Slashdot Mirror
Live from Iran, Film88
MemFun writes "The now defunct Movie88.com has became Film88.com. These are the guys that are streaming a ton of movies for $1 a piece (but not allowing you to save the movie). Of course, to avoid all the Tinsel Town Club baddies (mpaa) from shutting them down, they are now based in Iran of all places. We just finished watching the free Harry Potter movie they are offering. Question: Does this make me a criminal? I really like the selection of movies they have and stream or not, it's still pretty cool to have the ability to watch some those movies that are never on TV any more."
It's a horrible crime, second only to software piracy.
Linux is dead.
LU
Despite President George's inclusion of Iran in the Axis of Evil, Iran has actually become a relatively moderate state. Women have the right to vote and can own businesses. There are actual free and fair elections. It's got a lot of fundamentalists with power, but the same can be said of the U. S. of A.
...Nothing interesting here. Just move along...
Yeah. I'm sick and tired of the motion picture industry, which PRODUCES AND DISTRIBUTES ALL THE FILMS YOU WANT TO WATCH, getting my hard-earned money. Instead, I want the money to go to the real heroes, OFF-SHORE COMPANIES SELLING PIRATED COPIES OF MPAA MATERIALS.
There. Is that clear enough for you, or is there still too much fog in that head of yours? I bet you still think you have a right to download movies since the MPAA won't cater to your every whim.
For more information, click here.
Any company CAN use GPLed stuff in their closed source software without it being stealing.
Copyright infringement, perhaps. But not theft. The fact that we have different laws for "copyright infringement" and "stealing tangible objects" should make my point: they are different, and they are treated differently under the law.
I guess we could call all violations of the law "theft": we'll replace murder, rape, arson, assault, etc. with the generic "theft". I'm not sure what purpose that would serve, but I suppose it's possible.
The larger point I'm trying to make is that the reason *you* equate copyright infringement with theft (but not, say, rape with theft) is that you've been exposed to a PR campaign designed to equate the two. The copyright barons would prefer that the laws covering copyright infringement look more like the laws on theft: ownership of real property doesn't expire, for example, and so they want copyright not to expire. Ownership of real property doesn't permit others to use it without permission, while copyright does, and so they want copyright laws changed to restrict fair use.
Recognizing that it's a PR campaign, and that copyright infringement is about as similar to theft as rape is, is a necessary step in figuring out how copyright should really be treated.