Academy screener bootlegger arrested

[DereX888]

Yes you are breaking the law, and no the right to time shift does not include lending the backup to your friend. However innocent it may seem, this is distribution plain and simple. You have a right to time shift because you have access to the broadcast and thus you have a right to watch it anytime you want. So you can back it up for personal use. If your friend wants it they have to back it up themself off of their own broadcast.

Let me repeat, but with more detailed "case":
Lets assume I am going to watch some show I have recorded on (tape, DVD, whetever) earlier. You agree with me so far it is legal to do so. Now I have invited 2 friends to watch this show together. It is still perfectly legal, right? And it still doesnt matter that they don't watch it of off their own broadcast, but from a copy of off "my" broadcast, right?
Lets go further then.
One of the 2 invited friends couldn't show up. So I am dropping off my tape to him. Thats where you say it is illegal - but then please explain to me how does this is different from him watching same said tape at my home when he was invited? It is still the activity by very same persons involved, still the same tape involved (or any other form of media 'backup'), but now it is a "crime"?


@Ripper2860

yeah, those are depressing facts.
Democracy works only if people are involved, otherwise its a mockery. Thats why there is no democracy in good ol' US of A anymore, America is rather a "corporacy" than "democracy" now, it is mindboggling how all this could have happened...

[adam]

Don't shoot the messenger. I am telling you the logic behind the right to time shift, and the point where that right ends. Time shifting is protected under Fair Use. It is a legally protected right. Time shifting is literally a direct violation of copyright, but Fair Use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. It is a legally recognized excuse, but again only if you have the RIGHT to invoke it and only if you are in fact using this right as it was intended.

YOU have the right to watch YOUR broadcast, which also includes the right to time shift them, your friends only have the privilege to watch YOUR broadcasts. The right to time shift is so that you can watch your own broadcasts at a later date, or as many times as you want. How does lending a backup to your friend accomplish this? It doesn't which is why this Fair Use right doesn't apply to your friend borrowing a backup, even if they could have legally watched it with you at your house.

If this seems like a fine distinction its really not. Time shifting is to protect YOUR right to view the material. Just because your friend can hang out and watch too that doesn't extend any rights to them.

[DereX888]

Don't shoot the messenger

ofcourse I didnt mean that :>

YOU have the right to watch YOUR broadcast, which also includes the right to time shift them, your friends only have the privilege to watch YOUR broadcasts

yes, I understand it. But I still think the whole broadcast/copyright/fair use/and so on laws are flawed and defunct, as I described in the case of my previous example. I could go on and add few elemnts to that example (i.e. if my friends both have very same broadcast - giving them my tape still shouldnt be any crime, yet according to such sick law it is).

Im not a lawyer, therefore I shouldnt really discuss it here using only my "whats logical" arguments, specially knowing that US laws (as many others) have no logic at all very often.
In the end it all come down to MONEY, plain and simple. Giants like AOL Time Warner currently ruling USA will never let, or at least try not to let share with anyone what they consider as "their own" pie. And if there is no exact law saying "you and only you are allowed to watch your broadcast" - Im sure very soon there will be one, and your friends who come over to watch movie together will voluntarily call 1-800-MPAA- and pay with their credit card appropriate fee. Im sure thats a dream-come-true situation for all hollywood bandits, and they already think how to enforce it. They already have big on-air campaign against copying movies and music. Propaganda and brainwashing society through all available media is usually first step.
COPYING IS AN ACT OF TERRORISM AND IT WILL MEET WITH ADEQUATE RESPONSE FROM THE UNITED STATES FORCES. That will be first line of usual "FBI Warning" on each movie and audio disc soon, anyone taking a bet?

[DaBarrister]

In the end it all come down to MONEY, plain and simple.

Thank God for that.

Maybe I don't understand, but why is making money such a bad thing with the anti-copyright people on this forum? It costs money to put a product in the theater and on the shelves. Everyone likes to get paid for what they produce - and if they aren't getting paid, they don't produce. It's very simple, straightfoward economics.

Imagine going to work at your job, and when it's time for you to get paid the boss says, "Sorry, I can't pay you. Some people didn't like the fact that we had the gall to charge money for the excellent product you produced, so they stole it."

What you don't realize is that the laws are there for YOUR protection, as well. If ideas, songs, movies, etc. aren't protected, then those ideas, songs, movies, etc. will not enter the marketplace. Who loses? You do. Do you think the backers of the Lord of the Rings would invest $300 million plus just to give away the final product? As it is most films lose money. So although some movies that should be made will be screened out by the marketplace, it's mostly crap like Gigli that never see the light of day.

Copyright isn't perfect; I've yet to see anything in this world that is. If any of you have a better solution, let's hear it. Here are the groundrules: 1) the level of production has to remain the same or better; 2) people who work on the product and invest in the product have to earn a living; and 3) the quality of the product must remain the same or better.

Ready? On your mark... get set... go!

[vitualis]

Copyright laws as there to protect everyone... but it is a fine balance.

Interesting enough, copyright laws were first introduced in part to prevent what Hollywood and the record companies are tyring to doing now.

Back a few centuries, large publishing guilds were the only entities large enough to publish books in any volume and they also bought the rights to many manuscripts/texts. Before modern copyright laws, these rights would in essense last forever. What this meant was that huge volumes of literature that was no longer contemporary would sit around in warehouses and be lost (as nobody else could publish them and it was no longer profitable for the publisher who owned the rights to release them).

This is the reason why copyrights expire... so after a certain period of time (where the copyright owner had a chance to make so money off their intellectual property), it would be released into the public domain.

If not for copyright laws, we would probably not know (e.g.,) the literature from the 19th century.

The ultimate balance in copyright laws is in that it allows people who want to make a living from producing intellectual content to do so (i.e., pro copyright owner) but at the same time, preventing this content/information/knowledge to be lost to the public out of some sort of arbitary "protection" (i.e., pro public). I for one think that copyright laws have been slipping down the slope towards benefiting the copyright owners at the expense of the public.

Regards.

[twilightzone]

Arnold Schwarzenegger made $30 million for his role in Terminator 3. The most any actor has ever earned to play in one movie. Maybe instead of playing all those crap infomercials that the movie industry plays before you see a film at the theatre in order to protect copyright infringment, they could pay Arnold $1 million instead (which is still a lot of money by todays standards) and use the other $29 million to pay the artists, costume designers, gaffers, grip boys, assistants, stunt men, computer graphics people and so on and so forth. That seems like the answer to the Movie Industry's problem.

[haloblack]

It is also clear indication that the original product is overpriced (since someone else can make it cheaper) and it should give a clue to the owner of original product that there is greater demand of their product, but at *lower* price.

That's a monumental distortion of the economics behind bootlegging. The fact that "someone else can make it cheaper" completely glosses over the reason they can make it cheaper. A movie studio (or some indie director who sold his car for the budget) has to front thousands or millions of dollars and take a precarious financial risk to make that film and, eventually the DVD. The bootlegger has no risk. They simply steal/buy/cam a showing/workprint/satellite transmission, and burn a disc. The end result is two dvd's - one copy of "Return of the King" that represents years of work and hundreds of millions of dollars, and one copy that represents a bootlegger and a $2 Ritek.

You do make a good point when you say that there's more demand at a lower price point, but at some point the demand stops growing and the producer is simply lowering the price and making less money. With (basically) zero outlay of their own, the pirates will always win on that point.

In the past if Joe the Shoemaker made great boots and sell them too expensive, another John the Shoemaker would make same boots cheaper, thus Joe would have to lower his price as well. Market used to regulate itself. Nowaday Joe the Shoemaker would just go the court and sued John the SHoemaker for stealing his design etc - and he most likely would win (unles John the Shoemaker would be richer).

What if Joe the Shoemaker spent millions of dollars on research and design to make shoes that cured impotence or something, but they did it by something easily copied? (Say, a picture of Natalie Portman on the toe.) Then John says "Woohoo! Gonna make me some shoes like that and make some money!" Joe, hoping to recoup his millions, sells his shoes for $20 and estimates that he'll start turning a profit in 2 or 3 years. John buys discount Keds, slaps a Xerox of Amidala on the toe, and sells his shoes for $5. He's making massive profit, at no risk, from day one because Joe's shoes are "too expensive." Fair?

Am I simplifying the argument as well? Sure, but I think you see my point.

Video market is dominated by few studios, who wont let anyone new in to share the pie.

Won't let anyone in? Not true it all. The problem is that it costs so much to enter the market. What would you rather do, start your own video distribution business or let an established player take care of it?

How many non-hollywood-crappy movies have you seen in the stores?
How many non-RIAA indepedent albums have you seen in the stores?

I don't understand what you're saying. Crappy movies that weren't made by major studios? The Hollywood Video near me has shelves packed with cheeseball horror movies that never went anywhere near Hollywood. And the record store I go to is about 50% indie, so my answer to your question (if I'm reading it right) has to be tons.

they are not available just because profit of off them would go somewhere else than to MPAA/RIAA bunch of companies, and they simply won't allow it.

Not available? Two words - Vivid Video. Two more words - Ani DiFranco. Both hugely successful, both working 100% outside the "system." Is it easy? No. Is is possible? Absolutely. If you have something people value, the market is there.

You all know (or shouldve know by now) RIAA was overcharging us - buyers - for years. In plain language: RIAA WAS LEGALLY STEALING FROM US FOR MANY YEARS.

As much as I hate the RIAA and their tactics, you're dead wrong. If I put a $15 price tag on the new Madonna album and you walk up and buy it, I am not stealing from you. You said earlier that there was no free market any more? What could be freer than that? I priced something at X, you valued it at X, and you bought it. That's the purest free market exchange there is.

What the RIAA did do was raise the price of CD's over and over again (and the corresponding studio profit margin) while lying about the reasons for years. And, of course, there was the whole price-fixing thing, and the miniscule percentages that the artists see, and the jillion other dirty tricks they played.

Where is my RIAA's refund check? I have bought 1000+ CDDA albums in past 10 years, this is not pocket change to me. WHERE IS MY MONEY?

Refund? For what? You (and I) have both bought in excess of 1,000 CD's. We paid what we paid for them for one exact reason - they were worth the price. If they weren't, we wouldn't have bought them! What's pissing us off now is knowing that we were paying $15 apiece for CD's and that the studio was getting $14 of it. The value of cd's (and dvd's) is derived from two things - the physical cost of the medium (and the associated cost of getting it to you), and the intangible value we place on the art that's on the media. The RIAA screwed up because the public finally found out about their accounting shenanigans. When people learned that most of the money they were coughing up went to the suits and not the stars, that intangible value went up in smoke. Rather than adjusting to the new market reality, the RIAA went ballistic and tried the impossible - to force us to value their products as much as they thought we should.

DVDs are same or more expensive than VHS used to be, and it aint gonna change.

Why would it change? As long as the public says that owning a movie is worth $15, that's what they're going to cost. As I said above the cost to manufacture is only part of the reasons things are priced the way they are. The studios aren't seeing the backlash the RIAA is because the public knows that "Pirates of the Caribbean" cost a hell of a lot more to make than the new White Stripes album, and yet they cost the same. It's all about perceived value. I wish I had had a camera the day I was at Best Buy and saw a guy holding the "2 Fast 2 Furious" in one hand and the soundtrack in the other. The DVD had 2 discs in it, extras, hours of bonus stuff, I think there was a video game in there too. The CD had... the CD. And it cost a dollar more than the DVD. The guy looked down, said "there ain't no mother#*$&in' way", put down the CD, and bought his movie. You'll never find a better illustration of why people are buying dvd's in record numbers and ignoring music altogether.

Im SURE sooner or later MPAA will face similar court case as RIAA had.

Which court case are you talking about?

Obviously the current model of RIAA/MPAA system isn't working at all. It doesnt work for consumers, and it doesnt work for most of the artists either.

Me? I think it's working pretty well. With access to all the facts about where there money goes, the public is buying movies in colossal numbers ("Finding Nemo" sold how many copies?) and the record studios are hemorrhaging money in record (heh) amounts. Meanwhile, ITunes has just sold its (I think) thirty millionth track and made the RIAA's arguments look weaker than ever.

I oppose and disagree with RIAA and MPAA on the subject of copying the CD or DVD for personal use (which both RIAA and MPAA say is what hurts them the most - the "casual copying").

Well, you're mixing two different issues there. "Personal use" is you making copies of your own cd/dvd for whatever reason, where "casual copying" is you buying a cd and burning copies for your friends. The story that started this whole monster of a thread (and this monster of a post) was about copying for money, which is an almost entirely different subject that I could rant about for even longer.

We are currently allowed and should always make a backup copy of every CD or DVD we buy, since no studio or label is willing to replace it for free or for the cost of media (pennies) in case it turns bad.

I 100% agree with you. (Can you believe it? ) Well, okay, maybe 98%. If I had to make a backup of every CD/DVD I bought, my room would be even more awash in clutter than it already is.

I could go on with it, but this thread ia already huge off topic.

Oh, come on! Let's argue the whole "commercial piracy vs. filesharing" issue! This is fun!

But in all seriousness - bravo to all of you who have participated in this discussion without turning it into a massive hatefest. This issue normally turns into a flamewar almost immediately, but this one has turned into that rarest of Internet occurrences - a damned-near civilized debate.

[handyguy]

" He also had equipment used to pirate media. Not exactly a huge leap there. "

What was it? Let me guess Windows XP

I find it odd this is a topic about copyright use yet the OP posted what appears to be the complete news article, which would be a copyright violation itself. One should just post a paragraph & link to the rest of the article which is what copyright law lets us do.

[DaBarrister]

Arnold Schwarzenegger made $30 million for his role in Terminator 3. The most any actor has ever earned to play in one movie. Maybe instead of playing all those crap infomercials that the movie industry plays before you see a film at the theatre in order to protect copyright infringment, they could pay Arnold $1 million instead (which is still a lot of money by todays standards) and use the other $29 million to pay the artists, costume designers, gaffers, grip boys, assistants, stunt men, computer graphics people and so on and so forth. That seems like the answer to the Movie Industry's problem.

I assume that statement was tongue-in-cheek, but I'll respond anyway for those who didn't get the joke.

T3 with Arnold = $150 million at the U.S. box office alone, not counting video rentals, oversseas, broadcast rights, etc. T3 without Arnold = $0. No Arnold, no T3, and nobody (e.g., artists, costume designers, gaffers, grip boys, assistants, stunt men, computer graphics people and so on and so forth) makes a dime. So Arnold's $30 million means that other people can put food on the table. So what if they don't get paid as much as Arnold? We don't pay $8 a pop to see a movie 'cause Joe the Gaffer worked on it.

Nope. Don't think that's the answer to "the Movie Industry's problem."

We vote with our dollars. As long as people are willing to pay BIG BUCKS to see Arnold, Arnold will get paid BIG BUCKS to make movies.

I really don't mean this to sound smarmy or self-righteous, but if you don't like the fact that actors are overpaid, don't watch movies.

Really. Listen to the radio. Watch a soap opera. Go hiking and smell the wilderness - for free! I don't like Tim Robbins, Alec Bladwin or Sean Penn, so I don't spend any of my money on their movies. And I don't miss 'em one bit. I also don't care for Arnold, for what it's worth.

Still no solution to the "copyright problem"....

[haloblack]

Maybe instead of playing all those crap infomercials that the movie industry plays before you see a film at the theatre in order to protect copyright infringment, they could pay Arnold $1 million instead (which is still a lot of money by todays standards) and use the other $29 million to pay the artists, costume designers, gaffers, grip boys, assistants, stunt men, computer graphics people and so on and so forth.

Or better yet, when they make "Terminator 4," they can save even more money by not hiring Schwarzenegger at all! Instead, they can hire someone who won't even charge a million bucks - let's say, Carrot Top! They could probably get him for about $50k, then they could give another $950,000 to the gaffers! Then, when the movie makes $200 million, they could give all that money to the behind-the-scenes people in a nice, equitable distribution that ensures that the caterers get as much as the cab driver who brought Carrot Top to the set.

"What's that?" you say? "Terminator 4, starring Carrot Top?! I'm not going to see that! I mean, I'd see it with Arnold in it, but that dude from the phone commercials is a dork! They'll never make $200 million on that!"

"But," says I, "I thought that it was equitable payment for the gaffers that made you want to go see a movie, not the name above the marquee. We did what you wanted, now go watch the movie."

"But I don't wanna see Carrot Top play the Terminator! Who'd believe him pushing over a car! He gets beat up by pay phones!" you say.

"Well," says I again, "we can make it with Schwarzenegger, but the last time we put him in a movie, most of the planet lined up to see it and we made all this extra money, and when he found out we made $200 million then he actually asked for some of it. What a tool! And the wierd part is that we made another action movie right after that that starred Rosie O'Donnell, and we paid the gaffers even more than we did on Arnold's movie, but nobody came to see it! What's up with that?"

"Fine," you say, "enough with the sarcasm. You made your point. Movie stars get paid more than gaffers because the whole world doesn't line up to see who pulled the cables and ran the lights."

"And?" says I.

"And anybody can go to school and learn to pull cables, apply makeup, or even act, but the public decides who's a star by lining up three deep to see movies starring some people and completely ignoring others, regardless of the merits of their performance." you say.

"Aaand?" says I.

"Aaand while this may seem horrible and inequitable, it is the way the world works and will remain so, regardless of how we may wish otherwise. Some people have a universal charm and appeal, and this will be reflected in the dollar amount collected at the box office, which will rightfully be credited back to the person who put the butts in the seats."

"Aand?" says I.

"Shut up," you say.

"Aaaaannd?" says I.

"And while all men are created fundamentally equal, some men are worth a twenty million dollar movie deal and some aren't!" you say. "And don't think that I haven't noticed that you're just recycling a bit from "Dude, Where's My Car?" you jerk!"

"Yes," I say, "you're very smart. Now take your silly argument about gaffers and go play until you learn better."



* the above post is in no way meant to malign the undeniable charisma of Carrot Top, who I happen to think is hysterical. I just think that the idea of seeing him as the Terminator is too funny to pass up as an example of bad casting.

[haloblack]

" He also had equipment used to pirate media. Not exactly a huge leap there. "

What was it? Let me guess Windows XP

According to the original article, "Illegal satellite television interception equipment was also seized ." The vaguer phrase that you quoted was something I said. I was responding to someone who couldn't see why the equipment was even mentioned, since (he claimed) it was completely unrelated to the pirated dvd's. My point was that the guy was into pirating movies and also had in his posession hardware that... allowed him to intercept broadcasts of movies. Methinks they're related.

I find it odd this is a topic about copyright use yet the OP posted what appears to be the complete news article, which would be a copyright violation itself. One should just post a paragraph & link to the rest of the article which is what copyright law lets us do.

Touché.

But we're using it as source material in a discussion of copyright matters and reproducing it for no charge and at no monetary gain to ourselves... I claim fair use.

No, wait! It's a backup!

[Rookie64]

FWIW, I was in a big budget movie, employed by MGM/UA

- I was paid $4 an hour...and that's it (doesn't matter how much the film grossed)
- Was not allowed to leave the set for any reason
- Work full 12 hour days with only cookies offered as meals
- Long takes with no breaks...which meant you were in big trouble if you had to use the restroom


On top of that, I had to stand in horse manure for a good bit of the day.

Actors and crew are only hired to do their jobs - and most don't get paid all that much. I think many would be surprised at just how little the pay is.

It's the high profile celebs that get paid the big bucks.

I got to hang out with some but can't say it was that exciting


I'd much rather stick to small-scale productions if I ever work in film again.

[DaBarrister]

FWIW, I was in a big budget movie, employed by MGM/UA

- I was paid $4 an hour...and that's it (doesn't matter how much the film grossed)
- Was not allowed to leave the set for any reason
- Work full 12 hour days with only cookies offered as meals
- Long takes with no breaks...which meant you were in big trouble if you had to use the restroom

On top of that, I had to stand in horse manure for a good bit of the day.

Sounds like you paid your dues!

You probably would have gotten at least $4.50/hour if it weren't for all those dang pirates.

[fritzi93]

If your argument is "the law's the law and that's that", might as well end the discussion. (Not aimed at anyone in particular). But laws are enacted, modified, repealed all the time.

There's another law that interests me, the law of unintended consequences. A law may be intended to serve an unarguably high purpose, but if it fails at that, it's a bad law. Intentions must be distinguished from outcomes. It gets worse, a law that is widely violated breeds disrespect for law in general and opportunities for organized crime (unintended consequences). As in the failure of Prohibition. So on the grounds of utility alone, the status quo should be unacceptable.

No law can be successful unless it embodies the will of the vast majority, and is in accord with the realities of the situation. What's the reality? Coercion almost never works if incentives are high enough. Reduce the incentives for lawbreaking and the law WILL work.

If ROM media were cheap enough, pirating would disappear. Or if recordable media were expensive enough (would that stimulate a black market all its own?). Wider distribution at a lower unit price is a well-known model- think Walmart. If a product's cheaper will more be sold, enough to maintain revenue(?). Innovative ways to distribute and lower costs in that sector, in some way, ought to receive some attention.

I have no answer for this, but with all the clever people in Hollywood and the music industry, you'd think they could do better. They'll have to. They have a legitimate grievance, but they're not doing much to help themselves that I can see. And instead of bowing to pressure, governments also ought to demand they do better.

[DaBarrister]

If your argument is "the law's the law and that's that", might as well end the discussion. (Not aimed at anyone in particular). But laws are enacted, modified, repealed all the time.

Stealing is stealing. The fact that it is difficult to prevent the theft does not make it any less true. There's a world of difference between "you don't have the right to drink beer" and "You don't have the right to take property that's not yours."

[lordsmurf]

When companies report profits in the hundreds of millions or even the billions (after all needed money is spent), I see something very wrong happening. If it were the government, we'd be getting tax refunds on it. If it is a company, why do they not lower costs? A profit that high means they charged too much, and piracy may be a affect of this issue.

I'd like to find some annual profit reports for 2003, but can't find them easily right now. Would take a bit more digging, though I'm now curious exactly what the profits (not revenues or pre-debt profits) were for last year for some of these "poor copyright holders".

Some of the costs of DVD exclusively are the extras... amusingly the thing nobody I know watches or listens too with an frequency, and something many people on this site like to remove. I wonder what would happen if the grocery store made you buy ham with bread, but you did not want ham? But if you wanted the bread, you were FORCED to pay for the ham, because it was a package deal. That wouldn't go over real well, would it?

For the record, I don't watch movies, haven't seen anything good in a long time. I don't support the actors or companies and think this is all funny stuff, an eventual outcome of years of greed without good products and attempting to rip the consumer. LOTR and Matrix were the only things I went to see in recent times, and Matrix Revolution would not even be worth a $1 blank to me. I enjoy old movies (dicsount bin discs), re-runs of tv shows, cartoons, and the radio. I wait for PPV or cable for movies... when it is legitimately free and I can put my ATI card and DVD recorder to good use.

I've actually taken a liking to 1900-1950 video/radio culture over the modern mess we have today. It was a few people here and family that brought these classic gems to my attention. I'll take Laurel & Hardy before I take Ah-nold.

I say boycott "new movie" DVD sales, boycott the theatres, and just buy cable/satellite.

[DaBarrister]

I wonder what would happen if the grocery store made you buy ham with bread, but you did not want ham? But if you wanted the bread, you were FORCED to pay for the ham, because it was a package deal. That wouldn't go over real well, would it?

I would go buy something else. I wouldn't steal the ham. But that's just me, I guess.

Nobody's forcing you to buy Ham and Bread, or Matrix Reloaded for that matter.

You can come up with a dozen more examples, and none of them will justify stealing.

Some folks on this forum have a very relativistic way of looking at the world. I can break down the examples as follows (from both this series of posts and others like it):

1) They make too much money; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

2) They package it with other stuff that drives the price up; therefore, I'm justified in stealing it.

3) They charge too much for it; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

4) They make a crappy product; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

5) Copyright is unfair; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

6) They make it too easy to steal; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

7) The unintended consequence of copyright law is that people don't respect it; therefore I'm justified in stealing.

8 ) The actors make too much money; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

9) I've been overcharged in the past; therefore I'm justified in stealing it now.

10) Copyright violation punishments are out of proportion to the impact of the crime; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

11) I only steal a little bit; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

12) The current marketing/distribution model does not work; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

13) I'm an el33t hax0r; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

14) People have been doing it for years; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

15) I'm not physically hooking up to the studio's property; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

16) They're trampling on my rights; therefore I'm justified in stealing it.

And so on. Whatever.

I'm not stating or implying that the folks who made these statements are actually stealing movies; far from it. I presume that we are all speaking hypothetically here (Freedom of Speech - yeah baby!). I am merely commenting upon the attempt to rationalize an illegal activity by declaring it not to be illegal (in clear and direct contravention of well-established law) or by claiming that it shouldn't apply to them because the producers have the unmitigated gall to actually turn a profit from the product.

You don't want to support the massive profits of these money-grubbing mass media producers? Then don't buy it. You have other options. Go do something else. If enough people feel the way you do, then change will follow.

You don't like the law? Change it. But don't pretend like stealing movies makes you the next Rosa Parks.

[fritzi93]

If your argument is "the law's the law and that's that", might as well end the discussion. (Not aimed at anyone in particular). But laws are enacted, modified, repealed all the time.

Stealing is stealing. The fact that it is difficult to prevent the theft does not make it any less true. There's a world of difference between "you don't have the right to drink beer" and "You don't have the right to take property that's not yours."

Yep, it's stealing, but you're ignoring my question: how can it be effectively discouraged? Separate intentions from methods. Which do you think will work better, increasing punitive measures or removing incentives? If we don't even try to find ways to do the latter, we may as well take punitive measures to the Saudi extreme and start cutting off hands.

I find it hard to believe a lawyer seems to think laws are written in stone, most Congressmen are lawyers and they're busy as beavers making new laws for the rest of us. :P No offense intended, this is a most interesting discussion.

[GizmoTheGremlin]

I wouldn't at all justify stealing anything. I think it's wrong and those who are guilty should be punished. But I also consider myself a realist and believe that if there is a law against it, it will be broken. And so, the penalties for it should be within reason.

If someone physically steals a DVD from a department store, their punishment is paying for the value of the DVD. Why does it become so much more valuable when it is downloaded? Oh i forgot, the MPAA still makes money off of those that were stolen from department stores .

[pacmania_2001]

I wouldn't at all justify stealing anything. I think it's wrong and those who are guilty should be punished. But I also consider myself a realist and believe that if there is a law against it, it will be broken. And so, the penalties for it should be within reason.

If someone physically steals a DVD from a department store, their punishment is paying for the value of the DVD. Why does it become so much more valuable when it is downloaded? Oh i forgot, the MPAA still makes money off of those that were stolen from department stores .

I was thinking the exact same thing. Make the punishment fit the crime.

[zorankarapancev]

Imagine that you are blind and deaf, sitting in your backyard or in your home. You won’t know what is happening around you. If you could use your senses you would hear loud music from the neighbor’s house, you would see cars down the street, people walking… If you have the ability to perceive (or to improve you senses by any means) wider spectrum of frequencies, you would be able to see infra red and x-ray images as well as Radio and TV images… you could freely do that because you can not be busted for receiving frequencies broadcasted into the universe, into your land and into your body. As you know, nobody owns any frequency and nobody is the owner of the ether. At the end, nobody has an authority to order you to be blind and deaf. Radio, TV and satellite transmissions are coming to you and you are receiving and perceiving them as they are, regardless if they are encrypted or not (there is no such thing as an “encrypted signal” in the universe anyway). The illogical arguments about “unauthorized interception”, “unscrambling scrambled signals”, having “illegal knowledge – ability - equipment to decode signals” is nothing but empty rhetoric with only one goal in mind – to illegally take away from you your God given Freedom. Only you can give it away by your own choice!
So, if you are able to receive what is sent to you, you are only an observer, not a thief!
You will become a thief and criminal only if you are selling those images or information to somebody else and making profit out of it.
It is that simple.

[vitualis]

Radio, TV and satellite transmissions are coming to you and you are receiving and perceiving them as they are, regardless if they are encrypted or not (there is no such thing as an “encrypted signal” in the universe anyway). The illogical arguments about “unauthorized interception”, “unscrambling scrambled signals”, having “illegal knowledge – ability - equipment to decode signals” is nothing but empty rhetoric with only one goal in mind – to illegally take away from you your God given Freedom.

Sorry, but your argument doesn't make sense.

You can pick up an encrypted signal, but how exactly are you going to decode it? If the encryption is of any significance, you will undoubtedly need to use some form of stolen/non-authorised decryption device and that is usually illegal.

There is no such thing as an encrypted signal...

The signal is just the medium, the carrier of the information. It is the information itself that is encrypted. I don't know about you, but watching raw unencrypted bits of information is not exactly my concept of a good time and yes, THAT is the "God given freedom" you have.

You know, it is my "God given freedom" that I can punch a random person on the street as well. That doesn't make it right in the eyes of the law.

Regards.

[Moloko_Plus]

Id like to remind everyone again that the person arrested is NOT NOT NOT being accused of SELLING ANYTHING, merely couriering it after getting the originals from Mr. Carridi. There are numerous other places that list the articles, 2 of which I posted before. Sorry i'm saying this, but someone had said on this page somewhere that this topic was posted for someone accused of selling screener copies.

[Rookie64]

Sounds like you paid your dues!

I'll say


Though, I did it for the experience and to get a firsthand look into filmmaking...the money had very little to do with it.

The thing I got a kick out of most was being escorted from makeup/wardrobe to the set and back, with police protection, and a crowd of people trying to get a look at the set.
They were all like going wild thinking I was a celebrity or something, and I was thinking...relax people, I'm just part of the scenary

You probably would have gotten at least $4.50/hour if it weren't for all those dang pirates.

Well, that was a few years ago, but I guess there was some form of piracy going on in them days too.


@Lordsmurf

I'm probably in the minority, but one of the things that made DVDs appealing to me in the first place were in fact the extras.
Being that I've been collecting movies for some time, if it wasn't for the extra stuff added to older movies I've already seen or even own, I'd be less willing to check out the DVD versions.

A lot of times, those sort of things end up being disappointing, but there are some benifts to having audio commentary, cast reuions/updates, alternate and deleted scenes, mini-documentaries and other interesting tidbits.

For people who study film this is a bonus.
For me, it's actually the ham


I personally don't mind the price - if it's something of value to me, I will buy it.
However, there are only a small number of movies that actually are
that good.


I've also gone a number of years without going to see a movie in a theater.
Reasons weren't for boycotting, just lack of interest.


I'm more a serious art film buff, and Hollywood filmmaking is a whole different avenue.
Their films are commercial/formula and made mostly for entertainment purposes. Though there may be an art to that style of filmmaking, it isn't ART.
There's a very big difference between making films for profit and making them for expressionism.

I've seen a few recently though that weren't all that bad.
IMO, there's been improvement in mainstream movies over say ten or so years ago.

Though as a serious film scholar, I've ventured far beyond mainstream cinema and libraries to research select artists and filmmakers.

There is a whole underground world of films that will never see the light of day due to very little marketing value, yet still having significant personal and artistic value.

The section of American copyright law known as "The Berne Act" states: films unreleased in the United States, including original version of films altered and/or edited for release in the United States, are not protected by American copyright; thus, they are considered public domain.


Such sources provide (otherwise unavailable) films to the serious video/film collector/students and do not offer videos owned by American releasing companies. If a film should become available domestically they immediately stop offering it.
They are, however, in bootleg form - the film creators do not get any profits from such distribution.


This is the only form of piracy I've supported, only 'cause I know of no other way to obtain such films.

[DaBarrister]

I wouldn't at all justify stealing anything. I think it's wrong and those who are guilty should be punished. But I also consider myself a realist and believe that if there is a law against it, it will be broken. And so, the penalties for it should be within reason.

If someone physically steals a DVD from a department store, their punishment is paying for the value of the DVD. Why does it become so much more valuable when it is downloaded? Oh i forgot, the MPAA still makes money off of those that were stolen from department stores .

I was thinking the exact same thing. Make the punishment fit the crime.

If punishment of up to $150,000 per offense (that's a number quoted here earlier; I don't have the time to look it up) doesn't deter piracy, then you are advocating that it be lower? You are saying that there will be less piracy if we lower the punishment if caught? Sorry, the Real World doesn't work that way.

Imagine that...

There's been far too much of that going on here. Come back to the Real World and you will find that people and corporations DO own just about every bandwidth useful for the transmission of signals. Try going to New York and sending a signal out on WABC's band and see what happens.

"There's no such thing as an encrypted signal in the universe"???? Exactly which universe is that?

I decline to respond to any more silly arguments. Have a nice day. Hope you don't get caught; or, maybe not.

[bugster]

There is no such thing as an encrypted signal...

The signal is just the medium, the carrier of the information.
Regards.

We are probaly splitting hairs here, but I have to disagree:-

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=signal

An indicator, such as a gesture or colored light, that serves as a means of communication. See Synonyms at gesture.
A message communicated by such means.
Something that incites action: The peace treaty was the signal for celebration.
Electronics. An impulse or a fluctuating electric quantity, such as voltage, current, or electric field strength, whose variations represent coded information.
The sound, image, or message transmitted or received in telegraphy, telephony, radio, television, or radar.

[pacmania_2001]

If punishment of up to $150,000 per offense (that's a number quoted here earlier; I don't have the time to look it up) doesn't deter piracy, then you are advocating that it be lower? You are saying that there will be less piracy if we lower the punishment if caught? Sorry, the Real World doesn't work that way.

I'm saying that if someone walks into a department store and steals a DVD they will be charged with shoplifting, which in most western countries accounts to a slap on the wrist.

If the same person downloads a copy of the movie (doesn't sell it, pass it on to friends etc) and gets caught they would be charged with piracy, which if we are using the above figure (I believe it's closer to $50,000) is totally out of proportion seeing they are the exact same crime just using two different methods.

I don't particularly care what the reasoning is behind the punishment or whether it is used to deter piracy, the punishment should fit the crime. You don't see someone who speeds occasionally spending a year in jail because society deems that a small fine is appropriate, the same should apply even in the case of internet piracy.

[vitualis]

There is no such thing as an encrypted signal...

The signal is just the medium, the carrier of the information.
Regards.

We are probaly splitting hairs here, but I have to disagree:-

Actually, I should have "quoted" his quote rather than put it in bold.

I agree with you... you CAN encrypt a signal as per my smiley face but that probably wasn't clear.

In any case, I took it to mean that the original author thought that the "carrier wave/signal" could not be encrypted... and usually it isn't. Obviously, it can (e.g., the data can be encrypted but carried over TCP/IP... or if you are really devious, create a system where the carrier signal itself is encrypted too) but that really is beside the point as I'm sure you agree that the original post assertion that cryptography cannot exist is wrong.

Best regards.

[adam]

I'm probably in the minority, but one of the things that made DVDs appealing to me in the first place were in fact the extras.

Of course you are not in the minority, if you were then obviously DVDs would not have extras because they would be cost prohibitive Its ridiculous to think that studios arbitrarily just include extras to inflate the prices of the DVDs. Its not like they need an excuse to raise prices. As long as there is no collusion in the industry prices are going to be set by demand, and if there is collusion then they don't need an excuse to price fix they can just do it. I don't think Lordsmurf was arguing that extras were an excuse to price fix, I think its obvious he just has different priorities. He doesn't care for extras and he doesnt care for most of the newer release movies. If that is the case than I honestly don't see the pricing problem though since most of the movies he would be interested in are going to be sold for relatively cheap. Obviously the people who pay more for newer release movies do so because they actually value what those DVDs have to offer.

I think most of the excuses in this thread are tired and ridiculous. ANY major player in ANY industry is going to be raking it in. Somewhere out there is a person becoming filthy rich off the sale of toothpicks. Its not because prices are fixed or because of someone buying out politicians. Its just because there is a market for toothpicks, and if you can meet a large share of that demand then you are going to make good money. Its the same way for movies.

Market demand is more of a pricing control than ANYONE's conscience.

[Craig Tucker]

and I can make any kind of gadget I want

Not entirely true, what if you were making bombs. Just playing devils advocate here.