GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

So...are you going to download it?

POSTED BY: HANOVERFIST
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 07:00
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 28967
PAGE 3 of 3

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:25 AM

SEP7IMUS


Quote:

Originally posted by 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.




By this argument, selling drugs (for which there is a definite demand) wouldn't be immoral. Is that your position? (It could be your position. I really don't know.)

You said that " If there was a legal option to download the move (now or later) most people are downloading it [the demand, I assume] would opt for this route." That's pretty clearly not the case. If a downloadable version of the movie were made available at the same time as the DVD, I highly doubt that it would change the position of those who want to download it now. So, does the demand for the movie to be available for download NOW (which there obviously is) obligate the studio to release it for download now? I can't imagine that it would.

You are correct about the difficulty/impossibility of policing the internet via national laws. I'm not sure, though, that that makes doing stuff that's illegal moral. It just (maybe) makes it not illegal.

Finally, let me just point out that "capitalism at work" is exactly the reason FOR copyright (which you may not be arguing against, but I think it needs to be said here). Copyright exists because if we didn't give creators of intellectual property control over the distribution and sale of their work, they would have little to no reason (under capitalism) to create them in the first place. Copyright exists to encourage creativity. As long as we're capitalist, which is to say, as long as profit motive is what we assume motivates people, we need copyright to allow people to profit from creative enterprises. (All of the Browncoat activities trying to get people to go see the movie are basically about this, recognizing that making something profitable is the way to continue its existence under capitalism.)

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

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:22 PM

EVANS


To All of You:

Please see this article from "The New Yorker" magazine about plagiarism and intellectual property.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?041122fa_fact


m.
------------------------------------------------
"But ... not boring, like she made it sound." Wash, in ARIEL
"None of it means a damn thing." Mal, in OBJECTS IN SPACE

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

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:00 PM

ANGELCRUSHERD


Quote:

Originally posted by R1Z:
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



Your list is bogus and you know it. I 'FEEL' that I am entitled because it is infact what I feel. It is my opinion as a human being, if you're denying that it is my opinion then you need to turn your computer off and hang yourself.

I find it extremely humorous that you will piss and moan and throw a gorram tantrum in this thread for my downloading a movie yet you give a copy of Firefly to the library for anyone to watch. For free. Hypocritical ignorance is what it is, and frankly it's annoying. You obviously feel that you're a gung-ho righteous saint with your perfect morals and "yessa massa" attitude towards authority. I have already proven myself to myself, I don't need any justification from you or any of the fake Browncoats out there. Try comprehending the series and then take a look at how you're acting. I'm ashamed that you are a fan of the same series as I, but alas you're just another face in the crowd. I would like to enjoy this board, not having to argue with fools who claim to be a fan yet act completely opposite of the series' theme. I take my leave of this thread and I hope to encounter you elsewhere, hopefully on a lighter topic.

Thanks to all of you who have kept me interested in this topic but I'm afraid I don't have the patience to deal with the other side. Long live Firefly.

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

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:18 PM

N0SKILLZ


Quote:

Originally posted by khimbar:

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



I got mine from newgroup.. not the greatest i've ever seen, but the fact is only 689mb prolly doesn't help quality.. i've only gotten one movie that was in the theaters that was a quality you could even call decent...

-----------------
"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 4:24 PM

KELLAINA


Quote:

Originally posted by Evans:

To All of You:

Please see this article from "The New Yorker" magazine about plagiarism and intellectual property.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?041122fa_fact




Interesting article, thanks for sharing it!

It seemed, though, to be more about intellectual property in the context of plagiarism which isn't really the issue here (unless people are downloading movies and then claiming they wrote or directed them, which no one has done yet - at least not in this discussion.)

Intriguing thought: "Borrowing crosses the line when it is used for a derivative work."

Although I'm not sure downloading is the same as borrowing. The point seemed to be that taking someone's work, passing it as your own and then profiting from it is the problem. Which reminds me of turnitin.com, a system schools use to check students work for plagiarism (of both their fellow students work and outside sources). The company that runs it is profiting from the work, the intellectual property, of students (at my school some students and profs protested against it and as a result one faculty refuses to use it). But, the students gain from getting a level playing field. Does that justify it? In my opinion, yes. But, there does seem to be a parallel between turnitin.com and illegal downloading. Just depends on your point of view.

Yikes, that got long .

Edit: Quote tags, again.

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  

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:28 PM

TETHYS


Well well well. People trashing and defending the BDM all in one Big Damn Breath. WOW...just WOW!

Here it goes..*I get to rip more than one at a time....YES!!!!*

I am a pirate *sorta*. I have some software *not bought*, skirting legality on downloading, though not prosecutable all the same. I have NO problem taken $$ out of those pompous, rich, stuck-up, P.O.S. bastards in the industry (no offense to felloe browncoats in said, or unsaid, companies, or rich ones for that matter).
But it DOESN'T MATTER! We say...we'll download it because I paid sooo much $$ on tickets that I didn't see....so I should be able to watch it WHENEVER I want....STOW IT!
I don't know about you, but I waited so damn long for the continuation of the Big Damn Story, and I'm pleased with it at this point. I am pretty damn sure I can wait just a *little* bit longer for the DVD. Every single person here, doesn't matter, that is/has/wants to download a copy of the BDM, might as well just go ahead and un-register yourself RIGHT NOW, because (IMO), BROWNCOATS do NOT gipe, steal, filch, beg, borrow, etc etc from the wallet/hand/purse of Joss.
I will not, EVER, download an ILLEGAL copy of the BDM and will REFUSE anyone who offers it. Congrats, the first "Multi-Slap" given by the board's resident "troll slapper".


Who's next?



"I aim to misbehave"
I am: http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/bigcat.htm

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

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:30 PM

R1Z


Quote:

I 'FEEL' that I am entitled because it is infact what I feel. It is my opinion as a human being, if you're denying that it is my opinion then you need to turn your computer off and hang yourself.


On the contrary, you are entirely entitled you feel any way you choose. How you ACT on those feelings is, in fact, the title of this thread and what several of us choose to comment on.

Quote:

I find it extremely humorous that you will piss and moan and throw a gorram tantrum in this thread for my downloading a movie yet you give a copy of Firefly to the library for anyone to watch. For free.


Once again, on the contrary, I paid 30-some dollars for the set I donated to the library. That purchase price included a license which permits me to resell or donate the right to view the contents. It does not entitle me to copy the material. I bought one license, I donated that license. Mr. Whedon, Fox TV and I agree that doing so is entirely legal and ethical.

Quote:

You obviously feel that you're a gung-ho righteous saint with your perfect morals and "yessa massa" attitude towards authority.


Actually, as a 50-something white man who earns a comfortable living selling my own work product/intellectual property (architectural designs) to others, I feel that I am part of "authority". I am, if you will, a "massa."

Quote:

I have already proven myself to myself, I don't need any justification from you or any of the fake Browncoats out there.


That being the case, one wonders why you have spent so many keystrokes trying to justify/explain the actions you clearly intend to take. I intend to wait until the owners of Serenity release it for sale before aquiring copies, you clearly do not. You are the one who intends to infringe on the rights of others, not I. Do as you will. Like Mr. Heinlein, I believe in absolute personal freedom coupled with absolute responsibily for the actions you choose to take.

Quote:

I would like to enjoy this board, not having to argue with fools who claim to be a fan yet act completely opposite of the series' theme.


The theme I noticed was opposition to the concept of imposing one's will on those less powerful, or unable to defend themselves. If you feel stealing a copy of Mr. Whedon's work before he releases it for distribution just because you can and he can't stop you is consistent with that theme, you're obviously watching a different series. (Yes, I know you intend to compensate him later. Doesn't matter a bit. You have chosen to remove his right of choice.)

Do what you're gonna do. We can't stop you.




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

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

Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:41 AM

HANOVERFIST


Quote:

Originally posted by R1Z:
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.




Sorry, you are right. I looked it up and the law was indeed struck down in November of 2003. However, I blieve this actually bolsters my case. The fact is that the law was on the books UNTIL 2003 and was finally struck down for the archaic nonsense that it was. The article that I found on CNN also states that nine states at that time still had laws banning such sexual practices between ANY consenting couples. Also the article states that as recently as 1960 all states had such sodomy laws on the books. Just because there is a law on the books does not mean that it is a good idea.

My point is that legal does not equal moral. And you still keep saying that right vs. wrong still boils down to whether or not someone tells you it is okay (presumably the copyright holder). But you still cannot demonstrate to me how you can own an idea, or why it is important. And you are still coming off as a condescending, self-righteous windbag. Yes, perhaps I do need to 'get out more'. However I am of the opinion that you should yourself.

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

Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:49 AM

HANOVERFIST


Quote:

Originally posted by Sep7imus:
Quote:

Originally posted by 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.




By this argument, selling drugs (for which there is a definite demand) wouldn't be immoral. Is that your position? (It could be your position. I really don't know.)



There are many in this world that would agree completely with that statement. There is a mountain of evidence to support the notion that the War on Drugs is far more immoral than the activities of most of those who sell or use drugs.

Quote:


Finally, let me just point out that "capitalism at work" is exactly the reason FOR copyright (which you may not be arguing against, but I think it needs to be said here). Copyright exists because if we didn't give creators of intellectual property control over the distribution and sale of their work, they would have little to no reason (under capitalism) to create them in the first place. Copyright exists to encourage creativity. As long as we're capitalist, which is to say, as long as profit motive is what we assume motivates people, we need copyright to allow people to profit from creative enterprises. (All of the Browncoat activities trying to get people to go see the movie are basically about this, recognizing that making something profitable is the way to continue its existence under capitalism.)



FINALLY! Someone has hit on an argument that actually makes sense. I think you would have to be a complete moron to believe that an entertainment industry could still exist without any pofit motive at all. You do have to have some protections for exactly the reasons you stated. However, I sincerely believe that there needs to be a serious overhaul of our current copyright laws in order to keep pace with changing tastes and mores. Otherwise the entertainment industry (music, film, and TV) run the risk of being driven into serious economic hardship because they are not willing to change.

Perhaps in 50 years this will turn out to be an interesting historical case of economic Darwinism at work. Will the old guard suvive in the new marketplace or is there a faster, leaner, and hungrier business model out there that is going to take over? It will be interesting to see.

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

Thursday, October 27, 2005 8:45 AM

R1Z


Quote:

My point is that legal does not equal moral.


I agree wholeheartedly that legal does not equal moral. There can be no question that there are bad/unjust laws on the books, and being enforced every day.

Quote:

And you still keep saying that right vs. wrong still boils down to whether or not someone tells you it is okay (presumably the copyright holder).


I have consistently said that the copyright holder has the right to determine who has the right to copy and disseminate the intellectual property at issue. That is why works are copyrighted. The system has been in effect for more than a hundred years, and in some form, in almost every country. Not a new concept by any yardstick.

Quote:

But you still cannot demonstrate to me how you can own an idea, or why it is important.


Setting aside the issue of whether an idea can be owned, Serenity is much more than an idea, it is a complex 119 minute artistic work. No one has yet explained to me why several months' work product of group of people should be common property of all humanity just because the creators have chosen to let people see it for the price of a movie ticket. How have they given it away? I have also consistently said that the creator of something has the right to control it. If I create a chair in my workshop and display it on the front porch, does that entitle you to take control of it? Several people on this thread have alleged that if that which is created can be reduced to a digital file, it becomes common property to be shared by all, but clearly that is not the view of creators of the artistic works in question, with very few exceptions. Why does your opinion that Serenity should be common property trump Joss Whedon and Univeral's opinion that it belongs to them?

This principle is not even new to the digital age. You have made references to your wife. When you got married, did you have a commercial photographer take pictures? I have never heard of a commercial photographer selling his negatives as part of the package. He'll sell you as many prints as you want, but not the negative. Commercial photography, and this practice and principle have been around for more than a century.

As to why it's important, it's clearly worth money to both groups. You can save money by downloading a stolen copy for free, and the owners can make, indeed, expect to make money by selling DVDs.

Quote:

And you are still coming off as a condescending, self-righteous windbag. Yes, perhaps I do need to 'get out more'. However I am of the opinion that you should yourself.


I guess emoticons don't copy and paste. How I come off is a matter of opinion. Resorting to abuse may give you some emotional pleasure, but has no impact on me when I consider that it comes from someone advocating theft. I would be impressed with a logical argument explaining why someone's private property should become public property, and please don't tell me that it's because this is a digital age and that distribution can't be controlled. That the looting in New Orleans could not be controlled did not make it right. Taking that which does not belong to you is theft, no matter how many people do it.



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

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

Thursday, October 27, 2005 8:58 AM

HANOVERFIST


Quote:

Originally posted by R1Z:
If I create a chair in my workshop and display it on the front porch, does that entitle you to take control of it?



Is it theft if I go and make an exact duplicate of the chair and do not sell it?

Quote:

Originally posted by R1Z:
When you got married, did you have a commercial photographer take pictures? I have never heard of a commercial photographer selling his negatives as part of the package. He'll sell you as many prints as you want, but not the negative. Commercial photography, and this practice and principle have been around for more than a century.



Yes, and the negatives are sitting in a drawer in my home right now.

Quote:

Originally posted by R1Z:

I would be impressed with a logical argument explaining why someone's private property should become public property, and please don't tell me that it's because this is a digital age and that distribution can't be controlled. That the looting in New Orleans could not be controlled did not make it right. Taking that which does not belong to you is theft, no matter how many people do it.



I agree that theft is wrong. What you have not yet shown is how downloading Serenity under the conditions stated in the original post is theft and wrong. I agree that under current law it is illegal, but can you tell me how it is THEFT or WRONG?

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

Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:32 AM

R1Z


Quote:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R1Z:
If I create a chair in my workshop and display it on the front porch, does that entitle you to take control of it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is it theft if I go and make an exact duplicate of the chair and do not sell it?



This is a discussion of downloading, not plagiarism. In my field (architecture) designs are not copyrighted, documents are.

If you make a chair that is as exact a copy as you can make it, it is still a chair that is your work product. You made it. There are two chairs, your chair is LIKE my chair, but it is not MY chair. You may hire actors and make a movie as like Serenity as you possibly can, and I will have no quibble with you. Joss and Universal may, but that's a whole other issue. What you may not do is acquire their work product without their permission.

Quote:

I agree that theft is wrong. What you have not yet shown is how downloading Serenity under the conditions stated in the original post is theft and wrong. I agree that under current law it is illegal, but can you tell me how it is THEFT or WRONG?


I am so glad to hear we agree on one point, that acquiring another's property without consent is wrong.

1.)Work product belongs to the person who did the work, unless other contractual arrangements have been made. (Your work product made on company time and premises may belong, contractually, to your employer.) Acquiring it without permission is theft.

2.)Downloading Serenity under any circumstances is wrong until such time as the the owners make it available for download. Doing so without consent removes control from the owner.

3.)The fact that you intend to make compensation later is an argument in your favor, but not a compelling one. First, you have deprived the owner of control over the process. Second, our system of retail commerce is predicated on payment first, merchandise after, unless you have an established relationship with the seller (an account) and the seller OKs the transaction. If Joss OKs the download, fine, but then he will have retained control over the transaction. Third, Compensation is not a complete remedy for theft. If you embezzle funds from your company and are caught, reimbursement later is likely to be part of the penalty, but it does not wipe out the illegal act. You will still have stolen the funds, first. Compensating Joss after the fact will not mitigate the fact that you took his work product without his permission.

AFTER, and only after, you have purchased the DVD, you may make backup copies in accordance with the standard fair use principles, and you and your guests may watch the content an infinite number of times. You may not send copies out into the world, that privilege is reserved to the owners, and you may not charge your guests for the privilege of watching the content.




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

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

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 6:50 AM

JONGIBBS


I have a suggestion for those people who are adamant that they are doing nothing wrong by downloading the movie. Why don't you send a letter/e-mail to those nice people at Universal?
You can explain what you've done and why it's okay. I'm sure we'd all love to hear about what happens after that.

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

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:00 AM

R1Z


Quote:

BitTorrent shakes hands with MPAA 11:04AM
BitTorrent has shaken hands with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and has agreed to try to help stem the amount of illegal downloads of movies and other digital content through its site. As a result of the agreement, BitTorrent will work to remove any copyright material that appears in its search engine.
The announcement was made by Bram Cohen, the founder and chief executive of BitTorrent, alongside Dan Glickman, chairman of the MPAA at a news conference in Los Angeles.



http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/80600/bittorrent-shakes-hands-with-mpaa.ht
ml


Apparently, even the creator of BitTorrent has conceded that taking what is not yours is wrong . . .


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

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL