Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/1/05 03:05 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Heres why I am unsure

None of that looks right. Rather, it looks like you, or someone else has a rather large misunderstanding of the law.

At 3/1/05 09:05 AM, bcdemon wrote: I disagree. Maybe you should check out a sample from a dvdrip movie (1.5 hours) that fits on 2 cd-r. Might not be 100% dvd quality, but it beats the shit out of VHS. And 2 cd-r is still cheaper than a VHS tape.

45 minutes per cd. LOL. And are all SVCD rips of DVD titles encoded to fit 45 minutes on a single cd? Nope. Being a piracy market, there is no QC. Anyway, regardless of the technical side, There's the 'stop LOTR 15 times to change cds' side.

At 3/1/05 01:20 PM, fli wrote: Just because a few bought a DVD even if they have a pirated copy, don't mean that everyone is gonna buy a DVD even if they have a pirated version.

Your statement before was proven wrong, can you possibly provide evidence to prove this right?

"I've seen it. It's stupid. Let's download another movie." A sale isn't made, directly due to the fact that someone saw the movie for free.

Then is that really a bad thing? A better product for the consumers to get the people to actually purchase a product? Come on...

I'm starting the sense just a few persons, "Piracy, it's nothing big really." Well then, if it's nothing too big, then why not buy a legit copy?

A lot of people that do do piracy are in college and cannot afford to buy a legit copy. P2P has been normally rampant on college campuses for this sole reason, that people cannot afford it.

Being a poor college student does NOT give you license to be a thief, especially if you are stealing things you do not need. Especially something that is less than $50. If you are that broke, maybe you need to sell your computer, get rid of the internet, and use the school's facilities.

Did you miss my point that one uploaded movie = hundreds of lost sales? Who cares if a handful of those hundreds buy the dvd? There are still HUNDREDS of unpaid for copies. That means more expensive dvds on down the road. Then no-one will be able to easily afford one.

At 3/1/05 09:21 AM, Maus wrote: It's theft. No amount of rationalisation will change that. Whether it's a stream of binary code or not, it is not yours to just take. Intangible things are just as worthy, otherwise we wouldn't bother with a patent process. Who needs to copyright ideas, right?

"Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud."

"The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."

As said by the U.S. Supreme Court

Different crimes.

The subject at hand is thievery. Excuse me for using a poor example.

At 3/1/05 02:36 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 3/1/05 01:20 PM, fli wrote: Just because a few bought a DVD even if they have a pirated copy, don't mean that everyone is gonna buy a DVD even if they have a pirated version.

Your statement before was proven wrong, can you possibly provide evidence to prove this right?

Your logic is inherently wrong.
"Proven wrong" means without a doubt.
One person claiming that they bought a movie even when they downloaded it before does NOT represent the actions of all people whom download movies.

Taking what does not belong to you, and or not paying for it, when it is not offered for free, is stealing.

The bunch of "zeros and ones" that you discussed about, does not belong to anyone one else but the people whom have first reservations to them, and taking all those "zeros and ones", which are not offered to the people unless they pay for them, is called theft.

You did not prove anything, if anything you just brought up more "begging the questions".

"I've seen it. It's stupid. Let's download another movie." A sale isn't made, directly due to the fact that someone saw the movie for free.

Then is that really a bad thing? A better product for the consumers to get the people to actually purchase a product? Come on...

Now you're changing the subject, a fallacy right there.
The topic is about "Downloading movies stealing, or downloading movies not stealing".

I'm not even gonna put my opinion on this matter since it's irreverent.

I'm starting the sense just a few persons, "Piracy, it's nothing big really." Well then, if it's nothing too big, then why not buy a legit copy?

A lot of people that do do piracy are in college and cannot afford to buy a legit copy. P2P has been normally rampant on college campuses for this sole reason, that people cannot afford it.

Just because a lot of people do this does not make it right, or give it validity. A poor man stealing medicine to save his the life of his child does not change the fact that he is stealing, though there are different moral implications, which should be made into a different topic instead of discused right here.

Stealing is stealing.
The motives and reasons to stealing does not change the fact that theft occured. The nature of the item does not change the fact theft occured.

And if people TRULY want to defeat Goliath, then boycott.

At 3/1/05 03:09 PM, Maus wrote: Did you miss my point that one uploaded movie = hundreds of lost sales? Who cares if a handful of those hundreds buy the dvd? There are still HUNDREDS of unpaid for copies. That means more expensive dvds on down the road. Then no-one will be able to easily afford one.

Maus has brought the point that I forgot to bring up.

When things are stolen, it drives up the prices of other things to make up for the lost profit.

When I buy a DVD, part of my money, which I could used for other things, is going towards the price of the unsold DVDs people didn't buy, cause they downloaded off the net. So in essence, when you download off the net, you are stealing part of my money.

Downloading isn't a victimless crime, so many people are involved.

At 3/1/05 01:46 PM, TheShrike wrote: And are all SVCD rips of DVD titles encoded to fit 45 minutes on a single cd? Nope. Being a piracy market, there is no QC. Anyway, regardless of the technical side, There's the 'stop LOTR 15 times to change cds' side.

Heh, actually there is sort of a QC in the "scene", if you don't comply, your release gets "nuked", and "nuked" releases looks bad on the group, Not that that is important, its just fact. And your right, not all DVD are ripped to fit 45m a cd, some are more, some are less, depending on the movie. Regardless, I would much rather have an SVCD over VHS ANYDAY, even if it is 2,3 or like any of the LOTR releases, 4 cds.

Maus wrote:
Everytime somebody steals a movie, a physical one sits on the shelf.

Do you mean literally steal it off the shelf or download it, well regardless, either way your wrong. Not everyone that downloads movies would have bought it if they couldnt download it. And the cost of dvds is a joke, $20-$25 for a dvd that costs what, $3 tops to make, yeah and the downloaders are thieves right, lol.
BTW Maus, have you ever visited a website in your years on the internet and right clicked on a picture and hit "save image as"? Ever?
Probably not huh?

I'm not argueing this cuz I think downloading movies and music is right, there just isn't to many worth while topics right now :)

First I would like to point out copyright infringment is not a theft, simply an infringment. Two different crimes.

Second, criminal infringment of a copyright is defined as...

In US 506 A 1 & 2
(a) Criminal Infringement.— Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either—
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

and also...

In US 2319 B 1 & 2
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17—
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;

See the difference of the 1 or 10 copies of phonorecords? What the hell? Im not sure how you would prosecute that if someone reproduced, say 4 copies of this.

And, the best part of all, if you are not seeding or uploading anyhing, you are not aiding in its distribution. Unless they count yourself as aiding in its distribution, which I am guessing they do but that is not the way the law is worded. But still, they way I read it is if you do not aid in its distribution, you are nor breaking any laws. And the only people who aid in the distribution directly are the uploaders. So the moral is, let the crazy people upload and benefit off their breaking of the law (god Im such a leacher).

And actually I was thinking, since it is illegal to record anything from the TV, why are their VCR's that are capable of getting a TV feed and recording it? Same goes with Tivo. Unless there is some lopehole in the law I dont know about, this really confuses me.

bcdemon, you have no idea how much it costs to produce a single DVD. It is much more than $3. Try closer to $10-$12. Trust me on this, it's what I work with everyday.

Most single images on the internet are not copyrighted. They are news service photos, image archives (i.e. Corbis or Getty,) or personal photos and are readily available for download. Many of the ones that ARE copyrighted won't download properly onto your computer.

You're grasping at straws here.

At 3/2/05 11:11 AM, Maus wrote: They are news service photos, image archives (i.e. Corbis or Getty,) or personal photos and are readily available for download. Many of the ones that ARE copyrighted won't download properly onto your computer.

Those images are easily downloaded, but still copyrighted.

At 3/2/05 01:38 PM, ben_dont_jump wrote: Those images are easily downloaded, but still copyrighted.

Copyrighted against me selling it or displaying it as my own creation. Not against possessing it.

Anyone know anything about the law? Cause I mean I laid out what it says and I really am not sure if it is illegal to just download something if you are not uploading or seeding. I am still rather confused cause the wording is rather, well, not good.

At 3/2/05 01:56 PM, Maus wrote:

At 3/2/05 01:38 PM, ben_dont_jump wrote: Those images are easily downloaded, but still copyrighted.

Copyrighted against me selling it or displaying it as my own creation. Not against possessing it.

I think the conversation is going to somewhere else where it shouldn't go.
Point is downloading movies is theft.

What about Jpegs?
Well, what about 'em? That's a different can of worms.

At 3/2/05 09:59 PM, fli wrote:

What about Jpegs?
Well, what about 'em? That's a different can of worms.

er... What about jpegs?

At 3/2/05 09:59 PM, fli wrote: Point is downloading movies is theft.

Abortion is murder.

No, wait! Damnit, that's a moral argument with no legal backing.

My mistake. ;)

At 3/2/05 09:59 PM, fli wrote: I think the conversation is going to somewhere else where it shouldn't go.
Point is downloading movies is theft.

Not theft. Copyright infringment. 2 different cases. But, yes. It may still be illegal depending on how the law is read. And I am trying to get someone to comment on it cause I really dont know.

At 3/2/05 10:42 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Not theft. Copyright infringment. 2 different cases. But, yes. It may still be illegal depending on how the law is read. And I am trying to get someone to comment on it cause I really dont know.

When copyright infringement causes a sizable loss of revenue, it is considered illegal.

At 3/2/05 10:49 PM, Maus wrote: When copyright infringement causes a sizable loss of revenue, it is considered illegal.

Yes, the law says 10 and 1 distributions. I am really damn confused. And it says you have to distribute it, like I have said. So lets say you never let it get farther than you once you download it. Is that illegal since you are not technically helping it in its distribution once you download it? Oh well, this is the last time I will try to fish for a response and stop trying to steer this topic.

Sorry, I really am perplexed about this and would like someone who knows if the situation I described is really illegal.

This particular discussion is safe, I think, because it's all hypothetical, and we certainly aren't encouraging it.

Since the person on the other end is distributing illegally, you are also guilty, by receiving it. Just like how people are convicted of possession of stolen property. You knew it was ill-gained, and took it anyway.

They left the law vague, so that a judge can interpret cases on merit, instead of by a strict code. Otherwise, some major bootleggers could find loopholes, and/or the little guy could get sent up the river for 3 downloads.

This is new territory, and it's still being mapped out.

Internet. :o

At 2/28/05 07:34 PM, TheShrike wrote: As much as I hate to admit it, the big corporations behind the MPAA are right. Theft is theft.

Well it's theft according to the old outdated laws that can no longer can apply. I say "no longer can" because there's nothing they can do to stop it. All they can attempt to do is try and scare people into stopping or continue massive neverending court battles. Every year the P2P industry grows and is not stifled in the least bit. Some programs are shutdown, some are still going after being around for the last 6 years. For the most part, new programs and ways of distributing these movies descreetly is continuing to grow, so if you can tell me how this can be stopped please do. Otherwise, they're fighting a losing battle.

Look at it this way, if someone was selling water in a desert that took him a lot of time to get, like had to walk 50 miles there and back across a desert to get it, so he sold it for inflated prices to a local town mostly based on how much work it took to get it. Of course he should be compensated for his hard work, but what if it started to rain and the locals were catching free water from the sky. Does that mean this guy should go around beating people up because all his hard work has gone to waste getting pails of water?

That's basically what has happened here. People found a way to distribute movies freely on the internet and stopping it would be like trying to stop the sky from raining in order to keep your water selling business going. The only way to do that would be to go around and attack individuals from drinking rainwater or try to instill fear into the population, but then you realize that through all your intimidation practices the people continue to "steal" the water instead of buying what he worked hard to get.

So in the end, this is going to put pressure on Hollywood to come up with better business model because P2P is here to stay and instead of trying to stop a rushing river with a single 2x4 plank, they should focus on working around the problem.

At 3/2/05 11:15 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: So in the end, this is going to put pressure on Hollywood to come up with better business model because P2P is here to stay and instead of trying to stop a rushing river with a single 2x4 plank, they should focus on working around the problem.

My feelings exactly. Same thing happened with betamax and stuff and the just dont want to change. Sooner or later, they will find a decent way to use P2P. But that takes initiative, something people like them swimming in cash dont have.

At 3/2/05 10:49 PM, Maus wrote: When copyright infringement causes a sizable loss of revenue, it is considered illegal.

I think it may be illegal even if it doesn't cause any loss in revenue, but cases where it does potentially cause a loss of revenue are targetted heavily because it's in the financial interests of the copyright holder to do so.

At 3/2/05 10:54 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Sorry, I really am perplexed about this and would like someone who knows if the situation I described is really illegal.

The whole damn shebang is confusing.

I don't know the legality of personal copies of copyrighted material for private use, aside from mp3s in Canada which have clearly been ruled on. And what's allowed by fair use or whatever, like parodies.

AFAIK, though, it's the uploaders who tend to get targetted by the organizations such as the MPAA & RIAA. I don't know if they've actually convicted anyone who has just downloaded, although there must have been a few settled cases out there.

When it comes to bittorrent, downloaders and uploaders are, mostly, one and the same and downloading through that makes you a distributer as well. Unless a lawyer can argue that you're only distributing n-percent of a file and therefore it's not distributing or something.

argh, this thread keeps on confusing me. :b

At 3/2/05 10:41 PM, ben_dont_jump wrote:

At 3/2/05 09:59 PM, fli wrote: Point is downloading movies is theft.

Abortion is murder.

No, wait! Damnit, that's a moral argument with no legal backing.

My mistake. ;)

Oh man I'm a dick. :P

I just want to say that I do understand the reasoning behind "downloading = theft", and do think it makes sense and is a logical conclusion and all that.

The thing I'm being anal about is how in the U.S., legally it's considered copyright infringement and not theft. When trying to explain how piracy is wrong, using theft and analogies to shoplifting and everything DO make sense, but in a legal sense I do believe that it's just not theft.

If someone is downloading under the belief that it is theft, they may justify it to themselves with arguments such as "I'm not actually depriving anyone of any property so it's not stealing", and that's the actual case if I remember that Supreme Court link I had the other day. And then in their mind, they may not be doing anything wrong at all.

How is someone going to justify breaking copyright infringement if they know that's the crime they're committing? They could resort to arguments like, "They made millions off this movie already" and junk like that that hold no water whatsoever. In their mind they may still think they're doing nothing wrong, but in *this* case they at least know what crime they're committing and junk like that.

I haven't been trying to lighten the impact crime or anything - copyright infringement has actually resulted in much harsher penalties than outright theft could, IIRC.

Er.. being anal again.
Sorry to anyone who has had to put up with this pedantry of mine about the exact legal crap. :p