The movie is done! someone in this verse must have a copy!

POSTED BY: serenityfan2004
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 13:28
VIEWED: 43037
PAGE 10 of 16

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE

GLICO

Friday, September 24, 2004 12:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by tribes:
steal·ing
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice

The key word is take, take means removing something from someone's possession and putting it in yours.

TRIBES

Friday, September 24, 2004 12:34 AM

Ditto

Glico quote
"The key word is take, take means removing something from someone's possession and putting it in yours."

Main Entry: thief
Pronunciation: 'thEf
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural thieves /'thEvz/
Etymology: Middle English theef, from Old English thEof; akin to Old High German diob thief
: one that steals especially stealthily or secretly; also : one who commits theft or larceny

stealing
transitive senses
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of

GLICO

Friday, September 24, 2004 12:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by tribes:
Ditto

Glico quote
"The key word is take, take means removing something from someone's possession and putting it in yours."

Main Entry: thief
Pronunciation: 'thEf
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural thieves /'thEvz/
Etymology: Middle English theef, from Old English thEof; akin to Old High German diob thief
: one that steals especially stealthily or secretly; also : one who commits theft or larceny

stealing
transitive senses
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of

Umm... who were you agreeing with?

HORSENBUGGY

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:00 AM

I do photography on the side. I sell my work in tourist gift shops. I also occassionally put digital copies of my work out on the net for viewing purposes only. Each time I place a copy of one of my photos on the 'net, I put a big ol' watermark on the image so that people can't download it and print it for themselves. Why shouldn't they be able to do this?

BECAUSE IT IS STEALING. I OWN the copywrite to every image I create as soon as I open and close the shutter. My photos belong to me. No one else has the right to print them, hang them, download them, etc. unless they acquired the images from ME.

Obviously, I am aware that people may still download the watermarked images I put on the 'net. And if they really know what they're doing, they may even be able to eliminate the watermark. But just because they CAN do it, doesn't mean that it is OK or RIGHT. The LAW of the United States is on my side. (I'm not exactly sure how copywrite crosses international lines, but there must certainly be some global recognition of rights.)

If photography were my only means for supporting myself (and someday I would love for it to be), this would be an even larger issue for me. As it is, what I make doesn't even cover the money I put into it. But the amount isn't important.

And while I like the argument others have made about trying to justify downloading the BDM to Joss, Nathan, Adam or Jewel, that isn't really the point, either. That indicates that we wouldn't do it because we may get caught. For me, it is about not doing it because it is illegal and morally wrong. Have I ever downloaded music before? Yes. Do I still do it? No. I thought about it a great deal and made the decision a few years ago to stop.

Someone else upthread used the phrase, "if a copy of the BDM fell into my lap." The only way I would view this miraculous "lap" copy is if it was given to me by someone directly involved in the production of the movie. But in that case, it wouldn't be a "pirated" copy. It would only become a pirated copy if I then turned around and distributed it in any way - whether through DVD copies or by posting it on the internet. That would not be legal or right for me to do any more than it is legal or right for people to steal my photos.

Why are you still arguing what's been decided?

SHANYU

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sheppard:
Does anyone really know the ramifications of such piracy? I don't know, I'm really just curious.

Probably like most of you, I've heard plenty of tales of woe about how downloading movies or music hurts everyone involved in the creation. Are cast and crew really paid less because the company fears potential piracy? Where are the statistics? What are the percentages? How much money out of every ticket sold in a theater goes to Universal? I'm guessing that the cast and crew have already been paid, so any other potential profit they would see would be "icing on the cake," as they say. How much money would a movie with a $50Million budget have to make to be "successful"? Do they need to make back their original expenditure plus a certain estimated percentage based on some forecast? I can only guess that they need to get their money back at very least. And if that's the case, that's an awful lot of money. How many people would there have to be who download the movie and decide upon that not to go to the theater to make a dent in the realized profits? If 10,000 people downloaded the movie and didn't see it in the theaters, would that mean that Universal would only make $101.3M instead of $101.5M?

Again, I just don't know. I'm not judging the rightness or wrongness of it, I'm just posing these qustions. I think it would be helpful to have this information - based on actual numbers, or even close estimates, so long as they are factual - before judging how downloading this movie (or anything else) would adversely affect Serenity, Joss, etc. Without any solid information, everything's just speculation based on spin from the creators of that which is being downloaded.

There is a difference between 101.3M and 101.5M that may be the deciding facotr on whetther or not they make a second movie, if im wrong tell me but i truley want a 2nd movie and a 3rd and a 4th hell i want movies till the day i die, or maybe for thjem to put the show back on! hell if it would help i would put all my pay checks in a fund to keep this going!

"You can live with a man for fourty years , share his meals, talk on every subject, then tie him up, and hold him over the volanoes edge. And on that day, you will finally meet the man"

SHANYU

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell:
[That is not what we are talking about at all. You seem to be creating your own reality where you get to state what is product (a car) and what is free information (art/movies)...

Heres the thing that information IS NOT FREE!!! it costs money to make so if it costs money to make then they need to make money to keep it going and be able to make anotehr movie. NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE!

"You can live with a man for fourty years , share his meals, talk on every subject, then tie him up, and hold him over the volanoes edge. And on that day, you will finally meet the man"

GLICO

Friday, September 24, 2004 5:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by horsenbuggy:
I do photography on the side. I sell my work in tourist gift shops. I also occassionally put digital copies of my work out on the net for viewing purposes only. Each time I place a copy of one of my photos on the 'net, I put a big ol' watermark on the image so that people can't download it and print it for themselves. Why shouldn't they be able to do this?

BECAUSE IT IS STEALING. I OWN the copyright to every image I create as soon as I open and close the shutter. My photos belong to me. No one else has the right to print them, hang them, download them, etc. unless they acquired the images from ME.

Again with the stealing... It is NOT stealing. Whether or not it's wrong is another matter entirely, but calling it stealing just to justify it being wrong is a bad basis for an argument.

The purpose of copyright law is to improve the public's position. To do this, a trade was struck, the citizens would give up some rights(namely, copying) so that authorship would be a viable business idea. This deal was struck when the public did not have the means to copy, so it was a very good deal, something for nothing. Now, the public has the ability to copy, and wants to use it. It will not be denied. A new model for authorship as a business must be made. I propose that, given their ideas will be copied, authors(including painters, computer programmers, actors, etc) distribute their work freely & with haste. The public, given that they no longer have to pay, will be more likely to pay, beceause their rights are respected.

We've had quite a few people here that say they have downloaded episodes, then immediately afterward paid money for the DVDs. This is proof that at least some percentage of piracy directly causes monetary gain for the producer(s) of the work.

EDIT: many of these are Richard Stallman's ideas, a intellectual property reformist, and founder of the Free Software Foundation.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html

WINTERFELL

Friday, September 24, 2004 9:26 AM

Glico, your intentions may be noble and creative, but your basically then putting all your faith into an idiot public that watches reality tv and believes the world owes them something for just being alive. That wouldn't work. The public masses would be the deciding factor in what got made and what did not. Yes, we borwncoats are many, but we don't even come close to the number of trekkies let's say.. or CSI fans, etc. etc., so we would never win. It's the same reason why so many films which are viewed and changed in focus groups...suck... so very much.

Art is not a Democracy.

GLICO

Friday, September 24, 2004 12:25 PM

Art is very much a democrisy. The more people like, and are willing to pay for things of type x, the more x they will get.
However, art being a democrisy is somewhat scary, I'll admit. But I don't think there's an alternative.

PIRATEJENNY

Friday, September 24, 2004 8:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by tribes:

Piratejenny quote
"I wouldn't compare stealing someone's car to Pirating a movie off the net..its just not the same thing..there are degrees to everything"

steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
intransitive senses
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive senses
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of
wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard
- steal·able /'stE-l&-b&l/ adjective
- steal·er noun
- steal a march on : to gain an advantage on unobserved
- steal one's thunder : to grab attention from another especially by anticipating an idea, plan, or presentation also : to claim credit for another's idea
synonyms STEAL, PILFER, FILCH, PURLOIN mean to take from another without right or without detection. STEAL may apply to any surreptitious taking of something and differs from the other terms by commonly applying to intangibles as well as material things . PILFER implies stealing repeatedly in small amounts . FILCH adds a suggestion of snatching quickly and surreptitiously . PURLOIN stresses removing or carrying off for one's own use or purposes .

Main Entry: 2pirate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pi·rat·ed; pi·rat·ing
transitive senses
1 : to commit piracy on
2 : to take or appropriate by piracy : as a : to reproduce without authorization especially in infringement of copyright b : to lure away from another employer by offers of betterment
intransitive senses : to commit or practice piracy

'well here I am'

LOL I knew someone was going to post the defination of stealing .... I saw that coming a mile away

I've got no problem downloading stuff for free off the internet..like I said there are degrees to everything.. anything can be rationalized so I'm not even going to go there..but I will state again.. I've got no problem with getting stuff off the net for free!!

nor do I think its wrong...just because someone says it is doesn't make it so!!

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE