Is It Illegal To Watch Bootlegged Movies Online?

movie_piracy

You probably understand the illegality, not to mention unethical nature, of posting a pirated movie onto the internet - but do you understand the legal ramifications of simply watching a film that’s already been uploaded to the web?

Much of my day is spent with teenagers, students at the school where I teach, and the majority of them simply don’t worry about sourcing their media through piracy. They take music from Limewire, they take movies from Torrents or even just stream crummy copies. When challenged, a number of them have even told me that they’re sure it can’t be illegal - “if it is,” they say, “then what’s it doing on the internet?” They’re obviously missing something there, but are they right that it’s okay for them to watch?

The Chicago Sun Times (via THR Esq.) have spoken to a series of Lawyers, as well as reps from the MPAA about the issue. Steve Englund is a copyright attorney who told them:

It is certainly illegal to put online copyrighted content like a telecast of a fight or a motion picture without authorization. It is a little more complicated question whether it is illegal to watch it when someone else has put it online.

That complication is not to be mistaken for authority to dive head first into the torrents, of course, and all it will take is one test case to lock down the confusion forever.

Besides, I would argue that the legal issue is less relevant than the ethical one anyway. The question should be “Is It Ethical To Watch Bootlegged Movies Online?”

Talking to the many students at my school they display a sense of entitlement and seem to think that because they can grab a hold on a piece of media without paying for it, that they should, or that they are justified in doing so. They certainly have no conception of who they might be taking payment from. We should not forget that the people who make the movies depend on the cashflow to pay their salaries and, in a number of cases, particularly with smaller films, royalty-type points-based payments.

I’m old enough to remember when there was a real music industry with labels prepared to take far bigger gambles than they are now and a much greater wealth of albums and bands able to make a good living from making music. Songs take up so few data bits it was rather quickly possible to steal them via broadband connections. Movies take up rather more data, but internet speeds are getting faster and bandwidth getting wider - it’s seemingly inevitable that the movie industry is going to be cut off at the knees as happened with music.

The forecast for box office returns is possibly rather different to that for home entertainment, seeing as the distinction between a data stream from a disc or sanctioned download and that from a stolen file is somewhat narrower than between a movie on a laptop and on a forty foot screen. We may be seeing that reflected in the big box office returns for New Moon, despite the apparent ease with which it can be found on the internet.

All the same, the ethics of piracy can’t be measured by the resistance and financial success of the films in question but by the simple question of who is actually entitled to do what with and what. Copyright law was devised out of necessity to protect creators’ rights and, as overgrown as that law could potentially become, those rights should still stand.

  • shadow
    I think it depends. I don't think it's wrong as long as you find a way to pay back the cretors. Take District 9 for example, I paid 6 times to watch the film in theaters, and am going to buy the DVD. I don't feel its a bad thing if I download and watch the film while waiting for the DVD.

    Duncan Jones Moon was not released in a theater near me, so I download and watched it, because I didn't want to be behind on discussions on it. But I'll buy the DVD to give Duncan Jones the money he deserves.

    Personally I think the proper way to deal with piracy is strict rules on people who upload the films in the first place. Cut off that uploader and you cut off thousands of people downloading and watching the films for free. Also I think people don't connect pushing a button with something illegal.
  • gigaherc
    My thoughts exactly, man.
  • Propadanda
    Yeah, people don't get the ramifications of simply doing something so easy and accessible. It;s hard to communicate though, I mean, at the beginning of most movies over here there are anti-pirate ads which say how it's destroying the industry but it doesn't really have any affect on the general attitude people have towards piracy.

    I agree with your points about District 9 and Moon though.
  • But at the same time, just because someone "makes up" for stealing something, it doesn't make the act null and void. The act is still stealing, whether or not you were the initiate or not. IE if someone came in and stole your stuff and I bought it and I found out it was yours...you'd want me to return it. But if I didn't then you figure I was just as guilty as the person who initially stole it.
  • im so sick of people comparing pirating to actually going out and stealing and it may not make up for it but whats funny is i may pirate but i still own more dvds and cds and support those industries more then people who don't

    am i trying to justify it? no, but don't compare downloading a movie on the internet to breaking into someones home and stealing stuff that is ignorant.
  • Chuchundra
    Violation of copyright isn't stealing. Calling it theft is linguistic escalation. It's an attempt to give the infringement of a government-granted monopoly the same moral standing as a common law crime.
  • elvispookie
    The MPAA puts out all their ads saying it is theft.. "you wouldnt steal a car would you?".. theoretically that is incorrect. What the ad should say is "if you can make a clone of a car, take it home and leave the original car there, would you?".. everyone would say yes. That is what you are doing with file sharing.
  • scriptcoder
    I agree that "stealing" is not the correct label for it. Most of you people get so hung up on that word even though a definition can be "taking what does not belong to you."

    Freeloading is a much better word. You want stuff for free because you're greedy. Greedy for media, greedy to consume entertainment. Most people that freeload complain about the "fat cats" but neglect to look at themselves. They want something for nothing. Even those "fat cats" give you a movie for you money. You don't want to trade anything.
  • SO basically you guys believe that "cloning" something isn't or shouldn't be the same as actually robbing someone? So you try to make that semantics argument. This is exactly why people try to literally white wash what they do, but if someone else does it to them then it's wrong.

    I do see what you guys are trying to say, that it shouldn't be as punishable as someone literally going into your house and stealing something. Ok then, perhaps you'd be ok with a small fine? Probably not as most people don't want to accept punishments. It's the whole, "do you speed on the freeway" argument. Yes everyone does it and so then yes technically everyone is breaking the law..but is it reasonable to punish a few..I would say yes. I've been caught more than a few times and even if I could argue it's unfair..technically you're still breaking the law. Man up and just admit it, it's not like making excuses makes you sound "more intelligent".

    Also @ Brandon..if it's ignorant..then you're basically saying that those that created the laws are ignorant of what they wrote because they are the ones trying to enforce what they wrote. Your definition of what they wrote is meaningless because you aren't the one that helped write it. I'm sure that they know what they mean even if you're going to say the analogies are "ignorant". But I'll put it in terms that are more understandable for you. When you ever get a 9-5 job, say your boss wants a report done. You write it up and save it to your desktop. Someone "clones" it via public access and then takes it to your boss as their own. You'd probably be pissed and say they stole it. What if they said to you, " Oh but I didn't take it, I merely copied what you did and put it on my computer. "
  • iec
    So you guys all realize that you're saying if I borrow a DVD from a friend, I'm stealing.
  • iec
    Actually, I just realized how everyone is wrong.

    Libraries. You can borrow movies from libraries. End of story. If watching a movie online is unethical, than borrowing movies from libraries and from friends is unethical. Also, borrowing books from libraries in unethical. Also, listening to music through any medium which isn't advertised on or paid for by you is unethical. Sharing CDs is unethical. Sharing videogames is unethical. Sharing software so that your whole family doesn't have to each spill out $500 per person is unethical.

    But most of all, libraries are totally unethical. You cannot argue that pirating is unethical but libraries aren't. You will fail. Libraries are full of intellectual property that has been paid for once and can be reviewed hundreds of times at no expense. The artist gets nothing from it. This is totally unethical.

    Also, photographs of paintings are unethical, galleries where you don't have to pay to walk in are unethical, looking at street art is unethical, watching TV and fast-forwarding through or muting the commercials is unethical, watching Hulu and muting the commercials is unethical, watching movies at home with a group of people is unethical (they each should have paid for the DVD themselves), enjoying street artists without paying them is unethical, listening to the radio and switching the station during a commercial is unethical.

    Regardless of intellectual property laws, every one of these things is unethical. Laws don't matter, right? Ethics matter.

    Wow, look at all the horribly unethical things people do that are respected as common practice in society. What terrible people we are.
  • iec
    Oh shit, guys! Three people in my dorm building are connected to my iTunes and listening to my library! I'm so conflicted! iTunes is legal, but they didn't pay for the music in my library, so that's not ethical, but I didn't pay for all of this music, so it's like double unethical! Or is it ethical for them to listen to the unpaid for music since it's already not paid for? No, they should pay for it. I should pay for it. Who paid for it? Someone needs to pay for it right now, or my world is going to fly off the handle. iTunes is so unethical.
  • izzy
    www.movlic.com/library/copyright.html

    everin, you idiot, im pretty sure libraries are licensed to distribute those movies
  • iec
    doesn't change the fact that it's essentially unethical. just because licensing exists, doesn't make it ethical.

    plus, why is any book available in a library? why should anyone get to read a book for free?
  • lucascott
    the trouble is that you are the exception, not the rule. Mr Don Draper sounds more like the rule 'too expensive'. which means there's no intent to go see it in the theaters, rent or buy it.

    even when we artists don't make points based money off a movie, it is generally still added up to decide if we should get to do the next project. so it still affects our pocketbooks.
  • The main thing is the creator needs to be payed for what they've created. If I make my own movie, get it copyrighted, and make 5 DVDs to sell for $1 each, and my expenses were $4. Then I make a $1 profit. Now any of the DVDs I've sold are now the property of the customer. They may lend them, give them, watch them, just not reproduce or sell or show outside the home. When someone borrows a DVD, that movie has already been sold. But if the borrower wants their own copy they must purchase it from the creator, in order to pay them for their intellectual property. But if my first buyer makes 4 copies of the DVD and gives it to those that would have bought it, then I have lost $3 because people are stealing my intellectual property. Regardless of how much money some studios and actors make, if you receive a copy of their intellectual property, then you must pay them what they ask for.

    Same for the copy of a car idea. I can't go look at a car, and remake it. The designs of that car (especially those patented components) are the intellectual property of the manufacturer. And I can't show my movie to large groups of people outside of the home. The color of the law there is to allow you to show a movie to your family and close friends, but not a full event without a license. There are other laws which go into that. It also applies to music... performing music. Say, the "Happy Birthday Song." It was copyrighted in 1935 and will enter public domain in 2030. That's why many restaurant chains sing their own version of the world-famous song. "Loyalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur 'at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered'"(http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp). But if you buy a legal copy of the music or get permission to perform then you can perform it as much as you want.

    But it is ok to give or lend a bought, legitimate movie to someone because that property has been purchased, as long as they don't make a copy of it to keep. The more recent debate, especially with video games, is if copies can be made for yourself as a backup. For the most part this is ethical, as long as you've already purchased, and still own the property. You can't give it to someone else at that point. The law doesn't care where you get your copy from. Especially if you're "going to" buy it. That is your word against the law. It's like eating a bag of chips in a grocery store. Until you've purchased it, it's technically not yours.
  • Propadanda
    I think it's most definitely illegal to watch a bootlegged movie. Isn't there a law something along the lines of "sharing in the proceeds of crime"? If someone illegally uploads copyrighted media and someone downloads/watches it knowing full well that it is illegal, then I don't see how there could be any possible way that it would be legal.

    Even then, however, it would be one of those laws you can never enforce, like littering and other seemingly unimportant shit. No one would ever be able to be charged I reckon.

    That said, what about movies that have been around for years and frequent themselves on free-to-air television? That's where I think it becomes ethically questionable.

    Being in Australia, sometimes movies and tv shows get here later than the states or other places. I've downloaded movies a few times which have come out overseas and I have to wait for, the quality is so much worse and you miss the cinema experience which I absolutely love (the popcorn, the trailers, the lights going out and the screen widening) so to me it's not worth the time or the money you save. DVD movies on the other hand...I don't like downloading and burning them, I prefer to have original copies, but there is a massive appeal to downloading high quality movies from DVD's which have been uploaded.

    Like I said with tv and free-to-air shows, it's quite ethical in my opinion to download them. For example, I have pay TV here and I subscribe to a channel which screens Dexter. It's currently replaying season 3 and season 4 is coming mid-December. I just finished watching episode 9 which I downloaded yesterday. Do I think it was illegal? Techinally, yeah I guess so. Is it unethical? Fuck no. I'm just speeding up the arrival of media that I would have received anyway.

    Even if I didn't pay for it, the argument still stands as Dexter screens on free-to-air tv over here (just far more delayed) so eventually season 4 will reach those screens. Is it unethical for someone who doesn't have pay TV to download season 4?

    I think you summed it up; will it hurt box office? Not really, you can't replicate the experience with the same quality yet. But it will damage the DVD/Blu-Ray market.
  • But with your argument, if someone paid for a car and then just stole yours..that would be ok because they were merely "speeding" up their receiving of the vehicle.
  • Yeah because downloading a 40 minute tv show is the same as grand theft auto right?
  • Propadanda
    A far less sensationalised analogy would be; if a car dealership had branches in many countries and I ordered a car from the US, but then discovered that I could pick up the car from a retailer over here at no loss to the overseas dealership, then I would do that rather than wait for it to ship from over there, because they are going to ship it anyway so other people can browse their car lot.
  • But see, there lies the personal touch to it that most forget. They are stealing from someone, actually a group of people who worked their ass off to give you a good product and you're merely taking it from someone who already stole it. So no, you're basically trying to white wash it to make it more sterilized.
  • scriptcoder
    Most people don't buy a DVD and then pirate the movie until the DVD comes. Perhaps less then 1% of torrent users do this.
  • dogless
    @chrisgst

    What about the pieces of shit that a group of people worked their asses off for? There are so many bad movies being produced that I have no intention of paying to see.
  • scriptcoder
    If they're pieces of shit then don't see them. If you insists on seeing a movie remember that you don't pay for "quality" you pay for the performance.
  • We know its illegal. However, if there's no concrete manifestation of internet laws and how it will be impose then the internet will still be a medium of piracy.
  • Cheesus
    When lawyers changing the question from 'is it illegal' to 'is it ethical' - you pretty much know the answer.
    There's a whole problem here in this digital grey area, where we are transfering from a disc system to a purely data system. No one has really got it right. DVD and especialy Blu-Ray are far too expensive which automatically makes people look at alternatives. Currently, I download some media, but also buy enough to keep my concience happy. I'll happilly download an entire tv series for example. My rational is that in a short while, it's going to be on my sky package anyway, so effectivly, I've paid for it anyway.
    Personally, I'm getting to the point now where i don't WANT to have shelves full of discs, and it's really hard for me to get to see everything i want to in the cinema - PLUS the whole cinema experience is horrible now anyway. My ideal would be the following scenario. A high Def streaming service (not unlike sky movies, or Zune on the xbox) where I pay less than £10 for a 1080p version of a NEW movie - WEEKS after it's been released at the cinema. For my >£10, I get the full movie (of course) and a host of bonus features to access when ever I want. You could also offer rental options as is currently possible, but for FAR LESS MONEY! I'm not willing to pay around £5 just to watch a movie once at home. Not when there are no physical discs to produce. Give me something like that and I'll pay EVERY time.
  • scriptcoder
    That's right! The true response to an over-priced product is to take it forcefully. It definitely isn't to use your ability as a consumer to stop consuming.
  • It's funny how some people, not just teens, have that sliding scale when it comes to legalities. For example, I've worked as a manager at both a Century Theater and Blockbuster and at both I found people who felt that if someone stole something from us, that the person who did it should be help responsible, but not those that gained from it. I literally came across a 30+ yr old woman who told me that her son should be kicked out but because he let her in illegally but that she should be able to stay because technically she didn't "do anything wrong" in her eyes. It's funny how some people come to these conclusions.

    Also @ Shadow, so if I steal some food from Save-Mart but pay for other things...you're basically saying it isn't stealing.
  • If a law is unenforceable, it's not much of a law.
  • Chuckei
    Brendon how much did the studio's pay you to write this article? $10 Grand, a little more ?
  • BrendonConnelly
    I'm actually quite passionately anti-piracy and I think I always have been. I'm a little disappointed when others aren't.
  • scriptcoder
    Attacking the person instead of the points he makes is the mark of a lousy debater and someone who has nothing to respond with.
  • tony5787
    I have to agree with both Brendan and scriptcoder (even though he doesn't agree with my morals). Just because somebody makes a point about a problem doesn't mean they're doing it for money. He's just trying to do his part to stop a serious problem.
  • Pirating doesn't even scratch box office sales or dvd/BR sales or even CD sales, the majority of people who pirate actually buy the cd(or album via itunes, amazon or whatever), buy the dvd/bluray or see it in theaters do i find it morally wrong? no, i work hard for my money and im not gonna waste money on a cd that sucks or a movie that is god awful, if i like the movie ill buy it, ill go support it.

    and piracy has actually helped films succeed, help films get noticed (see ink) etc. if you don't download stuff hey good for you, i don't look down on people who do or don't, piracy isn't going anywhere.. IRC has been around forever and it isn't going anywhere, they can't shutdown every torrent site or premium sites like rapidshare or a megaupload which is intended to be for storing files and uploading non-copyrighted material

    anyways do i see movies for free? listen to music for free? yes, but i also own over 800 dvds, 100 blurays (not including tv shows) a little over 300 cds, not all people who pirate are "scum" or are out to screw the industries, maybe if they companies would stop charging 20 bucks for a dvd and 30 for a blu-ray more people would buy instead of pirate, they could sell brand new dvds for 10 and BRs for 15 and still make a killing in the profit, they cost what? a couple bucks max to produce 1 dvd w/ box? if that.
  • BrendonConnelly
    There's no right to only pay for things you like. You're paying to watch it, not to like it.
  • iec
    Seriously, the financial aspect is something you're not even addressing. I know it's unethical, but I plan on going into the film industry, and I really don't have huge quabbles if people were to pirate my film. Movies still make MILLIONS of dollars. Who needs millions of dollars? No one needs millions of dollars.

    If you want to talk about ethics, it is completely unethical to pay Will Farrel $30 million (and I'm assuming he makes more...) just for being a unrestrained douche on camera. No one's work is worth that kind of money. So many people in the world do so much more for other human beings and get nothing in return.

    I understand it takes a lot of money for resources going into a film, but so much money goes to actors and directors. If they don't want their shit stolen (when it's so easy to steal), then they should sell it for cheaper. This is how the world works. Ethics don't exist, you can't make anyone do anything on the grounds of "ethics." We're all a bunch of animals. You can't deal with people as if they're rational, selfless beings. Yeah, people are selfish as hell, both piraters AND movie execs AND record labels (who steal so much money from the artists it's not even funny).

    You can't make industries that are commercially successful in billions of dollars and expect people to give half a shit that they're missing out on a few more million. If you want things to be fair and ethical for everyone, become a socialist. If the stars and artists I appreciate weren't making so much money, I would feel bad about taking away from their being able to LIVE, but I'm pretty sure over the billions of disparaged human beings in the world, they MIGHT be making ends meet?

    If me and all the other poor people out there didn't pirate, they would lose an audience of millions. What's better, a little less money in your fat, overfilled pockets, or more people appreciating your work? If I'm making ends meet, I don't care about being overpaid for my art, it's enough to know that people are enjoying it. No one is entitled to making millions of dollars, not in this world.

    Besides, when I do actually have the money to, I plan on finding a way to donate money to all the artists I've ripped off who do deserve the money because they aren't multimillionaires. I will own up to being completely "unethical" and not caring about making George Lucas and Bill Gates's bank accounts a little bigger.

    All that said, you forgot to outright say in your article: no, it's not illegal to watch films on streaming websites, it's only illegal to upload them, and no one is ever punished for it, they just get their video taken down. If the studios cared so much, they would find ways to lawfully punish more people for it.
  • scriptcoder
    Full disclaimer: I work in the movie industry.

    I just wanted to say thank-you for taking the time to appreciate my work. I totally don't need you to pay for it, just having you appreciate it is fine enough for me.

    I also enjoy your personal ethics where you say: "If they don't want their shit stolen, then they should sell it for cheaper." You sir are an upstanding individual indeed. Your morality gives me hope and inspiration.

    Alright. Let's get things straight. I don't care if you think my work is awesome but you neglect to pay for it. That's not how the world works. I love my job but I also write media because I want to sell it to you, not give it to you. I have a service that I provide and in return you provide money. You do not get to appreciate my work an the work of my colleges for free. That is called freeloading and makes you one greedy bastard.

    While I don't make millions (but I do have a comfortable wage) I respect the right of any person to make as much as he/she can. See, there's a reason why Will Ferrel makes millions: putting him in a movie generally guarantees that the movie will make it's money back. They would not pay him so much if it wasn't a good gamble. But that really is none of your business.

    You business is quite simple: if you want to see a movie you pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it you don't see it. No one will blame you. There are hundreds of other things you can do. You can read a book, watch television, go for a bike ride, save your money for a trip, visit family or spend some time with your own.

    You have to understand. Your audience of millions of poor people means nothing to me. I appreciate that you like my work but I do not appreciate that you are basically taking my services and my work without exchanging anything for them in return. That is being selfish and greedy. Like I said, if I make something and I decide to charge for it then that's my right. It's your right to decline to watch what I made. You have no other rights on my work without paying for it.

    In conclusion you are a very self-absorbed individual with a skewed and flawed worldview. If everyone thought like you did then there would be not internet, no technology, and no entertainment for your to take.
  • tony5787
    "Your audience of millions of poor people means nothing to me." I'm far from poor and I'm fairly sure there are more like me who go to see movies. So just because you work in the industry doesn't instantly make everyone who watches your work "poor." I'm sure there are plenty of people who would scoff at your "comfortable wage" as they drive to and from the theater in their Ferrari.
  • iec
    You have every right to sell your movies for whatever you want to sell them for. I have every right to click a link on a public domain server and watch whatever unfolds in front of me. If you don't want me to watch movies for free, stop me.

    Sorry, but that's how humanity has worked through all of history. Your capitalist mentality is great, I'm sure it's gotten you places. Unfortunately, it's not the rule of nature. The rule of nature is that I can do whatever is freely possible for me to do, and if there's no consequences, then I'm going to do it. Either adapt your industry to human nature, or deal with the fact that people are going to watch free movies online. You have your comfortable living, if you're going to cry because it's not more comfortable, you're not going to get my sympathies.

    Guess how all other industries account for human nature. They make laws that put people in jail when they steal. If you don't enforce laws, it's your fault. People are not inherently moral. People are animals. You have no rights in nature. Look at the people dying in Darfur--do they have rights? Rights are a human construct and highly fallible to being ignored. Cry about it all you want, write as many blog posts as you want, you'll never change human nature.

    And if you're only in the film industry to make money, you're not an artist. Most people in the industry aren't. But you make your living, and as long as you make your living, I'm never going to give a shit about your rights over the rights of people who have less than you. You don't get to talk about freedom to commercial capital when the majority of the human race has the right to absolutely squat. Once more: no one has any rights. They only have what they can grab by two hands and not let go of.
  • scriptcoder
    everin: You talk as if you don't live in a society but in an anarchy who knows where. If you choose to live in a society then you choose to respect the laws and morals that the society has put into place. A primary moral is: "don't take what is not yours."

    If you want to live in a place with no rights then move out of civilization. Your nihilistic mentality has no place in a society where people work towards a goal instead of just taking whatever they want.
  • iec
    If I don't live in a society where people can watch whatever movies and shows that they want for free, then I guess we don't have a problem.

    You're really not getting it. This isn't my morality, I'm not talking about anarchism (by the way, I'm REALLY not talking about anarchism, which is completely contrary to everything I'm saying and has its own moral system). I'm talking about reality, and the fact of the matter is: lots of people are going to watch free movies online in a totally legal manner. Again: watching videos on Megavideo and Vureel and Veoh is completely legal. The only person you can take legal action against is the person who uploads it. While it's not ethical, it's legal. So it's going to keep happening until people are punished for it.

    Look, I wish I had the money to see every movie I want to see in theaters. As I said, I plan on giving money straight to the artists who have really inspired me. Am I going to mail you a check for the 40 cents I owe you for a movie I might have seen that you might have been involved in? No. But this is how it works, I can listen to music for free, I can watch movies for free. I'm not going to go to hell, I'm not going to go to jail, nothing is going to happen. This is why people do it. If companies made films available online immediately upon release, and you only had to pay $30 a month to watch anything you want whenever you want, sure, the industry would lose millions, but they don't NEED millions, and no one would ever have a reason to pirate again.

    Will Farrel and Johnny Depp can do their jobs for less money, do just as well, be just as entertaining, just as successful, and still be dirty ass rich and their movies could be sold at a fraction of the price. If people worry about the industry tanking, then STOP PAYING ACTORS SO DAMN MUCH. Exactly what moral philosophy is behind the idea that an actor deserves more for his work than a writer? Because his face is seen? The writer's WORDS are HEARD, and they do a HELL of a lot more than a face. Let's make this clear: no one in the world needs more than $100,000 a year. No one. I don't care if you "earned" it through a corrupt commercial system. No one deserves that amount of resources over anyone else in this world. Period. People in this industry live comfortable lives at the expense of thousands. For every car P-Diddy owns, he is taking away from the potential lives of scores of other human beings. THIS is selfish.

    The industry is unethical by definition. Capitalism is unethical by definition, and leads to disgusting class disparity, lack of education, millions and millions of wasted lives all so that a couple pricks can be rich as fuck. Movie pirating is a result of a corrupt industry. If movie and music prices were reasonable, there would be no pirating. The same stands for cars and TVs and computers and anything else, but I guess it's lucky for the CEOs of Sony and Microsoft and Toyota that if you steal their things, you're easily caught and you go to jail.

    If movie producers REALLY cared about pirating (and they really don't), then they would find a way to create serious ramifications. I don't know, make movies only available to people with enough money, find some system to make it so that you can't copy movies (only have them available through Cable/DVR). If they don't want their digital bits of information to be transported around the internet, then they shouldn't make them available.

    It's reality people. Plato's Republic will never exist. Once again: complain all you want. It's going to solve the problem, I'm sure. People do not have natural rights. Governments enforce laws that grant people the illusion of rights. When laws are not enforced, they are broken. That is the only rule you can always be sure of. Whining about how unethical it is will achieve absolutely nothing. Guess what else is unethical? Going to war in Iraq for 8 years and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Did anyone stop that from happening? There sure as hell were a lot more people complaining about it, and it still happened.

    Weird how there's no such thing as objective morality. Watching free TV and occasional movies online is really the most unethical thing I do in my life, and while negative reasoning isn't that great, taking away a little commercial revenue and doing my part to make Farrel's check 31 million instead of 32 million is really negligible to me in comparison to the horrible things that happen all around the world every second of the day--murder, molestation, abuse, spreading of STDs, war crimes, terrorism, dictatorships, the Western world raping the third world for cheap labor, etc, etc, etc.

    So woe is you scriptcoder. If I ever make it in the industry, if ever somehow I find myself with more than a million dollars, I'm going to have an enormous moral dilemma on my hands. I don't want that kind of money. If I have that kind of money, I either want to put it right back into the pockets of people working with me to make more art, or do something productive with it. American aristocracy is disgusting, and arguably worse by degrees than the aristocracy in any past nation/city/empire.
  • iec
    By the way, all people do in this country is take whatever they want. That's what defines America. Are you kidding me here?
  • iec
    Hey, I know you're going to think it's absurd that I'm comparing war crimes to pirating films. My point is, there are more serious problems in the world that aren't dealt with, and people are just as unethical for not dealing with those issues. Something like stealing from millionaires falls low on my list of things to worry about.

    Also, looking at this aside of the fact that I happen to occasionally watch a movie without paying, the fact that it happens is still due to a corrupt industry.

    But sure, I guess I should aspire to being flawless, as should everyone else. Well, won't that be a grand day indeed.
  • scriptcoder
    "Capitalism is unethical by definition, and leads to disgusting class disparity, lack of education, millions and millions of wasted lives all so that a couple pricks can be rich as fuck. Movie pirating is a result of a corrupt industry. If movie and music prices were reasonable, there would be no pirating. The same stands for cars and TVs and computers and anything else, but I guess it's lucky for the CEOs of Sony and Microsoft and Toyota that if you steal their things, you're easily caught and you go to jail."

    Sorry bub. No matter what you've absorbed from friends or online philosophers capitalism is not unethical. Capitalism simply allows people to offer their services in return for monetary reward. If you don't have any services to offer, or if you services are not worth much, then you don't do as well.

    How can you talk about ethics when you advocate just taking whatever you want simply because you don't want to play fair in life? The world operates as it does not because of some elite who want to control your but because of thousands of years of societal development that resulted in what we have today. Capitalism is an outset of human nature.

    I'm obviously not going to convince you that you're wrong. You believe that simply because movies exist you are automatically entitled to them. You can't get it through your head that perhaps you are not. They are not required to sustain you or keep you from harm. They are a luxury. If you are so concerned about human justice and morality then why do you have a job? Why do you have a computer and a television? People in third world countries don't have those, you're just being a greedy capitalistic westerner.

    Most nations have similar laws that are derived from basic human understanding. A natural law exists and can be seen in everything we do and say. Otherwise there would be nothing but hunting for food and fucking. Because there is society, care for others, and the advancement of humanity there must be a framework that is common to all of us.

    In the end you're saying this: I don't fucking care about anyone. Movies exist and because of their existence I am entitled to them. I can furthermore prove that I am entitled to them because no one can stop me, or punish me, for taking them. I will take and take and in the meantime I'll complain about how some people are too rich, even though they provide a service that is worth that much money to someone else.

    That's a fine attitude. Hope it works for you.
  • lucascott
    if you want to put a movie you created out there on the web for folks to watch, download etc for free then go for it. You hold the copyright so it is actually your right to give it away or not.

    but it doesn't change that likely more folks download without intent to buy than with intent. Which in effect is stealing, or at least denial of profit (if you want to argue that you can't steal something someone never had in the first place).

    as for the whole salary issue, that's a discussion for another day and another thread.
  • iec
    It's not a discussion for another day. You are COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that I said that pirating exists because movies are overpriced and it's easy to pirate them. If they were a reasonable price, people would buy them. Also, if they were released for rental sooner or at the same time as they were in theaters, people would pirate them less. That movies are put in the cinema before DVD is a play for profit. It's greedy and nothing else.

    I also never said I was entitled to anything. I said I can take it so I do. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or that I deserve it or don't. I'm just saying that I can watch a movie online, so I do, and I don't feel that bad about it. If that means "entitled," then yeah, anyone is entitled to taking anything, as long as they have the guts to do it and they aren't punished. I'm speaking purely objectively here. Sure, it's totally impractical, but it's not like someone can actually "own" anything. We're fucking walking, talking apes. We mean nothing. A meteor could easily destroy us all and it would mean nothing. There are probably trillions of other rational beings in the universe, we aren't special.

    I actually believe in a level of morality so that society can function. I also recognize that morality isn't real, it's just something we make up, so I don't expect other people to behave morally. That's all I'm saying. You can't expect other people to behave the way you want them to. There's no such thing as "right" and "wrong." Those are ideas we make up. No one will ever act a certain way just because YOU think it's right. They have to come to that conclusion on their own, and they're completely capable of rationalizing the terrible (or sort of kind of bad) things they do.

    No, you won't convince me that watching a movie online is something to feel terrible about. Capitalism works, it's also a joke. Once again, no one is entitled to any amount of money or capital. Besides, the American dollar is based off of nothing but debt anyways. Money isn't even real. I'm not going to go on anymore, or try to explain to you why capitalism is a tool which leads to unethical behavior. It's obvious that this is true if you actually look at the world for what it is, but most people don't recognize that so it's not even worth discussing.
  • iec
    By the way, you just lost a lot of steam by trying to sequester me into the "dumb kid that reads radical philosophers and thinks he's smart" demographic. I've never read Marx, I've never read any economic theory, I've never read a philosopher that discusses economics, and I don't talk to any of my friends about economics.

    How flawed capitalism is is readily apparent if you look at the state of the world, the basis behind the current financial crisis, the class disparity in AMERICAN cities, and the level at which the US exploits third world labor. I do know that everything I have is at the expense of someone else's life. I came out of the lower class into a university out of luck, my mom's sheer force of will, and a great scholarship. I do plan on doing something about it when I'm actually in a position to.
  • "Pirating doesn't even scratch box office sales or dvd/BR sales or even CD sales, the majority of people who pirate actually buy the cd(or album via itunes, amazon or whatever), buy the dvd/bluray or see it in theaters do i find it morally wrong?"

    The main problem I have when people discuss piracy issues is that the majority have no idea what they're talking about and pull figures out of their collective asses.
    Do you have proof that it doesn't "scratch" their sales? Show me figures. Show me data. Then I might be able to believe your self-imposed justification.
  • tu padre
    well i dont see or even heard of any major studio to gone out of business for it... to the contrary some others only way to distribution to the masses is the internet... what about freelancer artists, writers, photographers, game makers, movie makers... and so on...
  • Philip Marlowe
    How about a concerted effort by all jurisdictions to ban the operation of file sharing webistes. When reviewing the various arguments for advocates of file sharing, it is difficult to identify a difference between downloading and stealing.

    Some advocates claim that sharing helps the affected industry by allowing the consumer to sample the product before spending the money to purchase it - the general definition of sample is 'a small part of something intended as representative of the whole'. Not the actual product!

    Some advocates also argue that file sharing doesn't hurt people financially - this is the equivalent of saying that shop-lifting doesn't hurt people financially...

    Some file sharers argue that the companies whose intellectual property is being copied are large and generate high profits, and can thus afford the possible loss in profits - again attempting to justify stealing...

    And finally, the ultimate justification for file-sharing - that access to music and films is, by its intrinsic cultural value, a right that should not be subject to distributors' oligopoly. Perhaps in a Utopian world, however, I don't believe we are at this stage quite yet.

    Stop the mechanism that allows the illegal downloading of music and film, stop the illegal downloading of music and film.
blog comments powered by Disqus