US court rules that p2p programs are illegal

[+JuggerNaut+]

not sure if you're condoning piracy here or not, but that's what i was referring to. there is no argument you can muster for stealing copyright material. none.

well, im not mustering up any argument promoting stealing or anything of the such. i just dont have any sympathy for those organizations.

that i think is a reason why theres an issue to begin with. i think most people dont really care. its hard for people to care when "stealing" music/movies from someone means (1) they still have the thing (one is not depriving the other of some good) (2) they still have oodles and oodles and oodles of money up the wazoo--more money than 99.999999% of people in the world. bear in mind, its not all flat out taking and not giving. some think that "hey, what im paying is good enough" (the 4 dollar rental for example).

i think the problem is bigger than just some moral dilemma. and if we hope to solve this whole thing one day, we should instead study income gaps, social behavior and digital property law.

income gaps? :lol: are you f*cking kidding me?! between who?

[+JuggerNaut+]

just to make things clear here:

I DO NOT CONDONE WHAT THE MPAA/RIAA IS DOING NOR DO I CONDONE STEALING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

[rep]

oh and another reason that cinemas are making less money is that everyone has a 40000 inch plasma hd home theater with surround sound, and would rather watch movies at home

plus hollywood is producing nothing but shit lately - everything is a remake nowadays.,. theres no originality

True. Most people I know don't go to the theater. They wait for the DVD. DVDs are hitting home expeditiously partly due to the pure digital format that modern films are shot in. There is no analog to digital conversion, so the studio can get their home video team working on the release as soon as it hits the theaters.

Anymore, many movies are being edited with intentional cuts to be made into extras or extended footage on the DVD, so instead of it being the director's artistic decision, or that of the studio who wants a film to fit in a nice two hour format, it's a money issue where something is taken out to be added back in as a DVD solicit.

[MKJ]

Netflix wasn't (isnt?) doing so well after Blockbuster started renting online, and has had to partner with Wal-Mart to try and help themselves get ahead of the game. Just because you pay Netflix (or Blockbuster) doesn't give you the right to burn movies that you don't own. I'm not seeing how you can circumvent that, knowing you're only paying a few dollars per DVD.

On to the price of movies at the theaters:

how is it the MPAA's fault that a bag of popcorn is $4? or a cup of Coke is $5? do they regulate those prices? that's a serious question.

$7 or $8 dollars for just the movie per adult is not a big deal. i can watch the top flicks on a DLP projector for the same price at my local Harkins theater. you pay for the experience (especially if you don't have an HT setup at home).

See, as far as I'm concerned, I do own it. What's the difference between the price I pay NetFlix, and waiting until the movie's in the bargain bin at Best Buy? Nothing, IMO.

most of the time the rental versions of DVDs are quite limited in the content department, though. ost of the time its just the movie and scene selection, while the retail version has deleted scenes n whatnot

[Eraser]

I'm sure Netflix has them all paid, but that doesn't give you a right to make copies of them. you're conjuring up reasons WHY it's ok for you to do it so you can sleep at night.

One could argue that after renting the movie, one wouldn't rent it again because he/she has already seen it. The fact that the movie is copied makes that argument questionable again though. Hurrm... I dunno, this whole argument might actually be bullshit I'll shut up... :icon32: