Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why I Steal Movies (Even Ones I'm In)

Comments Filter:
  • Why?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:42AM (#32236294)
    Because with ripped movies you don't have to deal with those annoying previews that on some dvds, you can't skip.

    Oh, and its cheaper.
    • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Funny)

      by click2005 (921437) * on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:45AM (#32236326)

      Its not the previews that bother me.

      Its that 'you wouldnt steal a car' advert which cant be skipped.

      I would if it meant i wouldn't have to see that stupid advert.

      • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Funny)

        by MoonBuggy (611105) on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:52AM (#32236392) Journal

        I'd be very much inclined to believe that the author of the article would agree with you. He's been in the IT Crowd a few times, which was the source of this [youtube.com].

      • Re:Why?? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mldi (1598123) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:04AM (#32236532)

        Its not the previews that bother me.

        Its that 'you wouldnt steal a car' advert which cant be skipped.

        I would if it meant i wouldn't have to see that stupid advert.

        Yes, and unskippable previews. There's been a few DVDs where I've had to sit there a good 15-20mins before I could even start the movie I paid good money to OWN and watch as I please, not after endlessly getting previews of some shitty movies that have been out for awhile. Now, if there's a movie I actually like (very rare), after my RedBox $1 rental, I'll buy it on the cheap, then "pirate" it as this is the only way I can watch what I paid for in the fashion I want to.

        • You CAN skip those! (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2010 @11:03AM (#32237368)

          Don't watch DVD's on your Xbox, or on any system made by Microsoft or Sony.

          Plenty of non-name-brand DVD players don't implement the 'user can't skip' feature. Mine doesn't implement that. I can skip all that crap, and always do.

        • Linux... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by gillbates (106458)

          I never understood the fuss over being unable to skip the previews until I had to watch a DVD on a Windows computer. Turns out that for the first decade of the DVD's existence, I had been using Linux to watch DVDs, and had never seen the unskippable previews. I honestly didn't even know they were there!

      • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Professor_UNIX (867045) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:14AM (#32236628)

        If I had a replicator that took raw materials and energy and was able to recreate anything I desired you can bet your ass I would be using it, especially to replicate "luxury" items like expensive cars or high-tech gadgets.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Bing Tsher E (943915)

          I would use the replicator to replicate 10,000 more replicators.

          Then I'd bring the 10,000 replicators to a Star Wars Collectable (or Longabergers Basket, or anything else like it) convention. I'd give the replicators, free, to all participants.

          The chaos would be fun to witness.

        • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RobDude (1123541) on Monday May 17, 2010 @11:00AM (#32237328) Homepage

          And once everyone had a replicator - everyone would replicate the newest, coolest, best car.

          And nobody would pay for it.

          And the people who design cars wouldn't have money to keep designing cars. And all of the advancement and innovation that we've seen since the first car and now would grind to a halt.

          • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by RegularFry (137639) on Monday May 17, 2010 @11:27AM (#32237776)

            As long as there is someone who needs a better vehicle *for themselves*, there is someone who has an incentive to pay for development. Development would continue, just under a different financial model.

          • Counter example (Score:5, Insightful)

            by mangu (126918) on Monday May 17, 2010 @11:37AM (#32237974)

            And once everyone had a compiler - everyone would compile the newest, coolest, best software.

            And nobody would pay for it.

            And the people who design software wouldn't have money to keep designing software. And all of the advancement and innovation that we've seen since the first software and now would grind to a halt.

            I think recent history has proved beyond reasonable doubt that independent designers can create products without being in the payroll of the big corporations.

            People would want to design cars, just to show off. The fact is they are doing it right now [google.com], even without the benefit of a universal duplicator.

          • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by twistedsymphony (956982) on Monday May 17, 2010 @11:39AM (#32238014) Homepage
            if the people who design cars had a replicator of their own, they wouldn't need to keep designing cars to make money, because they'd be able to replicate whatever they needed to survive.

            Beyond that, if they truly enjoyed designing cars they could continue doing so out of the sheer enjoyment.

            It's important to note that ultimately, plots of land will be the only thing you'll never be able to completely replicate.... It'd be an interesting world should that technology ever become a reality. On the one hand it could go horribly wrong with people replicating implementations of destruction until we bomb ourselves out of existence, on the other hand it could cure problems of world hunger and material greed and allow us to concentrate on more social and environmental issues as well as advancing education and technological pursuits.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by MacAnkka (1172589)

            I sense a grand future for car-loving open source enthusiasts!

            I, for one, can't wait to download the new Carbuntu 25.4. I hear they've moved the steering wheel to the other side to open some space for future widgets and the brakes don't seem to work with the radio on, but the new color scheme is beautiful!

            Also, they removed reverse to streamline the user experience

      • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by morari (1080535) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:44AM (#32237056) Journal

        You had better believe that I would steal a car in a second if it meant that I'd get an exact copy of said car, without depriving the original owner of their property at all.

    • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by V!NCENT (1105021) on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:54AM (#32236408)

      I pirate because:
      1) I run Linux and therefore it is illegal to have a FLOSS piece that can playback some DVD's and most Bluray discs. Ripping takes too much time so... Well then, you fscking retarted industry... If you don't like me to have legal playback so I can become a customer than I'll just FSCKING DOWNLOAD IT FOR FREE?!?!
      2) A series is not out on DVD yet in my country. So how about releasing games and vids simultaniously everwhere?!
      3) DRM. You want me to not enjoy my games if I buy them, while you could easily for less money make me not have to activate it and you won't have to run expensive servers for it? Well then... I'll just download it! Too fscking bad...
      4) Sometimes I just want to watch a video on demand and only once... And I do not want to get my ass all the way to the mall the next day so I can enjoy the video as early as the next day.
      5) Sometimes games/vids are too expensive. Seriously... I buy PSP games all the time because they are 20 euro's or less. No problem. Steam showed that halving the game's price results is more than twice the sales. Which in the end means more profit. But instead it must be so goddamn expensive.

      So industry... Do something about you stupidity because you are making it realy hard for me to be a customer. Removing copy protection might result in a single copy to a friend of mine, but will also result in more than twice the profit. Which means you'll satisfy you stakeholders a lot more, because they only care about money.

      But no... That would be waaaaaay too easy...

      • Royalties (Score:4, Informative)

        by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:11AM (#32236598) Homepage Journal

        Steam showed that halving the game's price results is more than twice the sales. Which in the end means more profit.

        Not necessarily. Sometimes the publisher of a video game based on a licensed underlying work is required to pay a fixed royalty per copy to this underlying work's copyright owner. This means that whether the game costs $20 per copy or $10 per copy, the underlying work's copyright owner still gets its $2 or more per copy.

        • by V!NCENT (1105021)

          This is just the result of the industry as a whole not thinking about how to do it. If the copyright holder also halve his profit by simply requiring a percentage then the copyright holder will also in the end make more money.

      • Re:Why?? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Em Emalb (452530) <(ememalb) (at) (gmail.com)> on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:17AM (#32236654) Homepage Journal

        Ripping takes too much time so... I'm lazy.
        A series is not out on DVD yet in my country. So how about releasing games and vids simultaniously everwhere?! I'm impatient.
        DRM. You want me to not enjoy my games if I buy them, while you could easily for less money make me not have to activate it and you won't have to run expensive servers for it? Well then... I'll just download it! Too fscking bad... You don't buy the software, you buy the disc.
        Sometimes I just want to watch a video on demand and only once... And I do not want to get my ass all the way to the mall the next day so I can enjoy the video as early as the next day. I'm lazy and impatient.
        Sometimes games/vids are too expensive. Seriously... I buy PSP games all the time because they are 20 euro's or less. No problem. Steam showed that halving the game's price results is more than twice the sales. Which in the end means more profit. But instead it must be so goddamn expensive. I'm lazy, impatient, have a sense of entitlement AND a cheap-ass.

        (This was an exercise in what a *IAA rep might think when reading your post, not my personal thoughts on pirating content. FTR, I share a lot of your frustrations. I see no reason why movies and games aren't released world-wide at the same time. We have extremely fast communication between most countries in this world, how hard is it to do this? Answer: Not that hard)

        • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Zironic (1112127) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:23AM (#32236750)

          Well, almost all consumers are both lazy and impatient which is why there's entire industries built around that (Fast Food anyone?) so you'd hope the industry would consider that.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by sjames (1099)

            Exactly. The entire fast food industry is built on satisfying the customer's being lazy and impatient rather then whining about it to Congress.

            It seems odd that a business would be upset when the customer says "But I want to give you money for it NOW"!

        • Me too (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Rob the Bold (788862) on Monday May 17, 2010 @11:32AM (#32237878)

          I'm lazy, impatient, have a sense of entitlement AND a cheap-ass.

          Plus I sometimes want to watch a movie or listen to music. It's a freakin' movie or tune, OK? How much god-damn effort do I need to put into it? I don't want to record music or make a movie. Does Fiskars have a case against me cause I'm too lazy to mow the lawn with scissors? If you want to make a movie but feel that only the worthy should see it, I suppose you can. Just don't expect to profit from the endeavor. You make things too hard, too expensive, too time consuming or require some sort of morality test for your customers to overcome, then they're gonna find another way to get it or just find something else altogether.

          So, to summarize, all that "lazy, impatient, have a sense of entitlement AND a cheap-ass" really means is that I'm a discerning consumer trying to find something for the lowest cost possible. I suppose to be consistent, you'd have to also accuse someone producing a product that insists that I come somewhere to buy it at his convenience, when he's available and for whatever price he sets as "lazy, unmotivated, having a sense of entitlement and a greedy bastard". Except that we're talking a company here, so they're exempt of such accusations, right?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hedwards (940851)
          Media companies can't have it both ways, either you're buying a license in which case you can download it later if the original copy is destroyed or you're buying a disc in which case you can back it up in a separate location. Media companies can't say that you don't own the disc and that you don't own a copy either.

          Or in other words, if media companies wouldn't behave like jack asses perhaps people would be more inclined to pony up for the copy.
        • Speaking as someone who used to work in the retail industry, and the overall music industry, but now work in the tech industry, I think you're missing the importance of what you're interpreting his point-form items to mean.

          > I'm lazy and impatient.

          Aren't these precisely the reasons for two of the most crucial ingredients which all of the large scale entertainment industries are utterly failing to add to their product?

          Convenience and ease of use.

          People can order coffee at drive-throughs now. Why? It's convenient, and enough people were lazy and impatient enough that they didn't want to have to park, get out of their car, enter the actual coffee shop, line up, wait, choose from a menu either during or after that wait, order, wait some more for the coffee or other items to be made and delivered to them, pay, get a receipt, return to their car, and get back on the road. A drive through is far more convenient.

          If the coffee shop / drive through example had never existed, an entire traffic infrastructure would arguable not exist today. Drive throughs are considered an innovation that was a direct response to customers who were impatient and busy, and who one could argue right now are lazy for using them. But they're considered an innovation.

          The *IAA members who currently produce the CD's, DVD's and Blu-Ray discs in their current state lack this kind of innovative thinking. They fail to understand that convenience - especially in an era where a ton of information is very easily available - is a crucial ingredient in their product.

          FBI warnings, several delays involving intro animations, menus or warnings, plus copyright notices, then trailers and previews are a nuisance. Then add in:

          * DRM
          * Regional coding
          * Territorial restrictions for a given release
          * Territorial delays in release or a complete lack of release in one or more territories
          * The whole "back to the vault" scenario.

          These are all considered annoyances, and hindrances to consuming the product people actually wanted to buy, and these are precisely the things that are causing people to avoid purchasing their products, but they refuse to remove them. I think it would be a huge wake-up call for even one studio to try releasing a product with at least one of these hindrances removed (but preferably all of them.) I also personally believe that restricting a work from being released in a different territory due to it not yet having a specific licensing agreement is a ridiculous concept in a world that has something called the Internet. iTunes doesn't let me buy some of my favorite artists because they aren't licensed to be released in my country. Of course I'm going to download them any way I can. (I do order physical CD's for exorbitant prices as well, but I'm probably a really rare consumer in this case.)

          Even when studios do include a "bonus digital copy", it's restricted, and only available for a preset amount of time. If you try to use that copy past that time, you're out of luck. That's a stupid, stupid idea. I won't always want a new movie to remain on my iPod, and I will more than likely wish to use that feature far further in the future than they will allow. I don't know anyone who uses that feature, and I doubt I would ever choose it over ripping my own copy of the DVD I own so that I can play it the way I want.

          As a programmer, "lazy" leads to better code over time because a program or script eventually does more things either I or my clients wanted it to do. As a former retail worker, "lazy" means we had to work harder to make sure people could get what they wanted more immediately, or find things out faster, especially when a store was very busy.

          "lazy" and "impatient" are what labels and movie studios should be wanting to address in a way that produces a better product. Recorded music and films are the two biggest industries that resist this approach consistently, and then blame the consumer when they complain about it.

          ad

      • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Interoperable (1651953) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:23AM (#32236746)

        An opinion that seems very prolific on Slashdot is that consumers have a right to consume anything that has been created. They don't. The right to consume is not recognized by law, nor should it be. If a company doesn't want to sell you something under reasonable terms, tough shit. It's their loss as much as it is yours but it doesn't change the legal or moral standing of the interaction.

        A justification that I see fairly often is that if someone couldn't possibly buy a product then piracy of that product is ethically neutral because you can't be causing a loss of sales. I disagree with that because it is still a violation of the right that the copyright owner has to control the distribution of copies; however, I think that that argument is much less central to the issue of piracy than the perceived "right to consume" that does not exist.

        I know that much of Slashdot thinks that such a right should exist and I ask of you: why should such a right exist? Why should a right to consume trump a right to control the distribution of your ideas. Personally, I respect the right of creators to own their ideas more than I respect the right to consume because I respect creators more than consumers. It takes ingenuity to create but none to consume and I think that the "right to consume" culture is a by-product of having too few creators in our culture.

        • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BoberFett (127537) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:31AM (#32236840)

          You ask why the right to consume should exist. I ask why should the right to own ideas exist?

          • Re:Why?? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Interoperable (1651953) on Monday May 17, 2010 @11:31AM (#32237868)

            If I have an idea I can choose whether or not I share it. If I choose to share it with another individual, we can form an agreement that the other individual will not share it further. If we accept that legally binding agreements can exist, such an arrangement can exist and be legally binding. I see no reason to exclude ideas from such agreements. Unless the law explicitly forbids contractual agreements with respect to ideas, then the ownership of ideas exists by default due to the freedom of choice of person who had the idea. The right to expect contracts to be fulfilled guarantees ownership of ideas.

            Copyright generalizes these agreements to avoid explicit contracts for each copy but the fundamental principle remains the same. I believe that the law should provide a reasonable expectation that contracts be fulfilled and otherwise be as permissive as possible. Explicitly prohibiting contracts on intellectual property is more restrictive than necessary and is not constructive.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Jack9 (11421)

              I see no reason to exclude ideas from such agreements

              Ideas are not tangible, not guaranteed to be original or well formed...because ideas are purely conceptual. Even language cannot encompass the content. I see no reason that they should be included in a legal agreement.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Smauler (915644)

              There can never be such a thing as ownership of ideas. If you claim there is, illegal ownership of those ideas would follow, and we really do not want to go down that path. What we have now is an artificial monopoly enforced by the government to prohibit ideas from spreading so as to enable the originator(s) to generate more money. I do support this to some degree, purely because in a limited form it keeps corporational innovation moving forward - I don't think it would affect individuals that much. How

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jedidiah (1196)

          > The right to consume is not recognized by law, nor should it be.

          This is what that whole "Public Domain" thing is about. After awhile, all of that "property" turns to dust and you are free to copy it all.

          If the law had not been beaten out of shape by industry lobbyists, much of what people are getting large jury verdicts handed down over would be free for anyone to spread around as they choose.

          Although even that really pales when compared to the fact that we have all been conditioned to expect media to

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            we have all been conditioned to expect media to be free since before your grandparents were born....this stuff has deep roots. It's even older than TV. It goes back to the very first forms of broadcast and mass communications. Mass communications have always presented the consumer with a free ride.

            That is not true at all. Broadcast media has always cost money to create and distribute, which (to use the example of old broadcast radio programs) was funded primarily by advertising. To make the assumption that this content was a "free ride" simply because no one was required to put a quarter in the radio at home every hour serves to confuse this conversation.

            Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the RIAA and other predatory monsters like the major record labels are wholesome, positive f

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cpt kangarooski (3773)

          An opinion that seems very prolific on Slashdot is that consumers have a right to consume anything that has been created. They don't. The right to consume is not recognized by law, nor should it be.

          Why?

          I suppose that people should not be obligated to share things; if you write something in your diary, for example, you should not have to let other people read it, nor should other people be able to compel you to let them read it. And if you wanted to destroy that only copy of the work, which was in your posse

      • Re:Why?? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:53AM (#32237220) Homepage

        So I generally don't really "pirate", and it's for a couple of reasons. First, I often do want to support the people who bring these products to market. Second, I don't really want to go hunting around the Internet for a good copy of something; I'd rather go to a site, pay a couple bucks, and be done with it.

        But here's the thing: I watch "Dexter" (a show on Showtime, if you don't know), and they recently finished their 4th season. I don't have cable, so if I wanted to watch the fourth season of "Dexter", I would need to order cable and Showtime just for that show (something in the neighborhood of $50/month for as long as the season takes).

        Now I already pay for Netflix, I watch things on Hulu and make no effort to skip the ads, and I sometimes even buy stuff on iTunes. I'd probably buy more stuff on iTunes if it were slightly cheaper, didn't have DRM, and everything were available in HD, but I think the price iTunes charges for video generally isn't worth the product you get. Dexter wasn't available for any of these. I was going to wait a year for it to show up on iTunes as I have done in the past, but then I started hearing spoilers about what happened during the season, pretty much ruining the whole thing.

        So I went looking to see if Showtime was putting Dexter online in any form, and I put, "watch dexter season 4 online" into Google. Within the top could of hits, there was a site that had the entire season available to watch in a Flash player. The quality wasn't good, but I didn't need to download anything and it was as easy as watching Hulu. It's not even clear to me that I was doing anything wrong-- I didn't distribute anything or copy anything. I went searching for a legitimate way to watch a show online, and I found a site offering the show. Is it really my responsibility to ensure that the site had distribution rights?

        So anyway, I watched the season. If Showtime had bothered to offer their own distribution channel, I would have been willing to watch ads or to pay them. I bought a previous season of "Dexter" on iTunes. The *only* reason why Showtime didn't get any money from me in this case is that they weren't willing to take my money. They'd rather play marketing games with pricing and availability.

        Similarly, there have been one or two times in the past few years that I've downloaded music through unauthorized channels. And when I say "one or two times", I mean something like maybe as much as 1 album per year. But again, here's the thing: Every one of those albums were unavailable for online purchase. I went to iTunes and Amazon, and it wasn't available. Again it's, "Here, record company, take my money," and they say, "no thanks." Ok, fine, if you insist I'll just download it somewhere.

        I'm convinced that all of these media companies would make more money if they simply made everything available for sale online in a high-quality DRM-free version. Not only could they sell more product, but they wouldn't have the pay the salaries of whatever marketing geniuses are spending their days deciding not to offer "Dexter" for sale online.

    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:57AM (#32236448) Journal

      Because with ripped movies you don't have to deal with those annoying previews that on some dvds, you can't skip.

      If only that was all you had to deal with. You should actually read the article, here we have an actor taking the role of the consumer and being forced to deal with: DRM, paying for a license multiple times, regioning on DVDs and distribution restrictions by country. In both his own work and others'. It was a great read, the whole time I was thinking, "Finally, now you know what it's like." I mean, come on. As a software developer if I coded something that was as shitty as all that and I sat down to use it ... I don't know what else I could think of myself as except a failure. The fact that publishers in the USA love to restrict free streaming online to only the USA boggles my mind. Do they know that there are far more people outside than within? "Oh no, you'd be violating some archaic distribution deal from 1977 if a Ukrainian heard The Killers." And since we signed that away for each country a separate contract for all eternity, we're kind of out of luck. Laughably ridiculous.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)
      As he says in the article, it's often simply a question of availability. He wants a show, but the copyright owner chooses not to make it available in any form that he can use, either via format or region restrictions. I would love to see damages for copyright infringement take this into account: if it is impossible to buy something then the loss of earnings from someone downloading it are zero and so are the maximum damages. If you want to keep enforceable copyright on something, you need to keep distrib
    • by Kozz (7764) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:11AM (#32236590)

      Best DVD Easter Egg ever, and this really works on nearly all discs and all players. When you pop in the disc and the auto-preview garbage starts up, hit STOP, STOP, and then PLAY. In most players, this automatically starts the main feature on the disc. I found this info in a youtube vid some weeks ago. I'd credit it, but don't have the URL.

  • Nice article (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Very interesting read.
    I want to check out his show now.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Stealing movies is not very different from stealing medicines, food or anything else. The marginal cost of these items are very low - esp. for example medicines, compared to the prices.

    Just cos he is a director, actor etc. etc. doesnt make it right - just means, he (like the whole of humanity) likes freebies.

    Time we find a better way to catch such pirates - maybe even put a bounty!!

    • by ircmaxell (1117387) on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:53AM (#32236396) Homepage
      Did you even read TFA (of course not, this is /.)? He goes through some pretty good justifications for his "illegal" downloading. This is one of the better written and most rational pieces I've read on piracy in quite a long time.

      FTFA:

      "Ownership" is starting to change its meaning. If you buy a movie from iTunes you "own" the right to watch it on certain devices within certain constraints. When you "own" a DVD, you have the right to watch it whenever and wherever you want. However: you must watch ten minutes of promos, trailers and anti-piracy threats. I'll take the download, please.

      But often you can't do it legally: I recently wanted to show my son Disney's classic Jungle Book and intended to get it on iTunes. Unfortunately, it is currently incarcerated within The Disney Vault. So I'm afraid I simply DL'ed a pixel-clear pirate copy which arrived in seconds. My moral justification for this? I once bought the VHS. It's your own vault, Disney!

      I actually disagree there (The "I'll take the download, please"). If I buy content, I want to use it when I want, where I want. I don't want artificial constraints about which devices I can use it on, or when I can use it. There has to be a happy medium between them. And frankly, the ten minutes of promos and trailers never bothered me. I simply go to the bathroom or do something else during them...

      • by Skater (41976) on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:57AM (#32236458) Homepage Journal

        I actually disagree there (The "I'll take the download, please"). If I buy content, I want to use it when I want, where I want. I don't want artificial constraints about which devices I can use it on, or when I can use it. There has to be a happy medium between them. And frankly, the ten minutes of promos and trailers never bothered me. I simply go to the bathroom or do something else during them...

        I think that's what he meant. He said getting it from iTunes is still problematic, and I think he meant "download" as in "illegally download, not from iTunes". That's how I read it, although I can definitely see how using "download" in that last sentence might make the reader think "download from iTunes."

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by thijsh (910751)
        You might be contend with the restrictions imposed, we are not. I have dozens of DVDs *still in the plastic wrapping*, I just buy movies that are good but when I want to watch them again why would I go trough the trouble of finding the DVD and sitting trough the fucking adverts? The only thing I'm concerned about is if I can honestly say to myself that I do the good thing here, and I think I do. The entertainment industry (music/movies/series/games) gets shitloads of my hard earned cash, and in return I exp
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Scrameustache (459504)

          Why would they care if I stick in the DVD or play the torrent, they've got their cash???

          They want you to physically handle the DVD in the hopes that you'll break it and buy another one.

      • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:21AM (#32236718)

        And frankly, the ten minutes of promos and trailers never bothered me. I simply go to the bathroom or do something else during them...

        I do that before i sit down to watch a DVD. I then use VLC to watch it, which allows me to skip all of that rubbish (I literally shout at the TV when I'm forced to watch a DVD on a regular player). I also turn up to the cinema 15 minutes after the displayed time to start showing, as I know there will be some b-list celebrity telling me to shop the guy making a shaky-cam screener of the film, and several trailers for movies loosely related to the one I want to watch (It has a woman in it? Show a trailer for a Rom-Com). I went to see Iron Man 2 recently, and do you know what there was an advert for? Sex and The City 2. I guess the link is that they are both sequels.

        So yeah, I get why people are pissy about these things, and I agree totally. Give me a DVD with the movie I want to watch and nothing else and I'll be a happy person. Skip the trailers at the cinema, and I'll be a happy person. Bombard me with region-specific releases, format shifting prohibiting DRM, and unskippable trailers and I you will lose my business.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Scrameustache (459504)

          I went to see Iron Man 2 recently, and do you know what there was an advert for? Sex and The City 2.

          "He made her watch his action movie, so she'll make him watch her chick flick! We're brilliant! This advertisement scheme CAN'T fail!"

      • He goes through some pretty good justifications for his "illegal" downloading.

        His best justification is one he doesn't realize though. He stated that he lives in London but yet has created an iTunes account to access US TV shows because 'it's legal' when it actually isn't. The iTunes conditions of purchase say that you must be in the country of the store when downloading because the US store does not have the rights to sell a US TV show to someone in the UK. The reason being that Hollywood has likely sold the rights to the show to a British broadcaster who will be very annoyed if th

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wisnoskij (1206448)

      Steeling movies is very different, when you steal somethings you deprive the owner of it.
      When you "steal" a movie you are not stealing it, you are copying it.

    • by Chrisq (894406) on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:56AM (#32236434)
      You are absolutely correct, if you go into a store and steal a DVD it is exactly the same as any other theft. On the other hand downloading copyright material is not theft. It is copyright infringement. You have not deprived anyone of the original. It seems that you have succumbed to the propaganda of that trailer, which if you watch carefully avoids saying that illegal copying or downloading is theft because they know it is wrong. It is the old association trick:

      You wouldn't steal a bag
      You wouldn't steal a car
      Downloading videos is piracy
      Piracy is against the law
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Stealing movies is not very different from stealing medicines, food or anything else.

      Yes it is. The marginal cost of movies is practically zero, whereas that of medicines or food, however low, isn't. Also, replicating medicines or food is not as easy as replicating a physical copy of a movie. And if it were, it would be our moral duty to replicate those medicines and food.

    • Also consider the current backlash against the uber-wealthy (definitely in America, presumably around the world). You have movie stars and rock stars earning millions upon millions of dollars for performances not always considered worthy of the pay and a population who is apparently much less concerned about the well to do of the well-to-do.

      For the music industry, a sustainable business model is to freely distribute recordings and charge higher for live performances. The availability of recordings acts as

    • by mangu (126918)

      movies is not very different from stealing medicines, food or anything else. The marginal cost of these items are very low - esp. for example medicines, compared to the prices.

      You are absolutely right. The pharmaceutical industry is as guilty as the media industry of practicing an absolutely immoral pricing scheme.

      That's why there are countries that ignore medicine patents [bbc.co.uk].

  • by miffo.swe (547642) <daniel,hedblom&gmail,com> on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:49AM (#32236358) Homepage Journal

    This constant effort in changing our language is frustrating.

    When you steal something you deprive the previous owner of their copy.

    Making a copy is an offense but since it doesnt deprive the real owner of their copy its a very minor offense, especially when done without economic interest and for profit.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Making a copy is an offense

      Not always, not everywhere. Remember that in your effort to change our language. ;)

    • by TheJodster (212554) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:12AM (#32236608) Homepage

      If you downloaded "Hurt Locker" and you get a summons in the next few weeks, can you post back and let us all know how this argument worked out for you? I would pay money to sit in court and watch you tell that to a judge as a reason to have your case dismissed. I would find that quite a bit more entertaining than a movie downloaded from a torrent.

      • by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Monday May 17, 2010 @02:18PM (#32241198)
        Actually, if he were in court on trial for any variation of "theft" (eg robbery, burglary, etc.) for simply violating a copyright, the case would be dismissed. These are not the same terms, they are not the same crimes, and they cannot be tried as such. Copyright infringement is not, has not been, and hopefully never will be considered in legal terms theft. People need to stop conflating these terms.
    • by AcidPenguin9873 (911493) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:13AM (#32236618)
      Slashdot is notorious for spreading this incorrect information, and it needs to stop. Theft of time/labor is also a crime, at least in two [ky.gov] state [mt.gov], and a Google search for "theft of labor" reveals many more citations for you to peruse.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hey! (33014)

      Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, it is potentially a kind of crime against property, and none of the commonly used words for crimes against property are any more precise than "steal". Therefore a person fluent in English but not law would naturally refer to a crime against property as either "stealing" or "trespassing". Your choice of words depends on the position you want to argue. "Steal" says too much; "trespass" says too little.

      Yes, it is true that you don't deprive the copyright owner of so

  • by drc003 (738548) on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:49AM (#32236362)
    ..."I live in London and many of my favo(u)rite TV shows are American. So if I want to see the latest episode of South Park or Friday Night Lights..." I threw a flag right then. If you spend your time downloading and watching Texas' version of Days of Our Lives I have no more time for you. Personal Foul. Good bye now.
  • In case it isn't clear from the summary and you don't wanna read tfa. The actor is Peter Serafinowicz.

    Never heard of him.

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:51AM (#32236384) Journal

    So I'm afraid I simply DL'ed a pixel-clear pirate copy which arrived in seconds. My moral justification for this? I once bought the VHS.

    My greatest problem with copyright abuse by the RIAA/MPAA is simply how they nickel and dime you. Every decade or so a new format comes out and they roll around in new income without even doing anything (well, remastering is very little). That bothers me. It seems like the opposite of a capitalistic system where you're supposed to be rewarded for producing something--in this case entertainment content.

    So let's say I roll down to a garage sale and find the band Poison's worst songs of the 1980s on vinyl for two pence (that's two pence more than it's worth). By your logic, is it okay for me to now get online and download that?

    I assume that with digital downloads, all of those archaic shenanigans will end ... or perhaps that's why your employer, your publisher and your industry are fighting the final format solution. You wrote this piece as a consumer of your own product and were given a brief flash of insight yet you seem to avoid trying to reconcile this view with the view from your end, from the insider's end. And that's probably because it's irreconcilable and, as you said, you "don't understand business." More importantly, you don't understand money and the desire for more money is all that runs your industry. You've got some sort of humanity and empathy for the consumer left in you. You'd need to cast that off in order to understand the businessman who is making tons of bank on you. You'd need that to understand EMI's decision to continually restrict Hot Chip's viewership.

    Good luck in your quest to utilize things like P2P for promoting, sharing and distributing as a tool to success. Your industry by and large will not assist you in the least and may even take legal action against you.

    • by Solandri (704621) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:51AM (#32237172)
      It bothers you because the RIAA/MPAA is trying to have their cake and eat it too. When it comes to copying and distribution, they want their products to be treated as a license. Even though you bought it, you're limited in how you can use it (no public performances, don't want you making backup copies, costs more for copies which are rented out, etc). But when it comes to replacements and upgrades, they want their products to be treated as physical media. "New version on better media comes out? Sorry, you didn't buy a license, you bought a copy, so you need to buy a new copy." "You accidentally scratched your DVD and it won't play anymore? Sorry, you need to buy a new one."

      The software industry "gets it." They treat software as a license, period. If they come out with a new, better version, they rationalize that you've already purchased a license for most of the features in the new versions, and the new features represent just an incremental upgrade. So they charge you less to buy the upgrade version. If you lose your media, you can just mail/fax them proof that you've bought it and they'll send you replacement media for a small fee.* Same goes for other industries where you own the physical product. Once you bought it, they don't care if you dismantle it, modify it, use it for unintended purposes, resell it. The worst they'll do is void your warranty.

      But the MPAA/RIAA wants to have it both ways. Whenever it'll be favorable to them (at the expense of the consumer), they say you bought a copy. And whenever it'll be favorable to them (again at the expense of the consumer), they say you bought a license. That's why it bothers you, that's why the author in the linked story is conflicted. Because the MPAA/RIAA's stance is logically self-contradictory. *(Disney is the one exception [go.com] I've been able to find. They will replace scratched DVDs, probably because so many kids destroy them that parents would file a class action suit if Disney didn't do this.)
  • by JeffSpudrinski (1310127) on Monday May 17, 2010 @09:56AM (#32236438)

    The author of the article makes a few good points...particularly about the creators of South Park (a show I loathe) not particularly minding torrents of their stuff on the 'net...especially since there's not really anything they can do about it.

    Also in that he made a video promoting a UK band, then EMI went out of their way to limit the audience of the promotional video to only UK viewers...why limit who can see a band's promotional video? Shouldn't EMI want a much larger audience?

    Everyone would a lot happier if they just stopped fighting it and tried to find a way to work with it. A good example is that back "in the day" (and I'm giving away my generation here, so get off my lawn) the television stations had even tried to make off the air taping of their shows illegal (it was for a while)...then they realized how ridiculous it was to fight it when everyone did it for convenience (plus the supreme court of the US made it legal to do so). Next thing you know, the stations were finding ways to *want* you to record their shows, knowing that they were getting more viewers if they did so. That led to TIVO-type set boxes (that they've now tried to limit electronically).

    If "they" would just realize that if they tried to work *with* new tech instead of against it, they could find a much much larger paying audience.

    For the record, though, I'm against piracy in all its forms. People being so blatant about pirating music and games is what's led to corporations fighting it. If I have an MP3 in my collection, then I have either purchased it electronically or have a physical media of it that I've purchased.

    Just my $0.02

    -JJS

  • It's an interesting read but nothing terribly informative - it doesn't really provoke thought on the subject. For anyone who's interested in the topic, it's stuff that they've already encountered (and thus already thought about) and, for anyone who hasn't encountered these ideas, then it's almost certainly not a topic of interest. I think we're at a point where people who are interested in this subject have already heard all the arguments for/against their stance on the subject and nothing terribly new is b
  • I used to have a Cox DVR (using it was like shitting a watermelon) and I would set it to record movies of the Encore channels. The DVR was $16 a month. So we gave the DVR back to Cox and got a netflix account. We order movies, I rip them and send them back.

    According to the law/MPAA the former is OK (well, the MPAA doesn't like it very much), but the latter is stealing, but in reality the only difference is one came down the wire digitally, and one came off a piece of plastic digitally. In all other way

  • Awesome article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by P0ltergeist333 (1473899) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:17AM (#32236658)

    By far the most reasoned treatise I've seen about this issue. Now if only we could get the MPAA, etc. to read and understand it. Or better yet, if only I could figure out how to provide 'better than free' content without billions of dollars, and thus put the archaic companies in the position to either compete or die. I-tunes has started this, but it needs to happen faster.

  • Addicts by design (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Monday May 17, 2010 @10:21AM (#32236722)

    Sure, the players involved all think it's real, but the whole game is nothing more than a means of squeezing an extra bit of stress reaction from the population.

    TV and general media opiate is such a fantastically successful means of keeping people asleep that it will not go away until it is rendered redundant by guns, barbed wire and processing plants. The copyright thing is a means of turning everybody into a criminal, and thus gives a valid excuse to introduce those guns, barbed wire and processing plants. -Because milking the human race for anxiety is all fine and nice for the aliens, but greed and stupidity dictate the necessity for a huge whollop of energy which can only be extracted through physical trauma on a planetary scale. A couple of senseless wars here and there just don't cut it.

    Have a nice day.

    -FL

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...