Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 3:34AM
Just for the purposes of debate: Say for instance, I have just bought a new remastered re-edited edition of a movie that was made in a much more decadent era and I just happen to notice that several fisting/pee/enema/quadruple pussy penetration scenes are missing from the new cut. This has nothing to do with 2257, the cuts were made in order to prevent any more 2257's. How many of you would say that I'm stealing and doing a disservice to the industry if I go on the internet and download the movie with the missing scenes from an earlier uncut copy that is now OOP? Edited by - imsorry on Aug 21 2009
It can be a slippery slope, methinks. You didn't buy the scene you actually wanted. You bought the license to a 'rehash.' That's crappy of the company that put the scene out. From a legal perspective, it'd be illegal to download the movie in question, and you could face the same consequences. It's on par with saying you thought you were renting the original version of Deep Throat, but instead they sold you a lame PG 13 version, and that was your justification for sneaking into the video shop and 'borrowing' the original version to copy it. The company that actually owns the content has the right to do whatever horrible things it likes with that content. You have the right not to buy from that company, if you don't like what the company does to their products. Once you start justifying "well, I paid for XYZ movie" it becomes easy to say "well, I paid for *a* movie from JKL company, it doesn't really matter." Ultimately, we're all responsible for our own choices, and have to decide if we can look in the mirror or not. John
[Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User
under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08
Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 7:49AM
In order to steal something from someone, there has to be a deficit created in the stock of that thing... Downloading a copy off the internet in no way steals anything from anyone. They started with 1000 DVDs in stock, and they still have 1000 DVDs in stock... It isn't at all like sneaking into a video shop... At no time have you impacted/prevented anyone else who wanted to pay for it, from getting it. You paid for it once... How many more times should you be expected to pay for one thing? I have no trouble looking in the mirror...
Is Downloading material illegal? I'm sure in the future when criminal law catches up to technology it will be illegal. Civil lawsuits are filed daily and huge damages have been awarded. Currently I can't find a source that say it is illegal.
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 12:17PM
It's on par with saying you thought you were renting the original version of Deep Throat, but instead they sold you a lame PG 13 version, and that was your justification for sneaking into the video shop and 'borrowing' the original version to copy it. You mean buying not renting here in this sentence, right? Or do you? Is there any situation you can think of in which you would say downloading would be the right choice? Edited by - imsorry on 8/21/2009 12:51:58 PM
I don't believe 2257 can be applied retroactively, so the justification you propose is unlikely. Let's just say the movie has been re-edited for reasons unknown. Perhaps the thing to do is to ask the producers if they have plans to release an unedited version. If not, are they OK with you downloading an unedited version to complement the version you purchased?
But one isn't buying the DVD. If you were everyone would just buy the blank DVD-Rs. You are buying the content on the DVD. Taking the content but leaving the DVD is still stealing the intended item for purchase and the item with the real worth. I know I'm wasting my time because you happily steal.
If you aren't downloading the movie from the company that owns it or a company that has properly licensed it then you are stealing. It can be rough when you find out that the title you bought has been hacked to shreds. But it unfortunately happens. And very seldom is it marked on the packaging to help the consumer. Your recourse is to contact the company and hope they care or stop buying from that company.
The only situation I'd (personally) consider downloading it to be ethical, would be if you read that the company who owns the material had a fire and lost all access to that content, irrevocably losing the means to continue to reproduce that content in any form, if the copyright expired (often that takes about 100 years), or if the company abandoned the copyright and simply turned the content over to the public domain. I wasn't focused on the rental vs purchase issue, rather I was pointing out that the company apparently said they were selling you "Great Movie 12!" and instead sold you "Great Movie 12 (minus most of the good scenes.)" Disney made a point not to re-release every one of their movies on VHS and DVD, choosing to stagger releases one at a time so a family could (and would) wait anxiously for the next movie to be released every few months or so. It's sad that the company in your example is mismanaging their content, but sadly that's their prerogative. If you don't like their business practices, you shouldn't buy from them. +1 Flash. New Romancer: If you cut the DVD out of the case, take it home, copy it, then bring it back to the store and shove it back in the case, you've still stolen the movie. Stealing isn't about the inventory the shop has, it's about you possessing something you didn't pay for. If it had been impossible for you to pirate DVDs, do you really expect people to believe you wouldn't ever buy or rent those movies legally? Regards, John
[Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User
under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08
Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 2:28PM
"you happily steal" No.. I live in a country where, for now at least, our laws are not so short sighted. There are a bunch of people who want Canada to follow USA's draconian lead in such matters... But fortunately it seems like a lot MORE people want us to be more progressive... Besides, trying to make a law against internet downloading is about as unenforceable as, oh lets say a law against smoking pot... What the OP suggests is perfectly legal in my country. Others will have to check with their own local laws...
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 3:18PM
OK thanks for your consideration. I really appreciate everyone' s responses, regardless of whether they are in alignment with my own feelings or not. I think the situation is a complicated one and sometimes I feel that "people in the industry" (not naming names!) don't give this issue the attention it deserves. To be more succinct, I think there's been a whole lot of black and white written over what is in reality a very grey issue to most people: that being--what is owed to the consumer? When we choose to speak in terms of legality only, we neglect the fact that laws are made by ethics, and ethics may change faster than the law does. Is a producer (as owner of the copyright) also responsible to be available to answer questions about downloading unedited versions to every single person that buys that product? Is no reply a yes or a no? When does mismanagement get held accountable, if the "don't like it?don't buy it!" maxim fails to keep it's promise of a better free market (as we've seen with the failing bank system)via luck, accident, or graft/unholy alliance?
^ Grey is one way to put it. I wouldn't crucify someone for illegally downloading one movie. I wouldn't call them names or say they're a bad person. People who make a habit of doing things illegally, make a habit of doing things illegally; it's repeated patterns that I demonize. Anyone attempting to effect social change knows that you can't be wishy washy. "Just Say No" doesn't say "Just Say No (except when your doctor prescribes it, or trying a joint when you're 23 for kicks)" for a reason. By drawing very hard black/white lines, it's easier to herd society in one direction in an orderly fashion. When you start telling them "use your best judgment" you'll inevitably find a leap in behavior contrary to the direction you're trying to guide them. Stealing a computer from a shop is a bad thing. Using a friend's laptop without permission for a minute while he's running to buy beer is also a bad thing. In the end, as I said, you're the one looking in the mirror. John
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 4:06PM
I think Just Say No didn't work because it took the media pulpit. When Reagan said that, she wasn't treating the populus as individuals with individual situations, she treated people as automatons without the ability to decide for themselves what was right/not right for them. Had Reagan been asked the question in an interview about drugs, and she had said: "I personally don't want drugs in my life because of x reason" that would've made a lot more impact because to some, she was a role model. Instead, it becomes a (how many billion now?) failing war on drugs because now the government gets involved in social issues instead of just policing the borders etc. In short, I don't think you should try to guide people, because what's best for you is not best for everyone else, and you do not know everything. I believe in actions and consequences. Edited by - imsorry on 8/21/2009 4:07:29 PM
[Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User
under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08
Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 4:50PM
It didn't work because it never works... It never will either...
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
IMHO that's a little too extreme. You've got the right idea though; for the most part I ask two questions before DL: 1) Is what I'm looking for available legally?? 2) Is what I'm looking for ever going to be available legally in the forseeable future? Take the Batman television series for instance. Here's something that a lot of people want and would probably pay a premium price for. But there's nothing on the horizon and for a score of legal reasons it probably never will be. All the material is there, sitting in the vaults somewhere, so theoretically it could see the light of day. But here we are, 7 years after dvd box sets began to soar in popularity and no Batman. Same goes for the Motown 25 Special, and the Jackson 5 Cartoon show. Those things have never been made available, and now bootleggers are fetching premium prices for them. More power to them, I say. IMHO, people selling dvds of the Batman series are not pirates. They are bootleggers. They are selling something which, is not theirs, but is also not available by legal means. If someone downloads any of the Batman movies illegaly, then, yeah, that's piracy and that's stealing. Full disclosure: I duplicated a 1988 PBS Live From Lincoln Center special (feat the jugglers known as the Flying Karamazov Brothers) for a number of people on Usenet's tape-trading forum. (Normally stuff is traded, but I consented to do it for people for a nominal fee - just the costs of S&H) I did this in 1999-2000 or thereabouts. So at the time it had been 11-12 years and was not available. It's now 2009 and it's still not available from PBS, the Karamazov brothers or anyone else. (It's a shame really -- it's a live, comedic rendition of Shakespeare's "Comedy of Errors" with lots of juggling. It's a true work of art.) I made a lot of people happy with that dupe, and I don't think what I did was wrong. I put it up on Youtube in 2007, and so far it's still up there. My feeling with imsorry is that he's within his rights, because 1) it appears he got screwed by the distributor and 2) what he wants is not available through legal means.
^ but what if, beyond all suspicion, it ends up being available legally next month. Then you, and others like you, now have the Batman series, which you would have purchased legally, had you only known it was coming out next month. Now, the company, for reasons out of their control (possibly), are going to make less money on their box set than they would have, because others acquired the product via means other than the company which holds the copyright. That sounds an awful lot like stealing, right? That's why these copyrights exist for 100 yrs or whatever it is. Because even if it doesn't look like the company will be able to do something with their copyrighted material, they may figure out sooner or later how to do something with it. And if everyone has already acquired it via some other channel, then they're screwed on the product to which they own the copyright. Even if it's not technically theft by the official definition, it's most certainly some kind of infringement, as described above. You can decide for yourself if it's morally wrong, but one way or another, yes, it is illegal.
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 6:28PM
^I saw the other mod do this, so I hope it's okay (if it's not then delete this). Either way, in reply to yours about things kept OOP When does mismanagement get held accountable, if the "don't like it?don't buy it!" maxim fails to keep it's promise of a better free market (as we've seen with the failing bank system)via luck, accident, or graft/unholy alliance?
Zarinafan, Ultimately, your justification derives from a sense that you are entitled to a product (in this case, a TV series) simply because it's not otherwise available. We are not entitled to movies any more than we are entitled to gasoline. That movies can be copied and oil can not still doesn't make otherwise unethical activities ethical. To be fair, this comes in part from a consumer culture in which advertisers have sold you the idea that you are entitled to their products, and that the money necessary to purchase said products are a minor glitch. That doesn't change the underlying ethics. John Edited by - JohnHenry on 8/21/2009 6:39:41 PM
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 6:48PM
^this is why I don't think that argument works John We have libraries that have books that are out of print. We have radio stations that play songs that are out of print. I don't see why we are not entitled to movies. It is all media information, and I'm surprised there are no porn libraries. Porn is information too, albeit--cultural information. When the colonies were first formed, there was a backlash against the English bougoise. People said: "Why are they any better than us just because they've had the chance to be exposed to different things?" This was when we started adding surname titles: "Mr." (Monsieur) and "Mrs" (Mistress) to our names.
^ Those books and albums in libraries and radio stations? They were legally purchased from the original sources. They weren't photocopied versions of books, or dubbed tapes borrowed from friends. If someone steals the out of print book from the library, the library doesn't generally go scouring the earth looking for another copy. Libraries and radio stations don't entitle consumers to information; they offer the privilege of sharing knowledge. John
Hey man. You saw the other mod do what? Anyway I don't see anything wrong w/ your post. But in reply to it, I think John Henry's post directly above this one is basically the same as the answer I would give. Those things at libraries, radio stations, etc. were purchased legally at some point. Further, who can know why a particular work isn't available at this time. Who gets to decide whether it should have been released already or not? Who gets to decide whether the reason it hasn't been released yet is justifiable, or 'fair"? Certainly not us, who have nothing to do with the company or the process. As John Henry put it (he's on point tonight!) the idea that "we deserve to have it" comes from this concept of consumer culture which leads us to believe that we deserve to have access to anything and everything, so long as we have the capital to acquire it. While this is what we're often taught in popular culture and perhaps even in schools, there is no reason inherent to the movement of the universe, the planet or even the country that requires this to be true. In fact, you can't always get what you want (I think I heard that phrase somewhere ), nor do you get to decide which things you can and can't have. You and I have no inherent right to be able to own any given thing. Many things are available for purchase, and many are not. That's just how it goes.
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 10:19PM
forget all this....you guys are not worth the effort. Edited by - imsorry on 8/21/2009 11:14:42 PM
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
compound question, so 2 answers. 1) stealing or not? yes, you are stealing content that you did not pay for. 2) disservice to the industry? definitely a disservice to the content producer. the scenario you describe involves a disgruntled consumer who is rationalizing theft of IP. an understandable rationalization, but rationalization nonetheless. when consumers purchased the newer version of "star wars" and were disappointed that greedo shot first, their unhappiness with the product does not give them the right to download the original version where han shot first.
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
imsorry, I didn't really go into depth about the library issue because I try to keep my posts succinct (even if I regularly fail.) In no way do I give a library short shrift over when out of print books are stolen; on the contrary, I can only imagine the headache a library goes through. I think fundamentally, man has a moral imperative to share knowledge and the collection of his experiences with his fellow man, when he may and how he may. Commercialization of knowledge and information is a relatively new concept, that has only truly become profitable with the increase in the means of replicating information (i.e. the motion picture, the gramophone, and their many successors.) Society is rarely capable of evolving at the same rate as technology, and copyrights are imperfect solutions to imperfect problems. I think we simply have opposing views on the topic, which is just fine. I can see a similar debate brewing over health care; many people claiming that everyone in our society is entitled to health care, and not so many saying "we're entitled to the health care that we, as a society can afford." (Not trying to take this on a health care debate tangent, just drawing a parallel.) I believe we are entitled to the health care that our society can reasonably afford; currently, our society is trillions of dollars in debt, because of a war we couldn't afford, because of massive spending on social programs we can't afford. I live in a state where workers have been written IOUs because the state treasury couldn't afford to pay them. I believe our societies sense of entitlement is causing far too many people to write checks that their asses can't cash. John
Sorry if you aren't getting the answers you wanted to. The copyright holder owns the work. They can chose to only show it under the ocean on February 29th and it still doesn't make it right to take a copy. A person isn't entitled to anything, no matter how much they think they are.
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 12:57PM
I just stole a whole bunch of movies to help the porn industry die faster.
Not that it justifies downloading it (b/c two wrongs don't make a right), but if the movie in question that you purchased gave the sincere impression that those scenes were in the copy that you purchased, I would say that you were a victim of fraud and / or false advertising in your original purchase. If it says that it's re-edited and doesn't give the sincere impression that those scenes are still in the movie, then it sucks but it's still legit--what they did, that is. (In my unprofessional opinion.) In terms of downloading under the original (fraudulent) conditions, it's still copyright infringement...but I doubt that most people would view it as seriously as if you had blatantly downloaded without paying for a copy of the work. I'm not saying that it would be right to do, but I do think that circumstances come into play when speaking about the severity of any given offense. So...in my opinion...it would be wrong, but it wouldn't be "as wrong" as it would be under other conditions.
^^^ don't bother with him, he just thinks he can convince porn producers here that they should be happy and willing to give away all their content for free Edited by - just_me on 8/22/2009 1:24:11 PM
All these comparisons between porn and library books make me wonder: Are a lot of people actually watching porn for the information and knowledge it contains? Does porn as a whole provide knowledge in any meaningful way? Cultural products can provide knowledge, entertainment, and/or sexual stimulation. Porn in general provides entertainment and sexual stimulation (except for bad porn, which only provides frustration). Some individual porn movies may also provide knowledge (about sex and attitudes toward sex, and obviously about porn as such). But the knowledge porn movies provide is quite limited - different sexual practices exist or at least can be imagined - and highly redundant from one movie to another. My point is that, even if there were some universal right to knowledge, it might not necessarily apply equally to all kinds of cultural products.
It's not stealing, not immoral and not a problem. You can not get access to the scenes by paying money so you do it without paying money. No loss for the producer. Simple. Example: Kid downloads Photoshop. No loss for Adobe, because kid doesn't have 999$ to toss at software. It's illegal, who cares? Lots of things are illegal that really shouldn't be. /thread
^Different people will define knowledge differently. People have come to expect movies to have a level of sophistication today that requires large teams of specialists who do specific jobs full time. Can anyone imagine watching District 9 (and really enjoying it) on the original Star Wars budget? I think it would be foolish to expect that those specialists would continue to make great movies when they're not being paid for their efforts. Just because people are doing jobs that they really enjoy doesn't mean they don't deserve to be fairly paid for their work. As mentioned before, people can rationalize anything. A man who's worried about his children being hungry can pockets five pounds of steak to feed his family and rationalize that his family needs the food more than the supermarket needs the profit. On a larger scale though, your average supermarket has very very low profit margins on most of their food. If %20 of people steal from a supermarket regularly, the chain is likely to shut that store down in that part of town. People aren't entitled to food, any more than they are entitled to knowledge. They are entitled the opportunity to find food, just as they are entitled the opportunity to pursue knowledge. Taking, without giving anything back, isn't contributing to society; it's mooching. That's what people do when they steal. John
When the kid grows up, what are the odds that he'll *ever* pay for Photoshop, even when he does have 999$. He's learned from childhood he can steal and get away with it. How much longer do you really think companies like Adobe will continue to develop software, if more and more kids today are taught they don't have to pay for it? John
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 2:45PM
so what are some good torrent sites? so far I've stolen 56 movies and watched two. The movies I've been stealing have mostly been movies done by people on this site cos they're jerks. Now watching Spanish Fly Pussy Search 9 done by Quaserman I believe...and it's not too good.
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 2:47PM
People aren't entitled to food, any more than they are entitled to knowledge. They are entitled the opportunity to find food, just as they are entitled the opportunity to pursue knowledge. John [/quote] blah blah blah ignore ignore ignore this dumb shit
As I said above regarding the porn movie/library book comparison, I don't think all these analogies are apt. We can believe that there's no right to porn that would justify infringement without believing that there's no right to anything. Porn is not a basic necessity. You can live without it. The same goes for the vast majority of cultural products. Food is a basic necessity. Without it, you're dead. (Just out of curiosity, does "the opportunity to find food" mean ensuring equal access to a level of sustenance adequate for survival, or does it just mean that everyone will fend for themselves?)
[Link]
imsorry Deactivated User
Fortune presents gifts not according to the book. 43 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 3:16PM
"you can live without your fingernails. you can live in chernobyl. you can live getting punched in the face every day. you can live in human excrement. i don't see what the problem is!"
[Link]
Bluto Deactivated User
511 Posts 3/09
Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 3:17PM
Problem is the Disney business model was aimed at both kids and adults, and as such is tricky to use in comparisons to adult fare. The flying cups ride at the original disneyland was constructed to appeal more to adults and thus began the annual family migrations to Disney. If Walt had to worry about distributing DVDs, he probably would have given up before he started. It would not have been seen as mismanagement, simply pragmatism. Obviously, stealing hardware was not a concern in 1950.
This abusive kind of reductio ad absurdum is even worse than comparing porn movies to library books or food. Are you seriously suggesting that being unable to see that porno you were keen on is similar to these horrific situations?
I'm obviously drifting a bit afield of the specific porn topic. I believe we live in a society that has taught us *not* to fend for ourselves, that the basics of survival (housing, food, medicine) are entitlements; that by virtue of having survived our passage through our mother's birth canal, the state should leap into action to ensure that we have every basic necessity. As a society, this sense of entitlement has chipped away at the very core of our ability to do more, better, for ourselves. People who never learn to cook certainly don't go on to become chefs. People who never learn to pay rent certainly don't go on to buy houses. By teaching our children that they shouldn't *have* to work for the things they want, we teach them not to work and condemn them to lives of mediocrity, of entire lives spent in front of a television consuming junk food, reality TV, and porn (oops.) Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness means we're entitled to opportunities; not guaranteed three squares and a rack. John
[Link]
motorcade Deactivated User
7 Posts 8/09
Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 5:15PM
You know, fu... I would be more shocked if he wasn't still here. ;) People need to stop thinking that deactivation actually does anything. If you really want someone to go then you need to talk it out and convince them why.
Hazel Heart Interview
Posted - Aug 21 2009 : 3:34AM
), nor do you get to decide which things you can and can't have.