Re: Wife scared to dive due to "Open Water" movie

Dennis (Icarus) wrote: 
"BarryNL" <no@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43043580$0$11076$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dennis (Icarus) wrote:

"Vince Brannigan" <news@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uLqdnVNGlrQWmpneRVn-1Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Dennis (Icarus) wrote:


"Vince Brannigan" <news@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hvudnZctxNgOpp7eRVn-1Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Joe English wrote:



BarryNL wrote:




Greg Mossman wrote:




"BarryNL" <no@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43018d19$0$11079$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





Probably the best movie file sharing protocol at the moment - 

should

get you a download of Open Water within 12 hours. 




Isn't that theft?

Why do they call it file sharing when it's really file stealing, or
file fencing at the least?




Isn't copyright law oppression? Isn't objectivity really just the
subjectivity of the powerful?

More to the point, if you download a movie that you'd never dream of
actually going to see or renting, should you waste time worrying


about

the moral implications? 


More to the point whether you never dreamed to see it or not makes no
difference.  Its stealing


No, it may be a copyright violation, but it is in no sense "stealing",
since it deprives no one of exclusive use of anything.



Sure it is. Its taking another persons intellectual propery, using it,
enjoying it (maybe) without compensation.

precisely how do you "take" an idea? put it in a box? use a meat hook? 


Tell ya what - peruse the patents at the patent office, then start
manufacturing one of the items.
Preferably one of the ones already enjoying commercial success.
I'm sure the patent holders lawyers will be happy to explain it to you


in

detail.
Might be an expensive lesson though.


You're mixing up what the law says with what is right and wrong.
Copyright law may clearly state what can legally be done with
intellectual property but those who can learn to think outside the herd
mentality of the masses will always see the law for what it is: a means
for the powerful to proect their interests, and will instead decide on
their own morality. So, don't try to argue the point based on what the
law says, 'cos I couldn't give a stuff.



So if you spent millions making a movie, and earned back $8.00 due to one
ticket sale, while folks rave about the movie having seen stolen copies
downloladed from the net, you'd be happy?
So if you spent millions making the next killer application, and only sell
one copy, while having a 90% market share, having seen stolen copies
downloladed from the net, you'd be happy?

I would if I was getting paid via some other means - for example the recordable media levies some countries use. And while we're on it, the "millions" spent on movies is mostly the salaries of the big names involved, and I really don't think we need to worry about defending the right of film stars to earn eight figure salaries for two months work.

Check. :-)

Remember that when someome decides that you gave too much property & decides
to take what you have for themselves, because they "think outside the herd
mentality and couldn't give a stuff".

Petty property law is certainly needed - life would be chaos without it, but for the bigger stuff (housing, land, intellectual property) then the state should distribute according to need.

--
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well
as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets,
and to steal bread. - Anatole France.
.