This is topic When is Pirating a Good Thing? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003319

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-01-2004, 07:10 PM:
 
Can pirating a movie ever be the right choice?

Here is an entirely hypothetical situation:

I work at a movie theater, and am therefore entitled to see movies for free. When I watch movies, no money goes to the people who made it. None. Ever. Let's say a hot new movie comes out at my theater, but I am out having an big and small intestine transplant for whatever reason. Obviously I won't be able to make it back to work for a week or two. Being that most movies don't stay in theaters that long, I want to see it now, for free. So I download it from the internet and watch it on my computer. I delete it after I am finished, and I don't share it with anyone else.
[av=k]
Someone please explain how this would be wrong.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-01-2004, 07:27 PM:
 
If you don't think it's wrong, then nothing any of us say will change your mind.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-01-2004, 07:29 PM:
 

quote:

---

"Perhaps on the rare occasion pursuing the right course demands an act of piracy, piracy itself can be the right course?"

---

 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-01-2004, 08:15 PM:
 
You really like that movie, don't you Mike?
Coure the quote was quite relevant.

My philosophy is its only wrong if you get caught .
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-01-2004, 08:40 PM:
 

quote: Dustin Mitchell

---

My philosophy is its only wrong if you get caught

---

Gosh Dustin...that's a pathetic attitude.

Pirating to me is never right! I, for one, earn a living from the film biz. Anyone pirating is stealing from me and the other professionals that depend on the stupidity of the general public to swallow all the crap we put out to earn us big bucks.

That being said, anyone got the website link for downloading Spiderman?

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-01-2004, 08:49 PM:
 
Phil,

I don't know about the original Spiderman, but you can download Spiderman 2 here.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-01-2004, 10:12 PM:
 
But you see Phil... that's my point. I would not have ever paid to see the movie anyway had I not had my torso transplant. So in my situation, pirating is OK and encouraged! Either that or employees seeing movies for free must be outlawed as hurting the filmmakers![av=f]
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2004, 10:25 PM:
 

quote: Phil Hill was the last to post

---

My philosophy is its only wrong if you get caught

---

There you go, folks! That's the root of the entire piracy problem. Not to mention shoplifting, dope dealing, tax evasion and just about any other crime you could name.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-01-2004, 10:34 PM:
 
Hey you FT programmers!

Mike's post is an excellent example of how your programming sucks!

I did NOT say what his post suggested I said in the quotes...nor did I imply I said what was in Quotes. I quoted Dustin!

Drop the "Last Person" thingy ya jerks!

Yours in Christ,

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-01-2004, 11:15 PM:
 
Well let's see, the default programming is to have read "Quote: Phil Hill". You are saying that is better than the modified "Phil Hill was the last person to post"??? You've been smokin' some of that I-30 stuff again, haven't you?
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 07-01-2004, 11:27 PM:
 
Pirating is very good if you're Johnny Depp and it pays for your modest abode in France.

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 07-01-2004, 11:30 PM:
 

quote:

---

But you see Phil... that's my point. I would not have ever paid to see the movie anyway had I not had my torso transplant. So in my situation, pirating is OK and encouraged! Either that or employees seeing movies for free must be outlawed as hurting the filmmakers!

---

I'll take a stab at this one. I figure what makes it wrong is you give a reason for there to be pirated movies available in the first place. Whoever did the pirating doesn't care what the excuse someone has for downloading it is. All they know is there is still a demand, somebody still needs their services, so they continue to pirate en mass. The key difference for regular employee screenings is that they do not contribute to piracy (assuming an employee doesn't bring a camcorder in ).

Another key point is that your guts are being removed for someone elses. Probably not a good idea to watch Fahrenfiction 9/11 on your new set of guts, not knowing if they can take the abuse.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-01-2004, 11:32 PM:
 
Master Brad: Well, you're sorta catching on to what I'm saying in your drug induced stupor.

BTW: I'm NOT into that lame, pussy-ass 420 stuff... I like the big C and horse!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-02-2004, 12:13 AM:
 
Taking a moment to be serious, not like anyone cares:

For the most part, at least from a retribution/punishment standpoint, I think the MPAA et al care about people who provide pirated movies, and care less about people who download them.

Kind of like how minors can legally buy cigaraettes, but it is illegal to sell them.

(Of course, the Jack and the MPAA very clearly understand that solving the piracy problems involves educating the consumers, and that's the people who download.)

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-02-2004, 12:13 AM:
 
Joe you're missing the point that Phil's business model takes into painstaking account that a certain percentage of people who ordinarily see movies for free will be unable to on account of having their plumbing replumbed and other reasons and some portion of these unfortunate souls will have to plunk down money in the future for the DVD, pay-per-view, etc. Don't f___ with the man's livelyhood. How do you think Phil pays for those private Chippendale shows?

But your basic premise is sound: If you would never have paid for it anyway then it doesn't matter if you download it. There is indeed a grain of validity. If you would never have paid $500 for some software then the maker is hardly right in claiming each unlicensed unit cost them that much in lost sales. Perhaps the reality is that it cost the company that makes a lesser but similar product a $100 sale.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-02-2004, 01:36 AM:
 
Going back off topic, there is no "default programming" for quotes. Brad must be smoking that I-30 stuff. So is Phil for thinking it is the program's fault. You have to type that crap in yourself. You have to type "quote=phil hill" There is no quote button on the actual posts that I have noticed. If there is, then it is very well hidden to me. [av=c]
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-02-2004, 01:47 AM:
 
Joe wrote:

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I work at a movie theater, and am therefore entitled to see movies for free.

---

quote:

---

Either that or employees seeing movies for free must be outlawed as hurting the filmmakers!

---

There was a kook manager at one of the drive-ins in my day, who obsessed over everyone on the lot having a ticket. Now, I can understand that for customers, but he was like this to employees, too. The company also had a policy of allowing a family member in with an employee, but not with this manager... he would make them all buy tickets! And heaven help the poor soul who dared try to sneak in by driving through the exit! What a sight it was to see this old guy running across the lot, waving a .38 revolver in the air, and shouting with his speech impediment, "I shoot yer dot-dam ass!"

One season, while my brother was projectionist there, there was a sound problem and he had to run on one projector (20-min. reels!). This nutty manager suggested that my brother call me to come out and fix it, so they wouldn't have to wait a day for their regular tech to travel from another state. So my brother called and, as a favor to him, I dropped by and got them running again.

As I was standing outside the booth, checking pix and sound before leaving, the manager approached and muttered, "Got ta hab uh tik-it!" The only thing I could think to do was laugh and say, "Are you kidding?! I just got you back on the screen! You should be paying ME."

What a scream.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-02-2004, 09:28 AM:
 
You know Joe's original post seemed so ridiculous that I figured the whole thread would follow suit. Apparantly not.

To be clear, 'Its only wrong if you get caught' is not my philosophy just like 'All problems can be solved with physical violence' is not the real philosophy of most people here.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-02-2004, 03:14 PM:
 
It's certainly not illegal, so if you don't think it's morally wrong, I'd say you're in the clear. It's illegal to capture and distribute, but acquisition and possession are not. There was an ABC Nightline special regarding this a year or two ago. If it's for personal use, and you're otherwise entitled to "free access" and viewing.... I dunno, gopher it!

Then again, would it be "OK" if, after you paid to see the movie on opening weekend, had to go take a dump in the middle of the movie, missing about 10 minutes. Could you go home, download it, watch the scene you missed, and then delete the file? Or say that didn't happen... and you just wanted to re-watch some portion thereof... Grey areas everywhere.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-02-2004, 03:30 PM:
 

quote: Richard Hamilton

---

I just bought a DVD of "Matrix" at a video store in China. Even though the box has original artwork, it has mispelled words. On the back of the box, it has the description of Matrix, and then the credits for "Moulin Rouge". Obviously because of the typos and mistakes on the package, the film studio would probably have to junk it any way, so I think I did them a favor by buying it for 48 cents.

---

Typical of the poor quality of most pirated goods. Likely that you will find major defects with the technical quality when you try to play it too.

Has anyone ever had problems getting through US customs if you bought "gray market" or pirated goods overseas? I suspect if a customs inspector found anything that was obviously a pirated copy, they would confiscate it.

I'm afraid many have lost their sense of right and wrong today. It's sad that some think doing the right or ethical thing makes one a "sucker".
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 07-02-2004, 08:01 PM:
 
Decided to delete my post.
Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-02-2004, 09:08 PM:
 
Ron, it was a good post... you should have left it!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 07-02-2004, 09:28 PM:
 

quote: John Pytlak

---

Has anyone ever had problems getting through US customs if you bought "gray market" or pirated goods overseas? I suspect if a customs inspector found anything that was obviously a pirated copy, they would confiscate it.

---

Myself and several other members of the unit I was with in Saudi Arabia in 1992-93 came back with 'gray market' (probably legal over there, surely illegal in the US) cassette tapes, some of us had hundreds of them- Customs didn't say a damn thing about them, though I genuinely thought they would.

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-03-2004, 12:13 AM:
 
OK, returning off topic about the "quote" thing. Phil, I pulled my quote from the original Post. Not from your quote of that post. I made it a "quote" simply by typing "quote" before and after with the appropriate brackets. (At least, that's what I meant to do...I was at work at the time and who knows, could have screwed something up.)

So that thing with your name was probably done by one of your fellow mods in an attempt to piss you off and make you quit the mod panel in disgust. I suggest some form of violent retribution.
 

---

Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 07-03-2004, 12:33 PM:
 
If you just use the standard (QUOTE) and (/QUOTE) (Replacing ( with [ and ) with ]), then the script will look through the thread to see if anyone has posted exactly what you typed, letter for letter. If it does, it'll make it "Quote: Phil Hill" if Phil was the one who posted it. If it's been posted 2 or more times, it will see who the last person to post it was, and will give "Quote: Phil Hill was the last to post" -- so yes, it's the "default programming" of it. It has to be an exact match, letter for letter, and that's how it was designed to work.

Yes, it's possible to change what the Quote: has after it by editing a post, but those two things (Automatically adding the name and adding 'was the last to post') are how it's been written. In the end, it can cause SOME confusion, but if it's quoting something that's been said 10 times in a thread, it's better than listing off each and every name, and it still shows that it's been in the thread.

As to the piracy issue, I think that it's a grey area that will have people defending both sides regardless of how convincing an argument either side gives. Joe would be allowed to see the movie for free at any point when he was not on duty and at the theatre, so if he had the desire to see it at any point when it was out he could do so without paying, so it's not lost revenue for anyone by downloading it, watching it, and deleting it. However, it's supporting the piracy of movies and encourages others to continue to do it, a practice which DOES take revenue from the filmmakers and everyone involved from start to finish (Including the theatres themselves). So what it comes down to is what each person's personal moral standpoint is on the issue, but neither side really has a "better" argument, just different ways of looking at it.
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 07-03-2004, 01:42 PM:
 
Back to the subject of "when is bootlegging a good thing" I have an example that I support.

For example, say there is a cult film with a large following, but the studio for some reason refuses to let it out on DVD; if someone were to make their own tranfers from a laserdisk to DVD on their home comp and distribute them to friends I'm all for it. These people would go to the store and buy the official release in a heartbeat if it ever became available, but are being forced to be involved in questionable activity because someone at the studio hates the film and doens't want the public to see it. Off the top of my head I can think of 2 titles this applies to... as well as some broadway shows.

danny
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-03-2004, 02:47 PM:
 
I've got the Star Wars Trilogy, unedited & unenhanced, on DVD directly ripped from the LazerDiscs! I can comfortably say that if George were to relese the unenhanced versions on DVD, I'd gladly buy them. But he won't, so it's a moot point.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-03-2004, 03:11 PM:
 
OK... back to Joe's original question, since he's actually looking for any lame reasoning for his thought process... here's one:

In the theatre, Joe is an "environmental functionary". The presentation of the movie requires his presence and involvement. The fact that he might be looking at a movie for personal entertainment purposes rather than professional monitoring is not considered, since it is the latter that is assumed. If fact, his personal interest in a specific title potentially enhances the chance that the film in question will be shown without error.

However, if Joe desires to view a new film during his gut replacement operation, he is no different than the average theatre patron. His presence in the operating room has nothing to do with the functions necessary to show a movie to anyone at that moment, which disqualifies him for free viewing... his creative rationale notwithstanding.

So there!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-03-2004, 05:44 PM:
 
BZZZZZZT! WRONG!

ANY employee can screen free movies. Let's change the argument to where I am a box office employee.[av=m]
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-03-2004, 06:32 PM:
 
Employees getting to see movies without being charged is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. You're not ENTITLED to free movies!

Complain about this example all you like, but I think it is the exact same principle: Having a driver's license is a privilege and not a right. One must show aptitude and skill, and demonstrate it before a state employee before one is issued a license. But if someone, perhaps a great driver, is hospitalized (in non-driving related activities, for instance) and cannot make his/her appointment to take the driver's test, there is a severe delay between setting up a subsequent appointment, passing, etc. That doesn't mean that the person is ENTITLED to drive in the meantime. It's a bummer, yes.

Just take the loss and move on. You'll grow from it.

If people are unable to enjoy a privilege for some reason or another, where do they then get the idea that they're all-of-a-sudden ENTITLED to something? Do you go to a store two weeks after a sale ends to DEMAND the sale price? If you are late for your plane at the airport because you missed the privilege of a traffic-free freeway, are you ENTITLED to the airport management doing something about it? HECK NO!

Now, as for breaking copyright laws or policies ... I've always been one to support fully understanding the spirit and principle of rules and policies, following them accordingly. If the principle itself and following the policy "to the letter" start to clash, then an issue can be made. But copyright law in general is something I respect and it bugs me when people not only break it, but don't even comprehend that there's anything wrong with it!

Now, Joe, to deal with your initial post. What is wrong with your example is that you pre-suppose the existence of a place on the internet where you can download a movie. Now, whereas these places do exist in reality, they are existing illegally. You may (and debating this is its own argument) have fully moral and justified reasons for downloading it, and then deleting it like a true law-abiding, ethically-secure individual. But say, hypothetically, there are people who are not like you. These people have the same access you have and get away with not buying tickets which they otherwise would have paid. Making these illegal copies available is the crime, regardless of the good-natured "oh, well I wasn't going to pay for it anyway, so I might as well just see it because I can" attitude of the public.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 07-04-2004, 11:20 PM:
 
"It's not the same thing! It's a different thing entirely! It's a whole nother thing! The Volkswagen Thing! The Thing From Another World!"

When you work at a theatre, seeing the shows there at that there theatre is a fringe benifit. You don't get a "Congratulations! You are now a member of the Film Community, & never have to pay to see a movie again!" card. If you're there when it runs, whoopee! Otherwise, you got to get in line like everybody else.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-05-2004, 02:46 AM:
 
Thank you Kyle for bringing some common sense to these jerks that think they know what's going on with the "quoting" thingie!

BTW: Your pic is really hot! LUV yur hair!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-05-2004, 01:30 PM:
 
I think there is just one good reason for pirating a movie, and that is in the case of a movie being banned for political, racial or similar reasons. In some countries, the government can put pressure on distributors to withdraw a film they don#t like.
So if there had been DVDs or video cassettes in 1958 when the French government prohibited Kubrick's PATHS OF GLORY and the Swiss government refused to let it into their country, there would be a morally valid reason to pirate it. In the futore, there may be more cases of studios locking up existing films because they do remakes. I remember from talks with filmmakers that US major studios wanted them to pay for shelving the original film forever, not even bringing it out on DVD/VHS.

That's censorship, and it must be fought.

Joe's story is heartbreaking, but it's about as good as the old story "Hey, half the seats of your theatre are empty, why don't you let me see the movie for free, I wouldn't buy a ticket anyway."
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 07-13-2004, 07:47 AM:
 
I am curious about how other people feel about this. I am in China for a couple of months, and my only source of "movie entertainment" is reruns on 1 channel of HBO. Should I feel guilty about buying current releases on DVD here and watching them in my room? When I get back to the states, most of these films will be finished at the theaters, and not out on DVD yet. I spend maybe 50 bucks a month at Blockbuster when I am home(mostly Disney flicks for the kids) and rarely spend any money at Theaters. I would not buy these titles in the states and the film companies would not make the money from me any way.

Rick
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-13-2004, 01:00 PM:
 
With such a long stay in China, can't you get copies through legitimate channels? Better yet, enjoy touring China and making friends, rather than staying in your room watching videos. When I was in China in 1987 for ISO/TC36 and teaching, there was lots to do, and the Chinese were gracious hosts, proud of their heritage and cultural sights.
 

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 07-13-2004, 10:28 PM:
 
John,
What kind of legitimate channels? Here, the DVD stores are on every other corner. I don't think they have originals here. I have made many friends here so far and on my days off, have been to museums, parks, flown kites, rented four wheelers, rode horses, and have eaten who knows what. When I get back to my room after work, evening consists of going out for dinner, then just wanting to sit back and relax. Unfortunately, I can only watch "Blade II" on HBO so many times, so thats where the DVDs come in.

Rick
 

---