Edited by - aplus on 3/17/2010 1:17:17 PM
[Link]
| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05 |  Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 1:15PMEdited by - aplus on 3/17/2010 1:17:17 PM [Link] |
| ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 1:58PM [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 2:12PM The theft they admit too doesn't bother me as much as the justification for doing it. I would prefer someone who is ripping me off just says I am going to steal from you and there is nothing you can do about it, then someone who says I am going to steal from you and here is why it is ok. That is more of a slap in the ass, and saying good game, when they really mean we cheated out there today, but hey, we won. Gary put it really well when he said, I worked my ass off on a movie, put my time and money into it, and someone feels it is ok to rip me off. It is not ok. If there was no security at a bank, and you could get away with robbing them, then it is ok to do it. That is what they are saying. I think you will see in the near future, people being prosecuted for this crime, like the kid in Canada. If that is what it takes, I am all for that. [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 2:26PM [Link] |
| ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 2:34PM [Link] |
| Gary Orona Member Producer, Director, HBO/Cinemax, International Award Winner. 75 Posts 2/10 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 2:44PM [Link] |
| Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 2:45PM [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 4:21PM Because if you borrow a dvd from your friend and copy it is it theft? You certainly haven't paid for it right? So it must be, correct? Or taping a song off the radio or a show off television or even skpping the ads on your DVD. Some or all of these acts could be or have been described as theft by some content owners. And that's the problem. Because when some run around around yelling that anything they don't like about how their content is used is theft then that renders the entire argument absurd.In fact there is no comparison between sharing content that your friend has purchased and appropriating property such as a physical object. Edited by - Zaer on 3/17/2010 4:23:59 PM [Link] |
| just_me Member 133 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 4:58PM [Link] |
| Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 5:21PM [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 5:50PM Given that what was previously described could be described as theft by some content owners, even when it's not. Such as borrowing dvd's from friends and copying them, taping songs off the radio, skipping ads on ones dvr, and because the content owners aren't compensated clearly they could all be considered theft correct? And the "laws" concerning this issue were based on the subjective beliefs of certain factions in society. Edited by - Zaer on 3/17/2010 5:52:12 PM [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 6:38PM On your second point, I disagree. There is no difference between people who break the law, yes there is severity differences, but both have still broken the law. Is it illegal to talk on your cell phone while driving in Ca. and other states? Yes it is. Is it a big deal? No, not until you kill a motorcyclist because you are too busy talking and not paying attention. So there is a case when it goes from someone who is a harmless lawbreaker to a serious lawbreaker, and it happens quickly. Will someone die from someone stealing content? No. Will it put people out of business? Yes. When you consider this is how they feed their families and pay their bills and put their kids thru school, it is egregious. Hey you know what, some people are raised to do the right thing and some are not, I know the difference between right and wrong, stealing is wrong, pretty simple. [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 6:54PM If your friend consents to loan you his dvd, there is no problem, if you steal the dvd from your friend without his consent it is wrong. do you agree with that? For arguments sake, let's say I consider you my friend, why are you stealing my content without my consent? Your taping concerns off radio or T.V. have been answered 100 times. You can tape for your personal use, if you upload what you taped, it is illegal. "In fact there is no comparison between sharing content that your friend has purchased and appropriating property such as a physical object." The people on torrents do not own the content to be able to share it with you. Plus the fact they are not your friends, I doubt you know even one personally. If you do go over his house and ask to borrow his dvds. No disrespect, but you are full of excuses that all point to you being wrong. Your arguments are very elementary, much like a 12 year old who's parents say don't do that, and in defiance, you stomp your feet and ask, " why not, give me a better reason!" Now there is Gary, who, if he met you, I bet would give you a really good tune up. Here is a guy who puts up his hard earned cash, sweat and time in a movie to make a dollar, you are taking food out of his mouth, and wonder why he would love to beat you to a pulp. To me, it is apparent, to you, it is a game. [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 6:58PM Dude, sounds like you have short arms and long pockets. Try paying for your pleasure, like the rest of us do. [Link] |
 | |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 7:02PM CDs and DVDs to feature a new FBI warning label CDs and DVDs to feature a new FBI warning label Trade groups representing movie, game and music publishers announced today that all new CDs, DVDs and games sold in the United States will shortly feature an FBI warning label warning about serious consequences that unauthorized copying might cause to the person violating copyright laws. The label will replace the old variety of labels already shown in most of the media products and will also be significantly more visible on the product cover. The new warning says "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000." Trade groups behind the initiative were MPAA, RIAA and ESA (Entertainment Software Association that represent video game publishers). This should clear up what is legal and illegal for you Z. Edited by - hollywood woody on 3/17/2010 7:46:17 PM [Link] |
| ILVBUTT Member Nice & Juicy! 925 Posts 9/09 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 7:02PM [Link] |
| ChodeMasterJ Perpetual Marxist 5405 Posts 4/03 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 8:13PM [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 8:25PM Because like your arguments, it depends on one's beliefs on what is to be considered theft. Because one content owner could consider it theft to tape a song off the radio (Which some record execs believe) and then what? Is it then theft? Or one content owner could consider it theft for one to borrow a friends dvd and view it and not compensate the content owner for viewing it. Because shouldn't the content owner be compensated twice? And if it became the law to consider it wrong would it then be theft? And that's why this discussion is subjective and thus meaningless. Edited by - Zaer on 3/17/2010 8:37:33 PM [Link] |
| Johnothan Pedak Senior Member Catastrophe 1594 Posts 6/07 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 1:21AM [Link] |
BlackSix  All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 4:15AM If anything it seems based off of Marxist or Anarchist notions. Nothing the matter with that, but it is hardly 'common-sense.' [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 8:23AM Although the focus of the story is on disclosure, please note WHAT they are talking about:If that's too 'esoteric' for you guys, they're talking about an INTERNATIONAL copyright agreement that will allow owners of the copyright to find out exactly who is uploading and downloading THEIR property, and they aren't trying to find YOU out to tell you that what you're doing is okay with them. I told you it had to happen. Well guess what: it's happening. [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 1:39PM It doesn't matter what your beliefs on what theft is, it either is or isn't. According to the law, if you make a copy of someones dvd or cd, it is breaking the law. If you borrow a cd or dvd from a friend, it is not, when you copy it, it is. Period. That is the law, see the FBI warning. If you buy a dvd and upload it to a share site, you just broke the law, if you download it from a share site you broke the law. Because other people do it, doesn't make it legal, they too are breaking the law. Therefore if they are breaking the law, they are stealing content. You would be just better off to say, I disregard the law and i am stealing your content, then making this stupid justifications. I would respect that more. [Link] |
| MikeSouth Deactivated User 511 Posts 11/02 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 3:04PM what we have here is a thief trying to tell the world he just "found" the shit he steals He tries to rationalize the fact that he knows he is doing wrong....no point trying to change his mind, he could go to jail for it, convicted by a jury of his peers and his cry would be "but i didnt do anything wrong" but inside he knows the truth just like the rest of us. if you are going to be a fucking thief at least be man enough to say ya I stole your shit, don't try to tell me with a bunch of fucking pussy ass talk that you only borrowed it. [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 3:21PM What we have here is a failure to communicate. Mike, we have the proverbial, I am pissing on your leg and I'm gonna tell you it's raining story here. I say the exact same thing, just say I am fucking you, I am a thief and I'm ripping you off, cowboy up there pard. Instead he is using semantics to justify his thievery. I have, over the last year, come to really like Mike South, at least Mike will tell you how it is without a candy coated bunch of bullshit. I respect that. [Link] |
| seedfeeder Member My balls are full, who's hungry? 716 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 3:36PM It includes actual property, like an idea. You can't touch an idea, you can't taste it, you can't feel it or see the idea itself. But it has value, and it IS property in some cases. I own trademarks, I own logos, etc. These are more concepts than physical things... but guess what, they are still "Property". Property comes in many forms. I too need to be frank: You don't have the intellectual capacity to argue on the losing side of a case (some of us do-you don't), so quit trying. You are a thief indeed and it is no different than the bank analogy that holly gave... except a thief who robs a bank has bigger balls than you-who do it in the dark, hiding behind a computer screen. My two cents. [Link] |
| MikeSouth Deactivated User 511 Posts 11/02 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 3:40PM [Link] |
| Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 3:53PM [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 4:47PM Borrowing DVDs is fine, copying them is not. Taping the songs off the radio is legal, although I don't know many people who have a cassette deck hooked up to their radio and sit there and tape a song. If they played it on the radio, they will surely play it again. The point of them playing a song on the radio is that if you like that song, in my day you would buy the album, now you can just buy that song off itunes. If you can't fork out the 99 cents or 2 bucks for that song, you probably should look into getting a better job. I have never heard of skipping commercials on a program I recorded on my DVR as being illegal, that is just retarded. I dvr law and order, am I suppose to watch the commercials? really? seriously? really. [Link] |
| mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 7:02PM Unfortunately, a lot of the songs that I like are no longer available, so I do listen to them on You Tube from time to time. If anyone knows a source for legal copies to older, more obscure music (preferably in WMA or Mp3 form paid for via credit card), please list them here. [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 7:48PM We have a pretty good idea, and perhaos there are some shades of gray here andthere. Yes songs are played over the air and movies as well, there are devices (all of them leagal) that allow you to record to hear/see the material again and even keep it permanently. That is regarded as "fair (personal) use". Lending such material to others (without any type of compensation) appears to be leagal. The makers and producers of such material all have come out swinging in this thread and are angry (and rightfully so) that it hurts their business, their livelyhood and the livelyhood of their staff, and talent they hire and the various companies they trade with (duplicators, distributors, etc). All claim they are honorable and law-abiding people and have no tolerance whatsoever for those that illegally take from them. Now I have a question (NO, NO I am not justifying theft, I am not making any excuses for it, and I am not encouraging people to conduct themselves in a dishonoest/immoral way), perhaps more than a question: =Have you ever stolen another man's wife/girlfriend? Have you ever cheated on your girlfriend/partner? Have you ever cheated a business partner? Have you ever unjustly fired an employee? Have you ever sexually harassed an employee? Have you always repaid your debts? Have you ever hidden your assets from your creditors when filing for bankruptcy,or feigining poverty to repay creditors? Have you always scrupulously observed traffic rules (never run a red light, never driving under the influence, speeding, tc)? Have you ever used drugs,or abused medication or alcohol? Have you ever placed illegal bets or been involved in illegal gambling? =I used to work for a corporation that would do criminal checks (on ALL its new employees) and would not hire anyone with a criminal record. Does the adult movie industry use the same guidelines? Does it conduct criminal checks for its employees and talent they hire? Do they refuse to hire people that have criminal records? If they have no such policy, why not? Who are the ones that do, and who are the one that don't adhere to these guidelines? =What is your position on the Roman Polanski case? He drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl and fled before he could be sentenced to a prison term. He has been living in France since that time, been making movies which are widely distributed all over the world (some have received prestigious prizes). Have you rented, bought any of his movies since his arrest/conviction? The movie industry keeps making money off of his movies, but if you have bought/rented/seen his movies in a movie theater you have put money in the hands of this individual (and the mainstream movie industry). Why would you? What message are you sending to your wife/partner/young daughter/son? =What about Max Hardcore? He has been sentenced and has been sent to prison for obscenity. Yet his movies are still in circulation, and the adult movie industry is making money off of his "material"! =What about Janine? Yes, she was convicted and sentenced for tax evasion (in making porn movies). Tax evasion means you earned money, kept it, but did not pay Uncle Sam his rightful share. She is now out and has returned to doing porn. Why is the porn industry allowing her to do that? What message does it send to people or the regular porn consumer? =When a internet hacker is caught and sentenced, the usual sentence is that he is not to have any computer or internet connection. =I have raised this question before in previous posts, but everyone seems to avoid it. Why does the entertainment industry continually petiton Congress and has been allowed to extend the copyright prescription, when it was originally 13 yrs and later it was doubled? [Link] |
| ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Mar 18 2010 : 9:04PM Len801 brings up a good point about copyright. That 50+ year duration is an arbitrary time period, and we all know it's gonna get extended again. [Link] |
| Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 1:42AM I'm sure your posts were thoughtful, and I tried to read them, but my eyes started to water. Edited by - Clam Digger on 3/19/2010 1:55:41 AM [Link] |
| charn fubar 2880 Posts 12/09 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 1:49AM [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 2:52AM Furthermore, as has already been said, sharing purchased content is not equivalent to appropriating physical property. And if you can find objective evidence to indicate it is I'd like to see it. Because the fact is that your definition is subjective. And taping songs off the radio is considered by some to be theft. Is it though? And skipping ads on your dvd is considered by some to be theft. Is it though? See how easy that is? Whatever you wish to call theft, is. And that's why the discussion on this subject is meaningless.What truth? The truth is this entire discussion is based on opinions. Including the definitions used. And even with ad hominems you still haven't objectively defined how sharing purchased content is equivalent to appropriating physical property.Actually skipping ads on ones dvr has been described as theft. From an article on DVR's http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-05-27/business/17545740_1_dvr-commercials-channel-surfing In an interview last month with Cable World magazine, Jamie Kellner, chairman and chief executive officer of Turner Broadcasting, called ad skipping outright stealing. "It's theft," Kellner told the publication. "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis." And that's one of the main reasons why yelling theft about anything one finds disagreeable makes the entire discussion meaningless. Edited by - Zaer on 3/19/2010 2:55:22 AM [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 11:36AM Young people are not stupid or fools. They can see, they can read. It is difficult for a parent who drinks, smokes or is abusive to his children to impart any meaningful life lessons to his children. Young people are taught by example. By older people/peers they look up to and respect. When these people are discovered to be hypocrites and scoundrels and dishonest, young people become cynical, they don't listen and do not look up to them as role models. So why is not even the movie industry turning its back on a guy like Roman Polanski? What if he had drugged and raped your own adolescent daughter, how would you perceive that situation? Would you want to go out and see his movie(s) in a movier theater or rent and buy the DVD? What if you rented one of his movies, and left the DVD on the table when your young daughter or son came back from school? What message does he/she get? Do you see, buy or rent Woody Allen movies? Why give this man money? Why is Jadedvideo and other distributors still selling Max Hardcore movies? Why is Janine still in the business? Why does the adult movie industry allow Marc Wallice to work? If you have righteous and moral indignation over theft of intellectual property, is it only limited to that and nothing but that, but everything else is fair game in the world? And again, if at the time when intellectual property had very limited distribution and short life span, the law prescribed it for 13 years when it eventually fell into "public domain", it was later doubled to 27 yrs, and again to double that. Then Disney, "horrified" of having "Plane Crazy" and "Steamboat Bill" (1927) fall into public domain again lobbied Congress, who only quickly obliged in extending copyright once again to practically eternity. So how long does it take to turn a profit on a movie, a song, a book? What reasons (in this modern age) does the entertainment industry have to continually petition Congress to extend copyright? When does anything of entertaining value fall now into "public domain"? Here is Disney who does not want a 70-yr old rickety short cartoon to fall into public domain, but is involved in a litigation with Peggy Lee over the songs she recorded for LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955), and Disney's refusal to pay her any residuals. If the accusations Mike South makes against Jules Jordan (who works within the adult industry) are correct, what does that tell to the rest of us? If they can't even behave honestly amongst themselves, why should I? It is nice to quote FBI enforcements and labels at the beginning of the DVD, but FBI does not educate nor enforce moral values, it only enforces the law, and acts upon complaints. If we wish to educate and properly one must first of all be looked upon as people with integrity and a certain degree of respect. [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 11:49AM I have seen interviewes with politicians, movie actors admitting to using DVR's and skipping over commercials. Are they behaving dishonestly too? The DVR's have been in use for some time. They have been built to have the capicity to "skip" over commercials (I believe that was/is the main selling point of these machines). Have manufacturers and consumers been charged, sentenced, sent to jail for breaking any law in using them as they were intended (to record a program and watch later, imcluding "skipping" over certain material?) [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 12:05PM There is no law on the books that says you must watch the commercials. No network, nor Time Warner, when they sold me the DVR said, you are required to watch commercials of shows you tape. The analogy is very poor to stealing content. I not sure what aspects of illegally uploading or downloading content that you don't own, doesn't make sense to you, but it is theft. If they make watching commercials mandatory, why would I have a DVR, I would just watch the show when it airs. Or if that was the case, they would take the fast forward button off the remote. By not watching commercials I am not stealing from anyone, NBC got paid for the commercial. If I dvr a program and burn it to a disc, and sell it or give it away, then i am stealing from the network. Pretty simple. Just because Zaer makes a statement that is not accurate, or makes up some nonsense, like i must watch commercials I DVR, doesn't make it so. [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 12:14PM Do you see, buy or rent Woody Allen movies? Why give this man money? Why is Jadedvideo and other distributors still selling Max Hardcore movies? Why is Janine still in the business? Why does the adult movie industry allow Marc Wallice to work? If you have righteous and moral indignation over theft of intellectual property, is it only limited to that and nothing but that, but everything else is fair game in the world? Why would I not give Woody Allen money? His personal life has nothing to do with his work. Jaded Video can sell what they want, if they get busted for it, they will have to defend themselves. Janine is not in the business right now, but why should she be banished? Because she didn't pay her taxes? Mark Wallice does not perform. [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 12:31PM That "reasonable period" changed over the years as authors lived longer, as legislators decided that artists' estates and heirs were entitled to profit from their work, and so forth. The case of Disney can be argued as an unjust bit of favortism, but I have no objection to an American icon of happiness getting a little special treatment. Is it fair that creators of artistic and entertainment media be paid by those who wish to experience or be entertained by it? As fair as it is that an electrician be paid for wiring your house. If the maker of entertainment happens not to be a nice person, should he be paid for entertaining people with his product? If that electrician goes home and beats his wife or has sex with his own kids, you STILL owe him for wiring your house. The history of the Arts and Entertaiment is as filled with people who did terrible things or who were not very nice people as any other profession. Gaughin deserted his wife and children. Toulose Latrec was a drunk and a junkie. Errol Fynn was a nazi and a pedophile. Character actor Albert Salmi murdered his wife and children. So what? Their art still inspires and their movies still entertain, and if they don't anymore because your disapproval of their conduct gets in the way of enjoying their work, well, don't pay to look at it. Go somewhere else. If you are a farmer and grow tomatoes and have sex with children do I have the right to steal your tomatoes with impunity? The law says no, I don't. Ethics say the tomatoes are still tomatoes and if I want them, I should fairly compensate the one who grew them. Law and ethics also say that you should be stopped from and punished for committing pedophilia. The two are unrelated matters irrelevant to each other. Your disapproval of an artist's conduct certainly entitles you to boycott his work. It does not entitle you to steal it. [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 12:49PM Is your sense of outrage and moral indignation limited to illegal download of porn/mainstream movies/music? Because it (only) affects your earnings, employment,and the company/industry you work for? Have you ever boycotted a company or product because of some a position they took or product they sold? Is your indignation only restricted to Polanski and Allen as it relates to their "personal" lives? In other words, the man is a "genius", he makes powerful, interesting movies, who cares that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, that happened many years ago. And that "other" guy, so what he married his step-daughter, what's wrong with that, and was having an affair with her while married? Who cares, right? If you have valued (that you spoke of in previous posts) the moral lessons your parents taught you, do you consider pertinent only those that relate to "stealing", as it only relates to your present/past employment? So you do not care whether you are morally/monetarily supporting people like Allen or Polasnki, or Janine, Wallice. It does not bother you in the least. Your only indignation is with that guy that got busted and sentenced for pirating movies, and that he should burn in hell for it, right? To clear some additional points: (1) Wallice does not perform in front of the camera, but has been working behind the camera (editing, directing, etc). So he still makes money from the adult industry. Your only indignation and sense of satisfaction is that he is not acting. That makes it OK by you, right? (2) Janine has been out for a while, and has returned to doing scenes. So what if she has been convicted for tax evasion (while shooting porn for many years)? No money off of your pay right? It only affects Uncle Sam, not every tax payer who dutifully pays his/her taxes! (3) Jadedvideo was the one that got Max in trouble. They testified against him, as far as it has been reported in the media. OK, so they can continue to sell what they want, who cares? Ok go impart a few moral lessons to your children as you sit with them when you watch the next golf tournament starring you know who, and tell them what a wonderful guy he is. On a last note, why is it you only comment on certain points and questions raised in my post, but not others? You have no comment, find them irrelevant, don't know what to say? What exactly?
[Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 1:01PM An electrician who comes and wire my house gets paid for that job ONCE. I don't have to send him a check every time I use the "wiring", either myself or generations to come. My moral disapproval definitely entitles me to boycott anyone I wish. And it does NOT entitle me to steal from him/her/it. I do not have to glorify or do not have to continue to put money in their hands either. These issues are always unrelated to you, because your ONLY concern is with "illegal downloading" and other copyright infringements. No other issues should get in the way of that single-minded argument, right? [Link] |
| Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 1:46PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 2:23PM It doesn't PERMANENTLY enjoy earnings. Copyrights expire. Perhaps if you were required to pay over and over again for each time tou watched a download or DVD, you could complain. But you're not personally required to pay each time you watch a movie any more than you are required to pay an electrician each time you use the wiring he installled. Your apparent complaint that owners of intellectual property are paid more than once for the same item wants to equate intellectual property with tangible goods like trucks or vacuum cleaners. They aren't the same. I worked for a time, once, at a manufactory of specialized bricks. The company was paid by its customers for its bricks. Once paid for, the customer owned the bricks permanently and they were the customer's to do with as they pleased. The company followed a recipe when making those bricks. That recipe was owned by another company, and for each brick my employer made, he had to pay for the use of the recipe, over and over again. The brick, being physical property, and the patent on the recipe for the brick, being intellectual property, are not the same thing. You seem to want to say that they are. If, as a customer, you buy a DVD or download, it's a brick that's yours to use or not as you wish. If you copy that DVD and sell the copies, you are no longer a customer, you have become a manufacturer, and, like the manufacturer of the brick who must pay for using the patented recipe, you owe royalties to the owner of the original from which your lawfully owned DVD or download was made. That's fair and that's the law. You want to argue that because you find it inconvenient, or because you don't approve of the owner's morals or his previous conduct, or because his product has no mass, or because he created his product fifty years ago he is not entitled to SELL it but must give it to you. That's nonsense. I want that snow blower you have for sale, but it's a bother to go get the money you want for it, so I'll just take the snow blower. I don't approve of how you are raising your children, so I'm going to take your car. You send an idea for an invention to me because I'm a patent attorney. That idea has no mass, so I'm going to take it as my own and sell it to a manufacturer. Your house was built in 1959, so it's mine now. In this capitalist world, things, recipes, skills, visual and sensory media, ideas: all are owned. If you want those things or the use of those skills or to enjoy those media, you compensate their owners. In turn if you own any of those commodities that another wants, he compensates you. If you do not compensate the owner for what you take or use that is his, you are a thief. If he does not compensate you for what is yours, he is a thief. All the semantic perambulations and moral judgements and reprehensible past conduct are totally irrelevant. You know all of this perfectly well. Edited by - duefuss on 3/19/2010 2:26:21 PM [Link] |
| seedfeeder Member My balls are full, who's hungry? 716 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 2:37PM So you have no point here, what you are saying is neither relevant nor valid. The relevant arguments would work against you as these men and others like them did/do have patents and DO get paid. Another example: I think Microsoft STILL gets paid for any computer that has MSDOS on it (although most new computers no longer have it). Performing a Service (like wiring a house) is not related to something like Intellectual Property Rights. These movies, pornographic or otherwise, are indeed unique pieces of work (and even "art" in some cases) and as such fall under Intellectual Property. That means that for some time period, they get paid countless times for each piece of work. It's very confusing why anyone is arguing against the concept of Intellectual Property-there sure are a lot of morons on the internet. [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 3:27PM My last few posts and point dealt with educating the masses and especially the young generation about what is right and what is wrong which includes downloading material that has certain protections attached. Or perhaps you don't ascribe to this idea, or believe that such education is a waste of time, and arrest and prison terms is the ONLY solution. Perhaps police officers and other "educators" who continually go from school to school teaching kids (or endeavoring to) about child molestors, drug use, teen pregnancy, safe sex, are wasting their time as well? When the mainstream and adult movie industry seek to have the population on its side and want people to behave honestly about the product they wish to profit from, and to respect the law (as they themselves energetically lobby for and promulgate), then they should project the same image internally. I spoke of the difficulty of a parent who is an alcoholic, an abuser, a tax cheater, and what have you, who has to impart some moral and life lessons to his young children. When he gathers his family does he say to them: forget that I am a creep, an assohole, and generally a very distastful person to be with, I have some things that I want you to reflect upon and respect while living in this house: don't steal, don't drink, don't use drugs, don't beat up your boyfriend/girlfriend, don't cheat on your partner, don't be a bully in school, don't buy stolen goods, behave correctly at all times. Will the children listen? What respect do they have for that parent? Edited by - Len801 on 3/19/2010 3:30:45 PM [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 3:52PM [Link] |
| Len801 Deactivated User 754 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 5:52PM As to the question of Microsoft and the software it develops, if I have a Windows operating system installed in my PC or buy it separately, up to the time they still support that application they keep providing updates/fixes---free! With a DVD I buy, it is a one-time purchase. When the studio comes out with a director's cut which contains 3 additional minutes a few months later, I have to buy it all over again. The studio/distributor does not accept trade-ins, upgrades or anything else. [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 6:53PM I may be thoroughly disgusted by Woody Allens actions, but that doesn't mean I will boycott his movies. I did however stop buying or going to see anything Mel Gibson is in. So to answer your question, my indignation goes way beyond my own pocketbook and what affects me directly. I may hold contempt for Polanski, and to be honest with you haven't seen one of his movies in years, and will not see his new movie. I hold contempt for what is wrong, or what I believe to be wrong. I will not support West Coast Choppers any longer, because I know Jesse James and Sandra Bullock, and what he did was just plain wrong, and stupid. I also do not wish anyone to burn in hell, being Jewish I don't believe in Hell, but if someone kills someone, or steals something, or does something that breaks the law, I think they should be punished accordingly. If someone is speeding down the freeway at 100mph, I hope they get pulled over. Actually the only people I think should burn in Hell are people who talk on their cell phones while driving, or at the least be pulled over and have the phone shoved up their ass. Marc Wallice, whom I have know for 20 years has a right to make a living. Because he has AIDS, you think he should be denied that? He did not go out and infect anyone on purpose. I think your comments about him are very insensitive. Janine paid her fine and back taxes, in addition to doing time for her crime, why is it that she should be condemned? She did not bilk the tax payers out of billions of dollars like Bernie Madoff. Jaded Video did not get max in trouble, Max got Max in trouble. That is number one, and number two you should check your facts, it was Five Star Video, who is now out of business. If I was jaded Video I would be more than slightly upset with you for slandering their name. As for Tiger Woods, he is paying the price for his actions, I don't agree with what he did, but I can tell you he will be forgiven, and continue to be the greatest golfer in history. As for the other points in your post, I just can't that much time to read all that, I mean you post a mini novel, that was what stood out to me. I have now posted a mini novel in response to just that small part. [Link] |
| hollywood woody Senior Member Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 6:54PM [Link] |
| Zaer Deactivated User 249 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Mar 19 2010 : 7:11PM [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |