Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law

Does this make me a criminal?

<< < (10/13) > >>

pofnlice:
Another thought...

Whenever you purchase software, DVD's, whatever...You can legally make a copy of it to preserve the "original."  Now if I loan this copy out, I am violating copyright laws, whether I am charging moneys for it or not.  But if I loan the original to a freind, then it's legal and there is no control over that.  How exactly does that work?  Why make a copy to preserve the original then since it's more likely to get damaged in anothers hands than the ones of the person who paid for it?

Zombie9920:
Wow! Those were some great posts American Bastard.

To answer your original question, yes. There is technically only 1 original copy of the movie. The original copy is the one on the film roll in the producers' studio.

(edit)Well, since I know that you are a cop now I better watch what I say around you. J/K, I always have to poke fun at people and stuff.  ;P

[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

Stryker:
If it was considered stealing, there would be no need for seperate copyright laws. It is a violation of copyright laws, yes... but it is not stealing. Wether it's right or wrong is simply a matter of opinion. The government says it's wrong. A lot of society says it's wrong. If you don't think it's wrong, do something about it. I would but I'm still young and I honestly don't care that much about it. I don't mind paying $10 to buy a movie.

Zombie9920:
$10 for a movie isn't bad at all. $20 is even reasonable. However, new releases don't cost no $10 or $20. Most of the time a new release on DVD goes for $30-$50. $30 is severely borderlining what a single copy of a movie in mass copying/production is worth. Any more than $30 is outright unreasonable and is what I'd like to call highway robbery.

The same goes for Music CD's. $5 per CD would be great, $10 is borderlining acceptable. $15-$21 is highway robbery. Most of the time the CD only has a few good songs on it anyways. Why in the hell should people pay $15+ for a few good songs? After so many copies of a music album have flowed out to the public each copy of the CD is technically only worth about $2 or $3 because the sales of the first line of copies more than pays for what it costed to pay the artist, for the materials used to record the music, for the time spent by editors to make the music sound its' best and the cost of the press for that album to be mass produced.

The bad thing with music is when you buy a CD the artist only sees a small percentage of the money from the album sales. The largest percentage goes to the label and the RIAA.

CD's being a straight up rip-off is the reason why services such as iTunes is so successful. People get to buy the music that they truely want at a reasonable price. They don't have to pay the full cost for a CD with a few good songs and the rest being of trash. To make a long story short, they aren't paying for unwanted songs.

Now here is a question I have for some of you. Why is it ok for us to get raped by the entertainment world but it isn't ok for us to get a little measure of revenge on them(us fucking them over a bit). Some of the old wise prophets said, "What goes around comes around".

[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

flap:

quote:Originally posted by M51DPS:
It's stealing if you deprive the owners of the money they're demanding for it. You would taking away profits.
--- End quote ---


No you're not. That presumption relies on the misconception that artists should be able to expect to receive payment for every person who uses their work, rather than just being compensated for the amount of work done in the first place. The potential redistribution of their work is infinte. So what you're suggesting is that an artist is entitled to theoretically infinite financial compensation for a finite amount of work.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page