Piracy is a Competitor

So does downloading a bootleg movie and watching it make one a pirate?

YES. That is the definition of a pirate actually.

Umm no. The pirate distributes it.

That's what I thought too.
EDIT: come to think of it, a pirate is one that takes from other people. However, i think the term pirate might have a different def. in this case. I dont know.

The real pirate distrubutes it for money. Only wannabe pirates give stuff away without charging hard currency for their warez.

Yes, and in this case, the downloader is the consumer, who made a choice of which vendor to "do business with" based on price, availability quality or all of the above. Fact is, that if the price was right, the product was easily attainable and the quality was as good or even better than what you find on a torrent or other p2p, I think many more people would go the safe route and pay for the product. If I could download a DVD (at full DVD quality,) burn it and be watching it a an hour or two I might just pay for it if the price was reasonable. Don't charge me 19.99 when I can buy it in the store for that amount.

Exactly.

DITTO!

Piracy is the act of illegal conversion (i.e., "theft"). If you are the one that takes the licensed media and then distributes it - either for fee or fee - contrary to that license, you are the pirate. Buying or receiving/downloading such pirated content doesn't make you a pirate. It simply makes you a consumer of illegal goods (which is often illegal, as well, but is not, technically, theft).

-tom

Doesn't "theft" in the Pirate sense, entail denying access to the original work by the owner?

If I were to download a copy of the original from some "site", the original is still there for the "owner" to access.
No theft has taken place. No one is denied access to the original work.

Now, this is what is called Copyright Infringement.
It is not theft in any way. Theft is taking the "item" and leaving nothing in it's place. The original is still there - it has been copied.

As to the article, when someone downloads a copy of a movie or music track, there are NO LIMITATIONS on what this person can do with the file.
They can burn it to disc and play it in virtually any device.
They can transfer it to any device as many times as needed.

There is no need for ??? player software to go online and retrieve a license for playback.
The file doesn't die 24 hours later.

As soon as the xxAAs wake the f*** up and scrap the whole DRM bullshit, and lower the prices for non-physical media, then purchasing a LEGAL copy will be more atractive to everyone.

If I get a file, and it (tries to) installs some BS player software on my machine just to play that file, and that POS software breaks something... where do you think I will go next time I want that type of file?

Back to the asshats that borked my machine?
Or, to BT/Newsgroups to get a *CLEAN*(no-breaky-machiney) file?

Think about it...

Well said

It used to be they warned you "don't download software from unknown sites because you might pick up something nasty." Now... Well, now if you go to "reputable" sites, you will get something nasty.

Greaaaat...

-tom

Shit! Buying the actual DVD or CD may trash your machine!
Screw the downloads!
I'll take my chances with the downloads sooner than running a DVD or CD that tries to root my laptop!

Buying (or borrowing, or applying the five-finger discount) the DVD or CD won't trash your machine, but putting the media in certainly might.

-tom

ROFL!
Just what I want to see, one(or more) of my security apps popping up a warning window when I try to play a disc, be it a CD or DVD!

Yeah, that sounds cool, huh?

Better that they did pop something up than that they let the nasties go about their merry way. No?

-tom

LOL!
"Buy our LEGAL discs, it's safer!" Rootkit, machine crippling DRM, God knows what else... but it's legal.

Download the file... *maybe* a virus or trojan, but I have anti-virus and anti-trojan scanners/protection.

Decisions decisions...

In other news, Tower Records is going out of busines...

-tom

Tower Records.
Home of the $20.00 cd.

What a shame.

I have never once gotten any mal/spy/crapware or virii or trojans from downloading mp3s and videos. But the Sony DRM stuff scared the crap out of me and I was simply lucky it didn't effect me, as I still like to purchase the good cds, and by pure luck didn't happen to purchase any with DRM on 'em.

And then they wonder why people download off the net instead. Then agian..I got so sick of it and went to Linux..now I don't have to put up with that...

the person making and distrobuting the copy is the pirate. so the person you DL from is the pirate. which is why the RIAA/MPAA go after these people, not to mention its alot harder to chase a downloader as most p2p aps dont keep IP logs.

Right.Right - you don't make it nor distribute it.Umm but they do go after the downloader.

WRONG. This is a typical comment made by someone who doesn't understand how protocols like eDonkey/BitTorent work. Once you download a chunk of file, it is automatically shared with other users on the network, even if the whole file hasn't finished downloading yet. So while you have your eDonkey/BitTorrent client running, you are also distributing what you are downloading to other users. And if it is a copyrighted work that you are sharing and RIAA/MPAA nails you, they will sue you for unauthorized distribution above anything else. As far as they are concerned, they are the only ones who have the rights to distribute their music/movies, and if anyone else is caught doing it without their permission, they need to be punished.

FYI, you are pretty safe from getting if you stick to download-only kinds of services such as newsgroups.

COngrat that you finally understood how p2p works - but what are you preaching here, I dunno... it has nothing to do with my comment.

PS: Geez, if you're an age-old usenet user - I've used usenet before internet kicked in - like me then few things can be more sarcastic and/or funny when some young enthusiastic 'expert' fella thinks he can explain p2p or file sharing or usenet for you...

Having seen this discussion about a million times at this point I've concluded there's a semantic club that wanders the vast Interwebs simply pointing out the difference between stating someone is getting busted for downloading versus getting busted for sharing....

The rest of the discussion can make no sense provided they step in to clarify that point.

I dunno... you could argue that the act of downloading a file is creating a new copy on your machine so you could technically consider the act to be "pirating", ie, making you the Pirate.

Consider this:

You build your own DVR (or PVR). You record an episode of "LOST", you remove all of the commercials and give it to a friend.
In fact, you recorded the entire season and gave it to a friend commercial free.

So the only thing different here is that the video signal went through your cable box and not your cable modem.

Am I a pirate?

Only you can answer that...

Im asking from a legal perspective.

I guess it depends on how the creator/owner wants their property to be distributed. Are they trying to make money, or give it away for free? If for money, why not write a letter asking them just to be sure its OK? Or, ask a lawyer. Or, become a congressman and change the law.

I'm an IP lawyer, but on BBR people don't want to hear from lawyers. Blind (willful?) ignorance seems to be easier to live with for some people . . .

The LOST producers would say yes, most certainly.

Personally, I would say no, because I feel that's fair use.

We're in a climate tho where the producers and content resellers accuse people of pirating just because they refuse to watch commercials. That's how out-of-whack things are getting. RTV was sunk due to BS lawsuits.

BTW, i love your sig:
Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)

Heh. It's a direct quote. He said it, and I thought it was right on the money. ty

Short Answer: Yes, you are. But you need the long answer to really find out why.Not a pirate yet. Also not a pirate if you are using TIVO, or your cable company's DVR (like I do).Still not a pirate. (I do the same, but not for Lost. )I'm sure the media companies would argue that you're a pirate now, but IMHO you still aren't. In fact, I do this routinely. (It's better than keeping the shows that my 3 year old son wants to see on our DVR and winding up with no space left.)

Let me skip around a bit now:I'd argue again that you still aren't a pirate. Of course, once more, I'm sure the media companies would disagree.Either of these actions are what would make you a pirate. Not the stripping of the commercials. (I do that myself.) But the giving of copies to a friend. IMO, you can do anything you want with those recordings short of sharing it with someone else. (If they come over to watch it at your house or you go to their house, it's ok. Just no handing a copy to your friend.)

Of course, the level of piracy that this involves is so low as to be negligible. IMO, the media companies shouldn't concern themselves with this. Instead, they should focus on the outfits that stamp out 1,000 copies of DVDs and sell them on the streets for 1/10th the cost of the original.

There is always going to be some level of piracy by consumers. Consumers are used to doing various things with the media they buy. Any attempt to lock down the content 100% is going to fail. All it will do is temporarily delay the big time pirates (the ones who rip and share thousands of files) while annoying the small time pirates and users who don't pirate at all.

Again, the media companies, I'm sure, don't agree with me. They seem to think that if they can find the "magic lock" all of their content will be protected and users will only be able to use the content when the media companies approve of the usage (and possibly when the user pays the media companies a bit extra now and then).

It makes you a thief(aka copyright infringer).

No comment except BBR seems to advocate piracy and felonious actions to "stick it to the man."

I rarely see BBR reporting on court decisions shutting down crooks (even when I email them).

Why does DRM exist in the first place?

Illegal downloads.

People these days thinks downloading something is a God-given right not something illegal. For every iTunes download, there is probably 200 illegal ones.

AllofMP3.com is nothing more than an illegal site operating under some antiquated Russian law that Putin will crack down on when the time is right.

Bittorrent traffic is 90% illegal.

Give me a break with all this crap. If you saw keys in a car, would you drive off thinking, "Hey, they left the keys in the car. It's mine now."

Pay like your parents did.

You're talking about fair usage. As far as I know, most companies would make it so that you can't even lend your friends a copy of your game/movie (if they could.. Search some articles where sony wants (or wanted to implement that feature in PS3/Blueray players).

I know japan made it illegal to rent games and movies. USA, I assume not since Blockbuster still exists (I'm sure movie/game makers hate rental companies though).

If you download something knowing its illegal and know you can get away with it...do you do it? It's a question of character folks. Everyone's lives are different, and everyone lives by different standards. I just hope that we can all agree, somehow, on what is morally unjust To answer your question hope, no, its not pirating per-se, so yes, you probably won't get in trouble... but who am I to say anything... I've done my my share of wrong doing too.

Wow, I think there's some confusion as to what a pirate is in this thread!

Here is some assistance:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· I2MQf8Tk

This should clear it all up.

You may think it's right, but you're stepping on both the reproduction right and the public performance right in your Mythbusters-in-class scenario (and you would step on the latter even if you showed Mythbusters in class as it was broadcast). I doubt the courts would find that use to be fair; educational use is not automatically fair use. You'd fail three of the four tests (amount of work used, impact on market, nature of work), and rachael's bosses' goons would love to sue you over it.

This doesn't mean you're wrong to do it. Just that you're probably infringing copyright, because copyright law is out of control.

Disagree on almost all counts.

Actually, educational use is pretty often considered fair use. From »www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html :(Emphasis mine.)

So while it's possible that the producers of Mythbusters could sue me and win (after all, you could probably find a judge to rule any way you like), it's not cut and dried that they would win. And they would probably lose on appeal. (Of course, this assumes that they would 1) bother to sue me for such a small infraction, 2) not offer some settlement which 3) I would be likely to take considering court costs, and 4) that I would be willing to file an appeal and continue the time consuming court process.)

EDIT: Just in case you think the EFF is biased, here's another link: »www4.law.cornell.edu/usc ··· 00-.html

In my opinion the music, video, and content publishers NEED to acknowledge piracy. People are unfortunately going to continue to steal content as long as it is easy to do. I personally think that if the content distributors lowered their prices they would make more money (and lose less) than they are now. The Russian site allofmp3.com is a perfect example. They have shown that most reputable people really dont mind paying for their content as long as it is priced right. Millions of people world wide have decided that stealing is wrong, and I guarantee you that if Apple, MS, etc. even reduced the cost of their songs to 50 cents (vs. 99 cents or more) they would more than double the number of songs sold and therefore eat into piracy.

Talk Talk! DO something that isnt DRM crippled instead.

I haven't watched US broadcast television (Cable or OTA) in years. 44 minutes of "content" broken up by 16 minutes of ads and promos are a recipe for unwatchable TV.

DVDs and downloaded ad-free programming from other countries are far more interesting and easily fill up the limited time I allocate to TV.

I have been watching shows on NBC.COM and what I like is that last week the Studio 60 episode streaming was brought by a car manufacturer. The spots were 15 to 30 seconds and that was it. I watched a on hour show in 45 minutes. It was great.

NBC got me to watch. The car manufacturer paid for the six ads between segments and I could pause and fast forward etc... I didn't mind it.

I like the idea of being able to download the tv shows from the networks homepage. Then I can watch them when I want to.

I don't mind the ads, as long as I can nab the TV shows I want at no cost.

Or charge a reasonable rate for ad free extended shows, that have extra content, or uncensored content.

I would support the networks on something like that.

On Demand viewing is the future. People don't want to plan their lives around some programmer's idea of when to broadcast a show or movie.

Someone gets it! It's always sad when stealing is easier than paying for a legit copy...

Just this weekend I was trying to get a CD to download off of Rhapsody. The order didn't go through the first time, and the service told me to try again. So I try again, same message... try again.. same message. Look at my account and see I've been billed 4 times. Took an hour on the phone to half way sort it out. In the end they just refunded my money, no CD.

So.. the question I had to ask myself was.. would it take me less than 1 hour 30 minutes to steal it?

Not only that, but piracy offers a better product! DRM FREE!

And higher bit rates! =P

The entertainment market is broken and piracy is the invisible hand of free economy moving to fix it.
The purpose of copyright is incentive to increase production. It is assumed that if people are paid for their work they will work harder. However, the entertainment industry has evolved into a small number of "creators" making ridiculous amounts of money, which leads to less variety and even less of the "quality" entertainment which is so highly valued.
Let's pretend (for the sake of simplicity) that Britney Spears creates a high quality product. She is paid millions of dollars for this product. Her pay is too high because she would be forced to create more if she were paid less (ie. a competitive sum) and the world would benefit from more of her "quality" production.
Yes, piracy hurts certain small businesses, but it serves the greater good of adjusting an overvalued market.

... Dumbest Competitors"

-- American Airlines chairman Robert Crandall on waging the fare war

"I guarantee you that if Apple, MS, etc. even reduced the cost of their songs to 50 cents (vs. 99 cents or more) they would more than double the number of songs sold and therefore eat into piracy."

well, one site has: EMUSIC.

All you people commented tons about the Russian site, but nobody bothers to mentin a LEGAL site that charges as little as $.25/song??? VBR MP3's that also have NO DRM!!!

Astounding.

Oh, and for reference, Streaming audio from the likes of Rhapsody pay out 1 cent per stream. I think the per track is something like 80% of the total (in Rhapsody's case, it's $.89/song if you're a subscriber) leaving maybe a 1/4 of that to the artist.

Besides everyone wanting their stuff for free, the real problem is broken, cumbersome DRM that the old fogey's think are "protecting" their "assets" from "theives" who would "never" pay a dime. ...I think if itunes deserves any mention, it's because they proved that people will buy anything if they think it's "cool" and that they're helping the artist (not very much!).

EMUSIC also did. Rhapsody also did. Napster is on the verge of being bought out again because not only does their software kind of suck, but many still associate them with piracy, or don't know that they still exist...

The best way out of the mess the industry has gotten into, is to fully embrace a service like eMusic, and offer more freedoms with services like Rhapsody.

If they'd outright sell a song for super cheap, with no DRM, it's BEEN FRACKING PROVEN that people love it. If the subscriptions would also do away with it, at least on the "to go" part and just say "here's your music you paid to rent, now go play it on your portable, we don't care" things would work out much better.

...I think this is a great article on EMUSIC.
»www.techdirt.com/article ··· 06.shtml

Go read it, then come back here and post. I'm sick of hearing about that penny site overseas that does no good for our economy, our talent, but makes those guys rich...

No need to paint a bullseye on the sites we like to get our content from. We know what they are, don't advertise to the fuzz and noobs.

Don't forget Disney, that we the consumer want quality produced content, not the reduced bit sampled distorted crap we typically get from p2p networks.

Or else we are back to the Pirates.

... is that it does give content providers something to think about.

If there was no piracy, they could just force more crap on you, and force you to pay for it. With Piracy around, it's at least a reminder that it's better business to provide a quality product, because if you try and force people to pay for crap, well, they might still take your crap, but not pay you anything for it.

All almost peripheral to the discussion. What hasn't happened(as pointed out so capably, years ago, by record producer Jimmy Iovine...) is that the music industry and the also, the movie industry, has been slow and less-than-effective in embracing the promise of the Internet as a distribution medium. Add to that their practice of alienating customers by suing anything that comes into their sites(well, not actually suing, more like a mafia protection racket works...you know: extortion) and you have a sales and marketing nightmare, for that little extra je ne sais quoi.

And why has this happened in this manner, you might ask?

Dumb decisions, way too many lawyers at the top of record companies and movie companies(who tend to come down on the side of what they know: litigation as revenue stream), and a real and demonstrable contempt for customers or potential customers.

Sure, the historical loss of revenues by the entertainment industry over the last twenty years or so can be tied to competition from a lot of other economic areas that vie for the historically falling disposable incomes of people, but that isn't the only thing in play here. In the past, music and movies did well, even in much worse economies. Bad decisions, talentless and unimaginative executives, too few "John Hammonds", crap product and customer alienation are also in play here in a big way.

But most of all, the real decision makers did not and do not, and seemingly refuse to, grok The Internet.

Sales of these DVDs and CDs are up!
So, these clowns are bitching that sales aren't up enough? WTF Chuck?

People are spending millions(literally) on physical media... and the asshats are still bitching!
As for music, I am quite burned out on music overall, not to mention VERY little new music entices me - to buy *OR* download!

Most of the new movies suck! LMAO!
Not wasting my bandwidth on some crappy remake of an old ass movie or the "new" crap movies they're producing.

Seeing as my monthly(to date) bandwidth usage has an all time high of 26.59GB downloaded(back in June), you can tell I'm not downloading alot of anything.
There just isn't anything that is worth my time to watch or bandwidth to download! DUH!

Of course, we all know(should at least) that downloading isn't really the problem.
Street corner sales in OTHER COUNTRIES is what's hitting their pocketbooks.
Not alot they can do in those places though... so they try and tag "losses" on the casual downloader here in The States.

Wake the hell up!
This applies to the Anti-Pirate zealots that post here, and all the sheeple that believe these inflated statistics slapped out there by the xxAAs.

When it's all said and done, it's an internet discussion board, not your mom's honor, or your prom date...