Well nowdays there is quite a few ad supported movie streaming sites. Heck I think HULU has a few hundred movies to watch.seydaman said:
its not illegal to watch
- Thread starter Seydaman
- Start date
Depends on the licensing terms the owner of the copyright has with the agency that is distributing the movie. Netflix, for example, provides streaming video that is legal to view according to the license terms under which they obtain that movie (which is why some movies CAN'T be streamed via Netflix, as well). However, it is a violation of those terms for the end user to download a permanent copy of that video to their PC or other storage device.seydaman said:
Similarly, some movies are posted in their entirety on Youtube (a number of foreign ones come to mind -- go see the Thai movie "Chocolate"), and the creators have authorized this to be so, but it is unlikely they have authorized the end-user to save a permanent copy of that movie to their hard drives.
1. 'Retardation' is a highly ironic term, as, since it does not exist, any person using it not in parenthesis, aphostrophes et al is technically, a retard.
2. In solution to Abedeus's proposed measure, I prononounce the limiting of all salaries above ten million dollars a year. Or killing all CEOs for being bastards. Or simply overthrowing the world in a communist revolution.
Or the pair of you could just stop moralising, whining and in general wasting forum-space. It is clearly less harmful to steal from the rich, after that, it depends whether your morality is absolute or subjective.
3. If you think libertarianism is a good idea, pray accept the fact you are, indeed, an idiot.
2. In solution to Abedeus's proposed measure, I prononounce the limiting of all salaries above ten million dollars a year. Or killing all CEOs for being bastards. Or simply overthrowing the world in a communist revolution.
Or the pair of you could just stop moralising, whining and in general wasting forum-space. It is clearly less harmful to steal from the rich, after that, it depends whether your morality is absolute or subjective.
3. If you think libertarianism is a good idea, pray accept the fact you are, indeed, an idiot.
Welcome to the internet. Forget morals, forget paying for information. It exists and you can't change it.
Some things may be illegal, but so is speeding, and here in Virginia going the speed limit means you're unsafely slower than the flow of traffic.
Anywho... Don't do anything heinous and stream/download to your hearts content.
Encrypt your P2P packets if you can, never hurts.
Some things may be illegal, but so is speeding, and here in Virginia going the speed limit means you're unsafely slower than the flow of traffic.
Anywho... Don't do anything heinous and stream/download to your hearts content.
Encrypt your P2P packets if you can, never hurts.
Depends where this idiot is.
Downloading copyright protected material is technically not illegal in The Netherlands while posting or uploading is.
Downloading copyright protected material is technically not illegal in The Netherlands while posting or uploading is.
DON'T TASE ME BRO!zauxz said:
Sums up you pretty nicely. Your freedom ends when you violate the freedom of other people. Your rights should also end when you take the rights of other people.
When you take someone's right to life, you should have no right to be a free man.
You know, this is an interesting case study, just because of the attention it's getting and how carefully followed it is. But it begs the question - if the movie doesn't do well, does Fox have the right to blame the piraters? And conversely, if it does spectacularly, how to you qualify the loss from piracy? Do you just add 1 million tickets to your earnings and say we coulda made *this*? And if so, how do you account for those who illegally downloaded it and then saw it in theaters anyway? Can you say for sure they'd have watched it twice instead? Or how about the cronic downloaders who have no interest in Wolverine whatsoever and simply stole it because that's what they do? Where do they fit into these figures? Not to mention the new audience no doubt acquired because of the press Wolverine is getting because of this in the first place. If someone's only going to see it because they're curious about this movie everyone is trying to steal, then they're filling one of the seats left theoretically vacant by a pirater, aren't they? If a pirate gushes on forums and to his/her friends about Wolverine, is their extremely persuasive argument-by-authority advertising disqualified because they stole the product in the first place? Because on the other hand, production companies prescreen their films for free all the time, usually for that very purpose.Xan Krieger said:
How can anyone fit this together in a way that's clear-cut? Is it even possible? I know it's technically not the topic, but Krieger's comment got me thinking. Which is never a good thing.
You forgot "public display." If you watch it with other people, then it can be considered "public" display, even if the environment is not technically "public" in the traditional sense(like a house for example).super_smash_jesus said:
@ OP:
Also, last time I checked, the courts have not yet considered whether a digital work is "copied" when it is put up for download or when it is actually downloaded. It seems to me that the uploader is making one copy publicly available but the downloader is making is own copy, which would be infringment. Its like one guy (uploader) putting a disc on a table and allowing interested people (downloaders) to make their own copies of that disc.
And the fact that it's streaming is irrelevant. Courts have held that the digital work's existence in your computer's RAM is enough for "reproduction."
So, OP, don't go around calling people stupid when you are no expert either.
P.S. Also, I think there are laws separate from copyright infringement that make it illegal to RECEIVE a copy, even if you didn't copy it yourself. Kinda like receiving stolen property. I'm not positive on this one. Can anyone confirm?
P.P.S. I wouldn't worry too much about it though. If they tried to sue everyone who watched a video online, they would go bankrupt. It's better to go after the source (uploader).
I'm pretty sure that calling someone a twat isn't quite the same as violating someone's freedom, just a guess though.Abedeus said:
they aren't ruining anything. The industry has to change to work with new technologies, and if it doesn't, then the status quo industry will die, and a new one that knows how to survive in the 21st century will rise from the ashes.Zombie_Fish said:
Technically speaking, streaming is downloading (of a sort) so he's just a jackass.seydaman said:
It was just an example. Insulting someone is taking away someone's dignity, or an attempt to do so. That's why no matter what country and how much freedom of speech there is, if you go to the president and tell him he's an asswipe, you will be punished.DonkeysAndClipboards said:
Unless you don't see anything wrong in insulting strangers. In that case, I pity you. Must be a hard enviornment.
Not sure about the States, but both of the activities listed in the OP are legal in the majority of countries in the world
meh i follow my morals,id download a movie,if its not harming any1 and i think i can get away with it il do it.
Then why Youtube is censoring videos that use copywrited music? It's streamed, isn't it? For example, the only way I could get "It's The End Of The World As We Know It" by R.E.M. is use a program on a video of their live concert. Because the original video with the song was muted.Good morning blues said:
Streaming is nothing more than downloading everything on your disc and playing it in real time. After you close your browser, everything is deleted.