If that is legal then one could make the argument that the Studios are doing the same thing in regards to soliciting demo reels, and therefore both are legal. In each instance the law could be enforced against the illegal downloader of the movie or the owner of the computer the movie was downloaded on rather than the viewer of the illegally downloaded movie, and the editing company could be charged in the instance of the creation of the illegal demo reel rather than the movie studio.

 

That sounds like a mirror circumstance on both sides.

[Brad Grimmett]

I'm done with this. It was an interesting discussion for a moment, but it became a broken record very quickly. I refuse to waste any more time talking about something that is falling on deaf ears.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

How the hell did this become a discussion on morality?

I just felt like I walked into the The McLaughlin Group or Politically Incorrect.

An argument about the internet & copyright infringement...

Suddenly mutates into an argument on how to raise kids...

 

lol yeh things do get carried away, bare in mind that when I was talking about raising kids I meant it in reference to the arguement of young people not knowing what stealing is. (So it was still related, sort of)

[Alessandro Machi]

I really am done with this topic as well, but I'm not going to waste a post trying to create common ground when there was no desire for common ground.

 

It's legal for the studios to use illegally created demo reels and illegal for people to download movies because of situational ethics. It's just accepted that the Studios need to see illegally created demo reels for a legitimate business reasons but the same cannot be said for the consumer downloading movies over the internet, this is a perfect example of situational ethics at work.

 

Situational Ethics is not a bad phrase or a sign of some type of weakness, it's all the movie studios have to stand on in regards to illegally created demo tapes, and that is OK, there is no shame in that, it's perfectly legal.

[Josh Bass]

I know of a member of another forum who has a video production biz, and won't hire people if their reels have copyrighted music on them. He thinks it speaks lowly of their character that they would use such music without permission, even on a demo reel.

[Alessandro Machi]

I know of a member of another forum who has a video production biz, and won't hire people if their reels have copyrighted music on them. He thinks it speaks lowly of their character that they would use such music without permission, even on a demo reel.

 

Ouch, what a tough position to take.

 

Several years ago a software music package was for sale in which one could purchase library music and "customize" the music to whatever length they wanted via the software editing program that was included with the library music purchase.. It seemed to me that a few people who first bought into this package began judging others who were still using copyrighted music for their demo reels.

 

To me that was another example of situational ethics.

 

Before the music library editing package was for available for sale, it was ok to use the copyrighted music on non broadcast and not for resale type of projects. But once someone bought the newly created software program and also became a dealer of the product, then that person could champion the use of this editable library music and in the process perhaps guilt others into buying the software, from them, that is an example of situational ethics.

 

I remember reading a criticism of the final cut pro soundtrack loops software by a musician who felt that it was minimizing their role in the music creation process by making it "easy" to make music.

 

In the first example it's wrong to use copyrighted music and one should use an editable library music software program, and in the second example it's wrong to try and make one's own music!

 

I think if a person wants to use copyrighted music for their own personal demo reel, even if someone else edits it, a nominal charge should be paid to the copyright owner. Unfortunately, such a system is not in place.

 

I think it's professional courtesy to just let it be for now until the music industry sets up a way where small payments could be made for use of copyrighted music for non-broadcast and non-resale situations UNLESS the copyright owner specifically does not want to allow this to happen AND STATES THAT in a prominent place on each and every CD they sell.

 

Then I can choose to support the musician who allows minimal not for profit use of their music for a small fee versus the musician who doesn't allow such use at all. If Famous Artist A won't allow any reuse of his music for family videos or for a person's demo reel, but Famous Artist B will, then I'll support Artist B over Artist A every day of the week.

 

I recommend as a professional courtesy to always know the name of the composer of music one is thinking of using before using their music in a way that one thinks is acceptable for their own personal projects. If one hears a piece of music and really likes it and want to use it for a quickie demo reel that won't be resold or broadcast, don't do it if the name of the song and the composer is unknown.

[Jonathan Spear]

On a DP's demo reel, music is second chair violin to the actual images. Think about the amount of work you've put into being where you are today.. same goes for for musicians. Your lighting, exposure, framing and choice of lenses are their scales, composition, technique and improv.

 

That's why I love Fantasia. :)

[Freya Black]

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.

 

Well yes of course! If everyone thought the same thing we would never get anywhere anyway! :)

 

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.

 

I may have read some books over the years. I don't remember, but I've also read some of the official government texts on copyright. I guess I'm just kind of interested in it. I happen to like copyright. :)

 

While people could misunderstand things, that doesn't mean that you should distort them to make it easier for them to understand by saying things like "It is the same as stealing a coke or a sofa". Then they havn't really understood at all. They have perhaps understood a lie that was said to try and get them to comply in some way. It's better that people misunderstand the truth than understand a lie.

 

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.

 

I would hope that copyright lawyers would have a more full understanding of the matter. After all that is why you pay them the money right! :) I'm not sure by exactly what you mean in your "original post", but if you mean that they would understand it to be the same as stealing a can of coke. I would hope that they wouldn't, even if they might actually say stuff like that.

 

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'm not disagreeing just to disagree, I'm trying to make the point that copyright infringement is not just the same thing as stealing or common or garden theft, and that to imply so degrades the special thing that copyright is. It's more important than that bottle of coke or a sofa. I'm also disagreeing with things that you have said about copyright that aren't true and might be misleading.

 

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

 

Yes, my statement was a bit wooly but the point was that copyright is not proof of ownership. Copyright is automatically yours the moment that you create something. Proving you own something is a whole different kettle of fish. In fact to get really pedantic about it, you don't actually own it anyway, you "own" or control the copyright. So it is a matter of proving you are the copyright owner. However copyright law doesn't neccesarily provide any means for proving your ownership. That is left up to you.

 

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

 

That's exactly right. It isn't about the actual making of copies. It is about the right to make copies, or even not to make copies! The person who paid you, paid to liscence the right to make copies of your work. So yes, you can liscence that right to make copies to third parties and yes you can attach restrictions to that liscence.

 

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?

 

Well that would be exactly right they can go down to the store and make photo copies of their work should they chose to do so. I think what you are implying is that my statement doesn't make it clear that they can license that right to copy to third parties, which is true, but the statement is in itself accurate, whereas to say that "copyright is proof of ownership" is very wrong because that isn't what it is and it doesn't even provide any proof of ownership.

 

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.

 

I would agree, but I wouldn't want to spread the idea, that something wasn't copyright because it didn't have such a notice. It certainly costs you nothing to add that notice but my point is that things are still covered by copyright whether they have the notice or not, at least in the Berne convention and some other places too. It's important to add it because it costs you nothing, it will help you in countries outside the Berne convention, but perhaps most of all, if you get into a legal situation over your work then nobody can claim Innocent Infringement of the work, which could lead to you not getting damages.

 

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.

 

:) Sadly it isn't neccesarily that simple. The reason there is a special place to register your copyright in America is because a while back, sometime before America joined the berne convention you guys had this really, really horrid and complicated system of copyright. Copyright had to be registered with a special body, and it lasted for 21 years or something (don't quote me on this as it's off the top of my head right now) and then you had to renew it, and well all kinds of stuff. It was complicated, and you weren't protected by copyright law if you didn't register, and if you didn't renew your copyright then it expired. Hence the variety of works that are in the public domain in the states. So basically there was a special office to do all this, and it still exists even though you now have a more sane and straightforward copyright system. However, in other places, like where I live, there never was a copyright office as such, because copyright was automatically yours, so you did what you could to protect yourself. You mailed yourself a copy of your work and didn't open it, or if you had the money perhaps you lodged it with a lawyer or something. Theres still not a copyright office as such here in the u.k. although there is now a private company that has been set up especially for people to lodge their work with.

 

However, you can still be protected by copyright even if you don't have your work lodged with such a company. You just need to have some kind of evidence which can be a wide variety of things. If your work has been out there in the public eye for a while and then much later your copyright is infrindged for example, you may have all kinds of documentary evidence of its publication. Obviously it's best to do what you can to protect yourself.

 

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

 

I certainly never said anything like that, it was just what a few people (not just yourself!) seemed to assume, despite the fact that I said nothing of the sort. I think people weren't really paying attention to what I was actually saying, that legally you are not "stealing" (I put it in quotes back at you! ;) ) the copyright holders work, you are infringing their rights. People have been discussing various aspects of this subject here which is a positive thing.

 

We have gone off tangent onto a few different points of copyright that aren't relevant to my point here.

 

I want to ask you the question, do you really believe that economics are more important than the rights of people.

 

That in itself is obviously a complicated question, but it is the point that is at the centre of this discussion. When you photocopy bits from a book or newspaper, or you copy a dvd, or some other thing, then you may not have actually hurt someone economically because you may not have bought those items anyway, so even in some sort of metaphorical sense it wasn't stealing, let alone legally, but depending on the situation you may have infringed someones copyright.

 

I may get burnt at the stake for saying it in these times, but there are things in the world that are more important than just money.

 

My point all along, and I think I've been clear about it from the beginning, is that copyright is a very special and wonderful thing. It is this right that we all have to help us in our creative work and to help each other. It's not just about something as base as the theft of a can of brown sugary chemically water! It seems sometimes that people want to explain what is right and wrong exclusively in terms of economics which is a very warped and twisted view of things.

 

To suggest that it is, is wrong, and is playing into the hands of large corporations who would like to see an end to copyright and are trying to debase it by spreading these ideas that infringing copyright is just like stealing or something.

 

love

 

Freya

[Alessandro Machi]

On a DP's demo reel, music is second chair violin to the actual images. Think about the amount of work you've put into being where you are today.. same goes for for musicians. Your lighting, exposure, framing and choice of lenses are their scales, composition, technique and improv.

 

That's why I love Fantasia. :)

 

It is and it isn't. Many DP's end up cutting their shots to fit the music. The actual length of the shot is determined by the music.

[Chad Stockfleth]

I may get burnt at the stake for saying it in these times, but there are things in the world that are more important than just money.

 

You MAY get burnt at the stake, but thanks for saying it!

[Guest Alexander Anthony]

I didn't read all posts, so pardon if my idea is a dupe, but here's my take on it.

 

The idea of whether or not piracy/downloading is morally wrong is not really relveant to the discussion. Laws have never been so much about morality as much as they've been about protecting a certain defined set of rights. So the moral issue in general obfuscates the issue.

 

If I walked down the street to your house and found the door open, walked in, and robbed you blind, I'm in the wrong for robbing you. But you didn't protect your property. I'll still get arrested and get the book thrown at me, but you probably wouldn't have been arrested if your door was locked.

 

The point of the example is to say that media got blindsided by downloading and they're still reeling in the corner trying to recover. The bell has rung - I think the traditional paradigm is gonna change.

 

The combination of TIVO, the internet, and downloading means its becoming more difficult than ever to advertise to the audience. Sponsored entertainment. The new music/film studios are not going to be concerns wholly dedicated to production of said works, but divisions of majore corporations with a shitload of cash to toss about in novel advertising campaigns. For example - imagine that Cadillac spends $100 million to produce the 2nd MAtrix instead of the exhaustive campaign they launched for the new Escalade in that movie. This new SNAKES ON A PLANE film with Sam JAckson? Paid for by Airbus, with wonderful exteriors and interiors of the new 380 - based on a script commissioned by and tailored to show the plane i nthe best light.

 

The future of entertainment is that it will be indistinguishable from advertising, and it will all be free. That way - WE WANT YOU TO DOWNLOAD. Please do it, by all means.

 

The approach currently being undertaken by the media houses obscures this evolution. What the internet has taught us, if anything - is that information wants to be free. With bandwidth prices dropping and download speeds increasing, it's only going to get worse. If a thing is inevitable, it makes sense to turn it so that its your friend as opposed to your enemy.

 

*SHILLING FOR MYSELF* - Couple of directors in NY looking to collaborate with DPs - we're shooting a couple of shorts to sell advertisers on the short film as advertising vehicle. If interested in discussing it further, message me. It's the future.

[Guest kiljan]

I think the only way to get aorund the problem is to let the broadband/cable companies pay fees equivalent to the speed that they deliver to their custumers.

Obviously we all pay for our internet, if it´s not a school or work and as far as I know people pay good monet for fast broadband connections, so those companies are making a h..l of alot of money, let the pay some and rais the boadband fees.

 

Then the millions and millions that download illegal movies will contribute, perhaps more than what they would have if they went to the cinema a couple of times a year.

 

Still, I cant help think about the beauty of fileshearing, its so easy and you can reach anywear.

[Michael Ryan]

Hello Freya,

 

As I mentioned before it's obvious that we don't agree on several points, that's fine.

 

One aspect of copyright that your posts and my posts have pointed out is that there are many aspect of copyright law that are subject to interpretation. That is why there are lawyers and courts for them to argue in. Because what I think is crystal clear may not be to someone else.

 

However, there is one point that I'm not willing to let slip. That is the statement that "copyright is your proof of ownership". Freya, this is a very well established concept in copyright law. As I mentioned before that I have been told this concept by several lawyers, but I have also done a very quick search on the internet (Canadian sites) and there were page after page that highlighted "copyright is proof of ownership."

 

Here is an exact quote from one of the sites:

 

Copyright gives an owner the sole right to copy his or her work or permit someone else to do so. You can register your copyright with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office . You don't have to do so, but it can be a useful proof of ownership.

 

I picked this site because it is simple and gets to the point. You can read it at www.smallbusinessbc.ca/bizideas-copyright.php

 

The best thing about this thread is that it is making a lot of people THINK. That is always good.

 

Mike

[Craig Agee]

people say its not stealing because its free to copy (instead of stealing an actual dvd and packaging from a store)...thats an easy cop out.Everyone knows that it is intellectual property.im sure everyone at this board knows the kinda hard work that goes into a film and how much money they invest.movies are not a right they are a luxery.intellectual property is still theft.

[Filip Plesha]

I fail to see the significance of trying to cathegorise such action..

 

It maybe matters if you are trying to justify such an act for yourself to feel better about yourself, or maybe trying to demonize someone for doing it, but in reality, theft is just another cathegory in which you can put whatever people agree to put inside, so for all practical purpuses it comes down to this:

whatever it is it's forbidden..

and depending on your character, you can look at it from two angles:

1. It is forbidden by people who have power over you

2. It is forbidden so you might not want to hurt the feelings of people who forbid it, or work behind their back.

 

of course the third way, if you don't feel guilty about not respecting someones wishes, and think you won't be caught by those people with power, then you can "steal"/steal it