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 13 of 16
Quote:
"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...
So what is your point? Agreed, it is black and white, and posting it on the web is wrong unless prior written consent has been obtained.
(That is my "cry of exaggerated outrage".)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The point is, there are grey areas in everything...
There are often grey areas, but not in everything.
If you want to talk grey areas and you want to talk Firefly, consider this:
Mal is always criticizing Inara for her occupation. Yet Mal is a thief. Who thinks that he is justified? I don't. I side with Inara. Her arrangements are always by mutual consent. Her clients get something and Inara gets something. Both sides gain. However, Mal steals from people without their consent. He gains and they lose. That ain't right. But maybe I've turned something that is grey to Mal into black and white.
roj
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
bamadave, et al, of the rationalization set:
You wrote:
Quote:
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 fundamental distinction that even someone with uncorrected myopia like you (except for the rose-colored glasses) should be able to see.
There is a category of software known as "abandonware". This software has been 'abandoned' by its manufacturer. Others may find some continuing benefit in it, and appropriate the code for their own uses. In many cases, such abandonware is still under copyright, and possession, reverse engineering, recompilation, et cetera are prohibited by law. Even though the original producer -- or whichever software company has subsequently purchased and holds rights to it -- has expressly stated that no further development, support or distribution will occur. (Think 'Windows 3.x')
I strongly support amendment of copyright laws in order to 'free' such code. I also do not accuse persons of 'liberating' such abandonware of stealing, in the same way I do not accuse the guy picking up discarded coke cans alonside the road of misappropriating the property of the original purchaser.
There's a difference between 'stealing' and 'reutilizing', though doubtless there are many high-falutin' corporate attorneys who'd vehemently disagree.
F*x had clearly abandoned Firefly. I downloaded copies of all the episodes (but never redistributed). I daresay JW would have tacitly agreed with this practice since -- as you say -- it kept interest in his 'child' alive. When the DVD set became available for purchase, I destroyed my download set and purchased a retail copy of my own. I have since purchased 2 more as gifts for others; I did not 'rip' my set and copy to DVD-R. When I convert people to Browncoats, I do not loan my copy; I watch it with them (which may be illegal, depending on how many people are in the room), and force them to buy their own to see the series in its entirety. I tell them, "Great art deserves support and monetary applause."
The only thing I still possess from download is the uncut blooper reel, which was 'abandoned' by F*x. For admitting to that, I may be liable to legal action for 'stealing', though I'd neither fear reasonable Justice, nor count upon its existence.
So the distinction, to me, is 'abandoned' versus 'viable'.
Patiently,
zoid
P.S.
I still recommend a word search on 'morality'. If you put a T.V. out by your dumpster and I whisk it away to refurbish it and use in my home, is that the same as walking into your living room and taking your big-screen while you're at work? According to the law, it may be the same thing; but there is a moral distinction, which is clearly discernible by any child of 5 who's been taught right from wrong.
Y'all don't seem to be doing any real thinking. Your argument was the most facile tripe I've read in ages.
zed
_________________________________________________
"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity
Only 208 days, 11 hours, 23 minutes, and 50 seconds left until The BDM! (Or less than that, if you can get your hands on a leaked screener...)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell: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.
Allright, I see that we fundamentally disagree. I have more trust in humanity than you. I doubt I'll be able to convince you, so I'll stop trying. Thanks for giving me some debate practice though.
Bye.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Sometimes, you just need to ask yourself:
"What would Jayne do?"
Don't do that, or else we'll all be in our bunks instead of watching the movie
"I threw up on your bed"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by glico:
Fine, but -- ideas are fundamentally different from things. One cannot "steal" an idea, stealing requires removing something from someone else's possesion. In a society where everyone was ethically perfect, people would download the movie, then based on that decide whether to give money, and if so how much. I think this is a model worth working towards. I'll leave it at that for now.
Your understanding of copyright is a little flawed and therefore whether you can steal an idea or not.
You cannot copyright or own an idea, so that cannot be stolen - the expression of an idea is copyrightable, has an ownership value, can be and is stolen.
"I threw up on your bed"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell:
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.
Removing profit from art WILL decrease the amount of artists, but those who remain will be those who are in it for the love of creation rather than those trying to make a quick buck. This will lead to an increase in quality, rather than the decrease you predict.
Quote:
The music industry, for example, would truly collapse into ruin.
Good. The music industry currently stifles quality rather than encouraging it.
Quote:
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)
Bull. The labels may disappear, but music itself is in no danger. Artists will still perform for live audiences as they have since the beginning of civilization.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by serenityfan2004:
You Can't take the sky from me...
No, but apparently you're willing to take the sky from everyone else.
I think it's pretty uncouth, when so many of us plan to bust our butts to make sure this movie soars at the box office, for you to come on here and suggest that we should start searching for and disseminating a pirated copy of this movie.
That is stealing, pure and simple, and some of the worst kind of stealing.
Shame on you. Badly done!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TerrifyingSpaceMonkey:
No, but apparently you're willing to take the sky from everyone else.
I think it's pretty uncouth, when so many of us plan to bust our butts to make sure this movie soars at the box office, for you to come on here and suggest that we should start searching for and disseminating a pirated copy of this movie.
That is stealing, pure and simple, and some of the worst kind of stealing.
Shame on you. Badly done!
I strongly urge people to read a thread all the way through before posting on it. If you don't have time to read it through then don't post.
Terrifyingspacemonkey I am assuming you did not read this thread all the way through.
Serenityfan2004 has already apologised for making this suggestion. He (she?) is new to the site and was a little over eager. The situation was explained and he now understands. There was no need for your comment. If you did read it all the way through and still felt the need to make that post then shame on you. If someone has seen the error of their ways and apologised that should be an end to the matter.
Whilst I am here I might as well put in my views. I wouldn't want to download Serenity because I want to see it on the big screen. I have downloaded music etc because I like to see/hear something before spending my hard earned (and very little) cash. If I like the film/music then I buy it. If I don't then I delete it. The film/music industry has earnt more money from me due to downloads.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wren,
I'm sorry to have rubbed you the wrong way. I understand where you are coming from, however I'm afraid I have to disagree. I posted what I did quite intentionally, because I will not be swayed by a quick apology. I realize that the person is new, however what he/she was proposing was horribly wrong and offends me deeply. Perhaps I am not so mature as you and the others because I'm not able to shrug this off.
That was a little like someone saying, "Hey! Let's break into your grandmother's place, steal some stuff, then make it look like a burglary," and then when you vehemently oppose the person says, "Oh... gosh, I'm sorry. That's wrong... don't know what I was thinking..."
I don't think it can be taken back or forgiven quite that easily. My blood boils at the very thought of a "fan" encouraging other fans to STEAL this movie from the people who have been so unbelievably gracious and kind to us. I will not feel ashamed or apologize for being angry.
As I once learned on the board myself, a new person should never jump headlong into the middle of things and automatically assume that they understand what is going on. Any new person who does this is just asking to step on toes, and probably deserves to be put in their place. Just my opinion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME