Moderator: Moderators
Whenever I rent a movie and see that idiotic notice suggesting that piracy harms the economy I can't help but laugh. It's ridiculous on the face of it. When these movie producers have the FBI extriditing people from foreign countries back to the US to face criminal charges, I know I'm living in a plutocratic prison.whoaaaa wrote: hey guys, I'm new in this forum.. and I'm a man who want to learn more about the topic above..
I've seen ur thought on the topics before which were also about piracy.. but I'm not sure, if I'm continuing the topic in their thread, will someone read it or not, that's why I'm posting a new one..
Yeah, it's pretty much the same, I want to know what you guys think about MOVIE Piracy itself..?
but, to let you guys know, I promise will read and give response to each of your thought.. especially ur feedback..
hope the conclusion from this thread can help us latter on, either you and me..
The weird thing is that on DVDs/Blu-rays here in Ireland, sometimes I get FBI warnings for some reason. Anyway, time for my two cents... I know, I'm quoting somebody from years ago who isn't active anymore...shnarkle wrote:Whenever I rent a movie and see that idiotic notice suggesting that piracy harms the economy I can't help but laugh. It's ridiculous on the face of it. When these movie producers have the FBI extriditing people from foreign countries back to the US to face criminal charges, I know I'm living in a plutocratic prison.whoaaaa wrote: hey guys, I'm new in this forum.. and I'm a man who want to learn more about the topic above..
I've seen ur thought on the topics before which were also about piracy.. but I'm not sure, if I'm continuing the topic in their thread, will someone read it or not, that's why I'm posting a new one..
Yeah, it's pretty much the same, I want to know what you guys think about MOVIE Piracy itself..?
but, to let you guys know, I promise will read and give response to each of your thought.. especially ur feedback..
hope the conclusion from this thread can help us latter on, either you and me..
The analogy does not work when it comes to online distribution, which is infinite in scale. In meat space, your house has a finite number of rooms, which only a finite number of people can make use of. It costs you time and money to maintain the rooms, so I would agree with you that you should get a return on the house.If I need to illustrate this, it's like you're living in a house, it's your house, you've the full ownership in it. But since you're living alone in a house with too many empty rooms, you decided to rent out some of your empty room, maybe it can increase your monthly income. One day, some people coming in, you ask them, "do you KNOW if you want to USE this room, you need to pay?" He replies, "yes of course." then he sleep there, take a bath there, do everything there, as if it's his home. Then one day, the you come and ask him for the money, "I rent out this room, so if you want to use it, you need to pay for it."
Exactly. I'm actually of the opinion that the very law (copyright) is mis-named. There is no right actually given to you or granted to you (or whatever terminology one would normally use). Instead, what I think it should be is "copy-restriction", because if you have a copyright over a movie, (let's say Disney having the copyright over Steamboat Willie), what it means is that you are restricting everyone else from distributing, copying or speaking your work. I look at it from a free speech perspective.Yeah but there is a big problem with your model: Forcing me and your fellow citizens to protect your property is unfair. That is the first injustice in this issue and it deserves to be remedied first before worrying about Fairness(tm) or Empathy(tm) for movie makers as defined by a bloated legal industry no less.
I would be very happy if this was the way it worked, but in modern day it was explained to me that we have no right to watch what we bought. This is not a real right; not a basic right.whoaaaa wrote:what i mean by Knowing our position?
it's when you understand that you as a consumer, need to do your duty, while demanding for your right. What is your right and what is your duty is what you need to know, instead thinking of others benefit (in this case, the profit that the production house has gained) or this is categorized as stealing or not.
You see, the entertainment industry has done their duty, which is providing an entertainment (in this case, a movie).
Now, what they're asking for? money, do you think it's wrong for them to ask it? I don't think so, it's their right, since they execute their duty.
now, back to us, we're asking for our right to watch it, but we also need to understand what is our duty?
It's to pay what they're asking for, right?
If I need to illustrate this, it's like you're living in a house, it's your house, you've the full ownership in it. But since you're living alone in a house with too many empty rooms, you decided to rent out some of your empty room, maybe it can increase your monthly income. One day, some people coming in, you ask them, "do you KNOW if you want to USE this room, you need to pay?" He replies, "yes of course." then he sleep there, take a bath there, do everything there, as if it's his home. Then one day, the you come and ask him for the money, "I rent out this room, so if you want to use it, you need to pay for it."
then they say, "no, I don't want to pay, you're already rich in this case, your house is so big, and you don't even use this room, so I assume it won't be a problem if I don't pay it." in this case, Yes, the tenant is not taking the ownership of the house you rent, it's still your house. but, what's the problem here?
the owner has fulfill his duty to provide a good empty room, as it should. and he's only asking for his right, to get the money for using his room. Is that so wrong to be blamed?
but what does that man do? he's demanding his right, for using the empty room, but doesn't care for the duty to pay for it.
Rothbard explains that it is stealing.Charming Anarchist wrote: Copying is not stealing. If you do not want people to copy what you create, then do not throw your creations to the wind.
If you throw your creation to the wind, nobody should be forced to pay to protect it on your behalf.
It's a bold statement that "no one can acquire a greater property title in something than has already been given away or sold" and I revere it for its moral certitude.Violation of (common law) copyright is an equivalent violation of contract and theft of property. For suppose that Brown builds a better mousetrap and sells it widely, but stamps each mousetrap "copyright Mr. Brown." What he is then doing is selling not the entire property right in each mousetrap, but the right to do anything with the mousetrap except to sell it or an identical copy to someone else. The right to sell the Brown mousetrap is retained in perpetuity by Brown. Hence, for a mousetrap buyer, Green, to go ahead and sell identical mousetraps is a violation of his contract and of the property right of Brown, and therefore prosecutable as theft. Hence, our theory of property rights includes the inviolability of contractual copyright.
A common objection runs as follows: all right, it would be criminal for Green to produce and sell the Brown mousetrap; but suppose that someone else, Black, who had not made a contract with Brown, happens to see Green's mousetrap and then goes ahead and produces and sells the replica? Why should he be prosecuted? The answer is that, as in the case of our critique of negotiable instruments, no one can acquire a greater property title in something than has already been given away or sold. Green did not own the total property right in his mousetrap, in accordance with his contract with Brown — but only all rights except to sell it or a replica. But, therefore Black's title in the mousetrap, the ownership of the ideas in Black's head, can be no greater than Green's, and therefore he too would be a violator of Brown's property even though he himself had not made the actual contract.
