Piracy

[TheOneBigWill]

If I bought the movie/game/c.d. why is it illegal for me to make a ton of extra copies, if I'm giving them away for free?

Its MY personally bought movie, and if I have an 'x' amount of free blank c.d.'s/discs, I should be fully within my rights to make extra copies and give them to whom I so choose. It shouldn't be illegal, or a crime, for me to do that.

Also, while it may not be illegal to give them away freely, it shouldn't be a crime for me to charge a person who's receiving them, either. I wouldn't be charging them for the movie. I'd be charging them for the time I spent, making them a copy. Why is that a crime?!

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Um?? CHit Chat much??

 

[klunderbunker]

This is what I know about piracy. When I was a senior in high school, a friend of mine asked me to donate $5 to the band program. The reason for it you ask? They needed to buy more sheet music, because simply photocopying it was considered piracy. Good grief what's the big deal? Like Will said, there's nothing wrong with making a bunch of copies of something like that. In music, if something is popular, then it's on the radio all the time for free anyway, and that's free. With movies and DVDs, we just got done with a writer's strike over this. It's going to happen anyway, so what difference does it make? Let it go government. It's gonna happen, lighten the hell up.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

A single on the radio is basically advertisement for a band though, to get you interested in BUYING the cd. every free copy you give out is a copy that an interested party couldve possibly purchased. thats why its a big deal

 

[klunderbunker]

I'll give you the radio one. It also might make you want to go see a band in concert.

 

[Shocky]

The general feeling is, it's taking money out of someones pocket. Someone made it, someone deserves the royalties from it...

But that's all bullshit. Why it's a big deal, because all of that shit is taxed. the Gov't gives jackshit about who it belongs too, they are just missing out of their cut. The gov't only cares about their money, and piracy takes tax dollars away from them, and that makes Uncle Sam (the real one) angry.

 

[Shadowmancer]

Let me put it this way. I would rather pay the Artist 5% of the price that they were going to get anyway. Movies are different, they cost too much to go and see at the movies.

 

[Shocky]

Let me put it this way. I would rather pay the Artist 5% of the price that they were going to get anyway. Movies are different, they cost too much to go and see at the movies.

I disagree.

Bands and music in general have devolved greatly over the last two decades. Instead of working on masterpieces of an album, most bands are worried about making a CD with two or three singles and the rest filler. I refuse to spend money on a CD that can hold 80 minutes worth of music, but yet are released using half the amount of space provided to them.

Iron Man cost near 150 million dollars to make, and was a superior movie. I have no problem shelling out ten bucks for the movie, and another 20 for the DVD, for two hours of high entertainment, as opposed to 15 dollars for a crap cd with one or two good songs on it for a total album length of 45 minutes.

If musicians didn't sell themselves out to making single based albums in the 90's, then people would still be buying albums. Music is shit now, therefore, no one buys albums anymore.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

The general feeling is, it's taking money out of someones pocket. Someone made it, someone deserves the royalties from it...

But that's all bullshit. Why it's a big deal, because all of that shit is taxed. the Gov't gives jackshit about who it belongs too, they are just missing out of their cut. The gov't only cares about their money, and piracy takes tax dollars away from them, and that makes Uncle Sam (the real one) angry.

This, this is the reply I was looking and waiting for. Because its completely, 100% true!

For years, I've heard the same story that NorCal gave.. which is, its only illegal because you're stealing from the band. (ie. see Metallica's complaints) Its against the law, because (as Shockey said above) someone made it, so someone deserves payment for it.

And as NorCal said, the single on the radio is the addiction they give out, to make you want to go buy the whole c.d. thats priced at roughly $20.00 for 11 songs.

But noone gives the answer Shockey gave, about taxes. And thats because, noone wants to believe thats the truth.

 

[klunderbunker]

Shocky makes a great point. I buy maybe 2 cds a year for myself. This year, it's the Juno soundtrack and the new 3 Doors Down album. Other than that, if there's a band I like well enough to want their whole cd, I'll download and burn it. Also, with the rise of MP3 players, why buy a cd, when for free you can download whatever you want for free?

 

[Shadowmancer]

I don't get crap for music that is why I would be happy shelling out the 5% that they would get. Iron Man I actually don't have time to go and see at the movies, yet I know I will buy/be Given a copy of it on DVD.

 

[Shadowmancer]

the RCAA and its subsidaries has too much power.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Shocky...you thought Iron Man was good??? MY fellow Mist fan??

 

[Shocky]

Iron Man was excellent. Downey played the role perfectly. However, I went in with zero expectations for the movie so my standards were really low.

I thought it was better then any of the Spiderman movies that's for certain.

The Mist still owns.

 

[klunderbunker]

I saw Iron Man as I am a huge comic book fan and therefore had to see it. Iron Man is one of my all time least favorite characters, but the movie was a pleasent suprise. Downey is great, plain and simple. My problem was it, just like all other superhero movies, took an hour to explain the backstory. The scene after the credits made up for a lot though.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Iron Man was excellent. Downey played the role perfectly. However, I went in with zero expectations for the movie so my standards were really low.

I thought it was better then any of the Spiderman movies that's for certain.

The Mist still owns.

Iron Man was definately an excellent movie and I second the fact of Downey nailing the role perfectly. Hes a nature dick, so of course hes going to get it dead-on.

The Mist is a great movie to some, but a lot of people hated the ending. Like I said before, I completely called the ending which kinda let me down, but I loved it none the less.

The only marvel movie I've ever dispised with a passion was the 2 and a half hour bore-fest that was "The Hulk."

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Downey was excellent, I will say that. but ive seen episodes of the Origional Ninja Turtles that had more complex plots than that movie. I called the entire movie within the first 20 minutes. true story.

Ive only seen the third Spidey, and it sucked butt. Iron Man owns that movie.

and yes sir. The Mist > all

 

[klunderbunker]

Spidey 3 is by far and away the worst of the trilogy. One was best, then 2. When I saw Iron Man, I called out the villian when he pops up, it's beyond obvious. I agree Will, Hulk was awful.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I dont see how people could have hated that ending. typical morons with their lust for the prototypical "happy ending".....act like a ending had you saying "NO FUCKING WAY" like that one did. I called it too. NO way i thought it was actually GONNA HAPPEN tho. fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

 

[klunderbunker]

Are you talking about the end of the mist?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Spidey 3 is by far and away the worst of the trilogy. One was best, then 2. When I saw Iron Man, I called out the villian when he pops up, it's beyond obvious. I agree Will, Hulk was awful.

I was utterly disgusted how bad they botched Venom. seriously. WHAT THE FUCK dude.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Are you talking about the end of the mist?

yes. not since the first SAW has an ending kicked that much ass.

 

[klunderbunker]

Oh yeah. I saw a screenshot of him and instantly wanted to see the movie. I wound up watching it online earlier this week and was totally dissapointed with it. Venom looks ok, but he was in the movie for what, 30 minutes? It was too long, Gwen just wasn't attractive and they lowered her a second rate character, and who in the hell is sandman? I heard he was in it and pictured Spidey getting blasted in the head with a singapore cane with Metallica blaring in the background, which would've been really entertaining actually.

 

[klunderbunker]

yes. not since the first SAW has an ending kicked that much ass.

Oh amen to that. Twist endings are the greatest guilty pleasures there are. I heard the ending of Mist and freaked out. A twist like that is just perfect.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

yes. not since the first SAW has an ending kicked that much ass.

Thats the problem with sequels. You mentioned only seeing Spider-Man 3. You really should've watched the first one, then the second. SM3 was the worst of them all, because it felt rushed & greedy.

I loved the second out of the trilogy, but the first was by far the best because of the overall connection with how it was suppose to be.

X-Men is another example of crappy start.. (too much focus on Wolverine & Rogue, not enough focus on the entire team.) then a great sequel.. followed by a horrible finale.

The 3rd X-Men was fucked before jump street (so to speak) because the actor playing Nightcrawler wanted more money to come back, then Hallie Berry (whom I shall dispise forever because of) demanded more money to come back.. and the dick playing Cyclops wanted a larger role for his character. Hugh Jackman (??) was the only happy individual in the mix, as the entire trilogy was focused on Wolverine.