Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Harris, May 10, 2013.
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.
The Criterion Hitchcock films are absolutely licensed. They are the damaged party.RAH
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.
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.
I suppose to clarify what I meant, I think something that all of us can do is actively fight the popular mindset that justifies and supports piracy, and the illegal and irresponsible distribution of data in general, particularly in more advanced countries like the US, UK, Western Europe and Australia. We can do this with education, and correcting misinformation that routinely appears on Internet forums in support of piracy.
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.
Traditionally, rights owners have handled this issue clumsily, with things like those awful "You wouldn't steal a car" ads. We need a more effective education campaign by rights owners. Only once the general mindset is changed can we reduce support for piracy, which in turn will undermine all the various channels by which it occurs. Otherwise it's like chopping a head off a Hydra.
It's pretty hard for us here in Australia to turn our backs on Amazon, which does offer the best (speediest) service I've found yet from the States, at competitive prices and with a terrific replacement policy in case of shipping damage or loss. And in all the years I've been an Amazon customer, I'm sure that every single disc, DVD or Blu ray, has been legit. Amazon is essential when groups such as Warners (and retailers like Walmart) refuse to ship to Australia. So while I sympathise with the general sentiments in this thread, I have to remain an Amazon supporter....... at least until the day when Blu ray buyers in Australia are given official access to an open market!
Bingo! I tend to think of media piracy as having its roots in a larger societal issue: the modern confusion between 'needs' and 'wants'.
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.
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.
This exact "rights" is exactly why I chastised another member here(who missed the entire point of why he was being chastised) for this very statement...
"If you plan on selling your CDs, make sure you rip them in FLAC first."
Buying bootlegs(let alone making/selling) is the same thing as stealing your music. Which is what you've done if you "rip, then sell" your CDs.
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.
Copyrights are owned by entities other than studios, which (who) do not have teams of attorneys at the ready.
Thank you for demonstrating the very shortsighted, selfish and thoughtless attitude I was referring to earlier.
You seem to encourage the concept of putting locks on property to protect it, so I guess this means you're happy for copyright owners to employ stricter forms of DRM to combat piracy, and to change their business models towards areas which are less affected by piracy, at the expense of our enjoyment. Because I can tell you that's exactly what's happened with video games, and consumers are constantly up in arms about it. The irony being that pirates then turn around and blame the copyright owner's attempts at greater protection as being the cause of their piracy!
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.
The intrinsic value argument is baloney, used by pirates to justify their activity, and shows archaic thinking. Ideas, creativity, intellectual property have value. The United States in particular owes much of its prosperity to the creation and ownership of intellectual property.
In case anyone was wondering, specifically they are licensed from ITV Global Entertainment.
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.
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.
But I'm so old that I prefer physical copies of music as well as video so most of my iTunes collection is ripped from actual CDs.
The strange thing is that people who consider themselves so sophisticated about technology don't seem to realize that virtual content has just as much value as physical content. The same people who would never shoplift from a physical store (although some would) think nothing about copying illegal copies of virtual content. Their usual rationale is that music labels and movie studios are corrupt organizations who charge too much and rip off consumers and artists (in the case of music). Or they claim that everything on the web should be free.
What they don't seem to understand is that if people and companies can't profit from their content then we're going to be left with cat videos and stupid stunts.
Having said all that, where is the MPAA in all this? If the MPAA doesn't go after Amazon and any other so-called legitimate dealers selling pirated copies, who would? The thing I've never really understood is why Amazon permits third parties to compete with them on their own site. It doesn't make business or marketing sense to me.
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?
I think I have Fair Use
Generally, that sort of image usage falls under fair use. If in doubt, consider the following from Copyright Myths: