okay I think some people really went off on a tangent in this thread, when someone finds pawn sacrifice online will they come back here and post details I will do the same!
Can someone please show me where I can watch Pawn Sacrifice online!
Sort:
You can pre-order the online Pawn Sacrifice from Google Play and YouTube.
A tangent?
A tangent?
What did you expect? You asked a question, we turned it into a historical, philosophical, and social discussion about copyright law. We needed breathing room. All chess threads do that. That's why the're called threads! In fact, as we speak, I'm copywriting YOUR creation in order to teach it as a college disertation.
Since I'm not a Corporation, I'm filling a "FBNS" (A Ficticious Business Name Statement) with A.S.C.A.P, B.M.I. The Harry Fox Agency, The Musician's Union, A.F.T.R.A, S.E.S.A.C, The U.S. Copyright Office, Soundscan, Billboard, and Universal Music Group which bought BMG in 2007 to become the largest music publisher in the world. Who's your daddy now?
That's the wrong link! This one should work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
DrinkingLikeTal wrote:
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!
in the united kingdom the government gives money from the public purse annually to the authors based on library loan data
Oct 2, 2015
0
#109
JamieDelarosa wrote:
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."
Just to be clear, Jamie, I do disagree with you on this matter. In my view, sharing is not "piracy"--it is not stealing. The creator of art is not entitled to money for their art. The spectator, viewer, listener sets the price of value for art, not corporations and forecasters. The people buying a movie, music, painting, etc., has every right to view the work, listen to the work, etc., prior to payment for the work, if there is going to be any payment at all. And finally, as in my situation, the poor deserve to pay the same percentage of income as the rich for art. That is a level playing field. If the middle class can afford an eleven dollar ticket, then the poor should be afforded a three dollar ticket, or even less. Those are my views, and I'm stickin' to 'em
I'm with Jamie, and have my own rules (fuzzy rules): I will not watch first run movies that I would otherwise pay for, I will not watch original series, Netflix or others. Beyond that, no scruples. It is a matter of fair compensation for the writers, artists and production teams.
Oct 2, 2015
0
#111
I dont blame you, but I view an illicit pirated copy of a film as a counterfeit. I won't by counterfeits, whether they are cds, dvds, Coach handbags, Rolex watches, or other knockoffs.
I guess I do need to try to explain it to you after all. Sharing a bit with close friends is fair use, even making copies for personal use. Sharing at large with an internet community is not fair use, it's distrubution. No, the artist is not entitled to money for their work but they are entitled to ask for money. They own the copyright. It grants them protection against illegal copying and distrubution. You can compare this to any other commodoty. You don't go to a grocery store and expect to leave with food without paying, telling the cashier you've decided you're entitled to a free sample, and you may decide to pay them later if you like their produce. Sometimes stores do give out free samples. It can be a valid business model, a lot of artists are trying that these days becuase of the odd things the web is doing to the music industry, and you can vote with your dollar there, but the consumer does not have the right to demand goods without pay or to set the price. Before copyright in the US we had Stephen Foster, penning one of the best selling songs of all time, selling it for the price of a meal, making the record companies solid profit, and dying in poverty. Copyright has been abused, a lot, but it still does the artists some good, and should be respected. A lot could change. The consumer just arbitrarily deciding they have the right to copy... for some reason... because they want to... because they can, that won't fix it.
Oct 2, 2015
0
#113
JamieDelarosa wrote:
I dont blame you, but I view an illicit pirated copy of a film as a counterfeit. I won't by counterfeits, whether they are cds, dvds, Coach handbags, Rolex watches, or other knockoffs.
Oh yeah, the knockoff "industry" is definitely cheating. You can't just say you have a Louis Vuitton when you don't, but that seems another matter entirely
JamieDelarosa wrote:
I have uploaded a bootleg copy to the net and planted a really nasty trojan horse.
Keep looking, thieves.
Bullshit. And in 2015, who does not have any antivirus software on their computer?
I realize that's not the point of the post, but it sure sounds stupid lol.
You can have antivirus software and STILL get virusus.
Oct 2, 2015
0
#116
tmkroll wrote:
I guess I do need to try to explain it to you after all. Sharing a bit with close friends is fair use, even making copies for personal use. Sharing at large with an internet community is not fair use, it's distrubution. No, the artist is not entitled to money for their work but they are entitled to ask for money. They own the copyright. It grants them protection against illegal copying and distrubution. You can compare this to any other commodoty. You don't go to a grocery store and expect to leave with food without paying, telling the cashier you've decided you're entitled to a free sample, and you may decide to pay them later if you like their produce. Sometimes stores do give out free samples. It can be a valid business model, a lot of artists are trying that these days becuase of the odd things the web is doing to the music industry, and you can vote with your dollar there, but the consumer does not have the right to demand goods without pay or to set the price. Before copyright in the US we had Stephen Foster, penning one of the best selling songs of all time, selling it for the price of a meal, making the record companies solid profit, and dying in poverty. Copyright has been abused, a lot, but it still does the artists some good, and should be respected. A lot could change. The consumer just arbitrarily deciding they have the right to copy... for some reason... because they want to... because they can, that won't fix it.
So the radio plays your song, someone records it and plays it for their friends--or better, they play it for a bunch of people they just met. A few people like it and go out and buy your cd. Now, do you want to sue the person who recorded your song and played it for a bunch of people? Should the person who played it for a bunch of people have the right to ask for money for advertising your song which led to some people buying your cd?
When you go to court in a copyright infringement case, you have to show and prove damages. If the defendant didn't make any money on it, there's no case. 2 examples. I copy drum charts to learn the tune. I use my own money, make 1 copy,(to return original to owner) at Staples. 2nd ex. A college professor reads an article somewhere that corresponds to his class that week. He makes 40 copies using his own money and passes it out as handouts. Still no violation.
The person who played it has a compulsory cover license. They had to pay you for that, and no they don't get paid for advertising for free, but if you want to pay them to play your song or otherwise advertise you can.
RonaldJosephCote... idk, some people might get on your case for 40 copies even for education. Your first example is clearly not infringement. I'm also pretty sure you don't have to prove damages in an infringement case, you just have to prove infringement happened. Obviously it's not legal or justifiable up to the point where you start making money. We can say making money from it is morally a step worse than giving it away illegally.
tmkroll wrote:
I guess I do need to try to explain it to you after all. Sharing a bit with close friends is fair use, even making copies for personal use. Sharing at large with an internet community is not fair use, it's distrubution. No, the artist is not entitled to money for their work but they are entitled to ask for money. They own the copyright. It grants them protection against illegal copying and distrubution. You can compare this to any other commodoty. You don't go to a grocery store and expect to leave with food without paying, telling the cashier you've decided you're entitled to a free sample, and you may decide to pay them later if you like their produce. Sometimes stores do give out free samples. It can be a valid business model, a lot of artists are trying that these days becuase of the odd things the web is doing to the music industry, and you can vote with your dollar there, but the consumer does not have the right to demand goods without pay or to set the price. Before copyright in the US we had Stephen Foster, penning one of the best selling songs of all time, selling it for the price of a meal, making the record companies solid profit, and dying in poverty. Copyright has been abused, a lot, but it still does the artists some good, and should be respected. A lot could change. The consumer just arbitrarily deciding they have the right to copy... for some reason... because they want to... because they can, that won't fix it.
You don't know much about independent labels, artists and all these things, do you? If one should care about the musicians and their money, it's only about those musicians, not the corporate ones who are already full of it. For them, their "art" is a business. Think Rolling Stones, think Metallica, for example. Do they care about art? Once maybe, not anymore. Recently my vinyl copy of Exile died, guess what, I'm not going to pay 20 euro for the cd. Do you realize the only people complaining about internet sharing of music are the big guns of music industry plus their milionaire bands? Why do you think that is? Greed. You can make money out of your art. But money has nothing to do with art. These people are only protecting and seeking more money. Columbia, AOL, EMI, Sony... oh please come on.
A few yrs ago The Eagles distributed their album, "Long Way Out Of Eden" exclusively through Wal-Mart.