Film Piracy (opinions and box office effect)

[GirafficPark]

9 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

If you pirate content and aren't in a 3rd world country, you are a lazy douchebag.

Ever lent someone a CD, DVD or BR? Then you sir are also a pirate. Piracy is nothing more than a licensing violation, its not theft. People do it all the time without even realising.

[terrestrial]

Oh, I forgot:

ripping material that someone owns as a disc, without lending it to others... is not everywhere a crime, here you are even allowed one back-up. 

But the moment you sell your official disc you have to delete / destroy your back-up, as it is then not a back-up any-more and you are not allowed to use the back-up, if you had lend the DVD... to someone else.

Roughly formulated..

[GirafficPark]

1 minute ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Sorry, no amount of flawed logic is going to change the fact you have made the decision to be a lazy douchebag.  

How is it lazy? How is doing something more lazy than not doing something?

 

'Douchebag' might be a matter of opinion, its also douchy for studios to get government handouts, tax breaks and not pay their due taxes, but they do it all the time.

[GirafficPark]

4 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

Oh, I forgot:

ripping material that someone owns as a disc, without lending it to others... is not everywhere a crime, here you are even allowed one back-up. 

But the moment you sell your official disc you have to delete / destroy your back-up, as it is then not a back-up any-more and you are not allowed to use the back-up, if you had lend the DVD... to someone else.

Roughly formulated..

Not true everywhere, and the laws have changed over that, so was it douchy before but not now? Did the law change somethings morality?

[That One Girl]

.

Edited June 8, 2022 by That One Guy

[filmlover]

10 hours ago, Daxtreme said:

 

I never illegally download. I either see movies in theaters or just wait until they're available on Redbox DVD/premium TV/Netflix or Hulu.

[GirafficPark]

All i will say now is that anyone here who has ever lent a disc to a friend is a pirate. You shared the file and they watched or listened to the content without a license to do so. You cannot transfer that license temporarily, its debatable if you are even allowed to sell it on.

[terrestrial]

3 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

Not true everywhere, and the laws have changed over that, so was it douchy before but not now? Did the law change somethings morality?

The laws.... never allowed to steal content, in some countries they vary what you can do to what degree with the content you paid for.

 

I thought that was clear?

[4815162342]

3 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

All i will say now is that anyone here who has ever lent a disc to a friend is a pirate. You shared the file and they watched or listened to the content without a license to do so. You cannot transfer that license temporarily, its debatable if you are even allowed to sell it on.

 

You realize this is patently false here in the United States. Look up the first sale doctrine:

 

Quote

The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder's distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. 

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by 4815162342

[GirafficPark]

Just now, terrestrial said:

The laws.... never allowed to steal content, in some countries they vary what you can do to what degree with the content you paid for.

 

I thought that was clear?

You NEVER buy the content, you only buy a limited license to use it the way the owners allow you to, 'back-ups' are dubiously legal under the vague notion of fair use, and never pursued by content owners these days, doesn't make it completely legal.

[GirafficPark]

1 minute ago, 4815162342 said:

 

You realize this is patently false here in the United States. Look up the first sale doctrine:

 

 

Thats selling not lending, and doesnt apply in all regions.

[terrestrial]

1 minute ago, GirafficPark said:

All i will say now is that anyone here who has ever lent a disc to a friend is a pirate. You shared the file and they watched or listened to the content without a license to do so. You cannot transfer that license temporarily, its debatable if you are even allowed to sell it on.

You are allowed in the UK to sell your used DVD / Blu-Ray, if the DVD / Blu-Ray was a legal version. The same counts as far as I know for all countries. You can not sell digital form/version bought content = you can e.g. not sell ebooks,....

The possibility to sell used hard copies is 'bought' with higher prices in a way - or: the non-possibility to sell digital forms/versions of material is 'bought' per deeper prices at the first place.

You are still allowed to lent e.g. a printed book to a friend, but not to lend him/her your ebooks per transfer.

 

Am I really that difficult to understand with my mainly self-trained English?

[4815162342]

2 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

Thats selling not lending, and doesnt apply in all regions.

 

No, the first-doctrine in the U.S. applies to every single aspect. Once you buy a DVD or Blu-Ray. That DVD or Blu-Ray is yours to do with as you see fit. You can sell it, gift it, lend, etc. You have the exclusive right to that physical copy.

 

What you can't do is upload the media to Youtube, make unauthorized copies, etc. Things that would affect the reproduction rights or mass distribution rights of the copyright holder. But the distribution rights to the physical disc belong to you and you alone.

[GirafficPark]

1 minute ago, terrestrial said:

You are allowed in the UK to sell your used DVD / Blu-Ray, if the DVD / Blu-Ray was a legal version. The same counts as far as I know for all countries. You can not sell digital form/version bought content = you can e.g. not sell ebooks,....

The possibility to sell used hard copies is 'bought' with higher prices in a way - or: the non-possibility to sell digital forms/versions of material is 'bought' per deeper prices at the first place.

You are still allowed to lent e.g. a printed book to a friend, but not to lend him/her your ebooks per transfer.

 

Am I really that difficult to understand with my mainly self-trained English?

You need to read the license that comes with media then, it explicitly says you cannot lend. Lending means they cannot play the media without you being present. It says as much right here on a BR right in front of me.

[Bishop54]

Laziness has nothing to do with it lol. How is laziness even being brought up right now?

[GirafficPark]

1 minute ago, Bishop54 said:

Laziness has nothing to do with it lol. How is laziness even being brought up right now?

Lack of a decent argument.

[Bishop54]

2 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

Lack of a decent argument.

I could call someone out on the act of doing it, that's justified...but calling someonel lazy? Nope I don't see it. Cheap? Sure, we could go that route. 

[terrestrial]

16 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

You NEVER buy the content, you only buy a limited license to use it the way the owners allow you to, 'back-ups' are dubiously legal under the vague notion of fair use, and never pursued by content owners these days, doesn't make it completely legal.

 

9 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

You need to read the license that comes with media then, it explicitly says you cannot lend. Lending means they cannot play the media without you being present. It says as much right here on a BR right in front of me.

 

I used in an earlier post something like: varies... 

And there is still a difference between what a company likes to get for rights and what the law says about that.

E.g. if you buy a computer with OEM software on it, in most countries it is not allowed to sell it solo = without the computer. 

But:

see selling / understanding of buying something, the high court here says, what a person buys can a person also sell in parts, like a car can sold in parts.

= AGAIN: It varies what you can do with your legally bought things, but it never allows the stealing the access to or the material itself..

 

The companies want to see e.g. software as a license, not an ownership, but sold it per hard disc ....

When you deleted it, deactivated it at the software's website,... you can sell it here. Certain software companies incl sitting in the US still allow that btw.

Certain companies tried to protest that, but lost in the courts. They tried to make it difficult,... courts didn't found that funny.

Now some of those only offer leasing contracts (way more expensive in the long run) ...

I changed the company I am using. I do not rent,... I only buy, I do not male myself 'prisoner' to a renting a software company. If I can not afford an upgrade I wait till I have the money or buy it very much later an then already out of date cheap rest or legally then to re-registered... used version.

A company that tries for too high a price, against customs based on legal actions,... = contra bonos mores = can dis-validate something like a license agreement or parts of it.

 

But what has that to do wih steeling matrial where a person has n legal right to i the first place?
Again criminal act vs a maybe discussion worthy use of owned per legal ways material = not the same.

[EmpireCity]

20 minutes ago, Bishop54 said:

I could call someone out on the act of doing it, that's justified...but calling someonel lazy? Nope I don't see it. Cheap? Sure, we could go that route. 

 

It is intellectually lazy.  It is also fun to see all the excuses and flawed logic being thrown around to justify stealing.  

 

If it helps, anyone who pirates is a lazy cheap douchebag.  

[GirafficPark]

Just now, EmpireCity said:

 

It is intellectually lazy.  It is also fun to see all the excuses and flawed logic being thrown around to justify stealing.  

 

If it helps, anyone who pirates is a lazy cheap douchebag.  

Its intellectually lazy to not question laws that are clearly not fit for purpose any more.