A discussion on the ethics of piracy

[drfsupercenter]

Well, mainly, I don't like Vista because apart from a few bells and whistles it does the exact same things XP does... only it requires a ton more RAM just to run properly.

Imaging getting a "Vista-ready" PC and putting XP on it... how much faster it would run!

And I really don't like how they ask you permission to use any program, including Internet Explorer... though I agree IE may be malware like the warning says

Anyway, back "on topic".

This report says that piracy actually benefits the economy, at least in the Netherlands. I'm sure it's similar over here too, companies just won't admit it (like, no one knows what happened to the guy at Sony who let the cat out of the bag about them actually benefiting from PSP piracy)

[DarthPrime]

Yeah I got way off topic... sorry.

Just one thing to add and I'm done on the Vista thing. It depends on the machine. XP probably would be faster. If you need 4GB + of RAM you could install XP 64 bit, although the drivers/support for it are not as good as Vista IMO. For 32 bit OSs right now XP is the best as far as support. I'm really wondering if Windows 7 will be accepted, or treated like Vista when its released. So far reviews, and people running the beta seem to really like it.

Also you can turn those warnings off in Vista and Windows 7 if you want so it doesn't ask you about running programs all the time. Windows 7 is actually better at this than Vista, and has options to adjust how much it warns you.

I don't mind it, but I can see where some people find it annoying.

Now we return to the discussion on piracy... Sorry for going off topic.

[Sotiris]

I didn't want to create a new thread just for this so...

BUMP!

U.S. Bill on Making Illegal Streams a Felony
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/20 ... y-detailed

New details have emerged of a United States bill to make it a felony to "perform" copyrighted works such as television series or films illegally without permission, including by streaming. The offence would "consist of 10 or more public performances by electronic means"of the work during a 180-day period. It would also apply if the "total fair market value" of equivalent licensed performances would exceed US$5,000. The penalty would be a fine or imprisonment of not more than five years.

The bill, designated S. 978 was introduced on May 12 by Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn, and Christopher Coons. At that time, Victoria Espinel of the Copyright Alliance said, “While illegal downloading and distribution is a felony, the illegal, willful, and commercial streaming of films, TV programs, and music remains only a misdemeanor.” She described the bill as being aimed at removing “unwarranted obstacles to the prosecution of websites that willfully and illegally stream valuable copyrighted works for commercial advantage or private financial gain."

[dvdjunkie]

Let's just face it. People who insist that they aren't breaking any laws by copying movies or music and such are probably the same people who don't follow the other laws in this land, like speed limits, and who back into parking stalls at shopping centers because they were coming down the wrong way and saw this 'really cool' parking space so they back into it. That is against the law, but it isn't totally enforced unless the police see you do something else like driving without your seatbelt buckled.

Why do you think they put that "Warning" on all movies? If you read it, it clearly states that you are breaking the law when you copy. Read it, carefully and you will see that it explicitly forbids charging admission, or copying, whether for profit or not, is forbidden.

I will freely admit that I have at one time or another made a DVR-RW copy of a movie off of TCM or one of the premium networks, but as soon as I find that movie on a legitimate release I erase it and get something else.

I have no sympathy for someone who gets caught making pirated copies or who is tracked down via their IP address and busted for copying, because it is just like doing 50 in a school zone, you do the crime you do the time.

Not saying that everyone who copies should be busted, but there are enough people out there who sell 'pirated' copies of movies that ruin for those who want to just make a back-up so their kids, they can't control, don't ruin one of their 'store-bought' copies.

And yes, I own a "Digitally Mastered from a Japanese Laser-Disc" copy of "Song of the South", but I am loke a lot of you, if Disney ever decides to put this out legally, then I will be among the first in line to buy a copy of this fine movie.

Bottom line here is that rules are not made to be broken. They are there for a reason, and it is just up to us to follow the rules.

[Goliath]

I have no sympathy for someone who gets caught making pirated copies or who is tracked down via their IP address and busted for copying, because it is just like doing 50 in a school zone, you do the crime you do the time.

When was the last time a kid died because someone illegally copied a movie?

Bottom line here is that rules are not made to be broken. They are there for a reason, and it is just up to us to follow the rules.

Wrong. Each and every rule should be critically examined and questioned, and if the rule is stupid, it should be broken.

[Sky Syndrome]

Bottom line here is that rules are not made to be broken. They are there for a reason, and it is just up to us to follow the rules.

Wrong. Each and every rule should be critically examined and questioned, and if the rule is stupid, it should be broken.

Kansas
No one may catch fish with his bare hands.
Riding an animal down any road is against the law.
No one may wear a bee in their hat.
No one may sing the alphabet on the streets at night.
The state game rule prohibits the use of mules to hunt ducks.
All cars entering the city limits must first sound their horn to warn the horses of their arrival. (Wth? lol)
http://www.dumblaws.com/

[dvdjunkie]

Sorry but you are way off the subject with that Kansas posting. I am aware of those "blue" laws, most of which have been repealed.

We are talking about a Federal Offense here. Copying movies and downloading music illegally is wrong and not that they will ever catch you doing it, that isn't the problem. How do you sleep at night knowing that you prevented someone from earning a fair wage or maybe getting a small raise.

Traffic laws are there also, and if you don't follow them, you will be cited by an officer of the law. It's so simple a problem to solve. DON'T DO IT!!!!!!

[disneyboy20022]

Wrong. Each and every rule should be critically examined and questioned, and if the rule is stupid, it should be broken.

Kansas
No one may catch fish with his bare hands.
Riding an animal down any road is against the law.
No one may wear a bee in their hat.
No one may sing the alphabet on the streets at night.
The state game rule prohibits the use of mules to hunt ducks.
All cars entering the city limits must first sound their horn to warn the horses of their arrival. (Wth? lol)
http://www.dumblaws.com/

Isn't that last law one that Sarah Palin made...with the driver being Paul Revere


Also a town I lived in had a leash law....on Cats....

[Sky Syndrome]

No anti-piracy ads seem to have been posted in this thread. One I like can't be embedded so I'll post the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MgZqMx-qWw

[disneyboy20022]

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OEc5bWWD3aA" frameborder="0"></iframe>

and I just saw this on youtube....interesting find

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wYDtDSD-73s" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[ajmrowland]

^I just loove how they exaggerated the comparison.

[milojthatch]

Some thoughts:

Copying a film or show from the tv is NOT breaking copy right law. That fight has been fought in court already when in 1980, the Movie Industry tried to kill off the legal right of people to record tv with their VCR's. For more on that Supreme Court case, read this on Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. to see what the Court ruled:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/ca ... US_417.htm

The warning label on basically all Hollywood DVD and Blu Ray's about "copyright law" only tells you Hollywood's side of the story. It does not reflect the full extent of the law, but rather how they want you to see the law. If you clearly read US copy right law, sections 107 to 122, it list all the limits to copy right law and the rights of the copy right holder. I'm not going to post all of it, but for anyone who wants a good read:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

There have been some ligament gripes about copy right laws in the US and even in other countries. While I'd never suggest outright breaking the laws that exist, I do encourage people learning what is actually in them, and work to make sure they work for society and not just a nitch group of Hollywood insiders. I hate how studios like Disney will fight over keeping rights to cartoons that should have gone into public domain a while ago (like black and white Mickey cartoons) and then turn around a fight to strip copyrights that other holders have on characters they have adapted into their films, like "Bambi."

I hate when studios sit on copyrights to titles they don't do anything with. I feel that a film like "Song of the South" should be in the public domain by now, for no other reason then the copyright should have expired by now. If a studio does not us the rights to a copyrighted title for say a decade, they should loose the rights to that title and it should go into the public domain.

The whole point of copyright laws really comes down to money. I'm ok with that reality, but feel it needs to be balanced with free speech and the social good. Societies are only strong as their story tellers. Copyright laws as they exist right now, weakens story tellers as that tradition has existed for centuries before copyright laws, and it gets worse with time.

I don't like that corporations own copyrights. I feel only individuals should own them. It sucks for folks like animators that put their heart and soul into cartoons they don't even really have any control over. Chris Sanders for example should own Stitch, NOT the Walt Disney company. It was his creation, and yet especially now that he isn't at Disney, he has no say about how they use the character. I think that is wrong.

I don't feel the idea behind copyright laws are bad, but if left unchecked, they can be, and currently are going in that direction thanks to Hollywood.

Frankly, I'd rather see no smoking laws enforced over copyright laws, instead of the other way around. I again believe laws should be enforced so long as they exist, but realize that law enforcement just isn't able to keep up with every law all the time, so they prioritize. I'd rather no smoking laws be pushed more. I'd rather that laws concerning jay walking on busy streets be pushed more. I'd rather that gun laws be pushed more. These laws actually deal with life or death, copyright laws don't. I'd rather see a better view of priorities in the law and it's enforcement.

I think, again while I do not condone film piracy, that Hollywood is not fighting film piracy the best way all the time. I know for a fact that a lot of piracy is for un-released titles and new releases. If un-released titles were given legitimate studio releases, and ticket prices we not so high at the box office, I truly believe that right there would fight film piracy with greater effect then making new laws no one wants to follow, except Hollywood. I think most people are honest deep down inside, but then needs laws and policies that help make that easy. The way Hollywood deals with this issue isn't it.

Case in point, every owner of "Song of the South" on DVD that didn't originally copy that film off of the tv for personal use is breaking the law by owning it. Does this mean that all of these owners and the sellers of these DVD's are bad people who intend to steal money from Hollywood. No, not at all. In fact most would gladly by an official studio version. But, each of these owners has decided putting it very bluntly that owning a piece of Disney/ Hollywood history and being able to share it with future generations is more important that following copyright law to the letter. But, let's not fool ourselves, by the letter of the law, it is breaking copyright law in selling or owning most copies of this film. Same goes with a number of titles like it.

As I was saying, consumers need laws and policies dealing with this issue that makes sense. Right now, Hollywood, along with just about every other major industry, wants nothing more then to use copyright laws to own as much of everyday life that they can get away with. The power of copyright laws, if left unchecked and put in the wrong hands, could be used for some very evil purposes. I'd hate to live in a World were copyright got really out of hand. Some examples of silly attempts:

http://blog.ohinternet.com/2398/palin-f ... the-forms/

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201104 ... word.shtml

[Flanger-Hanger]

I hate when studios sit on copyrights to titles they don't do anything with. I feel that a film like "Song of the South" should be in the public domain by now, for no other reason then the copyright should have expired by now. If a studio does not us the rights to a copyrighted title for say a decade, they should loose the rights to that title and it should go into the public domain.

I've thought about this before, but Disney still uses the characters and music from Song of the South in things like merchandise and theme parks, so it does make some sense to extend the copyright.

[disneyboy20022]

I thought this article might fit well in here....Apparently they oh heck here's Lick Boot's response on behalf of Disney and Starz


<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/v0due39C-XM" frameborder="0"></iframe>



Judge Denies Disney's Motion to Stop Dish From Distributing Movies for Free

Dish Network turned 30 years old this year. In celebration, the satellite company chose this February to provide some of its customers with "free" access for one year to seven different Starz channels.
However, neither Starz nor the Hollywood studios that provide the channel with popular movies such as Toy Story 3 and Alice in Wonderland were ready to give Dish Network a birthday cake. Instead, both Starz and Disney filed individual lawsuits that accused Dish of breaching the "pay television" provisions of its contract and committing copyright infringement.
But for now, Dish's gift to its customers continues. On Thursday, a New York judge denied a motion by Disney to enjoin the satellite TV company from distributing the studio's popular movies for free.
The judge's decision follows Dish Network's response last week to Disney's claims.
Dish Network told a New York judge that there could be no copyright infringement because it had licensed Disney's movies from Starz, which in turn had an agreement with Disney's television distributor, Buena Vista Television. Dish Network added that Los Angeles was the proper jurisdiction for Disney's lawsuit, but since it was filed in New York, it should be dismissed because it had proper licenses on the films.
New York District Judge George Daniels hasn't made a ruling on whether to dismiss the case yet, but without written explanation, he has denied Disney's attempts to preliminarily block Dish from offering the studio's movies for free.
A big part of this case figures to take place in a Colorado federal court where separately, Starz is also pursuing the Dish Network over its "free" promotion.
In its complaint filed in early May, Starz says that it regularly makes distribution deals with Disney, Warner Bros., and others, and that those agreements place conditions on Starz's exhibition rights. Specifically, in an effort to encourage DVD sales, Hollywood studios require that its newest and most popular films be limited to a pay, premium tier of cable television.
Starz notes that its affiliate agreements with Dish Network permits the satellite company from time to time to offer its channels as a "free preview," but in such instances, the parties have to execute a written agreement and the length of the free preview has typically been very short.
That case is pending. Starz is also asking for preliminary injunctive relief, but a Colorado judge hasn't yet made a ruling.

[Goliath]

We are talking about a Federal Offense here. Copying movies and downloading music illegally is wrong and not that they will ever catch you doing it, that isn't the problem. How do you sleep at night knowing that you prevented someone from earning a fair wage or maybe getting a small raise.

Oh, cut the drama, wake up and smell the coffee already. Nobody is losing a wage or a raise because of people downloading movies. Movie and music companies make insane profits from their dvd's and bluray's and cd's! And most of that doesn't even go to the artist putting out the content, but to the distributing party. You're worried about people not making a way or being denied a raise? Make those managers give up their 13th month, their bonuses, their 'golden handshake' (when they ruin their companies and still get millions in bonus when they resign). Make our federal lawmakers raise the wages of ordinary workers/artists. Oh no, you would never support that! That would be socialism!

No, I don't lose any sleep over people downloading movies or music (though I, myself, don't do it). There are way worse things to lose sleep over... things that *really* affects jobs and wages of working people. Things a real conservative doesn't give a shit about.

Traffic laws are there also, and if you don't follow them, you will be cited by an officer of the law. It's so simple a problem to solve. DON'T DO IT!!!!!!

But who talked about traffic laws? You started that! I simply pointed out it was a stupid comparison.

[milojthatch]

I hate when studios sit on copyrights to titles they don't do anything with. I feel that a film like "Song of the South" should be in the public domain by now, for no other reason then the copyright should have expired by now. If a studio does not us the rights to a copyrighted title for say a decade, they should loose the rights to that title and it should go into the public domain.

I've thought about this before, but Disney still uses the characters and music from Song of the South in things like merchandise and theme parks, so it does make some sense to extend the copyright.

I'm sick of copyrights being extended and extended and never ending. They need to expire, end of story. To do otherwise damages society and creates a very dangerous possibility of a World were you can't blink without paying someone off for the copyright to do so. Disney is frankly the poster child for what is wrong with copyright laws. The point of copyright laws originally was to protect the rights of the artists (money) while they are alive and using the material, and then a number of years after for the sake of the family the now dead artist leaves behind. Let me ask, does a single person who worked on "Song of the South" or any of their children make any money off of royalties to that film anymore? Or is it just some corporate busy body who wasn't even alive a decade after the film was made making money off of it? Friends, copyrights laws have been perverted. That is just all there is too it.

When copyrights never expire, you wind up having fewer and fewer original ideas that new artist are allowed to create and make enough money to live off of, as ultimately, every idea is slightly like an older one. As well, people make money off of copyrights that were never meant to make money off of them. Disney should be loosing the copyrights to a number of their cartoons and films, yet they are not. That is wrong, possibly more wrong then film piracy. It's like a kind of reverse film piracy. Difference is, it's legal. But it shouldn't be.

Traffic laws are there also, and if you don't follow them, you will be cited by an officer of the law. It's so simple a problem to solve. DON'T DO IT!!!!!!

But who talked about traffic laws? You started that! I simply pointed out it was a stupid comparison.

Again, I'd like to point out that Hollywood's definition of what copyright laws are and what they really are is night and day. As well, studios mis-use copyright laws and exploit them and butcher the original point of the law when they extend the life of their old properties forever, never allowing them to go into public domain. Comparing copyright laws to traffic laws is a bit ridicules, if not pointless. One keep people safe, the other keep rich people richer, as that is about all it is worth in these modern times.

[The_Iceflash]

I'm sick of copyrights being extended and extended and never ending. They need to expire, end of story.

No they don't. Why should someone lose ownership of something just because of time gone buy? It the US, the right to private property exists. As long as the company or family still exists, why should they lose their property? Because other people want it? That's kinda wrong.

Besides, say Song of the South goes public domain, the quality of the release will be subpar for everyone here.

I personally feel that copyright should NEVER expire as long as the company and/or family (descendants) still exist.


Oh and last time I checked, the Disney Company is still still exists and should be able to have ownership of their work. I value private property too much to feel Disney should lose ownership of it's properties so I can have a cheap low quality public domain release.

[2099net]

I'm sick of copyrights being extended and extended and never ending. They need to expire, end of story.

No they don't. Why should someone lose ownership of something just because of time gone buy? It the US, the right to private property exists. As long as the company or family still exists, why should they lose their property? Because other people want it? That's kinda wrong.

Well, patents expire. Patents expire after about 20 years. Some patents are the result of tens of millions of pounds in research and development. But they expire and large multinational electronic, pharmaceutical and mechanical companies still not only survive, but manage to grow and prosper. Why should entertainment be any different?

Besides, say Song of the South goes public domain, the quality of the release will be subpar for everyone here.

Not really, there's plenty of films in public domain that have been released with loving attention to detail: The Phantom of the Opera, Nosferatu, The Cabinet of Dr Calligari etc.

A good company knows that people are still willing to pay for quality even if a film is in the public domain. Of course, the fact that most restorations are filed for copyright by the restorer in these situations can lead to more confusion.

I personally feel that copyright should NEVER expire as long as the company and/or family (descendants) still exist.

Oh and last time I checked, the Disney Company is still still exists and should be able to have ownership of their work. I value private property too much to feel Disney should lose ownership of it's properties so I can have a cheap low quality public domain release.

But like I say, other rights are dispensed with in 20 years. Why should somebody who writes a song have longer ownership to somebody who invents a cheap, easily manufacturable glasses free 3D TV? What involved more investment both money and time wise?

[The_Iceflash]

No they don't. Why should someone lose ownership of something just because of time gone buy? It the US, the right to private property exists. As long as the company or family still exists, why should they lose their property? Because other people want it? That's kinda wrong.

Well, patents expire. Patents expire after about 20 years. Some patents are the result of tens of millions of pounds in research and development. But they expire and large multinational electronic, pharmaceutical and mechanical companies still not only survive, but manage to grow and prosper. Why should entertainment be any different?

Besides, say Song of the South goes public domain, the quality of the release will be subpar for everyone here.

Not really, there's plenty of films in public domain that have been released with loving attention to detail: The Phantom of the Opera, Nosferatu, The Cabinet of Dr Calligari etc.

A good company knows that people are still willing to pay for quality even if a film is in the public domain. Of course, the fact that most restorations are filed for copyright by the restorer in these situations can lead to more confusion.

I personally feel that copyright should NEVER expire as long as the company and/or family (descendants) still exist.

Oh and last time I checked, the Disney Company is still still exists and should be able to have ownership of their work. I value private property too much to feel Disney should lose ownership of it's properties so I can have a cheap low quality public domain release.

But like I say, other rights are dispensed with in 20 years. Why should somebody who writes a song have longer ownership to somebody who invents a cheap, easily manufacturable glasses free 3D TV? What involved more investment both money and time wise?

I don't think patents/other rights should expire either. I believe people/companies should have the right to own their creations.

[2099net]

I'm guessing the reason Patents expire is so that there can be competition. After all, every Western economy (perhaps now with a fall of communism every economy at all) is based around competition.

You need competition or else you have monopoly. Monopolies have been shown to be slow to adapt, reluctant to change and ultimately bad for the customer and the economy.

I think every copyright owner should have exclusive rights to their copyright for 20 years (like a US patent) and then after that time they should be forced to licence it out if requested. That way the copyright owner still gets money (the licence fee) but other companies can release the product, creating competition.

Look at Song of the South for example - Disney would be forced to licence it out to Shout! Factory (or whoever) and they in turn would produce a DVD. If another company wants to put it out, they too could approach Disney and would have legal rights to licence the title. Knowing Shout! Factory had a DVD out, the new company would most likely (a) release a comparable product for a lower cost or (b) release a better quality product.

Meanwhile Disney itself (knowing Disney) wouldn't want to miss out on the income from a DVD release so probably have their hand forced into releasing one themselves. They in-turn would be likely to produce a low-cost, best of the best edition, simply to pick up sales.

It seems here everyone is a winner - the customer who has the choice of release, Disney who at the very least will make money from the licence and the "independent" companies who having done their research should make a profit from their own releases.

How can that be bad?