- Joined
- Feb 8, 1999
- Messages
- 18,312
- Real Name
- Robert Harris
Easily.Professor Echo said:RAH, are you willing to stop shopping at Amazon?
Easily.Professor Echo said:RAH, are you willing to stop shopping at Amazon?
It's a good start. I've been considering the same for awhile now, but the competition is getting less and less, something that is proving very unsettling.Robert Harris said:Easily.
The Criterion Hitchcock films are absolutely licensed. They are the damaged party.RAHMark-P said:Aren't the Criterions bootlegs as well? Or is there some proof that Criterion licensed these legally?
I'm very much aware, as I've traced certain items to Russian sites. While there is seemingly little that we can about those, a point can be made with American entities that would like to be considered legitimate and not criminal.Persianimmortal said:To be honest, I'm not sure why the focus here is on physical bootlegged discs. I'd suggest they're only a very small portion of the overall problem. For example, in 2011 almost one quarter of all Internet traffic was made up of pirated material. Alarmingly for movie studios, the data showed that 85.5% of this pirated traffic was video content of some kind.
What's the link to criminal activity? Well in my opinion the link is twofold:
Firstly, there's the worrying mindset which fuels this piracy. It's become extremely fashionable these days for people to not only engage in piracy, but actually justify it on the basis that "information should be free". This of course ignores the underlying costs in creating this "information" which they are consuming for free, and highlights a complete lack of accountability and responsibility by consumers.
This leads to the second, and more critical issue. The same sites which were built on distributing pirated movies, music and games - like the infamous The Pirate Bay - are now freely distributing something much more lethal: the 3D Printer Gun. So whether an international terrorist group or home-grown nut-job, petty thief, or just an irate employee bent on revenge on your employer, you can now create a gun in the comfort of your own home with no accountability whatsoever. The same networks and mindset behind piracy is driving the support behind the distribution of the 3D gun plans.
As an aside, many online piracy sites generate millions in revenue. The Pirate Bay for example was raided by the police, and records obtained show that they had a complex money laundering scheme in place to handle millions in ad revenue each year. So these sites can make much more money than your average asian bootlegger, or Amazon reseller, and cause a much bigger problem in all respects.
Bingo! I tend to think of media piracy as having its roots in a larger societal issue: the modern confusion between 'needs' and 'wants'.Persianimmortal said:The reason why both online and physical piracy propagates, with little action by consumers or law enforcement, is that it has become socially acceptable.
An entire generation of people now seem not to be able to grasp the concept of the value of intellectual property, and who think that the rights of the consumer somehow supersede the rights of the producer. This is in large part because most people are consumers, not producers, of intellectual property, so it's very convenient to dismiss the concerns of IP owners.
You missed my point. I didn't say there was no monetary value. I said that there was no *intrinsic* or *physical* value. When a watch is stolen, it is a singular physical object that when it's stolen, you don't have any more. You can't tell time. You can't sell the watch to anyone else because you don't have it any more. That isn't true of bootlegged movies. They can be "stolen" but the studios can still go on selling them and using them for merchandising and licensing. It may make it more difficult for them to exploit their property, but they still have the property to exploit. It's an important difference.Robert Harris said:We disagree. Huge monetary value lost to the studios and copyright holders, who cannot sell what they own.
Copyrights are owned by entities other than studios, which (who) do not have teams of attorneys at the ready.bigshot said:Defending your ownership of your creative works has been the price of doing business all the way back to the very first person to petition for copyright protection... Albrecht Durer in the 1500s. The studios employ armies of lawyers to deal with this issue, and too often they march right over innocent people, or push for completely outrageous penalties that far exceed the crime. They've effectively gutted fair use laws for educational institutions and they've lobbied lawmakers to extend copyright in ways that the basic laws of copyright explicitly say shouldn't be done. Copyright law is a mess and the studios are to blame for it.As far as I'm concerned, that is their business. They make the money, they can defend their own property. I don't have to pay to put locks on your house, or spend my time guarding your property. I don't have to worry about theirs. I'm only responsible for my own belongings and my own business.
Thank you for demonstrating the very shortsighted, selfish and thoughtless attitude I was referring to earlier.bigshot said:As far as I'm concerned, that is their business. They make the money, they can defend their own property. I don't have to pay to put locks on your house, or spend my time guarding your property. I don't have to worry about theirs. I'm only responsible for my own belongings and my own business.
You seem to be missing the point. Piracy, whether via bootlegs or online, undermines the sales potential of a property. Some of the people who pirated something would have bought a copy in the absence of being able to obtain it for free. So whether I physically steal something worth $50 from you, or prevent you from earning $50, the end result is exactly the same - you're short $50. How about this: I set up a business identical to yours, next door to your place of business, giving away products identical to yours for free. But since I'm not stealing physical property from you, it's OK, right; I'm not doing your business any harm.bigshot said:You missed my point. I didn't say there was no monetary value. I said that there was no *intrinsic* or *physical* value. When a watch is stolen, it is a singular physical object that when it's stolen, you don't have any more. You can't tell time. You can't sell the watch to anyone else because you don't have it any more. That isn't true of bootlegged movies. They can be "stolen" but the studios can still go on selling them and using them for merchandising and licensing. It may make it more difficult for them to exploit their property, but they still have the property to exploit. It's an important difference.
In case anyone was wondering, specifically they are licensed from ITV Global Entertainment.Robert Harris said:The Criterion Hitchcock films are absolutely licensed. They are the damaged party.RAH
I may have missed it upthread, but where can we shop? Can anyone following this thread list some online retailers who are innocent or at least not knowingly guilty. Ditto B&M.Robert Harris said:
Last fall I was teaching a computer literacy class, I asked how many had iPods (or the equivalent). Almost all of them raised their hands. They all indicated that they had a substantial number of songs on their devices. The only one in the class to have actually spent money in the iTunes store was... me. [And the only thing I've purchased there with money (not counting redeeming digital copies of movies) was the Rothermich soundtrack to Blade Runner.ROclockCK said:Posted Today, 02:09 AM
Persianimmortal, on 13 May 2013 - 01:03 AM, said:
Bingo! I tend to think of media piracy as having its roots in a larger societal issue: the modern confusion between 'needs' and 'wants'.The reason why both online and physical piracy propagates, with little action by consumers or law enforcement, is that it has become socially acceptable.
An entire generation of people now seem not to be able to grasp the concept of the value of intellectual property, and who think that the rights of the consumer somehow supersede the rights of the producer. This is in large part because most people are consumers, not producers, of intellectual property, so it's very convenient to dismiss the concerns of IP owners.
In effect, those who condone and participate in media piracy are saying, "I 'want'. I 'want' this. I 'want' this now. And my'wants' trump any other consideration." Even to the extent of flouting the core 'ethics' of civilization?
So symptom, rather than cause. But It's not nothing.
Agreed.Robert Harris said:People who bootleg have no understanding, and would probably not agree to our taking their wallets, and removing half of what we find. There is no difference between stealing someone's copyrighted work and stealing a watch.RAH
I think I have Fair UseLarryH said:Seeing many snazzy images used by members as part of their profiles, I wonder how many of those images are copyrighted, and, if so, whether the user has licensed their use?
Courts will weight the following factors to determine whether a particular use is a fair use: (i) the purpose of the use, including whether the use is primarily for commercial or noncommercial purposes; (ii) the nature of the work; (iii) the amount and importance of the portions used in relation to the whole of the original work; and (iv) the effect of the use on the potential market, or value of the original.