Feds shut down nine websites in movie piracy crackdown

i have to agree with the general census here, 'piracy' is more beneficial then hollywood realises. I watched a number of movies, from 300 to Avatar, to the two hellboys.. and if i liked the film i went out and bought it for a good copy i could watch whenever i liked without waiting for a stream. But i guarantee i won't be going to the cinema, specially when a colleague took four kids (5-9ys) to see a film then a pizza, and almost hit triple figures.

i find the money poured into hollywood, for the actors and such is appauling. why someone needs to be paid in the order of millions for 6-12 months work, i'll never know.

reply to post by mryanbrown


Even digital WONT last for ever cd's dvd h/drives and even flash memory has a life span.

Apart from that WHY cant I compare digital products, SOMEONE with more ability than YOU made it so why should they not be able to make a profit.

Just because your tight and like to be a CRIMINAL thats your problem!

Like is said DO people like you actually work or is it a case of your to LAZY to do something to earn a good living that YOU resent people who DO! have some ability or talent.

You also look at it from the point of view that its a big company, I look at it
this way there will be lots of normal people who work for them and earn a living from them WHAT about those people whats your feelings about them


If you actually work and you lost your job becuase of people with YOU attitude I would like to see what you would feel

Originally posted by wmd_2008
So if your TO TIGHT to buy at launch you wait a few months and get it in the bargain bin.

Hundreds of cd's and movies price bands in pounds
2.99, 3.99, 4.99, 5.99, 6.99

I have NOT seen one GOOD reason here on why a person or company who have a product SHOULD not be entitled to sell it for a profit,
After all its people like you and me that earn a living working for them well thats if you actually have a JOB!
I would really like to see what you guys who have this attitude actually do for a living THAT would be really interesting I would like to see your reaction to someome taking money from YOU, I DONT THINK IT WOULD BE THE SAME!

WOULD IT

Actually if you had read a a page or two back you would see that I actually pay for what I have. I just don't agree with that current implementation of copyright because it creates a monopoly. It doesn't matter if star wars is an original idea or not. It isn't about the creator being entitled to make a profit from his work. Anyone would agree that he does. The problem is allowing them the right to inflate the price on the copies, especially digital download where the price of the copy is pennies at most.

Also your argument that you can buy stuff for $4.50 means your still getting ripped off when I can produce the same quality copy for $0.50 but can't sell it to you for $1.00 because of copyright.

Also if you would have read the rest of the thread you would have seen that I do work in video editing. I am also a guitarist, and I do graphic design. My stand is the current copyright is not in the best interest of the public but in the best interest of corporations because in the end they end up buying most of the rights to the work created by artists.

This may be changing in some fields but anyone who has worked for a studio or has signed with a music label or magazine or the like, even people who work for pharma and other research labs will tell you that one of the conditions set forth in their contracts is that they hand over their rights to the corporation on anything they create. Be it music, literature, art, invention, discovery, lab or industrial process, etc.

All of this is done under the guise of empowering the artist.


[edit on 10-7-2010 by daskakik]

Originally posted by Longy4eva
i have to agree with the general census here, 'piracy' is more beneficial then hollywood realises.

And - of course - that is why there are stricter laws and real enforcement - - - because Hollywood is too stupid to realize piracy is beneficial for them.

There are more ways to view a movie today - then ever before. Without illegal piracy downloading.

Lame excuses.

i find the money poured into hollywood, for the actors and such is appauling. why someone needs to be paid in the order of millions for 6-12 months work, i'll never know.

Can you comprehend how many thousands of people it takes to make a movie? Do you comprehend how thousands of people have jobs because of movie making?

I remember when I was a lowly office worker complaining about how management sit at their desk all day and "do nothing". Then I became a manager and "my head hurt". Management is so much harder then being a lowly office worker.

If you haven't acted or worked on a major motion picture - - you have no clue how hard they work - - or how difficult it can be. Who are you to make determinations on someone's worth?

Besides that - - there is only a hand full of "stars" today that make the big bucks. I suppose you only target them when you are stealing movies.

One thing about people with money - - they Spend money. If it wasn't for people with money - spending money - there would be no lowly office worker.

Originally posted by daskakik

All of this is done under the guise of empowering the artist.

Don't know how you came up with that.

Anything invented or created is worthless unless it can be put to use.

That's where development - production - promotion - etc come into play.

If you write/produce/record your own music and choose to sell it out of the trunk of your car or off your own website - - - that is your choice. And then you own all of it.

Most people/artists don't seem to want to do that. Most seem to want someone else to do that for them. That's why they sign contracts with producers/labels - - who then sign contracts with distributors.

How much the artist makes and how much the producer/label makes - - depends on the contract. You have the choice not to sign.

If I owned the franchise Star Wars - - - I know I'd sure as hell want to protect the integrity of the storyline. I absolutely support the right to do this legally.

Originally posted by daskakik

. . . even people who work for pharma and other research labs will tell you that one of the conditions set forth in their contracts is that they hand over their rights to the corporation on anything they create.

I think its only if you create/invent something in the field of your employment. Which makes sense - - since you are probably using their equipment/labs etc to invent/create.

I think if you invent/create something at home that is not related to your field of employment - - they don't have the rights to it.

Yes, it's theft and I download a lot so yes I'm a thief. At least I'm not a hypocrite though, unlike most of the pro-anti-piracy bleeding hearts posting in this thread, ever borrowed a book for example? Make your boo-hoos and move on because piracy is here to stay and your whinging is getting on my nerves. Now that I've exposed myself as a prime target for your worthy cause please feel free to start the ''moral'' whipping, oh holier than thou people.

reply to post by Annee


Of course you would want to uphold copyright if it means you can keep making money hand over fist. The point was that this may not be in the best interest of the artist, where the artist has signed away his rights, or the public. It's legally sanctioned corporate greed. Saddens me to see your all for it.

As to them owning your work. It all depends on the contract. If a movie studio hires an FX company to do some work they usually sign away all rights. It's commissioned work. The only right they keep is to be credited for the work. This is true even if you use your own equipment. Same is true for studio musicians, graphic designers ans such on payroll. Doesn't matter that you honed your art on your time and your dime all you get is job security and a letter of recomendation.

In the end the corporation hoards the rights to the 1's and 0's and in this information age that equals wealth. And people wonder how the wealthy always seem to find ways to stay on top. It's easy when the surfs keep doing their fighting for them.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by daskakik]

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Annee

 

Of course you would want to uphold copyright if it means you can keep making money hand over fist. The point was that this may not be in the best interest of the artist, where the artist has signed away his rights, or the public. It's legally sanctioned corporate greed. Saddens me to see your all for it.

CHOICE!

Do you know and understand the word Choice?

The artist has the right to sign or not sign. Maybe other options are not as good - - but the artist does have Choice.

You have the Choice to watch a movie or not watch a movie. If you Choose to watch a movie - - then pay for that right.

How am I making money?

I did not know this discussion was about changing how the world works today. I'm sure there's a Socialist vs Capitalist thread some where on ATS.

Feel free to get the laws changed.

But TODAY - - there is legal copyright - - and it is illegal to steal copyrighted material.

TODAY - piracy is illegal -- it is theft.









[edit on 10-7-2010 by Annee]

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
Yes, it's theft and I download a lot so yes I'm a thief. At least I'm not a hypocrite

Well - thank you for not being a hypocrite. At least you're not trying to justify Piracy as anything other then Piracy.

It is illegal and it is theft. But just like prostitution - it won't be stopped or controlled. There will always be back rooms.

Take your chances - and if you get caught - take your medicine like a man. I don't want to hear any whining.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Even digital WONT last for ever cd's dvd h/drives and even flash memory has a life span.

Digital lasts forever, the median upon which a COPY is stored, does not.

Apart from that WHY cant I compare digital products, SOMEONE with more ability than YOU made it so why should they not be able to make a profit.

I really don't appreciate your accusation that I don't have the talent or "ability" to burn a post-production digital video file to disc like Hollywood...
And then put it in a dvd case someone else manufactured with a printout from my printer in the disc sleeve.

Because that's all the talent that is required of the copyright holder to produce the product. After those with talent have created it and lost their rights.

Because I do have the talent and ability, you're just confusing money with talent.

Just because your tight and like to be a CRIMINAL thats your problem!

Obviously you can't read...

Originally posted by mryanbrown
I don't condone piracy, or partake in it (for many years). I had hoped to simply avoid having to show my hand and have logic win most of you over.

So you have accused me of being a criminal, which is an active offense. Of which I am not. Any other idiotic accusations you wish to make against me pertaining to me BREAKING THE LAW?

Like is said DO people like you actually work or is it a case of your to LAZY to do something to earn a good living that YOU resent people who DO! have some ability or talent.

More baseless accusations in a vain attempt to support your position.

You also look at it from the point of view that its a big company, I look at it
this way there will be lots of normal people who work for them and earn a living from them WHAT about those people whats your feelings about them

Every scenario and all reasonings you have cited are positioned for that of a corporation and not a private individual. So why are you attempting to reposition your stance on the matter in another vain attempt to change the direction of the topic as you can't reason your previous position.

If you actually work and you lost your job becuase of people with YOU attitude I would like to see what you would feel

I redirect your attention to my own quote which I cited. And again no one has last their job in accordance to my position. Which I have pointed out.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

I am only on page 37, but so far this seems like a good read:
www.free-culture.cc...

... i get a warning for saying supporting IP is abetting to murder, and here would be a victim:
en.wikipedia.org...
Ah well, continue to call me a thief.

Originally posted by debunky
I am only on page 37, but so far this seems like a good read:
www.free-culture.cc...

... i get a warning for saying supporting IP is abetting to murder, and here would be a victim:
en.wikipedia.org...
Ah well, continue to call me a thief.

Regarding Edwin. You get into a plethora of issues involving early American electrical patents.

For instance, Edwin invented FM modulation. He based his works off of others of the time. Because he did not...

Invent electricity,
Discover FM,
Invent EM modulation,
Invent AC modulation,

What he did was take the works of those around him and combine them into something he found a use for. Yet he had to pay no royalties to those before him.

Luckily for us, people like Tesla made their patents public. And because of those all of these wonderfully "talented" people were able to profit without so much as a thanks, or courteous mentality to evolve our world.

Monetary greed,
or personal greed (theft).

It's all the same.

Sorry about your warn debunky :/

In the current climate of filmmaking, it is very rare for a filmmaker or production company (the people who make the films) to receive an advance from a distributor. Unless they have the vast amount of money and time it takes to distribute a film themselves, they sign a deal with a distributor that generally works something like this:

The production company doesn't see a dime (that is, no advance) until the sales of the film recoup the COST OF MARKETING/DISTRIBUTION.

THEN, the filmmaker/production company receives a PERCENTAGE of ROYALTIES. This percentage varies from deal to deal.


The other option, at least for an independent filmmaker, is to distribute and advertise their own film. Then they pay the costs of advertising, duplication, printing, etc. out of their own pocket. And you're *still* screwing them over when you download their film for free.

Originally posted by burdenofdreams
The other option, at least for an independent filmmaker, is to distribute and advertise their own film. Then they pay the costs of advertising, duplication, printing, etc. out of their own pocket. And you're *still* screwing them over when you download their film for free.

According to your perception yes, in reality not so much.

Let's take your example.

1. Most media piracy comes from blockbuster movies.
2. When the "scene" pirates say a Sundance film which is a "limited" production item. They are actually generating advertising for a film most people otherwise wouldn't have known about.

And because of this digital word of mouth, people discover it.

I bought many a limited movies in my past because I was made ware of them only through piracy sites.

"To End All Wars" (2001)
www.imdb.com...

Was a perfect example of this. It was not released to theaters or advertised. I would have never have known about it were it not for a website listing it as being released to the scene.

And because of that ability to see it, and because I enjoyed it so much. I actually had it imported.

But because it was Region 2 I could only watch it on my computer (thanks to copyright restrictions.)

It cost me $37.

Originally posted by mryanbrown

2. When the "scene" pirates say a Sundance film which is a "limited" production item. They are actually generating advertising for a film most people otherwise wouldn't have known about.

And because of this digital word of mouth, people discover it.

Do they have consent from Sundance? Is Sundance receiving royalties?

It is NOT YOUR CALL. It is NOT YOUR PRODUCT.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by mryanbrown

2. When the "scene" pirates say a Sundance film which is a "limited" production item. They are actually generating advertising for a film most people otherwise wouldn't have known about.

And because of this digital word of mouth, people discover it.

Do they have consent from Sundance? Is Sundance receiving royalties?

It is NOT YOUR CALL. It is NOT YOUR PRODUCT.

Jesus Christ, way to entirely miss the point just to chime in with your repetitive rhetoric.

EDIT: To add to that.

Does Sundance pay royalties to the movies they show? Or do they get to show them for free?

Did the people who made To End All Wars pay royalties to the families who the story is actually based off of?

Did they pay royalties to the gun companies whose weapons they knocked off?

Did they pay royalties to the American Citizens for profiteering from a movie about their military?

On and on and on.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Jesus Christ, way to entirely miss the point just to chime in with your repetitive rhetoric.

Why?

Because I'm not trying to justify "a better way to promote someone else's product" without their permission? Or paying them for their work?

I didn't miss anything.

Sometimes Black is Black - - and there is no gray.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Jesus Christ, way to entirely miss the point just to chime in with your repetitive rhetoric.

Why?

Because I'm not trying to justify "a better way to promote someone else's product" without their permission? Or paying them for their work?

I didn't miss anything.

Sometimes Black is Black - - and there is no gray.

Especially when you're blind to color.

You ignored the point that due to copyright restrictions I was unable to play a movie I legally purchased within my own country.

So if black is black, then that's illegal.

... really a good read.
Lots of stuff I didn't know about:
from page 75:

It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question of whether cable companies had to pay for the content they “pirated.” In the end, Congress resolved this question in the same way that it resolved the question about record players and player pianos. Yes, cable companies would have to pay for the content that they broadcast; but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright owner. The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn’t exercise veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus built their empire in part upon a “piracy” of the value created by broadcasters’ content.

Interesting... congress sets the price. Annee: right to profit, owner sets price?
Also interesting the part about why Hollywood is in Hollywood.