So...are you going to download it? by HanoverFist

It seems to me that there are two approaches to justifying downloading the film, and it seems to me that both of them lead you into, at least, morally questionable ground.

First of all, I'm assuming that this DLing is being done through some sort of peer-to-peer system (Kazaa, Limewire, BitTorrent, etc.). If you download it from somewhere else (like someone has a webpage with it up) that might be different.

So, assuming you're considering P2Ping it:

OPTION 1: You download it and share it with other people via P2P (inevitable with BitTorrent, optional with Limewire, etc.).
-PROBLEM 1: If you share the movie with others, YOU might not be taking money from Joss et al. (if one accepts the "I've seen the movie a lot and will defintiely buy the DVD" argument), but you can't guarantee that that is the case for those with whom you share it. So, you're still screwing Joss et al. out of profits that they might have gotten from people seeing the movie in theaters or buying the DVD.

OPTION 2: You download it and DON'T share it withother people via P2P.
-PROBLEM 2: This is generally frowned upon in the P2P community. If there is a code of ethics among P2Pers (and there sort of is), it's based on shared access to information/property and the idea that sharing is a good thing. If you don't share what you've downloaded, you're "leeching." This is also morally bad. (If you don't subscribe to the idea that leeching is morally wrong, then it hardly seems fair that you exploit the moral stance that others have taken by sharing stuff...)

Finally, if you get it some other way (like from a friend online who P2Ped it or something), you're probably still implciated in the same P2P economy.

So, so far as I can tell, there's not a morally justifiable way to be downloading the movie.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:59 AM

Quote:
Is this really worth telling someone that they are going to go to hell for it (even the special one)?

I still don't see how it's ripping off anyone if no money is being lost. Yes, I see how it's illegal and wrong, but not 'ripping off' someone.

Per Shepherd Book, the "Special Hell" is reserved for child molesters, people who talk at the theatre, and folk who take sexual advantage of wives they didn't actually marry.

You concede it's "illegal and wrong", either of which is reason enough to NOT do something for a moral person. In my canon of sins, theft of intellectual property is about halfway between child molestation and talking at the theatre, thus placing the offender squarely in the special hell. Your canon may differ.

Maybe it's just the fact that I live in Nashville, where we have a special sensitivity to the ripping off of someone's hard work. You can't heave a brick in this town without hitting a performer or songwriter who's been bootlegged. And yes, it is ripping someone off. It's depriving them of control over what they've done.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:00 AM

HANOVERFIST

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
Quote:
Originally posted by fwivot:
No matter what people might think, your actions are not hurting anyone financially.

Sooooo--

THEFT is only wrong if it hurts someone financially? I guess if it's insured, it's ok for me to steal your car, because the insurance company will pay for it, and you won't be hurt financially?

How about if I burn the family photo album with the only images of departed loved ones? It has no economic value, so if I deprive you of it, you're not hurt financially.

If you don't know you have money in the bank, is it ok for me to steal it? You wouldn't be hurt financially.

And lets touch on the whole "No matter what people might think" bit. Seems to me that "morals" "customs" & "laws" are actually the aggregate form of what the majority of people think. MURDER is only wrong because the majority of people on the planet agree that it's wrong. How exactly, did you get your exemption from the obligations imposed by "what people think?"

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

Wow...okay. I guess you might not have understood the 'harm principle' as it has been brought up. Not just financial harm, but harm period. I wonder how there is any harm done (financial or otherwise) by downloading a movie that you have already paid for in several different ways. Is it wrong for me to download a copy of a song that I already own on CD?

And this nonsense about morality and justice being extensions of majority rule are ridiculous at best. Several hundred years ago the consensus was that it was okay to burn witches. Does that make the Salem Witch trials moral and just? Of course not! Saying that "right and wrong=what the majority thinks" is moral relativism at its most dangerous...mob rule. Didn't you watch 'Safe'?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:05 AM

INSANITYLATER

Considering that Humans have lived on this planet for maybe a bit over 40000 years in its what.. 3 billion year life? Coupled with the fact that no one will care about this in 1000 years, I'm inclined to think it's rather pointless to argue over this. But what do I know.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Serenity NOW!!! ... Insanity later."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:25 AM

Nope, doesn't make you any sort of criminal at all... You simply exercised your fair use right and right to make an archival copy of your purchased DVD - out of order.

Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:
I downloaded "Team America, World Police."

Then when the movie came out, I bought it (it was only fair).

Does that make me a criminal? Technically yes. But did I do harm? Nope.

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:29 AM

Quote:
Wow...okay. I guess you might not have understood the 'harm principle' as it has been brought up. Not just financial harm, but harm period. I wonder how there is any harm done (financial or otherwise) by downloading a movie that you have already paid for in several different ways.

I suppose the best way to determine "harm" is to ask the victim, "Have you been harmed by this action?" (Unless you feel you're equipped to play God, here.) Has a sexually active person been harmed by a rape? It's just one more genital penetration, after all. A week later, there's not even any physical evidence. The difference is CONSENT. I believe the owners of intellectual property have made their positions clear. By depriving them of the right to consent to the copying and distribution of their intellectual property, they feel they have been harmed, and are entitled to compensation for that harm.

Quote:
Is it wrong for me to download a copy of a song that I already own on CD?

No, it's not. You bought a license to REPEATEDLY listen to the content of the CD when you purchased the CD. You did not purchase a license to copy and distribute the content, nor even to broadcast it over the airwaves, or play it for public amusement. Radio stations and jukeboxes pay royalties.

However, you don't already own Serenity. The ticket you bought was a limited license to view the film ONCE. You can't use the same ticket to get back in a week later. You certainly can't use the license you bought by buying a ticket to copy the film and view it repeatedly elsewhere, nor can you disseminate copies of it.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:34 AM

Well, that's all fine and dandy if you like your morality legislated and brought to you by big named corps. Me? Every d/l comes with a potential customer who will actually like it enough to go out there and get it after they've tried it... It's like a coupon. It's a way for the crowd to rate whether the product is good - outside of getting fooled by these false/phony marketers. Hell, it's even a good way for real marketers and real execs to feel good about a good day's work on getting real accurate data on which product is the really good product - and which sucked. It's also a mighty good way to reward good artists and tell the bad ones to improve or get a real job.

These guys are going to take away all of your rights to time shift and make archival copies if you don't hold on to your own rights. You have a right as a consumer too, not all of it is held by the producers.

Quote:
Originally posted by weichi:
As near as I can 'suss this argument out, you'all are such BDFans that you deserve your download cuz your been paying for the movie and your goin to buy the DVD just as sure as your standin here.

Well, this type of thinking damages my calm - we are looking at a new world that might not have room for BDMs if the folks that make em can't see a way for some clear profit.

I know, this argument is a tad upside down - after all our BDH are thieves too, so lets just volunteer up. They are thieves to survive, you'all are thieves for pure selfishness, risking, however marginally, BDMs of any kind in the future.

I dont doubt the sincerity of the thieves that are posting. I dont doubt their honesty about buying the movie. I appreciate their candor, you know, not much, but I appreciate it.

These download sites must feed egos or make money somewhere, and helping their volume helps them exist for all those "bad thieves" as opposed to you principled ones, folks might-would've GONE to our BDM let alone bought the DVD if you'all hadn't helped them with a plan of the bank.

But its a rich bank, and it ain't any of our money, so nobody raise a fuss.

Recall the rush on the bank scene in "Its a Wonderful Life" where George Bailey tries to save the Building and Loan, and with it, his town, with $2000 of his honeymoon money? Who would you rather be?

Tom -"I got 242 dollars here, and 242 dollars isn't going to break anybody"

or Mrs. Davis "I'll take $17.50"

I always wanted to be a Mrs. Davis sort, you know, were all in this together and such, and that was before Mal explained the advantages of dresses and air circulation.

Anyway, ramblin on here, I hope I've made my point, such as it is. This may be another "kneecap" area of vagueness, but I expect Book would make room in the special level of hell for you folk.

See how I'm not punching him, I think I've grown!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:38 AM

TENTHCREWMEMBER

Could you please just make it stranger? Stranger. Odder. Could be weirder. More bizarre. How about uncanny?

I'll be honest, I read the first 8 or 9 posts and then scrolled to the bottom, so I apologize if this has already been said, but here goes:

Around these parts (U.S.) we have "Cheap" theatres where movies go for second runs. The studios still get the money, because these theatres operate on the premise of making money off the snack bar. I will go see it again and again and again, with friends and family, at the $2 a seat Dollar Saver Theatre.

This will tide me over until DVD release, that AND my copy of Firefly. :D

If you live in a country (or an area of the U.S.) without a "Cheapie", I feel your pain and say, download it, but don't copy it.

Just my $2 worth! ;)

TCM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Avail yourself of my trade! I have original (meaning: designed by me!) T-shirts, posters, mugs and more at http://www.cafepress.com/10thcrew
*Download my Firefly Games for FREE at http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=13&t=12622
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In or near Ohio? Join us!
http://p097.ezboard.com/bohiofireflyfans
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly-ohio

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:38 AM

GROUNDED

Quote:
Originally posted by HanoverFist:
Is it wrong for me to download a copy of a song that I already own on CD?

The difference is you don't already own the right to have a copy of the film.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Nope, doesn't make you any sort of criminal at all... You simply exercised your fair use right and right to make an archival copy of your purchased DVD - out of order.

Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:
I downloaded "Team America, World Police."

Then when the movie came out, I bought it (it was only fair).

Does that make me a criminal? Technically yes. But did I do harm? Nope.

I very much doubt fair use applies retroactively.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:49 AM

The studios have absolutely no clue on what's going on. Their entire idea of the economics is that everyone who made an 'illegal' d/l could have bought their product instead and thus subtracted from their profit base. That's just bunk. The fact is they haven't lost a dime. Independent studies have shown that they actually get a better sale from albums that have gone viral and from being sampled. Once word got out, people tried it, and liked it, they bought more.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:
First of all, I know you were responding to someone else, but this seems like a good place to jump in, so here I am .

Quote:
Originally posted by weichi:
Look, I do not pretend to know the economics of all this - but clearly some of those who download stuff do so instead of buying a ticket or buying a DVD. So, you must admit that those folks are stealing, right?

So going through the trouble of providing downloads is encouraged by each and every person who downloads - so even the most Robin Hood of theives is making it more attractive for folks to provide downloads, leading to more folks downloading instead of buying.

This is actually what I don't understand about downloading. Who puts the first copy up? Depending on how the film is obtained it doesn't sound easy, and if its being downloaded for free, who is making money off of it?

Leaked from the studio or insider is the most common form of these kinds of "piracy"... Most percentages of copies come from within the studio or the distribution chain itself.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:

And yes, it is illegal. I don't think anyone is questioning that, it's more the issue of the harm being done.

Quote:
That is where I see the harm. I doubt either one of us knows the actual costs, but I suspect the Studios have an idea, and they don't seem too pleased that it is going on.

The studio heads are the ones concerned - it's cutting into their huge salaries. If the industry is hurting enough that the regularly paid actors and crew members are at risk of losing money, I'd argue that maybe 30% of a movie's budget shouldn't be going to one actor.

(Does anyone remember those MPAA ads from a few years ago where Ben Affleck talked about how people were being hurt from downloading? It almost made me want to download something, and normally I really like him).

That's why they've switched the ads over to the clerks and stagehands talking about how you are taking money out of their children's mouths. Sympathy points from blue-collar to blue-collar.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:

Quote:
Maybe that is part of the reason Universal is releasing "King Kong" on DVD and in the theaters at the same time? Sell the impatient a DVD before they steal it online.

Here's where I disagree completely. Most people who download are going to do so regardless of whether the DVD is available. Why? They don't want to pay for it - at all.

So, then here's where to logic is twisted. Did you really take any money away from anyone at all? If some of these d/l'ers never intended on making a purchase at all in the 1st place. No money was lost or stolen to begin with. The cost of the opportunity was 'ZERO'. Now, what if I were to show you independent industry studies that said that albums that had people d/l'ed actually made better sales from folks who tried it and liked it? What does that say?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:

Quote:
Its very convenient to claim you have no impact. That way you have no personal responsability.

In this case, it seems that if you are buying the DVD and seeing the film in a theatre there isn't any impact. The harm/loss to the studio comes from when people download and then DON'T go to the theatre or buy the DVD. 'Cause then they aren't making any money off of it.

Yes, it's justifying something that is illegal, but that's what it is. Same thing if you speed while driving. The majority do no harm. (I realize that the possibility of killing someone is a bit different then stealing a movie but it was the first one I thought of).

Personally, I've never downloaded anything illegally. I like seeing movies on the big screen. BUT I have cause the studios to lose money. Why? Because after years of paying to see absolutely awful movies, I've pretty much stopped going.

So to answer the first question... will I download it? Probably not. But I can understand why many will.

But that's just my $0.02. And apologies for the rambling.

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/]

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:53 AM

And these people have a lot to learn about what IP rights mean in the new digital world and these new digital market places. These old market ideas of IP rights need to go out with the dinosaurs. Changes are happening all over the place and the people who hold on to old ideas with their dear lives will lose everything when those ideas become era of the bygone.

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
You folks can rationalize all you want--to quote The Big Chill, "rationalization is more important than sex. When's the last time you went a week witout a rationalizaion?"

Serenity, whether it's a 35mm print, a VHS tape, a DVD or a computer file, belongs to Joss and Universal, and they get to say who gets to watch it. Right now, they say people who buy tickets can see it. You are free, however, to close your eyes and relive the experience as often as you like.

When it comes out on DVD, people who buy or rent the DVD and their guests may watch it. As many times as they like.

It's not a matter of documenting damage to anyone. It's their intellectual property. If they choose to post it on the net for free distribution, you may then download it. Not until then.

If you steal from Wal-Mart, they will never feel the pain, except in the aggregate. If you stage a phoney car crash for the insurance money, no single policy holder will feel any pain. Nonetheless, it's WRONG. It's not yours to take, so get used to it. The courts, the churches and the owners of intellectual property all agree, you can't have it for free. If it was OK, they'd tell you.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:55 AM

Except for all of the prior permissions already afforded for fair use.

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
Not all owners of intellectual property are corporations. I just finished threatening to prosecute someone who attempted to steal one of my files. It was/is my work product, created by me, on my premises, on my computer, with software I paid for. I agreed to sell him a printed paper copy, not the file. He tried to get the file from the printer, who refused to give it to him and called me.

I can assure you that the file is my property, and no, you can't download it, either. It's mine, and I get to determine who gets a copy.

(edit)
Oh, yeah, because it's mine, and I said so. Nothing you can rationalize will change the fact that taking another's property without permission is THEFT.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:58 AM

GRAVY

I don't think this will hurt Serenity that much. Considering that it's a rather small movie, a good word around the net could actually boost DVD sales.

It's just pisses me off because I haven't seen the movie yet =/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
Quote:
Can't support your opinion without trying to come across as a condescending asshole?

Actually, I don't have to TRY, I can do it in my sleep. Calling me names is not going to change the fact that what you advocate is wrong.

Well, it's illegal according to the most current interpretation of the various laws and how the courts are enforcing them from the various media corp/thugs. But I think wrong is the matter of opinion here.

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:

Quote:
Downloading the movie due to a lack in patience isn't morally wrong, it's life. People aren't perfect, we break down.

Implicit in your statement is an admission that bootlegging intellectual property is WRONG. No one says, "Buying brussels sprouts isn't morally wrong, People are human, we break down." You know it's wrong, you implicitly concede you're wrong. What you're doing here is seeking peer group approval and justification for doing WRONG. Sorry, you ain't gonna get it from me.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, the government can shove off.
This not the statement of someone who feels that the government's position is indefensible. It's not even a well-reasoned rebuttal, it's just defiance.

Quote:
we need our fix just like every other addict on this planet.
No, you don't even "need" it, you just "want" it. There are no documented symptoms of Firefly withdrawal, except anecdotally in your rationalizations. By saying this, you trivialize the lives of people who have real, medically documented addictions. Further, no one makes the case that a documented heroin addiction is just cause for taking another's property without consent.

Nothing I can say/type is going to change your mind, you clearly are gonna do what you're gonna do, much like any two-year old defying his parents. Your posts are just sticking your tongue out for a little ego boost.

Rebut this if you can: Joss and Universal OWN Serenity. Nowhere on the Serenity site, nor on the Universal board is there a button labelled, "Download Serenity for free." If they wanted you to have it for free, there would be.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By the way, is this quote by Heinlein considered a fair use within some kind of context? or did you just rip off Heinlein? if so, I think that's all kinds of wrong *and* ILLEGAL too!

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:03 PM

Quote:
And these people have a lot to learn about what IP rights mean in the new digital world and these new digital market places. These old market ideas of IP rights need to go out with the dinosaurs. Changes are happening all over the place and the people who hold on to old ideas with their dear lives will lose everything when those ideas become era of the bygone.

Not so strangely, it seems to be the creators of the intellectual property at issue who seem to be "hold(ing)on to old ideas with their dear lives." Odd how artists still seem to want to exercise control over the dissemination of their creations.

I know how I felt when someone tried to take possesion of a file I created witout my permission (pissed off is how I felt, for those of you coming in late), and it would be a real stretch to call it an "artistic creation." It was, however, my work product, created on my premises with my computer on software I paid for. Wholly and entirely my creation.

I wonder how you would feel if it was your creation/work product/IP that others were going to remove from your control and disseminate across the web. I suspect that, if you place any value at all on your own work, you'd join their camp.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:08 PM

I jsut want to reiterate my post from above. It seems to me that, no matter which way you look at it, you're screwing someone over by downloading the movie (either the creators/owners of the movie or the people who run the P2P software).

(Sorry if it's poor form to quote myself. The thread's moving pretty quickly, and I felt like this got skipped. If you feel like ignoring it again, that's fine and I won't bring it up again. Heck, I won't be online for a while, anyway, so even if you DO respond, I won't be qable to respond back.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Sep7imus:
It seems to me that there are two approaches to justifying downloading the film, and it seems to me that both of them lead you into, at least, morally questionable ground.

First of all, I'm assuming that this DLing is being done through some sort of peer-to-peer system (Kazaa, Limewire, BitTorrent, etc.). If you download it from somewhere else (like someone has a webpage with it up) that might be different.

So, assuming you're considering P2Ping it:

OPTION 1: You download it and share it with other people via P2P (inevitable with BitTorrent, optional with Limewire, etc.).
-PROBLEM 1: If you share the movie with others, YOU might not be taking money from Joss et al. (if one accepts the "I've seen the movie a lot and will defintiely buy the DVD" argument), but you can't guarantee that that is the case for those with whom you share it. So, you're still screwing Joss et al. out of profits that they might have gotten from people seeing the movie in theaters or buying the DVD.

OPTION 2: You download it and DON'T share it withother people via P2P.
-PROBLEM 2: This is generally frowned upon in the P2P community. If there is a code of ethics among P2Pers (and there sort of is), it's based on shared access to information/property and the idea that sharing is a good thing. If you don't share what you've downloaded, you're "leeching." This is also morally bad. (If you don't subscribe to the idea that leeching is morally wrong, then it hardly seems fair that you exploit the moral stance that others have taken by sharing stuff...)

Finally, if you get it some other way (like from a friend online who P2Ped it or something), you're probably still implciated in the same P2P economy.

So, so far as I can tell, there's not a morally justifiable way to be downloading the movie.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:09 PM

KELLAINA

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
Quote:
Is this really worth telling someone that they are going to go to hell for it (even the special one)?

I still don't see how it's ripping off anyone if no money is being lost. Yes, I see how it's illegal and wrong, but not 'ripping off' someone.

Per Shepherd Book, the "Special Hell" is reserved for child molesters, people who talk at the theatre, and folk who take sexual advantage of wives they didn't actually marry.

Yeah, I know what the 'special hell' is, I was objecting to your use of it.

Quote:
You concede it's "illegal and wrong", either of which is reason enough to NOT do something for a moral person. In my canon of sins, theft of intellectual property is about halfway between child molestation and talking at the theatre, thus placing the offender squarely in the special hell. Your canon may differ.

Just because something is illegal, it doesn't make it immoral. I think it's wrong that downloading is the only way some people watch movies or listen to music - they are 'ripping off' the artist/producer/technicians etc. But for a person who will buy the DVD, they aren't technically depriving them of anything.

And yeah, my canon differs. Child molesters deserve a special level of hell that talking at the theatre doesn't come close to approaching.

Quote:
Maybe it's just the fact that I live in Nashville, where we have a special sensitivity to the ripping off of someone's hard work. You can't heave a brick in this town without hitting a performer or songwriter who's been bootlegged. And yes, it is ripping someone off. It's depriving them of control over what they've done.

I agree it's taking away their control over their product, but the only way to avoid it entirely is to never release it in the first place. But to me that's a different issue. Maybe we're differing on what 'ripping off' means (probably means different things in different regions). I'm thinking off it in purely economic terms.

Quote:

Quote:
Is it wrong for me to download a copy of a song that I already own on CD?

Quote:
No, it's not. You bought a license to REPEATEDLY listen to the content of the CD when you purchased the CD. You did not purchase a license to copy and distribute the content, nor even to broadcast it over the airwaves, or play it for public amusement. Radio stations and jukeboxes pay royalties.

However, you don't already own Serenity. The ticket you bought was a limited license to view the film ONCE. You can't use the same ticket to get back in a week later. You certainly can't use the license you bought by buying a ticket to copy the film and view it repeatedly elsewhere, nor can you disseminate copies of it.

I don't remember buying any DVDs that came with a note on them saying I could download a copy.

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:10 PM

Quote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By the way, is this quote by Heinlein considered a fair use within some kind of context? or did you just rip off Heinlein? if so, I think that's all kinds of wrong *and* ILLEGAL too!

I belive an attributed single line quote is acceptable fair use, but I could be wrong, and it's an interesting point.

Anybody got any hard data on subject?

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:

Rebut this if you can: Joss and Universal OWN Serenity. Nowhere on the Serenity site, nor on the Universal board is there a button labelled, "Download Serenity for free." If they wanted you to have it for free, there would be.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

Yeah, I think we can argue that within a larger ultimate religious frame of context. Neither you, I, Joss, nor the entity known as Universal Studios corp/lmt doesn't own anything. The devine inspired others to create, but ultimately, the created "property" along with the entire kit-n-kaboodle belongs to the you-know-who. Besides, within the limited economics framework on this country, the shareholders together enjoined own the rights to al property held by these entities anyways. Then we can argue about who ultimatley really own the acts and products from these people, is it really just society at large?

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:27 PM

IAMSPACECASE

I agree that sales will be boosted. After reading this post I went looking for the movie on the Internet. Apparently quite a few people downloaded Serenity, I found one site called Piratebay, where over 3,000 people have downloaded the movie and that was just one hit in google, there were many sites with Serenity to download. The morality of downloading the movie is pretty obvious, the majority of people in the U.S. consider it morally wrong to download copies of movies, and ,in theory, the laws of the united states are the morals of our society. Having worked in the pharmacutical industry in the U.S. for awhile, I would have to say that the majority of people have the mentallity of cattle. We have grown lazy and it's easier to be told what to think by the media/large corporations. I survived one war and two conflicts and then lost my blinders by working for a large drug company. Do regulations protect us because we are uncapable of protecting ourselves, or do they protect profits and monopolies? Do I condone any crime, of course not? Grow up people.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:28 PM

KELLAINA

Yikes! This thread is moving fast!

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Leaked from the studio or insider is the most common form of these kinds of "piracy"... Most percentages of copies come from within the studio or the distribution chain itself.

Ahh... I kind of suspected that but wasn't sure. Thanks!

Quote:
That's why they've switched the ads over to the clerks and stagehands talking about how you are taking money out of their children's mouths. Sympathy points from blue-collar to blue-collar.

Yep, I think they actually did more damage to their argument with the Affleck commerical than anything else. Although I find the new one ("You wouldn't steal a purse or a car! So don't download!) funny in a how-can-it-already-look-outdated? kind of way.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe that is part of the reason Universal is releasing "King Kong" on DVD and in the theaters at the same time? Sell the impatient a DVD before they steal it online.

Here's where I disagree completely. Most people who download are going to do so regardless of whether the DVD is available. Why? They don't want to pay for it - at all.

So, then here's where to logic is twisted. Did you really take any money away from anyone at all? If some of these d/l'ers never intended on making a purchase at all in the 1st place. No money was lost or stolen to begin with. The cost of the opportunity was 'ZERO'. Now, what if I were to show you independent industry studies that said that albums that had people d/l'ed actually made better sales from folks who tried it and liked it? What does that say?

I was actually disagreeing with the notion that people were only downloading because they were impatient. I don't disagree that downloading can help artists, especially since breaking into the mainstream industry is so difficult (and even once you've broken into it there are no guarantees - ie. Fiona Apple).

Here's hoping I have enough quote tags!

Edit: Gorram quote tags! Also, rest of my responses will have to wait until tomorrow, I've been tying up the phone for far too long.

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:33 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I think we can argue that within a larger ultimate religious frame of context. Neither you, I, Joss, nor the entity known as Universal Studios corp/lmt doesn't own anything. The devine inspired others to create, but ultimately, the created "property" along with the entire kit-n-kaboodle belongs to the you-know-who. Besides, within the limited economics framework on this country, the shareholders together enjoined own the rights to al property held by these entities anyways. Then we can argue about who ultimatley really own the acts and products from these people, is it really just society at large?

Now you're just flailing. As an agnostic, I don't concede the existence of your "devine" or deity, nor do I acknowledge his/her possesion of anything.

I can assure you that I own a number of things. Several banks and assorted governmental authorities, claiming to represent "society at large" concede this fact and tell me that with ownership goes responsibility/accountability.

and by the way, "enjoined" means prohibited from taking certain actions.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:49 PM

ANGELCRUSHERD

Oh man, so many replies since I left. So many people damned and determined to hold law over life. I don't think you people understand the situation that you're whining about. We aren't plagiarizing Serenity. We aren't thieving a respected painting or ruining anyone's life. I consider downloading Serenity as a form of lay-away. A lease until I can purchase. I am entitled to that as a paying (out of the arse, to be frank) Browncoat. I am entitled to indulge myself in the target of my fandom because Joss wants his fans to be happy. He is far from blunt, no doubt he understands that a person contributing a considerable amount of monetary imbursement is obsessed enough in his created universe to own a B-rated copy of the DVD before it is officially released.

You people act as if Joss is irrelevant. Joss is the person I want my money going to. Joss and everyone who contributed to the series and movie directly. Nowhere do I include the government or the theaters. Anti-pirating organizations fine you multitudes over the actual amount in question and where does it go? Straight into the government's pocket. Tell me, oh highly moral loyalists, oh ignorant patriots, tell me how this is remotely just?

The fact is that there are those who will pirate the movie instead of spending money on any form of viewing but there are also those who have already spent money at the theaters, and those who will watch the download and gain interest which will end with them paying for the download's worth in various fandom expenses. If I might relate this to my experiences, I downloaded Firefly via BitTorrent before it was released on DVD and that spawned my love of the uncanny verse. I wonder who purchased the DVD set ASAP, correct it was I. But guess what else I purchased, kids? Another set to make up for the set that I downloaded. Oh woe, it seems that I have driven to Abode de Joss and slapped him in the face.

Sarcasm. Sarcasm because I feel that I am truly in the right. There are those who pirate things maliciously but a mere look at the shelves by my television suggests against all accusations. Nobody is going to stop the entire media-pirate culture, you, with your oh-so-moral stances, won't change a single thing. I'm not trying to justify my actions, I don't have to. I do justify my actions with money. Money well spent, giving the creators the money they deserve. I plan to do the same thing with Serenity.

You people justify your morals by making every downloader of the movie a malicious, evil person. This is far from the case and I think it's lacking of effort on your arguement to use such an excuse. 'Moral' is a fancy word for opinions. Opinions that are unique to the individual but considered to be universal due to people similar to the beliefs of yourselves. My morals disagree with people telling me what I can and cannot do. Life is too short to rule or be ruled, order can be achieved peacefully and without obstacle. However this government, yes America- the country in which I was born and raised- chooses forced order, consequence ridden laws and bills and rules and scattered trials ending in depression and death. Nowhere in the constitution does it say rewards will be had, just effects that scare people into order.

This is among the reasons I don't like Big Brother, and these ethical values towards this democratic republic are mine to possess. None of you had a say in the formation of those opinions, therefore none of you are going to change my mind. I alone hold the key to my mind, the mind that dictates my every action. The same organ that reasoned this entire situation out and will eventually lead to the number of Serenity copies I purchase plus one for the download that I will probably make. It's my choice, not the government's or you people's or even Joss', it is my choice to lease a copy of Serenity before I pay the amount in full. You can piss and moan all you like but as usual, nothing will change. Anything short of the destruction of the internet or a public announcement from our Big Damn Heroes themselves will stop me.

It has been said but let me reiterate a point that so many don't realize: law and morality aren't equal.

As for the religious aspect that has arisen, I'm as Atheistic as one can get. I don't believe in divine inspiration and even if I was a most devout pastoral figure- I still wouldn't believe in divine inspriation. My recollection of various religions be intact, divine entities merely want your acknowledgment and love. This life is a test of faith therefore they don't mess with things as personal as inspiration. Any tamperment might poison the person's mind into knowing instead of believing. That is not faith and that isn't what your deities want. This interpretation is directly from the texts, not from the various evangelicals who wish you to be a saint as opposed to a sinner without a between. Those people have diluted the texts into an accultism that was far from intended. Again, this is just an Atheist's point of view, don't take anything personal. To me, Joss owns Firefly and Serenity and the writers who worked with him own stock in their part. FOX, Universal, anyone else who claims ownership is full of their own legal bullshit- they didn't conceive even the slightest bit of the Firefly universe.

I guess I should've been a bit briefer but it's late and there's nothing else to do. Enjoy this essay of a reply.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:19 PM

Quote:
I feel that I am truly in the right.

Well, that makes one of you.

Can you name one major (or even minor) motion picture studio that encourages downloading of their products?

Can you cite even one instance where the director or writer of a major motion picture encourages you to download a pirated copy?

I truly feel that Kroger should give me groceries for free, but I have been unable to find one grocery store, chain or mom & pop, who agrees with me, and they own the groceries.

"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eatin' steak."

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:20 PM

ANGELCRUSHERD

Again with the condescension. You're arguing an invalid subject, kid. There are no implications of support made by Joss or his affiliates, they can't give free copies out and make enough money to convince the big cheese to give them the budget for a sequal. Your point is correct but completely irrelevant and moot to the topic at hand. The people of this forum are Browncoats, mostly, which means we love Firefly. I don't believe any of us will pirate the movie out of malice just to deprive the corporations of money, it's illogical to think so. Joss doesn't condone the playful pirating publicly because it is a given. The act of pirating something between theater and DVD is almost a tradition to fans of a movie. I've done it with many films openly and have yet to recieve a letter to the extent of "I know you pirated my movie you bastard. You stole my money, I hate you, you make me sick. Fiend. Oh yes, thanks for purchasing two copies of the DVD and the shirt and cap. PIRATING IS WRONG! GO TO JAIL!"

And no, you don't truly feel that your grocery store should give you free groceries. It's just a pathetic attempt at being what I have described in my previous post. Movies and groceries are completely unalike. Correct me if I'm wrong but one cannot download a pork chop and when's the last time a tray of Oreos was released on DVD months after it left theaters? The logic there is absurd. It seems to me as if you're inventing concepts for the sheer sake of continuing an arguement that you cannot win. There is no reason why someone, that purchases extra copies of the merchandise in question solely to compensate for the download, should not be entitled to a crappy quality version of the film between the time that it leaves theaters of convenience and the DVD release. It isn't immoral or unjust, it's merely watching now and paying later for something that cannot be obtained in any other circumstance.

You don't have to dwell on the fact that pirating is illegal, so are drugs and hookers but take a look at who runs this country. I've read your post about how someone 'stole your file' and how pissed you were. Guess what, nobody really cares. My house and truck have been broken into more than enough times to piss me off thoroughly and I never got a phone call from the police because they didn't care, or even my insurance company because they don't care either. Theft is a part of life, live and learn. That doesn't mean I go around fighting crime on a fan forum on the internet because I'm fuming over my couple of stereos, telescope, televisions, gaming systems, laptop, etc- it means that people stole my crap and I accept it.

You can't justify your perfect little morals with that story because no matter how alike your situation is, you aren't Joss and you aren't a famous director (I think it's safe to assume). If you put yourself in Joss' Big Damn Shoes, wouldn't you want your fans to spread the word? In my opinion, writing a movie that makes 30 million at the box office, no matter how small of an amount that it seems in certain contexts, would make me happy as hell. Joss has stated time and time again how much he likes us, I'm getting a content vibe from him despite the low box office. I wouldn't be worried about a couple thousand people not paying five bucks, I would be ecstatic that people love Serenity so much that they can't wait for the DVD (which is what I believe his opinion is). In essence, I would rather be out a few thousand bucks and have a few thousand more fans than go public with some cheesy gimmick (totally unlike Joss)- "Oh don't pirate my movie please, it's immoral and R1Z agrees with me that it's wrong and I want your money-" and lose tons of fans and their money for being a whiny corporate pussy. Joss isn't like that and shame on you. Alliance bastards, I swear.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:16 PM

KHIMBAR

No, because the quality is poop from the samples I've seen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:23 PM

N0SKILLZ

Quality is only poop, cuz people scale down their stuff so it can be put on a VCD... as the DVD gets closer there will be a DVD version leaked... yay
So basically what i'm saying is that its normal quality for movies leaked while still in the theaters

-----------------
"It's not that there HAS to be a sequel. It's just that I've got so many IDEAS..."-Joss Whedon
*Andersen AFB, Guam*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:03 AM

SDWSTUDIOS

I have to admit, if I hadn't downloaded the pilot episode of Firefly, I wouldn't be the rabid fan I am today (extremely rabid). I own the dvd box set now of course, but that's beside the point. It does not justify my downloading an episode of Firefly, but that's my opinion, I'm not speaking for anyone but myself.

I realize this makes me a hypocrit (horrible spelling), but even though I got into the 'verse by downloading the pilot ep of Firefly, I'm against downloading Serenity.

I don't want even an inkling of a chance of hurting the movie that way.

And that person who listed the pros and cons of p2p, great post. Just because you think you have the best intentions, doesn't mean the other peeps feeding off of you do.

Anyways I don't plan on fighting any big battles on this thread so I probably won't add anything else.

To summorize:
got into the series by downloading pilot
hypocrit because I'm against downloading Serenity
bad speller (not to mention grammatical errors)

"My food is problimatic" - River "The Message"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:33 AM

KHIMBAR

Quote:
Originally posted by N0Skillz:
Quality is only poop, cuz people scale down their stuff so it can be put on a VCD... as the DVD gets closer there will be a DVD version leaked... yay
So basically what i'm saying is that its normal quality for movies leaked while still in the theaters

-----------------
"It's not that there HAS to be a sequel. It's just that I've got so many IDEAS..."-Joss Whedon
*Andersen AFB, Guam*

Normal quality for P2P movies yes. But for newsgroups it's poop.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:41 AM

KRYTEN3

I'm not gonna download it. And I'm gonna try to talk everyone I can out of downloading it.

Anything else, I wouldn't care. But Serenity... I feel protective.

I mean, this is the raggedy edge. If this goes south, there may well not be another...

Most (if not all) of you will buy the DVD regardless, but the easier you make it for others to download from you, the more money you are taking a) from the box office and b) from DVD sales, because there are going to be people for whom this crappy online version is enough.

Serenity will be in cinemas around the world until mid-next year, so any downloading now is affecting box office scores - MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT THAT.

But if there aren't enough sources, pirates'll have to hire Serenity out to do their dirty piracy or buy a movie ticket, and that's at least a couple of bucks towards a Serenity sequel.

Please, I beg you, even if I can't convince you to not download Serenity, DO NOT upload it under any circumstances. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:15 AM

AngelCrusherD,

Hello. First of all, I was wondering if you read my post(s) about how downloading the movie IS screwing somebody (either the creators/owners of the film or other P2P users). Other people just mentioned it and I was wondering what you think.

Secondly, you keep asserting that you (or any rabid Serenity fan) is "entitled" to download a copy before it comes out on DVD. How is that the case? An entitlement is not something that you can just declare that you have. (It's as ridiculous for you to say that you are entitled to download th emovie as it is for the other poster to say that s/he is entitled to free groceries. Just because one is more easily achieved doesn't make it more right.) In our society (and every society in the world) entitlements are granted by social agreement. In some cases we think of those entitlements as "natural rights" (life, liberty, and property in the U.S.; other cultures include more or less like health care). In other cases, certain have rights that they grant to others, usually dervied fromt heir havign created or owned something.

Obviously, downloading "Serenity" isn't a natural right. So, that means that someone has to grant you that right. So, who has the ability to grant you the right/entitlement to copy Serenity? Well, obviously, the copyright holder. That's what "copyright" means, the right to copy. Also, obviously, you haven't been granted that right, so you aren't entitled to download it.

Another way to look at this is to ask how much one has to do to be "entitled" to download a copy. You say that you've done a lot and will do more. That's great. But how much is enough? Seeing it 5 times in the theater? 4 times? 1 time? Buying 4 copies of the DVD? Buying 1? Everyone is going to have different answers to this. Luckily, we have a way of determining this. It's called the law of copyright. (And it says that no matter HOW many of each you buy, you don't have the right to copy and distribute them. That's not what you're paying for when you buy tickets or DVDs. The market price for the right to make copies of a movie is MUCH higher than the price fo a ticket or a DVD.) I know you are claiming that such laws are objectionable (and maybe you're right - they don't have them in China, for example), but they are how our society protects the rights and entitlements of artists.

I don't think it's fair or correct to say that Joss must know that people download movies and that if he doesn't come out publicly against it then he must support it. Does he have to declare his objection to everything that's against the law for you to think that he objects? Joss chose (though it was obviously a market-driven, and corporate-influenced choice) to distribute his works through, in this case, Universal, by releasing it to theaters and then (quite shortly) afterwards releasing it to DVD. Doesn't he have the right to choose how his work gets distributed? Why do you have the right to take that control away from him?

(Also, since when do drugs and prostitutes run this country? And, since when would that make them right?)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:26 AM

HOWARD

Why do you want such awful technical quality?
If you8 care about a film you want to retain
its quality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:29 AM

KHIMBAR

If I'm reading this right, and I like to think I am, some people are saying it's acceptable to steal things because they love them and will buy them eventually.

Cool. By that logic I'll start saving and woe betide the next person I see in a Subaru Impreza WRX.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:11 AM

PHOEBE

Very well said, Angelcrusherd

"Serenity will be in cinemas around the world until mid-next year, so any downloading now is affecting box office scores - MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT THAT. "

And as well as Serenity, every other movie is also being downloaded. It's not impacting Box Office RELATIVELY - since every other movie is going to lose the same (or more, judging by some flans' anti-download campaigns!) amount of money at the box office.

I find the whole "You wouldn't steal a car, so don't steal a movie" argument rather odd. When you steal a car, that person no longer has a car. They have to spend time and effort getting the money back through insurance, and then buying a new car, plus the stress, blah blah woof woof.

When you 'steal' a movie, what happens to the studio/Joss/actors/whoever? Nothing. They don't know you downloaded it, because it's not gone. They still have it, and it's still out there. The only consequence of the download in the case of the people on this board, is that the studio/Joss/actors/whoever get MORE money from those who loved it and go out and buy a copy or two, or three, or ten, like I will.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:02 AM

GROUNDED

Quote:
Originally posted by Phoebe:
When you 'steal' a movie, what happens to the studio/Joss/actors/whoever? Nothing. They don't know you downloaded it, because it's not gone. They still have it, and it's still out there. The only consequence of the download in the case of the people on this board, is that the studio/Joss/actors/whoever get MORE money from those who loved it and go out and buy a copy or two, or three, or ten, like I will.

Read Septimus's P2P post again...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:19 AM

PHOEBE

Honestly, just keep yourself disconnected from P2P at other times. The original sources will still be there, so anyone else who wants to download it can get it from them. You play no part in it while not depriving anybody from something they feel is their 'right'. (which is an ironic argument since y'all are saying we shouldn't be downloading in the first place).

I downloaded it as a torrent, nobody has the option to pick it up off me because I don't like people taking stuff off my comp. Hypocrtiical? Not really, if other people want me to take stuff off their comps then that's their problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Phoebe:
Honestly, just keep yourself disconnected from P2P at other times. The original sources will still be there, so anyone else who wants to download it can get it from them. You play no part in it while not depriving anybody from something they feel is their 'right'. (which is an ironic argument since y'all are saying we shouldn't be downloading in the first place).

I downloaded it as a torrent, nobody has the option to pick it up off me because I don't like people taking stuff off my comp. Hypocrtiical? Not really, if other people want me to take stuff off their comps then that's their problem.

First of all, that IS hypocritical. If you believe that it is a right for people to get stuff when people share stuff, then you really ought to share stuff.

More to the point, if you downloaded it as a Torrent, then you HAD TO share it with other people, at least while you were downloading it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:27 AM

ANGELCRUSHERD

To the people who addressed me and anyone else who cares, I've read every post in this thread and I understand them. Like I've said before, I see where you guys are coming from and it's respectable. You're trying to 'protect the artist', 'give them the money they deserve', etc etc... I believe I've fully explained myself already, p2p nonsense isn't going to affect the box office any different than the rest of the movies that have been released since the birth of modern media. You act like we're allowing pirates to steal the movie- we aren't. If someone wants to download the movie, it's going to be on the pirate tracker regardless of how much I upload in my torrent. I might possibly contribute to some malicious pirate with the 700 or so megabytes that I upload to even my rates off but guess what? Me, my neighbor, some other pirate- what does it matter?

I'm not forcing the video file onto their computer, they're seeking it. Meaning the rest of the world is contributing to that download as well, not just me. Just like every other movie. Every other movie that is made.

I'm not advocating pirating media, I think you people have gotten the wrong impression. I'm not saying "Go pirate Serenity because Joss doesn't need the money AND DOWN WITH THE FRANCHISE!!" That's far from my opinion. We're talking about the time between theater and DVD. There is no other way to have access to the movie save for an hour drive. I download the movie and buy an extra DVD later, no harm done. No box office scandals, no ripping money out of Joss' pockets, no providing anything for pirates that they don't already have, and most important- no damage at all to the series we all love.

To the dude who bitched about my using the term 'entitled'- you're using a legal arguement against my personal opinion which doesn't work. I feel that I am entitled to watch Serenity at least once during the months that it is unavailable by other means. Just like any other movie that I'm fond of- going to the movies more times than I planned gives me the impression that I have contributed more than the non-Browncoats (in the Firefly instance), letting me download the movie as some form of premium fan. To cleanse any doubts that I might have, I buy an extra DVD. That isn't redistributing, it isn't copying, it isn't ridiculous, it's paying for what I've taken. I don't need more than one DVD but I still buy them because I want to see more of Firefly.

I think you people need to turn your attention to the people who just don't give a damn and download the movie without ticket or DVD purchase. Trying to discredit my posts is only going to turn us against each other.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:07 AM

TALLAUSSIEBROWNCOAT

No harm since the Studios get the money from our wallets for the cinema, SEVERAL times in MANY cases, and the go sa quality of pirated movies is usually so crap and minus extra features/Dolby 2.0, Surround or DTS that we dont bother and BUY the DVD - once it's eventually out.

No harm and money IN their pockets.

Wanna help me on this one Fellas? Jayne? No harm done in box office share percentages is expressed in mathematics as...?

“Ten percent of nothing…let me do the math here…nuthin’ into nuthin’…carry the nuthin’…”

Quote:
Sorry for the rant, but this is simple case of right and wrong and people are trying to justify it. You people aren't browncoats to me - you're gorram thieves(and not at all like the BDH in that respect).

"And I’m thinkin’ you weren’t burdened with an overabundance of schooling. So why don’t we just ignore each other, til we go away?"

Quote:
"Some of you disgust me. I don't care how many times you've paid to see it at the cinema, you are stealing a movie. You may think it doesn't matter for you if you've seen it a lot already, but every single time someone downloads a movie it sends the message to the people that pirate the movies that "we want you to keep doing this, please supply us with illegal movie goodness"."

"Oh my god. What can it be? We’re all doomed! Who’s flying this thing...!?"

--------------------------------------------------

"Hey, support it best you can! I believe supporting this as far as we can will get Serenity restarted. Right now seems VERY "Out Of Gas", and the Fans are Mal. We need to get her running to get the Big Damn Button pushed."

"I don't care what you believe in! Just BELIEVE!"

- Self Quote from a reply to a post about Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Angelcrusherd:
To the dude who bitched about my using the term 'entitled'- you're using a legal arguement against my personal opinion which doesn't work. I feel that I am entitled to watch Serenity at least once during the months that it is unavailable by other means. Just like any other movie that I'm fond of- going to the movies more times than I planned gives me the impression that I have contributed more than the non-Browncoats (in the Firefly instance), letting me download the movie as some form of premium fan. To cleanse any doubts that I might have, I buy an extra DVD. That isn't redistributing, it isn't copying, it isn't ridiculous, it's paying for what I've taken. I don't need more than one DVD but I still buy them because I want to see more of Firefly.

Umm... I'm that dude.So, you're saying that when you said you were entitled to a copy, you meant that you FELT that you were entitled to a copy? How is that even an argument? Lots of people might FEEL that they're entitled to something; that doesn't necessarily make it so. Then you list the REASONS that you feel you're entitled. All I did was point out that there's a pretty clear standard out there about who's entitled, and that you don't fall within it.

Also, the argument that if you don't do it someone else will (share the movie through P2P) also, obviously, doesn't make it right. If I live in an especially dangerous neighborhood where people get murdered all of the time, that doesn't make it right if I murder someone just because someone else would have done it anyway. (Yeah, yeah, it's a different example, but the logic is the same, and equally flawed.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:32 AM

TALLAUSSIEBROWNCOAT

Quote:
...although I find the new one ("You wouldn't steal a purse or a car! So don't download!) funny in a how-can-it-already-look-outdated? kind of way.

It was worse than old ads you can see from 1987!
Wasn't the SAME thing done for video cassette piracy? Then CD-ROM? And perhaps Lasredisc...

--------------------------------------------------

"Hey, support it best you can! I believe supporting this as far as we can will get Serenity restarted. Right now seems VERY "Out Of Gas", and the Fans are Mal. We need to get her running to get the Big Damn Button pushed."

"I don't care what you believe in! Just BELIEVE!"

- Self Quote from a reply to a post about Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:01 AM

Angelcrusherd, let's recap:

1. You know it's illegal, you don't care.

2. You have read that many of us, nominally your peer group, consider it WRONG, you don't care.

3. You concede that the owners of the intellectual property at issue oppose your appropriating it. You don't care.

4. What you propose is contrary to the ethical system of the P2P network, but you don't care.

5. Big corporations deserve to have their assets pilfered. The retired shareholders who live on the dividends, either through direct investment, mutual funds or pension funds, don't really need all that money, anyway.

6. For some reason incomprehensible to the rest of us, you feel that paying the purchase price for what you have gotten fairly entitles you to additional goods and services. Please advise me--So far I've purchased 2 sets of Firefly (donated one to the public library, loan out the other), nine comic books, one action figure, one copy of The Serenity Visual Companion, and 8 movie tickets. What am I entitled to, beyond what I paid for?

May we assume that, in the fine tradition of Ghandi-an Civil Disobedience, you will notify the MPAA, Universal Studios, Mr. Whedon and your local authorities when you obtain another's intellectual property by illegal means? Proudly taking this step will allow you to explain your justifications to those most directly involved.

From the MPAA website:

Quote:
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), estimate that the U.S. motion picture industry loses in excess of $3 billion annually in potential worldwide revenue due to piracy. Due to the difficulty in calculating Internet piracy losses, these figures are NOT currently included in the overall loss estimates. However, it is safe to assume Internet losses cause untold additional damages to the industry.

Assuming a budget of $60M per sequel, $3 Billion equates to 500 sequels, with no recouping of investment needed. They could open with NO admission charge.

And as to your, "I'm addicted, I can't wait 7 weeks with only my 14 original episodes to watch" argument, what are you going to do 3 months after Serenity comes out on DVD when there's no new material after that?

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:14 AM

PHOEBE

Quote:
Originally posted by Sep7imus:
First of all, that IS hypocritical. If you believe that it is a right for people to get stuff when people share stuff, then you really ought to share stuff.

More to the point, if you downloaded it as a Torrent, then you HAD TO share it with other people, at least while you were downloading it.

If they don't want to give, then they won't. If they do, then I'll take, since obviously if the stuff is out there, they're perfectly willing. Me, I prefer not to give in this instance. It's not my problem if other people chose to give and allow me the chance to take. They made their choice, I made mine.

And no, I wasn't sharing. Checked, double checked, twigged settings. I know what I'm doing.

Hee! Sorry, had to edit to respond to this cause it made me chuckle (in a funny, friendly, non-offensive way, cause I'm not a bitch).

4. What you propose is contrary to the ethical system of the P2P network, but you don't care.

You complain that it's ethically wrong to use P2P, because people shouldn't be sharing Serenity, then when said person refuses to share Serenity, you complain that it's ethically wrong. Made me chuckle, that did.

Either it's ethically wrong to use P2P, or it's ethically wrong to share... you guys can't twist everything to make it fit your ideals perfectly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:40 AM

HANOVERFIST

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:
Angelcrusherd, let's recap:

5. Big corporations deserve to have their assets pilfered. The retired shareholders who live on the dividends, either through direct investment, mutual funds or pension funds, don't really need all that money, anyway.

What a wonderful example of a straw man fallacy! I have not seen anyone talk about retired pensioners or pilfering corporations. That is all you, dude.

Quote:
Originally posted by R1Z:

From the MPAA website:
Quote:
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), estimate that the U.S. motion picture industry loses in excess of $3 billion annually in potential worldwide revenue due to piracy. Due to the difficulty in calculating Internet piracy losses, these figures are NOT currently included in the overall loss estimates. However, it is safe to assume Internet losses cause untold additional damages to the industry.

Assuming a budget of $60M per sequel, $3 Billion equates to 500 sequels, with no recouping of investment needed. They could open with NO admission charge.

You need to stop buying the MPAA propaganda hook-line-and-sinker. It's embarrassing, really. Their methodology for coming up with their numbers has been questioned repeatedly and they even admit in the quote that it is difficult to calculate Internet losses. Sorry but I do not agree that "it is safe to assume Internet losses cause untold additional damages to the industry." And guess what? I am not the only one that does not agree. There is much research out there to suggest that not only is piracy NOT the rampant problem the Industry makes it out to be, but it can actually HELP sales.

Maybe the problem is that the music and film industries have turned out more tired crap in the last few years and it is simply not worth paying for.

But more to the point, I still have not seen it demonstrated how d/l'ing Serenity (after paying to see it in theaters and buying the DVD) is wrong? Now keep in mind, I am not saying that it is legal. Of course it is illegal. But as I said before, Texas still has a sodomy law on the books. Does that mean I am going to let the government tell me what I can and can't do with my wife? NO, gorramit! There is such a thing as an unjust/immoral law.

Did you know that there are companies right now that are patenting portions of the human genome under intellectual property law? So do you think that it will be okay for you one day to have to get permission from a patent holder before you reproduce?

R1Z, you keep falling back on the same argument time after time. It always seems to be that "it is wrong because you have not been told it is right." You are just going to have to do better than that. And stop trying to equate the downloading of a film with material theft. They are not and will never be the same. The world is changing, and the way copyright is dealt with needs to change also.

Would it be okay for me to download the movie AFTER I bought the DVD? Or is that still wrong, because no one has told me it is okay?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:45 AM

Quote:
You complain that it's ethically wrong to use P2P, because people shouldn't be sharing Serenity, then when said person refuses to share Serenity, you complain that it's ethically wrong. Made me chuckle, that did.

Either it's ethically wrong to use P2P, or it's ethically wrong to share... you guys can't twist everything to make it fit your ideals perfectly.

My position is that it's ethically wrong to download that which does not belong to you without the owner's consent.

However, seems to me that if one were to choose to participate in an activity (your choice, after all, I believe in free will, with attendant responsibility), then one should adhere to the ethical system governing that activity. If everyone "took" files, but no one "gave" files, how would the system work?

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:56 AM

DKA0

It’s Capitalism at work.

There is a definite need for digital media to be distributed throughout the internet, the media companies refuse to do this. The demand is still there, and will be filled. If there was a legal option to download the move (now or later) most people are downloading it would opt for this route. But as the industry cannot see two months down the road and are afraid of change and what it would mean to their distribution channel it only fuels the piracy.

The new technology (internet) is a global commodity, it isn’t and cannot be bound by local laws.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:59 AM

Quote:
Now keep in mind, I am not saying that it is legal. Of course it is illegal. But as I said before, Texas still has a sodomy law on the books.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy statutes nearly a year ago. You really should get out more.

Quote:
R1Z, you keep falling back on the same argument time after time. It always seems to be that "it is wrong because you have not been told it is right." You are just going to have to do better than that. And stop trying to equate the downloading of a film with material theft. They are not and will never be the same. The world is changing, and the way copyright is dealt with needs to change also.

I have never said that "it is wrong because you have not been told it is right." What I have said is that Serenity (as with all intellectual property) belongs to those who created it. Absent permission from those owners (apparently Mr. Whedon and Universal Studios)it is wrong/unethical to make a copy of their work for any purpose at all. (fair use laws excepted) I have seen no such permission expressed anywhere. Until such time as I do see such permission explicitly expressed somewhere, I respectfully decline to condone such activity.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:15 AM