Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my opinion its a matter of ethics, and why should I have some elevated ethics when the studios and other corporations have none? They actually whine about how its hurting the studios financially. Ya because one of the idiot actors needs another gold plated fountain in their court yard on their 15th home. Personally I don't watch the modern stuff I also don't listen to the crap music or so called music they put out today. But why on earth would anyone pay when you can get for free any album you want and put it on CD or MP3 player? The people who are the richest and most powerful are the most unethical. And they themselves spin this crap about the poorest working hard and being very ethical and one day they can be rich too.
I know a lot of people who think being morally un-reproachable is good. But its more of a blurred line to me. Is a law to be obeyed that is bad? Was Robbin Hood or the idea of what he did evil because it was against the law? So for all the idiot absolutist who say you must follow the law then you would have turned in your Jewish neighbors in Nazi Germany because it was the law? I think there are degrees of morality. If you took something from Walmart its not the same as taking something from the poor old lady down the street. I don't agree with the SC on People V United that corporations are people. They are not.
Of course, you realize that since digital copies are indistinguishable from the original, that "the powers that be" changed the law so no one "sold" software - only a "license" to use it. You no longer can "own" programs.
They're doing the same thing with music and entertainment, erasing the old fashioned notion that your copy was YOURS to do with as you please - including 'lending' it to others. All you get is a "license" that has limitations.
That movie is someone's property. When you buy the dvd, you bought the rights to watch said dvd. When you buy a movie ticket, you buy that instance of watching the movie. When you buy a cable subscription, you buy the rights to watch the networks lineup.
So yes, you're committing theft regardless of how much you try to justify it or using foolish things like attempting to link to Nazi's.
I have had the good fortune in the last couple of years of working with some really talented indie filmmakers here. I have acted in four movies and a music video to date, and we will be shooting another one this coming summer.
The first one made the rounds of the festivals and got good reviews all around from the audiences and the various websites that review indie flicks. We finished shooting that one in December, 2016, and it was finally released on September 18th of this year.
The decision was made to release it on BluRay and make it available on Vimeo for those in other countries whose physical media players were incompatible with an American format. One week after realease, on September 27, the director got an email from a friend of his that the movie had been pirated and was availble on one of the torrent sites. He started looking, and it had been stolen at least fifteen times and was available for free to anyone crooked enough to want to steal it.
That movie, an the ones that followed, were an emormous investment by the directors, producers, actors, and support people. Makeup artists, effects people, costumes, all sorts of things you never consider about the business, have to be addressed brfore a film is finished. Because (at least in part) of the piracy, the investors have not been able to recoup costs, much less turn a profit. Should this occur repeatedly, there will come a point that it is no longer worth it from a financial standpoint to make new and unique videos. Everyone suffers then, including the end users and those who support the artists who make the product.
If you see no distinction between pirating music and videos and stealing an automobile and justifying it because the keys were left in it, I can't help you. No one can create someone else's personal code of morals and ethics. As for me, I have a few choice words for you, all of which would be censored here.
I dont think this is theft or stealing. I watch alot of movies on 'Gomovies.com' and '123movies', they have just about every movie ever made, they are much better than Netflix, as its totally free, and a much larger selection. They even have new release movies on their site THE SAME DAY THEY ARE RELEASED IN THEATERS!!!
This has saved my $1000s over a couple years!
The reason I do not consider it stealing... the catch is before the movies will play, you have to sit thru a short commercial, usually for videogames or cars, Example, I watched the new Halloween movie the first day it was released, but I had to sit thru a 3 minute Toyota ad...this is worth it imo, its only one single ad and then you can watch the entire movie.
In the end, they are making money off the advertising, so no one is really having anything stolen from them.
Disclaimer: I frequent pirated scanlation sites and fan translations of Japanese light novel sites (I am aware of the unethical, immoral, and illegal practices these are), so anytime I rant about the public domain is essentially a moot point.
If the orig. version of that movie and its source material are now public domain (for both works, all state/federal copyright and all common law/federal trademarks have now lapsed) in a person's country, then there is nothing immoral or unethical about uploading. Properly crediting the source creators is important.
If the rights holders of the film give the nod to upload the movie with certain conditions (like the party uploading it cannot make a profit off of the stream), then it is fair game.
Long rant of mine on a FB page of mine:
Quote:
To those that read this, I get that piracy/counterfeits are an an issue in that many industries. However, a somewhat reverse form of piracy is an equally important and overlooked issue by those that are for adhering to copyright laws. This is a re-copyrighting a work that legally expired in the USA then is removed from the Amer. public domain. Here is a specific case.
John T. Aquino is an author and attorney representing Maryland and D.C. He has 3/30/2012 blog entry called "Legal Problem Solving: It's a Wonderful Life"* and it describes about how It’s a Wonderful Life got a copyright restoration. The Abend ruling was the key for that to happen. A 5/8/2008 blog entry called "Infringement by Copying Public Domain Works" (on a no longer-updated Blogspot page called The Patry Copyright Blog) was written an IP attorney named William Patry**. That blog post talks about how Paramount Pictures used the Abend ruling on The Andy Griffith Show episodes 80-95.
Federal courts have ruled that pre-1972 sound recordings fully become public domain from federal and state/common law copyright protections) on 2/15/2067. So, even though an American film may be public domain because of lack of renewal, the soundtrack is still copyrighted. So, even if the classic 1946 Christmas film failed to renew its copyright or lapses its current 95-year protection, it still has a layer of copyright protection via soundtrack until that date. Thus, it can have over 120 years of federal and common-law copyright protections with the music. What's also hectic is figuring when the 2nd copyright expires (for the movie itself, not necessarily the music).
It doesn't help that Viacom has a label/division called Melange Pictures that has some USPTO-registered trademark on the classic film title. So, even if the copyright was not restored, one couldn't do really do a much with it (play or movie re-make wise).
If I was an IP attorney, I would go on record saying "These said works are public domain and staying there. Also, even if the early entries of a book or TV series are still copyrighted, the later entries that didn't have their copyrights renewed cannot be restored, except under a ‘Director's Cut’-type situation. As such, It’s a Wonderful Life, outside of derivative versions, should not be restored, as it legally expired. The Abend decision and similar rulings should apply only to derivative works that are currently copyrighted. If filming a Transformers movie in a theater with your iPhone is copyright theft, then a copyright restoration of It’s a Wonderful Life is public domain theft. Also, I question how SCOTUS could ever justify this being allowed should this info be presented to them".
The problem with changing American laws is when they become ex post facto laws. Latin for "out of the aftermath", these are laws that apply retroactively. U.S. Constitution Section 9, Article I, Clause 3 and Section 10, Article I, Clause 1 respectively forbids Congress and a State from passing ex post facto laws. Assistant Prof. of Law Evan C. Zoldan at the University of Toledo College of Law wrote a nearly 60-page research paper called "The Civil Ex Post Facto Clause" on 7/23/14 but revised it nearly 16 months later. On its Social Science Research Network page, the Abstract says the following (italics are mine):
"Since its first interpretation of the Ex Post Facto Clause in Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court consistently has held that the clause applies only to retroactive criminal, but not civil, laws. The consequences of this distinction are far-ranging, permitting, for example, states to keep offenders behind bars after they have served their sentences. The Court’s distinction between civil and criminal retroactivity is based wholly on Calder’s historical conclusion that the original meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause included criminal laws only. This article demonstrates that Calder’s historical analysis is wrong."
Also, all these rants are a moot point by me admitting to read fan translations because of points like the series won’t ever get an official release here (digital or print) or I prefer to read chapters vs. buying a whole vol. to read it. Factoring the time, money, and clearance of rights, a Crunchyroll-type site for manga that has hundred of manga series to read, including those that are weekly or monthly chapters, vs. pay-to-read vol. approach, I would be using that a lot more. I promise.
Now that my rants are out of the way, this is a question to the American copyright experts or attorneys here. I am asking for your personal opinion and not what any federal courts have ruled on such matters: how is it legal that a work that legally expired its copyright here get re-copyrighted? I thought the idea and rule was that what goes in the American public domain stays there.
One thing I’ve noticed in my life is people who do dishonest things seems to spend a lot of time justifying it.
I can't really add anything to the above except to say that the OP sounds like every person I ever caught stealing one of my photographs and trying to defend it
kodi/firestick/addons. bam, been watching free shows/movies/hbo whatever for like 7 years. its legal due to streaming, and using a vpn if you are worried
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
