@tednor...we tried to download 'chocolate chip cookie' on torrentspy, but not there...boo hoo. Apologies for triple posting, but no edit button and seestor does not get at home.

Now if Hollywood was involved, you would simply take out the choc chips and substitute squares of chocolate ex-lax - that's MY analogy (hey I just noticed that "analogy" has "anal" in it... huh-huh cool..

Why if you don't like what Hollywood is producing do you even want it for free? Sounds like you're gluttons for punishment. It's not the only thing around, chck out indie films, it's a far better cause to support then stealing shit you don't even want in the first place.

What does your seestor "not get" at home? (not that I'd be able to help her with it, but I could always Google someone for , say, a "sensual" massage...)

Again, I did not say "I " want it (free or not free). I just think they have themselves to blame for the way they run their business, and suing a flipping SEARCH ENGINE just shows us how utterly INEPT they are to begin with.

Copyrights just don't include movies (indie or otherwise) they include music, computer games, computer software, books, ideas, and technology and what you can and can't do.

These are things that are somewhat more important than movies but underlie the same principle.

Besides, why should you be able to limit me to indie films? If Hollywood is bastardizing movies and I don't like it, then I'm gonna do something about it. It's people like you that let Uwe Boll make films. If you don't like it, don't see it. But he's still gonna make films and he's still gonna be destroying the art.

It's not for me to decide whether Uwe Boll can or cannot make movies, that's his freedom. There are no people who let him make movies, he finances them himself.

And movies are protected by law for reproduction, distribution, etc... it says at the end of every film credit in large print.

No one is limiting you to indie movies, you're the one who said hollywood movies suck, i just question why you keep watching them if you don't like them... honestly, if i hate hollywood movies i wouldnt want em free or otherwise. Looks to me you're just being lazy.

Whether bad directors make movies isn't the debate, you're getting way offtopic. The point is you think like the lawyers that since the copywritten material has changed form it's somehow not illegal to distribute anymore... that's not the case. distribution is distribution no matter what the form.

Are you talking to me? If so you should try actually reading what i wrote (assuming you can read that is...). If not, sorry and have a delightful evening, okay?

Ugh...I'm getting tired of this...This has to be the only thread where I've been flaming....

"It's not for me to decide whether Uwe Boll can or cannot make movies, that's his freedom. There are no people who let him make movies, he finances them himself."
-No, you don't decide whether he makes his movies, but like I've said a million times before, if you wanted to (as many people already have) you can stand up and tell him not to. You can't force him, but you can stop him.

"No one is limiting you to indie movies, you're the one who said hollywood movies suck, i just question why you keep watching them if you don't like them... honestly, if i hate hollywood movies i wouldnt want em free or otherwise. Looks to me you're just being lazy."

-My point isn't that I don't want to see bad hollywood movies for free or otherwise. My point is that I want hollywood to make good movies because they are the most common venue. It's consumerism again. Because we pay money, they owe it to us to make a good product. While 'good' is subjective, ask most critics and they'll tell you the industry is in the toilet. If you don't believe them, then look at the numbers anyway.

And btw, who's the lazy one here? You that advocates doing nothing, or people like me who debate the other side of the topic and organizations like the EFF who try to make a difference?

"Whether bad directors make movies isn't the debate, you're getting way offtopic."
-Fine, I just don't like Uwe Boll. But lets talk about you. This whole thread talks about the legality of what they're doing, and you refuse to even entertian the idea of filesharing of movies being legal. You're not even on topic to begin with.

"The point is you think like the lawyers that since the copywritten material has changed form it's somehow not illegal to distribute anymore... that's not the case. distribution is distribution no matter what the form."
-Well good. I do like to think like a lawyer. The only thing that doesn't sicken me about the lawyers in this case is that they're straight up saying the only reason they're doing it is for profit. I want to believe that movies and music are for the sake of the people, not profit. (idealisitc? yeah..)
-If changing forms and all distribution being equal then why does a person have to pay $20 for a UMD, $15 for a dvd, $50 for a HDDVD, and another $50 for a BluRay if they're all the same movie? Why do I have to pay for a CD and then buy the mp3 on iTunes? BECAUSE DISTRIBUTION ISN'T THE SAME. You pay for different formats. Regardless of P2P being legal or not, your arguement doesn't hold water.

Companies online sell access to their digital software for convenience to the enduser. Becuase of the format does not make legal or not theft to go download for free elsewhere. Im sorry you cant grasp that.

Movies in many different formats have scaling price ranges based on the quality of the product. It's the same movie but like when you buy anything there is a wide range of qualities and prices.

It's a fairly clear case. Digital media is not free simply because it's in digital format... look at stardock.com they allow digital downloads but that doesnt make it not theft to go find the software elsewhere for free. Whether you think it's bad software or not, that doesn't make it okay to steal from people.

We all download stuff we aren't really meant to but at least be real about what it really is. You're getting for free what in the store or official site you would have to pay to acquire.

It's vigillantism that makes the claim it's okay to break the law I don't like. But this is not a civil war, your life isn't at stake, only your ability to get for free that which isn't intended to be by the developers.

I'm tired and I've posted way too much on this thread:

"Companies online sell access to their digital software for convenience to the enduser. Becuase of the format does not make legal or not theft to go download for free elsewhere. Im sorry you cant grasp that."
-I do grasp that. It would be one thing for me to go and steal a dvd from the store and distribute it online. But say I've bought the product. I own the product and lets just say 'fair use' comes into play. I can do what I want with it. Copy it, back it up, etc. If I choose to excercise my right to post it online, then that's my business as well.

"Movies in many different formats have scaling price ranges based on the quality of the product. It's the same movie but like when you buy anything there is a wide range of qualities and prices."
-Yes. So don't go saying that distribution is distribution is distribution. There are many differences, esp. when you go online.

"Whether you think it's bad software or not, that doesn't make it okay to steal from people.
-I never said it did make it ok. Bad software or not, you paid for it. You should be able to do what you can with it within the rights of the user. Legality of p2p or filesharing is the question.

"We all download stuff we aren't really meant to but at least be real about what it really is. You're getting for free what in the store or official site you would have to pay to acquire."
-Can you really be 100% sure about that for every case? Everyone who downloads does it to get something for free? What if I own the CD program and its copy protected, yet I want to back it via circumvent a filesharing program where someone has done it for me? You can't just make sweeping generalizations about specfic instances. Don't try to assume the motives of the millions of p2p users out there.

"But this is not a civil war, your life isn't at stake, only your ability to get for free that which isn't intended to be by the developers."
-Your rights to the internet, to do and say what you want, how you want, to look at what you want and download what you want within the scope of common sense just doesn't disappear overnight. It gets chipped away bit by bit. Bit by bit until you just realize you don't have it at all. Then what do you do? It may seem petty to fight for something like digital copyright laws, but would you fight for rights any differently in the real world? One year you can vote, the next year you can only vote for a certain party, the next year you can only vote if you make a certain income, the year after that only if you're a certain race, and the year after that you don't vote at all.
-If you don't want your rights, fine. But don't get in the way of people who do fight for them.

"If I choose to excercise my right to post it online, then that's my business as well. "

Wrong. You're basically mass producing theft. If you buy it it's yours for personal use. Yes you can show it to friends in your home, but posting it online is allowing others to receive it (distribution) without doing what you did intially, going to the store and purchasing it, hence - theft.

"What if I own the CD program and its copy protected, yet I want to back it via circumvent a filesharing program where someone has done it for me?"

Because for every 1 person with a legitimate claim to want a backup for personal protection you have 100 leeching it as theft. The solution isn't bitorrent but manufacturers having good RMA policies.

"If you don't want your rights, fine. But don't get in the way of people who do fight for them."

We give up certain rights because we choose to live in a democracy and live certain laws with a certain amount of civility.

Ughh...

"We give up certain rights because we choose to live in a democracy and live certain laws with a certain amount of civility."
-Wrong. Dead wrong. Freaking dead wrong. Because you live in a democracy you are FREE to excercise ALL of your rights. Rights are never given up. Not voting, not right to property, not right to life, not right to bear arms. You're born with them. Remember gov 101? Bill of rights? You give up freedom to do whatever you want with the laws and civility in society. But never the rights. You don't have a right to drive, you don't have a right to the internet either. But rights and ammenedments and law can be intrepreted. The founding fathers never knew about an internet, abortion (in our terms today), automobiles etc. We have judical courts for that. It's all a matter of how its intrepreted by a jury. We choose our laws by consensus. If we don't like them we can rebel against them. It's not always peaceful or pretty but it gets noticed in the real world and it get brought up to debate in courts. We judge cases by precedent not future intent. That is of course, unless the majority of the people have such a skewed view on how to interpret the Constitution like you do.

And so we started with a legal case, gone through many terms and ideas, and brought it back to a legal case that needs to be decided.

saying i bought it i can do what i want with
put it online though steps over that line because it allows others to not buy it
which means they dont have that right
which makes the buyer an accesory to theft

Good try though.

saying i bought it i can do what i want with
put it online though steps over that line because it allows others to not buy it
which means they dont have that right
which makes the buyer an accesory to theft

-ugh...
So by making something available online and allowing people to choose to not buy an object you've taken away their right to make a choice about it in the first place? That's what it means to not have a right isn't it? Good circular logic there. And so the buyer is an accesory to theft?

Do Afterdawn.com a favor and become a lawyer.

You say well, what if due to copy protection i cant make a copy of a dvd and i want a backup for personal use
Well your still techincally breaking the law

So they think its a bad law
And choose to not follow it

Lets look at this from your perspective
As digital civl war rebels :D
Sounds cool but is it at all accurate?

Well, in real life you pay for what you want. On the internet you get it for free, taking money from designers, developers, makers, authors, programmers, so yes, nice name, but still wrong. Youre not a rebel, you're a thief.

It doesn't matter who the money goes to. if you don't like where the money is going for product A, you don't buy it. By downloading it anyway you still encourage the development of those products by that company by proxy, word of mouth, etc.

This isn't a question of rights. You have every right to go get a job and buy CD X. If you want a backup of CD X and cannot make one due to CD protection, that doesn't make it any less illegal to circumvent the restrictions in place. Wrong or right they may be.

If you disagree that's fine but you still do the time because it's the law.

Personally I show my appreciation for a good product by paying for it, and stay away from those which I do not like.

The one thing I think bitorrent is great for though is accessing obscure things you would never be exposed to otherwise.

I think hyperdistribution should be legal, but free? I love free just like anyone else but I am honest and admit it is stealing money out of the pocket of those who work hard to make a product I can enjoy.

Ugh, I'm tired, and for the next few days I'm not gonna have internet access.

I've enjoyed debating this topic with you. It's clear that we both have very different views on how internet rights and p2p technology (media in general) are being distributed. You've made some good common sense points, but I have to disagree with your modes and methods that you follow through, and I bet you're the same with my views. I still stand by my opinion that filesharing, without a clear precedent (the 5 or 6 handfulls of definitive cases we have are still hotly debated and no real true consensus among the majority is present) is subject to intrepretation. You can't just treat it the same as regular media because its not. It's different. By overlooking the few vital reasoning and logic about the nature of the subject you do a gross injustice to the people whom that techology is supposed to serve.

It's been a fun few days.

My bad, I forgot to mention the ways on which we differ about showing support to a company and what's acceptable (but not legal, if there's one thing we disagree on its that) or what's not acceptable.

I guess I'm just a rebel and you have faith in the law.
It's an admirable trait, but in my opinion, easily misguided.

Kudos Kupotek, I salute you.
(I'll get back to this thread in a few days)

Mysister and I have found your thoughts to be very interesting, shining lilght on areas of this debate that are definitely in need of being questioned and most of all changed.

I watched a prfesentation concerning hyperdistribution recently, it's floating around the web, that was very interesting.

The truth is media has escaped the box and you cannot shove it back in no matter how hard you try, which means advertisers, manufacturers, need to jump on the bandwagon and start working the internet market angle because the internet is here to stay.

Definitely enjoyed this discussion, and it is refreshing to be able to debate something so heated in a respectful manner.

There's some good ideas for necessary change, especially in the law and media approach to the medium and market.

I love discussing this topic. If I were willing to pay for something.. Id pay for it.. I wanted Half Life 2 .. I ordered it from newegg and enjoyed giving my 50 bucks to people that worked hard on it and would otherwise recieve no reason to make half life 3.

HOWEVER. If my friend tells me Jungle Crash sims 6 is a great game I may not be willing to fork out the cash to a store that doesnt do software returns, Just to find out it sucks... DOWNLOAD.

and TV Shows .. what are they thinking. If you aired it on television (Broadcast, cable, satilite) you pretty much have given up all right to claim it as yours. because I can tape it Tivo it DVR it to my pc etc. So by downloading it im basically just recording it to my pc a day late. to quote ATHF

"What was yours is now his, By way of our Actions." -Mooninites

I understand your logic, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the law. This doesn't make it right, but it also means you can be prosecuted no squirming is going to make that not the case. You make your bed you lay in it as the saying goes.

This lawsuit is a joke because TS think they deserve a dismissal, and try to squirm out of it by calling it alleged wrongdoing.

Everyone knows what they're doing is against the law, so take your lumps like a man.

You do the crime you do the time.

We live in a democracy which means we agree to live by certain laws. If you don't like those laws, simply not living by them is fine, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

PS... in the real world pricetags don't say... $20 or if you aren't sure you don't like it, you can steal it.

That's why music places let you listen before you buy, etc.

More and more dept stores and other stores have try before buy options.

For games there's usually trial downloads, shareware etc.

This forum needs an edit option.

The thing is kids on line are just greedy. They want to try the game, but they don't want to download the trial version, they want the full version. It's a give me give me mentality... and sorry but society doesn't reward entitlement spoiled people.

i buy computer games for the ps2
why as i feel like a get a good product that does what i want plays the game and no shitting about so i dont mind paying for it to have what i want when i want
but i dont buy pc games even tho i have a top of the range laptop
why as i dont get what i want i get extra programs install DRM etc i dont want this crap
if the MPAA could only understand consumers know what they want and what they dont psp offers products without all the DRM crap and i will chose it quciker than a service with DRM its not only a issue of money but i'm the customer i buy only products i want not what the MPAA tell me i want

I hear you, i mean more people would buy CDs if the price wasn't so godly through the roof. Also, the internet is an amazing way to find music you would never ever have ever heard of in a store, and that's fantastic!

Tower records and other places now even, are letting people choose songs to create their own compilations, I guess itunes does this too now? And that's a step in the right direction, but people want things free and who can blame them? Life is expensive, cutting a few corners doesn't seem to be hurting anyone right?

DRM, CD protection, etc.. all these security measures are there to protect the shareholders, the financiers, the money bags, but it's pushing the consumers further and further away through non convenience.

I think one thing we can all agree on is something has to change. Media has escaped the box and it isn't goin g back.