Moving to LOCKED Forum

but he didn't buy it. he said he got it free from a friend. who made money off him owning it?

It's just amazing to see this line of logic justifying bootlegs. This is classic antisocial personality. I remember when software pirates makes the sophist argument that software piracy is not immoral because they actually benefit the software industry. I don't remember why but I suppose anyone can come up with some lame excuse. The bottom line is that honest people like me end up paying a higher price to subsidize the unethical habits of dvd consumers, whether shoplifters or bootleggers. When a person views a bootlegs he is enjoying the toils of labor of another without just compensation to which an artist is entitled.

Taping a movie off of HBO is different. HBO pays a license to the studios for a particular title to the end consumer. Part of that license is built in costs knowing that the viewer may tape the show and view it later or on several occasions. When that user then tapes it and gives it to a co-worker, the studios and HBO loses and consumers loses.

I can understand if the guy bought it, then I would totally take the stance that it was wrong. Once you take the money away from the studio and put it in someone else's hand then it becomes a real issue. but if the guy got it for free and did see it twice in the theaters, I see no reason why he should feel guilty that he has a copy of it?

In answer to the original question, IMNSHO there's not a single thing wrong with owning a copy of a downloaded movie if you've paid to see it in the theater.

I paid my $8 to see Matrix Reloaded in the theater. I was less than impressed after the first viewing--especially with the totally inane and unnecessary overly-long rave scene. So I downloaded the movie. Why? Because I wanted to determine if I actually wanted to fork over more dough to purchase the DVD. Although it still is kinda disappointing, I'll buy the DVD; it's worth $10 or so.

Hilarious. My turn:

My name is DVDude! and I constantly download movies from the Internet. If I haven't seen a movie and don't have a pressing desire to part with either the theatrical fee or the rental fee, I'll seek it out online for free. My logic is that if I like the movie (e.g. the aforementioned example of Matrix Reloaded), I'll buy the DVD. If I don't like it, I saved myself money. However, in general, I'll go to the theater if it's something I definitely want to see.

Does it bother me that I'm "cheating" people out of money? Sure, a little. As another example, I went to see Wrong Turn in the theaters because a) I really wanted to see it and b) I wanted to support that kind of throwback horror movie. Did I download it after paying to see it? Yep. And after I watch it again (incidentally without the annoying comments from the couple in the back of the theater), I'll determine if I'm going to purchase the DVD.

I bought the Special Edition Star Wars trilogy. Luca$ refuses to make it available. I don't feel bad one little bit. Is it taking money away from him? Nope. I'll buy the official releases when they're finally made available. Until then, I'm happy with my boots.

Are bootlegs morally or ethically wrong? No definitive answer to that. My morals may be different than another person's morals. What I perceive to be okay to do, someone else may think is wrong--and vice versa.

Often times, when I do not have a 100% convincing answer to a question, I will post it on DVDTalk and see what the general consensus is. Sometimes I will hear something that will make me change my mind; usually I don't. But I rarely post a question if I already have the answer or if I am "set in my ways". I realize this makes me somewhat unique on this forum, but there really have been times when someone else's opinion has helped to shape my own indecisive thoughts and feelings.

And again... I recognize that what I am doing is illegal, but I am not sure whether or not it is immoral. Thus, this thread.

As I stated above, I am not really trying to explain or justify myself to anyone -- I am honestly looking to see what everyone thinks.

Secondly, I recognize that there is black and white, and also that there are varying shades of gray. What I am doing is perhaps in a darker shade than I would prefer, but it is still somewhat in the pale. What you are doing has pretty clearly crossed over to the dark side, IMO. It's one thing to say that if a film is not available, maybe it's OK, or if you want to review something you have already seen, then that's fine. But saying that you stole this movie just to save fifty bucks, and that you are perfectly fine with this -- to me, that is just plain wrong. You could save a lot of money on all of your DVDs just by shoplifting them from the store, but that would be illegal and immoral, just as saving a few bucks by purchasing pirated videos is illegal and immoral.

I may be hypocritical on this point -- feel free to rip into me all you'd like.

I own a 2003 Mustang Cobra...I want another one so I will steal one, but I'll only steal it from a Ford dealership. After all, I already own one so what's the difference?

Stealing is stealing.

Right, and if I were to walk into DVD store and put a DVD under my coat and leave without paying, it also is stealing.

But if I were to copy a DVD that was not available for sale commercially (e.g. Salo), for my own use with the understanding that I would buy it once it comes out on DVD in R1 again, then true, this is stealing, but it is not ethically wrong.

For it to be ethically wrong, there would have to be a loss by the studio / copyright owner, etc.

To complete your analogy, if you were to take some scrap metal that you owned, and were to create a new Ford Mustang for your own use in your garage (complete with a "Ford Mustang" logo on it, then this would not be stealing. To take one from the dealer's lot would be, obviously.

I watched (paid) the Matrix twice, so from now on I am going to sneak into the theater and not pay. No money will change hands and there are going to be lots of empty seats.

You know, at first I was going to come up with some sarcastic and semi-humorous remark, but you know what? Actually, this is a fairly valid counterargument. Just because no money changes hands does not change the morality or immorality of your actions. Hmm.

Again, I am not set in stone here. I do think that some parts of my holding on to the DVD may be debatable from a moral standpoint, while what renaldow is doing is a clear cut case of ripping off the studio, but that is just a matter or perspective. I will concede that I am probably being hypocritical in attempting to defend holding on to the DVD while renouncing video piracy in general.

But he's not creating his DVD from spare parts.

Anyway, people can justify anything.

Stealing is stealing, no matter how you try to excuse it.

Given your strong feelings about pirating I'm surprised you would even ask the question. Your rationalization seems to be saying "I can't stand it when others do it but if I deem the circumstances appropriate it's okay for me to do it."

I think the fact that you're asking means you know it's wrong, but I give you credit for asking the question. Now would be a good time to say "Did I say that out loud or was I just thinkin' it?"

Don't ask if it's illegal or immoral. Just download and enjoy it if that's what you're in to.

Please explain EXACTLY how YOU are subsidizing what the original poster did.

Just had to comment that this logic is just wrong. So if I paid to see it in a theatre than I should get the DVD for free when it comes out?

Also since this is still in the theatre and not available in DVD yet, I feel that its still wrong. You are going to watch it multiple times since you downloaded and not be paying anymore. Thats like saying I have the right to watch how many more times for free since I paid for it the first time. The fact is that if you want to watch it more, then you have to pay each time you watch it until its available in DVD. It doesn't really matter that you are going to buy the DVD later. Time is also important in costs. Getting something early generally costs more than getting it later.



Well I don't have any right to tell people what to do(they won't listen to me anyway) since I used to get several fansub of anime in the old days. I will just say my personal opinion - little bit off topic with digisubbing since thats what I used to do.

Now I just avoid every bootlegs(I personally think bootleg is a bootleg and stopped trying to make excuses for myself), but several years ago if it was something that was not available or if I was definitely going to buy it later, then I thought it was ok.

The main reason that I even changed my (generally seem lesser of evil) view was that digisubbing has become absolutely ridiculous these days. Old days, we used to fansub to see something that we normally couldn't see, gain more interests to the series and possibly get it licensed. Now a days almost every anime is getting licensed, but we still even digisub series that we KNOW that its going to be licensed. But we stupidly give excuse that its not "techincally licensed" so its ok. Or that we have the "right" to "preview" the series before we buy and digisub the ENTIRE series. I would still be feeling that fansubbing would be ok if people buy every volume that they have digisubbed, but we know thats not true.

I just don't see how people think they have all these "rights" Thinking that its ok to watch stuff before you actually pay. Thats like watching a movie in a theatre and decide to pay afterward ONLY if you liked it. You can't just changed the rules whenever you feel like it.
If you don't have enough desire to see or you think its not worth spending money on - then just Don't Watch it. If you don't like how its released like the price, format, quality - then thats just tuff. Complain to the studio and just live with the purchase until better version comes out, or don't buy it. That should be the only choices, not steal from somewhere else.

To those people who knowingly purchase/download bootlegs just because you don't like the price, etc. and don't plan on buying the official release, then #%(#@)$#&@%##*

If the movie was out of the theater and I knew I was going to buy LOTR on DVD because of better video/sound and extras, then I could see using a bootleg until it comes out on DVD. Through I have never used any bootleg copies.

But, if it is still in the theaters, then it is hard to get around moral/legal issues.

I am coping Smallville to DVD off cable, so I might not be buying the DVD set. I believe this was settled a long time ago in the courts (in the old VHS days) and it is ok to do this. But I wonder if this will changed with DVD burning. Because the sets are being released and the shows will now be losing real money when people like me can burn a whole season on 12 DVDs for less than $24.00.

Iron Giant, the courst ruled VHS not falling under Illegal terms simply because you are Time Shifting. You record something and you watch it later. You are not making any profit off this (Say if you record it and sell it, that would be bad). If you say that keeping a pirated version of a film that is in theaters right now is illegal/immoral, then you would have to also say that recording Smallville on dvd-r and then keeping that instead of the box set that will come out is also Illegal/immoral.

Time shifting:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/T/...meshifting.htm

little info about it all:

So in a sense, you can say that these folks who pay nothing for pirated films are TIME SHIFTING the film.. they pay for the first view (In the television show case, you watch advertisments which pays for the program). You are just watching it later.

discuss.

Then tape it off TV when it's aired since it won't be copyright infringement. It seems to me that pirating a film, no matter how many times you pay to see it in the theater, is still copyright infringement.

I'm just bringing up issues that Iron Giant brought up. He was opposed the idea of keeping a free pirated movie, but was all for keeping and creating a collection of copyrighted material.. I am safe to assume that Smallville is copyrighted even though it is shown for free on television right? Or does no one pay for syndication and rebroadcasting rights?

Just because it's shown on tv doesn't mean that the time shifting falls only for VHS. TiVo is falling under the same area where it's time shifting the material to later be watched.

I download episodes of Futurama. I don't create copied versions of it (Burn them on disc to view them on some other source), But I feel this is time shifting in all it's legal sense even though the format is changed. Now to get back on the topic:

the real issue comes up with when you Pay for the pirated copy and take away money from the copyright holder opposed to getting the copyrighted material for free were no one loses money on it (since you already saw it by paying for it).

Does this make sense or even sound like english? Simple enough if you ask me...

there is a difference between taking money out of some studio's pocket and just having a copy of a copyrighted material. Using the fair use time shifting model, you can say that I have the movie and use it in the means of "Fair Use" :

I made no profit, I might use it for educational puproses (I view it and analyze scenes such as the archietect scene in Matrix Reloaded), and it's for Entertainment Puproses. No one loses money when I download it or obtain it somehow for free.

I'm just adding spice to the conversation and keeping it flowing because this is very interesting to read and disuss everyone's views on the subject.

Ok I'm neither condoning nor condeming. Plus I won't incriminate myself in threads people need to becareful at what they post online. If anyone needs to know I'm a goody goody.

But why didn't the music industry go after people who taped a song off the radio for their own use or why didn't the movie industry go after Joe Blow who copied movies of his TV set to his VHS tapes.

I've known alot of people who did this. But now since its easier to download and all the industries are targeting internet users. Is it because its easier to track those users and if so to me its kind of hypocritical that they didn't cry foul on the Tape and VHS copiers for own use.

They aren't going after those who download, they are going after those who Upload. those who make the copyrighted products easy for others to get. Uploadng is the problem because it goes against the fair use comment by Distributing the products.

They always went after those who sold the copyrighted stuff. have it be through flea markets or the streets of any given city, they always went after those, but now when it's easy to get ahold of in the comfort of your own home they are going after those who distribute it.

The scare with the RIAA currently is that they are going to sue those who distribute(sp) the songs to others. Remember, they can't really get on you for having it since you might have it as a legal back up of it.. but if you leave it open for others to take from you.. then you are illegally distributing their material and that's what all this comes from. either way. the whole TIME SHIFTING thing is something I would like folks to talk about since it pretty much splits it down the line... It's fair game if you make no profit off the material, but the morals and ethics behind it are still up for discussion (well, it's all up for discussion, and it's a mighty good topics... lets just keep it in bounds to not get locked. )

The same way honest consumers pay more because of shoplifters or software piracy. Doesn't take a genius or an economics class to figure this one out.

Well you are comparing apples to Oranges. If these people are stealing dvd's directly from the stores then it does effect the way you pay for dvd's. The subject at hand right here is this guy got a free copy of a movie that is currently in theaters. He paid to see it in the theaters twice already.

If he was doing the thing you say he is doing "Stealing making others pay more", then he would have to sneak into the theater, fill up that seat that would have gone to a paying customer and watch the movie without paying. As it is, he got it for free so he not only paid to see it twice, but he is not stealing any income from the theater or the studio and gave them double the amount they would have normally gotten.

Apples and Oranges my friend, Apples and Oranges.

Now, again.. fair use. If he did not pay for the copy, no money was taken away or exchanged to someone other then the distribution company and thus... It could fall under the model of which you record T.V. shows at home.. Fair use all the way aslong as you do not make copies of it and distribute it to others.

Another boring discussion on a useless subject. Who cares if you have a bootleg DVD? Most movies out now are overrated garbage, copied in part or whole from previous movies. If someone wants to have a bad copy on DVD of a worse movie, so what. What the world does not need now are Jack Valenti clones. At least, Valenti gets paid plenty to spout the party line of the big studios.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint.

You're saying that downloading = time shifting = fair use?

If no money changes hands then it's fair use?

If someone made a copy and gave it to you then the other person would be the only one at fault?