TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Pirated movies?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pirated movies? - Page 2

post #31 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpy
First question: What happened to the edit button???

Second question: Jcat
Your student that was caught, please don't tell me he was part of the people arrested in conjunction with the massive raid across Germany this week right? Cannot be right since you said his court date was this week.

Another point which I did not make or did not really expand on earlier. There are some people whose interest is not in selling them but in breaking the copy protection. Thus if the movie is protected and Person A breaks the copy protection and uploads one copy of it, which perhaps is downloaded by a few people before he takes it down. But if that copy becomes the copy from which everyone makes a copy then you can see that the person's action did not just result in creation of a few illegal copies.

In fact the FBI in conjucntion with its counterparts in 11 countries have recently conducted a major raid on people who removes the digital coding. Their actions were not exactly for profit yet the damage they caused was great.
It sounds like your talking about the people who "rip" movies and other content and share it.. like the "groups" mentioned in some articles? Or do you mean the people who actually coded the software that will let anyone "rip" a movie (for example)?
post #32 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpy
First question: What happened to the edit button???

Second question: Jcat
Your student that was caught, please don't tell me he was part of the people arrested in conjunction with the massive raid across Germany this week right? Cannot be right since you said his court date was this week.

Another point which I did not make or did not really expand on earlier. There are some people whose interest is not in selling them but in breaking the copy protection. Thus if the movie is protected and Person A breaks the copy protection and uploads one copy of it, which perhaps is downloaded by a few people before he takes it down. But if that copy becomes the copy from which everyone makes a copy then you can see that the person's action did not just result in creation of a few illegal copies.

In fact the FBI in conjucntion with its counterparts in 11 countries have recently conducted a major raid on people who removes the digital coding. Their actions were not exactly for profit yet the damage they caused was great.
The rules on the site have been changed, and only those with Alpha cat status (300 posts, 90 days' membership) or higher can edit. http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45968

My student was one of (I think) 12 kids caught in the first wave of arrests months ago. The "raids" are increasing in size and frequency, so I expect there'll be others.
post #33 of 45
No. I'm in college. I can't get to the music store to buy the mucis I want. I use to download it. I had the hard to find songs on my old computer, then it died. You really can't download movies. It takes up too much memory and hard drive space.
post #34 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
My student was one of (I think) 12 kids caught in the first wave of arrests months ago. The "raids" are increasing in size and frequency, so I expect there'll be others.
The Music people are crazy. I am more likely to buy a cd when I know I'm going to like most of the songs on it. They arrested a 12 year old girl and ezpected her grandmother to pay millions of dollars to them. Now is that fair??? I think not!
post #35 of 45
To Cirque:
What exactly is your position on piracy?
You seem to have adopted an odd stance from your replies. A stance that rejects suing pirates but yet support suing the peer to peer networks. If that reading if correct, then basically you are saying it is "ok" to download but it is not right to provide the network for the download?

1) Availability:
Sure someone needs to get it online. But all you need is someone in the world to do so. At its peak, some peer to peer networks had over 7 trillion items for download. The reach of the internet is far greater than the reach of one's circle of friends. And that is how the internet has become the major tool for research and information. One is far more likely to find the answer (or song/movie) from the internet than by asking one of your friend. Which of course, you have to call them or send them a mass email to ask.

2) Network
Look to the quote in Arg0 post with regards to EFF comments on suits against the networks and how such suits if successful can hamper technology. If suits against networks or devices that facilitate piracy but also have substantial non infringing use succeeds, then in your typical doomsday scenario, technology will be hampered as that will apply to your video recorder, xerox machines.

Precisely that because people have rights, networks should not be sued. People should have the right to use the network to transmit non-infringing materials, people have a right to not have their property taken from them.

Also Refer to my first paragraph.

3) Targeting
Since your argument is based on the idea of which is more efficient or worth it, then whether one does it for profit or not would not matter. One looks at which results in greater loss. And why would people buy from a pirate when they can download it from free? Finally, unless it is a criminal prosecution, one could argue that it is for the private individual to determine how he wants to spend his resources in pursuing civil actions.

4) Others
Natural: If just because something is done by a lot of people or a majority of makes it natural and thus somewhat justified, then it could result in a lot of problems. From Nazi Germany to oppression of minority or corruption, such actions if done by majority does not make it right.

Advertisement: Are you actually making the argument that just because someone advertise their products or attempts to sell it, one is justified to steal it?

DVDs: I too only have 1 DVD. (Meet Joe Black) But you don;t see me complaining. Of course one reason could be that I am not too interested in movies.

Shopkeeper: Made a response to that in an earlier post

5) Concept of Copyright
From some of your responses, especially the 1984 ones, I am wondering whether do you understand the concept of copyright. Or are you taking a complete different approach to copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Above is a short explanation of copyright from it's pros to its cons.

Now finally, imagine if you (Cirque) have written the best book, or song or software that will effectively replace windows, linux, mac. But this other person took your creation which you spent years making and sold it while making billions for himself or just distributed it to everyone for free. I don't think you would be too happy. Or if you have been supplementing your monthly disability with writing some articles, I don't think you will be too happy if your editor told you that you will not be paid because instead of buying the product people are just downloading it.
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess
They arrested a 12 year old girl and ezpected her grandmother to pay millions of dollars to them. Now is that fair??? I think not!
I think you are exaggerating it too much. Millions? I think not! :thmbdwn It is not fair to take something and not pay for it.

As for the argument that one is more likely to buy CDs after hearing them, such argument could be valid in the past but with online music stores and some plans allowing you to listen or to buy the song individually, such argument does not really hold much water.
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpy
To Cirque:
What exactly is your position on piracy?
It is wrong but I would like to see alternatives in place such as "online lending librarys". Being "shut in" myself I am not able to visit the library but I would love to "Check out" a dvd or cd or a book from time to time. Why should that be any diffrent provided the technology was there to make it for me to only have that file for a short time? Currently there ARE places that "rent" movies in such a way. Even if someone does download something, I hope they are encouraged by trying the item, viewing the movie or whatever to buy or contribute back to that person/artist/programmer/author in some way. Tell their friends to buy the program, book or see the movie.. etc. Everyone in this world may not be equal in money but that does not mean they can not contribute in a positive way even while doing what some would consider 'wrong'. Perhaps they can just be vocal and encourage others to lobby for the laws to change and speak their mind like I do.


[/quote]You seem to have adopted an odd stance from your replies. A stance that rejects suing pirates but yet support suing the peer to peer networks. If that reading if correct, then basically you are saying it is "ok" to download but it is not right to provide the network for the download? [/quote]

God gave us free will. Let him judge us when it is time. As for the "Companies and networks.." let the law judge them now as now is the time in which they can be judged. So wether or not it is "ok" to download, it should be easier and make more logical sense to knock out a distribution point then attack a million people downloading.

Quote:
1) Availability:
Sure someone needs to get it online. But all you need is someone in the world to do so. At its peak, some peer to peer networks had over 7 trillion items for download. The reach of the internet is far greater than the reach of one's circle of friends. And that is how the internet has become the major tool for research and information. One is far more likely to find the answer (or song/movie) from the internet than by asking one of your friend. Which of course, you have to call them or send them a mass email to ask.
So your saying if it is a half a dozen friends swapping movies or files it is ok? Or if they pass a book around it is ok? What if two people read the book at the same time? What if one comes over to the others house and watches a movie with their friend? What if they watch a movie in the same house but on two tv's? .. .. They are friends it is ok? What about if all your friends are only online friends? Does that make them any less of a friend and any less worthy of viewing something you thought they would appreicate that you recorded using legal means on your own equipment while spending your own time to do it while paying for whatever service it came in on? If you choose VHS or Digital, is there much difference? It is ok if it's on a tape and if you make one tape for each friend you lend it to or do you only get one tape for yourself and then have to make your friends share it? Oh wait.. they have to watch it in your house right?.. please... got any asprin for my headache now?


Quote:
2) Network
Look to the quote in Arg0 post with regards to EFF comments on suits against the networks and how such suits if successful can hamper technology. If suits against networks or devices that facilitate piracy but also have substantial non infringing use succeeds, then in your typical doomsday scenario, technology will be hampered as that will apply to your video recorder, xerox machines.
Thank God there are Judges in some courts that are not complete idiots. Thankfully the RIAA and others have been overturned in their stupid lawsuits.

Quote:
Precisely that because people have rights, networks should not be sued. People should have the right to use the network to transmit non-infringing materials, people have a right to not have their property taken from them.
But if it is that same network that also is contributing to piracy how can you with any clear conscious argue that?! You KNOW if the network was NOT there the piracy would be reduced. Sounds like YOU have a conflict of interest going on because you WANT the network and you just don't want the pirates using it but your not willing to give up the network to get rid of them.

Also Refer to my first paragraph.

Quote:
3) Targeting
Since your argument is based on the idea of which is more efficient or worth it, then whether one does it for profit or not would not matter. One looks at which results in greater loss. And why would people buy from a pirate when they can download it from free? Finally, unless it is a criminal prosecution, one could argue that it is for the private individual to determine how he wants to spend his resources in pursuing civil actions.
Ok simply going by greater loss.. the "Mob" ripping off movies and putting them in theatres and charging actual CASH money and making MILLIONS or BILLIONS.... sees a far greater loss then kids downloading music or movies in poor quality and then wanting their parents to buy them the same movie or CD later. Most people do not buy from P2P pirates, perhaps from streetcornor ones and "mob" ones.. And not everyone has the ability, time or computer that is able to download stuff either.. let along the knowlage for you average uncomputer literate person, but it is fairly easy to pay 2 dollars in Singapore for a DVD. I help people with their PC's all the time to setup free software and trust me.. most of them are lucky if they can cut and paste let alone figure out how to pirate anything.

Quote:
4) Others
Natural: If just because something is done by a lot of people or a majority of makes it natural and thus somewhat justified, then it could result in a lot of problems. From Nazi Germany to oppression of minority or corruption, such actions if done by majority does not make it right.
You dare bring up Nazi Germany in this day an age when we are having "Homeland Security" and the "War on Terror"? Give me a break man! It is happening right now and I don't see you throwing up your arms saying "STOP!" all I do hear is you saying "Don't pirate stuff". What about the actual people being killed on both sides of the wars going on and the civil liberties we loose every day because of "scare tactics"? Hell, arn't you trying to "scare" people in to not downloading stuff right now actually?!?!

Quote:
Advertisement: Are you actually making the argument that just because someone advertise their products or attempts to sell it, one is justified to steal it?
No but I am saying if you push something into someone's face long enough and keep holding it there in front of them without letting them experience it, don't you think given enough time eventually they will get sick of just looking and try to take it? Leave your door open and someone will walk in and grab your TV, it is called life and it is human nature. There is just no getting around it. I think my mother used to say "Why leave your doors unlocked and tempt someone else?"

Quote:
DVDs: I too only have 1 DVD. (Meet Joe Black) But you don;t see me complaining. Of course one reason could be that I am not too interested in movies.
I like movies.. my life sucks.. what can i say.. they are a way to escape thats still legal.. well as long as they are on HBO or whatever. But I do wish I had more of them because the outside world is a harsh place and people are jerks.. I would much rather curl up with a good movie then have to deal with them. Sadly though, after paying rent and trying to eat and paying for cats that have been rescued from bad places or lives.. that just does not happen often enough to make my life that much more enjoyable. Granted, maybe if I was employable and had a "normal" income I could then take part in the "mainstream" and maybe my values and opinions would even change slightly... who knows.. but from this side... I can very easily see why people would do what they do and I don't fault them for being human.

Shopkeeper: Made a response to that in an earlier post

Quote:
5) Concept of Copyright
From some of your responses, especially the 1984 ones, I am wondering whether do you understand the concept of copyright. Or are you taking a complete different approach to copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Above is a short explanation of copyright from it's pros to its cons.
I am very familiar with Copyright laws. I infact donate my time to run a website that gives away a free software program to let people connect. We have gone open source because as I like to think, "Fun should be free". We are not in it for the profit and we hope others will take interest and fix the issues with the software, but wether they do or not it is still there in whatever fashion free of charge for others to use, share, give away and experience without the GREED aspect so common in other softwares or industrys such as music or movies and even other software programs. Yes, I have had to actually pay out of my own pocket for Font licenses to attempt to sell a tshirt or mug with the logo and the software author pays from his pocket to run the website which I manage for him freely, and neither of us break even by any means and basically rely on donations.. but we do it because we can and because we are not what so many people are, greedy as all get out. Do I think all movies and music and books should be free? Yes.. you bet I do.. before 100 years is passed or whatever it is now. As soon as something is circulated to (just a figure) 1 million homes.. it should be considered public domain or at least some sort of comprmise.

Quote:
Now finally, imagine if you (Cirque) have written the best book, or song or software that will effectively replace windows, linux, mac. But this other person took your creation which you spent years making and sold it while making billions for himself or just distributed it to everyone for free. I don't think you would be too happy. Or if you have been supplementing your monthly disability with writing some articles, I don't think you will be too happy if your editor told you that you will not be paid because instead of buying the product people are just downloading it.
This stuff happens all the time.. Have you ever heard of Bill Gates? See above also.. I already GIVE away free software and devote my time freely for various purposes besides. Yes I AM happy doing it and will continue to do it so help me as long as I am able God willing. You think I have never been "stiffed" for things I do or helping people? *lol* If I expected to get paid for every signature I made, every person I helped or every one that downloaded a program.. hell.. I would be one very bitter person and would have stopped helping years ago. *rofl* Maybe some of these movie peopel and rock bands need to just quit taking in money and live with the millions they have and still do shows for free or give away their damn DVD's and then tell me how terrible their life is. At least I am not rich and bitching, i am just poor as dirt and saying "hey, give the little guy a break and look to the root of the problem instead".
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirque
It is wrong but I would like to see alternatives in place such as "online lending librarys". Being "shut in" myself I am not able to visit the library but I would love to "Check out" a dvd or cd or a book from time to time. Why should that be any diffrent provided the technology was there to make it for me to only have that file for a short time? Currently there ARE places that "rent" movies in such a way.
As you said, there are online movie rental places -- they ship the movie to you, you ship it back when you're done.

ITunes is great for "try before you buy". There are others offering similar services now as well. There are subscription services where you pay a monthly fee and can listen to anything you want as long as you want (such as Music Match). It's not like a radio -- you can actually search for the artists/songs you want to hear.

As of today there are LOTS of ways to legally get music online. I myself am an ITunes addict.

Also, with "try before you buy" -- you can do so online through ITunes or Amazon (or other large vendors), where you can get 30 or 60 second clips of songs. And MANY big chain stores now offer the same service for many of their CDs (though not all). We were recently in Borders -- they had this headphone system where you could search for an artist or song and then listen to it to see if you liked it.

As for my whole opinion on this...

Stealing is wrong, period. Yes, it's that cut and dry for me. If I didn't buy it, or if someone didn't buy it for me as a gift, I'm not entitled to it. When artists signs contracts with this large record labels it's hard ENOUGH for them to negotiate fair deals and to recoop their costs that the last thing they need is me and 10,000 of my online friends just taking the fruits of their labor for free. There's no difference if I do download it illegally or walk into the store and sticky-finger the single.

Recording it and putting it out on a peer-to-peer network is quite a bit different than sitting in my living room and TiVoing it. It's not about waiting for it to be on, since TiVo makes that easy. It's not about the two friends I'll share it with (or even if it's 10). While it's still wrong and illegal to do so, I've at LEAST paid for SOMETHING since I pay for my satellite service and right to view HBO... though I will say, regardless, that doesn't give me the right to steal it for my friend so they don't have to pay (which I'd essentially be doing by making illegal copies and sharing them all around).

Obviously, the way I feel about it is pretty clear. Do I think the RIAA or the MPAA is doing the right thing? Not really sure. The way copyright law works is that it is up to the copyright holder to protect their own interests, and I don't think just looking the other way is an option. Whether than should sue/prosecute little 14 year old Johnny boy who downloaded 10 movies... well it seems a bit silly, but how else do you deter people?

Have I EVER downloaded a movie illegally or made an illegal copy... *thinking*... I'm pretty sure I haven't.

Have I EVER downloaded a song illegally or made an illegal copy... I'd be lying to say I haven't, but it's less than the number of fingers I have.

Have I EVER pirated software? Once. And my intention is to purchase it relatively soon using a legitimate coupon I received.

I'll state for the record that I think the music business is about the sleeziest business out there. Being somewhat an "insider" because of what my husband does, and also my own experiences trying to get a project off the ground a few years ago, the business is a horrid one, with the guys in the band usually getting the raw end of the deal. I wish more of them would strike out on their own and join the ranks of successful indies like Ani DiFranco. That said, it still doesn't make it right to steal.
post #39 of 45
I was thinking of a real library where you just walk in, toss your card on the desk with a stack of books and walk out.. no fees unless your "late" which would not have to apply with online lending. Information and culture should be free for the masses, I hope someday it is and we transcend "money", "greed" and "personal profit" and all mankind can live in an open and freely giving society.. beam me up Scotty.
post #40 of 45
Cirque:
ComeresMom made a number of good points that answered some of your questions.

1) Tolerable:
Recall when I was talking about availability, the focus of the argument was whether can you distinguish it or what makes it different from the old tape recorder system. Both positions on copying and "sharing" would be wrong but the main difference is the impact. So the question that is being answered is:
"When tape recorders first came out there was piracy and sharing between friends. What is the difference then and now? Answer: Peer to peer increases the impact of piracy" That is the question being answered not legality.

2) "God"
This is a religious argument that would be irrelevant to people who do not believe in your concept or type of God. Furthermore, did not one version of the Christian God say "Thou Shall not Steal?" Besides, it would seem that the more fundamentalist the believer, the more interested they are in judging others.

3) Distinguish between valid and invalid use
There are many things in this world that can be used for both good and bad. Since you have agreed with the position that stopping the network harms technology based on EFF, the only thing to do is to control the bad stuff. There is nothing "conflicting" about my position, it is merely one that balances the interest of both sides.

4) Greater loss.
Let me make this easier. Why go to the Mob and pay $1 when you can get it for free online?? And for civil suit, it is their money that pays for the choice of litigation not yours.

5) Natural / Leaving door open
You have attacked the position on Homeland Security but you have not answered the response to your position that if it is the norm it is ok. Remember you can up with that position not me.

Well, if a thief enters and takes your TV because of the temptation, that does not make it right. What he did is still wrong.

6) Ideal Society
From many of your post, it would seem that you operate on the basis of a communist ideal and I am not using the word in your typical American fashion with all negative connotation. And there are places where communism is a small way is being done. In Israel there are those small community where everyone works together, without concept of profit etc. Even in the US there are some communes. So if this is your position, then obviously we are not going to see eye to eye on many issues because of a fundamental difference in base comparison ideal.
post #41 of 45
Another point on the library of your dreams.

If I recall during college, the maximum number of books I could borrow in the library was 50. I never reached that amount and I dont think I could lug 50 books out at once. So library of your dream would be to either teach at a college or enrol as a student.

Also for movie rentals there is netflix.
http://www.netflix.com/Default
No late fees, free delivery to your house and they provide pre-paid return envelopes which all you have to do is to drop in postbox.

Quite apart from the Itunes situation as mentioned by ComeresMom, there are online services that contain a whole bunch of electronic form of magazines, books, etc. I have 2 services that provides electronic form of newspapers across the world, magazines and of course other stuff. Of course the problem is it is not free.
post #42 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpy
Cirque:
ComeresMom made a number of good points that answered some of your questions.

1) Tolerable:
Recall when I was talking about availability, the focus of the argument was whether can you distinguish it or what makes it different from the old tape recorder system. Both positions on copying and "sharing" would be wrong but the main difference is the impact. So the question that is being answered is:
"When tape recorders first came out there was piracy and sharing between friends. What is the difference then and now? Answer: Peer to peer increases the impact of piracy" That is the question being answered not legality.
So you or companies can tolerate a few law breakers as long as it does not "impact" their profit margin to a great degree? Gee, that sounds like they are saying "it is wrong to steal from us" ... "BUT .. if you only do it a little bit with old technology among a FEW friends it is ok, we will look the other way"

Quote:
2) "God"
This is a religious argument that would be irrelevant to people who do not believe in your concept or type of God. Furthermore, did not one version of the Christian God say "Thou Shall not Steal?" Besides, it would seem that the more fundamentalist the believer, the more interested they are in judging others.
Wether or not you Beleive in "God" or not, that does not change the FACT that man has FREEWILL and the ability to make their own choices. That means man has a choice to steal or not to steal. Judging others? Um.. No. I am saying NOT to judge others and let whatever higher being we meet after life do that, if there is not one then I guess pirates wont have to worry. How you can claim I want to judge anyone is beyond me.

Quote:
3) Distinguish between valid and invalid use
There are many things in this world that can be used for both good and bad. Since you have agreed with the position that stopping the network harms technology based on EFF, the only thing to do is to control the bad stuff. There is nothing "conflicting" about my position, it is merely one that balances the interest of both sides.
I did not agree with your position that it harms technology. I said it would spur MORE technology because there would be a gap that would need to be filled when something people had is suddenly gone.

Quote:
4) Greater loss.
Let me make this easier. Why go to the Mob and pay $1 when you can get it for free online?? And for civil suit, it is their money that pays for the choice of litigation not yours.
Cause they will soon be coming to your house and threatening to break your legs if you don't buy from them? Oh wait. .thats not the mob thats the RIAA! Just because someone wants to sue does not mean they should waste the courts time over and over for years. They already got slapped down for trying to scare ISP's and had cases lost because of their bad practices and for simply being "wrong".

Quote:
5) Natural / Leaving door open
You have attacked the position on Homeland Security but you have not answered the response to your position that if it is the norm it is ok. Remember you can up with that position not me.

Well, if a thief enters and takes your TV because of the temptation, that does not make it right. What he did is still wrong.
What I am saying is that when enough people in mainstream society partake in something, it becomes the norm in that society. That in itself does not make it right or wrong, it just makes it part of society and raises a flag that says "Maybe this IS normal and ok?". Do you think 100 years ago you would have seen two guys walking around hand in hand or kissing on a public street? It is sure common place now in quite a lot of places. In 100 years from now, perhaps everyone will be able to download whatever they want and our grandkids will wonder "Why did they get in trouble for this?!".

Quote:
6) Ideal Society
From many of your post, it would seem that you operate on the basis of a communist ideal and I am not using the word in your typical American fashion with all negative connotation. And there are places where communism is a small way is being done. In Israel there are those small community where everyone works together, without concept of profit etc. Even in the US there are some communes. So if this is your position, then obviously we are not going to see eye to eye on many issues because of a fundamental difference in base comparison ideal.
I operate on the basis that eventually the world will not be such a crappy place to live in unless we continue to loose our freedoms. If you want to call it communism then go ahead, but the last time I watched Star Trek and saw them mention not using money no-one was standing up shouting "Communists!!" at them and they sure seemed to be very democratic to me with lots of personal freedoms and civil liberties. When someone reads their databanks without asking they don't shoot first, they work it out peacefully. Is that such a bad thing to want vs seeing kids pay fines of 13,000 dollars?
post #43 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpy
Another point on the library of your dreams.

If I recall during college, the maximum number of books I could borrow in the library was 50. I never reached that amount and I dont think I could lug 50 books out at once. So library of your dream would be to either teach at a college or enrol as a student.

Also for movie rentals there is netflix.
http://www.netflix.com/Default
No late fees, free delivery to your house and they provide pre-paid return envelopes which all you have to do is to drop in postbox.

Quite apart from the Itunes situation as mentioned by ComeresMom, there are online services that contain a whole bunch of electronic form of magazines, books, etc. I have 2 services that provides electronic form of newspapers across the world, magazines and of course other stuff. Of course the problem is it is not free.
And my whole point about "libraries" are that they are free. You do not walk in the door, slap down your 15-20 bucks for a month and then pick out your books. You simply get your books, CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes or other material and check it out. Plain, simple, no cost to the consumer. That is a far cry away from Netflix or similar, sorry. Netflix is in it for the money, a library is in it to help others have the materials available to improve thier lives and relies on public and govt' grants for it's income, not counting the odd used booksale.

So you see, there is a very big diffrence in my eyes between current online pay as you go services and offline publicly available places open to EVERYONE FREELY that people call a library. When is the last time you heard an artist complain that someone went to the library and checked out their CD and they did not get paid? Other then Metallica I can't think of any who would go THAT far.
post #44 of 45
1) Compromise and Balance
Looking the other way may not be principled but is practical. At the end of the day before making any decision one has to look at the impact of it. There are software companies that know students are illegally using their programs but do nothing about it under the theory of network effect and only focus on them when they graduate and start working. It may not be a "moral" approach but it is a practical approach focus on business realities.

2) Freewill
From your mention of free will, it would seem that the basis of it would be Kant and his idea that free will is absolutely fundamental for genuine moral choice. But that would mean that one should punish the people who pirate. According to Kant, you rights are being violated if you are not punished. One has the free will to do anything but must suffer the consequence and if the consequence is not felt then your free will is being violated.

3) Others
Spur: Perhaps it may spur more technology growth but would not stopping one particular technology also hurt the system not just because that particular technology is withdrawn but that potential invention based on that technology is also stopped.

Waste: How is going to court to protect one's property right a waste of court's time. Is not protection of property rights on of the foundation of the rights?

Future: Perhaps in 100 years things will change but the reality is that pirating is wrong now.

Personal Freedom: Personal freedom and civil liberty is not a card to throw around so that one can do anything. Imagine a person saying "How dare you prosecute me for going on a shooting rampage, you are infringing on my person freedom to shoot anyone I don't like."

Negative Notions: You seem to have mixed up the idea of Communism with the typical American negative connotation. There is nothing inherently problematic with a society that is communist and also a democracy.

So again I state, if your basic belief is in a communist system, where things are free or at least without profit then it is obvious why there is a fundamental disconnect between our positions.
post #45 of 45
Well actually, come to think of it libraries are not free. One has to pay taxes and these fund public libraries. Note that checking out a CD or sharing (as in your normal use and not euphemism for piracy) is perfectly legal and not in violation of copyright. It is only when one reproduces it that there is a possible infringment.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Pirated movies?