POPCORN TIME > Torrents made simple as Netflix?! (1 Viewer)

[sdp1226]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Watching a streaming video is a bit different than stealing a tangible object from someone, IMO.

Why? Someone made it and in fact invested a lot of money in making it, and in exchange for offering it to you, they want you to pay, as with any other goods or services.

My ultimate point is many of you are using really contorted justifications to convince yourselves you aren't stealing. You are stealing, it's black and white. To the guys who instead say "ef it, I know what I'm doing and it's stealing and I dont care," I say kudos to you.

So I suppose that you've paid for all of the pron you've watched on the internet?

 

[comfortably numb]

I give Otis credit...all these years whacking off to legally uploaded porn.

You're a better man than I am

 

[Scoresman]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

When the alternative is just two or three clicks away, then yes the 3 month wait becomes unnecessary. I'd rather everything be on Netflix streaming. It's the easiest way for me to watch stuff. The second easiest way is torrents.

 

[drummer]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Watching a streaming video is a bit different than stealing a tangible object from someone, IMO.

Why? Someone made it and in fact invested a lot of money in making it, and in exchange for offering it to you, they want you to pay, as with any other goods or services.

My ultimate point is many of you are using really contorted justifications to convince yourselves you aren't stealing. You are stealing, it's black and white. To the guys who instead say "ef it, I know what I'm doing and it's stealing and I dont care," I say kudos to you.

So I suppose that you've paid for all of the pron you've watched on the internet?

He's taking food out her mouth. BTW, do pron stars get residuals? TIA.

 

[Slapdash]

Ok, if you aren't bringing morality into the picture, what is your point?

There is nothing immoral about sharing ideas and expressions of ideas. In fact thwarting that free exchange is immoral on my book. It may however be a necessary evil in some circumstances to give a limited monopolies to insure that creative people are capable of being creative.

But is that what we have today? Or, at least only what we have today? I'm not so certain that we are anywhere close to that today.

And while today we are arguing over relatively virtual things like digital books, digital music, and digital video this debate is going to blow up when we are layering real, physical, multiple material things for just a tab bit more than the cost of raw materials.

Such a great post from BFS as always.

 

[Otis]

I'm sure Otis used Napster back in the day when he had a MySpace page.

No question. I also downloaded some movies and watched them. It's not right. I'm not judging the deeds, and I'm not saying I've never done them. I'm questioning the absurd hoops some of you guys will go through to justify it as "not stealing." It sure as hell is, by any lucid and reasonable definition.

 

[Otis]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Watching a streaming video is a bit different than stealing a tangible object from someone, IMO.

Why? Someone made it and in fact invested a lot of money in making it, and in exchange for offering it to you, they want you to pay, as with any other goods or services.

My ultimate point is many of you are using really contorted justifications to convince yourselves you aren't stealing. You are stealing, it's black and white. To the guys who instead say "ef it, I know what I'm doing and it's stealing and I dont care," I say kudos to you.

So I suppose that you've paid for all of the pron you've watched on the internet?

No I haven't, but as I understand it I didn't steal them either. I watch porn on sites that purchased 30 year old porn to show me for free (and they collect a crapton on ads). It's not theft just because you watched it on the internet. Some things on the internet are actually intended to be free.

 

[Otis]

I give Otis credit...all these years whacking off to legally uploaded porn.

You're a better man than I am

Much as I love when things are about me, this isn't about me.

 

[Slapdash]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Watching a streaming video is a bit different than stealing a tangible object from someone, IMO.

Why? Someone made it and in fact invested a lot of money in making it, and in exchange for offering it to you, they want you to pay, as with any other goods or services.

My ultimate point is many of you are using really contorted justifications to convince yourselves you aren't stealing. You are stealing, it's black and white. To the guys who instead say "ef it, I know what I'm doing and it's stealing and I dont care," I say kudos to you.

So I suppose that you've paid for all of the pron you've watched on the internet?

No I haven't, but as I understand it I didn't steal them either. I watch porn on sites that purchased 30 year old porn to show me for free (and they collect a crapton on ads). It's not theft just because you watched it on the internet. Some things on the internet are actually intended to be free.

You're watching 30 year old porn? That must suck.

 

[Scoresman]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Watching a streaming video is a bit different than stealing a tangible object from someone, IMO.

Why? Someone made it and in fact invested a lot of money in making it, and in exchange for offering it to you, they want you to pay, as with any other goods or services.

My ultimate point is many of you are using really contorted justifications to convince yourselves you aren't stealing. You are stealing, it's black and white. To the guys who instead say "ef it, I know what I'm doing and it's stealing and I dont care," I say kudos to you.

So I suppose that you've paid for all of the pron you've watched on the internet?

No I haven't, but as I understand it I didn't steal them either. I watch porn on sites that purchased 30 year old porn to show me for free (and they collect a crapton on ads). It's not theft just because you watched it on the internet. Some things on the internet are actually intended to be free.

You're watching 30 year old porn? That must suck.

they say bush is making a comeback.

 

[Otis]

The path you guys have taken us down on this page, just so I'm accurate in my notebook, is that it's ok to steal so long as it's stealing from a rich guy who is making so much profit from the people actually paying for the thing you stole that he won't even notice your individual theft. Can I get an amen?

Watching a streaming video is a bit different than stealing a tangible object from someone, IMO.

Why? Someone made it and in fact invested a lot of money in making it, and in exchange for offering it to you, they want you to pay, as with any other goods or services.

My ultimate point is many of you are using really contorted justifications to convince yourselves you aren't stealing. You are stealing, it's black and white. To the guys who instead say "ef it, I know what I'm doing and it's stealing and I dont care," I say kudos to you.

So I suppose that you've paid for all of the pron you've watched on the internet?

No I haven't, but as I understand it I didn't steal them either. I watch porn on sites that purchased 30 year old porn to show me for free (and they collect a crapton on ads). It's not theft just because you watched it on the internet. Some things on the internet are actually intended to be free.

You're watching 30 year old porn? That must suck.

they say bush is making a comeback.

Sometimes I try to wipe it off my screen with my thumb.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

In the Internet age, yes. Damn near impossible to not see spoilers.

So you are saying that if VOD came out the same day as a movie in theatres and charged the same price as a theatre , but torrents existed still you would ONLY use $12 on demand and never torrent?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

Why should the consumer bear any burden?

By definition a consumer pays for things. That is the only burden they bear. Those that torrent are not consumers.

 

[Slapdash]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

In the Internet age, yes. Damn near impossible to not see spoilers.

So you are saying that if VOD came out the same day as a movie in theatres and charged the same price as a theatre , but torrents existed still you would ONLY use $12 on demand and never torrent?

So we should pay more to watch it On Demand than it costs in the theater? This is one of the problems here. Content providers expect consumers to pay the same or more for them to deliver content in an extremely cheaper (for the providers) format.

 

[drummer]

I'm sure Otis used Napster back in the day when he had a MySpace page.

No question. I also downloaded some movies and watched them. It's not right. I'm not judging the deeds, and I'm not saying I've never done them. I'm questioning the absurd hoops some of you guys will go through to justify it as "not stealing." It sure as hell is, by any lucid and reasonable definition.

You know how the studio's can stop piracy? Don't make it digital. Make better movies, and bring the cost of going to a movie on a blockbuster weekend down. That includes concessions. But Hollywood loves it's bottom line, thus you and your wife paying through the nose to see Need For Speed because you both love Aaron Paul.

ETA: Hollywood makes a ton of money outside of the movie alone. Product placement and corporate tie-ins like video games and branded toys and such. That's more tangible for them to make even more $$ outside of content being downloaded in SD mp4 format.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

In the Internet age, yes. Damn near impossible to not see spoilers.

So you are saying that if VOD came out the same day as a movie in theatres and charged the same price as a theatre , but torrents existed still you would ONLY use $12 on demand and never torrent?

So we should pay more to watch it On Demand than it costs in the theater? This is one of the problems here. Content providers expect consumers to pay the same or more for them to deliver content in an extremely cheaper (for the providers) format.

What do you pay for a movie in a theatre? We pay 12 here. I was trying to make it apples to apples.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

In the Internet age, yes. Damn near impossible to not see spoilers.

So you are saying that if VOD came out the same day as a movie in theatres and charged the same price as a theatre , but torrents existed still you would ONLY use $12 on demand and never torrent?

I'm talking about TV shows. Much more talk about the top TV shows these days than movies. I'd happily pay X amount for some sort of torrenting system. For now, the best option for me is downloading.

For movies, I typically wait for it to come out on Blu-Ray. Torrents/Nelflix don't meet the quality I want for "blockbuster" movies. I refuse to go to the theatre for a number of reasons and Price is pretty low on that list. I'd pay for some VOD movies if it was Blu-Ray quality. $10 or so isn't unreasonable for the convenience.

 

[Scoresman]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

In the Internet age, yes. Damn near impossible to not see spoilers.

So you are saying that if VOD came out the same day as a movie in theatres and charged the same price as a theatre , but torrents existed still you would ONLY use $12 on demand and never torrent?

Myself, I would choose the option that results in the least amount of setup and the more amount of time my lazy ### is parked on the sofa. That's why Netflix streaming is always my first option. I'd pay $12 for a movie I'd really like to see.

 

[Slapdash]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

In the Internet age, yes. Damn near impossible to not see spoilers.

So you are saying that if VOD came out the same day as a movie in theatres and charged the same price as a theatre , but torrents existed still you would ONLY use $12 on demand and never torrent?

So we should pay more to watch it On Demand than it costs in the theater? This is one of the problems here. Content providers expect consumers to pay the same or more for them to deliver content in an extremely cheaper (for the providers) format.

What do you pay for a movie in a theatre? We pay 12 here. I was trying to make it apples to apples.

I don't really go much but when I saw the second Hobbit in 3D I think it was 10 at most. Sorry I missed you intention there. My point still largely stands for having it priced the same. Take for instance books and ebooks.

Not saying that I don't go to the movies because I download them instead. Most current releases don't seem interesting and theater experience normally sucks ###.

 

[Otis]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

In the Internet age, yes. Damn near impossible to not see spoilers.

So you are saying that if VOD came out the same day as a movie in theatres and charged the same price as a theatre , but torrents existed still you would ONLY use $12 on demand and never torrent?

So we should pay more to watch it On Demand than it costs in the theater? This is one of the problems here. Content providers expect consumers to pay the same or more for them to deliver content in an extremely cheaper (for the providers) format.

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

 

[Otis]

I'm sure Otis used Napster back in the day when he had a MySpace page.

No question. I also downloaded some movies and watched them. It's not right. I'm not judging the deeds, and I'm not saying I've never done them. I'm questioning the absurd hoops some of you guys will go through to justify it as "not stealing." It sure as hell is, by any lucid and reasonable definition.

You know how the studio's can stop piracy? Don't make it digital. Make better movies, and bring the cost of going to a movie on a blockbuster weekend down. That includes concessions. But Hollywood loves it's bottom line, thus you and your wife paying through the nose to see Need For Speed because you both love Aaron Paul.

ETA: Hollywood makes a ton of money outside of the movie alone. Product placement and corporate tie-ins like video games and branded toys and such. That's more tangible for them to make even more $$ outside of content being downloaded in SD mp4 format.

That's a whole lot of irrelevant words right there.

 

[drummer]

I'm sure Otis used Napster back in the day when he had a MySpace page.

No question. I also downloaded some movies and watched them. It's not right. I'm not judging the deeds, and I'm not saying I've never done them. I'm questioning the absurd hoops some of you guys will go through to justify it as "not stealing." It sure as hell is, by any lucid and reasonable definition.

You know how the studio's can stop piracy? Don't make it digital. Make better movies, and bring the cost of going to a movie on a blockbuster weekend down. That includes concessions. But Hollywood loves it's bottom line, thus you and your wife paying through the nose to see Need For Speed because you both love Aaron Paul.

ETA: Hollywood makes a ton of money outside of the movie alone. Product placement and corporate tie-ins like video games and branded toys and such. That's more tangible for them to make even more $$ outside of content being downloaded in SD mp4 format.

That's a whole lot of irrelevant words right there.

Not when it comes to Aaron Paul.

 

[Slapdash]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

Waiting the 3 months for it to show up on demand is too great a burden too bear?

In the Internet age, yes. Damn near impossible to not see spoilers.

So you are saying that if VOD came out the same day as a movie in theatres and charged the same price as a theatre , but torrents existed still you would ONLY use $12 on demand and never torrent?

So we should pay more to watch it On Demand than it costs in the theater? This is one of the problems here. Content providers expect consumers to pay the same or more for them to deliver content in an extremely cheaper (for the providers) format.

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

Your comment has little to do with mine. Anyways, if you stole a Ferrari, they probably wouldn't call it copyright infringement. Maybe if you printed it.

 

[eoMMan]

Is it legal to record music off of the radio for playback later (assume personal enjoyment and not reproduction) ?

 

[drummer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law

Lawyers not only steal, they pirate too.

 

[Otis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law

Lawyers not only steal, they pirate too.

So it's ok then, obviously.

 

[tonydead]

Otis you keep saying it's stealing. It's not. It's copyright infringement. No one has ever been charged for theft when torrenting. Jesus.

 

[tonydead]

Otis you keep saying it's stealing. It's not. It's copyright infringement. No one has ever been charged for theft when torrenting. Jesus.

 

[drummer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law

Lawyers not only steal, they pirate too.

So it's ok then, obviously.

Yeah I guess they figured if they can't beat them, sue them, then join them, sue them, then go to court for fraud. Then it's all OVAH.

Manwin knows how it's done. Support anti-piracy through small lobbies, then turn around and pirate files from porn sites that you don't own, then post them on various tube sites you do own.

All the while with lawyers involved.

 

[cstu]

I'm sure Otis used Napster back in the day when he had a MySpace page.

No question. I also downloaded some movies and watched them. It's not right. I'm not judging the deeds, and I'm not saying I've never done them. I'm questioning the absurd hoops some of you guys will go through to justify it as "not stealing." It sure as hell is, by any lucid and reasonable definition.

It's immoral and illegal, not stealing.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Here is how I look at it. Yes, it is against the law to download things you did not pay for. But if no one protests against the companies that are not willing to innovate, and are so large that they stifle other companies ability to innovate in this arena, then we will never progress to better ways of consuming content. Example was already used in this thread, but before Spotify was viable and could innovate in the music space, Napster had to be around to show the music execs that people were not satisfied with the status quo.

Similarly with TBP and torrents for movies - movie execs don't get it. I can get a better quality experience downloading a TV show or movie from a torrent over watching it in some of the "acceptable" formats that are currently provided. At some point, a company will be born that will deliver movies/TV in a better way (maybe it's Netflix) and people will be willing to pay AND tv/movie execs will be willing to license their material to them because they have been shown that their current model is not viable anymore.

There is so much room for technical innovation in the delivery of commercial video (tv/movies/etc) to people these days, and the companies are worried about it cutting into their profit margin because they are not in a position to take advantage of it. So they take to trying to force technology to slow down, stop advancing and stop innovating by way of the courts, their bully power as monopolies and we should all be upset with them for that.

My message to the large corporations - make it easy and convenient for me to watch your video in the fashion, manner and timing that I want to watch it in, at a fair price, and I'll happily pay that price. They are not there yet. (FYI, although I believe this, I don't actually torrent very often, I generally try to stick to the legal methods of watching video when possible and pay for Cable/Netflix/etc as well.)

I totally feel the same way about speed limits, which is why I cant drive 55.

 

[tonydead]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

 

[Todd Andrews]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

Yawn. I know what the Supreme Court said about physical items and the technical definition of theft. I am glad you believe that the veil of Supreme Court definitional linguistics for the purpose of applying criminal law versus intellectual property law relieves you of your criminal thieviness. I hope it helps you feel better about yourself.

 

[tonydead]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

Yawn. I know what the Supreme Court said about physical items and the technical definition of theft. I am glad you believe that the veil of Supreme Court definitional linguistics for the purpose of applying criminal law versus intellectual property law relieves you of your criminal thieviness. I hope it helps you feel better about yourself.

I never said it wasn't illegal. And link to were I said I was downloading any torrents.

The veil, if you want to call it that, is real. Not very many people are getting prosecuted for this crime.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

Yawn. I know what the Supreme Court said about physical items and the technical definition of theft. I am glad you believe that the veil of Supreme Court definitional linguistics for the purpose of applying criminal law versus intellectual property law relieves you of your criminal thieviness. I hope it helps you feel better about yourself.

I never said it wasn't illegal. And link to were I said I was downloading any torrents.

The veil, if you want to call it that, is real. Not very many people are getting prosecuted for this crime.

Sorry, you just sound like a thief trying to justify it. And who cares how many people are prosecuted for it. What do prosecution levels have to do with anything?

 

[tonydead]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

Yawn. I know what the Supreme Court said about physical items and the technical definition of theft. I am glad you believe that the veil of Supreme Court definitional linguistics for the purpose of applying criminal law versus intellectual property law relieves you of your criminal thieviness. I hope it helps you feel better about yourself.

I never said it wasn't illegal. And link to were I said I was downloading any torrents.

The veil, if you want to call it that, is real. Not very many people are getting prosecuted for this crime.

Sorry, you just sound like a thief trying to justify it. And who cares how many people are prosecuted for it. What do prosecution levels have to do with anything?

Because that speaks to the clarity and effectiveness of the law. You don't have to be sorry for anything.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

Yawn. I know what the Supreme Court said about physical items and the technical definition of theft. I am glad you believe that the veil of Supreme Court definitional linguistics for the purpose of applying criminal law versus intellectual property law relieves you of your criminal thieviness. I hope it helps you feel better about yourself.

I never said it wasn't illegal. And link to were I said I was downloading any torrents.

The veil, if you want to call it that, is real. Not very many people are getting prosecuted for this crime.

Sorry, you just sound like a thief trying to justify it. And who cares how many people are prosecuted for it. What do prosecution levels have to do with anything?

Because that speaks to the clarity and effectiveness of the law. You don't have to be sorry for anything.

Says who? The clarity and effectiveness of the law? Do you mean criminal copyright infringement? If so, do you have any idea why or when US Attorneys or the FBI (or ICE or Customs, etc.) prosecute criminal copyright infringement or are you just pulling all of this straight our of your heinie?

 

[tonydead]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

Yawn. I know what the Supreme Court said about physical items and the technical definition of theft. I am glad you believe that the veil of Supreme Court definitional linguistics for the purpose of applying criminal law versus intellectual property law relieves you of your criminal thieviness. I hope it helps you feel better about yourself.

I never said it wasn't illegal. And link to were I said I was downloading any torrents.The veil, if you want to call it that, is real. Not very many people are getting prosecuted for this crime.

Sorry, you just sound like a thief trying to justify it. And who cares how many people are prosecuted for it. What do prosecution levels have to do with anything?

Because that speaks to the clarity and effectiveness of the law. You don't have to be sorry for anything.

Says who? The clarity and effectiveness of the law? Do you mean criminal copyright infringement? If so, do you have any idea why or when US Attorneys or the FBI (or ICE or Customs, etc.) prosecute criminal copyright infringement or are you just pulling all of this straight our of your heinie?

Reason.

Yes.

Yes, that's the law that is applicale , not theft.

When it comes to the amount of charges vs torrents yes. Way way less than 1%

 

[drummer]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

Yawn. I know what the Supreme Court said about physical items and the technical definition of theft. I am glad you believe that the veil of Supreme Court definitional linguistics for the purpose of applying criminal law versus intellectual property law relieves you of your criminal thieviness. I hope it helps you feel better about yourself.

I never said it wasn't illegal. And link to were I said I was downloading any torrents.

The veil, if you want to call it that, is real. Not very many people are getting prosecuted for this crime.

Sorry, you just sound like a thief trying to justify it. And who cares how many people are prosecuted for it. What do prosecution levels have to do with anything?

 

[Otis]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

Hint: you're the only one here talking about criminal statutes. Some of us are talking about stealing in the biblical sense.

 

[drummer]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

Hint: you're the only one here talking about criminal statutes. Some of us are talking about stealing in the biblical sense.

Then they should throw the book at you for schtick infringement.

 

[James Daulton]

Seems like a lot of work and hassle to avoid waiting for the bluray or paying a couple of bucks in a theater. Plus I have to believe the quality that you get is no where near as good. Netflix looks bad compared to bluray.

 

[jamny]

Seems like a lot of work and hassle to avoid waiting for the bluray or paying a couple of bucks in a theater. Plus I have to believe the quality that you get is no where near as good. Netflix looks bad compared to bluray.

That's all I keep thinking. What is this obsession with having to see something right away when it'll be out on dvd in a few months. If you care that much, go to the theater.

 

[Slapdash]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

Hint: you're the only one here talking about criminal statutes. Some of us are talking about stealing in the biblical sense.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Technically it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Courts have made that distinction so your stealing and shoplifting comparisons don't hold up. Although the movie and music companies still try to.

Well there you have it folks. In the eyes of the courts, its not theft. All those that have been claiming its stealing, please stop cluttering up this thread any further. Thanks in advance.

Justice tonydead has spoken.

Link to any case of torrenting that was prosecuted as theft? Ever .

Yawn. I know what the Supreme Court said about physical items and the technical definition of theft. I am glad you believe that the veil of Supreme Court definitional linguistics for the purpose of applying criminal law versus intellectual property law relieves you of your criminal thieviness. I hope it helps you feel better about yourself.

I never said it wasn't illegal. And link to were I said I was downloading any torrents.The veil, if you want to call it that, is real. Not very many people are getting prosecuted for this crime.

Sorry, you just sound like a thief trying to justify it. And who cares how many people are prosecuted for it. What do prosecution levels have to do with anything?

Because that speaks to the clarity and effectiveness of the law. You don't have to be sorry for anything.

Says who? The clarity and effectiveness of the law? Do you mean criminal copyright infringement? If so, do you have any idea why or when US Attorneys or the FBI (or ICE or Customs, etc.) prosecute criminal copyright infringement or are you just pulling all of this straight our of your heinie?

Reason.

Yes.

Yes, that's the law that is applicale , not theft.

When it comes to the amount of charges vs torrents yes. Way way less than 1%

Your purposefully vague nonanswer schtick is a lame way for you hide the fact that you dont know what you are talking about. Are you saying that you know why US Attorneys and the FBI dont bring charges against torrents? If so, please explain, I would love to hear that from you.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

And when 3-D scanners and printers are able to layer all of the materials of a Ferrari we can debate whether Ferrari was harmed in any way by those that would replicate one.

 

[NutterButter]

Seems like a lot of work and hassle to avoid waiting for the bluray or paying a couple of bucks in a theater. Plus I have to believe the quality that you get is no where near as good. Netflix looks bad compared to bluray.

That's all I keep thinking. What is this obsession with having to see something right away when it'll be out on dvd in a few months. If you care that much, go to the theater.

Yeah, as a prolific copyright infringer, I don't understand the obsession with seeing something immediately. I have enough stuff queued up between tv shows and movies and sports where i can wait until it hits dvd and get it just as easily illegally as i can get it legally.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

That's their decision, not yours. Can I steal a Ferrari if I conclude they are overpriced, and it not be stealing?

No it is not their decision! We as a society at any time can rightfully decide that the imaginary "property" of IP is a legal construct that no longer serves society. (A position that technology will continue to force us to consider.) IP is not in any way, shape, or form a natural inalienable right but merely a social construct. So it is the decision of "We the People" whether it exists or goes away.

And when 3-D scanners and printers are able to layer all of the materials of a Ferrari we can debate whether Ferrari was harmed in any way by those that would replicate one.

Do you really want to live in a world with no IP at all? Truly? Do I even need to go into the ramifications that would have? (other than not being able to feed my family because it is what I do for a living)

 

[[icon]]

Hint: you're the only one here talking about criminal statutes. Some of us are talking about stealing in the biblical sense.

/lawyered