Does this make me a criminal?

[flap]

quote:However it is not illegal to loan your possessions to your friends and they have no way of keeping you from doing so. So why should it be any different before the dvd is released?

Actually (in the UK at least) I think even lending copyrighted material is illegal.

[flap]

quote:But that does not mean that they are unlimited in nature. They may be infinitely replicable, but only a limited number of people will benefit from them.

Aside from the finite longevity of the human race/the universe, the number of people who will potentially benefit from them is theoretically infinite.

[slave]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: '

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


Actually (in the UK at least) I think even lending copyrighted material is illegal.

By the way, you may be interested to know that it is not illegal to copy movies or music by P2P in Canada (It does not apply for copying CD's, though).

[Laukev7]

quote: But what about ethically? I did after all pay a ripoff prince to see the movie.

Ethically this is legal, because you already paid to see the movie, whatever the MPAA may think. My view is that each person should pay, but only once per medium.

[slave]

Of course you have to pay if you go to see it in a movie theater, or you to to a concert -- its their building after all!  And I for one am glad to pay for that; after all, I don't have a big screen TV or surround sound.  Plus, leaked copies of movies tend to be of poor quality.  

Other than that it shouldn't be mandatory.  I am a strong believer in voluntary donations.  If people think something is worthwhile they will support it if need be, either financially or through some other means (programming, donating equipment, advocacy, etc.) otherwise it will just go away, but if nobody cared enough to support it is it really such a big loss?

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:

My view is that each person should pay, but only once per medium.

Isn't a divx(probably, either way it's a computer format) a different medium than what the cinema uses?

I don't think you're the criminal for using the movie you got (from some p2p program probably), but rather the person you got it from is the criminal. As he is giving it away to thousands of people who have never seen the movie. You, have paid for it and should be able to view it again with no problem.

[Laukev7]

I don't understand, Stryker. How does your post relate to what I said?

Edit: Oh, my mistake. I meant to pay once per piece of art, not per medium. Sorry for not being clear.

[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Stryker:


Isn't a divx(probably, either way it's a computer format) a different medium than what the cinema uses?

I don't think you're the criminal for using the movie you got (from some p2p program probably), but rather the person you got it from is the criminal. As he is giving it away to thousands of people who have never seen the movie. You, have paid for it and should be able to view it again with no problem.

That's right.
You cant steal something that doesn't exist.

[M51DPS]

Technically, you were stealing. When you went to the movie theater, their goal was to provide you with that one showing, nothing else. Buying a movie is different because it's designed so that you can watch it whenever you want in private. Buying does not include giving it away because you still don't own the rights to the movie, just being able to view it in private.

[flap]

quote:Technically, you were stealing.

No, technically stealing means to unlawfully deprive someone of a tangible, finite thing that they own, so they no longer have it. No-one was deprived of anything. Thus he wasn't stealng.

[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


No, technically stealing means to unlawfully deprive someone of a tangible, finite thing that they own, so they no longer have it. No-one was deprived of anything. Thus he wasn't stealng.

[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: flap ]

Stealing an idea does not deprive anyone from his idea.

[ November 02, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[flap]

Er, exactly. That's my point. You can't "steal" an idea.

[Laukev7]

The dictionary doesn't agree with you.

 

quote: Main Entry: 1steal
Pronunciation: 'stE(&)l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole /'stOl/; sto

[flap]

Are you saying because "to steal a kiss" is a valid use of the word steal, it's valid in the context of copying as well? Well "steal" is obviously now also used loosely in contexts other than the literal theft of tangible items. If someone has a kiss or their "thunder" stolen, they use the word "steal" informally because it conveys the idea of a wrongdoing, but no-one's exactly going to try to prosecute for theft. Similarly with copying, you may not agree with it, but it doesn't mean it's literally analogous to stealing.