Can someone please show me where I can watch Pawn Sacrifice online!

Did you listen to the idiot called Steve Albini and what he's got to say about the music biz? By the way, do you face the problem of people not buying your records because they download every note you play/sing or you're defending the industry because you work in some office?

I stand corrected.  The person offering the film for "viewing" is the one breaking the law.  Splitting hairs...

According to research, people who pirate music and movies are often going more to concerts and movies in the cinema then their peers. So this story is not black and white as some posters presume here.

Not only that, the law is just a social abstract construct, in every country this "law" is different, so please don't say pirating is illegal according to the law because this is simply not true in a lot of countries.

True there a lot of intellectual property laws but these are still constructs. Only 200 years now do we got IP laws. Before that, everything was public/free. (for instance Mozart did not earn anything by writing his pieces, only by performing it.)

sure they do, as they are interested in music and films... that's something about tastes not about adequacy of piratery

well, maybe in Hong Kong is it not, in most countries it is

No, I didn't say nor do I think that. The person who uploaded the film is sharing the film, which I think is totally fine so long as they're not making money off of the film. It's not their film, just like the movie or music you share is not yours. If the company who owns the film wishes the film to be taken down from the site offering it, then I think they have every right to request that, but it would probably make more sense for the company to make an agreement with the site showing the film to be allowed to advertise their products on that site for free, just like how their film is for free on that site. 

Like someone said earlier in this thread, companies/corporations have not come to terms with the Internet yet. They have not figured out what to do with it. They will of course try to ruin it through controlling it like they did with that wonderful invention television, but I hope they don't succeed:)

Getting legalistic about an issue which is arguably (and IMO) morally neutral is splitting hairs to begin with. So when it's not even a legal claim...

Lets put it this way. Whether watching movies or going to a concert is also a social experience. Outing with your family and friends etc.. Just because you clamp down on piracy does not mean he will go to the nearest theatre to watch the movie, he will wait for a few months for it to be available on Netflix.

This is what I was trying to ask in another thread. How much does piracy affect actual sales of chess books or softwares for e.g

In my case, I can't actually study a book unless I own a physical copy of the book. I seriously doubt, if people actually read these pdf's that they download. Maybe they download simply because they are available and if they were not to be available would they still buy the book ? So how much does this impact actual book sales ?

I don't know anything about Steve Albini. I'm speaking from my experience. I make only about $500 a year on my own song royalties. I think I actually reach more people selling my music than when I was giving it away but that's a marketing problem. I make a living wage working with other people's music in my day job which is an office job that requires my music training (there aren't many jobs like that) and wouldn't exist without copyright protection.

It's not illegal to share a movie in every country, no. That's one of the main issues with copyright law now. There was an attempt to stop people from illegally downloading from countries where piracy is not illegal a while back. It was bad and everyone hated it.

The bigger problem is the whole culture of free. Someone suggests the idea of paying for something and people respond with "get with the times" and "you don't know how the internet works." You are devaluing art and artists when you talk like that. Harlan Ellison wrote a lot about never workign for free exposure and how the problem is really the fact that some artists will work for free, but then of course he's pretty famously leadite. Reality is somewhere in between and we're all still learning, but I think we can safely say piracy is illegal in most countries for a reason and the culture of free as is it is not good for art... also copyright term is too long and getting longer and copyright is abused by corporations. Both things are going on.

I totally agree with the quote above. Piracy while it has short benefits for the downloader will harm in long term. People will simply lose the incentive to put out new material if they are not getting adequately compensated. I know of one trainer in another field who took his course off the market 3 years back and only takes in private students. 

However new strategies need to be developed which are a win/win for both buyer and seller. 

I think we basically agree.  But where I might differ is on the issue of who and how many people I can share a copyrighted movie with.  Sharing is clearly legal and fair if I share only with a smallish number of people that I actually know.  On the other hand, uploading a movie to the internet for access by unlimited numbers of strangers violates the spirit and letter of Fair Use laws, and is unfair to the artists and related laborers who created the movie.  I don't know how many people is "too many" to legally share with (this limit would probably be judged in court).  Not an easy to issue to nail down, even when people are trying to be fair.

How do you apply this logic to chess industry ? The books, softwares or training videos have a limited market. Piracy would put many in a difficult situation if not curbed.

(Or am I being off-topic here, you guys are discussing movies/music while I am talking of chess.)

It's not black and white CensoredReality. Corporate Greed is morally wrong and piracy is morally wrong, and the argument "someone will be inclined to support the artist with money" falls flat if everyone decides not to do it themselves.

If the film is not in legitmate release for viewing to the internet market, then "viewers" are in the analogous position to "listeners" in the case, A&M Records Inc. v. Napster, Inc.

But it's a s*** movie anyway so why're we here discussing all these beautiful things ;-)

incantevoleutopia wrote:

But it's a s*** movie anyway so why're we here discussing all these beautiful things ;-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Super has 5 letters

But I meant shit ;)

incantevoleutopia wrote:

But I meant shit ;)

_________________________

Did you see the movie?

I have not, but I heard one favorable review so far.

The Soviets pirated Fischer's "My Sixty Memorable Games" and published an edited, politically corrected Russian-language edition, without ever paying Fischer any royalties.   Pure piracy and copyright violations.