I'm not a lawyer, by any stretch. But I think that, technically, you can't actually get in trouble for downloading the movie. The "criminal", in this case, is the person or website illegally distributing the movie, in violation of the legal right of the copyright holder to control distribution of the content.

I'm not saying that you should do it, of course, as it might be considered (on a moral level) supporting an illegal industry. But I'm suggesting that it isn't strictly speaking a violation of copyright law, at least until you distribute the material to someone else. (Which might include, I suppose, allowing your friends or relatives to watch it...)

BTW: I hate the term "pirating" as, in its very use, the term presupposes that that illegal copying is the moral equivalent of stealing.

that all depends on whether the ISP/painter knew they were illegal/stolen.

Hmm making money.
Hmm here's a case that I knew one of the people involved. Despite what he told his friends, he was in it it for money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fastlink


DVD hackers are everywhere.
If you could guarantee that those who actually worked- not the directors,producers, or stars got the money then I'd call it bad behaviour.

Actually, Coder-Man, you are dead wrong on that one.

This has sometimes been called "the Garden of Eden principle." In the famous story, the only bit of wrongdoing that the equally-famous serpent actually did was to make readily available to the humans the line of reasoning that was probably already consuming their thoughts anyway. The snake simply told them "it's all right" with regard to what they, by that time, probably already wanted to do anyway.

But... who actually sinned in that Garden (so the story goes) ... and why?

Simple: because they took the fruit and ate it.

The essential "copy right" is drop-dead simple (from the point of view of the creator, anyway): "I made the damn thing, so I get to say what happens to it. I can give it away, if I want to. Or, I can sell it, if I want to. And if I choose to sell it, you are not entitled to steal it."

The utter and complete lack of that concept is why Mozart's body was literally dumped into a common pauper's grave.

If there were no copyright, and no respect for it, then you would not have any of the things that you covet: they would not exist. They could not exist.

Can someone remind me not to post in the general forum ?

Yes.
Hey, H_TeXMeX_H, don't forget not to post in in the general forum. OK?

Well, ummmm, actually illegal copying certainly CAN be stealing and often is......

It seems that what is really important here is the **INTENT** of the law---to wit: If I copyright something, it is to protect my interests. In this case, we're talking financial interests.

If you put my product in the hands of people such that I am denied revenue, then you are stealing. And anyone touching the process is equally guilty. If you make a backup for your own use, you are NOT stealing.

Now it gets tricky: The overzealous vendor includes language that says you cannot make personal backups. He might do this without really intending to (bureaucracy is a wonderful thing.....). Now, if you violate that part of the copyright, are you **stealing**? I say no.

If you loan the backup to a friend, then probably "yes". Again, the test is whether you are denying revenue to the author.


Laws are like power tools-----they are nice to have, but you don't want to use them every waking moment.
If the cops are watching, follow the law. Otherwise, follow the **INTENT** of the law. In other words, behave morally and ethically regardless of what someone wrote on paper.

Suppose someone downloads a ripped DVD. Suppose the downloader had no intention of buying it ever. Then neither the downloader nor the uploader are depriving the rights-holder of money.

violates the **INTENT** of the law---and probably the actual wording of the copyright.

If the author intended that you should pay for using something, then using it for free is illegal, immoral, and unethical. It does not matter if you never intended to buy it. The only truly moral thing to do if you find someone offering something for free when they are not supposed to? Turn them in.

Here's an interesting question on this subject..

SO, regardless of who you are, you should realize that stealing a bunch of 1s and 0s is the same as stealing anything else (It's the thought that counts!)

OTOH, if you obtain the 1s and 0s legally, you're ok..

SO, what of the middle men who sell the individual strings of 1s and 0s at a low cost?

Example

Metallica -

I choose metallica because metallica is whom I associate anti-piracy with.. Back in the days of napster, I remember getting warned by a buddy of mine, "Don't download metallica or you'll get banned."

then reading news stories about Lars causing all kinds of ruckus about the subject. Meanwhile I'm like 8 years old, I didn't know anything about laws and stuff.. I mean, I wasn't retarded, I knew what I was doing was wrong. Still, knowing I'd never get caught + I didn't like most of the crap I downloaded anyway (which is where the real utility in piracy came in.. It wasn't that I didn't want to buy stuff, it's that I was tired of buying crappy stuff (and this thinking led to the refusal to try any game that doesn't have a demo. I'd never try the demo, I'd try the game itself, but I knew in advance that if I couldn't google for a demo and find one, the game was garbage.)))


So, fast forward a good long while, and the RIAA and MPAA are old fogies now.. What's been done?

Well, piracy exists as much as ever (if not moreso now that the brand new windows user is fully capable of uploading and downloading releases)

and so do an unusual group of businesses...


http://mp3panda.com/album2174557/Met...eath-Magnetic/

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Magnetic.../dp/B00192KCQ0

So, in the two above links you have a metallica album "Death magnetic" for sale..

Mp3panda sells it for 71 cents, and amazon sells it for 11$.

How?

Except he didn't have permission to paint the car. He thought he had permission, but the owner did not consent to the paint job, the thief did. The thief is legally incapable of giving consent, so the painter is out of luck.

So the painter gets busted for not verifying ownership, which, depending on circumstances, may be criminal(willfully looking the other way and not verifying ownership is the same as knowing the car is stolen). At the least, the ISP would have to pull the files, and if the law says that the ISP must verify ownership, then the ISP must verify ownership.

By the way. I've seen people ask about owning the content in one form and downloading it in another. Sorry, that's pirating. Your license to enjoy the eight-track tape version of the album you bought does not extend to enjoying the music in any other version. You can make a copy of the eight-track on cassette for your personal use, but you cannot download the .mp3 version of the album.

I just dated myself horribly, didn't I?

That's an excellent point you make, which had not occurred to me.
lol, at the risk of dating myself (is that inbreeding? I hope not), I remember my fathers car had an 8-track player in it when I was very young; we had 8-tracks all over the place!!
In spite of everything, 8-tracks were pretty novel-- in some ways, better than their successor, the 'cassette tape'

I hoping I am not getting too OT here, but there is one thing that bugged me. The legitimate decoding of DVD/Bluray under a non Windows/OSX system. Seeing as the only way to watch a movie under a BSD/Linux system is to come up with a way to decode such media always irks the MPAA/studios. Still, the so-called DMCA doesn't really specifically say that you have to watch said movie in Windows or OSX only if on a computer. Yet at the same time, any works by an individual to provide a way to watch movies in these OSs results in tantrums, whining, bitching and moaning by the studios and MPAA.

I am sure that the MPAA would certainly like to say that such 'activities' is piracy. Still how can they claim that? All we are doing is watching a movie that WE have actually BOUGHT, so who are they to say it is piracy?

Just a thought.

Ripping the commercials out is ok if you are the only viewer of the recording.

The cassette tape actually preceded the 8-track tape. Eight-tracks had the capacity to provide superior sound, but they had the problem of too much wow and flutter. Cassettes, given their smaller size, didn't have that problem to the same extent. So cassette eventually won out: better portability and less wow and flutter disrupting the enjoyment of the music.

So your dad owned the car. That makes me about your dad's age.

Christ, I'm an old fart.