You can't compare murderers to non-violent drug offenders. Those are two very different types of people. I was saying that the magnitude of the crime is a lot different for somebody breaking a copyright law by posting an illegal copy of a movie online compared to somebody selling $20 worth of drugs to somebody else on the corner.
I don't disagree that it should be discouraged, just that the punishment should fit the crime. Giving harsher penalties to copyright infringers than to drug dealers is so far beyond absurd that there is no word in the English language strong enough to adequately express it.
Wait, what really is the crime? Where does the money from your $10 ticket, $5 popcorn, and $4 drink go? It goes to the people who make the film and run the theater. It even goes to the farmers that grow the corn - in both your drink and your bucket. Thats a lot of people, and if you give that movie you cammed in the theater to say half a million north american viewers, that adds up to a lot of money. Not to mention what happens to your video once it leaves the country. You may call it socialist bullshit or whatever else you want, but its still trickle down economics. One guy in a theater in Canada really can have that sort of effect in our world today. The world is flat.
Now I ask, what is the harsher crime? A guy peddling drugs to a homeless bum, or a guy who's enabling the loss of $50 million dollars to the local and national economies? I think the potential monetary loss due to copyright infringement is far worse than the potential crime committed by my potential dealer.
I thought film piracy wasn't done by taping off the screen (I can't imagine that would produce a watchable result), but by people who have access to the film in a quality digital format, e.g. the DVD "screeners" sent out for promotional purposes.
The judge said "but he has an item that is more supportive of taking something to be used to make a profit." Really? Is there big money to be had in shaky, flickery, low-quality home videos off a theatre screen? Not a rhetorical question.
Nope, they are out there. Sure, there are dvd screeners, but those are actually traceable to their origins from what I remember hearing. See here about that.
On the contrary, I have seen screen capture from cameras in two recently released movies. The quality sucked, and in the case of one - Tropic Thunder - was so bad I was actually inspired to go see it in the theater for myself. The poor quality was due to poor sound and poor picture. There are better captures out there, but the point is that they are still being made.
I can honestly say that I didn't download these, and in general encourage watching a movie in the theater instead of at home. Its just an overall better experience that by paying to see it you are helping to support the film industry that is fronting the money to make the movies. That trickles down to the kids working in the theater. Going out to a movie is one of the most american things you can do in my opinion.
Taping in a theater not only should be illegal, but I'm glad that a-hole got busted because it was probably pretty annoying to the other people in that theater. I'll bet they cheered when he got taken away.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't compare murderers to non-violent drug offenders. Those are two very different types of people. I was saying that the magnitude of the crime is a lot different for somebody breaking a copyright law by posting an illegal copy of a movie online compared to somebody selling $20 worth of drugs to somebody else on the corner.
I don't disagree that it should be discouraged, just that the punishment should fit the crime. Giving harsher penalties to copyright infringers than to drug dealers is so far beyond absurd that there is no word in the English language strong enough to adequately express it.
Wait, what really is the crime? Where does the money from your $10 ticket, $5 popcorn, and $4 drink go? It goes to the people who make the film and run the theater. It even goes to the farmers that grow the corn - in both your drink and your bucket. Thats a lot of people, and if you give that movie you cammed in the theater to say half a million north american viewers, that adds up to a lot of money. Not to mention what happens to your video once it leaves the country. You may call it socialist bullshit or whatever else you want, but its still trickle down economics. One guy in a theater in Canada really can have that sort of effect in our world today. The world is flat. Now I ask, what is the harsher crime? A guy peddling drugs to a homeless bum, or a guy who's enabling the loss of $50 million dollars to the local and national economies? I think the potential monetary loss due to copyright infringement is far worse than the potential crime committed by my potential dealer.
I thought film piracy wasn't done by taping off the screen (I can't imagine that would produce a watchable result), but by people who have access to the film in a quality digital format, e.g. the DVD "screeners" sent out for promotional purposes.
The judge said "but he has an item that is more supportive of taking something to be used to make a profit." Really? Is there big money to be had in shaky, flickery, low-quality home videos off a theatre screen? Not a rhetorical question.
Nope, they are out there. Sure, there are dvd screeners, but those are actually traceable to their origins from what I remember hearing. See here about that.
On the contrary, I have seen screen capture from cameras in two recently released movies. The quality sucked, and in the case of one - Tropic Thunder - was so bad I was actually inspired to go see it in the theater for myself. The poor quality was due to poor sound and poor picture. There are better captures out there, but the point is that they are still being made.
I can honestly say that I didn't download these, and in general encourage watching a movie in the theater instead of at home. Its just an overall better experience that by paying to see it you are helping to support the film industry that is fronting the money to make the movies. That trickles down to the kids working in the theater. Going out to a movie is one of the most american things you can do in my opinion.
Taping in a theater not only should be illegal, but I'm glad that a-hole got busted because it was probably pretty annoying to the other people in that theater. I'll bet they cheered when he got taken away.