Slashdot Mirror
Movie Studio Finally Sees the Light On Rentals
Griller_GT writes "After months of conducting studies about the effects of delays on sales of DVDs, 'Paramount Pictures has agreed to provide its movies to Redbox on the same day they go on sale.' A Paramount exec said, 'Those people who want to rent are going to figure out ways to rent, and us restricting them from renting isn't going to turn it into a purchase.' Gee, who would have thought of that?"
Reader DisKurzion sends in news of another movie business experiment underway by an Australian company called Distracted Media. They are raising funds for a movie called The Tunnel by letting people invest in individual frames for $1 apiece. When the movie is complete, it will be released for free on torrent sites.
All you proved it poorly shot, crappy written movies can be cheap.
No shit.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
six months after I could download a virtually complete and much more interesting workprint release
You mean steal right? I have a feeling the producers are not giving you special access to their prints, so if you're downloading it you're stealing it from them. Same goes for leaked music. Are you working on the assumption that because no one can stop you that you have the right to take whatever you want? It's theft whether you've got a black mask and a flashlight or not.
I'm not sure what you do exactly, but there is a very very good chance that you don't actually produce any kind of physical product. Very few American workers do these days. And since you're posting on /. It is equally likely that you are a "knowledge worker" of some kind who relies on the copyright system to protect your work (even if you don't own the copyright yourself, your employer could not afford to pay you without it).
So how can you possibly justify violating someone else's rights - a copyright is defined as the exclusive right to make copies of a registered work - when you know very well that your own livelihood and the livelihood of many of your piers and friends depend on exactly the same kind of protections you so glibly dismiss?
Moreover, your description of someone breaking and entering to somehow reproduce someone's jewelry without taking it is ludicrous - and quite ironic. The only reason copyright infringement is different than property theft is because information is generally not considered property - whereas jewelry is. So your hypothetical is actually quite self defeating. Even so, if the person who owns the jewelry does not want you to have it, you have to commit the crime of breaking and entering just to get access. (And if someone else knowingly receives the fruit of your efforts they are accomplices after the fact - that's you btw) Therefore, you would have to break the law to make or receive a copy. Probably not the best analogy.
I am all for fair use, but you are simply unwilling to pay for something you want. That makes you a thief.