3 ms·

Bullshit. Movie studios are in the business of providing a service. The studios have given their time and money in order to produce a motion picture. They are

by bena 16y ago

Bullshit. Movie studios are in the business of providing a service. The studios have given their time and money in order to produce a motion picture. They are entitled to recompense from people in exchange for performances. Think of a film as a performance caught in time. The actors, directors, grips, etc. were all fronted money by the studios for their performances. In doing so, the studio has assumed all of the risk for putting on the performance. Therefore, when you copy a movie you are essentially sneaking into a concert without a ticket. You are stealing services.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
In a traditional theft of services, the service is only performed because of the promise of a thief. I.e., a taxi will not drive across town unless I promise to pay them - thus, the driver is deprived of that time/effort. In contrast, both movie pirates and people who choose not to view the movie made no promise to a movie studio. Sneaking into a concert without a ticket is trespassing.
- bena 16y ago
  People who choose not to view the movie are irrelevant to the discussion. Don't try and attach pirates to that group. One group is moral, the other not so much. Taxis say "I will drive you across town if you promise to pay". Movie studios say "I will show you this performance if you promise to pay". The promise is implicit in the act of watching/riding. You don't get in a taxi and explicitly say "I will pay you to drive me around". No, you get in a taxi and say "Take me over there". The promise of payment is implicit.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
nooneelse 16y ago
Movie studios are in the business of providing a service. The studios have given their time and money in order to produce a motion picture. They are entitled to recompense from people in exchange for performances. Bob is in the business of making blickits. Bob has given his time and money in order to produce blickits in the street. Bob is entitled to recompense from people for them seeing his blickits. Really? "Entitled"? You want to have that generalization around? Everything from blickit=crazy rant to blickit=fart? This seems like the opposite of a clear foundation for morality or legality with known and known good implications.
- bena 16y ago
  In Bob's case, he's now busking. He's doing something in the public space. He's essentially forcing his performance on others or gifting it to passerbys with his actions. Movies do shoot on location, and people do watch when movies are shooting in their area, and the studio doesn't charge for that. Now, if Bob were to either record his performance and sell it on the street or build a box around himself and charged people to enter to see him blickit, the situation becomes analogous. You're trying to essentially paint me as saying that a baker can force you to buy a loaf of bread by shoving it in your hands. I'm not.

by bena 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

In a traditional theft of services, the service is only performed because of the promise of a thief. I.e., a taxi will not drive across town unless I promise to pay them - thus, the driver is deprived of that time/effort. In contrast, both movie pirates and people who choose not to view the movie made no promise to a movie studio. Sneaking into a concert without a ticket is trespassing.

bena 16y ago
People who choose not to view the movie are irrelevant to the discussion. Don't try and attach pirates to that group. One group is moral, the other not so much. Taxis say "I will drive you across town if you promise to pay". Movie studios say "I will show you this performance if you promise to pay". The promise is implicit in the act of watching/riding. You don't get in a taxi and explicitly say "I will pay you to drive me around". No, you get in a taxi and say "Take me over there". The promise of payment is implicit.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

nooneelse 16y ago

Movie studios are in the business of providing a service. The studios have given their time and money in order to produce a motion picture. They are entitled to recompense from people in exchange for performances. Bob is in the business of making blickits. Bob has given his time and money in order to produce blickits in the street. Bob is entitled to recompense from people for them seeing his blickits. Really? "Entitled"? You want to have that generalization around? Everything from blickit=crazy rant to blickit=fart? This seems like the opposite of a clear foundation for morality or legality with known and known good implications.

bena 16y ago
In Bob's case, he's now busking. He's doing something in the public space. He's essentially forcing his performance on others or gifting it to passerbys with his actions. Movies do shoot on location, and people do watch when movies are shooting in their area, and the studio doesn't charge for that. Now, if Bob were to either record his performance and sell it on the street or build a box around himself and charged people to enter to see him blickit, the situation becomes analogous. You're trying to essentially paint me as saying that a baker can force you to buy a loaf of bread by shoving it in your hands. I'm not.