backtop


Print 195 comment(s) - last by flatline76.. on Jun 1 at 2:02 PM

The producers of "The Hurt Locker" are prepared to unleash a massive nuke on the torrent community

Those who pirate software, music, or movies often don't think about the consequences of their actions. However, if the makers of "The Hurt Locker" have their say, they may send a few pirates running for cover.

Filmmakers behind the Oscar-winning movie have launched a full-scale attack against filesharers that downloaded copies of the film. However, the most amazing part of this case is the number of pirates involved in the upcoming lawsuit and the helping hand that ISPs are giving in the investigation.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, tens of thousands of pirates will be targeted in lawsuit which is expected to be filed later this week. In addition, 75 percent of the ISPs involved in the illegal downloads are cooperating with the producers to hand over the ISP addresses of the pirates. "Those that have resisted are mostly doing so, they say, because of the amount of work involved in handing over thousands of names," reports Eriq Gardner of The Hollywood Reporter.

Some torrent users have been rather defiant and dismissive of the threat to sue. Many commenters over at TorrentFreak resorted to attacking the quality of the movie once news of the impending lawsuit broke. "Not a bad scam. Make a crap movie don’t make enough money of it. Then decide to sue file shares," stated user markie. "I see a pattern emerging here. Every crap movie being made will come with file shares being sued."

Another commenter suggested attempting to cover your tracks. "EVERYONE open ur wifi up , that will be the best defense … u cant prove someone went into my public wifi and downloaded it and tried to hide there tracks," exclaimed JonnieHa1435.

Another commenter, 73, expressed fear over the crackdowns:

This type of stuff really scares me. I used to think that I would just be in danger if I was an uploader, but now as a downloader you are fair game too. I mean, I’m not a newb, but after doing a bit of research, I’m seeing that I’m apparently in no way safe as I thought I was when torrenting: I use PeerGuardian and Transmission and use the Encryption/Bad Peer Block on both, but apparently, this protects me in no way aside from ISP throttling? I’m now freaked even to open my Torrent Client.

Regardless of how things go down with this latest move by the producers of "The Hurt Locker", it appears that movie studios are pulling out all the stops to combat piracy. And from the looks of things, ISPs are for the most part throwing in their support as well.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Your product isn't as valuable as you think it is
By wvh on 5/12/2010 7:35:28 PM , Rating: 5
There's a sense that movie studios and record companies rip off people – and I think that's a valid point. If you set the price of your product above what people are wanting to pay for it, they will make free copies of it. High price, low value, and easy to make digital copies of? Try to get Jack back in the box... I don't download movies or music, and what I have copied, I would never buy. You'd never be able to prove that people would have bought what they copied, and hence you can't speak of theft, more so than the asking price for DVDs or CDs could be called theft.

I think this is especially relevant to the movie industry. I don't want to watch the same movie twice before several years have passed – I just remember stuff too well. I don't even like most movies that come out these days, I rarely watch any... If I can't watch a cheap or free copy somewhere, I'd rather not bother at all. What could does buying an overpriced DVD do when the movie is boring even the first time and you wouldn't want to watch it a second time?

I'm not necessarily defending pirating, I'm merely pointing out that they're not going to get my money anyway. When people don't want to fork out for their product, well, it is their problem, too. I don't believe in all this made-up lost income from a handful of pirates (aka teenagers and a handful of geeks).




RE: Your product isn't as valuable as you think it is
By wvh on 5/12/2010 7:36:43 PM , Rating: 4
BTW, I've honestly never even heard of this movie. Must be a real classic...


RE: Your product isn't as valuable as you think it is
By porkpie on 5/12/10, Rating: -1
By Felofasofa on 5/12/2010 9:06:50 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It only won SIX Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay.


It's been a long time since winning an oscar equated to a good film. He's right, Hollywood makes crap, and the Academy, Stardom, Celebrity culture, and large white letters on a hillside can all go down the toilet with little loss to humanity.


By Felofasofa on 5/12/2010 10:18:47 PM , Rating: 5
Being an artist I fully support IP rights, yet the pricing and value model content owners are applying is old world, and not in step with digital dissemination tech. Hollywood has to compete with the enormous amount of low quality free content on the net now, it's a different playing field, and they have yet to adjust.


By Snow01 on 5/13/2010 5:01:31 AM , Rating: 1
Can't wait for the mass countersuit for wrongful suit. Given how many people may be able to access most people's internet connections and the number of minors likely to have done the actual downloading, I'd be surprised if this gets anywhere.

Not to give them any ideas (like they read this anyways), but they're better off cherry picking individuals silently than this rubbish.


By tmouse on 5/13/2010 7:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
They could be protected from countersuits under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. It's been used before by direct TV who pretty much designed the demand letter or be sued campaign used today. Another point is minors doing the downloading is not a defense ; a parent or guardian is responsible in this case whether they knew about it or not. As for illicit access keep in mind this is a private law suit not criminal so there is no presumption of innocence or requirement of "beyond a reasonable doubt" it's you against them and 51% wins the argument. If they are like Direct TV they can run up your legal bills by filing motions you HAVE to answer or lose then simply drop the case during discovery, you cannot do anything about that and you are out of the costs for your lawyer.


By cheetah2k on 5/13/2010 11:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
I hope they take on China while they're at it..

This is by far the largest illegal copy industry, and where they should focus all of their efforts, before they go anyone else.

If they don't they'll only look more stupid than the actual Hurt Locker movie.

BTW, I paid to go see it at the movies. IMO it was the worst AU$24 (me and the misses) + popcorn I've ever spent.


By tmouse on 5/14/2010 8:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
I want to make one thing clear, while I do not agree with piracy I do not think the fines are proportional and I do not think companies should be protected from countersuit if they are wrong. I think the fines were created with the notion that if you catch a few and hit them with a large fine then the majority will think twice. This by and large worked for other things in the past where it was costly and time consuming to commit the offence and to gather information to prosecute. Now it's easy and relatively low risk BUT it is also easy to get the information to prosecute. This Plus the enormous fines are just too tempting to not be looked at as a revenue source for these companies. Even at the minimum $750 that equals a lot of DVD sales. Direct TV really abused the system and the horror stories were so bad, lawyers were actually GIVING people FREE advice and free samples of motions so they could go Pro Se. I hope we do not go down that road again, there was a lot of dolphins caught in their tuna nets.


RE: Your product isn't as valuable as you think it is
By chick0n on 5/17/10, Rating: -1
By afkrotch on 5/18/2010 1:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
Do you know how many illegal copies of Iron Man 2 sold on the streets in China? Hell, how many illegal copies of anything for that matter.

I'm not saying I hate China, but I'm not going to think they're a shining example either. Course, I can't think of any place that don't have pirates, bootleggers, etc. China just has a much larger amount, as they have a much larger population.


By tmouse on 5/13/2010 10:26:00 AM , Rating: 1
I think your spot on. I have previously thought of it more as a theft of service (in this case think of it as a theft of the writer/musicians/directors and performers services). Now whether we like it or not the argument of " is it theft if it is intangible ?" is somewhat moot, since as of last year the Supreme Court stated that intangible items can be the subject of theft (I guess they considered that there need not be a absolute loss of the items use as was required with a tangible item but the loss of the exclusive use of the item). Even though most seem to say how they would not pay for it anyway (which is in and of itself interesting how unanimous that is) NO ONE can in any seriousness say a publically accessible free copy of something will not decrease the value of a legitimate copy in total sales (that's simply a stupid assumption based mostly upon the need to justify a action most know is not right at some level). We can argue about prices and "fairness" but in the end it is their product not ours and our "rights" stop at the choice to purchase or not.


By Vanners on 5/14/2010 1:17:41 AM , Rating: 3
The other side is for those who paid money to see garbage (particularly pertinent in this case) - the advertising lead them to believe they were getting value for money, but they weren't. When was the last time you walked out on a movie and got your money back?

I don't see many class action fraud suits over pathetic movies with good advertising, so stop equating theft with copyright infringement. Maybe one day consumer advocacy will get wise and we will see one fantasy lawsuit vs another to balance the equation a little.

Funny how they talk about piracy being responsible for lower box-office takings, but when a quality film comes along it can still top the box-office charts. It really puts paid to that lie. They lose money because the poor quality amatuer entertainment on the internet is not noticeably different than the poor quality box-office release.


By tmouse on 5/14/2010 8:00:06 AM , Rating: 3
When was the last time you read a book or saw a play and got your money back? There is no fraud involved, if you're stupid enough to really believe an ad that says "best movie ever" you almost deserve to lose your money. Please tell us how do you quantify "good" in terms of entertainment? By the average opinion? How do you get an average opinion before you release it. They use test groups the problem is this may work well when you have a very homogenous population but it simply is not possible in a mixed population. Many films are recut when they totally fail in test screenings. Tell us you have never been introduced to someone's significant other and wondered what did your friend ever see in this person? Likes and dislikes, are totally subjective, a device can be called "good" if it at least performs the specific function it was designed (it certainly can be called bad if it didn't). Many of the items being illegally copied are in fact making a lot of sales and money, so just because you do not like them doesn't mean some else cannot love it. If you get burned by a film there must be something you can point to, was it the acting? the story? Well do not see other films with that actor or producer or writer unless you can find a critic whose tastes run similar to yours (or wait until someone you know sees it (provided of course you tastes run similar). Even in restaurants where some will not ask you to pay if you were dissatisfied with the meal the vast majority do require payment whether you like it or not. If NO ONE likes it they will go out of business but the vast majority of times they have enough people who do find it good enough to keep going.

quote:
Funny how they talk about piracy being responsible for lower box-office takings, but when a quality film comes along it can still top the box-office charts. It really puts paid to that lie.


That's one of the most foolish statements I have read in a long time. I'm 100% positive many people walk of blockbusters and feel totally ripped off, but they already got the money. You can have a superb film that may only appeal to a small group that will look like a box office flop. One has nothing to do with the other. People can pirate a blockbuster and have less effect, that has no relation to the quality of the film. Now take a small indie film, even a small fraction of piracy can hurt, to think otherwise is ludicrous. It's funny how people say X and Y is total crap and then you still see X and Y leading in downloads on torrents, please tell me why is that? It seems crap is ok as long as it's free. I'm not going to say the numbers the industry's come out with are accurate, as a matter of fact I'm sure they are inflated greatly. It doesn't matter, you are not entitled to see something you do not pay for unless the person producing it allows you to. Its theirs not yours, if they are wrong and people do not see it they will eventually fail. If something is cropping up on thousands of torrents its stupid to think its crap, someone liked it enough to host the torrents and if no one downloads them they would die very quickly. As you put it there is a lot of crap for free you can legally watch on the internet.


By whiskerwill on 5/13/2010 1:05:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Blockbuster convinced movie studies to make it punishable for mom and pop video stores to rent their movies. How did they convince them you asked? By paying a royalty for each and every rental
Where do you a** clowns get this stuff? Blockbuster fought royalty payments hardest of all, they even went to court over it. (and lost).

Blockbuster put those mom and pops out of business because people wanted a store that had 5,000 movies in it instead of just 500. Oh, and they advertised too, a little something you might have heard of. Turns out it helps business.


RE: Your product isn't as valuable as you think it is
By cerx on 5/13/2010 12:06:46 PM , Rating: 4
You do realize farmers grow all the food you (and the rest of the world) eats, right?


By Fracture on 5/14/2010 9:41:58 AM , Rating: 1
You do realize that farmers are less than 2% of the population? Which makes my point about the shrinking prevalence of factories that much more valid. Man, -1 for being right... nice to see that people just rate whether they agree or disagree without any basis.

The pace of growth for Netflix has been slowing as more former video store customers migrate to the new era. Im correct in pointing out that their customer base has transferred from major video rental outlets, but what does being correct have to do with it?


By todda7 on 5/13/2010 7:56:36 AM , Rating: 4
That must explain why so many people download their films.
As a film-enthusiast, I have to agree that most of the Hollywood-productions are completely crap. Stereo-types, cliches, the dialog is.. awful, no interesting plots, no interesting or well developed characters.. It's just entertainment for a brain-dead audience. The animations are the worst. It's just shit parents buy to keep they're children occupied for a couple of hours. The american children are usually so dumb that the charactes in the animation got to have facial expressions as clear as road signs to figure out what they're feeling.

While there are clearly exceptions to this, I belive the movie Avatar marks a new era of crap. While the GDI/animation/whatever is beautiful, a lot of the nature/animals is evolutionary possible, and the movie is visually stunning, the plot/characters/dialog is just pure crap. And not forgetting the stereotypes... It just shows that the audience can be entertained as long as the effects are awesome, the rest don't matter anymore.

Hollywood have produced a lot of good old classics. I believe their time has come to an end. Asian (Japanese, korean) movies often are way more subtle, complex, realistic, beautiful. If you dont believe me, just watch some Ghibli-animes (animation movies) and then watch Shrek afterwards.


By afkrotch on 5/18/2010 2:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Asian (Japanese, korean) movies often are way more subtle, complex, realistic, beautiful.


Guessing you just got into Asian films, cause guess what? It's no different than Hollywood. They're all cliche stories, it's just new cliches that you aren't familiar with yet.


RE: Your product isn't as valuable as you think it is
By Zingam on 5/13/10, Rating: -1
By Nutzo on 5/13/2010 1:17:11 PM , Rating: 4
The problem is that we are not using big enough bombs.

If they are not going to respect us, they they should at least fear us.


By callmeroy on 5/17/2010 9:55:57 AM , Rating: 2
We haven't come CLOSE to "trillions" spent specifically on "bombs" for the middle east --- where is that coming from?

Greed is in the America, for sure...but let's not act dumb and think America corners the market on greed either...its everywhere the world over. And btw, why is "greed" by itself always taken with negative connotation? To quote Gordon Gecko, "Greed is good." (sometimes)

finally the quality of music and movies in the USA going down low is purely a subjective opinion, but if the rest of the world thinks this...you may want to remind them since they account for FAR more movie and music sales than dosmestic US customers do!


By Ammohunt on 5/13/2010 2:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Case in point "There will be Blood" what a piece of crap that was!


By xkrakenx on 5/17/2010 12:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
I drink your milkshake!


By jconan on 5/12/2010 10:46:16 PM , Rating: 3
just because a movie wins oscars doesn't mean that it's a movie that somebody wants to watch. btw, it's ex vs ex bigelow vs cameron so at least bigelow could have claimed that she won oscars on merit (even though there is less of an audience out there for that genre). even female audiences would choose to watch something interesting like twilight new moon and then soon twilight eclipse than hurt locker.


RE: Your product isn't as valuable as you think it is
By Nutzo on 5/13/2010 10:55:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It only won SIX Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay.


Any movie that wins that many Oscars (especially the 3 you listed) is a movie I would NEVER waste my time seeing.

In order to win that many awards from the Hollywood elites, it has to completely PC & full of leftist garbage.


By Cheesew1z69 on 5/13/2010 11:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
I believe LOTR won those and more, I would watch that movie a million times. Not all movies who win Oscars are that great.


By omnicronx on 5/13/2010 11:39:20 AM , Rating: 2
They are not all that great, but for the last bunch of years I would rather watch the Oscar winner than the best selling movie according to the public.

Just because the movie was not popular with the masses, does not mean it was a bad movie. The Hurt Locker was a great film in my opinion, and I'm glad it beat the Pocahontas sequel with 3d glasses that is Avatar... The most watched movie of the year by far..

These days how popular a movie was in theaters is hardly an indication of how good the movie was, a trend that will most likely continue.


By afkrotch on 5/18/2010 2:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
How good a movie is, is purely opinionated. With how much Avatar made, I'd assume it was a good movie to those masses.

Me personally, The Hurt Locker was better than Avatar. Course, for me, it was the difference between a small turd and a large turd. You're still sitting there with a turd in front of you.


By Nutzo on 5/13/2010 1:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
LOTR was one of the rare exceptions, it was so good that even Hollywood coundn't ignore it.

I even bought the extended edition DVD's of each of the LOTR movies when they came out.

Haven't bought many DVD's since then. I just use Netflix, since there are so few movies worth watching more than once.


By iFX on 5/17/2010 2:25:50 PM , Rating: 3
Rich people giving each other awards - yes, that makes a film good.


By afkrotch on 5/18/2010 1:42:13 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot, Best Piece of Crap movie ever. I wish I would have never bought the bootleg copy at the B&M shop here in S.Korea for $1


By itsmekirill on 5/13/2010 8:30:27 AM , Rating: 3
If the movie is crap, if Hollywood just makes a bunch of crap, then why are you downloading the crap?

404 sense not found


By eggman on 5/13/2010 3:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
It was pretty good in my opinion. I watched it cheaply via Netflix.


By Chaosforce on 5/12/2010 8:10:51 PM , Rating: 3
And all your doing is claiming your set of morals is the right set of morals and he doesn't fall into your zone of grey.

Morals are different based on who you talk to.


By theplaidfad on 5/12/2010 8:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if a persons different view on morals will save them from punishment when caught breaking a law. Hmm..


By imaheadcase on 5/12/2010 11:08:28 PM , Rating: 3
You mean convinced everyone who pirates are "greedy spoiled little brats who are doing it themselves."? /rolls eyes


By afkrotch on 5/18/2010 2:49:16 AM , Rating: 2
In the US, it's not stealing. Look it up.


By theArchMichael on 5/12/2010 8:49:22 PM , Rating: 5
This is far from a "black and white" situation in terms of morality. Quite often things fall into that gray area that you quickly dismissed earlier in another post.

Let's take the story of "Robin Hood", ironically I believe the story has been made over several times in different hollywood films. Robin Hood steals from wealthy people using the stolen merchandise to feed his band of "merry" men and also giving some back to the local impoverished community. Yet we see Robin Hood as a hero. The reason is because the wealthy upperclass in the story are by in large represented by a tyrannical, boarish and cruel individuals who speak of law, order and principal as it suits them and not as a universal ideal.
I mention this story because I think that some paralells can be made between it and the case at hand.
The movie and music industries with their psuedo-cartel economics, collusion and payola, etc. IMO just barely operate on the legal side of the law. I think a lot of people in the general public see these major studios and labels as evil and rapacious willing to exploit the masses by less than moral means, to make more money and maintain a stranglehold on content. I think there are certainly opportunists among the general public but I think that the general public is also rife with dissatisfaction in what the nobles of the Robin Hood story would have called, 'the established order of things'.


By porkpie on 5/12/2010 9:13:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Robin Hood steals from wealthy people using the stolen merchandise to feed his band of "merry" men and also giving some back to the local impoverished community. Yet we see Robin Hood as a hero.
Oops! You have the myth wrong. Robin Hood stole from King John and his supporter's -- the government -- who themselves stole from the peasants. He was essentially a tax rebel, not a simple thief.

" I think a lot of people in the general public see these major studios and labels as evil and rapacious"

While its amusing to see you casting yourself as a Robin Hood-ish figure fighting for truth and justice by downloading free songs -- let's be honest here. You just want free songs.


By Steve1981 on 5/13/2010 9:27:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You just want free songs.


Nah. I thought you were smarter than that porkpie. He wants free songs AND movies.

I mean, clearly the faceless movie studios and recording industry are holding us hostage, and we must fight against the man. Sure, we could just not watch and listen to their stuff and survive, but that doesn't send enough of a message. Frankly we really want to watch those movies and listen to the newest songs too, we just don't want to pay for them. That's why pirating is so perfect.


By nafhan on 5/13/2010 10:21:37 AM , Rating: 3
I think the Robin Hood story was more to point out the irony and hypocrisy of the movie studios arguing against downloading on moral grounds. In that respect, I kind of agree. Hollywood arguing anything on moral grounds is ridiculous. Doesn't make downloading things right any more than Robin Hood stealing was right. It just makes it seem more acceptable to society at large.


By Solandri on 5/13/2010 1:05:55 PM , Rating: 3
The whole issue is further conflagrated by the respective histories.

When the U.S. successfully rebelled against the British Empire, it basically didn't enforce the IP and patents owned by the UK. Entire designs for factory equipment were brought over and reproduced to help spread the Industrial Revolution to the U.S.

The major movie studios set up shop in Hollywood, California because Edison owned the patents on film-making equipment and was very strict about enforcing his patents. Since he was based in New York, many movie studios set up shop as far away as possible so they could use equipment which violated Edison's patents without getting noticed and sued by him. And thus Hollywood became the center for movie-making in the U.S.

To me, history indicates that to best fulfil the rationale of IP laws being there to "promote the arts and sciences", the terms for patents and copyrights need to be reduced to pre-1900s levels. Business and media arts seem to thrive best when IP limitations are light and short.


By TSS on 5/12/2010 8:58:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Stop fooling yourself and trying to rationalize being a theif


Thats what us pirates have been saying to the music industry for years.

At the current rate though, downloading will dissapear on it's own. It's been a while since i downloaded something, since i don't consider alot to be worth downloading anymore.

I'll skip this movie too. Another depressed soldier movie, like we haven't seen that before. If i'd wanna see a todays soldiers life i'll go watch Ross Kemp in afgahnistan, same thing only without the drama (and the oscars, strangly enough).


By NA1NSXR on 5/13/2010 1:02:33 AM , Rating: 2
Then don't download it in the first place.


By michal1980 on 5/13/2010 9:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
all most all your points are irrelevant. The industry can set whatever prices for their products they want. The fact that its 'easy to copy' does not mean its 'ok' to copy.

If you think the price is to high, dont watch the movie. If you think the moive is crap dont watch the movie.

The fact the price is high, does not give you a right to make a copy of something.

The fact the movie is crap doesn't give you a right to copy it. same with music, software, etc etc.


By monkeyman1140 on 5/14/2010 10:02:04 AM , Rating: 2
One has to wonder then if the world would have been a better place without the Xerox machine.


By Steve1981 on 5/13/2010 9:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you set the price of your product above what people are wanting to pay for it, they will make free copies of it.


Regardless of what the studios and record companies charge for their product, it is neither legal in the US or just to pirate it. If you really think the media being produced today is overpriced garbage, simply don't watch or listen to it. That will send more of a message than pirating. I mean, its not like were talking about stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family here.

quote:
and what I have copied, I would never buy.


But you would take the time to break the law and copy the media so that you could watch it, right?

quote:
hence you can't speak of theft


No, but you can speak of copyright infringement, which isn't much better in the eyes of US law.

quote:
I don't want to watch the same movie twice before several years have passed – I just remember stuff too well.


Have you heard of renting? You do have other options besides buying the DVD.

quote:
I'm merely pointing out that they're not going to get my money anyway.


Of course not; you're far too savvy for that. But you would like studios to keep producing movies so you can watch them for free, right?


By cerx on 5/13/2010 12:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
If you say you don't want to buy a movie, and you don't want to steal it, why don't you just join Netflix?


By callmeroy on 5/14/2010 12:24:24 PM , Rating: 1
First..I saw "The Hurt Locker"....it was kinda weird as most films go....there's really no plot or story, its more or less a movie-pseudo documentary of a bomb disposal squad over in the middle east.

It wasn't the worse thing I've ever seen on my dvd player...but FAR FAR from the best....(my personal rating is 1.5 out of 5 stars).

That aside....its strange timing for me to fall upon this thread as just last name on a off-topic forum for a game I play a lot people were more or less justifying pirating.

I'll repeat myself here with what I said over in that forum....

The most common defense/argument FOR pirating is the "well if the quality of the [game/movie/music cd/etc.] was up to par then maybe people wouldn't pirate it!" *OR* "If the prices were so high maybe I'd buy it instead"....

I find both arguments laughable and very very weak.

Posts that support that argument are very popular however because it makes people feel "less guilty" about stealing (and no if's and's or but's about it -- it IS stealing) if they support everyone else doing the same thing under a common reason such as "its not worth the price"....there's a feeling of unity that some how makes everyone feel like its not such a bad thing...after all everyone does it.

If your policy is if the movie or game or whatever is crap, don't view it at all then. Today there are tons of sites that people give reviews and ratings of darn near everything, there's also demos for a lot of games, you can get sound clips for songs before buying them, movies have plethora of reviews plus trailers....

I have downloaded plenty from p2p sites for songs, I've honestly never taken any movies though (songs are fast and easy , movies take too long and I'm just not that interested in getting them)....but if the songs are good I buy the CD, if the software is good I buy a copy, etc. If not its nuked from the drive.

If everyone truly used "pirating" in THAT fashion I'd see no wrong with it....

The laughable thing are the arguments of stuff not being good enough to warrant buying it but yet people burn copies and hold on to it....lol.....wait -- I though you said the product was worth paying for...oh but you like it enough that you made sure to keep a copy right?


By afkrotch on 5/18/2010 3:02:04 AM , Rating: 3
I don't pirate. I just buy the super cheap bootlegs and save my bandwith for other crap. Plenty of B&M bootleg stores for me to choose from here in Korea. Be it movies, games, software, etc. The MPAA, RIAA, whatever can suck mine.

Course, I buy legit products, if I think it's good enough to warrant such. Except in the case of things like games with a super gay DRM, like Splinter Cell: Conviction.


Here's a thought...
By theplaidfad on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Here's a thought...
By Scabies on 5/12/2010 7:53:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You wouldn't steal a car off of a dealers lot, would you?


This metaphor never made sense to me. If there was a one in a million chance that I would get caught, then yeah I might.

Especially if the car somehow ended up on the list of cars to drive for my film class. Though, I would have been done after a single drive; A movie is deleted and then no one cares, cars you cant "be done with" as easily.

So then effectively, the car lot would have infinite supply of whatever car, giving it an actual value of somewhere around Zero. And since I would end up having to pay for the gas whenever I drove this infinite-supply vehicle (electricity, ISP subscription is the parallel to gas here) it seems to me that only one party involved loses anything.


RE: Here's a thought...
By theplaidfad on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Here's a thought...
By cruisin3style on 5/12/2010 8:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree!

Now, did you say you were for or against abortion?


RE: Here's a thought...
By theplaidfad on 5/12/2010 8:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say, because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand... does it?

If you really would like to know my stance on abortion and debate with me on my views, post your e-mail for me, and I will be glad to discuss that topic with you ad nauseum in private.


RE: Here's a thought...
By cruisin3style on 5/12/2010 8:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
A sonogram is hard to make out to the untrained eye...lot's of gray areas.


RE: Here's a thought...
By theplaidfad on 5/12/2010 8:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
Seems that you've forgotten that the internet is serious business.


RE: Here's a thought...
By phxfreddy on 5/12/2010 8:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
You guys just need to come up with a new method of covering tracks. Shouldn't be too hard!

Screw the lefty liberal media establishment. I am not their feudal serf. I actively cheer their eventual bankruptcy.


RE: Here's a thought...
By cruisin3style on 5/12/2010 8:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
yeah but I'm not worried...I haven't written any iphone 4g articles lately

besides i'm not arguing for piracy, I just hate people who say black this and white that. There IS a gray area, if only some of the time.


RE: Here's a thought...
By Felofasofa on 5/12/2010 8:53:07 PM , Rating: 4
Glad I don't live in your black and white universe. Absolutes are Sith philosophy.


RE: Here's a thought...
By Fanon on 5/12/2010 10:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
Except the Sith had the right philosophy. No emotion is a fool's goal because it cannot be achieved.


RE: Here's a thought...
By ImSpartacus on 5/12/2010 9:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's the same way I view this "problem".

Put a car out in the middle of the street with a machine that instantly creates identical copies of the said car.

It is technically illegal to steal this car, but no one can tell because the machine instantly replaces it with an identical copy.


RE: Here's a thought...
By Scabies on 5/12/2010 9:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
but but but the dealership that offers the same car at slightly (and often imperceptibly) higher quality is going bankrupt because of you!


RE: Here's a thought...
By theendofallsongs on 5/12/2010 10:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
I really can't believe people are this stupid. Guess what, it costs millions to develop and produce a car also PLUS the per-car manufacturing costs.

Even if you could make car copies for free, you'd still put the automaker out of business through piracy.


RE: Here's a thought...
By Xavi3n on 5/13/2010 5:34:29 AM , Rating: 2
If there "was" such a machine to copy cars, Car makers wouldn't be spending m/billions to produce the cars, they'd be spending pennies because they themselves would use the machine.

Even the car copying analogy isn't valid when you think through the rather large knock on effects of a car copying machine.

Then you'd have people copying the cars and the car companies suing the car copiers for copyright infringement. It would be a similar situation except car makers wouldn't charge for a test drive (unlike cinemas/theatres).


RE: Here's a thought...
By Scabies on 5/13/2010 5:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If there "was" such a machine to copy cars, Car makers wouldn't be spending m/billions to produce the cars, they'd be spending pennies because they themselves would use the machine.


this sounds faintly like digital distribution...


RE: Here's a thought...
By artemicion on 5/13/2010 1:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, don't you know it's completely OK to rip off a car company's tech as long as you build and sell the cars you make from it?

That's why it's totally kosher for Chinese companese to manufacture BMW rip offs that use the exact same engine spec, chassis design, interior design, GPS tech, etc and sell cars without paying royalties to the inventors. You don't see anybody complaining about that.

Currently, I'm working on reverse engineering the code for Office 2010. I'm going to code a program, which I'll call Office 2011, which behaves exactly like Office 2010. Except I'll add a splash screen of a cute cat when you start up the program. I'm going to start printing CDs and distributing next year. Microsoft charges $100 for Office 2010? I'll charge $10 for Office 2011 and it's the SAME EXACT THING PLUS AN AWESOME SPLASH SCREEN OF MY KITTY CAT AT THE BEGINNING. Microsoft can't complain, they still have the Office 2010 code and CDs and I didn't steal anything tangible from them.


RE: Here's a thought...
By inighthawki on 5/12/2010 10:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
I've never understood why people like him use that analogy either. The term stealing means to take someone's possessions without their permission. When pirating something, however, you are NOT taking anything from anyone. Nobody is actually losing anything, therefore it is not stealing .

Webster definitions:
quote:
Steal- to take the property of another wrongfully
Take- to seize or capture physically


In no situation of piracy does anyone actually lose a physical copy of ANYTHING.

Now with that said,
I am not, by any means, stating that this makes it acceptable, but I would like to point out to those who throw around the word "steal" and "thief", among other words, are clearly just throwing around words to make it sound worse than it is. They don't like the idea of piracy, so therefore they must directly compare it to the worst similar act they can think of, and thus make the person sound as if he or she is a terrible person for taking someone else's belongings, when in fact, they are not.

In the first scenario - the car - A company spent time and money to assemble the resources for the car, and then sells it at a slightly higher value than what it cost them to make. Stealing such a thing would mean that they lose out on ALL the money they spent building it

In the second scenario - pirating/copying a movie - The studio is not actually losing money as a result of you making a copy. What most people against piracy seem to conveniently forget is that not everyone who pirates something would have purchased it. This means that not every pirated copy is a lost sale. Some, however, are. What is the exact number? It's impossible to tell.

Imagine this scenario.
You walk into a furniture store and find a wooden chair you really like, but you think it is WAY overpriced. As a result, you find the wood that the chair is made from for really cheap (think of this as the cost of the disc media i suppose), and you take your time to make an EXACT duplicate of the chair. Did you steal something from the store? No...but you seem to have the same chair, don't you? Now this of course is a very simplified exaggeration, since the example would then assume you are not copying, but rather remaking the movie/music/game/etc, however the concept holds true. If you can get the same thing without paying the owner of the design, how is this stealing?


RE: Here's a thought...
By theendofallsongs on 5/12/2010 10:42:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Nobody is actually losing anything, therefore it is not stealing .

Does anyone over 14 post on this site?


RE: Here's a thought...
By inighthawki on 5/12/2010 10:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
You tell me, most people above the age of 14 typically don't try to make up their own definitions for words. Stealing implies something is lost, physically. Piracy, implies a copy is made. I'm not saying that because piracy is not stealing that it is ok to do, but let's not make our own meaning for words that are well defined.


RE: Here's a thought...
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/13/2010 7:27:23 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. If there's one thing I hate it's when people make up their own definitions for words, and then use then use those new definitions to support their argument. In reality they just invalidate their own argument.


RE: Here's a thought...
By tmouse on 5/13/2010 8:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
In one sense it's the theft of services. When you get a legal copy you are buying the right to (possibly) be entertained at your convince (that is a service). Now most are not arguing this point but the actual theft of the item. As an aside Piracy in this context is also a made up term that has been adapted to mean making an illegal copy by the masses since it's original definition is to take something (steal) usually by force. Now before 2008 your assumption of asportacion requiring tangible items was correct but in 2009 The Supreme Court in an EN BANC RESOLUTION declared:

Prior to the passage of the Revised Penal Code on December 8, 1930, the definition of the term "personal property" in the penal code provision on theft had been established in Philippine jurisprudence. This Court, in United States v. Genato, United States v. Carlos, and United States v. Tambunting, consistently ruled that any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft.


RE: Here's a thought...
By artemicion on 5/13/2010 1:17:12 PM , Rating: 1
First of all, you can't "steal" something that isn't tangible. That's why sneaking into a movie theater without paying, hiring someone to wash your car but then refusing to pay him because you provided the soap and water, and hiring a hooker then refusing to pay are all NOT STEALING.
Second of all, it's not wrong to refuse to pay for something that sucks. That's why when I eat at a restaurant and the food isn't up to par, I don't pay.
Third, it's not wrong because movie companies charge outrageous prices for their movies. That's why it's also ok to steal Macs from the Apple store.
Finally, downloading music and movies is perfectly moral because I am making a copy of it and there are still just as many copies as there were before I made my copy. Can the music companies REALLY complain when they're making millions of dollars and my ONE copy has a NEGLIGIBLE impact on their profits? HELLO!!!! THAT'S WHY COUNTERFEITING MONEY IS PERFECTLY OK. There's JUST AS MANY $100 in the country as there were BEFORE I made my $1,000,000 in counterfeit $100. My impact on the U.S economy is NEGLIGIBLE. What kind of selfish jerk complains when I get to enjoy all sorts of awesome stuff with my counterfeit money and the negative impact on the rest of the country is negligible?


RE: Here's a thought...
By tmouse on 5/14/2010 8:16:24 AM , Rating: 3
It's funny/sad , until I got to the third point I'm afraid to say I was not sure you were being satirical. I've seen posts where people do think that way.


RE: Here's a thought...
By sigilscience on 5/12/2010 10:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This metaphor never made sense to me. If there was a one in a million chance that I would get caught, then yeah I might (steal a car).
If you kids ever put down your video games and torrents long enough to vote, society is doomed.


RE: Here's a thought...
By callmeroy on 5/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Here's a thought...
By TheDoc9 on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Here's a thought...
By theplaidfad on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Here's a thought...
By whiskerwill on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Here's a thought...
By tspinning on 5/12/2010 8:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, and Avatar only grossed $748,037,1959 in total US Gross

$96,000,000 of that from US DVD,

PLUS
$1,980,000,000 in International Gross

For a total total of
$2,728,037,195

Did they really need more money? What if studies were to show that movie downloaders (like "illegal" music downloaders-and this is proven) spend more on movies through DVD/Bluray sales, attending shows, and related merch?

How bad do you feel now? This is just one movie.

here: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/AVATR.php


RE: Here's a thought...
By whiskerwill on 5/12/2010 9:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Yea, and Avatar only grossed $748,037,1959 - do they really need more money?"
Waaa! what a little crybaby. Did you forget Avatar was one of the most succesful movies of all time?

Only about 1 in 20 movies makes a profit on box office receipts alone. And even if you figure in DVD sales, almost half of all movies still lose money.


RE: Here's a thought...
By aharris on 5/12/2010 9:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they need to stop allowing crap movies to be made?

EA is finally doing some necessary house-cleaning (much to the dismay of some fans), maybe the movie and music studios need to pay attention.


RE: Here's a thought...
By porkpie on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Here's a thought...
By porkpie on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Here's a thought...
By AlexWade on 5/12/2010 8:41:16 PM , Rating: 5
You are absolutely right, don't pirate. There is no way around that.

Here is another thought: Why don't movie studios stop replacing essentials like a good story with non-essentials like overpriced special effects? I don't pirate, but I tell you in truth there are very few movies worth my time and money. The movie studios use piracy as a scapegoat so they cannot blame the real problem: themselves. When movie sales are down, and home disc sales are down, they blame piracy and not a sorry product.

If the foundation is unstable, blaming the electrician for stealing cable isn't going to make the building any more stable and it only detracts from the real problem. Well, the movie studios have a shaky foundation of sorry movies and they are blaming piracy for the crumbling building.

And here is another reason to hate the MPAA, aside from blaming the consumer for their problems. It seems they successful bribed the FCC to ban DVR's from recording certain programs. I originally found this article on consumerist.com, but here is a direct link.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89059/mpaa-successful...


RE: Here's a thought...
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 9:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Why don't movie studios stop replacing essentials like a good story with non-essentials like overpriced special effects? "

Because action flicks with special effects and no real story are the real blockbusters, whereas films with compelling story lines bomb more often than not.

Sorry to say, but that's the market. You make what people want to watch, or you eventually go out of business.


RE: Here's a thought...
By Lazarus Dark on 5/13/2010 9:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
I agree somewhat. If its worth watching twice then it's worth paying for in my opinion. My bluray collection is getting over 200 now. That's the other side, I demand quality audio and video. Now, if I just want to check something out... That's what netflix is for; a couple bucks a month gets me legit access to just about everything movie-wise. The only time I ever torrent is if it's something I just can't access any other way. Like a foreign video not available here or something old that's out of print or unavailable for purchase or rental.


By michal1980 on 5/12/2010 10:15:40 PM , Rating: 3
I never got that argument, hollywood makes crap now, I dont want to see it, I'll only watch it the one time. Its to expensive, waa waa waa.

If its crap, then why are you downloading it?

If its 'expensive' why not rent it?

Truth is, you just want something for nothing, and everything else pirates say is just bullshit.




By michal1980 on 5/13/2010 9:02:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The tiresome part is people who think people who download movies/music are "people who want something for nothing".


If you dont pay for it, then yup, you want something for nothing.


By fleshconsumed on 5/13/2010 8:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
"If its crap, then why are you downloading it?"

Because you don't know if it's crap until you watched it. Buying movies without watching them first is a gamble, and given the current ration of crap to good movies the odds are against you. You can't get refund. I've also found that reading reviews is mostly useless.

Tell me, would you buy a cat in a bag?


By MrBlastman on 5/13/2010 8:51:26 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, try this one--if the cat is in the bag and you can't see it, would stealing it be okay just because you can't see it?

No, no it would not. Politely asking to borrow the cat, while agreeing that you would feed and provide water to it while you try the cat out would be a just compensation for the bearer of said cat to relinquish it to your hands for a short while.

After borrowing the cat you could then decide whether you want it or not. If you don't, you can return it.

At a place like Redbox, you pay a dollar, a whole dollar to borrow the movie and decide if you like it. If you do, you can then buy the movie later when it is on sale, or, relive the movie over and over again in your imagination.


By fleshconsumed on 5/13/2010 9:02:50 AM , Rating: 1
1. It's not stealing. Period.
2. But I agree with you on renting. With one caveat. More and more people find it inconvenient to have to drive to retail store to rent a movie. Even if the store is on your way home from work you often have to take a small detour and then depending if you get it from redbox or from blockbuster you have to wait in line to pay for it, etc... It can easily add another 20-30 minutes just to get the movie and then to return it. More and more people find it unacceptable. AFAIK netflix said in Q3'2009 42% of their subscribers used streaming feature at least once. It shows that people value their time and do not want to waste time going retail. And guess what, movie studios are still fighting digital distribution. Netflix now has to delay streaming new movies by 28 days. If a customer wants to rent a new movie, but doesn't want to go retail store, and doesn't want to wait 28 days before netflix gets it what is he going to do? He's going to torrent it. The troubles of the **AA industry are their own doing.


By MrBlastman on 5/13/2010 9:13:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. It's not stealing. Period.


So grabbing a cat in a bag from someone standing on the street and walking off with it to use as you wish without asking nor paying for it is not stealing? I'm puzzled how you justify this.

quote:
doesn't want to wait 28 days before netflix gets it what is he going to do? He's going to torrent it.


That's just it--this is life. Is the world going to end in the next 28 days? Possibly. We don't know. If the world _does_ end in the next 28 days, is it going to matter that you enjoyed that movie in those last 28 days or not? Probably not, seeing how you will be ended with it--unless you spent your time working at NASA and somehow ended up in space.

You can afford to wait those 28 days versus illegally torrenting the film just to see it early. Plus, if you _do_ torrent the film early, you're still stealing it, just in advance.

I agree with you on the hassle of driving to the rental store (or Redbox) to rent the film. Heck, I don't use Redbox because of the hassle myself. Instead, I pay a monthly fee to Netflix and rent my movies that way. I either have them delivered to me in the mail or I watch them instantly online. I'm paying a small fee to Netflix for providing the content legally and part of that fee goes to the filmmaker for their efforts in creating it.

It might not be a perfect model but at least I get to consume the content legally. This beats stealing someone's cat in a bag, right?

The other thing to consider is there are thousands of movies out there to watch. If I really want to see a film but it is not yet available, a side effect of my subscription with Netflix is they point out other films I might enjoy based on my ratings. While I wait for the new film, I get to enjoy other films I might have otherwise missed. In 28 days or more, I finally get that other film. There is no wormhole created and spacetime remains intact when the new movie arrives in my mailbox or on my videoscreen.


By fleshconsumed on 5/13/2010 10:17:52 AM , Rating: 2
1. It's been covered over and over again. It's not stealing because the owner is not deprived of his property. The owner may not get extra money he might have gotten, but he is not loosing anything either.

2. I'm looking at it from purely market perspective. People want their stuff delivered their way. Movie studios are not willing to provide what people want the way they want, so people go elsewhere. You and movie studios can argue all you want about righteousness and morals, stealing or not stealing, but that's the crux of the issue is movie studios are not providing services that people want so people turn to alternative sources that DO provide them with what they want. Market forces in action. Retailer A has what you need, retailer B doesn't, which one are you going to use?


By MrBlastman on 5/13/2010 10:33:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's not stealing because the owner is not deprived of his property. The owner may not get extra money he might have gotten, but he is not loosing anything either.


They are not losing anything? How about their time they spent coming up with the ideas and content that you watch? Do you think they spent all that time so they could just give you a free movie to watch?

This is called intellectual property.

quote:
movie studios are not providing services that people want


Hence why we have Netflix. Doesn't Netflix provide a good service? If a video store pays for the EXCLUSIVE rights to rent a movie first, and Netflix has to wait 28 days to sell it, don't you think that means you have to go rent the movie at the store instead?

If you don't--you are stealing. Obviously the store paid to have that movie first and the movie companies thought this was fair.

Lets say you are walking through a town at 1 am in the morning and to pass the time of the walk, you window shop as you make your way. Along your walk you notice something that catches your eye in one of the shops. You really like what you see and just can't wait to have it for yourself. You then realize that the shop does not open until the morning, at which time you have an engagement already scheduled and will be unable to return to the store for a few days.

"How dare they not cater to my needs!," You say to yourself, "When I want something, I want it now!" So, with that thought concluded and placed squarely in the back of your mind, you find a brick lying on the sidewalk and toss it through the window. The window shatters into thousands of pieces, dancing along the sidewalk in a glittering twinkle. You step through the windowframe and hastily snatch the object of your desire.

Your heart races, your pleasure centers release pleasing endorphins into your brain. Your mind sparkles and your thoughts are fulfilled. Within another second you race out of the store and down the street on to home, joyfully contemplating how you will spend your time next with your newfound possession.

Is that wrong?

Veruca Salt had to have "it now!," and surely you can remember how she ended up. Perhaps after a good roast and a crispy thought, you too can see that just because you can't have it how you want, taking it on your terms doesn't make it right.


By fleshconsumed on 5/13/2010 10:58:51 AM , Rating: 1
1. It is still not stealing, I don't know how else to explain it. If someone downloads a movie, movie studios are not getting any poorer. They might not be making as much money as they hoped to make, but they are not loosing them either. No one is taking their money away. Big difference. You also implied that since they sunk so much money into making a movie they deserve to get compensated. They do not. Making a movie is just like any other business. It might succeed, or it might fail. Movie studios took the risk, and they should be prepared to bear the consequences. By your argument, if the movie sucked they still deserve to get compensated because they spent money making it. No they do not. If they want to make money, if they want to succeed, they have to make a good movie that people are willing to pay for, and they have to deliver it in a way that people want. They are not doing it.

2. I'm not really disagreeing with you, but I still stand by my point. You can argue that it is not right to smash a window or download a movie, and that's fine by me. I get it. I also wish we lived in piece and harmony, that there was no poverty, no war, no illness and no decease, everybody looked beautiful and loved each other. That ain't happening. We have to work with what we have. Plain and simple movie studios are not providing people what they want the way they want, so people go elsewhere. You can say it's immoral, illegal, whatever, but that's what's going to happen if movie studios do not provide their customers what they want.


By Steve1981 on 5/13/2010 11:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is still not stealing


But it is still copyright infringement, which is illegal in many countries throughout the world, and rightly so. If you don't protect intellectual property, there is no incentive to develop it in the first place.

quote:
that's what's going to happen if movie studios do not provide their customers what they want.


How do you propose movie studios compete against free downloads while remaining in business?


By fleshconsumed on 5/13/2010 11:53:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you propose movie studios compete against free downloads while remaining in business?


The same way water bottle companies compete with free water. Offer something extra or offer better value for the money.

The thing about torrenting a movie is that it is not exactly free either. For one, you have to pay for faster internet connection than you normally would. Then there is always a chance that the file you download is a fake, or corrupted, or passworded, or even worse it exploits some windows media player vulnerability (risk anybody is using WMV is low, but it's there). Then there are availability issues, not all movies are available on the net or they might be available, but not in a format you want, say you want HDrip, but all you can get is DVDrip. Most of the times there are no special features either. Subtitles are still a problem. Then there are compatibility problems, movie might be compressed with a newer version of codec and you have to hunt it down and install it first. And then of course there are wait times. With netflix streaming for example it's available to watch instantly (except for the stupid 28 day waiting period), with torrenting you often have to wait at least 4-6 hours before movie downloads, now imagine that the file you downloaded is a fake and now you have to download it again, meaning you have to wait again.

See, it's not really that easy or free. It takes time and money to pirate stuff, but most importantly time. What I see again and again is that people who pirate stuff are mostly poor or college students (often the same) who do not have money to buy a movie in the first place, so they pirate it. However, as they graduate and/or find good paying jobs, they suddenly find that their time is more valuable than sifting through multiple websites hunting for a movie download. On the other hand netflix rent by mail and streaming are so convenient that often it's worth paying $10 a month for convenience alone.


By Steve1981 on 5/13/2010 12:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Offer something extra or offer better value for the money.


As you note, they already do.
quote:
Then there are availability issues, not all movies are available on the net or they might be available, but not in a format you want, say you want HDrip, but all you can get is DVDrip. Most of the times there are no special features either. Subtitles are still a problem. Then there are compatibility problems, movie might be compressed with a newer version of codec and you have to hunt it down and install it first.


What more do you feel they could reasonably do?


By BansheeX on 5/13/2010 11:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you propose movie studios compete against free downloads while remaining in business?


If you own a music cd and pass it out to friends so that they can experience it without paying for it also, how is that illegal? Torrenting is just a very high-tech means of sharing what you own with other people. If torrenting is illegal, then so is reading a book aloud to your kids.


By Steve1981 on 5/13/2010 12:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you own a music cd and pass it out to friends so that they can experience it without paying for it also, how is that illegal?


It presumably isn't. However, if those friends make a copy of that CD to keep for themselves, that is illegal. See the difference?

quote:
Torrenting is just a very high-tech means of sharing what you own with other people.


Not exactly. With the CD or a book, there is only one copy of the material. With a torrent, numerous copies are made, which constitutes copyright infringement.


By MrBlastman on 5/13/2010 12:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
Not exactly. When you share a cd with a friend, or a book with another person, they don't get to keep the cd or book when they are done. If they do keep it, that means you don't get to listen to it or read it--only one person can at a time.

That is the difference. With torrenting, you aren't sharing so much as giving them their own copy, thus making an unauthorized duplication of something you did not pay for the right to own.

See the difference?


By BansheeX on 5/13/2010 12:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not exactly. When you share a cd with a friend, or a book with another person, they don't get to keep the cd or book when they are done.


Ah, but how do you know they didn't? That's where your argument falls apart. You can't presume that a person made themselves a copy when you loaned them the disc any more than you can presume someone kept the file after downloading it. It is immoral to punish the innocent in order to get to the guilty when you're incapable of differentiating between the two.


By MrBlastman on 5/13/2010 12:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
Keeping the file after they downloaded it is meaningless as movies are something that can be watched and then... discarded. It is the act of watching the movie that is the billable instance--and this is where the whole argument boils down to.

It is the consumption of that intellectual property, the injection of it into your mind, this is what you should pay for to experience, rather than just "holding a copy" of it on your hard drive. Now, for now, it can not be proven that you did in fact watch the film, but, the simple act of "downloading" the film suggests that you have the "intent" to watch it.

It is that "intent" that the law seeks to prosecute you on. If they can show "intent," then you can be fined or, better yet, required to pay for those services and in this case, the right to watch that property.

By your argument:

quote:
It is immoral to punish the innocent in order to get to the guilty


It seems you suggest that would should just throw our hands up in the air and be done with the rule of law completely and never, ever bother trying to convict anyone of a crime.

In the case of p2p filesharing, through the logs of isp's and other electronic means, they can point the finger in your direction. In my own little world, I would be quite content if they found you guilty of such an act to require you to pay the fair fare for viewing such a film. In other words, require you to pay the 5 - 20.00 for that simple right, not a gigantic fine. I think this would be fair, would it not?


By BansheeX on 5/13/2010 1:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Keeping the file after they downloaded it is meaningless as movies are something that can be watched and then... discarded. It is the act of watching the movie that is the billable instance--and this is where the whole argument boils down to.

It is the consumption of that intellectual property, the injection of it into your mind, this is what you should pay for to experience, rather than just "holding a copy" of it on your hard drive. Now, for now, it can not be proven that you did in fact watch the film, but, the simple act of "downloading" the film suggests that you have the "intent" to watch it.


Why are we going back to intent? I just established the analogy reading a copyrighted poem or humming a copyrighted melody to a group of people who have not paid for a hard copy. You have failed to prove that creating and redistributing intangible ideas for non-buyers to experience is not arbitrarily different when it comes to movies.

quote:
It seems you suggest that would should just throw our hands up in the air and be done with the rule of law completely and never, ever bother trying to convict anyone of a crime.


How do you figure? If you have a lineup of 10 suspected thieves, and all you know is that some of them are guilty, but are unable to determine which, you have two courses of action: punish the innocents to bring the guilty to justice or let everyone go and get no justice. You have to choose the latter or you're a madman.

quote:
In the case of p2p filesharing, through the logs of isp's and other electronic means, they can point the finger in your direction.


To receiving copyrighted information, but not to keeping it. That's the corner I'm backing you into. If you think it should be illegal to merely receive copyrighted info from someone willing to share it after buying, then you are opening a huge can of worms. See, that's the whole source of frustration for the industry. Technology is making it easier to obtain a second-hand experience, thereby reducing first-hand sales. But they cannot invade privacy to determine who is merely experiencing a shared instance versus transcribing a permanent copy from that instance.

When it becomes possible monitor people's thoughts, would you support laws into probing people's minds to see if they store songs from the radio in their head? How about recording phone conversations to make sure people aren't singing copyrighted songs to each other? How about video cameras in every household to make sure kids are not having copyrighted books read to them hundreds of times secondhand.


By MrBlastman on 5/13/2010 2:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But they cannot invade privacy to determine who is merely experiencing a shared instance versus transcribing a permanent copy from that instance.


Yes they can, it is called a warrant. Police departments serve them all the time. All they need is probable cause. Downloading a file gives them that cause.

After searching your computer, they can determine if you just downloaded it or saved and made copies of it. Either way, the fact you downloaded it shows you wanted to watch it. Pay the 5 bucks like an honest person at that point and move on with life.

quote:
You have failed to prove that creating and redistributing intangible ideas for non-buyers to experience is not arbitrarily different when it comes to movies.


It is called copyright infringement. It is against the law. I have nothing else to prove. You either obtained a copy that you did not pay to own or you provided a copy you do not have the right to give.

Lending a CD is much different that providing a full duplicate of it, like you do with file sharing.


By BansheeX on 5/13/2010 3:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes they can, it is called a warrant. Police departments serve them all the time. All they need is probable cause. Downloading a file gives them that cause.


If downloading a file gives them probable cause to physically search your hard drive, than so should being the recipient of a loaned disc, or hearing a melody on the radio, or having a book read to you. Anyone can choose to transcribe or remember data permanently once it makes it into their possession. To say that is probable cause for a warrant is laughable. You lost this argument a long time ago and need to stop.

quote:
Either way, the fact you downloaded it shows you wanted to watch it.


So does the fact that you borrowed a copy from a friend. What's your point? Once again, for the last time, you have zero reason to suspect that everyone to whom you share intangible goods is making permanent copies for himself. What if, instead of torrenting files, people were simply streaming movies like youtube? That would shift the uncertainty of whether files were kept to whether the stream was being captured by a third party program. It creates a scenario 100% comparable to giving your friend a free viewing in your home. And yet, you sit here and continue to argue that we should criminalize such activity and divert limited resources to finding aggressors.

quote:
It is called copyright infringement. It is against the law. I have nothing else to prove.


Then we're all guilty. I declare you guilty for storing copyrighted melodies in your head that you heard on the radio, and for reading copyrighted books to your kids. You weren't supposed to remember those melodies, and by buying one book to read to your two kids instead of three separate books, you've cost the publisher lost sales totaling $30, for which I sentence you to 3 years in prison and $60,000 in restitution.


By MrBlastman on 5/13/2010 3:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
Simple question as your are blathering at this point in the face of logic:

Are you for or against the rights of an individual on intellectual property they create?

Second question:

Per the intellectual property they do create, do they have the right to be compensated for it when another individual consumes it?


By michal1980 on 5/13/2010 9:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
"More and more people find it inconvenient to have to drive to retail store to rent a movie"

So what, your a lazy fat ass sloth that now cannot even bother to get out and rent a move, or god forbid, be so lazy as to use netflix to have them SHIP it to your house.

PS If a person is renting a movie, they already waited ~90+ days for it to even get to dvd/blu-ray, is waiting another month really going to kill them.

In fact, your whole post is b.s. trying to justify 'stealing'.

And it shocks you that moive studios want to sue people that use their product without paying for it?

I think we need harsher punishments for crooks like this, 'steal' a movie, we take one of your eyes, steal music, an ear.


By fleshconsumed on 5/13/2010 10:25:29 AM , Rating: 2
ROFLMAO. You couldn't be more off base with your personal attacks, which is why you're so hilarious in your faux rage. I'm as far from being sloth and lazy fat ass as a person can possibly be.

Anyway disregarding your personal remarks, read my post above. It doesn't matter if someone is a lazy fat ass person who can't be bothered to lift their lard ass off of a couch. People want their content delivered to them a certain way. Movie studios are not willing to provide it to them. So people go elsewhere. Pure economics. Like I said, the problems of the **AA are of their own making, they got no one to blame but themselves.


By michal1980 on 5/13/2010 2:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
your not lazy but your complaining about having go to a store to rent a movie, or wait for it on netflix?

Maybe your just stupid then.


By Kurz on 5/13/2010 10:43:11 AM , Rating: 1
Omg... not again.

There is a difference between Stealing and Copy Right Infringement.

Please study both before you get on your horse and gallop around.


By MrBlastman on 5/13/2010 10:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
It depends on who interprets the law, actually. :)

In Dowling v. United States, it was determined that they are indeed not the same though copyright infringement could possibly cause economic loss.

The British Government, however, characterizes this online p2p downloading as thus:

"Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."

The rule of law does not placate within the borders of one region, no, it spreads far and wide and is quite open for interpretation.


By flatline76 on 6/1/2010 2:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but that's the nanny state for christ sake. They make ridiculous laws for fun.


Uhhm, what?
By extra on 5/12/2010 7:13:06 PM , Rating: 3
If they've downloaded what? Oh, some movie. Yeah, I haven't even heard of this movie. heh.

God, that sounds like a good money making scam doesn't it?

1. Release crappy movie. Or something. Any file, really. Could be a home video, who cares.

2. Have a "friend" *cough* upload it to torrent sites for you...Give it a name that'd make people want to click on it to see what it was.

3. Feign "shock and horror" that people have downloaded your precious, precious, IP.

4. Get names and sue thousands of people and get rich.

The sad thing is I think you could actually do this :(.




RE: Uhhm, what?
By mmntech on 5/12/2010 7:24:09 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't that pretty much what they already do. A lot of these leaks are inside jobs. How do movies get out on the internet before they're even shipped? I'm not talking about ones video recorded in theatres but DVD quality.

They sue, then it clogs the court system. All at the taxpayer's expense of course.

Most movies make their money in box office sales. The Hurt Locker was $25 million in profit from that alone. I doubt DVD sales have that kind of return since most people rent. Next thing you know, they'll be calling that piracy. I'm always sceptical about how high the losses are from piracy.


RE: Uhhm, what?
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 7:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
"They sue, then it clogs the court system. All at the taxpayer's expense of course."

It appears you're not family with the concept of "court costs". I'll wait while you furiously google to see who has to pay them.

"Most movies make their money in box office sales."

No, most movies make about half their money from DVD sales.

"A lot of these leaks are inside jobs."

Does that change anything?


RE: Uhhm, what?
By aharris on 5/12/2010 9:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
"A lot of these leaks are inside jobs."

Does that change anything?

In his example, yes it does. If a movie is leaked from the inside with the intent of allowing users to download it while silently keeping tabs on all the users who download the IP the studio released.

If that is in fact happening, the studios are borderline guilty of racketeering. Wiki definition:
quote:
Traditionally, the word racket is used to describe a business that is based on the example of the "protection racket" and indicates that the speaker believes that the business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that the business itself created (or that it intentionally allows to continue to exist), specifically so that continuous purchases of the solution are always needed.

In my opinion the music and film industries created this pirating problem for themselves by refusing to embrace and adapt their distribution methods as technology evolved. Sure the problem will always exist to some extent, but many simply didn't want to buy an entire music album for one "good" song when the rest of the album sucked. At the time singles were still $7/ on CD, and the only online distribution available was Napster. That was the music industry's queue for innovation; they missed the boat and a few years later Apple (a third party company, mind you) had to develop the solution consumers were waiting for. All thoughts and feelings on Apple aside, they invented the viable, long-term solution for online music distribution while the recording studios kept trying to shove CDs down peoples' throats. And they wonder why all this happened...

As for the movie studios, where's our online distribution today? Even still they're relying on Apple, Hulu, Netflix and Amazon for that, who have a limited (or overpriced in Apple's case) selection. Maybe if these two industries stopped clinging to the past forms of media and embraced the future, they wouldn't be facing the frustrated consumers and lost profits of today.

And I don't really want to get into "continuous purchases" too much, but they take up issue with me copying a piece of IP I legally own for self-use? Really? And why is it I have to pay to watch a movie in theaters, then if I want to rent it when it comes out I pay again? That model also needs to be overhauled.

$0.02.


RE: Uhhm, what?
By porkpie on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Uhhm, what?
By aharris on 5/12/2010 10:34:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
" If a movie is leaked from the inside with the intent of allowing users to download it while silently keeping tabs on all the users"

Sorry, no. Studios do not intentionally leak their films before release. Never have, never will. Any leak prior to release is an "inside job" by a disgruntled employee, ex-employee, or contractor.


The three lines of what I said before what you quoted:
quote:
"A lot of these leaks are inside jobs." Does that change anything? In his example, yes it does.


Do you actually ever read peoples' posts?


RE: Uhhm, what?
By FITCamaro on 5/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Uhhm, what?
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/13/2010 7:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Their desire doesn't give them the right to appropriate other's property. Your wants are not basic human rights.

quote:
"Your" distribution? Get this entitlement mentality out of your head. If you want a movie distributed online -- make it yourself. It's not your god-given right to demand other people's property in the form you feel most convenient to you.

Agreed on both counts. But still, let's be realistic here and admit that the studios could help themselves by following technology trends more closely. Like it or not, if they don't satisfy a market that exists, someone else will.


RE: Uhhm, what?
By aharris on 5/13/2010 1:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo. What I referred to when I said "where is our" was a consumer and market demand, not a whiny-brat entitlement demand.


RE: Uhhm, what?
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/13/2010 7:42:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but many simply didn't want to buy an entire music album for one "good" song when the rest of the album sucked.

I always laugh when people say this, because it means that either a) they are listening to crappy music to begin with, since there are many artists out there producing albums with all great songs, or b) they don't really have an appreciation for art or music, in which case they're better off recording from radio or buying compilation pop albums.

quote:
In my opinion the music and film industries created this pirating problem for themselves by refusing to embrace and adapt their distribution methods as technology evolved.

Agreed.

quote:
As for the movie studios, where's our online distribution today? Even still they're relying on Apple, Hulu, Netflix and Amazon for that, who have a limited (or overpriced in Apple's case) selection. Maybe if these two industries stopped clinging to the past forms of media and embraced the future, they wouldn't be facing the frustrated consumers and lost profits of today.

Agreed again. I like buying my content legitimately, but I wish they'd offer a more convenient route to do so.

quote:
And I don't really want to get into "continuous purchases" too much, but they take up issue with me copying a piece of IP I legally own for self-use? Really?

Agreed, it's complete BS. I honestly do not care whatsoever about what the law says. I will copy my CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Rays to digital rips on my PC. If they don't like it they can DIAF.


RE: Uhhm, what?
By porkpie on 5/13/2010 7:21:03 AM , Rating: 2
"3. Feign "shock and horror" that people have downloaded your precious, precious, IP."

Those without intellect are understandably scornful of intellectual property rights.


yawn....
By Quadrillity on 5/12/2010 7:00:19 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe if the media companies sold fair priced material, they would make up the loses ten fold. Don't get me wrong, stealing is still immoral no matter how you look at it; but if you have a profound love for certain artists/movies that you use to escape the real world , then you WILL get your hands on it somehow.

My advise to this entire situation is for producers to completely cut ties from large industry and go independent. If every single major production company would back away from parents like WB, Sony, etc then then profit would sky-rocket.

Look at what Radiohead did. They still made millions on a DONATION SYSTEM!!! INSANE! If I was already an established artist I would definitely cut my ties.

As for the whole lawsuit situation, If they come after me I will be sure to mention that a computer malfunction openend up my wifi access point while I was out of town. What are they going to say against that? haha nothing...




RE: yawn....
By ClownPuncher on 5/12/2010 7:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, it's a good movie. I paid for it without a second thought.


RE: yawn....
By frobizzle on 5/13/2010 8:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Meh, it's a good movie. I paid for it without a second thought.

Therein lies the old argument (which I agree with) that much of the material (movies, music, software, etc.) people pirate, they would never have bought in the first place if they had to pay for it. While it does not necessarily justify pirating, it makes the inflated dollar amounts they say they are losing totally bogus!


RE: yawn....
By Quadrillity on 5/13/2010 12:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
It was almost a good movie in my opinion. The amount of things that were misrepresented was downright insulting to the intelligence of the US military at times...


RE: yawn....
By Scabies on 5/13/2010 1:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The amount of things that were misrepresented was downright insulting to the intelligence of the US military at times...

hence the oscars


RE: yawn....
By porkpie on 5/12/2010 7:20:01 PM , Rating: 1
"Maybe if the media companies sold fair priced material"

Fair = What Quadrillity wants to pay?

"Look at what Radiohead did. They still made millions on a DONATION SYSTEM!!! INSANE!"

What's insane here is your willingness to believe tripe, simply because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. Radiohead offered that model for a grand total of three months ... then went right back to a traditional sales model:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9832659-7.html?t...

It will quickly billed as more of a marketing gimmick than an actual sales model. Radiohead refused to release revenue figures, but one survey showed that 62 percent of all downloaders chose to pay not one red cent for the album:


RE: yawn....
By Quadrillity on 5/13/2010 12:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Allow me to modify what I said...

Raidohead sucks. Period. But what they did (if only for 3 months) was the best idea in the media industry that I have ever heard of. If my favorite band were to release the download of their album for donation, I would probably pay ~10$ for it. I feel this is a fair price. They would still make millions + get their music out to more people (which is what they are supposed to be doing anyway regardless of what amount of money they are making if they are to call themselves TRUE artists)


RE: yawn....
By tmouse on 5/13/2010 8:39:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look at what Radiohead did. They still made millions on a DONATION SYSTEM!!! INSANE! If I was already an established artist I would definitely cut my ties.


First; make sure your not under contract

Second; As you said they were already famous (that's the hard part)

Third; MOST of the artists support the current system and profit from it (even the one who speak out against it, no one is stopping them from selling things by alternate methods but they are not)

Finally as mentioned by others even they stopped, so it's hard to believe it was more than just a publicity gimmick.


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but
By joshuasims1981 on 5/12/2010 7:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't the law written in such a way that only sharing the file is copyright infringement, i.e. making a copy of it? If you're downloading it, you might be receiving stolen goods....maybe, but you're not stealing them yourself. That would be the person who took the IP in the first place. Transferring the IP is an act of copyright infringement (You're making a copy and keeping a copy). Being on the receiving end of a download, so long as you're not uploading it back, is no where in the law copyright infringement. It's a good bluff though and most will settle rather than fight.




By Makaveli on 5/12/2010 8:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
I actually thought this was a joke, that movie is old when it comes to torrents.

They going to sue everyone that downloaded transformers 1 now?


RE: Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but
By DM0407 on 5/12/2010 9:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you're downloading it, you might be receiving stolen goods....maybe, but you're not stealing them yourself.


Look what happened to engadget when they bought a stolen Iphone...


RE: Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but
By Newspapercrane on 5/13/2010 12:49:39 AM , Rating: 2
Right, but receiving stolen goods is a Criminal issue, not a civil issue like copyright infringement. In this case (considering what courts like to pass for fines for infringement cases) it would probably be cheaper for the person to be charged with it by the state, as it would more than likely be a misdemeanor. However, I don't really think that it would be an either or situation.

I think that it you could make a case for both copyright infringement and receiving stolen goods, though I doubt that they'd bother to prosecute it criminally.


RE: Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but
By whiskerwill on 5/13/2010 1:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
Hello and welcome to America. Copyright infringement is a criminal issue AND a civil issue.

BTW, you can be sued for receiving stolen goods as well, if the person suing you lost money because of it.


By DominionSeraph on 5/13/2010 3:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
Copyright infringement does not create stolen property. That was already tried on the federal level in a bootleg case (crossing state lines).
But copyright infringement itself carries hefty penalties.


RE: Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but
By Snow01 on 5/13/2010 4:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
When you torrent, you are sharing. Right? I haven't used a torrent program in ages, so maybe you can turn off uploading. But I thought that kind of defeated the purpose of torrents.


Hmmmm
By dragonbif on 5/12/2010 6:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
I have not downloaded a movie in a long long time. I would about 4 years. If I dont want to see a junk movie then I dont see it.
Most ISPs are in some way tied into the entertainment industry so them helping is really no surprise to me.
I really hope that they just dont sue people. If they let them have a way out like paying a $25-$50 fine would be alright. But just going out and suing for $1k-10k would be too much.

I am not saying I agree with this but I hope they dont make a mess of people's lives in the process.




RE: Hmmmm
By porkpie on 5/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Hmmmm
By dragonbif on 5/12/2010 7:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
Hay! you never know, they may worship Satan and responsible for the JFK assassination.


RE: Hmmmm
By fleshconsumed on 5/13/2010 8:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
Guess you haven't heard of NBC and Comcast merger. While it's far cry from the "most" it's not unheard of.

Also don't forget that most of the ISP's do indeed provide video services as well, even ATT and Verizon has video offerings, on demand, etc. Torrents eat into those services.


RE: Hmmmm
By tmouse on 5/13/2010 8:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
I think the current rules are $750-$30,000 per infringement. It can be dropped to $200 if the infringer was not aware at the courts discretion and raised to $150,000 per if there is willful infringement again at the courts discretion. If you get did infringe and get caught you have to gamble on taking their settlement offer (which will probably be a few thousand) or take a chance which will cost at least 5-10 thousand in legal fees and have them drop the case before trial. If you lose at trial you could also be hit with their legal fees as well as the fines. They may even be protected from a countersuit (probably will be as there is unfortunately legal precedent in their favor). It's sad but true, I personally think we need a 5th code of law to cover individuals vs. corporations as they can have far more money than small governments and can use it to steamroll individuals in the civil courts where both sides are considered equals.


RE: Hmmmm
By monkeyman1140 on 5/14/2010 10:00:03 AM , Rating: 2
Thank goodness for the republicans and their tort reforms. Now corporations can sue US, but we can't sue them back.


By Bateluer on 5/12/2010 7:25:41 PM , Rating: 1
Did they pay out damages to the servicemen whose experiences got ripped off in the movie?




By whiskerwill on 5/12/2010 8:11:57 PM , Rating: 1
The lame arguments you kiddos come up with to justify your stealing are pretty funny.

Now, put that big lollipop back in your mouth and stop crying.


By imaheadcase on 5/12/2010 11:21:08 PM , Rating: 1
The lame argument you people who think it is stealing is getting old as well.

I'll torrent The Hurt Locker as much as i want still. For the same reason anyone who lets someone else watch a copy of the film.

People trade movies back and forth just as much in real life as they do on the internet, its just the internet makes it easier to do. Anyone who used to have a brick and mortar membership card to local store back in the day for VHS did this. Same with DvDs today.

The fact is the movie studios will NOT ADAPT to current trends, and relies on draconian laws to enforce its stupid practices.

Most people now-a-days don't think twice for giving someone a song/movie etc. In fact everyone I know has pirated music/movies etc. I even burn copies for parents and aunts/uncles.


By tmouse on 5/13/2010 8:16:28 AM , Rating: 3
Then you will probably end up being sued sooner or later. The bottom line is NO ONE has to sell things at a price others want to pay (it simply will not sell). NO ONE has a right to sample something before you buy (if they offer this that's great but it is not a requirement). Maybe they make crap, maybe they do not (lots of people do pay to see them), you have no right to experience something, then determine whether you should pay, that is the current law. If you do not like it campaign to change the laws. Currently they can sue you, drive up enormous legal bills and drop the case. There are legal provisions that can protect them from countersuits (I think these are being abused but that's another matter). When you burn copies for others you are breaking the law as it stands today and the fines have been made astronomical. The chances of you being caught are not that high but keep on the good side of your customers and hope they are smart enough to not get caught or they will probably hand you over. Remember it is not a criminal court, you are not presumed innocent or guilty. Whoever convinces the jury 51% wins, if they have multiple burned copies your through, section 17 does NOT allow that. As I said before you will not even get that far unless they have an air tight case but you can easily run up 5-10 thousand dollars in bills before that. Transferring your copy (a legal one of course) should be ok under first sale laws but here the industry is going way too far and I doubt anyone would lose a case based only on the transfer of a legal copy (but I highly doubt such a case would ever be brought up).


By Bateluer on 5/13/2010 12:19:55 AM , Rating: 4
No, not really. They are being sued for stealing the movie's plot from a real army sergeant. Just a little hypocritical for them to sue people for stealing their movie when they themselves stolen it.

http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/hurt-locker-sued...


prices
By Soulkeeper on 5/12/2010 11:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
I saw the previews for district 9 and wanted to see it the other day so I went down to blockbuster and they wanted $15, $10 if I bought another movie ...
I decided I'd rather keep my money and walked out, even tho the young girl there flirted and tried really hard to make the sale.

I think $5 for a movie that's been out for 6 months is more reasonable, $10 for new ones. Maybe I'm just poor however.

I wait till things come on TV, or just download public domain movies anymore.




RE: prices
By theendofallsongs on 5/12/2010 11:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
You're just poor. If you don't want to buy it, then rent it. Don't screw over the cast and everyone involved in making it (and yes we DO get a cut of dvd sales and rentals, its not just the big corporations).


RE: prices
By Soulkeeper on 5/13/2010 8:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not screwing anyone over.
You've failed to read my post, I do not pirate or buy things that I can't afford. I turn to cheaper legal alternatives.
And rental fee's are generally similar to buying the dvd's themselves.

You get no cut of my money, that doesn't make me a pirate.


RE: prices
By fleshconsumed on 5/13/2010 8:39:18 AM , Rating: 2
"even tho the young girl there flirted and tried really hard to make the sale"

No offense, but I think you're clueless.

A minimum wage girl won't care enough to flirt with you to make a sale, she just doesn't care about her job that much and it's not like she is on commission.

She was flirting because she liked you. You should have gotten her number you dumb ape. :)


pirating
By frozentundra123456 on 5/13/2010 9:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
How can pirates say they arent stealing because they dont physically steal something. They are just trying to justify what they do by using semantics. They are depriving the owners of the IP and their employees of revenue. Perhaps technically this is not "stealing" but it has the same effect. You are depriving someone of their revenue before they recieve it instead of physically stealing the money after they have been paid. The end result is the same, whether or not you manipulate semantics to say it is not "stealing".

Another way to look at it is that if you walked into a store and shoplifted a DVD of a movie, no one would argue that that is stealing. If you download the movie from the internet without paying for it, how is that any different?




RE: pirating
By BansheeX on 5/13/2010 2:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
What about those who download as a preview instead of renting, never keeping the file as a personal copy? These people have to be lumped in with the "pirates" because it's impossible to determine who is doing what after downloading. Technology is making it easier to find someone who owns the movie and is willing to share it with you. You don't have to know someone who bought the VHS and go to their house for a free viewing anymore, you can just stream it from a stranger over the net. That the viewing copy itself was purchased is something you should be able to presume in both cases.


RE: pirating
By Steve1981 on 5/13/2010 2:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What about those who download as a preview instead of renting, never keeping the file as a personal copy? These people have to be lumped in with the "pirates" because it's impossible to determine who is doing what after downloading.


What about them? What part of copyright infringement do you not understand? If you make an unauthorized digital copy of a movie by downloading it from a torrent, you are sitting on the wrong side of the law. It makes no difference if you were just going to "preview it" or watch the whole thing.


RE: pirating
By MrBlastman on 5/13/2010 2:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What about those who download as a preview instead of renting, never keeping the file as a personal copy?


That is a bogus excuse of an argument and you know it. There are many different websites that you can go to and watch a free preview of practically any movie you want without ever having to torrent a copy of the movie first to preview it.


Hmmm
By Mojo the Monkey on 5/12/2010 7:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
I've always wondered about that last comment/suggestion in the article about making your wifi public. That presumes that the ISP, while tracking your IP, does not also have some kind of record of the computer name or the MAC address (more likely). I suppose you could then change your mac address, but if you're getting into an investigation here, it wouldnt be that much harder for them to take the next step and subpoena your IP's browsing history to show regular use and logons, forum posts, etc. - anything to tie that IP/MAC address to your personal use.

Does anyone really know if these kinds of things have panned out in any case? Kind of an interesting subtopic.

Other than that, pirating was like organized crime: you had to know when to get out of the game!




RE: Hmmm
By MegaHustler on 5/12/2010 7:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
Wireless routers usually operate in NAT mode, in which they substitute their own IP/MAC on all packets going to the ISP.

That said, the company could certainly demand you turn over your hard-drive in discovery. They might even get it too.


RE: Hmmm
By Mojo the Monkey on 5/17/2010 1:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
Then a simple free-space overwrite with 0-1, like with ccleaner, might get you in the clear...


Hurt Locker
By user123 on 5/12/2010 7:21:50 PM , Rating: 5
Kind of ironic since they themselves are being sued for pirating this from a real soldier




VPN
By haze4peace on 5/13/2010 12:16:36 AM , Rating: 2
If your scared to torrent in fear of getting caught. Rent a VPN for a few dollars a month and never worry about it again.




RE: VPN
By Pirks on 5/13/2010 8:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
or use i2p for free
http://www.i2p2.de


Looking up this movie..
By Silver2k7 on 5/13/2010 11:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
Budget: $11M (estimated)
Opening Wknd: $145K (USA)
Gross: $19.2M (Worldwide) <--- this is a failure IMHO.

Some qoutes from OCAU

figrin: 1st September 2009, 2:46 PM
Saw this in the cinemas a couple of months ago. I just dunno, something in this movie just didn't do for me. I don't hate it, yet I don't like it either.

Fresh79: 1st September 2009, 10:28 PM
Usually I love these types of movies, but I really didn't enjoy this. The story just seemed to bounce from scenario to scenario, with nothing connecting it. The M95 scene was pretty cool though.

MR CHILLED: 18th December 2009, 3:48 AM
It was macho alright, and shakey cam was just aweful.
I thought it was pretty raw at times, but never really gelled with me.
It was an ok movie.
Chilled Rating: 6/10

Kommando: 26th January 2010, 11:12 AM
Saw this one on the way back from Singapore, really really enjoyed it to be honest. Can't see it winning an oscar though (What would I know anyway).

oculi: 2nd February 2010, 9:25 PM
I just watched this the other day, I thought it was pretty average actually.

dreamaxx: 2nd February 2010, 10:06 PM
Thought it was a very average movie.

jeenyus: 3rd February 2010, 8:44 AM
enjoyable movie, by no means realistic, but definitely entertaining




RE: Looking up this movie..
By Scabies on 5/13/2010 12:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
as someone mentioned earlier, I guess the real profitability in Cinema is sniping pirates.


By FoxFour on 5/13/2010 12:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
I torrented The Hurt Locker. It turned out to be a fantastic movie, one that actually (amazingly) deserved to win some Academy Awards. When you watch it, you'll understand.

The thing is, after seeing it, I had every intention of buying it the next time I was in HMV or browsing Amazon. It's a movie worth paying for, and that's terribly rare.

Now, though... now I won't be buying it. If the studios are going to resort to a tactic that should be (and for anyone except them, is ) illegal, then I see no reason to support them financially. I'll never buy any other movie produced by the involved parties, either.




i'll stop pirating if you...
By hughlle on 5/13/2010 7:33:54 AM , Rating: 2
offer refunds at cinema's, like you would for any other customer dissatisfied with their purchase.

if i've paid near £10 to watch avatar in 3D etc, and i can never get watch it again with out paying out a second time, then i'll pirate it the second time thankyou. i've read aout how much that movie took on opening, i don't think they need any more.

i'm also sick of seeing families have to pay upwards of £50 to watch 1 film, it would be £5 if they rented it, not even that. greedy greedy people




Call me a new guy on this but...
By xler8r on 5/13/2010 9:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
How exactly do they know a person has this file? Sure I understand you can have your ISP track your pipe usage, but is it they are able to see individual torrents being used?

Thanks :D




Torrent users?
By Esquire on 5/13/2010 10:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
How would they sue torrent users? You are only sharing bits of a movie/song how would they effectively calculate how much one user shared?

I mean if you have 50 peers and you give 15mb of that file how would build a case on that? P2P songs are quick 1 person can serve the whole song but bit torrent is a pool of fragments.




My defense
By JouxRose on 5/13/2010 1:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
Some have money, some don't;
for those who have money, it's a personnal moral issue:
do I want to encourage the creator/producer/actors…
of this product?
This shouldn't be a legal question at all, since the product have not been taken from anyone!
Creators/producer will have to learn to live in a world were they will be paid only by
those of the majority that have a sens of morality, who thinks that their product is worthy enough.
And of course, will they wake up to the wonderful world of ads-attached free music/movies!?! [Dinosaurs!]
until then, for those who just don't have the money, it's not even a moral question,
cultural products are food for the mind, "art" belongs to humanity.
Who will say no, you will not eat, when it cost nothing to feed someone that wouldn't buy anyway?
Stop being hypocrits, don't start another sensless war against the consummers of artificial paradises…
You can't force your morality down the troat of consummers that are becoming all mighty;
no good, no pay. Better become better at what you do, become smarter with offerings; ads and diversity of qualities, plus-value etc.
Wake up, suing is just the admission that you're powerless, paralysed bunch of retards, incapable of evolution/adaptation to the real world.




Fishy
By p05esto on 5/13/2010 1:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
I never downloaded the Hurt Locker but I have suspicions someone is using my wireless connection without my permission. I have since secured it but I had some strange things happen to my computer and this kind of thing scares me. The pirates out there use other peoples connections to do this sort of thing. Imagine being innocent gettting wrapped into this mess.




Hypocracy at its finest!
By Vanners on 5/14/2010 1:24:08 AM , Rating: 2
If memory serves this was the same movie that pinched the script out from under a GI's nose and decided he didn't need the money.




By monkeyman1140 on 5/14/2010 9:55:43 AM , Rating: 2
Never heard of, and now never plan to buy or rent. Has the director ever considered the possibility his movie just sucks and will end up in the Wal-Mart Bargain bin with the Michael Dudikoff movies?




Luke Perry?
By bubbastrangelove on 5/17/2010 3:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
Is that Luke Perry on the cover? A long way from Beverly Hill 90210!




Useless
By Dax47 on 5/18/2010 6:50:05 AM , Rating: 2
I regret I saw this movie. I wish I would have spent the time for something else. It is a B movie or less. Not worth the time to watch it. Stupid and boring. I am glad I haven`t payed to see it.




Nice Marketing Move.
By derricker on 5/18/2010 3:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
I have never heard of this movie up until now, nice shock and terror move too, thing is, how the heck do they sustain their argument of the ever increasing piracy devil, while at the same time trying to make people believe their scare tactics are being successful.

at best, if they manage to pull this all the way through, the only victims will be a handful of US citizens.




I don't get it
By SniperWulf on 5/19/2010 9:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
You know, aside from people feeling entitled to stuff, I have to wonder why people even bother torrenting anymore. With the advent of Netflix, Hulu and everything else out there... To me, downloading crappy movies off of Torrent sites just doesn't seem worth the risk.




Didn't hear of this
By piroroadkill on 6/1/2010 9:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
But now I'm going to pirate it because




Meh
By Principal Skinner on 5/12/2010 11:50:52 PM , Rating: 1
Seen it. Forgotten it. It's not worth the clicks it took to DL it and unpack all the RARs.




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki