Innocent Mistake?

[fritzi93]

You know, newbies get jumped on pretty fast when they misuse terminology in such a way that an interpretation of illegality can be imputed. I have to wonder if such an interpretation is always justified. Only yesterday a noob apparently confused "copyright" and copy protection", and boy did he get slapped around!

I also have to wonder about a warning issued to a fellow who asked about movie download sites. The recording industry has finally wised up, making deals with for-a-fee music downloading sites. Now, I have no knowledge that the movie industry has plans for anything along the same lines, but would it not be feasible?

I can think of a few factors that would seem to be in favor of such a development:

1) Broadband is readily available most places now, and the price is falling. (Sadly, I'm still on dialup and have to wait a while longer).

2) Movies could be offered that are of guaranteed quality, from fast servers.

3) With little physical plant and no need to manufacture, ship, etc., a physical article, a very competitive price could be offered.

4) The novelty and convenience of such a venture would be bound to attract customers, and perhaps cut piracy significantly. Again, with low overhead and cost, why don't they give it a try?

Okay, this strayed a bit from the question of whether or not the original question was an innocent mistake or not. But to tell the truth, before I opened the thread, I was kind of hoping I'd see news about something along the lines of a for-a-fee movie downloading service. And maybe, just maybe, the asker of the question had that in mind as well.

Or not, how do I know? Anyway, any thoughts on the warning? Or the possibility of such a movie service?

[dicktheprick]

i think they have that already, called Pay-Per-View, its on most cable and satellite systems.

[ricky1756]

i agree with you on the download movie, the guy, to me, sounded like he wanted to legally download a movie at a pay site

[bugster]

There are already a number of sites where you can legally download movies. Many independant and short films can be downloaded free. Other full length movies you have to pay for and they often expire after a couple of days. Movieflix is just one such site and Atom films is great for short independant (often amateur) movies.

As to the guy who got warned asking about where to download movies, I only saw one such occurrence recently and the warning was removed by Baldrick (the site admin). Was there another?

[Treebeard]

I think he is referring to this thread

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=196474

It would lean towared illegal downloads ( i think ) because he says where to get new movies? although it is borderline.

[fritzi93]

Huh, shows how much I know. Pay-per-view never crossed my mind, although I have visited Atom Films. I was thinking more along the lines of popular movie downloads , yours legally, no expiration. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you make a copy off Pay-per-view, the rationale is time-shifting? NOT your property legally?

[andkiich]

There are places like www.cinemanow.com that offer movie downloads and streaming services for a fee.

[Gazorgan]

Based on the average cost of a T1 of bandwidth ($750 US dollars), and a 'DVD Quality DivX' being approximately 2 GB, then you can only upload 240 movies a month. You need to charge $3 just for bandwidth alone. Since Blockbuster is $2.99, this isn't going to work.

Now if we go with a DS3 being $20,000 US/month, you can now upload 7200 movies per month and....whoops, it's the same :P

Most people will dispute my DVD Quality DivX being 2 GB, but alas folks it's true. You want VCD quality then you go 700 MB. Some Disney (notorius 80 minute movies) can be 1200-1500 MB's for DVD quality.

So I guess ultimately your going to pay $4-$6 for a VCD quality download that will expire after some time period. And that's what's currently available.

Now to buy the movie instead of PPV will work. But the cost of the bandwidth is more than the cost of manufacturing a disk, and that neglects any costs for the hosting. You have to sell it for less than the $14.95-$19.95 stock price of a new release. Hollywood isn't going to sell a WMV version of The Return of the King over the Internet for $9.95 (and it would have to be closer to 3 GB's, it's nearly 200 minutes long!)

[ricky1756]

the guy was jumped on pretty hard, without enough imformation on what the guy wanted.

[fritzi93]

I suppose I stand corrected on the cost basis. Still, the advancements in this technology in just the past 10 years lead me to believe it won't be impractical for too much longer.

As for the guy who got the warning, I realize that this site has to be kept above the level of pirates swapping secrets. But I still think this might be a case of guilty until proven innocent, rather than the reverse.

[housepig]

fritz -

devil's advocate - would this be similar to someone going in to a bank and demainding of a teller "give me all your money" when he really meant to say "give me all my money"?

sure, he just asked for something using the wrong word, but it gives the impression of impropriety.

I do think that many previous posters have poisoned the well - there have been so many similar posts for illegitimate reasons, that when a legitimate request comes through, it's tarred with the same brush as the pirate requests.

[/b]

[rhegedus]

Would this be for new cinema releases or like a 6 month after release (DVD rental) product?

[fritzi93]

Thanks, Housepig. No disagreement with anything you said. The well is at least tainted, if not poisoned. (Seems far too many folks are parsing words, their own or those of others, looking for something that may be incriminating). And if I had to bet my life on it, then yeah, betcha he was talkin' WAREZ. But not definitely.

What if the guy had been given just a little more rope. Or maybe ask him what he's interested in? Some people are just too dumb, he might have hanged himself right then. If he lies, his bad, the site's in the clear. Or perhaps it was innocent, we can't know now.

Oh, please understand I'm not trying to criticize TGPO. Just seems to me the RIAA and MPAA have succeeded in making people a bit jumpy. Could recent high-profile piracy cases have something to do with that?

[Wetmonkey]

heres the Movie associations website site Movie Link
http://www.movielink.com
you can download new releases and have a period to watch them. Suprised no one brought this up.
Their files are encrypted and allow certain time frames of use or number of viewings. It requires their player to view the films.
The quality is not too bad not dvd more allong the lines of VHS, i believe it has the res. posted on the FAQ.

[Wetmonkey]

that DAMB QUOTE BUTTON

[gll99]

fritzi93:

That first noob that you are talking about: I was one of the guys who responded to his questions but he got some pretty good advice if you bothered to read it properly. His terminology (if wrong) was corrected and he was pointed to some pretty good software to start with.
He had already received good comments even before I spoke up. Most users spent more time formulating their answers than he did his questions but he got lots of help anyway so I wouldn't cry too hard for him. In fact if he runs into problems as he tries things out there will always be someone there to help, even those who yanked his chain a little.
The second case about downloading recent movies: The mod acted properly in issuing a warning since it's up to the user to clarify his request. If he doesn't like the response he got then all he has to do is pm the mod in question and explain his position. My grandson er... I mean, this mod is a reasonable person and if the explanation is accepted I'm sure he would act accordingly. Anyone with an unresolved beef could try to pm the all powerful administrator here if they feel wronged.

Negative comments may seem to serve little purpose but as long as they don't cross certain lines of decency, no matter how we may feel, they are an acceptable form of expression here.

[housepig]

Just seems to me the RIAA and MPAA have succeeded in making people a bit jumpy. Could recent high-profile piracy cases have something to do with that?

I think it's more the post-Christmas influx of noobs with brand-new burners who don't read any guides, so there's a higher profile right now of a) questions being asked that could be answered by a little reading and b) people getting tired of wading through those questions, who are getting a little aggro in their responses.

this is not anything new to this board - I've seen it since I started reading it. the community here has always tried to be vigilant about piracy, because some of the legitimate uses for this information (backups of personal property) have not been set by precedent in a court of law. We already tread a fine line for the legit uses, we certainly don't need pirates causing this site to be shut down.

[fritzi93]

Yeah, quite right. We tread a fine line. And I'm a little aggro too, cuz I don't want to feel associated with piracy. The more the subject comes up the more pissed I get.

Hey, nothing wrong with a bit of lively disagreement, it keeps things interesting. C'mon, you gotta admit, noobs have gotten some merciless treatment lately. How about that DVD to VHS thread? Oh, man was that funny, and I admit I contributed a post. And poor old carmaster, he musta left with his tail between his legs, although it WAS just about the dumbest question ever.

Thanks for the responses. Anybody else, feel free to have a crack at me. :P

[proxyx99]

Fritzi93. You were fully justified in raising this issue.
For everyone else: balance is usually arrived at by both sides pushing the extreme views. There is nothing wrong with presenting your opinion in the open forum like this. Noone is promoting illegal activities. But that also doesn't mean that we should all pretend not to know anything about what's out there. I agree with the notion that some visit forums like this to unload their anger on unsuspecting innocent souls. I've been here long enough (way longer then my current membership). In some members' views, political correctness should apply to everyone but them. In their view, it is OK to chop-up others in the name of their understanding of beeing politically correct.

[offline]

Hi,

Getting a formal warning is no big deal, it does not mean you
are a bad person. It is just a method to help keep this site
alive and free from the legal issues and general mindless
clutter of those sites that advocate warez.

[sacajaweeda]

You know, newbies get jumped on pretty fast when they misuse terminology in such a way that an interpretation of illegality can be imputed. I have to wonder if such an interpretation is always justified. Only yesterday a noob apparently confused "copyright" and copy protection", and boy did he get slapped around!

I also have to wonder about a warning issued to a fellow who asked about movie download sites.

Actually you shouldn't have to worry about that at all, because this site isn't about "movie download sites"; and a post by a user requesting information on movie download sites, noob or not, really has no reason for being here at this site to begin with.

HTH

[bugster]

heres the Movie associations website site Movie Link
http://www.movielink.com
you can download new releases and have a period to watch them.

Wouldn't let me in to the site coz I am not in the USA

Lot of use that is to the rest of the world.

[offline]

Wouldn't let me in to the site coz I am not in the USA
Lot of use that is to the rest of the world.

unless u spoof your DNS or hire a secret proxy service. According
their TOG you need to provide a USA address & phone number. If
you did not have a friend in the US you could always hire a redirecting
service for a few dollars a month.

Too much trouble for what is a near vhs quality picture - imho.

[tgpo]

I'm not trying to criticize TGPO.

Why not? It's really fun! Everyone should do it every now and then

There were a number of reasons I gave a warning. The wording of the question, the double posting of the question, and others.

If I'm in the wrong I have no problem having my decision revoked. But so far it doesn't seem to have worried the poster any

[offline]

But so far it doesn't seem to have worried the poster any

Ah.. famous last words; he probably has the voodoo doll ready
and is waiting for the pins, chicken feathers and blood. [/quote]

[MikieV]

I'm surprised that some people are worried about being "jumped-on" in these forums.

As TGPO posted in reply to the "Apologies to the M(ac)oderator" thread in the Mac Forum:

Warning are just that, warning. No biggy.

Most of us are here under "assumed names" that we can change at will (just open a different account) - with only the loss of our posting "score" and loyal fan-base.

How many people already have multiple logons? Who really cares?

Even if I am "banned", I can just get open a new account. 8) - Unless tgpo has downloaded a "ban" cookie to my hard-drive!

IMHO - which, I'm aware, really ain't worth s*#t - the warnings and bans are just to keep "the Man" from harassing the people who keep this site going.

Small price to pay, from my point of view.

Mike

[offline]

Even if I am "banned", I can just get open a new account.

If it was that easy why would we bother with banning as it would be
an empty threat. 8) Also check the fine print in your internet provider's TOG. You will find they can cancel your account and send your id to the blacklists if they receive a serious enough official complaint.

[MikieV]

...why would we bother with banning as it would be
an empty threat. 8) ...

Because, it would (hopefully) satisfy the corporate and/or goverment lawyers who would sue the website for not upholding the provisions of the DCMA - regarding publicizing the means of circumventing copy-protection.

I don't know any of the various moderators' personal opinions of copying and the DCMA - but I find it hard to believe the sole reason they try to prevent such discussions is altruistic. I think it more likely the main reason is as I stated previously - keep the lawyers at bay. (with no offense meant to lawyers).

Anyway, a warning or two should be all it takes for anyone with half-a-brain to realize the "topic" was not welcome. I find it hard to believe anyone would have to be banned for not "getting the hint". But then, I have lead a sheltered, law-abiding life.

And as far as the technicalities of banning, I check this site from my home account, and my work account - I could also check it from a computer at the public library. If I had more than one account (which I don't) I could be a real jerk on one, and mister law-abiding on another - that was the main point I was trying to make before.

Feels like I'm beating a dead horse, so I will end here.

Mike

[jimmalenko]

The thing that cracks me up on this site is the difference between "I want to copy a movie I rented" or "I want to convert a DVD Rip I downloaded" to "I want to backup my movie". The first two sentences will get you crucified here.

So many people crack the whip regarding copying rented movies and downloading DVD Rips when all you have to say is that you are making a backup of something you own. Lets not beat around the bush here. I think it is fair to say that most members on this site simply use the lingo that avoids any action from the mods.

It is very noble of some diehards to say they never copied a rented DVD but I would like to see some stats !