Illegal movie downloaders in Canada may face legal action

[DANSPEED]

Why don't you just not illegally download movies?

They can have Skyfall back -- what a piece of %3@$!

Here's a point. Say you went to your friends house and watched a pay per view movie. You didn't pay for it so is that stealing? Of course not! I mean why pay $19 for a music CD at A&B Sound or Sam the Record Man when you can get a copy from your friend -- oh yeah those stores don't exist anymore, gee I wonder why? I think eventually movie theaters will die or stream online. When TV first came out movie theaters suffered. Hey Skyfall still made $921,014,319 (wiki) to date so their not suffering that bad.

[mrj222]

copyright infringement is not stealing its copyright infringement. When you steal something from someone they dont have it anymore when you make a copy they still have theirs. Also this is exactly what tor is designed for. Catch me if you can. Maybe when the media companies refund me for the movies I bought my daughter that won't play on my laptop due to copy protection I might buy movies again, oddly enough I never have trouble playing the free ones, seems the quality is better.

[DANSPEED]

copyright infringement is not stealing its copyright infringement. When you steal something from someone they dont have it anymore when you make a copy they still have theirs.

Yes but since you never paid for it, isn't that stealing? Somebody's out. Cable and satellite companies call unauthorized viewing "theft of signal." Actually DishNet even went as far as calling FTA viewers pirates! I think the movie industry is more worried about lost revenue from illegal downloading then copyright infringements but it's the only legal angle they have.

[Woodenhead]

Somebody's out.

*sigh - here we go*

No. That statement assumes that the downloader would have paid for a copy had they not been able to get it freely.

Here's some help. My apologies for the language - I'm not trying to be a prick. But it's the most succinct explanation I've yet found. Any other interpretation is simply personal opinion/feelings, and not actual definitive fact.

Regarding the morality of it - it all depends on the individual/intent. Personally, I find (at least when it comes to music, my area of expertise) that "pirating" does more good than harm; at worst, it's a break-even deal. Not immoral at all. I have artists begging me for exposure on P2P sites. Fact. (artists that include Trent Reznor and a personal favourite, Benn Jordan)

http://readwrite.com/2012/10/19/should-the-music-industry-be-thanking-illegal-downloaders

The thing RIAA is scared of is that their billion dollar backbone can no longer shelter people from exploring music themselves. Their business plan had evolved into telling the world what they will want to listen to and buy, and now they'll have to actually compete with talented artists again. As the people regain control of the market, music will be judged by it's content again and will be subjected to it's own Darwinism. It is a very interesting time for the music industry... and since my entire life is devoted to making music, bring it on. I hope that this situation with my new record proves to other labels and artists that giving people exactly what they want is the smartest way to conduct any business.

[DANSPEED]

Yeah but I doubt that Paul McCartney would be worth $1.2 Billion today if the Internet was around in the 1960s.

The cake analogy doesn't work. A cake is tangible a movie isn't. If I walk into a movie theater and watch a movie without paying am I really stealing anything? Anyways I like the concept. As long as no one claims ownership of the content or profits from it then it's okay. I just wonder if the courts see it that way.

[LoneWolf_53]

Yeah but I doubt that Paul McCartney would be worth $1.2 Billion today if the Internet was around in the 1960s.

The cake analogy doesn't work. A cake is tangible a movie isn't.

Probably not, but then again, there likely would have been quite a few, more deserving artists who never got a break, that wound up with a slice of that $1.2 Billion, thanks to the exposure the internet offers.

As for the movie, if I purchase the Bluray it's tangible isn't it?


Where I've always had my nose out of joint on this issue is, we get whacked extra money on blank recording media, which I thought was to compensate artists for the fact that people do copy things, then basically the industry wants to turn around and prevent you from using that media legally.

[dirtrider]

Where I've always had my nose out of joint on this issue is, we get whacked extra money on blank recording media, which I thought was to compensate artists for the fact that people do copy things, then basically the industry wants to turn around and prevent you from using that media legally.

Last I checked, the tax is just for CD's and nothing else. Judge Le Belle ruled that downloading of music (only) for ones' personal consumption is legal in this country (i'm not sure about this with the new legislation). The tax was to compensate the artist for the downloads....I'm not sure how this is done or if the artists have been paid. I'm pretty sure it goes the way of the carbon tax....into general government coffers.

[LoneWolf_53]

I have no issue with paying a tax on blank media, so long as I can then legally use it to copy whatever I want for my own personal use, including my immediate family.

The only time copying should be regarded as illegal IMHO, is if it's done for profit, as in if I make copies of something then sell them, or in cases where counterfeit product is being created, be it movies, music, or what have you, again being sold for profit.

My buying a music CD, or movie DVD, and burning a copy, to give to my kid for viewing or listening, should not make me a criminal.

[SurplusElect]

Paid 10 dollars to sit thru 10 minutes of commercials in the theater during The Hobbit last night. Who's stealing from who now? Great movie though.

Yes - that was me who yelled and booed loudly during the commercials. I encourage everyone to do the same.

As far as Kraft Dinner, Coca Cola, Honda and Telus is concerned I paid 10 dollars to be indoctrinated into their agenda.

[DANSPEED]

As for the movie, if I purchase the Bluray it's tangible isn't it?

That's my point. You walked into a store and paid for the movie so you have the rights to it but what are the limits to those rights? You make a copy that I download. Now in a sense my copy is stolen because I never walked into the store and paid for it. Although if you invited me over to watch the movie, legally that's okay (I think). So what is a "illegally downloaded movie?" I assume one that I didn't pay for.

I had a good laugh when they put a tax on blank CD's because it meant that I had the rights now to copy anything illegal legally because I paid the tax. Strange that the tax doesn't extend to flash drives because I've mailed off gigs of stuff to friends!

[Bsuds]

Paid 10 dollars to sit thru 10 minutes of commercials in the theater during The Hobbit last night. Who's stealing from who now? Great movie though.

They should refund part of your money. You paid to see the movie not commercials, they should pay you to watch those.

[fluffy]

There was some discussion of this on CBC the other morning. Someone said they are not going after downloaders/viewers per say, but will focus their attention on those who make the downloaded copy available to others, i.e. peer-to-peer sharing sites.

[JLives]

I support artists directly by going to see them live when I can. I still buy CD's or downloads of quality music and movies but I'm not about to spend a bunch of money on albums with a few good songs and a bunch of filler. I like the way some comedians are handling it by selling $5 downloads right on their site. I just purchased the Louis CK one and Tig Notaro and they were very good. I have also pre-purchased Sound City, the film Dave Grohl is directing that looks awesome. The thing that really annoys me is when you buy a DVD you have to sit through a bunch of junk before you get to the actual film. It's especially annoying with kid's movies as they watch them several times. Can I please just play the movie?

[LoneWolf_53]

There was some discussion of this on CBC the other morning. Someone said they are not going after downloaders/viewers per say, but will focus their attention on those who make the downloaded copy available to others, i.e. peer-to-peer sharing sites.

That I have no problem with, as those types of sites, clearly exist simply to distribute something that doesn't belong to them.

Nothing more than digital data traffickers if you will.

Never mind that they are probably, the most responsible, for spreading malware of all sorts in the process.

I've tinkered on enough computers to note, that the acquaintances I help who don't have P2P software installed, generally don't have any major issues with malware, beyond accidentally clicking on something they shouldn't have, whereas the ones who had allowed their kids to install and use things like Limewire, were so infested with crap that often the most cost effective way of curing it was to do a complete reformat.

I mean I've run Malwarebytes and had it find more than 1300 nasty objects on one computer. The owner of which is complaining that it runs slow. No kidding slow? How can that be?

[LoneWolf_53]

The thing that really annoys me is when you buy a DVD you have to sit through a bunch of junk before you get to the actual film. It's especially annoying with kid's movies as they watch them several times. Can I please just play the movie?

This is one area where making your own copy does wonders, I simply set the software to copy the main movie only, that way all the other crap is left off of it, and I can insert my own disc and go directly to the meat, without all the other distraction.