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 12 of 16
Quote:
exactly as long as its on the net and you can get it for free...then by all means get it for free. thats my motto and I'm sticking to it!!
I'm curious I wonder if anyone in this thread who's saying its wrong to take from the net without paying has downloaded music for free..because its the same thing!!
Downloading copyrighted material and using it without paying for it is wrong and it is stealing.
I buy all of my music. The artists that I admire should get paid and everyone that supports them, down to the guy who mops the studio floor, should get paid for their efforts.
roj
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
exactly as long as its on the net and you can get it for free...then by all means get it for free. thats my motto and I'm sticking to it!!
You are only stealing from the web because it is easy. This is the rationale that looters use in the wake of disaster. You wouldn't normally walk into a store and carry out a TV without paying for it. But if a hurricane broke out the store front windows, a power failure disabled the burglar alarm, and the owner of the store had fled to a distant city, you would follow the rest of the looters in and get yourself a new TV. You would steal if it were easy. That's your motto and you're sticking to it.
roj
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by glico:
You assert that you can steal an idea, which is fundamentally rediculous.
where did I say that? I have been saying over and over, these aren't ideas, these are products. Let me, however, assert once again, that a commercial artist needn't create a work with the sole interest of pleasing others, much to your disagreement.. There is always risk involved in art, you create using your head, heart, and skill, but there is always the possibility it will fail. I like to think Joss created serenity for himself... yes, he hoped people would like firefly, and hoped her could market it, but in truth (with only a few exceptions) he made the series (and the movie) his own way, and he is taking a risk that people will like/pay for this product. he did not engineer a product specifically designed to make money. You don't believe me? Look at pop music.. boy bands.. reality tv.. these are things made specifically for money and reek of soulessness.. it isn't art. what joss is doing is art, made with the hope of success and profit, but engineered because of more selfish purposes... he has said it already.. these stories weren't done. thus, we have serenity.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am left wondering where all of these people were when the unaired episodes first leaked onto the net. People were posting links to torrents, or even hosting the episodes on their own servers. There were even copies of homebrewed DVD's flying around the country. Yet, during all of these obvious violations of ME/Fox copyrights, there was never the moral outrage I am seeing here. Is stealing the movie somehow worse than stealing the episodes? It seems like the same thing to me.
There is a valid argument to be made that the stealing of those episodes was one of the keys to building the firefly fandom. Clearly, based on the ratingshttp://home.insightbb.com/~wahoskem/firefly1.html">ratings>, not everyone here was watching when the original episodes aired. Somehow though, miraculously, the fanbase grew between the end of the series and the release of the DVD. I tend to think it was because people were sharing their ill gotten booty with likeminded folk. You may see it differently. And there is the possibility that something similar could happen with the movie.
It also brings to mind the leaked trailer from the Con. Clearly, if Joss and company wanted everyone to see that, they have a websitehttp://serenitymovie.com/">website> of their own where they could have provided a legitimate copy for everyone to view. Lord knows that thing could use some content. That is a particularly fitting example in this debate as it is a half assed odd angle shot on cam copy, like the first bootleg Serenity copies most likely will be.
Or, how about the leaked pictures from the set. Again, there is an official site for those things. Has someone deemed that stealing the intellectual property of ME/Universal in the form of photos is not as bad as stealing their intellectual property in the form of video?
Fan websites? Chock full of all kinds of copyrighted logos and photos that no one has the photographers or studios permission to use. Is that the ok kind of stealing too?
I also find it interesting that so many people know all of the cast and crew of the movie so well that they can feel free to convey their outrage as well.
The point is, there are grey areas in everything, even downloading.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The point is, there are grey areas in everything, even downloading.
You need to adjust the contrast control on whatever it is that you are using to view the world. Stealing is wrong. It's black, not grey. If something good comes of doing something wrong, that doesn't make it right. It's still wrong. If I used your reasoning I could justify all kinds of heinous crimes. Those people who send young kids out to do their suicide bombing use similar reasoning.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When the show was being downloaded, for me primarily prior to it being canceled as the timeslot and my reception sucked(I forgot on more than one occassion, and preemption screwed up my taping on others)
The point is, when downloading the show, there was no other way to aquire it. We got fans, I can say without a doubt I personally got at least two sets purchased and more than that fans made(I got at least 5 people to watch the entire series, and I know of at least two others they got to watch the entire series.(and purchase in many cases)
Is it wrong to share the TV show prior to the DVD release when I bought the DVD the second it came out?(preordered even) There was no profit lost to anyone by my actions, I watched it on TV as much as I could, and fox wasn't exactly showing reruns.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Alternity:Quote:
Those people who send young kids out to do their suicide bombing use similar reasoning.
Yes, yes, now I see the comparison. Downloading music and movies off the internet is equivalent to child suicide bombings. It all makes sense now.
Has anyone here ever read any of the Firefly shooting scripts that are available on this and many other sites? "Stolen." For anyone who doesn't have an actual script in hand, here's what it says on the very first page, in all capital letters:
"All rights reserved. Copyright (c)2002 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. No portion of this script may be performed, published, reproduced, sold, or distributed by any means or quoted or published in any medium, including any web site, without prior written consent of Twentieth Century Fox Television. Disposal of this script copy does not alter any of the restirctions set forth above."
And that is in black and white. Yet, I've read no exaggerated cries of outrage against this theft....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell:
where did I say that? I have been saying over and over, these aren't ideas, these are products.
Ok, maybe I wasn't clear(or maybe, heavens no, I'm wising up), but my argument is related to the ability to copy something easily & cheaply. This makes them fluid, and in natural law, free. Things that are easily copy-able are going to be copied if people want to copy them. We live in an age where everyone has the ability to publish music, or books. The publishers no longer have a monopoly on production. This lowers the entry costs dramatically, and is good for art creation. It is also good for art creation, because it allows access to more information/art then ever before possible. It is a fundamental fact, that people will share a media that they wish to share. My plan for Art in a capitalist system is a surrender to that fact.
Quote:
Let me, however, assert once again, that a commercial artist needn't create a work with the sole interest of pleasing others, much to your disagreement..
Ok, so there is some grey area here. Joss & the crew definitely did not create FIrefly out of greed. But, 'Versal/FOX definitely did. Even a self-publishing artist must have a means of support. There is a certain amount of money required for essential things, like shelter, food, water and the tools of their trade. Serenity would not be Coming soon to a Theater near you... if it weren't for all the people who bough Firefly DVDs, showing their support, and more important willingness to pay money for Firefly. There are exceptions to this rule, an artist may have another means of support.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by glico:
We live in an age where everyone has the ability to publish music, or books. The publishers no longer have a monopoly on production. This lowers the entry costs dramatically, and is good for art creation. It is also good for art creation, because it allows access to more information/art then ever before possible. My plan for Art in a capitalist system is a surrender to that fact.
I see what you are saying here, but I fundamentally resist it. You may consider it futile, but I consider it absolutely necessary. Just because everyone and their sister is now able to "publish" their work on the internet, etc., doesn't mean they should. This practice leads to the decline in Quality. There needs to be a desire to succeed beyond the ability to FTP to some webspace once a week. Passion is what makes creation valuable. If all "Easily downloadable media" were free for consumption, or dependant on the kindness of it's consumers, this world would lose many of it's artists. The music industry, for example, would truly collapse into ruin. Then, because all music would be available for download without restriction, the labels would disappear, no artist would have the means to continue to record (which I can attest is one of the most expensive processes you'd ever have to go through as an independent), so music itself would be in danger of a possible extinction. (not the concept of music mind you, but the music industry, the ability to buy cds, or see artists perform live, these things would all change radically, or cease to exist all together)
And this is only one example.. The same would happen to all forms of downloadable content. That system just doesn't work.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I assume that was sarcastic. You were not paying attention. I didn't say that the crimes were the same. I said that the reasoning used to defend both the crimes was the same. The rationale is obviously fallacious for the heinous crime making it easy to understand that it is also fallacious for the lesser crime. This is how decisions are made simple, safe, and correct if you start with some fundamental principles. The problem with relativists is that they don't have any absolute fundamental principles. You start with some absolutes and make your way to a solution using reason. This is what is supposed to separate us from the animals.
Yes, yes, now I see the comparison. Downloading music and movies off the internet is equivalent to child suicide bombings. It all makes sense now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME