Million Dollar Baby

[ISSAC RU]

If you put your heart into one thing , you always will achieve what you expected.

About the downloading movies , I have nothing to say . Its your choice to spend
12 bucks watch a movie. I don't find it violating any rules , because those companies have already make too much money , same for the actors.

[KenShi_JoB]

Please don't call it 'stealing'. It qualifies as Newspeak and is exactly what the RIAA and the MPAA want.

It's called theft when I take something from you and you no longer have it. I steal your shinai, you no longer have it. That's THEFT. When you download a song, you didn't steal anything. The artist still has his song. The stores still have their albums. That's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Besides, when two thirds of youngsters (statistics of Belgium) admit that they download music, you can't all lock them up. Now allow me to generalize, say if more than half of a society downloaded music, wouldn't that indicate that the society itself agrees that copyring infringing is ok?

The music industry uses an outdated model with artificially high prices, so can any of you blame these kids who have no income besides an allowance? If the industry came up with something just as easy to use as P2P applications and a FAIR price, I'm sure people will flock to that. But guess what, they're not going to ask a fair price...

So when many people break the law, it is ok to break the law yourself too? Imagine you are in music industry, you make a music and want to sell them. Will you still feel ok if people get your work for free?

[KenShi_JoB]

I don't find it violating any rules , because those companies have already make too much money , same for the actors.

You logic is seriously flaw. There is no rule said that you can take anything from them if they are rich people.

[JSchmidt]

If you put your heart into one thing , you always will achieve what you expected.

About the downloading movies , I have nothing to say . Its your choice to spend
12 bucks watch a movie. I don't find it violating any rules , because those companies have already make too much money , same for the actors.

Those companies also pay thousands of other peoplss salary (including mine) and you are taking money away from me when you download movies I worked on.
I usually work hard to do a nice job and in NO WAY, do you have the right to just take that without paying for it. How would you feel if you spend hours producing something, put it up for sale and people just take it, 'because it's there'?.

Jakob

[kuwaiti-kendoka]

Okey is it the movie we're taking about or is it the right to download movies... ect.... form the internet?

I mean come on guys this person is trying to talk about something else.

[Neil Gendzwill]

I know what he's trying to talk about, but I just get upset at all this casual theft that goes on. And you can call it whatever names you want in legal terms but morally, it's theft. Modern technology has made theft easy and nearly consequence-free. When you call people on it, they rationalize however they can. Such as the "oh, they're so rich it doesn't matter" argument. The very fact that you are posting here using computers makes you rich beyond the wildest dreams of 2/3 of the world. Does that make it OK for someone to steal something from you?

[D'Artagnan]

As a photographer, I would take legal action against anybody who 'infringes' on my copyright.

It's up to individuals whether or not they wish to commit crimes, but 'because the companies already have too much money anyway' is not a moral excuse, nor is 'it's ok 'cause its on the internet', what you are doing is wrong, and it is illegal, it is also upto you whether or not you do it, but the fact that it is wrong and illegal will never change, there is no 'excuse'.

Copyright theft, which is what it is commonly refered to in the UK photographic industry, jeopardises future production.


as for the movie, I haven't seen it.

[dohrt]

How thought provoking the results of that "what alignment are you" quiz were, but now I have this thread to ponder.

[Alex_McGrady]

Man, there is nothing better than a good legal debate. Let me please put in my two cents worth.

Intellectual Property Law is the whole idea of private vs. public (intangible) property. The question to ask is when does something become public property? Well...under the BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971) Article 7(1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.

What's that mean? Well roughly, the author may have exclusive rights to profit from his/her work and have it protected from others even after his/her death. Great, then that could be the whole meaning of established IP laws... protecting profits... just as JSchmidt-san mentioned. What difference would there be if ISSAC RU-san were to tape the movie "Million Dollar Baby" from TV or tape a song from the radio? Aside from a few distracting commercials, not much difference at all. If he taped something from the TV or radio, no one would say a word about IP laws as long as it was for his personal use. So, why the difference of the computer? I guess it is because there is too much freedom on the internet, no one can control it and everyone wants to. The government of Japan is currently trying to write a law to be able to put a tax on the internet. But why not, they tax EVERYTHING in Japan. Ok, back to the point.... It should be considered a violation of IP laws if someone profits from someone else's work. For example, if ISSAC RU-san were to download the movie, make 1000 copies and sell those copies for $10 a pop. That would be a blatant breach of IP laws (the problem in certain countries). Of course I am leaving out the entire idea of paying royalty fees to the author everytime you play their song....but I still think it would have to be a public forum for that (like radio or kareoke) and not just for private use. Same thing for a movie even if it were taped from the TV. You cannot charge admission for simply viewing the movie without the author's permission.

Simply stated, no one shall benefit from the hard work of others, and have no right of free use of it until it becomes public property, which is 50 years after the author's death.

Dude, this thread ROCKS!!!!!! Can we do another one now???

Alex

[kendokamax]

I always thought it wasn't so bad to play copied video game or watch some online downloaded video. as long as you still buy stuff from time to time.

Personally, I always buy what I like. I like to have the originals it's nice.


But entertainement has become way too expensive during the passed few years.
come on .....12$ to watch a movie is ridiculous....if they would lower the price a bit I think people will prefer to go out and have a social activity than staying home and watch a movie alone that they downloaded from the net...

[Kikuchiyo]

I'm glad I never wanted to become a lawyer. That was terrible. A few years of that and I'd take the business end of a sawed off shotgun to end the legal jarble of hell.

[Alex_McGrady]

I always thought it wasn't so bad to play copied video game or watch some online downloaded video. as long as you still buy stuff from time to time.

Personally, I always buy what I like. I like to have the originals it's nice.


But entertainement has become way too expensive during the passed few years.
come on .....12$ to watch a movie is ridiculous....if they would lower the price a bit I think people will prefer to go out and have a social activity than staying home and watch a movie alone that they downloaded from the net...

Hey Kendokamax-san, how are you? I hear you there. I guess if you start passing around or selling your downloaded version, you are in trouble! Heck, just downloading a copy for yourself will get you in trouble without the permission of the author, but what can you do. Tape it off the TV and watch it for years....

That is an interesting suggestion actually. Did you hear about the company (dont remember the name) that started selling discounted DVDs in China to compete with the pirated versions. I think it is a good idea. The pirated versions are often very low quality but the actual DVDs are way too expensive. I think it is the fault of the high prices.... it's a market economy man.... if things are too expensive, people will find other ways to get it. Lower the price and stop trying to sell a $5 DVD for $20.

I'm glad I never wanted to become a lawyer. That was terrible. A few years of that and I'd take the business end of a sawed off shotgun to end the legal jarble of hell.

Kikuchiyo-san, dude...I completely concur with your above statement!!!

Alex

[kanyil]

What difference would there be if ISSAC RU-san were to tape the movie "Million Dollar Baby" from TV or tape a song from the radio? Aside from a few distracting commercials, not much difference at all. If he taped something from the TV or radio, no one would say a word about IP laws as long as it was for his personal use.

Just splitting hairs here, but the difference between the taping of a movie from TV, and the downloading of non-authorized copyrighted stuff from the internet, is that the author would already have received money for his work when he sold his materials to the TV network, and the TV network would already have made their money from the commercials they sold (and you were forced to sit through).

On the other hand, the artists and the middle persons would have received nothing if someone just posts a pirated copy on the internet for all to download. Had this pirated material came from the source then the artist would lose out. If this pirated material is stolen from the movie theaters then the theaters loses out. Eventually everything goes back to deter any further creativity in the industry.

Is this splitting hairs? and does it make a difference in the long run? I believe the answer is "yes" to both questions.

(*phew* what a wonderful break from work, now back to work on that 200+ page memo.)

I'm glad I never wanted to become a lawyer. That was terrible. A few years of that and I'd take the business end of a sawed off shotgun to end the legal jarble of hell.

Ever wondered why there are so many lawyers here intent on smashing each other's heads in with a bamboo stick?

[Munnin]

Man, there is nothing better than a good legal debate. Let me please put in my two cents worth.

<SNIP>
Simply stated, no one shall benefit from the hard work of others, and have no right of free use of it until it becomes public property, which is 50 years after the author's death.

Dude, this thread ROCKS!!!!!! Can we do another one now???

Alex

75 YEARS NOW! In another 20 years they will extend it to 100. The living are paying for the dead.

[Akai Bushi]

Someone said earlier that Hollywood makes enough money. Well not everyone in the entertainment industry is rich. There are alot of people that go into making a movie that are just normal Joes working hard for a check. If everyone steals and the movie industry stopped making a profit then guess what no more movies no more movies to download. That also means alot of hard working honest people out of work. That is down right evil to take a person's means of survival away. We all have families and many of us have families to take care of, how would you feel if your father lost his job or you could not longer support your family cause of a bunch of people too cheap to pay for a movie or at least wait to rent it. And I feel that if 60% of the population is doing it then I would as the government choose 100 people and make examples out of them for the other 60%. Heavy fines.