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

No, it depends. In other countries for instance any copyright would automatically be owned by the state, not by a person. According to that logic the Soviets could copy anything they want. 

What you are describing is a world law against copyright which did not exist in the form you are calling it to say it's a violation. 

Yes copyright is different in Russia, but what JaimeDelarosa was describing was clearly a world-wide Soviet conspiracy against Fischer.

I'm sending you all DMCA notices to stop describing films you don't own the copyright too.

I didn't realize there was even a music or film industry left anymore.  I thought cassettes had destroyed the former and VHS the latter!

Thanks, I read the wikipedia article on the Napster case just now and I don't believe it has anything to do with the viewer or the listener, but rather the centralized distributor who made it "too easy" to gain access to art for peer-to-peer sharing. The centralized distributor will, in my view, eventually win the right to offer a centralized location or a variety of locations for sharing art. I'm no thief, so I'll happily stand against you on this one, Jamie

I just downloaded a Frontline episode via bit torrent off The Pirate Bay.  I'm a PBS donor and the show is available to watch for free on pbs.org.  Should I arrest myself for being an art thief?  Please advise.

Also, the first time I saw the movie Computer Chess was an illegal download.  I have since bought the DVD and own it.  The DVD remains in it's original package since I don't actually own a DVD player.  How much should I be fined?

That was a weird movie--Computer Chess

Then you read,

"The Circuit Court agreed with the district court's threshold determination that Napster users were probably engaging in direct infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights."

And you also read,

"... the Circuit court agreed with the district court's "general analysis of Napster system uses" as well as with its analysis of the three "alleged fair uses identified by Napster" – which were "sampling, where users make temporary copies of a work before purchasing; space-shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD format; and permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists."

1. They agreed with the District Court's finding that ... even though Napster didn't directly benefit financially from users' downloads (i.e., charge for the service), "repeated and exploitative copying of copyrighted works, even if the copies are not offered for sale."

2. The court also affirmed the district court's finding that creative works, such as the songs in question, are "closer to the core" of intended copyright protection" than non-creative works, thus favoring the [recording compamies] on the second factor....

4. Finally, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's finding that widespread wholesale transfer of plaintiff's music negatively affected the market for CD sales and that it also jeopardizes the record industry's future in digital markets.

So you see the keys points all involve protection the right f the copyroght holders.  Similarly, the rights of the film's producers will be protected.  Even if you buy and own the dvd, or other digital or analogue format of the film, as long as it is protected under copyright, pirating or contributing to illicit distribultion will remain unlawful.

"Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 fine for 24 illegally downloaded songs"

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded

So $10,000 for each illegal dvd download sounds about right.

You're a real whack job.  You'll defend the corporations that are completely screwing life on earth and then condone a ten grand fine to punish a movie download.  Yeesh.

I did read that, Jaime, but there is just no way that I believe that sharing is copyright infringement as I stated previously in this thread. Do you tape or DVR movies? Do you have friends over to view a movie with them? Do you share music? Do you share paintings? Writings? It's too absurd to think that sharing can be regulated. And it's certainly absurd to call sharing "stealing". The reason why we can listen to music online for free now, even after the Napster takedown, is because it can't be controlled. The Internet won't adjust to the old ways of thinking, the old ways of thinking have to adjust to the Internet. In the end the only ones hurt by those court decisions were the owners of Napster, not the Napster users. It's just like pot--illegal but unstoppable and therefore will eventually be legal:)

It should be noted that the fine was for downloading and sharing those files. Emphasis on the sharing.

Procuring a single copy involves very small damages but providing that copy to hundreds or thousands of others is something else worthy of more serious punishment (so the argument goes).

Did you read just the beginning of the article?

"Recording Industry Association of America has largely adjusted its anti-piracy strategy to stop suing individual downloaders"

"A Minnesota woman, one of the last people to be individually prosecuted in the US for illegal downloading and file-sharing"

My public library is the biggest pirate I know. You can get books, movies, and music albums for free there.  Arrest the librarians!  Burn Alexandria, burn!

if you click this link you owe the pope ten thousand dollars: http://i.imgur.com/RuLQkuA.gifv 

It is not the "sharing" that is the problem - it is the lack of proper compensation for the artists and rights holders.  If you unlawfully download an album or film, you are not compensating the copyright holders.  You are "stealing" their property.  If you violate the terms of the purchase of album or film, which usually prohibits its commercial use except under permission, you are preventing the rights holders from fair compensation of their work.

That's not what I am saying, that is what the courts have said.

Yes, I read where the companies changed their strategy, but that does not mean they can't go back to it.

Well as long as you're not harming anyone then I don't see anything wrong with you following your path with conviction. I'm pretty sure you don't want to continue talking to a known thief and lawbreaker like myself, so good luck, Jamie:)

+1

The OP was most likely inquiring about an online download of the film which could be viewed by himself and thousands, perhaps millions of non-paying people.  So, many of these otherwise logical arguments are not too relevant here.  Especially not so compelling are the slippery slope (sometimes satricial, I know) arguments about inviting a friend over to watch a rental, or comparisons to truly victimless situations.

           Technically the're both right. This is the world of subscription services, Rhapsody, Rdio, iTunes, Pandora, Spotify and others that offer music streaming without a subscription. Traditional copyright laws are difficult to properly apply with the reality of the web and digital transmission.

I don't think of you as a thief.  And I pretty much agree that you should be able to do what you want if you're not harming anyine else.  Good libertarian principle.

In the case of pirating videos or cds, the artist is being harmed.

I recall in the 1990s, Paul McCartney perfrmed in the MT show, "Unplugged."  He knew the show would be instantly bootlegged, he released "Unplugged - The Official Bootleg."  It reached #14 in the US.

Dylan did something similar with his outtakes, alternative versions, demos, and unreleased live recordings in his "Bootleg Series."