File Sharing or Stealing

DaveW-Ohev said:

Ah - but those "dark corners" can be deal breakers.

Click to expand...

So can the plot of a movie.

Though luck.

None of this is a valid argument to use a product you are supposed to pay for, without paying for it.

DogmaHunter said:

Did he use any modules he was supposed to pay for, without paying for them?

Click to expand...

I am not sure those modules even existed back then. This was in the days of the 80386 processors. Back then everyone wrote their own library of functional subroutines. His was rather extensive.

So the answer would be "NO."

DaveW-Ohev said:

I am not sure those modules even existed back then. This was in the days of the 80386 processors. Back then everyone wrote their own library of functional subroutines. His was rather extensive.

So the answer would be "NO."

Click to expand...

If he didn't use any parts of those databases that he can't use for free according to the software licences, then he didn't do anything wrong. Otherwise, I'ld say that he "stole" code (by lack of a better word). It's not hard.

If he writes his own database engine from scratch, with features inspired by other existing databases, without copying any code, then that is his business. I can't stop anyone from writing their own code, nore would I want to.

Copying code and writing your own code are 2 very different things.

Now, if he just took the code of those 5 databases and slapped them together, even if he wrote some of his own code to stitch those modules together, then I'ld say that he should buy a license for all 5 databases.

Crowns&Laurels said:

I'm going to take this magical wand and replicate your car, and then I'm going to drive away in that car.
What did I steal?

Click to expand...

Designing and engineering a car is a HUGE effort by highly trained people. You've used all their work and given them zero in return.

I will say piracy when it comes to games has risen alot since companies stopped offering demos or trials. Best we get is "beta testing" at this point. And even then not everyone gets to play the beta. For me way back then when I game came out and I wasn't sure it would work on my PC, I'd buy it and if it didn't work I'd return it to the store. For gaming consoles I just rented stuff first. But as time went on they didn't allow you to return games on CD/DVD because people would copy the disc then return it. So it left me with demos. But soon those died off too. So I resorted to trying a game for about 30 minutes by downloading the whole game. If it worked (and I liked it) I deleted it and bought the game. If I didn't like it/it didn't work then I removed it.

But temptation took place and sometimes I wouldn't delete the game either way. So I stopped doing that not to long after because I knew it was wrong. Today though most people who download games don't do it for the reasons I did. They just do it because they can. They want it for free.

Crowns&Laurels said:

It will be a cold day in Hell before I ever consider someone a thief for staring at a screen of actors who have a hundred million in the bank.

Click to expand...

Whether the theater you've snuck into is screening a blockbuster starring A-listers who have a hundred million in the bank or a small independent film that the producers had to mortgage their houses to fund, the most substantial impact of your theft will not be on those involved in what you are watching. As I already explained to you, it is the theater itself that is the most impacted. It's the minimum wage workers whose tasks include scraping gum off seats, taking out the trash, and putting urinal cakes in the mens restroom that have their hours cut or lose their jobs when the theater isn't bringing in enough revenue due to low ticket sales.

Insane amounts of money are all through that entire industry, to a point where it's actually hurting the distribution in this country.

Click to expand...

This is patently false and absurd. Are you just making all this up based on assumption? You certainly aren't pulling it from the trade papers like Hollywood Reporter and Variety, or on the newspapers who routinely write about the industry. I've grown up in Los Angeles and know many people directly impacted by the financial challenges the industry has faced over the years. You obtusely cling to the idea that it's the producers and the stars who are the normative and the ones most affected, when in actuality they are the blessed minority, as I've already explained to you. The majority of people who work in the industry have far more modest salaries, and many have been sorely impacted by the economical strains. Longterm employees with families and roots in Los Angeles have seen the jobs be moved out of state and even out of country where it is less expensive to film. There have been hiring freezes that have lasted for ages at major studios.

Loss of revenue at the theaters due to theft of services directly impacts the box office. And pirating specifically has had a detrimental impact on distribution, not just in the United States but around the world. It's also affected how movies are developed. If the industry had such a flow of cash and was negligibly affected by piracy why do you think it put in a substantial amount of energy and resources trying to support SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) a few years ago? You don't care enough to find out the facts because the interfere with your desires you feel entitled to fulfill.

So don't be surprised if people like me have emerged and called out that sheep mentality the media demands.

Click to expand...

It's not the slightest bit of a surprise that there are people with attitudes of belligerent entitlement who will justify their actions on emotions rather than facts and the law and will feel like they're original or subversive for doing so. Your bleating is not unique. The media industry has not demanded that you pay to watch a movie in a theater, or pay for the DVD or to rent it digitally. They are not like the IRS. Nor are they producing something imperative for life such as medicine. They create entertainment. They create wants of life, not needs. If you cannot pay to obtain this entertainment legally and ethically, then you can survive without it. Jesus managed just fine without ever having watched a movie.

AirPo said:

File sharing is making a copy, lending a book is not.

Click to expand...

Doesn't that have the same effect, though? Both result in sale loss.

Crowns&Laurels said:

I'm going to take this magical wand and replicate your car, and then I'm going to drive away in that car.
What did I steal?

My advice is, instead of going after such people, how about securing a more economical basis? Anyone who gets less than their fair amount of money for their work isn't doing something right.
A person getting more than their fair share is just being greedy, going after the little people.

Click to expand...

You just described a 3D printer.

Imagine the fallout of what is 'stealing' and not once 3D printers can print out complex devices like iPods, cars and everything else, and be 100% usable out of the gate.

Stanfordella said:

Whether the theater you've snuck into is screening a blockbuster starring A-listers who have a hundred million in the bank or a small independent film that the producers had to mortgage their houses to fund, the most substantial impact of your theft will not be on those involved in what you are watching. As I already explained to you, it is the theater itself that is the most impacted. It's the minimum wage workers whose tasks include scraping gum off seats, taking out the trash, and putting urinal cakes in the mens restroom that have their hours cut or lose their jobs when the theater isn't bringing in enough revenue due to low ticket sales.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's 100% wrong.

The movie theatres make next to nothing on ticket sales on any given movie. The only way for them to make 'something' from ticket sales is to keep the movie in the theatre longer.

So that strikes out the argument that sneaking into theatres means losing money for the theatre from no ticket sale. If anybody losses a sale from a person sneaking in, it's the movie studio. All of the actors/designers/animators/extras/directors/camera operators (basically, everyone in the credits) gets paid before the movie is in theatres. The movie studio is the one getting paid from ticket sales.

WHICH..brings up another perfectly valid point on 'stealing' from a movie theatre. Since the theatres make nearly no money from ticket sales, they have to make money on the concession stands (which is why popcorn and drinks are like $5 each and candy is like $3..everything is "over priced" because they can't keep ticket sales), is it called "stealing" by not buying at least one thing from the concession stand? It may be legal to do so, because they can't force anyone to buy something at the concession stands, but you take up a seat, pay no money to the theatre, but enjoy a product that they have, which they make no money from? Stealing? or no?

Superhero Sam said:

Doesn't that have the same effect, though? Both result in sale loss.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. In my simple understanding, with the book, there may be a second sale. With the file sharing there definately won't be.

SilverBlade said:

Actually, that's 100% wrong.

The movie theatres make next to nothing on ticket sales on any given movie. The only way for them to make 'something' from ticket sales is to keep the movie in the theatre longer.

So that strikes out the argument that sneaking into theatres means losing money for the theatre from no ticket sale. If anybody losses a sale from a person sneaking in, it's the movie studio. All of the actors/designers/animators/extras/directors/camera operators (basically, everyone in the credits) gets paid before the movie is in theatres. The movie studio is the one getting paid from ticket sales.

WHICH..brings up another perfectly valid point on 'stealing' from a movie theatre. Since the theatres make nearly no money from ticket sales, they have to make money on the concession stands (which is why popcorn and drinks are like $5 each and candy is like $3..everything is "over priced" because they can't keep ticket sales), is it called "stealing" by not buying at least one thing from the concession stand? It may be legal to do so, because they can't force anyone to buy something at the concession stands, but you take up a seat, pay no money to the theatre, but enjoy a product that they have, which they make no money from? Stealing? or no?

Click to expand...

No, it isn't 100% wrong. Theaters do make a substantial amount from concessions that are deliberately overpriced to help bring in crucial revenue, but yes they are also dependent upon the revenue from the actual ticket sales. The theater has to pay for the right to screen the movies and to maintain their facilities and keep them operational. The theater's employees are the ones who are the most directly and immediately impacted by the financial vitality of the theater. It's a theft of service to sneak into a theater without paying for the ticket.

You are also incorrect about all actors, directors, and such receiving their full salary up front since oftentimes, especially with lower budget independent films, they receive a percentage of the film's gross. There are major stars who have accepted significantly lower salaries - sometimes only taking the minimum for a union actor - for roles they play in budget-strapped indie movies with the contractual condition that they then receive a percentage of the film's profits. One reason for this is that the smaller films often have a larger potential for receiving an Oscar nomination because they are not pandering to the typical movie viewer.

AirPo said:

Not exactly. In my simple understanding, with the book, there may be a second sale. With the file sharing there definately won't be.

Click to expand...

So how is file sharing worse?

Superhero Sam said:

So how is file sharing worse?

Click to expand...

Because with file sharing you're reproducing the product.

AirPo said:

Because with file sharing you're reproducing the product.

Click to expand...

But how does that cause a greater money loss?

Software companies rely on hackers to hack and reprogram the software so they can improve and update it for free at the cost of the actual buyer. So I hardly see this as stealing more than genuine free labor

Superhero Sam said:

But how does that cause a greater money loss?

Click to expand...

The ease and proliferation most likely.

AirPo said:

The ease and proliferation most likely.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to in general, or in this specific instance?

Superhero Sam said:

Are you referring to in general, or in this specific instance?

Click to expand...

In general.

Stanfordella said:

No, it isn't 100% wrong. Theaters do make a substantial amount from concessions that are deliberately overpriced to help bring in crucial revenue, but yes they are also dependent upon the revenue from the actual ticket sales.

Click to expand...

http://themovieblog.com/2007/econom...e-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much/

Theatres only keep about 25% of the ticket price (that's like $2-$3 per ticket). So to them, that's basically nothing. They can not depend on that amount to keep operating.

Stanfordella said:

The theater has to pay for the right to screen the movies and to maintain their facilities and keep them operational. The theater's employees are the ones who are the most directly and immediately impacted by the financial vitality of the theater. It's a theft of service to sneak into a theater without paying for the ticket.

Click to expand...

And no, they don't pay for the right to use the screen. They OWN the screen. The theatre company wouldn't build it if they had to also pay to use the screen. It's outright ownership. They use the screens to sell popcorn.

Stanfordella said:

You are also incorrect about all actors, directors, and such receiving their full salary up front since oftentimes, especially with lower budget independent films, they receive a percentage of the film's gross. There are major stars who have accepted significantly lower salaries - sometimes only taking the minimum for a union actor - for roles they play in budget-strapped indie movies with the contractual condition that they then receive a percentage of the film's profits. One reason for this is that the smaller films often have a larger potential for receiving an Oscar nomination because they are not pandering to the typical movie viewer.

Click to expand...

All big budget films - everyone gets paid first, except the studio, they get paid based on ticket sales. If a movie bombs, the actors/designers/animators/sound effects still get paid (they wouldn't work for free, not for companies like Universal/Marvel/Fox/LionsGate). All actors get paid before filming is finished, regardless of how well the movie does in the box office. That's why you hear of Box Office Bombs. The studio didn't make enough to cover the costs of production, which includes payroll.

Jim Carrey, for example, demands $20 million per movie, yet, some of his movies have flopped. He still gets the money but the studio ends up recording a shortfall.

Only very few actors have the ability to ask for a percentage with Harrison Ford being the most famous example of receiving like..one tenth of one percent of all Star Wars revenue. Jack Nickelson being the only other example receiving royalties based on Batman movies. Other than that, most actors get paid for the movie and that's it, not royalties.

Major actors may take a pay cut to star in an indie film if they like the script enough, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Those 'anti-piracy' commercials that ran a few years ago, showing carpenters and costume designers say they won't get paid if someone downloads a movie? yeah, lies. They get paid either way. It's just pulling at your heart strings.

AirPo said:

Not exactly. In my simple understanding, with the book, there may be a second sale. With the file sharing there definately won't be.

Click to expand...

That may be true for you, but it is not true for everybody. As I have already said I have personally paid probably tens of thousands of pounds to companies/bands that I first became familiar with through pirated downloads, I can think of only one instance where I bought a book (well a series of books) after borrowing it. I seldom pirate stuff now, as I can afford to buy the legal version, but I do still grab a copy of xxx first to see if it's worth the price of a place on my computer/shelf/whatever, or if it's better suited to a place in the bin.