"Fuck you, I got your film for nothing, cumstain."

The gossip on MoC. Lists and polls are STRONGLY discouraged.
Locked
Message
Author
User avatar
david hare
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller

#151 Post by david hare » Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:43 am

Yes.

It's for PROFIT.

Theirs.

Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:43 am

#152 Post by Cinesimilitude » Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:34 am

If I didn't download Pulp Fiction when I was 14, I wouldn't be here. It started me on a path to a deeper more meaningful type of cinema, and then onto the criterion collection, and It's been my obsession since... that said, People who search out MoC to download are already fully aware that it is available to them for purchase, and seem to have no moral objection to ripping off Nick and his fabulous little company. I think it's such a gray area because of age. When I was downloading movies at a young age I didn't think of it as being illegal at all, but I know better now. The thing to me is that the kind of crowd who watches films that MoC release are adults, and fully aware of the legality of thier actions. If this were a case of Nick releasing a "Wayans Brothers" collection featuring Hi-Def remasters of their classics; scary movie, white chicks, and little man, and then bitching about people downloading it off the internet, I'd have no sympathy. But the crowd we are speaking of here has no respect for Nick or his company whatsoever.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

#153 Post by vogler » Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:24 am

davidhare wrote:Yes.

It's for PROFIT.

Theirs.
I am starting to feel that this debate has gone as far as it needs to here. I'd just like to ask you what you mean by this comment though. When you talk of profit are you referring to financial gain? Are you talking about people who make copies of dvds and sell them? File sharing is of course not for profit and is the sharing of the data between individuals without any financial transaction. Or are you suggesting that the dvd pirates, for example the ones you get on ebay, are downloading the dvds from sites such as these in order to make their discs to sell. This would be unlikely since pirates usually include copies of the artwork and therefore have the discs. This kind of piracy annoys me greatly and I can't stand to see people profit from the efforts of others. File sharing is free though - although I'm not saying that makes it right.

You said 'traded FOR PROFIT', but trading, and even more so sharing, is not for profit - at least not in a financial sense. I'm not trying to start an argument with you David (I've had quite enough of that and it's going nowhere) but I would be grateful if you could clarify that point. I just want to be sure that we know what we are dealing with here.

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#154 Post by Scharphedin2 » Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:28 am

For me, there are two very basic principles that pertain to the question of duplicating films/DVDs illegally. First, it is the principle that “no means no.â€
Last edited by Scharphedin2 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

#155 Post by vogler » Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:52 am

HerrSchreck wrote:Calmly reasoned, carefully measured and structured, vastly patient and timetaking arguments over black and white legal issues are not always The Better Way... even when a broke college student decides
Ha Ha - are you talking about me? I'm neither broke nor a student though. No you're probably right that 'patient and timetaking arguments' aren't always the better way but when we're talking about the running of a business I find that they generally are (especially when the issue is not black and white).

I think zedz was right when he said we should find some dvd covers to talk about. That was the most sensible comment in this whole thread.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#156 Post by GringoTex » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:05 am

vogler wrote:File sharing is of course not for profit and is the sharing of the data between individuals without any financial transaction.
Let's try car sharing. I'll steal a car off the lot and share it with you. But that means you need to share the car you stole off another lot with someone else. Everybody wins and its not for financial gain because none of us is making a profit.

(meanwhile I'll use the $500 a month I'm saving on a car payment to buy beer and DVDs)

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

#157 Post by vogler » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:28 am

GringoTex wrote:
vogler wrote:File sharing is of course not for profit and is the sharing of the data between individuals without any financial transaction.
Let's try car sharing. I'll steal a car off the lot and share it with you. But that means you need to share the car you stole off another lot with someone else. Everybody wins and its not for financial gain because none of us is making a profit.

(meanwhile I'll use the $500 a month I'm saving on a car payment to buy beer and DVDs)
AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!! ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) :lol: :lol: :lol:

"You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!" :lol:

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#158 Post by GringoTex » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:15 am

I'm sure you've guessed by now I have zero interest in serious debate on this. Sometimes it's enough to just be an ass.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

#159 Post by vogler » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:21 am

GringoTex wrote:Sometimes it's enough to just be an ass.
I totally agree (hence my last post).
Last edited by vogler on Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#160 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:54 am

I'm gonna break my promise to myself and post again in this thread "for the last time" owing to the beauty and sincerity of Scharf's (where in flucks name did ya GO??) last post.. it has motivated me, it has engaged me.. it has lit me up with blue neon and caused me to feel just like an enthused human-- innarested in life and squirming ta get inna action dialactical terms.

In brief (because the spell is awready wearing off)--


What is obviously running thru a great many of the "anti-regulation" posts is the Christ Am I gonna Change The Wicked Unfair World When I Get The Chance (which-- I genuinely mean this-- is the best impulse that can take hold of any brilliant young man... hoping of course, if the young man turns out inna ex post facto sense to have access to any power at all) sense that we live in a world grossly tilted towards the rich at the in-your-face exploitation of the poor-to-middle-class. We'll exclude the wealthy since they in sum appear to love phhysical reminders of the force of their Human Value, which, since nothing else exists to provide yardsticking, equals pussy and chucking dollars around like water.

Yes, everything is overpriced, and we Not Rich Folks must contend with the anger and frustration of paying way too much money for stuff we really really really really really want.. the anger and frustration of making way way way way way way way too little for the daily procedure of Showing Up Five Days A Week to have our dignity and sense of self clobbered with Bam Bam-sized wood clubs. If you're young and full of juice and clear unclouded insight and raging newfound perception... it feels Very Very Hard To Take. Any savings feels like a delicious victory. Any defeat of corpotations like NBC Uni or Wb feels like an identity reinforcing proto-punk revolution in practice, one mere drop in the sea of seasoning of an All Seeing Justice Oriented Young Man. Shortcuts afforded by the lack of Hands Exchanging Stolen Stuff via internat transaction-- untrackable or not worth tracking in most cases due to volume and one by one by one pacing in the Observational Law Enforcement sense-- insure, however, that you are not really Taking On Any Enemy In Truth... you are sneaking around like we all do to test directorial waters or dip into retail regions not your own in an effort to save foreign customs charges and online ordering pain inna ass.

What you are missing in the above schematic is first of all this is not a criterionforum.COM discussion about the Warner Brothers MAN... Not the Universal wads who don't know who Paul Leni is-- let alone release THE LAST WARNING.

We are talking about Nick and Doug et al at MoC... who despise the fucking system with all the venom and vitriol that you kids do, who see the injustice and the tilting of arrangements--- not towards themselves or their pocketbooks, mind you, but to the ass-lotion attourneys they are forced to hire.. to the original-rights-holders they have to practically mortgage their intestines to secure the privelege FOR YOU PIRATES to see films that THEY, DOUG AND NICK have probably seen half a dozen times already... but they are playing the game And shelling out, breaking the bank to go progressive, clean up, and spangle with totally unneccessary extras material which they could have just as easily schlumped out there with minimum effort because they know that a few thousand cineastes out there have been masturbating chronically-- to the point of nerve-free joints-- to get an opp to simply see the flick. But what do they do? They say "I'm unna make dat nigga's dream cum true.. I'm unna do him 5000% BETTER than his dreams... Homeboy gonna gin in his dry drawers when he sees all the effort I whapped inta this sucker, I'm gonna golf WB and NBC Uni and Kino and all those dry sacs into the stratosphere and treat (film nobody's heard of) like it's gone with the wind."

And you guys choose this subject, and this company in particular-- and this forum-- to whine about justice and legal grey areas. Go noodle on dotcom. Because it's where you belong.

Wrong forum, wrong "as an example" dvd company, terrible sense of tact, cool, and comradeship.

User avatar
jt
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:47 am
Location: zurich

#161 Post by jt » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:10 pm

I'm not sure that there's much more to be said on this thread but will try to add my two cents to help it die gracefully;

Firstly, I find it surprising that the 'legal' issues are still being debated with words like 'ambiguous' or 'grey areas'.
If you find yourself watching an MoC licenced film and you didn't part with cash for the privilege, then someone, somewhere has broken the law. Fact.
Whether you happen to have broken your own moral code is kind of a moot point.

Jun Dai has made some good points but I believe (with respect) that one of his main assertions is essentially flawed:
I was pointing out that the only loss you have sustained by Mike downloading a film is by Mike not buying the film. Given that Mike is still capable of buying the film after having downloaded it, the only situation in which have sustained a loss is when Mike would have bought the DVD if and only if he were unable to get it without buying it. Incidentally, you sustain the same effective loss if Mike neither buys nor downloads the DVD.
But Mike is not a random person off the street, he is a film fan who has an interest in watching an MoC film in the first place. This leaves him with a number of choices; buy, rent or download. Of course he may buy after having downloaded and I won't pretend that this never happens but I will hazard a guess (because that is the best any of us can do with regard to these particular statistics) that the majority of people who download do not then purchase legally.
There are a small group of people in the world interested in the kind of films that MoC put out and if a percentage of these people download and a percentage of those downloaders do not then purchase, MoC takes a hit. So it is not a victimless crime.

Talking about your 'right' to see a film (illegally) even if you can't afford to buy it is about as retarded as arguing that you have the right to fuck every model you see (by force) even though you are pig-ugly. I won't waste time on that one.

As has been pointed out multiple times already, filesharing is not going away any time soon and it's one thing for people to come here and say "I'm going to download them, I know it's wrong but I'm too cheap/poor/lazy to buy them" but it must be pretty galling for Nick to have to listen to people trying to justify themselves as not doing anything wrong or even helping him whilst benefitting from his work for free.
I for one sincerely hope his (understandably) angry posts haven't had a detrimental effect on the MoC brand as some have suggested.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

#162 Post by vogler » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:11 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:What is obviously running thru a great many of the "anti-regulation" posts is the Christ Am I gonna Change The Wicked Unfair World When I Get The Chance (which-- I genuinely mean this-- is the best impulse that can take hold of any brilliant young man... hoping of course, if the young man turns out inna ex post facto sense to have access to any power at all)
I wish I could say that was me, but to be honest I'm a man who's not quite so young anymore and has unfortunately become slightly jaded over time. I do still have strong opinions on morality and the law but I no longer believe that I'm 'gonna Change The Wicked Unfair World When I Get The Chance'. My opinions of human nature no longer allow for such a viewpoint. Your description does, however, fit me very well 10 years ago.
HerrSchreck wrote:Wrong forum
I have been thinking the same thing.

User avatar
skuhn8
wax on; wax off
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Chico, CA

#163 Post by skuhn8 » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:57 pm

Seven pages of posts and I still fail to see what this grey area thing is. There's no question that it's illegal. But can someone explain how it's ok to download and copy an MOC disc rather than buy it? And I don't care about P2P and libraries and the collected works of Dickens or Beckett. How is it ok to download and copy an MOC disc rather than buy it? How does this help promote the kind of releases we here know and love?

And if it's just a matter of "well, I'm going to go ahead and do it cause I want to and can" then where does this stupid urge to justify it come in.

User avatar
Darth Lavender
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:24 pm

#164 Post by Darth Lavender » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:10 pm

Actually, this being the 'wrong forum' is precisely why I decided to post some (moderately) 'pro-piracy' opinions here. If I were to argue in favour of piracy on some file-sharing forum, I'd just get a whole lot of agreements and no intelligent debate whatsoever. A "devil's advocate" is a very useful thing (although, in this case, I do believe in the opinions which I'm posting, which is why they are, only, moderately pro-piracy.)

Anyway, to answer a few of the further comments...

There's been some talk about the law is what matters, regardless of what your own moral code permits;
For a lot of people, I would disagree. It's one thing if your moral code *includes* the importance of following the law (which may be the case for some people, myself included to some extent) but for those who's moral code is based purely on what they themselves think is right or wrong, the law has nothing to do with the issue (especially since, with ever improving privacy technology, etc. we will probably soon reach a point were it's impossible to track down and prosecute pirates.)

Oh, and this kind of debate is bound to produce silly analogies. So, firstly, I'm inclined to ask, for all those who still equate piracy with stealing a physical object (say a car,) do you believe it's acceptable to only vandalise a car? Afterall, the loss of the object by the rightful owner is unimportant in your analogy.

Also, to the person who equated it with a 'pig-ugly' fellow wanting to rape any attractive woman he sees, isn't a far better analogy that of a pig-ugly fellow feeling he has a right to (to use the language of Pasolini's favourite Marquis) "frig himself" to the thought of every attractive woman he sees?
Of course, that analogy does still, at the least, create plenty of room for moral debate (most obviously from a Christian moral standpoint, were even consentual adultery would be wrong. But, I think it at least mirrors, a little more accurately, the issues of piracy. (I'm tempted to accuse those who compare piracy with rape of being insensitive (and a variety of other ad-hominems)) but that would be a little too easy and callow (you people really did leave yourselves open, though.)

Also, to those who keep instead that it is simply wrong, without room for debate (aside from how, simply, silly it is to say that about any moral) I would be genuinely interested to hear a rational reply to why it is 'wrong' to copy Nabokov without paying his descendants, but not Dickens.


EDIT
To answer Skuhn's enquery, about were the grey area lies in copying MoC DVDs, in terms of being Practically Sensible (so much easier to argue about than the vague 'Moral,' were we would first have to agree on a definition of morality, etc.) the grey area lies in not knowing exactly how this affects MoC's sales.

User avatar
toiletduck!
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: The 'Go
Contact:

#165 Post by toiletduck! » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:39 pm

skuhn8 wrote:But can someone explain how it's ok to download and copy an MOC disc rather than buy it?
This is the point of the whole thing? That's the question we're supposed to have been trying to answer? Shit, I've been wasting everyone's time, then. That one's easy. Go find someone who thinks it's ok (and anyone spending great amounts of time justifying it probably doesn't really think it's ok) and ask them. There's your answer. That's how it's ok. Will it make sense to you? Probably not. Will it make you change your mind? Almost certainly not. Does that make them wrong in the grand scheme of things? I don't know and I really don't care.

I don't find it acceptable to pirate these discs from MoC, so I don't do it. Happily, it would appear there is a much larger number of people who find such activity unacceptable or at least of a questionable nature than those who find it perfectly ok. But I'm not about to condemn those who do as being morally bankrupt, because a) it's not my place, b) I don't really think they all are, and c) I know there are plenty of people who would condemn aspects of my behavior which I find harmless, and it's really damn annoying.

If they're breaking the law, let the law deal with them. I support Nick taking appropriate legal action against these sites. I'm not, however, going get involved and I'm not going to be particularly gung-ho about other third parties leaping into the fray.

I was never under the impression that anyone in this thread felt it was particularly ok to pirate MoC discs. Even ambrose spent way too much effort and got far too testy to not be trying to convince himself of something as well. But, fuh chrissakes, there is middle ground. Just because I don't agree with the activity doesn't mean I want to "blast the cunts out of cyberspace." And just because I don't want to "blast the cunts out of cyberspace" doesn't mean I agree with the activity -- an assumption which many posters seem to be making.

-Toilet Dcuk
Last edited by toiletduck! on Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jt
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:47 am
Location: zurich

#166 Post by jt » Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:33 pm

Darth Lavender wrote:Also, to the person who equated it with a 'pig-ugly' fellow wanting to rape any attractive woman he sees, isn't a far better analogy that of a pig-ugly fellow feeling he has a right to (to use the language of Pasolini's favourite Marquis) "frig himself" to the thought of every attractive woman he sees? Of course, that analogy does still, at the least, create plenty of room for moral debate (most obviously from a Christian moral standpoint, were even consentual adultery would be wrong. But, I think it at least mirrors, a little more accurately, the issues of piracy. (I'm tempted to accuse those who compare piracy with rape of being insensitive (and a variety of other ad-hominems)) but that would be a little too easy and callow (you people really did leave yourselves open, though.)
Do I actually have to explain that I consider rape a teensy bit more seriously that filesharing? But if my analogy came off as a little facetious, I'll try another:

Consider a gallery that has spent a lot of time and money collecting a number of Dali paintings for an exhibition. There are a good few thousand people who are interested in seeing this and they all have the option of going through the front door and paying or sneaking in through the back entrance and seeing it for free. Those that pay, support the gallery, increase the likelihood of further exhibitions and reward the owners for their time and effort. Those who sneak in...well...this is where I get confused, I've not yet heard a single conclusive reason as to why some people consider this ok.
Also, to those who keep instead that it is simply wrong, without room for debate (aside from how, simply, silly it is to say that about any moral) I would be genuinely interested to hear a rational reply to why it is 'wrong' to copy Nabokov without paying his descendants, but not Dickens.
Without going into depth on the legality of copywrite law, surely the emphasis in this argument should be on those who think it is ok to break the law with regard to MoC's rightfully owned copywrite to explain to us why, not the other way round??
the grey area lies in not knowing exactly how this affects MoC's sales.
Oh Please! Is anyone here, on either side of the argument going to try and suggest that the effect is anything other than reducing MoC's sales? Whether it costs them one sale or one thousand, it still costs them. Or will someone roll out the argument that it increases awareness and actually benefits them? Why don't we ask Nick if he appreciates this magnificent altruism. Wait...I think he's made his position clear...

User avatar
toiletduck!
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: The 'Go
Contact:

#167 Post by toiletduck! » Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:54 pm

jt wrote:Consider a gallery that has spent a lot of time and money collecting a number of Dali paintings for an exhibition. There are a good few thousand people who are interested in seeing this and they all have the option of going through the front door and paying or sneaking in through the back entrance and seeing it for free. Those that pay, support the gallery, increase the likelihood of further exhibitions and reward the owners for their time and effort. Those who sneak in...well...this is where I get confused, I've not yet heard a single conclusive reason as to why some people consider this ok.
Ok, I'm going to hold off for now, because it's off-topic (as if that still matters) and, more importantly, I don't know if what you were intending with this metaphor is what's actually coming across, but, if you really are interested, 'suggested' donations and entry fees to museums is an area that I would gladly step up and take the opposite viewpoint in a discussion -- and that would be one that I would wholeheartedly agree with.

Just, you know, throwing it out there.

-Toilet Dcuk

ambrose1am
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

#168 Post by ambrose1am » Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:09 pm

toiletduck wrote:Even ambrose spent way too much effort and got far too testy to not be trying to convince himself of something as well. But, fuh chrissakes, there is middle ground. Just because I don't agree with the activity doesn't mean I want to "blast the cunts out of cyberspace." And just because I don't want to "blast the cunts out of cyberspace" doesn't mean I agree with the activity -- an assumption which many posters seem to be making.
In hindsight, you are probably right about my posts, toiletduck. When it's all said and done, there is one thing to take away from this, I think.

File sharing and piracy are not going to go away without law enforcement taking extreme measures. Aside from alienating a lot of people, including, I suspect, many of the people who would like to see more controls placed on it, those extreme measures could lead to something like secret government programs involving the music and film industries bankrolling the, uhm, NSA and telecom companies to spy on and police network traffic. That will be the ultimate result of enforcing copyright and intellectual property law. It would probably devastate a lot of tech companies and squelch innovation, too. Judging from the vitriol coming from both sides, I can see that either all file sharing goes or nothing goes. Eventually, the extremity of the law will prevail, I'm afraid, rather than a compromise.
Last edited by ambrose1am on Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jt
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:47 am
Location: zurich

#169 Post by jt » Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:13 pm

toiletduck! wrote:but, if you really are interested, 'suggested' donations and entry fees to museums is an area that I would gladly step up and take the opposite viewpoint in a discussion -- and that would be one that I would wholeheartedly agree with.
Dcuk, I'm not really sure what you mean by the line above (probably my fault) but to clarify, I wasn't discussing voluntary contributions. Rather the idea of getting a service (exhibition, film etc) that should cost money, for free.

Specifically, getting it for free by breaking the law.

I use this rather that the shoplifting analogy as it is a service, not an object that is being stolen.

User avatar
toiletduck!
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: The 'Go
Contact:

#170 Post by toiletduck! » Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:20 pm

Fair enough, jt. I was speaking towards another issue entirely. I'll leave well enough alone here.

-Toilet Dcuk

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

#171 Post by MichaelB » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:15 am

ambrose1am wrote:This is such an obnoxious post I don't know where to begin. MichaelB, I'm sorry things turned so sour because I enjoyed and indeed, learned something, from your posts, but the ad hominem arguments are out of line.
My definition of an "ad hominem argument" is something that favours gratuitous personal insult over reasoned discussion. Like it or not, everything that I wrote about you was evidence-backed - the evidence often consisting of direct quotes from what you yourself wrote. If I misinterpreted anything you said, I naturally apologise - but I'm sure that if I had, you'd have pointed it out by now.

(I've actually been bending over backwards not to hurl insults, gratuitous or otherwise, as this thread has seen more than enough!)
Talk about making “sweeping assertionsâ€

Anonymous

#172 Post by Anonymous » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:26 pm

Downloading movies and music (but NOT computer software) has always been legal in Finland... well, was legal, until 1.1.2006 when the laws were changed. If I have understood it correctly, downloading still isn't a crime but can be punished by making you pay compensation for copyright holders (and yes it may sound weird :P ). Anyways I'm just saying that the laws can be different in different countries so it's not like theres some worldwide law that would actually make downloading (or even uploading) illegal no matter what. (I would think atleast majority of countries do consider this stuff illegal though, I just don't know the laws of each country, but maybe someone here does? ;) )

Copying stuff to your family, relatives and friends on the other hand is still legal in Finland. But circumventing some copy protections is not (but nobody actually has any kind of idea what kind of protections enjoy this protection by the law). Yet in France there have already been several cases where courts have decided that DVD and CD protections are illegal if they prevent the consumer using the product privately in whatever way he wishes to.

Also here's something from France regarding the legality of downloading/uploading and some sort of proof that it just isn't as clear as some make it out to be.

"The French courts have ruled that using peer-to-peer networks (P2P), providing you are doing so for personal rather than commercial reasons, is legal." ... "...the Judges decided that these acts of downloading and uploading qualified as "private copying". "

Don't know what happened to the case in higher courts though (maybe it hasn't been finished yet), and this is of course just one case but at least the decision was made by people who should know the laws. ;P

As the article briefly mentions, France has also been making some advancements towards a p2p fee for internet users which would make it legal to download and upload material as much as you want as long as you pay a small fee per month. The law didn't get accepted yet, but I (and lots of others) have a feeling it will be some day in the future and other countries will probably follow (or even be first). I know in England they have considered something like this for some companies' (maybe Sony?) music. I also saw someone mentioning (in some article about the French law that didn't pass yet) that Spain would have already legalized p2p in some ways but I don't know more about that (and couldn't find, maybe knowing spanish language would help ;) )

User avatar
jon
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:03 pm

#173 Post by jon » Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:16 pm

I am pretty sure that downloading an MoC DVD for free is directly fucking that company over. I don't see how there is any debate.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

#174 Post by vogler » Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:30 pm

jon wrote:I am pretty sure that downloading an MoC DVD for free is directly fucking that company over. I don't see how there is any debate.
So who's ready for round two? :wink:

anton
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:00 pm

#175 Post by anton » Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:34 pm

vogler wrote:
jon wrote:I am pretty sure that downloading an MoC DVD for free is directly fucking that company over. I don't see how there is any debate.
So who's ready for round two? :wink:
Define fuck. And yes, pirates equals killing Jews. *

* of course referring to the totally hilarious link between raping women and ripping DVDs. Thus ripping MoC IS the Holocaust. You can't have a discussion on the subject without it.

Locked