cookem
join:2002-01-24
Maple Heights, OH | reply to Karl Bode
Re: The Redcoats are coming
No those are not full shows.....movies are not that small...learn what you are talking about b4 u post |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | LOL. Yeah ok guy. That's just a 50 meg southpark commercial.
(nods)
--
Palpatine for Senate |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| said by Leviathan:
LOL. Yeah ok guy. That's just a 50 meg southpark commercial.
50 meg isn't very big for a video file. The original South Park "Spirit of Christmas" is about that size, and it's only about 5 minutes long. |
|
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:  | That's why I posed the question.
50 megs doesn't seem like much video to me. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to TheWickerMan
Well you trim commercials...then cut the intro and outro....and you're looking at 18 minutes or less worth of actual show, with degraded quality and size to save space....
As for the films, it says right there the harry potter is file 1of2....
--
Palpatine for Senate |
|
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
edited
| Even so, at 259 mb, is it large enough to be even half of the movie?
I ask because even though I have voiced my opinions in this argument quite often, I am not an avid or even regular downloader of movies and such. As a matter of fact, the only movie I have EVER downloaded was an indie film put out in DivX, and it was only like 20 minutes long.
Just the occasional MP3 and not much else.
[text was edited by author 2002-07-11 10:51:30] |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Yeah...that would clock the total film in at around 600-700 megs once you merged the file, and that's about right.
With the TV shows, like I said, they edit the commercials and use garbage size and resolution to get those small footprints.
--
Palpatine for Senate |
|
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| In that case, I have another thought.
I can understand Hollywood's frustration then in seeing first run movies essentially bootlegged via the internet prior to VHS od DVD release.
However, once a title makes it to that stage, then dissemination over the internet is no different than renting a copy of it at Blockbuster and then making a copy of it.
To do so is perfectly within a consumer's right, as far as I can tell, provided that the consumer who copies it only does so for personal use and does not offer it for resale.
Having said that, making a title available via one's computer over a P2P network like Gnutella for free does not violate any resale clauses, or even the basic definition of copyright infringement, which requires resale without compensation to the owners of the intellectual property, and without their consent.
--
The only human truth is that we live and we die. Everything in between those events is open to interpretation. |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
 ·LINGO
| said by BrianDamage:
However, once a title makes it to that stage, then dissemination over the internet is no different than renting a copy of it at Blockbuster and then making a copy of it.
To do so is perfectly within a consumer's right, as far as I can tell, provided that the consumer who copies it only does so for personal use and does not offer it for resale.
Totally, completely, utterly wrong. You are not legally permitted to do what you suggest. Do you even read the FBI warning at the beginning of the movie? You may view the rented movie. That's it.
Another thing, the MPAA isn't going after someone who downloaded these files. They are going after someone who made these files AVAILABLE for download.
In essence, they aren't going after the drug users, they are going after the drug DEALERS.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
Optimum1
Hey Macleod, Get Offa My Ewe
Premium
join:2001-08-22
Minneapolis, MN
clubs: | reply to cookem
Uh, those are full South Park episodes -- you should do more learning, and less flaming... |
|
Mrhowes
join:2000-11-16
Saint Paul, MN
| reply to BrianDamage
To reproduce, redistribute, or set for public exhibition, in whole or in part, is illegal, per the FBI warning on every VHS tape and DVD/laserdisc. So to place even a small portion of a movie on the net for public distribution and/or viewing is against the law. Period.
FBI warning: federal law provides severe civil criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction or exhibition of
copyrighted motion pictures and video tape ( title 17, united states code, section 501 and 506 ). the federal bureau of investigation investigates allegations of criminal copyright infringement ( title 17, united states code, section 506 ).
unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws.
--
Listen....do you smell something? |
|
gogeta6
join:2002-06-20
San Diego, CA
clubs:
| reply to Optimum1
You think 250 MB is too small for a movies?
SMR is navi and though not that high quality that is avg size.
and with new DIVX 5 or new real media compressions 50 MB is plenty for a tv show especially a cartoon where compression can be greater. |
|
randysavage0
join:2002-04-16
Fayetteville, AR | reply to Mrhowes
not if you already bought a copy and it got ate so you are copying the rental.... |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
·LINGO
| said by randysavage:
not if you already bought a copy and it got ate so you are copying the rental....
Sorry, but even that is technically not permitted.
You are permitted to make a copy of what you already own, and theoretically make a copy of your copy if your original has been destroyed, so you have one backup on hands at all times.
But, if you neglected to make a copy before your original was destroyed, you are SOL.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner:
Another thing, the MPAA isn't going after someone who downloaded these files. They are going after someone who made these files AVAILABLE for download.
In essence, they aren't going after the drug users, they are going after the drug DEALERS.
[NG]Owner
Even though the wrong letter is posted, reread the article... that is what the dramatic shift has been, they are now going after people who download not just the people who offer downloads.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
or Go to
»isca.whiteboard.net for more information (and java telnet access) |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to Optimum1
Exactly. Thank you. |
|
Crux667
join:2002-07-11
Atlanta, GA
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds:
Even though the wrong letter is posted, reread the article... that is what the dramatic shift has been, they are now going after people who download not just the people who offer downloads.
That is completely incorrect. The Copyright letter is only for people distributing the stuff, not downloading it. That's not to say that someday in the future, people like the MPAA won't try to start monitoring downloads. However, THAT is an invasion of privacy. Searching out things that are made freely available on these file sharing clients doesn't infringe on anyone's privacy.
And another thing, no matter how it is justified, when you take copywritten material without paying for it, you are taking money away from the artists who created it. In the end, the artists get bent over as royalty rates drop due to record companies trying to compensate for losses. Sh|t rolls downhill.
|
|
pupowski
Premium
join:2002-03-22
Isle of Pups
 ·Cricket Broadband
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Leviathan:
Well you trim commercials...then cut the intro and outro....and you're looking at 18 minutes or less worth of actual show, with degraded quality and size to save space....
I DL films regularly, and 50mb may be one scene,or a trailer but not a movie of viewable quality. |
|
pupowski
Premium
join:2002-03-22
Isle of Pups
·Cricket Broadband
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Crux667
said by Crux667:
And another thing, no matter how it is justified, when you take copywritten material without paying for it, you are taking money away from the artists who created it....
Nice try, but the Media Giants have a lock on that position.---LOL--- Where did you hear that BS,on a Rush Limbaugh re-run? Send me the link so I can D/L |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
edited
| reply to Crux667
said by Crux667:
said by marigolds:
Even though the wrong letter is posted, reread the article... that is what the dramatic shift has been, they are now going after people who download not just the people who offer downloads.
That is completely incorrect. The Copyright letter is only for people distributing the stuff, not downloading it. That's not to say that someday in the future, people like the MPAA won't try to start monitoring downloads. However, THAT is an invasion of privacy. Searching out things that are made freely available on these file sharing clients doesn't infringe on anyone's privacy.
As I mentioned above, the copyright letter posted is the wrong letter the article clearly mentions (as is already being reported across several sources) that first the RIAA and now the MPAA are going after people who download files as well as people who are uploading. More specifically, they are offering downloads from their own systems and logging the IPs of the people who download from them.
Editing: Adding this to clarify my point (emphasis mine):
In accordance with the Film and Music Industy's new strategy of targeting individual users, it appears that Cox communications is sending out warnings to users trading files over Gnutella at the behest of the MPAA (Something Sony Music has been known to do). The warning lists which files the user has downloaded, as well as the date of the offense and the IP address of the offender. There is no indication as to whether or not Cox actually confirms the information before sending the letter. Originally spotted at the Politechbot mailing list, we reprint the letter below. (letter snipped) [text was edited by author 2002-07-12 00:24:09] |
|
