trueusmarine2007 wrote:
If they would stop making such shitty movies, then ripping me off at the theater to see said shitty movie, I would say no......but yes.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- 25 million Americans have illegally downloaded a full-length movie
Poll
Is filesharing ok?
| Yes - hollywood and the music industry are rich enough | 86% | 86% - 115 | ||||
| No - it's stealing | 13% | 13% - 18 | ||||
| Total: 133 | ||||||
Lol, how about Netflix + DVD Shrink?
Not that I do it.
Not that I do it.
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
Exactly! I will pay a bit of money for the artist that made it. But they are lucky to see $1 out of 15 for a cd and i can make a cd for 50 cents. Most of the music i listen to these days arn't signed by major record lables so i cant find what i want in a store anyway. Record companies keep jamming Hillory Duff and Ashley Simpson down our throats and ignore some of the smaller name bands that actually need financial support and ARE GREAT musicians(not lip syncors). Musicians get most of their money on tour, not from record sales. Record sales were to expose musicians so people would go watch their concerts. The internet does a much better job than Virgin Records because anyone can make their music available and people are willing to listen to something for free but noone pays $15-20 for something they know nothing about. If a cd is good people will buy it. But drop the prices on a cd cause i can make one too. Record companies no longer have a monopoly on what we listen to and what makes it to our cd players. And thats great, i choose what i listen too not just pick from what is available.Stingray24 wrote:
Good point. It costs so little to produce those pieces of plastic it's ridiculous to charge an average of $15 for CDs and more for DVDs.Elamdri wrote:
I just wish DVD's and CD's were fairly priced.
Guilty and carefree... if it's free , it's for me. click, yes, play.
I look at it this way:
I download it and MIGHT buy it if I really like it, or I never buy it at all.
I download it and MIGHT buy it if I really like it, or I never buy it at all.
Filesharing is one of the funnest things. The awesome rush you get when your keygen successfully made a key for that peice of software that you REALLY want!! Or when your torrent suddenly get a huge speed burst and finishes way faster then expected!! its awesome. Ive never bought a piece of software in my life. Im only 15 and i could prolly be fined for.... a few mill. and no, i dont have anywhere near 16 full length movies, they take up to much space, although i do have every season of futurama
15 more years! 15 more years!
Plus... What are they gunna do? If 25.6 million people commit a crime, the chances of getting caught are so insanly slim that youll never get caught. Thats why i dont think the gov really tries that hard. And what are they gunna do? Put a law on the internet? impossible. You cant restrict the net.
15 more years! 15 more years!
Movie theatres buy the right to show a movie (which doesn't change if they sell 100 tickets or 100,000) and then decide what they will charge people. Video rental stores buy the movie and the right to rent them then decide what to charge people. Guy buys a DVD (for a lot more than blockbuster pays for the same dvd), rips it and doesn't charge people.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It has nothing to do with not keeping it. Video rental stores still have to pay for the movies and licensing fees to be able to rent them out. When you rent a movie you are paying the appropriate parties for the right to view it.confused wrote:
Guy goes to blockbuster, rents a DVD for 7 days, watches it that evening and then passes it out to friends on each of the next six days.
Is the difference that no one keeps it. If that is true, then downloading a movie, watching it and deleting it should be okay. Yet downloading a movie or song by itself is considered wrong.
Actually, that is illegal. The radio station paid for the song to be broadcast once over the air. They didn't pay for you to hear the song more than once. They pay each time the song is played. You were breaking the law, it was just on such a small scale that it really wasn't hurting anything. Plus, if you copied your tape for a friend, and he copied it for a friend... etc... The tape loses quality each time. You can't get more than a few generations out of a tape before it sounds terrible. The big problem with P2P is that there is no loss of quality, and one person can share with thousands of other people easily. That's why the record industry didn't crack down on tapers in the 80s.Stingray24 wrote:
As a kid I used to record all my favorite songs off the radio with a cassette and that wasn’t illegal because the radio station had purchased the music and broadcasted it.
That being said, how many of you knew that the RIAA gets almost a cent per CD-R sold in the US? It's to offset the costs of piracy, but not a bleeding cent goes to an artist, ever. Because of that, I say fuck the RIAA. They're not out to protect artists, they're out to protect the industry.
I got caught.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
Plus... What are they gunna do? If 25.6 million people commit a crime, the chances of getting caught are so insanly slim that youll never get caught. Thats why i dont think the gov really tries that hard. And what are they gunna do? Put a law on the internet? impossible. You cant restrict the net.
It can happen.
If someone hands you a little set of instructions that tells you where all the letters in a book go, and you then go and take one or two keystrokes from a bunch of people who each only give you one or two letters, and one of the letters is wrong, is it really the same book? That's kind of the argument behind bit torrent, and I'm all for it.
If the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA weren't such whores about this whole thing, I would probably agree with them. But the fact of the matter is that the electronics revolution has made their copyright B.S. obsolete. I'm sick and tired of hearing of how they're suing children, indicting people from across the country so they don't know they've been charged until its too late, and then using the law to extort money from people. Now that is wrong. If I was still downloading stuff and cracking DRM's I would stop if the douche bag low life good for nothing whoring lawyers and financial shits at the MPAA and RIAA got put in prison for extortion. Until then, supporting the people who do this kind of stuff is my little way of rebelling without doing something illegal or immoral. I implore you all to study the gross acts of the MPAA and RIAA. Check out the pirate bay, may 2006. You will quickly come to realize the power with the US Government these "big corporations" have, and just how far they're willing to take this whole thing.
DRM is making pirate copies the only safe option for PC users. DRM breaks your hardware/software and violates your rights and it does not even keep people form pirating the content. DVD copy right protection was so weak that its only purposes were to work the legal system, force Ads and there region codes on the users.
IMHO the movie industry does okay at paying its Artists, and they still make enough money but the record companies expect slave wages from the bands they produce.
IMHO the movie industry does okay at paying its Artists, and they still make enough money but the record companies expect slave wages from the bands they produce.
Well, the cost of the CD isn't for the material, and it isn't for the Artist, its for all the sponsors, recording studios, producers and other corporate bigwigs. They know they can charge whatever they feel like and we'll pay it. They don't have to regulate the price, its entertainment. And since copyrights are on their side, when your average person tries to illegally download songs, they can drag them through court and ruin them.
The only people who I feel bad for in file-sharing debate are the artists. My policy is if I like a song, I buy the CD first thing I can. If I don't like it, I delete it. Simple as that.
I think we wouldn't have the problems if CD's were priced somewhere around 5-7 dollars and DVD's like 8-10.
Nothing sickens me more than dropping $20 dollars on a new CD or $26 dollars on a new DVD.
The only people who I feel bad for in file-sharing debate are the artists. My policy is if I like a song, I buy the CD first thing I can. If I don't like it, I delete it. Simple as that.
I think we wouldn't have the problems if CD's were priced somewhere around 5-7 dollars and DVD's like 8-10.
Nothing sickens me more than dropping $20 dollars on a new CD or $26 dollars on a new DVD.
some dvd's and cd's are ridiculously priced especially if they are "foreign" or some sort of cult classicElamdri wrote:
I think we wouldn't have the problems if CD's were priced somewhere around 5-7 dollars and DVD's like 8-10.
Nothing sickens me more than dropping $20 dollars on a new CD or $26 dollars on a new DVD.
Same here. I don't DL any music or movies and keep it. I'm not paying $20 for a CD when I might end up only liking the title track being played on the radio. Generally, I stream off of the free sites like Pandora.com and then make a list of the CDs or MP3s I want to buy. Doing things that way takes a long time to build up my music collection, but that's the way I choose to do things.Elamdri wrote:
My policy is if I like a song, I buy the CD first thing I can. If I don't like it, I delete it. Simple as that. I think we wouldn't have the problems if CD's were priced somewhere around 5-7 dollars and DVD's like 8-10. Nothing sickens me more than dropping $20 dollars on a new CD or $26 dollars on a new DVD.
Those guys are rich enough, and most movies nowadays suck, and no one cares if you pirate old movies.
It doesn't matter how rich someone is. You don't steal money from an oil company because they are "rich enough". You don't STEAL anything from anybody "just because they're rich". It's THEIR product, and they deserve to be compensated. I'm surprised so many people voted yes... if you don't want them to be rich in the first place, how about not watching to their films? You know there ARE other people who benefit from the film industry besides actors and actresses.
They're rich enough, yeah, but c'mon. What's your point? I guess you support taxing the sh*t out of the rich because "They're rich enough"? You can hardly say you're an honest consumer when you haven't paid for something you got from the internet (the same thing that costs 10 bucks at a store).
They're rich enough, yeah, but c'mon. What's your point? I guess you support taxing the sh*t out of the rich because "They're rich enough"? You can hardly say you're an honest consumer when you haven't paid for something you got from the internet (the same thing that costs 10 bucks at a store).
Last edited by Spearhead (2007-01-31 17:16:38)
By the definition of 'stealing', I don't think that anyone can really say that isn't stealing. It's something that legally you'd pay for, and illegally you're getting for free. However, I think the real question is how wrong or right it is.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- 25 million Americans have illegally downloaded a full-length movie