Star Wars Bootleg raids this morning (1 Viewer)

[John_Berger]

While I agree with you about Hollywood looking for more reasonable solutions, I also, as a businessman, wouldn't want customers attempting to dictate my prices to me.

How does this even come into play? I said nothing about dictating prices!
The point is that there are people who will not want to pay $25 for a DVD. Fair enough.
What about a $5.99 movie-only DIVX rip that comes directly from the studio? That could guarantee that it's a quality rip as opposed to one who crossed-his-fingers and ripped it himself *and* satisfy those who don't want to pay $25.99 for a DVD that they might not really want.
Is there a possibility that the purchased version can be distributed? Absolutely. But there is also the possibility that I can copy a DVD to VHS and give it to someone else, even with the copy protection. You lost money there, too.
There is no way to guarantee that everyone will buy a movie, so everyone should stop griping about it -- BUT Hollywood's refusal to even TRY to make money from a different, cheaper, no-frills distribution method is one of their ridiculous ignorances that keep fueling piracy.

 

[Joe McCabe]

Well, it appears you skipped alot of my post, but anyway, you should probably read this: http://www.internetweek.com/newslead01/lead082301.htm
Moviefly was announced awhile ago, and the site is up, but not running. http://www.moviefly.com
And guess what? People will still steal. Fair pricing is not the answer.

 

[John_Berger]

But's what's *wrong* with what's provided now??

Excuse me? Just because you and I have no problems with it doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't either. Please stop it with this attitude that people only do it because it's easy and free.
As I see it, while there will always be people who want something for nothing, but the current situation is "my way or the highway" -- either you buy the DVD or you don't. That type of business model is obsolete. Even software companies give the option of paying a cheaper price for downloading their software as opposed to buying the CD, box, manual, etc.
This will be a news flash to many, but some people just don't want all of the frills that come with DVDs and therefore do not want to have to pay for a bunch of extras that they don't want. Don't tell me that this is not the case, because I regularly get e-mail from people about this.
What about those who don't have DVD-ROM drives? (Yes, there are people out there.) Why not offer them an alternative? Instead of paying $100 for a new drive plus the fees to ihave it installed if they don't know how, why not let them download the movies that they want for $5.99 each with no frills whatsoever? The $5.99 is just a price that I'm pulling out of my head, by the way.
The current distribution method is obsolete and in need of modification. People obviously want movies on their PC, and I have enough confidence in humanity to think that a good portion, hopefully a majority, are will to pay a much smaller amount for just the movie than the full price for an entire DVD that they might not even be able to play.

 

[John_Berger]

I still don't understand your point. You are making an excellent argument that the studios won't be losing a dime from your actions. So what? That still doesn't mean that it is legal.

** cursing under breath ** Will you people KNOCK IT OFF with the "it's still not legal" diatribe?

Here's a news flash for you! Did you know that when you make MP3s from CDs that you own, you are breaking the law? Yes, you are! MP3s are NOT bit-by-bit duplicates of the original CD! Only **exact duplicates** are allowed by law to be legal because only then can they be categorized as "archival backups"! Any modification from the original format, which MP3s are, is not allowed under the U.S. copyright code. Have you also been preaching that "it's still not legal" to people who make MP3s from their own CDs? Somehow, I doubt it.

Jeez, I really wish that you "letter of the law" people would get off your high horses.

 

[Greg Rowe]

And guess what? People will still steal. Fair pricing is not the answer.

People always have, and always will steal.
Fair pricing *might* not be the answer. I don't know the answer. I do know that copy protection will not work, it is flawed, but no one seems to be argueing with me on this . In fact it seems as though this is really between John and Joe!
I look forward to reading more posts tomorrow!
Greg

 

[Joe McCabe]

Just out of curiousity John, do you actually read *all* of the responses, or only the parts that allow you to continue arguing with people??

 

[Joe McCabe]

Greg:
I don't have the answers either, if I did, I would be a very rich man in the near future!!
Also, I'm not really trying to argue with John, I was just stating some (what I percieved to be) obvious problems.
But, it seems that he wants to be *right* very badly.
Whatever.

 

[John_Berger]

Just out of curiousity John, do you actually read *all* of the responses, or only the parts that allow you to continue arguing with people??

So, geez. I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that I'm only allowed to respond to full posts rather than segments of posts. I don't recall reading that in the HTF's terms of conduct.

 

[Greg Rowe]

Also, I'm not really trying to argue with John

Hey argueing is good! It's only bad when tempers fly. I suppose "debate" would be closer to what I was thinking.
Anyhow, I really have to go to bed before my mailcheck informs me that there have been more posts to this thread!
Greg

 

[John_Berger]

But, it seems that he wants to be *right* very badly.

No, I'm just tired of people polarizing this issue to either "You're a low-life criminal" or "you're charging too much" or whatever extreme position someone wants to have. It seems that the end user is the one who is always blamed as though Hollywood bears no responsibility.
As you said, whoever has the answer will become very rich. The problem, unfortunately, is that this is such an unbelievably grey issue with enough blame to go around. But there is not enough responsibility and too many people accusing the other side of being irrational or, as you seem to prefer, breaking the law. Unfortunately, the one-download-always-equals-one-lost-sale-and-by-the-way-it's-illegal crowd and the I-want-everything-for-free crowd polarize this, which gets me on my soap box.
I don't see an answer. What I see instead is the blame game, the accusations, and the finger wagging -- and I'm tired of it. So, when I see the polarizing posts, the steam builds and needs to be released.
And just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that I'm not right.

 

[John_Berger]

Hey argueing is good!

Oh, I'm sorry. This is Abuse. You want the room next door.
(Monty Python, for those who don't know.)

 

[Darren Davis]

just had to throw this in there:

it's a different matter for home video and DVD sales which are likely to be badly effected if high-quality bootlegs become widely available.

High-quality bootleg = oxymoron. The best I've seen is a slight improvement over VHS but there's way too many compression issues. DVD only when this one comes out!

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I have to throw some more 'crap' at this. As soon as I get done laughing, of course.
Personally, I think the studios are just trying to hide the fact that someone(s) copied a movie at an advance screening. I'd be a little embarrassed, to say the least.
Second, if the studios are losing 'billions', then why is Spidey doing so poorly? (joke) It broke the 1st week box office records, and I think is now in 49th place for all time box office sales.
What the studios are really worried about, (and where they are losing real $$), is with the real 'bootlegs'. Last week a poster wrote about all of the ones he had seen for sale in the Mideast.
Sure, the studios are losing there, but if you lived there and tried to get a 'legal' copy, could you do so? I'm sure an Aussie can chime in on how few 'legal' DVD's are available in that region.
When I think about it, if they didn't have any reps in country "A", and I lived there and wanted a certain movie, what could I legally do? Write Warner or MGM and ask them for permission? Would they charge a single user? Would they look like total jerks if they said NO?
I think that the problem has more to do with the studios lack of legal authority in certain areas of the world, and they're acting like cry-babies because of something that they can not control. The few copies that are wizzing through the net are really not worth tracking down. They'd make a lot more money getting contracts and legal rights established in other countries.
And no one has yet mentioned that there are some people that physically CANNOT go to a movie theater. If they want to see AOTC, they just have to wait until the DVD comes out, or use the net, I guess. Truly a sad situation for them.
Glenn

 

[Damin J Toell]

Jeez, I really wish that you "letter of the law" people would get off your high horses.

And I wish people would actually know the law before announcing it to the rest of us....

DJ

 

[oscar_merkx]

Wow

I never thought that when I posted this thread yesterday that the response would be so good for a discussion about bootlegging in general.

My question to others on the Forum is this ? Why is it that when every time a Star Wars movie premieres there is such a big deal on cracking down on Bootlegs, and not when other movies are released? Is this because there is more media coverage when this happens as opposed when a "smaller" movie opens ?

That is my 2 cents worth.

Oscar Merkx

Keep up the good discussion

 

[Greg_Y]

Here's a news flash for you! Did you know that when you make MP3s from CDs that you own, you are breaking the law? Yes, you are! ... Have you also been preaching that "it's still not legal" to people who make MP3s from their own CDs? Somehow, I doubt it.

Can you please answer my question instead of raising a different point? Here's a synopsis of how the 'argument' transpired:

John: They're not losing any money!

Greg Yurkovic: The financial argument isn't the only factor in deciding legality.

John: MP3s aren't legal either!

If you can find time to debate the first point, I'd love to hear your comments. Also, I'm not preaching anything. I was asking you a question, and trying you to get you to explain your argument(s.)

 

[Greg Rowe]

Greg: The financial argument isn't the only factor in deciding legality.

Other Greg ,
I don't recall ever making that argument.
I agree with you 100% that it is wrong to bootleg. I'm trying to come up with a good analogy to show this but I am failing.
Greg

 

[John_Berger]

John: They're not losing any money!

Greg: The financial argument isn't the only factor in deciding legality.

John: MP3s aren't legal either!

No, that's not the progression that I saw. He's making this big bru-ha-ha about breaking the law as though I consciously did it with malicious intent and that I'm some kind of die hard criminal. I'm just tired of the "letter-of-the-law" types who always come out of the woodwork when topics like this come up. (Of course, I'm also tired of the "We want everythig for free" crowd, but I don't think that they'd dare to rear their heads on HTF.)

Here's a goofy analogy that I think fits the situation:

Someone walks up to you while you're sitting on your porch, hands you a $100 bill, and says, "I wasn't thinking properly yesterday and I took one of the flowers near your sidewalk. I'm truly sorry and this money will more than cover the cost of the flower. I'll even go out, buy the flower, and replant it for you."

You look him in the eye and say, "You're now trespassing. I'm calling the police."

These people that continually harp on legalities are one of the groups that continually attempt to polarize this issue into the black-and-white issue that this is not. They never look at intent; they never look at restitution, past or present; they never look at availability of the entertainment in question. They simply harp about it being legal or not, when in truth there is so much more to this issue than that. I'm not saying that legality is not a factor; but that's what it comes down to -- it's a FACTOR, it's not the ENTIRETY of the argument.

 

[John_Berger]

I agree with you 100% that it is wrong to bootleg. I'm trying to come up with a good analogy to show this but I am failing.

Oh, stop that. I do understand your position and I've said that there are circumstances where I fully agree with it.
I have already said that acquiring a bootleg copy of anything with the intent of using it to not pay for the real thing is wrong. If you really want to see a movie without paying full price, go to a matinee, for crying out loud, and eat before you go so that you don't spend money on popcorn. It's not that difficult to do.
What I'm saying is that if the money has been paid and the money will be paid and you acquire something with zero intentions of letting it replace the real thing when it's made available, is it wrong in ALL ways - ethically, morally, legally, etc?
The problem that I see is that there are always people who polarize the one side by getting on their high horse by saying, "Yes! It's wrong! You've broken the law; therefore, it is wrong morally, ethically, etc! You're a criminal!" Then we have the other people in the low gutters who say, "Hey, if it's available for free, then I want it for free! Why should I have to pay for it?" Unfortunately, in the battle between these two extremes the people in the middle are getting punished. THAT is wrong, and unfortunately that is what this argument of bootlegging ALWAYS becomes!

 

[John_Berger]

I have no idea where you're getting your "exact duplicate" requirement from, but it's entirely nonexistant in either statutory or case law.

Okay, upon re-reading the U.S.C. and the DMCA, I see where I made my mistake. They do allow derivatives and modifications and were referring to "exact copies" (yes, those words are used!) when it comes to transferrence of licenses. So, I'll admit here and now to everyone that I was wrong on that notion. It's too bad that others won't do the same.