Feds shut down nine websites in movie piracy crackdown

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by mryanbrown

You treat inanimate virtual bits as a physical possessions. That extends the sense of materialism beyond the flesh into the psyche.

And I would hope someone who would even bother to mention something like "starseeds" would agree that materialism doesn't do us any good.

Yet you are extending the concept of materialism to a place where it literally CAN NOT exist.

Other then the one post to give a possible explanation as to why a whole generation seems to be about self-importance and self-gratification and self-preservation - - - my personal philosophy and belief is not part of this discussion.

As said in a previous post: I lean toward Atheism and Socialism.

Also - I believe everything is energy -- and physical is a thought creation. Every thought is an action.

How I personally feel -- has nothing to do with this discussion.

Oh yeah - - and continue to believe that because you download something that isn't physical - - it changes the fact. It doesn't.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about now.

I'm confused how your personal philosophy or beliefs aren't part of the discussion when you mention morals. Especially when you claim those of us who disagree with you have none. And then bring them back up after just stating they aren't a part of the discussion.

It's quite apparent how you personally feel has everything to do with your stance on the discussion.

Honestly to me it appears as if you're in a defensive mode, some type of mechanism when you feel like you're being shut down.

You're completely ignoring very valid points. And are mildly contradicting yourself. I don't mean any offense.

But really, why not try to offer something substantive to the conversation.

Try to discredit the fact you're attempting to apply commercial statutes to private citizens.

Try to discredit the fact that by all literal accounts of the definition and legal precedents that it is not theft.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by daskakik

 

I find it disheartening when threads begin to fade in this manner. I'm blunt around the edges sure. But I always hope that through aggressive debate (not arguing) people can bridge their differences through logic and passion.

But in order for that to occur, people must help set the stage to convey their mentality. This can include personal experiences. But in matters of law, it's best left citing relevant sources.

Your right it seems like a waste of time when all the other side offers is "theft is theft and if you can't see it your sad". Thats not debate. It's not even really a discussion.

At least when I read over the thread I realize that the information that I could bring to the topic is there so others can read and maybe follow a link or two. This way they will have another bit of information to base their opinions on the subject upon so, I guess it's not a waste after all.

I mean Annee has brought some good things to the table but that little "theft is theft" at the end of each post just seems overly self righteous.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by daskakik]

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by debunky

And one more time I ask:
If you dont care about the laws, why again should I?

Don't deflect.

One question: do you download from a legitimate site sanctioned by your country/government.

OR - a piracy site?

If it is legitimate - - then some contract/license of compensation is most likely the case. SOMEONE is compensating the producer/distributor. If these sites begin to lose money because customer's are taking advantage - - there will be changes.

IF - you are downloading from a piracy site - - then I doubt that falls under your country/government laws.

So - are you lawful or not?

I dont download from sites. I download from individual computers (torrent) the trackers I get from a variety of sources. Google being one of them.
No way to tell where DDL comes from.

Ok, copyright infringement is a so called "antragsdelikt" here. Means that Police and DA only become active when the right holder has evidence for you infringing on his rights. Then he has to proove that you were doing it "Im gewerblichen ausmass" That basically means that you have to earn money doing it, otherwise there is no penalty on it.
So, yes, I do download from "piracy sites", and yes, I lawfully do so.

But it doesnt matter where it comes from. The laws where you are doing what you are doing are those that count. Personally I'd like to keep it that way. Or would you love to get sued by the rest of the world, because "fair use" is a US only concept?

BTW: I used to smoke cuban cigars in the 90ies. I understand they were illegal in the US due to the trading with the enemy act? Was I lawfully smoking them?

Oh another fun example:
In Austria there is a state monopoly on tobacco. If you get caught growing your own tobacco you get into a world of pain because of the whole tax evasion aspect of it. Its funny, but the consequences of growing other smokable goods, are less severe.

Also Annee: "denial of profit" is the basic mechanism of a free market. I give my dollar to my ISP, and deny it the local cinema, grocer, blacksmith, purple widget producer etc, etc etc... they all want it. Only one can get it. I decide.
I actually googled that phrase and came up with 2 different uses: Tax evasion and in the phrase "denying profit maximisation as a goal for companies)

Now again, the law doesnt matter, i can pick and choose among those who I think are morally acceptable. Why is a state granted monopoly morally superiour to a free market?

Originally posted by mryanbrown

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about now.

I'm confused how your personal philosophy or beliefs aren't part of the discussion when you mention morals. Especially when you claim those of us who disagree with you have none. And then bring them back up after just stating they aren't a part of the discussion.

It's quite apparent how you personally feel has everything to do with your stance on the discussion.

Seriously?!?!?!

Wild animals have ethical social structures. It doesn't take a belief.

What does personal belief and feeling have to do with this subject? The answer should be NONE.

Its not that complicated - really.

Product produced for sale. Product receives profit from sale. Product was never intended to be given away for free - denying profit.

Its very "black and white".

The only posters here trying to complicate the issue - - are those trying to justify getting something for Free - - - that was never intended to be Free.

And you all know it.

Originally posted by Annee
Seriously?!?!?!

Wild animals have ethical social structures. It doesn't take a belief.

What does personal belief and feeling have to do with this subject? The answer should be NONE.

Its not that complicated - really.

Product produced for sale. Product receives profit from sale. Product was never intended to be given away for free - denying profit.

Its very "black and white".

The only posters here trying to complicate the issue - - are those trying to justify getting something for Free - - - that was never intended to be Free.

And you all know it.

Now we're on about animals :/

Obviously YOUR personal beliefs have everything to do with it. Because you're ignoring the fact I clearly stated you're attempting to apply commercial statutes to private citizens.

Debunky even clearly stated the simple distinction between commercial and personal with his countries copyright laws. The same is true within the United States.

You're right it isn't that complicated. Because a virtual duplicate is not the same as a retail product. Product being the word you used. Product, which has a distinct legal definition. Which is a physical item.

I don't see anyone else complicating this. I can't speak for anyone else, but to me it clearly appears as if you are continually spinning and reshaping your statements to suit your personal beliefs on the matter. Because you are clearly ignoring legal precedent, legal definitions, and English definitions.

I believe if there was any real basis to your statements, you would have been able to convey it clearly with some sort of background other than "theft is theft". Since your personal opinions have no basis in the discussion after all, you should be able to actually cite something that says its illegal.

Morals are personal, and you're saying it's immoral to commit theft. Therefor your personal beliefs do have a basis in the discussion.

And then we get back on the merry-go-round and repeat the argument again.

Annee:
I hope you can take something from this funny little example, from the wiki entry on the exhaution doctrine:

In Jazz Photo Corp. v. United States International Trade Commission, 59 USPQ 2d 1907 (Fed Cir August 21 2001), Fuji Photo Film asserted that the user of a single-use camera was not allowed to remove the film, process it, replace the battery, or package it in a new cardboard container, based on labelling on the camera warning the purchaser that the camera should not be opened. The ITC held that these steps amounted to reconstructing the camera and infringement of the patents. The decision was reversed by the Federal Circuit on the grounds that the labelling was not an enforceable restriction on the use of the camera, that "no licence limitations may be implied from the circumstances of sale" (59 USPQ 2d at 1917), and that the challenged activities merely repaired the camera and extended its useful life. However, in the same decision, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the U.S. follows what is called the "territorial exhaustion doctrine," which provides that a U.S. patent is only exhausted by a sale made in the United States. As the disposable cameras in question were sold and repackaged abroad, there was no exhaustion of the U.S. patent, and resale of the refurbished device in the United States amounted to infringement. The defendant was only allowed to obtain cameras originally sold in the U.S. to refurbish and resell in the U.S., because those original sales (having been made in the U.S.) effectively exhausted the patentee's rights under the U.S. patent.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by Annee

 

Anne,

This is an argument that we will never win.. They feel they way they do.. Some for semi logical reasons and others for just plain lack of morals.

Their logic works for this argument only.. If applied to other products and services, it would erode like a sand hill.

I believe that several of you feel you are standing up to "the man"

But... I also believe some of you are just theives that will take anything not nailed down.

But to argue this anymore would be ignorant on our part... I even saw one guy say that they were a "monopoly" LMFAO... what a stretch....

I guess a hooker is a monopoly too? She is the only one with that specific vagina!!!!.. So does she have a monopoly? Pathetic, absurd and misguided argument!!

Sorry about the anology... it was no more absurd than his "monopoly" claim!!

Dont argue analogies. (poor ones at that: a prostitute sells a rival, excludable good)

en.wikipedia.org...

When consumers have full information about the Prices available in the Market and the "quality" of the products sold by the various Firms, there cannot be a persistent Monopolistic situation in the absence of "Barriers to Entry" or "Collusion".. [1][3][7] However, "Barriers to Entry" can be created in various ways, and because of various situations. For example, the existence of "Patent Rights” will guarantee the Patent owner a Legal Monopoly.[2][1]

See how even this basic text about monopolys can't circumvent mentioning IP as one of the basic state granted monopolys? Do me a favour and find me a economics textbook on monopolys that doesn't mention IP.

Edit to add:
The key to understanding why IP is a monopoly is substitution. Only Pringles make Pringles. But you can buy any other potato chip. Potato chips substitute each other. You can even say "It's food" and if you are starving, you will just as happily shell out money for a pack of pringles as for a black pudding.
Your benefit is "nourishment"
But your benefit from watching a live AC/DC concert is very different from visiting a Pollack exhibition, or go to a performance of Waiting for Godot at the local theater.
It's a shame, but art is difficult to substitute. Ergo, having exclusive rights to a particular piece of art is a monopoly. Economics 101

[edit on 8-7-2010 by debunky]

You all just keep trying to justify Free - - from "produced for profit"

Any way your little heart desires.

Originally posted by Annee
You all just keep trying to justify Free - - from "produced for profit"

Any way your little heart desires.

If there was a right to profit, no company ever would have gone broke.
If producers had a right to set the price, there would be only one price: "everything you own", why settle for less?

One more time:
You don't care about economics
You don't care about the law
Why should I?

reply to post by debunky


You 2 are pathetic... You are twisting words and phrases to fit your agenda...
Annee is right.. Those movies are expensive to make. They make them strictly to make a profit.. Then some guy or girl is dling them for free on the net.

You can twist it all you want and say that a file is not a "product".. But you know deep down that this is a valuable product that is essentially being stolen or pirated..

Stop beating around the bush and just admit that you are to cheap to pay what most people pay. Admit that you feel entitled to take what ever you want!!!

You 2 are being rediculous and honestly child like..

You can pick this post apart all you want... When Jonny law comes knocking on your door... make sure your written statement sounds exactly like your childish posts on ATS.. I am sure the judge will see it your way..

I am done with this conversation... I refuse to argue with mental midgets... and liars...

I have to believe that you are smart enough to know this is stealing..... If your not.... Your poor parents are wishing they had one child that wasnt "special".

Pay your way in life..

reply to post by Mobius1974


Actually I do pay my way in life but I check out what I'm going to buy before laying my money down. Kick the tires if you will. If I am going to keep it then I pay for it.

Yes if it is music I burn to Audio CDR because it covers the royalties of the music and allows me to pay less. The RIAA set it up and I am just going by their rules.

Funny thing is that I don't have a single movie on DVD cause I just don't collect them and I have no problem waiting to watch them on cable. I have a small tower of original CD's and a small stack of Audio CDR that are collecting dust because I don't really listen to music other than internet radio.

Mostly use open software cause it gets almost everything I need done and theres no need to download books because the internet is mostly reading anyway.

You know for all the "you just want to get free stuff" thrown at me. I actually have not gotten anything for free that isn't. You see I just disagree with your stand on the issue.

I believe as I have pointed out that copyright is a government granted monopoly. That's it.

Here's an example:

Man walking down the street sees a tree in a neighbors yard. The tree has a rope with a tire on it and the neighbors kid is swinging with his legs through the tire.

Man goes home and digs out an old tire and a piece of rope and sets a swing up for his kid.

This man stole the other mans idea. Should he have to pay the other man for using his idea? Should he pay a fine at the court house to the government because he used the idea?

Most people would say no.

But what if the swing had a patent? Then most people would say yes.

What's the difference? Government backed monopoly. A law that makes this persons idea uncopiable. Because if someone steals your idea and it isn't patented can you sue them? Of course not. You don't have the monopoly on that idea. File the paperwork and pay the fee and then no one will be able to use your idea without permission.

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by debunky

 

You 2 are pathetic... You are twisting words and phrases to fit your agenda...
Annee is right.. Those movies are expensive to make. They make them strictly to make a profit.. Then some guy or girl is dling them for free on the net.

You can twist it all you want and say that a file is not a "product".. But you know deep down that this is a valuable product that is essentially being stolen or pirated..

Stop beating around the bush and just admit that you are to cheap to pay what most people pay. Admit that you feel entitled to take what ever you want!!!

You 2 are being rediculous and honestly child like..

You can pick this post apart all you want... When Jonny law comes knocking on your door... make sure your written statement sounds exactly like your childish posts on ATS.. I am sure the judge will see it your way..

I am done with this conversation... I refuse to argue with mental midgets... and liars...

I have to believe that you are smart enough to know this is stealing..... If your not.... Your poor parents are wishing they had one child that wasnt "special".

Pay your way in life..

Wow, I am rebutted!
Could you just do me a favor and point out where I am wrong to me?
Is a prostitute non rival?
Non excludable?
Isn't substitution what determines wheter a certain market position can constitute a monopoly?

*chuckles*
When jonny law comes knocking on my door I will open
Will Jonny ask "Did you kill someone?", or "did you commit arson" "are you a liar" or will he ask "did you infringe on copyright"?
Call me a stickler to detail, but I do like to know what the actual crime is before being shot.

Ok, now let me pick your post apart:
namecalling, accusation, the ridiculous "If you want to profit the world is obliged to pay you" idea, accusation, small give in that piracy isn't theft, "law doesnt matter if it doesnt say what I believe it does", accusation, namecalling.
Humm, well structured actually: you started with namecalling, and went on to accusattion and ended with an accusation, followed by namecalling!

Fair trade: Another organisation that thinks stuff is too cheap, and folks should get more for it. They have pretty good arguments too (If we give them more money, they stay where they are) Why am I allowed to buy non fair trade products?

Moebius1974: you are a murderer, and a rapist. Unfortunately this is more based in facts, then calling me a thief. IP is killing people. It keeps the price for AIDS medicaments high. I believe it's kinda tough if a doctor declares you dead, because of the size of your wallet. If you are in that situatin, and some jerk told you "rape a virgin" is a cure, there is quite an incentive to believe him.

A little hint to the pro IP side: your argument isn't "It's the law", "It's a free market" or "It's the producers right" but "We like content. We want people to make content. If we don't give them money they will stop."

I only watched one movie online, and I liked it so much, I went to see it, and later bought it. SO.....I think they are crazy.

That said, I like to go to the movies. I don't like to watch them at home nearly as much - guess i just like the idea of going somewhere now and then. I go maybe 3 times a month, sometimes more.

I haven't PAID for a movie in years though. I win tickets and have learned how to work the coupon promos - like a drug store had those U products 3/10.00then on top of that, if you buy 3, you get a movie ticket.... and since I use those anyway, I put some coupons with it, and got 3 products for 6.00 and a movie ticket.

I know a lot of people here don't LIKE consumerism, but if study it, you CAN exploit it.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by hadriana]

Originally posted by Durrilll
I don't believe that piracy, as mainstream would define it, is in any way a problem. If it costs $50-80 dollars to take your family to the theater, actors get paid tens of millions of dollars, opening weekends break profit records set the previous year, and the government chases after the little people for "stealing" from the rich... there is something wrong with the whole media/movie industry model.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Durrilll]

I wonder IF you had any TALENT and we all STOLE from you if you would feel the same way about it, somehow I DONT THINK SO.

Lets look at the REAL picture here if we all stopped going to the cinema and buying dvd's etc lets look at what would happen.

Cinemas would close NO income, ordinary people NOT earning millions out of work! film companies close NO income, ordinary people in the production crew NOT earning millions out of work!
You and others like you focus on the BIG money due to your utter arrogance about what is actually involved in the process.
Maybe if YOU put as much effort into developing a talent instead of being a criminal you would earn lots of money as well.

Film stars. sports stars, pop stars all earn lots of money because millions of people are prepared to spend money to watch them or listen to them.

If you had a similar talent so could you so DONT try to justify pirating because of what these people earn to make YOU FEEL GOOD about downloading pirate material, I have friends who work in the background for production companies and its IDIOTS like you that will cost them their jobs the actors will still have millions in the bank!



[edit on 9-7-2010 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by Annee
You all just keep trying to justify Free - - from "produced for profit"

Any way your little heart desires.

You and your kind just keep justifying robbing rights and profiteering from Monopolies, of which long drawn exclusive copyrights are really are.

Any way your thieving heart support desire.



Imagine if Mother Nature were to tell you she owns the copyrights to wild wheat and you are NOT allowed to pick up any seed to cultivate in your plot of land, how much of mankind would we have progressed?



For those who believe in 'fair market' and 'competition' of free enterprise, do allow me to share an insight here.

Back in the 80s when China was opening up market reforms, I had the priviledge of doing a field study in one of the budding provinces.

I got to meet one of the new lords of the province, a card carrying commie member and new capitalist and learnt many things from him.

How he became immensely rich was, of course, that corrupted priviledge of being a commie 'dont mess with me' member.

Secondly, what he did was to set up a shop and fill it with cheaply manufactured chinese products and sold at obscenely high prices. No common poor would ever step into that lavish shop.

But unknown to many, even till today i supposed, he set up another shop with another name, just down the street and sold the same goods at a slightly lower price than his elite shop.

Many flock there, and overtime, he became rich, rich enough to duplicate his methods across several districts using his powers, priviledge and new found wealth to stifle others from challenging him.

Such methods were not lost on other provinces, and soon there were billionaires throughout China, earning obscene wealth from the poor and paying peanuts to the workers, siphoning dollars into overseas accounts, filled to the brim with more money than they and their generations could ever spend in several lifetimes.

Such is the duplicity of 'free enterprise' and 'competition' of the 'free capitalist market'.

The realities are that they were monopolies all along. Just look at some of fortune 500's boardroom members having same directors and chairmans of companies. When will we common masses ever awake up?

[edit on 9-7-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

God no more analogies.

Those claiming I and others have no morals because we state it is not theft are just blind. You want your own personal beliefs to apply to law, then state your personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.

You throw insults at us, and pretend to have some moral authority. Then when you are rebutted with the way the world actually is. You claim shenanigans and run off.

All you're doing is "I'm right, you're wrong. I don't need to prove it because you're a heathen."

Glad none of you actually decide law.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Originally posted by Annee
You all just keep trying to justify Free - - from "produced for profit"

Any way your little heart desires.

You and your kind just keep justifying robbing rights and profiteering from Monopolies, of which long drawn exclusive copyrights are really are.

Any way your thieving heart support desire.



Imagine if Mother Nature were to tell you she owns the copyrights to wild wheat and you are NOT allowed to pick up any seed to cultivate in your plot of land, how much of mankind would we have progressed?





For those who believe in 'fair market' and 'competition' of free enterprise, do allow me to share an insight here.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

I have seen some DESPERATE comparisons on here to TRY and JUSTIFY piracy but your comments re mother nature

You right its a free market SO why dont YOU make a blockbuster movie in a theme of your choice then give it away FOC!
Or make a great music album and give that away FOC!

If you do either of the above then as you paid for and created them its then YOUR choice if you give them away.

If you had no input then YOU DONT.

This weekend in the UK if your a Prince fan his latest album 20TEN will be given away free in a newspaper THATS HIS CHOICE but then a tour will come up and you will pay through the nose for anything at that.

Whats even more laughable is the fact that lots of people with vast collections of pirate MP3's quite happily fork out hundreds of $/£/ euros/ yens for Apples (STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE) i products to store them on!

1. Piracy increases.
2. Media prices increase.
3. Media profits increase.

2 is meant to compensate for 1 to balance on 3. Not to increase 3.

That is the basis of your arguments. That piracy is denying profit to these companies.

It's fairly logical to conclude piracy is directly proportionate to media gains, not losses.

There will always be people "denying profit" in your mentalities whether or not they commit digital piracy. And despite this their profits continually grow.

I feel sad for all of you who think it is theft. Because you're truly lost in the world of your own mind. Your ego is controlling you, convincing you that things which are not real are indeed so.

I'm in your heads stealing your thoughts.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
1. Piracy increases.
2. Media prices increase.
3. Media profits increase.

.

How come I pay less for dvd's and cd's now
How come MGM are in trouble

If they just increase prices your logic is flawed plain and simple

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by mryanbrown
1. Piracy increases.
2. Media prices increase.
3. Media profits increase.

.

How come I pay less for dvd's and cd's now

How come MGM are in trouble

If they just increase prices your logic is flawed plain and simple

Media is broad, not stricly dvd/bd/hddvd/cd.

When a movie releases to theater it generally recoups all costs, and breaks expected profits which amount to the millions to hundreds of millions.

Movies make a majority of their profit from theater, which does indeed raises prices continually. DVDs and the like are additional revenue.

So my theory does indeed hold true.

If you want to get to IP theft. Let's discuss music.

Musicians make most of their personal profit from concerts, which also see increased prices. Albums whether digital or otherwise is primarily .85 - .98 cents to the dollar profit to the monopolistic entity which holds the authors IP in copyright or patent. Not the actual creator.

That dismisses Annee's notion that it's not monopolistic, and that it's theft from the content creators. For music of course.

You folks argue the surface layer issues, and never dig deeper. Never account for all the subtle nuances of the underlying issues.