What is Digg?116 Comments
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40To me, stealing means taking something from someone. If someone walked up to my Jeep, made an identical working copy and promptly drove off in it, I wouldn't say, "Hey, you stole from me and Mopar!". I'd say, "That was ***** awesome."
- aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31I think this article is sort of...obvious to say the least.
Yeah, if I had unlimited money, I would probably buy all of my movies. There's other ***** I'd rather spend my money on, so I don't.
Typically, I download movies/music, and if I like them, I buy them. The movies I have downloaded that I don't own on DVD are *****, and I would never buy them even if I didn't have a free copy. Stealing from a store is obviously different. The studio paid to put those disks out, the store paid to stock those disks. - septicmadman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25They don't exist I have looked everywhere. I declare females extinct.
- postaldave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16should read
"37% of geeks have a wife or girlfriend and they make them download movies for them" - aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Yes, the studio paid to produce them, which is stealing, I agree. But, if I'm stealing a movie I would have never had any intention of seeing unless it was free (hell, if it was a movie I actually wanted to see, I wouldn't want to watch it on my computer), in my opinion it's different, because the studio isn't losing it's money on me, if anything, there is a chance the studio will gain money from me, because I had the opportunity to see their movie I never would have wanted to see before, and if I like it, I will go out and buy it.
- Bostonsox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14does anyone else find 37% high for female movie downloaders? I always figured it was a really nerdy thing, and as we all know, nerds are mostly dudes.
I only got a 2-3 stored on my computer at one time max, usually less. I burn them quick and delete them once im done seeding. - waynechng, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Ever walk out of a movie and wish that they could refund you back the 2 hours you just wasted on their ***** drivel?
The claim that earnings lost will equate to lower quality movies is false because the quality of movies has been ***** for a long time now. Proof? They made ***** Scooby-doo, its sequel, and the Wayans brothers (all of them) still get money to make movies. - nuclearpenguins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14None. Mine are all stored on DVD-Rs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Who else went and counted the movies stored on their computer?
Holy crap, 125 movies!
I'm also a 21 year old male. - drakia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Trust me, it's not just a "nerdy" thing anymore, my mom has over 100 movies burned on DVD that she has downloaded.
- mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I've got a terabyte of external hard drives, about 85% full. Lets leave it at that.
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The studios want us to ignore the overwhelming benefits of downloading over buying out of the goodness of our hearts. At the same time, studios will not lower their prices to reasonable levels out of the goodness of their hearts. Sounds like they're being selfish--so I feel fine being the same way. If their margins weren't so ridiculous and if illegal downloading truly threatened their ability to make *quality* movies, I might change my behavior. But as it stands, I have no moral hesitation to get a free viewing of a movie into which they poured more marketing dollars than brain power before I decide whether or not I will pay for it out of the goodness of my heart. That was a ridiculous sentence but I stand by it.
- Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Once in a while maybe you will feel the urge
To break international copyright law
By downloading MP3s from file-sharing sites
Like Morpheus or Grokster or Limewire or KaZaA
But deep in your heart you know the guilt would drive you mad
And the shame would leave a permanent scar
'Cause you start out stealing songs and then you're robbing liquor stores
And sellin' crack and runnin' over school kids with your car - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I'm not "stealing" anything, to steal means your depriving one person of something, i'm not depriving anyone of it, i'm making a copy.
now you'll say I'm depriving the movie company of potential profit, wrong, i buy movies i enjoy, if i don't enjoy it, i would never have bought it, nothing economically changes.
if more people thought this way, hollywood would be forced to make quality movies instead of ***** rehashes and predictable, uninsprired crap - postaldave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i think many people know it's wrong but it's cheap and easy.
here is an idea, a private torrent site from the MPAA for around $10 a month.
cheap, legal and easy. - woodcoxcb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I do.
- joemama82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"56 percent of those surveyed reported having watched a DVD on their PC sometime in the past, with 25 percent watching streaming TV shows on their PCs. This means that the vast majority of those surveyed—81 percent—have watched some sort of video content on their computers..."
Does anyone else think that this math is a little off? The two groups are not mutually exclusive... in fact, I would bet that most people that have watched streaming TV shows have also watched DVD. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"If I write a web page and publish it, and then someone else goes and writes a book containing what my web page said, is that not stealing from me?"
No, it's not. What precisely do you think is being stolen in this scenario? - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Most people who have downloaded movies indicated that they don't consider it illegal."
It doesn't really matter whether or not you consider it illegal. It is.
I don't, however, consider it *immoral*.
Of course, TFA doesn't actually include that line. Way to butcher the meaning of the sentence, digitalgopher. - somnus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Avalontor
If nobody buys, they will lower the price. When it reaches equilibrium, piracy will be at it's lowest point (it will never be gone, ever). Come on, people, this is basic stuff.
Look at what happened to hockey. Players getting paid in the millions, ticket prices go up, less people go, charge the remaining people more, less people go, collapse. Now the players get paid a more reasonable amount and the tickets cost less. Guess what? More people go and they might actually make *more* money than before. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The conclusions drawn in this article are ridiculous and unfounded.
"However, 78 percent believed that physically stealing a DVD from a store was equally offensive, indicating that increased likeliness of getting caught red-handed is what drives people's perception of which crime is worse, not the Robin Hood effect."
So the author compares peoples' beliefs about :
1. Stealing a physical piece of property owned by someone else, thereby depriving the owner of that piece of property.
2. Making a copy of some information, depriving no one of anything.
... and then judges whether it is likelihood of getting caught, versus "Robin Hood effect".
How about the fact that when you make a copy of something, the original is not taken from anyone - nothing is taken from anyone. Whereas when you steal a DVD, somebody has one less DVD. Oh, no, that can't be it.
Very stupid article. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"""DRM is okay, seriously. """
No, DRM is **NOT** OK. I wish people would stop saying this. DRM is being restricted by somebody else from using your own property in a completely fair way! If DRM is OK *for you*, then great, good for you, but it isn't being proposed that we have a choice, it's being proposed that we are forced into it through all computing. Which is worrying because the system is insane.
Now how is it acceptable to install software on your computer that can override your file permissions and enforce their own against your will, override your local security policies and enforce their own against your will, that can disregard your decisions about who can access what on your system, and that is constructively designed in ways that can stop your computer working - even by accident? I would rather put my computer in a crusher than have the MPAA and Microsoft be root on it and me a second class user This is what DRM does.
Let's say I am Joe Public and I pay for my own copy of a movie. At home, I have my computer, my hard drive, my electricity, my display. If I happen to want to rip some of the media I have bought onto a computer I own, and watch it on the display I own, in the house I own, maybe put it on the media player I own - guess who has a right to restrict me from doing so if I want to?
No copyright law on the planet could in effect stop you doing this, so I can't see why DRM does (if you let it into your life).
I'm sorry if I come over a bit strong about this one, but I eel very strongly about this one. From a technical standpoint, DRM is malware, and if we all accept it like good little lambs and it becomes "standard", you have a situation where you can either have the media you've loved all your life legitimately, or you can have a usable computer. - jamsea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I only download movies that I can't find other wise. I'd much rather rent/buy a movie then leave my computer on overnight to download a movie.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6true, but i'm not "taking" anyone's property, i am making a copy of it, thus, they retain their property.
it means the same thing, either way i am not depriving anybody of anything, like i said, i do not buy crappy movies or music, i will buy good movies or music. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"""How about my residual check, bucko? I'm gettting a little tired of eating ramen noodles while you argue semantics."""
Calling someone a thief and saying they're stealing is not "semantics", it's a serious allegation. Especially when that person is definitively not stealing.
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, theft is theft.
They are WORLDS APART. Stealing is something which makes you a menace to society which the police need to put you in jail for. It is the act of taking someone else's property away with the intent of permanently depriving them of it.
Copyright infringement, on the part of someone who's making no money from it, is something you should be arguing about in a civil court.
I'm all for copyright protection - I have copyright works and I want them protected - however, if I start turning an argument about fair use and diminishment of market value and other matters of civil damages into public accusations of serious criminal acts like theft, robbery, burglary or anything else like it, aimed at private individuals who aren't trying to exploit or profit from those copyrights, I will expect and deserve to get thumped by someone for being a nasty bastard. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@aaron
In the case of plagiarism, you're taking credit that somebody else deserves. In the case of downloading, the only possible thing you're taking is potential income--but if people only download what they wouldn't otherwise pay for, then there's nothing stolen. My experience of a movie that I wouldn't otherwise pay for can't be said to have deprived the studios of anything.
If they want to reduce downloading, they should close the gap between what they charge and what people think that an experience of their movie is actually worth. - NicP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@aaronm67, copying someone else's work and attempting to pass it off as your own is different to downloading movies. If people were downloading movies and then changing the credits to their own name and redistributing them your analogy would work.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was wondering how they knew that about something that was an illegal practice. I doubt anyone with any brains whatsoever would respond to a survey about piracy, especially with the RIAA searching for new targets.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Who stores movies on their hard drive. Per Gigabyte DVDs are much cheaper. HD: $.40 per gig DVD $.05 per gig. I have a binder that holds 200 something discs and its almost full. And no I don't download. Netflix is easier.
- 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4not to mention Distribution
none of the theatres nearby play the movies I'm interested in
nor do we enjoy waiting for the DVD release
we want immediate media on the device of our choosing - ggarenn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5i've never really seen a point in buying movies. a movie is something you can watch once every while...therefore it isn't the best investment of money. i think i've only purchased 4 movies in my entire life. everything else i used to rent. now i just download. 15mbps internet connection - i LOVE fiber optics!! i can usually have a movie done in less than an hour.
another thing i wanted to point out is that downloading is SO much more convenient than all other methods. you have an unlimited selection, and you can look up any movie online (ratings, reviews, what it's about, etc.). that's way better than the back cover of the dvd at blockbuster. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"... today's movies suck. I'm a nineteen year old college student. I don't have the money to see them in theaters or buy them."
But you have time to waste watching movies that suck? - trimpton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I doubt they could get a good sample of piracy since thats quite a broad term when applied to the different communities.
illegal != immoral, the middle men stealing the money from the artist is immoral. - aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@appetite
That's not a very good theory either.
If I write a web page and publish it, and then someone else goes and writes a book containing what my web page said, is that not stealing from me?
@ggarenn
Eh, that theory sort of works. But, if I want to go watch a movie with my girlfriend, I don't want to say "Here, look at all of these files and decide which one you want to see." - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I scratched a CD that I bought. I paid for the music and the CD, but both were destroyed. Will the music company give me the music for free if I pay for a new CD? I already purchased the music, but they won't do it. And you wonder why CDs are so easy to scratch.
I've paid for a lot of music in my life that I no longer have in my possession because of scratched, stolen, or lost CDs. In my opinion, making illegal copies is a way to get closer to even with the record companies who force you to repurchase music that you already bought private rights to.
Same with movies. We should be allowed to pay for just the cost of the DVD hardware for every VHS title that we own and every DVD title that we have owned in the past if making digital copies is truly "stealing". - TheElectricMonk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5haha, none consider it "illegal"
i know its illegal, i just dont care
if i download a movie its because i would NEVER pay to see it
that means that im only downloading it out of mild curiosity
a way to kill time
i cant think of any names at the moment, but i have downloaded movies, and then bought the DVD
i would never have bought the DVD if i hadnt downloaded the movie and been pleasantly surprised by it
so in my case, downloading is better for the movie industry - regeya, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Next time I have company and things are looking slow, it's broadcast TV or nothing, baby! No more allowing people in my living room to freeload off my ***** DVD collection by looking at the screen while the movie is playing, nossir!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+380+ gigs of movies.
And I own every one of them on DVD. But since my DVD drive is on the fritz...it's easy for me to DL a move that I already own and be able to watch it that way.
The sad part is: some way, some how, the RIAA/MPAA will find a way to sue me for downloading movies.
Bastards. - pauleku, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I dont download movies. Not because I think it immoral, but because watching movies on my computer is a pain in the ass. Id much rather watch them on the TV. Plus I cant seem to get myself to watch full length movies that much (in one sitting) anyhoo. A movie is only like 15 bucks NEW and many are 5-10. I dont mind spending that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6 "with 16 movie titles stored on his computer." i have 63 movies, plus 4 seasons of family guy, all Stargate Atlantis, 2 seasons of NCIS... and on the list goes.
yes i realise it is illegal, no i dont care - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Learn Economics.
When you distribute or download movies for free, you reduce their monetary value. That is so because the producer has to reduce his price to lure people away from the hassle of stealing his product. So you've devalued his product and done him harm. - dstz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"They don't exist I have looked everywhere. I declare females extinct."
Its nearly true in parts of Asia. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Music and movies today blow, blame it on crappy content."
So you want the crappy content, you just don't want to pay for it? - Avalontor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I gotta agree with you on the popcorn thing, that's not right.
- wcasey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It takes 15 minutes to download a movie while I'm cooking dinner... But to get a movie legally, I have to drive over to Blockbuster, pick out a movie, and drive back, taking 45 minutes, 5 bucks, and my full attention for that time period. And I get to keep it more than 2 days. I'm not sure why this isn't an obvious decision.
- somnus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@geekee
That is not the same thing, please hear me out. If you steal that physical object, the store is unable to sell it and loses a profit. However, you are correct in that copying a file can also result in a loss of profit, but not always. Someone like billabong6 will never pay money for it, so they are losing nothing by him copying the file. Someone like me, however, would buy it if the price was lower. Solution? *Lower the price*! Yes, movies are expensive, but only because there are a lot of people making a profit grossly disproportional to the drain on my income if I buy it. I find this disgusting, so I don't buy. Same deal with anything. $40 pencil? ***** yourself. $0.15 and you still make a hefty profit? Cool. - spookyttws, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Only maybe 1 in ten people that I know download, and they're guys too. I know I've got over 300 movies and twice as many TV shows on my xbox.
- nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I picked up a 250G network hard drive for $80 around the holidays. Compressed to DivX, a DVD movie is around 1GB, which is under 40 cents per movie, all in one place, no rumaging around for the DVD, playable from any computer in the house.
- somnus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A very large amount of the people who did not pay for PhotoShop either: could never afford it/wouldn't ever spend the money on it or will buy it at some point in their life because they used it for free and made a career out of it.
When the price meets at the sweet spot for the market, piracy will drop drastically.
Personally, I wish it was twice as expensive and impossible to pirate because I hate amateur PS crap. - vstmonger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The biggest anti down loaders are the fools that spend the most money buying movies and such, just so they can have a pretty case in their collection. They really resent it when someone else gets something for free, while they have to pay. Of course most of these people are the same ones who can't keep a PC running, or figure out how to use bit torrents.
In Canada we get ripped off by CRTC regulations that supposedly are in place for Canadian content purposes. We can't get HBO or watch some of the programming we want like the Soprano's when it is new. Then they turn around and sell us the same programing, much later, at an inflated price. What a friggin monopoly. -
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is