It's no different than going to a library and photocopying a book for personal use.
Am I wrong?
Why do you feel that the people who create the music or the books shouldn't be paid for their work?
I'm not saying that. I'm saying if it's okay to photocopy books from libraries, shouldn't it also be okay to download a movie for yourself?
shareYeah, I don't think it's okay to photocopy a book. Libraries aren't really great for authors either.
shareAnother thing I don't understand is royalties. If filmmakers and actors get royalties for movies they did many years ago, shouldn't architects and construction workers get royalties everytime a building they made is sold? Why is it okay for the art of the film industry but not the art of constructing a building? Am I stupid or am I on to something here?
shareI think that the financial disparity isn't quite as big with architects as there is with artists, but I do think that you raise a good point.
shareRoyalties are in the contract, if construction workers wanted royalties to be included in their work then they just need to setup the contract for the house to include them. Heck, when buying a new house with an HOA attached, you have to agree to join the HOA or you can't buy the house. This is basic contract law, and it isn't confusing at all.
shareI remember in Moby Dick each crew member received a “lay” which was a share of the catch. But that is all they were paid and it was a gamble since they might not end up with anything.
shareIf one were downloading movies, making copies and selling them for a profit, that would definitely be illegal. But downloading a film for personal use? This is such a gray area.
It's no different than watching a movie at a friend's house. The friend purchased the DVD and you are watching it. Does this make you guilty of piracy?
I agree. There are so many different examples of personal use that can be used to justify downloading without paying.
shareThere is nothing grey about stealing, it is illegal, no one other than criminals claim otherwise. Stealing with the intent to redistribute just provides a more lucrative option for a lawsuit because it pays out more than the 20 or so dollars you lost because of one lost sale. You personally sharing doesn't pay out enough either since your income is still much too small to afford a big payout.
The lawyers to sue someone costs more than what they'd get back. Hence why they go after universities, so the universities go after the students and then the students stop or get kicked out of uni. Get the ISPs to feel pressure, get YouTube to feel pressure... big money = big payout.
I love buying DVD's and Blu rays you can Buy them for the price it cost to rent them back in the day or a few dollars more and you own it but sometimes downloading should be allowed if you can't buy it a couple hundred for a season of Moonlighting I'm waiting for the Blu Rays Sony
shareTLDR (the thread so far)
I skipped all that bullshit about photocopiers. apples and oranages.
If it was legal to download music and movies , nobody would pay for music and movies , so nobody would make music and movies.
How would your brave new world address that issue?
You should read the part about the photocopiers because that's the entire point of why I say it should be legal.
shareYour copier analogy is bullshit.
Its from the pre digital age when it couldnt be done on a large scale.
Usually people would just copy a page they need , like how to mix cement.
Nobody was copying every page of a Arthur C Clarke novel to avoid buying it.
..and it wasnt legal then , it was just overlooked due to small scaleness
so like i said - if it was legal there would literally be no movies.
how do you address that?
Also why should someone who has made a movie not get paid for that?
These are the very fundamentals of "copyright" and "intellectual property" and should go without saying..
I provided a link somewhere else on this thread where a Canadian judge ruled against a Canadian record company for trying to sue a group of people for downloading their music. The judge used the photocopier analogy in his verdict.
shareWhen was this? in the early days of napster when the phenomenon first started and no one understood it , let alone judges?
also stop deflecting all the questions , not just by me, but by a lot of other posters saying
"why should people not be paid for their work?
"why should people not be paid for their work?
I'm starting to think that it is legal with a "Wink"
The fact that there are so many websites that show movies still in the theater at theatre quality is ridiculous.
To be clear, I don't think it should be legal, I just think if libraries do similar things, I don't see how downloading is much different.
share