Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
True. Books vs music isn't really a good comparsion. But that is what the OP posted.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.
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.
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.
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.
No. Because there is no increase in the amount of copies "out there".Doesn't that have the same effect, though? Both result in sale loss.
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?
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
You misunderstood Stanfordella. They do have to pay. It is a royalty to the studio every time they project the film and how much that royalty is depends on the number of seats in the theater and location of the facility. Rural venues pay less than major urban ones.The theater has to pay for the right to screen the movies and to maintain their facilities and keep them operational.
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.
What if my friend purchased a cup of lemonade and paid for it than she came to me with my empty cup and shared some with me. To me that is what file sharing is. Also you can go to your local library and check out movies at no cost. My probably is I am pretty much home bound.would you tolerate someone walking up to your lemonade stand and drinking a cup of lemonade without paying for it?
It's more like the lemonade came with refills. You take an empty cup and "refill" it yourself.What if my friend purchased a cup of lemonade and paid for it than she came to me with my empty cup and shared some with me. To me that is what file sharing is. Also you can go to your local library and check out movies at no cost. My probably is I am pretty much home bound.
Well a movie versus food is two very different subjects. If you yourself used 10 million to make that cup of lemonade and owed it back to a company, you to would not like people that paid for theirs but then gave more of it away to everyone else. As for checking a movie out at a library. Well for starters the movies are usually scratched up and you borrow them for a certain amount of time. If you lose it, break it or keep it, you pay for it. The problem is as christians if we try to reason why we can do something that is illegal, then we are in sin. Example I've seen many young couples who want sex with the person they love. They get around it by saying "Well we gave each other oral sex, so therefor its not a sin since we didn't have sex the normal way!". And more importantly God says we are to obey the laws of the land unless those laws interfere with our christian beliefs. So by law this file sharing is illegal. This we shouldn't do it.What if my friend purchased a cup of lemonade and paid for it than she came to me with my empty cup and shared some with me. To me that is what file sharing is. Also you can go to your local library and check out movies at no cost. My probably is I am pretty much home bound.
Is it wrong to borrow a book, CD or anything else that someone has purchased if they offer it to you?
How is that any different than file sharing?
How about if you recorded something with your DVR to watch that is making a copy.Just be-sure, that the only thing you share is a 'link' to the owner's / publisher's page
It is only stealing if when someone takes something from you or someone else, those persons do not have it anymore.
Reproduction is not stealing, but giving.
God does not care about your images. It is a violation of the 2nd Commandment to even make an image. Reproducing that image is promulgating sin in this way, but not in the way of stealing.
Regarding intellectual property, what God whispers in your ear, you are to shout it from the rooftops for all to hear and know. To not do so is the actual sin.
That is what I am trying to get the answer to what morally is wrong with it? (Coping someone DVD they let you borrow and said you could do it)Not sure if pirating software, or sneaking onto a theater, is "stealing" or not. But its morally wrong, for sure.
The conversation is still not answering my question or maybe I didn't ask it correctly. If person A buys a movie and person A gives it to person B and person B ask if they could make a copy to watch at a latter time. And person A gives them permission. Is that stealing or sharing. And if the factor is that the maker is missing out on revenue than what do you say to library that check them out for no money to everyone.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.
No in the example I just had an empty cup with me. I didn't purchase it from the lemonade stand. But my friend she did buy it so is it not her choice to share with me if she wants.It's more like the lemonade came with refills. You take an empty cup and "refill" it yourself.
Its stealing in the case. Sharing is like what the library does. Or even something like Netflix, although the difference is you pay for netflix. You let a friend borrow it and return it. Companies have no problem if you let your friend watch the movie. But the minute that movie is copied by a friend, then it becomes illegal because its no longer a borrowed copy. You may have bought the movie and it may be yours, but the movie itself on the disc is still the companies property. And copying that is illegal. Now its true that almost never does anyone get caught who copies movies. But it doesn't justify the use to do it.The conversation is still not answering my question or maybe I didn't ask it correctly. If person A buys a movie and person A gives it to person B and person B ask if they could make a copy to watch at a latter time. And person A gives them permission. Is that stealing or sharing. And if the factor is that the maker is missing out on revenue than what do you say to library that check them out for no money to everyone.
I'm just curious, because I think it is a good question.Its stealing in the case. Sharing is like what the library does. Or even something like Netflix, although the difference is you pay for netflix. You let a friend borrow it and return it. Companies have no problem if you let your friend watch the movie. But the minute that movie is copied by a friend, then it becomes illegal because its no longer a borrowed copy. You may have bought the movie and it may be yours, but the movie itself on the disc is still the companies property. And copying that is illegal. Now its true that almost never does anyone get caught who copies movies. But it doesn't justify the use to do it.
Lets use you as an example. Lets your gifted as music and release a music cd called "Farishtas Melodies!". You have bought cds to put the music on. Ink to print the inserts for the plastic disk. Paper to print on. And obviously you paid for the instruments you made to make the music and the software to code the music to a cd. And the software to make artwork for your disc. And any number of other things like copyrights...etc. Thousands of dollars later you have 1,000 CDs all made up and are ready to sell for lets say $10 each. If you sell all 1,000 cds you make $10,000. Which pays for everything you spent, plus time and a small salary back for your work.
Ok so now you spread the word about your music and many people like it. Lets say you sell 150 of those cds. Its great you made some money. But suddenly you see more and more people talking about how they love your music that they own. But there are like 2,500 people who own your music despite you only have sold 150 so far. So you find out some have put your music from your cd on youtube. And people are downloading the song from there (there are ways to). You also find out some of the people who bought your cd have given it to their friends. And their friends made copies for themselves and others. Well within the next year you total CDs sold reaches about 325. And yet now more then 12,000 people own your music somehow. You've not made enough money to cover your expenses and now its hard to keep up with turning in the people who are releasing your music online for free on youtube and those who are copying your music. In other words its a total loss.
Now are still ok with people borrowing and copying music? I would not be. I'd be losing out on money I worked hard to earn.
Its stealing in the case. Sharing is like what the library does. Or even something like Netflix, although the difference is you pay for netflix. You let a friend borrow it and return it. Companies have no problem if you let your friend watch the movie. But the minute that movie is copied by a friend, then it becomes illegal because its no longer a borrowed copy. You may have bought the movie and it may be yours, but the movie itself on the disc is still the companies property. And copying that is illegal. Now its true that almost never does anyone get caught who copies movies. But it doesn't justify the use to do it.
Lets use you as an example. Lets your gifted as music and release a music cd called "Farishtas Melodies!". You have bought cds to put the music on. Ink to print the inserts for the plastic disk. Paper to print on. And obviously you paid for the instruments you made to make the music and the software to code the music to a cd. And the software to make artwork for your disc. And any number of other things like copyrights...etc. Thousands of dollars later you have 1,000 CDs all made up and are ready to sell for lets say $10 each. If you sell all 1,000 cds you make $10,000. Which pays for everything you spent, plus time and a small salary back for your work.
Ok so now you spread the word about your music and many people like it. Lets say you sell 150 of those cds. Its great you made some money. But suddenly you see more and more people talking about how they love your music that they own. But there are like 2,500 people who own your music despite you only have sold 150 so far. So you find out some have put your music from your cd on youtube. And people are downloading the song from there (there are ways to). You also find out some of the people who bought your cd have given it to their friends. And their friends made copies for themselves and others. Well within the next year you total CDs sold reaches about 325.
And yet now more then 12,000 people own your music somehow. Your sales have dropped now and you can no longer sell anymore cds. You've not made enough money to cover your expenses and now its hard to keep up with turning in the people who are releasing your music online for free on youtube and those who are copying your music. In other words its a total loss.
Now are still ok with people borrowing and copying music? I would not be. I'd be losing out on money I worked hard to earn. I know this because our friend from church is a professional musician who makes soundtracks for indie movies. It costs him ALOT to make them. Even when hes paid it still doesn't mean anything is free. And sometimes he gets hurt because of those copying things. He can only make enough money to live if he sells/gets paid for this music. So when copying happens his family loses food, money for bills and even their house in an extreme case, its his job after all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?