...the bottom line is it's money out of his pocket.
Actual money did not come out of his pocket with each download. So, no, the bottom line is not that money came out of his pocket.
To him that feels like theft...
Yes, it probably does feel that way, but that doesn't mean that it is that way.
Changing the label doesn't put the money back in his pocket.
Yes, it can't put money back into his pocket, because money wasn't taken out. Literally. The amount of money in his physical pocket or bank account doesn't go up or down with each download. Please understand that.
I note that ALL of you ignored the point he made about paying his employees and paying his creditors.
Well, personally, I didn't think it was a very good point. If he wants money to pay those folks and maybe a bit to live off of, then he might want to avoid pissing off the people he expects to get money from. Also, he probably wouldn't tell people not to purchase his film.
He said that he only wants smart and honest people to pay for his film. So, really, he's stated that he doesn't want money from the people who illegally procured his film, since they're dishonest by his definition.
What if the money he lost was going to be donated to cancer research? Or what if it was going to support a homeless shelter?
It doesn't matter where the money is going. And tossing in emotion is specious.
...you shouldn't treat this kind of crime as mere 0s and 1s moving across the Internet.
This kind of crime does involve mere 0s and 1s moving across the Internet. So it would be very illogical to treat it as though it didn't involve that. I have heard the argument that we should treat digital property like physical property and it just doesn't fly. If I take your couch, you have no couch. If I copy your file, you still have your file.
That being said, it is a crime. Nobody said that it isn't a crime, and the crime itself isn't even being debated here. We said that it wasn't smart to sue thousands of potential customers on scant evidence, and then we said that his response wasn't proportional to the original letter. The actual crime isn't even being discussed here.
You have no idea of the possible impact.
Yeah, that's the thing. No one does. So how can you say things like 'millions of dollars' and 'money out of his pocket' when you have no idea of what the actual impact was?
There is no question that this producer lost millions of dollars because of willful infringement.
Yes, there is absolutely a question. First, there is no proof that everyone who downloaded the movie would have given him money if the download were not available. Next, there is no proof that everyone who downloaded the movie did not also pay to see the film, purchase the DVD, or both.
...the majority just pile on the victim simply because he feels wronged.
We didn't pile on him because he felt wronged. We piled on him because he wrote a horrible letter, in which he wished children into jail and made idiotic analogies.
If he had written back and said, 'I think your point of view sucks. If you feel that way, then don't buy my movie. That's fine. You know, I feel like I've put a ton of work into this thing, and everyone is just out there taking it without paying for it. That sucks, and I'm doing what I can to be recompensed for their illegal downloads.', then we wouldn't 'pile on him' for it. We probably wouldn't even be discussing it.
For once we have a real live case of a victim of what normally is argued in the generic on this site...
This kind of things happens very frequently, and real cases are frequently discussed on this site. Where have you been?
I'd hate to be a victim of assault in your towns. You'd probably all say "C'mon, boys will be boys and you'll heal."
Nothing in any of these comments can logically lead to that idea. That's about the fourth time that you've tried to inject an illogical emotional argument into this discussion.
You can't blame someone who isn't up on all of the topics generally discussed on TD to not know that, from a legal perspective, theft is not the same thing as infringement or plagiarism.
Yes, I can. And I think we all can, since we're blaming this idiot director for his analogy of fail.
Adding the level of security that the average user is going to be able to add means that they'll still be giving away wifi to plenty of people, just like locking your car door and walking away with the keys doesn't really stop anyone from stealing it.
In both cases, it has nothing to do with permission, but only in one case can you be held responsible for what someone did without your permission.
The problem with printing is that printer ink can be more costly than gasoline, and printer manufacturers purposely fool their customers into purchasing more ink than they need.
Sorry, paper industry, the ink industry screwed your sales up.
Well, yes and no.... Take, for example, taped interviews of whistle-blowers, that are later modified to protect the identity of the interviewees. The release of such raw material might seriously harm the interviewee. In such cases, the release of sources and raw material would be less important than protecting those sources.
So while I agree that the release of raw footage can be a very good thing, I don't think it's necessary, or even the most important thing. If the owner of the raw material would rather suffer public scorn and disbelief than give up their mats, so be it.
In essence, I don't think that we should be using the law to bludgeon filmmakers and journalists into giving up their sources or source material.
Only the uber-religious homeschoolers are weird. They account for just over half of American homeschoolers, and are way more prominent in the media, so every one thinks of them when they hear the word 'homeschool'.
Which is sad for the perfectly normal families that choose to homeschool because of the appalling educational choices offered locally.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: You're Missing a Point...
Actual money did not come out of his pocket with each download. So, no, the bottom line is not that money came out of his pocket.
To him that feels like theft...
Yes, it probably does feel that way, but that doesn't mean that it is that way.
Changing the label doesn't put the money back in his pocket.
Yes, it can't put money back into his pocket, because money wasn't taken out. Literally. The amount of money in his physical pocket or bank account doesn't go up or down with each download. Please understand that.
I note that ALL of you ignored the point he made about paying his employees and paying his creditors.
Well, personally, I didn't think it was a very good point. If he wants money to pay those folks and maybe a bit to live off of, then he might want to avoid pissing off the people he expects to get money from. Also, he probably wouldn't tell people not to purchase his film.
He said that he only wants smart and honest people to pay for his film. So, really, he's stated that he doesn't want money from the people who illegally procured his film, since they're dishonest by his definition.
What if the money he lost was going to be donated to cancer research? Or what if it was going to support a homeless shelter?
It doesn't matter where the money is going. And tossing in emotion is specious.
...you shouldn't treat this kind of crime as mere 0s and 1s moving across the Internet.
This kind of crime does involve mere 0s and 1s moving across the Internet. So it would be very illogical to treat it as though it didn't involve that. I have heard the argument that we should treat digital property like physical property and it just doesn't fly. If I take your couch, you have no couch. If I copy your file, you still have your file.
That being said, it is a crime. Nobody said that it isn't a crime, and the crime itself isn't even being debated here. We said that it wasn't smart to sue thousands of potential customers on scant evidence, and then we said that his response wasn't proportional to the original letter. The actual crime isn't even being discussed here.
You have no idea of the possible impact.
Yeah, that's the thing. No one does. So how can you say things like 'millions of dollars' and 'money out of his pocket' when you have no idea of what the actual impact was?
There is no question that this producer lost millions of dollars because of willful infringement.
Yes, there is absolutely a question. First, there is no proof that everyone who downloaded the movie would have given him money if the download were not available. Next, there is no proof that everyone who downloaded the movie did not also pay to see the film, purchase the DVD, or both.
...the majority just pile on the victim simply because he feels wronged.
We didn't pile on him because he felt wronged. We piled on him because he wrote a horrible letter, in which he wished children into jail and made idiotic analogies.
If he had written back and said, 'I think your point of view sucks. If you feel that way, then don't buy my movie. That's fine. You know, I feel like I've put a ton of work into this thing, and everyone is just out there taking it without paying for it. That sucks, and I'm doing what I can to be recompensed for their illegal downloads.', then we wouldn't 'pile on him' for it. We probably wouldn't even be discussing it.
For once we have a real live case of a victim of what normally is argued in the generic on this site...
This kind of things happens very frequently, and real cases are frequently discussed on this site. Where have you been?
I'd hate to be a victim of assault in your towns. You'd probably all say "C'mon, boys will be boys and you'll heal."
Nothing in any of these comments can logically lead to that idea. That's about the fourth time that you've tried to inject an illogical emotional argument into this discussion.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: You're Missing a Point...
How so?
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I can. And I think we all can, since we're blaming this idiot director for his analogy of fail.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Boycott.
On the post: Time Warner Cable Stands Up To Automated Copyright Infringement Filing Factory
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: German Court Says You Must Secure Your WiFi Or You May Get Fined
Re: Re:
Adding the level of security that the average user is going to be able to add means that they'll still be giving away wifi to plenty of people, just like locking your car door and walking away with the keys doesn't really stop anyone from stealing it.
In both cases, it has nothing to do with permission, but only in one case can you be held responsible for what someone did without your permission.
On the post: German Court Says You Must Secure Your WiFi Or You May Get Fined
Besides, in a normal crime, even if you knew about it, you could only be charged as an accessory, not the perpetrator.
This is nuts.
On the post: Paper Industry Wishes You'd Ignore Environmentalists, Print More
Sorry, paper industry, the ink industry screwed your sales up.
On the post: Is A Documentary Investigative Reporting? Should Filmmakers Be Covered By Journalist Shield Laws?
Re: On the other hand
So while I agree that the release of raw footage can be a very good thing, I don't think it's necessary, or even the most important thing. If the owner of the raw material would rather suffer public scorn and disbelief than give up their mats, so be it.
In essence, I don't think that we should be using the law to bludgeon filmmakers and journalists into giving up their sources or source material.
On the post: Is A Documentary Investigative Reporting? Should Filmmakers Be Covered By Journalist Shield Laws?
What would happen to those written agreements when the journalist died?
The safest place for the name of a source is in the mind of the journalist.
On the post: Students Who Caught Gym Teacher Stealing Money From Lockers May Get Punished
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See!!!
For instance, a brand new college graduate in an IT field versus a fifteen year veteran of the same field. Who gets paid more? The graduate.
A brand new RN-BSN versus a ten year veteran RN. Who gets paid more? The RN-BSN.
A brand-new doctor or an experienced nurse practitioner?
A child care worker on her first day at work or a stay at home mom of three?
Competency has nothing to do with pay.
On the post: Students Who Caught Gym Teacher Stealing Money From Lockers May Get Punished
Re: Re: Re: home schooling
But, in case you were seriously asking about socialization, homeschoolers apparently have it better. :)
On the post: Students Who Caught Gym Teacher Stealing Money From Lockers May Get Punished
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: See!!!
On the post: Students Who Caught Gym Teacher Stealing Money From Lockers May Get Punished
Re: Re: Re: See!!!
On the post: Students Who Caught Gym Teacher Stealing Money From Lockers May Get Punished
Re: See!!!
Besides, how skilled do you have to be to coach?
On the post: Students Who Caught Gym Teacher Stealing Money From Lockers May Get Punished
Re: home schooling
Which is sad for the perfectly normal families that choose to homeschool because of the appalling educational choices offered locally.
On the post: Can Oprah Do What Driving-While-Yakking Laws Can't?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Draft Of Privacy Bill Introduced... And Pretty Much Everyone Hates It
Re: Re: Re:
Awesome.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Comment formatting
On the post: Draft Of Privacy Bill Introduced... And Pretty Much Everyone Hates It
Re:
Since none of us are disassociative, I think not.
Next >>