There are, from what I can tell, two major groups of people who partake in this practice. Each is represented by at least a couple of posts above.

1. People who, because of the current level of technology, can literally leach content without paying for it, and (and this is the important part), actually use the resulting copy as their only one. Who burn copied CDs and DVDs and leave it at that.

These people deserve all the condemnation and tongue clucking that they've gotten here.

There is, however, a second strata of users. People like ncmojo. Paid to see the film twice and plans to buy the DVD. I think the man is entitled (morally, if not strictly legally) to a personal use copy. I guess he could sweep Keanu's porch, but short of that, I think he's demonstrated enough loyalty to the franchise to get himself a little elbow room.

"Moral" and "Legal" are two different things. It's legal to own Nike shoes, but if you know about the conditions they're produced under, it becomes a bit cringe inducing to help Phil Knight out by wearing them. That's all up to you and your conscience.

And by the way, theatre owners would have worked ticket prices up to $10 by now if Beta tape were still the industry standard. It's in their very nature to push prices upward and outward.

that, seriously, is the best little chunk of insight in this whole entire thread. it amazes me that people get so bent out of shape about downloading when there are real issues in the world, such as horrible child labor conditions to produce the products we use, as noted above.

i download music and movies to preview and my collection of 500+ cds and more than 80 dvds should show that i haven't neglected either industry from my cash. if i like i buy. some of you will say "well why didn't you see the flick in the theater when it was out?" and to a certain extent that is a valid point. i go to the theater to see new movies quite a bit but to see every movie i'm interested in just isn't possible from a time standpoint. with that said, how many of you have bought a pair of the afore mentioned Nikes before talking them for a walk about the store? or how many times have you bought a car without giving it a test drive?

yeah, i thought not.

And your point is.... My point is if he wants to see it a 3rd or 4th time then he needs to pay another 8 - 10 dollars each time.


Oh yes he is. Under your fuzzy logic, it would be okay to sneak into theaters as long as there are open seats? If you get caught its called Theft 3rd degree. Look it up...I'm sure your state views it the same.



If the bootleger is making a copy for his own personal use...e.g. to back up in case of dvd rot or that he doesn't want his 5 year old kid man handling the original, then a back up is ethical. In his case, he got a bootleg from a third party (rather than made a backup from a disk he purchased legitimately) for a movie that is still in theaters. The license that he paid (ergo ticket stub) is for one showing only. Under your analysis if I paid twice to see a mediocre movie then I have the absolute right to see it over and over again for free. If thats the case I'll hit the local B&M to go steal the Phantom Menace.

If I had a bootleg for movie that's still in theaters and I watched it rather than going to the theaters, I have just deprived the studios and the theaters $9.00. May be small change to the theaters and studios but stealing is stealing. It doesnt make a difference ethically what the magnitude of the crime is; it's dishonest. Simple as that. Now if you compound the theft by the number of people who do buy bootlegs worldwide and that number adds up. CD sales plummeted these past few years because of Kazaa and the likes. I know people who actually bragged aloud that they haven't bought a CD in years. Call me old fashioned but I believe if a person has a good idea, he should be rewarded for it.

My stand point Karnblack was in response to Iron Giant stating that having a copy of a movie is wrong, but having a copy of a television series and burning it on dvd with the intent of NOT buying the dvd set when it comes out to save a few bucks is not wrong.

He sited the use of how the Courts claimed it was Legal to record stuff on your VCR. Well using that logic and going on the court rulings that make it legal for you to record copyrighted material for later viewing (Time Shifting), you can simply say that you are time shifting the movie to watch it later. How many of you tape something and watch it only once in your life time? Come on, really, just once? Now just because you didn't pay 10 bucks to watch that tv show, does that mean it's free for all? Well the way it's funded is through ad's and so you are in a sense paying for your viewing each time you view the ad's right.. Unless you have TiVo or the many other things that skip ad's.. or a simple Fast Forward button.. Anyhow. taking the reason why Time shifting is Legal, I applied it to the pirating of films:

Time share:

So the point is that in fair use, you are not making a profit or using it for Educational or etnertaining purposes without the copy right holder losing out on money.

Lets put our friend here who has the matrix on dvd-r. He paid nothing, he saw the movie twice in theaters. By my account, the man shouldn't feel guilty. He paid to watch it and in some aspects he is simply timeshifting. If he was to sneak into the theater without paying, take up a seat that would have gone to a paid customer(say the theater is full), then you can say that someone is losing out. So if you want to compare VHS recording of your favorite show, you can relate it perfectly with this. Does it matter who records it? How many times have you asked your friend or a family to record a certain show because you can't make it home or hell, how many times have you told your TiVo to record something for you? It's just on different forms of media. If I download a film that I have watched in theaters, does that mean I haven't contributed to the studio and in the long run, does that mean I am taking away from the studio? I already paid them to see it, Think of it as Time Shifting.

Ticket prices at theaters are high for other factors.. Such as higher prices for film prints and higher % that the studio takes out in the first few weeks of releases. And yes, there is more important things in life to worry about. these men bring up a good point. why not try something out? It has helped the anime companies a great deal to be able to use fansubs to an advantage in promoting there shows.

Anyhow. I fall under the classification of one who uses pirated stuff as a means to watch it in the mean time (After I have watched it in theaters) till the dvd comes out. I love the theater experience, but I also like to see some scenes over and over again. Not to mention I do not want to buy bootlegs. I stick to stuff I can get on my own through different channels. In any case, I do believe it is wrong to download something and have it be your only means of owning that item.

I've said it in many threads before.. I download Anime fansubs, but you can check my dvd collection and my hard drive and you will see that whatever I have on my hard drive, if it is out on dvd or LD, I will have it in both. I'm a big fan of supporting anime distributors and film distributors considering the fact that I'm in the industry. But I also see it through the eyes on a business stand point that it is not something that is going to hurt the industry as some people claim it will.

If you own any VHS tapes that you recorded a show that you missed and have already watched and it's not deleted or bulk ereased, then you really can't say anything against these folks on a moral or ethical stand point since if they have paid to see the film atleast once, then it should be classified under Fair Use under the whole Time Shifting resolution as long as that person does not try to make a profit off someone else's copyrighted material.

VHS machines sales went down a great deal when the new wave of technolgy came out. Does this mean that DVD should restrict itself because it's hurting the old business model?

The record companies are suffering for other reasons and I don't buy the whole "People stop buying because they could download" arguement. Sure it brings some bad, but it also brings good. Folks are exposed to artist who would never get air time on a Monopolyized Radio industry. In a day and age where Clear Channel can choose to NOT play you simply because you do not want to play in venue's they own and cut them in on a share of the road show profits it's simple to say that the way the RIAA runs business is an old dead idea. Look at Apple's new online mp3 store. It has reported Millions of sales. Maybe the RIAA should adapt to a new business model and try to cash in on this. I know plenty of people who would love to pay 99 cents for a single song instead of paying the 12-20 bucks for that whole cd when in reality only 1 song is decent. Not to mention that folks would be happy to pay for the song having better quality to it.

You want more proof of how the RIAA is making more enemies then friends? Look at the music forum and the ton of other Anti-RIAA threads out there on this message board. It's simple to say that if the RIAA actually wanted to cash in on this instead of sitting on the side lines and crying about the changes that are happening, that they could make a profit.

Not to mention that the person with the good idea is the artist. In this day and age, the artist in the music industry gets pretty much nothing compared to the music company which is why more companies then artist are going after distributors of the music. Most bands welcome it as it's free exposure while there is some like metallica who are bearly realizing that they could use the net for there advantage by offering online content once you buy the album. Maybe they would have had more of a following if they didn't alienate their fans and sued/ went after them. When metallica launched there attacks on P2P sites the music label also went after folks who were sharing Rage against the machine songs without the consent of RAGE themselves. Rage strongly opposed it and the music company backed out on that. not to mention RAGE came up with a way so that the people could get back on the P2P networks like normal. Goes to show you really who wants to go after the fans and who doesnt.

Now again, with the FAIR USE and Time shifting, it is applied to Iron Giants idea that it is wrong to get a pirate tape, but there is nothing wrong with recording and making season sets on DVD-r of Smallvile and flat out claimed he would not buy the dvd set when it comes out. So making that home version his only copy. I disagree with this and came with the reasons why recording shows is legit and how it could be applied to the film industry. Just because it's a different form of media it's still covered under fair use. Just like Books are cover under fair use. And just how TiVo and the other recording mathods are covered under fair use. Aslong as you do not profit off it or distribute it without the copy righters consent then it can be considered fair use. Also, if said item is distributed, proof that there was a loss of profit must be proved.

Can you really say that I was going to watch the matrix a third time or a fourth time in the theaters if I just wanted to see five minutes of one scene? I don't think so. Then again, I do not plan on making this copy my final copy of it. I will preorder my copy the day it's up for preorder. that's for damn sure. so I think I supported them well.

blah, blah, blah. Now where is that Centropy Charlies Angels?

Sorry, but that is just a canned response that is being tossed back.

Again, please explain specifically how you are subsidizing this activity.

I've heard this knee-jerk response from people who really have no idea what it means.

I for one will not indulged in bootlegs or downloading of movies
from internet. I am a home theather fan and one that would like
to be classify as a 'PURIST' of sorts.

No point in getting bootlegs that do not have all the extras and
to certain extend bad quality audio and video transfers. It's
even worse if its a internet loaded movie where one do not enjoy
one's HT system but only thru the computer with them little small
speakers croaking out the audio !

Of course its one's choice to what ever one does but I know my
choice and that's get only 'ORIGINALS'.

Well, I agree with you Leon, but the topic here was discussed about the moral/ethical and of course legal discussion about owning them even if it's in theaters. He already stated he would buy the dvd when it's out. so what do you make of it all?

I should have been more specific. What I meant was that if I paid to see it in the theater and it's not available on DVD yet, then I don't think it's wrong if I download a copy to view again to determine if I want to purchase the DVD when it's eventually released. The odds of me actually paying again to see a movie for a second time is very rare; from what I recall, I've only paid to see a few movies twice in the theaters.

On another note: the other day I downloaded the HBO movie Breast Men with David Schwimmer. I watched it two days ago and yesterday I bought the DVD. My point? If I download an "illegal" copy of a movie and I like it, I'll buy it. If not, I saved the rental fee and/or a blind purchase. I downloaded Breast Men because it was FREE. As a result, the studios gained money, not lost because I would NOT have rented or bought it sight unseen.

Excellent point.

Many people do this with music, and I'm not surprised that the principle transfers to video.

You guys crack me up.

I would love to hear your tune if you made a film and used your own money to create it. If you had a couple of million into the movie and you would to make your money back (maybe even make a profit), I bet you would not allow anyone who goes to your movie to bring a DV camera so they could watch it later and to make a copy to give their friends.

I can just picture a bunch of tri-pods setup throughout the movie theater.

funny, I work in the industry and co-workers have copies and so forth. To them it seems like a non issue aswell. the money will be made up and the % of folks with both the means to bootlegs and the % of those who use the bootleg as their Only means to that movie do not rise to a point where it's a threat.

Like I stated before as a counter to you, You record Smallville and are going to use your collected tapes as your only source of the series even if the dvd comes out (or so you state).. So how is this different? Did you purchase any of the products advertised in the show? How about this.. Do you fastfoward through the ad's or remove them when you put them on dvd? If you do, then you are creating an illegal copy. Why? the ad space is what is funding that showing. So by you taking out the ad's or not seeing them, then you are in the same token, doing the same thing folks who download a film are doing.. seeing it without paying your dues. In the movie case it's the ticket price. In the smallville case, it's the advertisers you are cheating out.

Thanks for the support. IMO, my logic is sound in this regard. Sure, I'm technically "stealing" intellectual property if I end up not buying the movie, but I'm not made of money. I definitely would not have looked twice at Breast Men if I hadn't seen it posted online.

Well if you don't have the money to buy it, then you can't have it. Basic of economics. ALL people are not made of money, they just have to live without what they can't afford.



Well its good that you actually bought that movie, but what about All those other movies that you didn't think it was "good enough" AFTER you have watched them?(well you did admit that you are stealing them) You mentioned that you were not interested to even pay the rental for the movies, but that can't be really true for all the movies you download, is it?

You justified that you would buy something that you think thats worth it. But what about all those mediocre movies that holds some interests to you(those that can be categorized as "worth a rental but not to buy" titles) Do you at least rent them or just stop with downloads?

And you can't really say that you had no interest in those movies since you were interested enough to take your time to download and see those movies. I would say those are kind of movies you pay cable for.

No matter what, IMHO, it doesn't justify you from watching the Entire movie before you consider paying for them. This is Not like test driving a car or testing an electronic devices before you buy them. All you can do is figure out if you want to watch it by the recommendation from others, and sample the movie by watching the trailers and making of featurette before you decide to pay for it.

You can't really justify stealing(your own words) because you "might" buy some of the ones that you steal. Do you see how stupid that sounds.



Also, Just out of curiosity since I also don't watch the same movie twice in the theatre(the last time I did that was Braveheart) Why do you need to watch several times to decide if you want to buy it? Can't you decide if its good enough by watching it once? Of course there are few movies that seem like its a cool movie the first time, but when watching it the second time, its like incredibly stupid and wonder how you ever liked it in the first place(For me, this was X-Men) But you know what, that just can happen and we have to live with it. It still doesn't justify anyone to steal.

Animefan, Are you a fan of fansubs? Just a general question since I believe that DVDude is making the connection to regular films as if they were fansubs. You know, watch it before it's licensed or so forth. I see his point. I wouldn't normally buy, or hell, rent most films, But on the rare ocassion, I find something that I would not normally have rented or bought that I really enjoyed after watch it for free. with this logic, You have to figure that they would not have gotten my money unless I viewed it free. It proves that not all pirating is a bad thing and that it may also result in the studio making more money then they would have under normal circumstances.

Just showing the two sides of the coin.

Jackskeleton, well I guess you missed my previous post on this tread about how I feel about fansubs. I will just quote myself because Im lazy

So far I have replaced about 80% of what I fansubbed(and yes, even those that I didn't like) I am eventually going to replace EVERY SINGLE fansub that I saw, once they get licensed.

I don't think its fair to compare the fansub(in the old days, not now ) to the movies that is available in theatre or in DVD. The fansub in the old days was necessary because we couldn't see it in any other way and there was a need to promote it. If you just think that fansub is just there for you to watch it early, then you have the wrong idea about fansubs. It was there in the old days to make it more popular so we would get a chance to get the official release. But the movies that he and you are downloading are movies that are already released and can be easily accessed.

I guess I would agree that some form of piracy can be beneficial.
Someone else mentioned music downloading. I could see that if its an artists that doesn't even have a contract with record company, the "sharing" of their songs would be very beneficial for both side. But can you really say the same thing for major or even mediocre artists' songs that gets "shared"
I could also see it if its an independent films that need to promote itself. Oh wait, we have Sundance Film Festival for that.
As for Anime, there is still few titles that would have a hard time getting it licensed in US, but I HATE what fansub/digisub have become because they digisub every F^#$*%$ episodes to even those that they know or have a high chance of eventually being licensed. If you want to know, I don't get fansubs anymore, not a single one.

I have a no problem if you just watch "samples" to decide if you are going to buy it. I think being able to download some part of movie or music would be a very good idea. Like 1 minute of chorus from a song or few minutes of highlight clips from the movie, or if its a TV series, 1 or 2 episodes of it. BUT definitely not about getting the ENTIRE thing. And downloading the Entire film just to see some clip that YOU want shouldn't count.


If there are films that you had no interest of it before, then its the studio's fault for not promoting it properly. I don't think they would mind if you didn't see their movie if you had no interest. Thats how business goes. But it doesn't make it right for you to steal it. Again, You can't justify stealing because you "might" buy some of the ones that you steal.

My apologies. This is going to be a long one.

Or, in this case, I can't download them for free. Yes, yes, yes, it's technically stealing. However, it's intellectual property and is much different from stealing a physical DVD (or car, etc.).

Actually, the majority (90% or so) of the movies that I download I wouldn't pay to rent. For example, the Sleepaway Camp trilogy has been on DVD for a while. I have had no desire to pay $12 (more or less) to rent all three films. However, I did download them recently. I've watched parts one and two (they're okay) and will watch part three soon. Then I'll make my determination as to whether or not I'll buy the set or the individual DVDs.

Yes, there are quite a few movies that I have not bought after viewing them. However, if I wasn't even going to bother renting them in the first place... You see my point, I hope. Yes, you may still not agree, but I hope you understand my point of view.

If I really want to see a movie, sure, I'll rent it or go to the theater to see it. I'd rather watch it on my couch on a (small) 27" 4:3 set instead of in my study on a 20" monitor.

Yes, I can honestly say that the majority of the titles I had no interest in renting; i.e. no interest in paying to see. Reference the aforementioned Sleepaway Camp movies.

And if all the reviews and everyone I talk to says a movie is crap (e.g. Daredevil), I may not want to rent it. However, if I see it for download, I'll get it. If I end up liking it, I'll buy it. If not, I saved myself the theater or rental fee. (It sucked, btw.)

Well, I've tried to explain my point of view. If you disagree, that's fine. I'm sure the movie studios disagree too. Or maybe they don't. Maybe in the future they will make some movies available for free in hopes that people will want to own it on DVD.

A couple of weeks ago, my girlfriend and I went to see Wrong Turn in the theaters. Because of four idiots (two couples) in the back, we didn't enjoy the movie nearly as much as we could have. Why? Because the idiots were talking, making as much noise as possible with their bags, etc. So I've downloaded it. I liked it in the theater. (I actually went to see it in the theater to support the filmmakers.) However, I don't know if I liked it enough to buy the eventual DVD release.

That's my point exactly. Thank you. Well, "watch it before it's licensed" is only part of it. I simply don't want to blow money on DVD rentals or the DVDs themselves until I'm sure I want to buy them. And if I like a movie enough, I absolutely will NOT keep the bootleg copy; I will buy it on DVD.

Sure, own the fansub if it's not licensed. However, if you still own the fansub if it is available in an official release, you're guilty of the same thing you're accusing me of. I watch a pirated copy once and then I delete it.

*WHEW* Done...

The thing is, I agre with a lot of what you say, But I also see it as that Pirated copy is not the entire film.. well not the entire experience you would get when you buy the product in a sense. Canyou really compare the quality of crappy pirated copies of films to the theater experience? In that sense it is a sort of sampling of the film.

It is true that today's fansubbing has gotten out of hand by the flood of groups doing it. Anime Junkies for one gives the whole thing a bad name. Though there is still plenty of good subbers who do the projects which might not have a chance of making it over here. I honestly didn't think azumanga was going to get licensed because of it's many many culture references and nature. I would like to think that the strong support of it helped distributors realize it could sell well if licensed. anyhow. I still think that with bootlegs, that both good and bad can come of them. In this thread's case. the starter didn't buy it, and seen it twice. So I wouldn't say it is really immoral on what he did.

No, you certainly have a point. I'd much rather go see a movie in a QUIET theater with RESPECTFUL people (not yelling at you) than watch a telesync or cam copy. However, there are also a lot of movies that I simply wouldn't pay to see in the theater. Again, if I download it for free and like it, I'll buy the DVD.

Speaking of which, I own the special editions of Alien and Aliens, but I had no desire to own the third and fourth movies. From what I remembered from seeing them in the theater quite some time ago, they were pretty much crap. Well, three was better than four, which I thought was a total waste. Back to my point: I downloaded Alien: Resurrection recently and just finished watching it. It wasn't as bad as I originally thought and I now think it's a worthy addition to the Alien canon. As a result, I'll be picking up the new Alien boxset in November. I NEVER would have rented it, but I downloaded it out of curiousity. Now the studio makes money off of me 'cause I'm going to blow the money on the new box, essentially double-dipping on the first two in the process.

Hmm... Maybe I should stop downloading movies... It puts a bigger dent in my wallet. Without the ability to download movies, I wouldn't have known about at least 25 titles that I've either bought already or added to my wishlist. See? My logic is sound--IMNSHO.

DVDude, you make great points and really show the good aspects of this situation which everyone just thinks "Bootleg = Bad" crap. They can bring both good and bad effects. But mostly, I would have to argue that those who only stick to the crappy quality of the downloaded item even though they like are cheap enough, that they wouldn't have paid for it inthe first place either and so the studio shouldn't count that as potential profit that was lost.

That doesn't only make you 'rare' on DVD Talk, but on this planet as well. At least in matters of morality. Unless it's a question based on company policy (Can I accept baseball tickets from Supplier X?) most people who ask morality based questions already know their answer, but are in conflict over choosing the easy way over the hard way and are looking for support of others to justify their own decisions.

When we our in conflict with a morality based decision we usually are of 2 minds. One side is saying, 'yeah go for it!' and the other says, 'it's wrong!' In other words the devil on one side of the shoulder, the angel on the other. Sometimes one of these voices is weaker, sometimes it's stronger. If there's any angel voice at all though it basically means you already know that the decision is immoral, it's just a matter of deciding how immoral it is and deciding if you can live with the consequences. I'm guessing from the sound of your posts this is what you are really asking as it's fairly obvious the angel is on your shoulder whispering that the bootleg is wrong. This is what I mean by an Internet forum can't change your morality. We can't. We can certainly help give argument and justification over to one of the voices though.

Quote:

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 don't believe there is a gray area. The law rarely believes in a gray area (they may use the term, but usually only in reference to an item or situation that a law was not clearly written for but an existing law is trying to be applied to) and in morality there definitely is no gray. Something is wrong or right, but nothing can be both. So yes, I agree that you are being fairly hypocritical.

I also did not 'steal' the movie. I paid my hard earned cash for the packaging and contents that were being offered to me. What I did not do was buy a license to view the content that I received. Just like you do not have a license to view the content on the DVD you received. To compare it to shoplifting is completely erroneous. Not only do different laws apply to shoplifting, but entirely different actions as well. Following that line of thinking then everytime you watch your DVD you are sneaking into the theater and the friend that gave it to you is holding the back door wide open each time. Of course that's not the case, and neither is it in regards to actually shoplifting a DVD to save money.

Your excuse was "I've paid to see it in the theater, and I'll buy the DVD when it comes out, so it should be OK." I can pretty much say the same thing. I'd already paid for Session 1, so I had the license to view 20% of the content to begin with, and since the Cartoon Network freely broadcasts the series I have an implied license for free viewing on the other 80%, I was just paying someone who had already had it recorded so I could see it uncut and watch it whenever I wanted to. I could say that I'm better than you because I have paid for 20% of my license and you have paid absolutely nothing. In reality one is no better than the other.

You accepted your DVD so you could watch the film anytime you wanted in your home for free. I bought mine to save $50. There is no difference here.

I usually don't buy bootlegs, and the ones I have in the past have been out of curiosity. The reason I don't buy them isn't moral or legal, it's because most of them are very low quality and not worth owning. But, I have no moral qualms with buying a bootleg. I feel that licensing laws are very one sided with nothing to protect the consumer, so have no problems breaking them by buying the occasional unlicensed item.

I would love to be a star at the level of Keanu, or the director brothers, or a music artist at a level of ANY thing where people would want to tape me. Many bands are Taper-Friendly and realize that people will buy what is good, but copy what they wouldn't buy in the first place....

Thanks, Jackskeleton. Yeah, I agree with your statement here too. There are a lot of people that are content to simply have their bootleg copy--whether it's of the legitimate DVD, a DVD or VHS screener or a telesync or even camcorder copy. Even when there's a legitimate version available, they'll keep the bootleg. I don't condone this. I watch a boot and then delete it. (Saves on CDs too!)

That being said, I'll certainly keep bootlegs of movies that aren't yet available on DVD. I have the Star Wars trilogy. I'm constantly on the lookout for other movies to download that aren't yet on DVD (Crimewave, Night of the Creeps, etc.). If and when the studios make those films available, I'll buy the legit versions.