Lots of libraries get donated books. I donate a lot of books to my local library. So me and a bunch of someones all get the enjoyment of reading the book, with only one purchase. Libraries pretty much invented file sharing.
who on tw claimed they wrote zombieland?
- Thread starter Nail Bomb
- Start date
Lots of libraries get donated books. I donate a lot of books to my local library. So me and a bunch of someones all get the enjoyment of reading the book, with only one purchase. Libraries pretty much invented file sharing.
So if someone Buys a DVD and invites 200 people to watch the DVD at his house for free that is not stealing but if he hosts the file so people can watch it at home it is..
OK!!!!!!
my favorite is when people act like since a movie/game made "enough" money the people who contributed to its creation have no right to expect consumers to keep paying for their hard workmaybe we should just put a cap on how much profit a company can earn from a product then make every copy free after that I mean once you get a certain amount of money you don't deserve any more!
What a retarded argument. I pay for my internet, so I AM paying for it.
Somebody paid to get in to record a cam or paid for the DVD to rip that.
There are no good arguments here. Nobody will successfully put this very gray subject into the black and white of right or wrong.
I DL movies all the time. I don't think it's right, but I also don't feel too fuckin sorry for anyone who I'm "stealing" from.
The Internet is not a digital library. Libraries have long since been an institution established for the benefit of the greater public good.
File Sharing Websites were established for a less noble purpose. A purpose repeatedly justified as something they are not to direct attention away from the real purpose they were established. To get shit for free without contributing anything for it.
File Sharing Websites were established for a less noble purpose. A purpose repeatedly justified as something they are not to direct attention away from the real purpose they were established. To get shit for free without contributing anything for it.
This doesn't happenSo if someone Buys a DVD and invites 200 people to watch the DVD at his house for free that is not stealing but if he hosts the file so people can watch it at home it is..
OK!!!!!!
Though technically you're not supposed to allow anybody to watch a movie that didn't purchase it, those laws are more in place to give people that are major violators no loopholes in the rare cases that they prosecute
I will say that I have bought movies before by virtue of watching them at a friend's house and their being good. The difference between that and piracy is that:
1.)You are dependent on the friend to make the movie available (ie. it does not have unlimited convenience)
2.)When you watch a movie with friends, you're there to hang out with them, not watch that specific movie.
3.)Any time you borrow a movie, the original owner is ceding his ability to watch it so that you can
These are kinda sorta important distinctions for why watching it with a friend isn't the same as piracy
Due to points 1 and 3 you are much, much more likely to buy in this scenario than if you pirate
the fuck does it matter what the intentions were? The internet was intended to be a file sharing network for universities and now it's pretty much for porn. You can get free movies by checking them out from the library and copying them almost as easily as downloading them. And nobody cares.
Actually. I take it back. The Internet is a digital library and file sharing websites are like the assholes who never return the book when they're done with it.
You're not making an empirical comparison, getting all philosophically arty about purpose. A better comparison would be to point out that when you borrow a book from a library, you don't have the new ability to give an infinite number of copies. Argue your side better, or I quit.
This doesn't happen
Though technically you're not supposed to allow anybody to watch a movie that didn't purchase it, those laws are more in place to give people that are major violators no loopholes in the rare cases that they prosecute
I will say that I have bought movies before by virtue of watching them at a friend's house and their being good. The difference between that and piracy is that:
1.)You are dependent on the friend to make the movie available (ie. it does not have unlimited convenience)
2.)When you watch a movie with friends, you're there to hang out with them, not watch that specific movie.
3.)Any time you borrow a movie, the original owner is ceding his ability to watch it so that you can
These are kinda sorta important distinctions for why watching it with a friend isn't the same as piracy
Due to points 1 and 3 you are much, much more likely to buy in this scenario than if you pirate
ok maybe not 200 but calling me a thief because i DL'ed it is no Different then calling someone a thief because they went to a buddys house and watched it there. I never said anything about borrowing the movie from a freind so he never looses it. Just like the OG DVD ripper and seeder. Its no different then someone opening their house to whoever wants to come so they can watch his DVD.
I understand those laws are there so people cant loop hole and make money off them but most of these people do not try to make money off the DVD they purchase.
Last edited:
Killjoy
Veteran XX
are you dumb?
Attitude like that is why your people lost the war with the white man.
In the real world if a movie is in the theater it will be on a premium cable channel in a few months.
Which you would have to pay for, which the studio that produced the movie you watched would get a cut of.
Six one way, half a dozen the other.
You didn't ask if I'd never see a movie if money were required to view it. You just assumed that people have no patience for media and can't wait until the price point and/or venue are acceptable to them.
Rhett's contention is that the people that download it would have paid for a ticket to see the movie in the theater, and the million downloads represents a loss of revenue. I'm simply saying that a lot of people (myself included) would never go to a theater to see it. I wouldn't pay $12 to see it the first week, I wouldn't pay $3.50 to see it three months later at a second run theater. I wouldn't pay $5 for a DVD.
I've paid to see two movies in the theater in the past 6 years or so. One was The Dark Knight, the other was the new Star Trek. Zombieland isn't one of those that I felt warranted the trip, regardless of peer recommendations or critic reviews.