| reply to BF69
Re: BitTorrent Piracy Doesn146;t Affect US Box Office Returns I never said anyone had a right to it. I only questioned the bullshit statics that both sides come up with. The studios over inflate the amount of money lost IF I download and watch a movie. At most they lose the face value of the ticket I didn't buy. Not the $1,000 they claim.
"I can sneak into a movie theater without paying"
If they call the cops are they going to charge you with theft or trespassing? |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by battleop:I never said anyone had a right to it. I only questioned the bullshit statics that both sides come up with. The studios over inflate the amount of money lost IF I download and watch a movie. At most they lose the face value of the ticket I didn't buy. Not the $1,000 they claim.
"I can sneak into a movie theater without paying"
If they call the cops are they going to charge you with theft or trespassing?
If you illegally download you aren't going to get charged with theft either you get charged with copyright infringement.
The point is watching a movie at a theater without paying is wrong. So how is downloading a movie without paying not also wrong? It's the same thing. |
|
| I am not saying that downloading a movie is right. I am saying that the over inflated statics and costs are wrong. I also think that the claims that it isn't costing the studios anything at all is also over inflated and wrong.
Does it cost the studios money? Yes, when someone does it in lieu of going to the theater. It's a lost sale. Does it cost the the studios when the person wasn't going to pay in the first place? No it does not because they were not paying to begin with. Do both side over inflate their claims? Absolutely. |
|
|
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:If you illegally download you aren't going to get charged with theft either you get charged with copyright infringement.
The thing you don't seem to understand is that the laws have nothing to do with viewing/listening to the content.
quote:
The point is watching a movie at a theater without paying is wrong. So how is downloading a movie without paying not also wrong? It's the same thing.
It is totally different. You are using physical resources in the movie theater... A/C, a seat, the usher has to guide you, etc. None of that happens if you download a movie.
Here is a what-if for you: If the owner of the theater has a private showing of a movie for his friends & family and obviously doesn't charge them. Has anyone done anything wrong? |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by CXM_Splicer:It is totally different. You are using physical resources in the movie theater... A/C, a seat, the usher has to guide you, etc. None of that happens if you download a movie. A) you would NOT be using an usher since you are in the theater illegally. You would be avoiding the usher sicne you lack a ticket stub to prove you paid for a ticket.
B) The theater's AC is on whetehr you're in there or not. Not extra cost
C) If the theater is half empty the fact you are takign up a seat means nothing, the seat wasn't being used.
Here is a what-if for you: If the owner of the theater has a private showing of a movie for his friends & family and obviously doesn't charge them. Has anyone done anything wrong?
Have you ever let a firend borrow your car? Sure. What if he borrowed first without asking would that be cool? If not, why not same thing isn't it?
Quit making excuses for your illegal activities. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by BF69:A) you would NOT be using an usher since you are in the theater illegally. You would be avoiding the usher sicne you lack a ticket stub to prove you paid for a ticket.
B) The theater's AC is on whetehr you're in there or not. Not extra cost
C) If the theater is half empty the fact you are takign up a seat means nothing, the seat wasn't being used.
A) Ushers, bathroom attendants, housekeeping, popcorn stand... all have to work harder the more people are there.
B) A/C also has to work a little harder for each person's heat it has to absorb.
C) Even the wear on the seat is a factor. Your presence also interferes with the experience of the other paid patrons.
There are tangible costs associated with your being present in the theater. That makes it a different situation.
said by BF69:No because he is ALLOWING that to happen. Just like if AMAZON wants to allow a free rental of a movie that's ok because they are the ones giving permission.
Have you ever let a firend borrow your car? Sure. What if he borrowed first without asking would that be cool? If not, why not same thing isn't it?
Quit making excuses for your illegal activities.
You are forgetting that the movie company takes a portion of the receipts and that, since these people paid nothing, they are just as guilty of 'stealing content' as the people sneaking in.
I was not making excuses for illegal activity. I was, in fact, pointing out that sneaking into a theater IS 'stealing'. Please try and keep up with the discussion. |
|
| reply to battleop
said by battleop:I am not saying that downloading a movie is right. I am saying that the over inflated statics and costs are wrong. I also think that the claims that it isn't costing the studios anything at all is also over inflated and wrong.
Does it cost the studios money? Yes, when someone does it in lieu of going to the theater. It's a lost sale. Does it cost the the studios when the person wasn't going to pay in the first place? No it does not because they were not paying to begin with. Do both side over inflate their claims? Absolutely.
The study in question and every independent study done thus far have found piracy has negligible impact on the industry. In the end it's the words of a few incredibly wealthy and spoiled man child's against all of scientific truth. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to CXM_Splicer
You don't seem to understand that your logic doesn't apply here nor does trying to relate one subject with another.
It is not "totally different" in your far fetched example of how the A/X, seat, usher, etc makes the difference because that's completely irreverent.
If you're unable or incapable of understanding our laws then that's your problem. The fact remains that watching a movie in a theater while UNAUTHORIZED to do so, IS in fact wrong. What gives AUTHORIZATION is that license you buy at the ticket counter which grants you the proper legal right to enter and view the content you traded money for. (Does that help you any?)
In your many ways of trying to prove your side, you don't connect any dots at all. There are laws about entering private property (movies aside, it could be a night club, a restaurant... ) you enter with out the permission of the owner and their terms and you're violating A LAW. There are laws about how you OBTAIN content (forget that you viewed it now) To obtain a copy of a movie you must do so in the manner in which the owner of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY has prescribed, along with state and federal laws. If the IP owner says you must purchase a copy to view it, then you must do so. The LAW allows you to GIVE your copy to someone else so long as you don't retain a copy of it yourself. The law also has stipulations on how you can USE and DISPLAY that IP, and in many cases you may not do so in a place that is designated a PUBLIC PLACE or a PLACE OF BUSINESS.... The law prescribes how you may obtain the material as well and it gives the IP owners authority on how it can be DISTRIBUTED.. I suppose that it's okay for you to throw a copy of Windows 7 up on your server and freely and openly make it available for 400 million of your closest friends too, right? YOU were never authorized by the IP owner to distribute copied of the material. Also the law prescribes that you must obtain the material in legal means. Knowingly accepting stolen goods is too a crime - I state this for fact and realize that it's a whole other discussion on it's own, but in many cases people here DO realize they are accepting stolen goods so this is worth mentioning too.
... I mean, really, shall I go on? You're trying to take a bunch of skewed logic and mash it up into one simple end result that suits your argument.. you can do that all day long until you're blue in the face but if you'd take the dang $20 bill out of your pocket and just purchase the movie and stop trying to find every alleged loop hole you can to justify piracy..
Just accept the fact that stand on a side of an argument where people believe that they have a right that doesn't exist and that your own support of this action is what brings more resistance and less innovation. If I knew that a group of people were going to potentially steal from me, I'd do what I could to prevent it, and so you would you! that's why you lock your home every time you leave it as well as lock the doors to your car and take the keys out too. I suppose that if your home gets broken into, your whining to the police and asking them to do something about YOUR personal problem is a waste of everyone's tax dollars as well, isn't it? I mean, YOUR theft/burglary has NO impact on me or anyone else,.. just you.. so why are you wasting the resources of the public? (Hint: it's to keep an orderly society in check.)
HOW MUCH the industry profits on their work is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT debate than what's going on here. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| I think you hit 'reply' to the wrong post again.
It is obvious why you don't like logic... it shows your position is wrong. You are formulating your arguments based on how you feel. You are not thinking for yourself, you are simply reiterating what you have been told to believe. You start with an argument that viewing content without payment is stealing. When logic shows you wrong, you shift your argument to copying which I already pointed out is immaterial if the content can legally be shared. You continue to equate copyright infringement with physical theft... something that even the most ardent copyright defenders admit is incorrect. You repeatedly use the word 'loss' and obviously have no concept of what it means. You stomp your feet and scream "it's wrong, wrong WRONG!" even though you can't explain exactly why (talk about not connecting the dots!). If you think you can counter logical argument with emotional ranting you are wasting your time here, really. |
|
