How do you get your movies?
I am a member!
With all the problems that exist with services such as Netflix and Amazon Instant Video I was wondering what service(s) you guys use to watch movies? Do you simply rent DVDs?
We don't watch movies. :-P
In all seriousness, I watch DVDs.
I don't ever watch movies outside of the theater or TV channels. I don't have enough interest. One thing to note is that in order to get most movies without being abused, you have to break the law (either get a copy from someone else or crack DVD encryption in violation of the DMCA).
Local used bookstore and media exchange.
No connection worries, no time limits, no ownership hassles, few and skippable ads, no premiums for getting "the latest", extra content, and it's as Green as it gets. What's not to like?
Not all DVDs are encrypted, but all CSS'd DVDs should say on their covers "It is illegal to use this DVD in freedom."
I think that some, but not all encrypted DVDs have an icon on their cover to the effect of "Copying Prohibited".
I am a member!
Search engines are your friend.
Show or name of movie site:.ch OR site:.EU
Use the above and at least one if not all search engine will present results full of DRM free content. Some of it is even not dependent on proprietary software or restricted by your region.
Alternatives (if you rather download instead of stream):
Torrents. isohunt.com
I think your link provides dvd copies which break the law in many countries;
Is it ok to link to such a site?
Chris didn't post a link, you have to copy and paste it in your browser. ;)
I am a member!
You would need to consult a lawyer about legal questions. I'm not aware of anything illegal about linking to a search engine. In either case I did not post a link.
Would telling users that they can use Google to find content online be illegal?
You can also search for torrents by using Google, and probably other search engines:
content ext:.torrent
This will limit your search to torrents.
There is lots of content available under Creative Commons Licenses such as the Creative Commons License Attribution 3.0. One example is an animated cartoon: Big Buck Bunny. You can find more info on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Buck_Bunny
Or imdb:
On 10/06/13 06:25, BlinkingArrow wrote:
> With all the problems that exist with services such as Netflix and
> Amazon Instant Video I was wondering what service(s) you guys use to
> watch movies? Do you simply rent DVDs?
VLC is free software and is capable of watching DVDs. But I'm not
entirely sure if the required codecs are installed by default in
Trisquel or not.
Andrew.
Most commercial DVDs are encrypted, and you need something that decrypts it for that. Such free software is illegal in the U.S. and possibly other countries because CSS is considered to be DRM. I think you should still use the censored software if you watch encrypted DVDs, but that means that DVDs are not a good choice.
I record things from television using MythTV or buy used DVDs. I buy them used so as to avoid giving money to the large media companies.
And "one should not buy or tolerate any product with DRM handcuffs unless one personally possesses the means to break the handcuffs. For instance, don't use encrypted DVDs unless you have DeCSS or another comparable free program." [0] CSS was broken many years ago, so for us free software types it essentially doesn't exist.
The DMCA? Forget it. If you want to make a copy of something that you own then do it. Don't by stopped by the DMCA. The law is wrong and doesn't deserve to be obeyed. Think of it as a form of civil disobedience. [1]
[0] http://www.stallman.org/stallman-computing
[1] http://www.jxself.org/the-dmca.shtml
Where would you get a free software compatible TV recorder?
(F as well as Yellow-Red-White inputs.)
I am a member!
I think he is referring to a TV tuner card.
There is one free software friendly USB tuner now. You can gt it from libre.thinkpenguin.com. 25% of profits go to the Trisquel project. It works with Trisquel and other free software distributions. It supports both North American and European standards (ATSC / DVB-T). There is a limited supply although we (CEO) are hoping to get more. We need to see a certain demand though to make that happen. Right now it is looking pretty good although it's hard to tell still given its a newly released product.
Can you record video tapes with it? If so, what software would be used?
I am a member!
If your question is can you record television with it on your computer the answer is yes. As long as the stations are broadcast digital and DRM-free.
If your question is can you record tapes the answer is no. It wouldn't work to convert old video tapes to digital (like VHS tapes) because VHS players are going to output in analog and this is a digital ATSC and DVB-T tuner.
It may make sense for us to investigate an analog option. I believe this would be useful for connecting DVD/VHS players, game consoles (older ones at least), and at least some cable boxes I believe (ones that are still outputting analog?).
I'm not a big fan of cable television. Particularly in the United States because cable companies are using digital restrictions, reducing quality, and mandating cable boxes to get service. Back in the 1990s when cable service was analog users could get at least non-premium channels (say 60-100 channels) without any cable boxes. Users could hook up as many televisions as they possessed without it costing additional money for service. Now consumers are rented a cable box for even the most basic service. Channels that are offered over the air on cable in many cases are encrypted for no good reason. This is totally unnecessary and offers little to no benefit for the companies either for at least non-premium channels (ones broadcast unencrypted over the air) except in that it's an artificial price inflation and to fit more channels in (and at reduced quality). These boxes force up the price of service and are a profit center for cable companies. They rent consumers a box rather than selling them too. I don't even think you can legally buy boxes separate from the service despite that each box has to be activated by the cable provider. Besides all this there is a monopoly on cable internet and cable television services in almost all of the United States. A very few exceptions exist. Cable companies were given a monopoly in most communities in order to get cable companies to lay lines. Now that lines have been laid throughout the country near everywhere and these monopolies have more than made up the cost the monopolies should be lifted. These are artificial monopolies that the communities put in place to eliminate competition. It should have always been a limited monopoly with restrictions if it was going to be done at all. Restrictions that probably should have mandated the lines be owned by an intermediary and then leased at a specified price to other companies to provide the actual services.
There is also something called a CableCARD which in theory should fix some of these issues. Unfortunately these cards are also an issue, hard to get (if it is even possible still), etc. The cards apply restrictions to what can be recorded. Premium channels can't be recorded for instance if they don't want you to record it anyway. I believe it has been shown that these restrictions have even been placed on over the air channels though. So... these restrictions though are dependent on the cable provider so while it might work to some degree in theory it doesn't work terribly well in practice.
On 2013-06-12 22:49, name at domain wrote:
>
> It may make sense for us to investigate an analog option. I believe this
> would be useful for connecting DVD/VHS players, game consoles (older
> ones at least), and at least some cable boxes I believe (ones that are
> still outputting analog?).
I researched this a wihle ago for a customer without any succesful results.
I own a NeurosOSD which is IMO the closest device that has been made
supporting playback and recording of analog / digital video (not HD
though). Their products seem to have vanished from the market:
http://www.neurostechnology.com/osd
F.
--
Fabián Rodríguez
http://trisquel.magicfab.ca
There's nothing good on television, anyway. :-)
We had some discussion about a free TiVo alternative:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/tivo-solution
Fabian has posted a link to his solution (which is written in French though):
http://www.fabianrodriguez.com/blog/2013/01/18/exit-la-tele-par-cable-bienvenue-a-lenregistreur-numerique-libre
I do not know what you mean by F but typically composite Video in (Yellow) is available by using one of those cheap old analogue TV cards available.
I get many quality movies from these free sources:
http://vodo.net ( Creative Commons independent films, animations, documentaries )
http://clearbits.net/movies ( Creative Commons films and series )
http://clearbits.net/animations
http://archive.org/details/opensource_movies ( Community Video archive, all CC or PD )
and some from
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Films ( CC films, overlaps some of the above )
There may by some low production qualities mixed in, but most films you can read the blurb or download the first 5 minutes and choose whether it is right for you.
If anyone has other sources for free-culture films, shorts or animations, let me know !
Consider supporting some or all of these sites if you find them beneficial.
Stand outs:
http://archive.org/details/Kinetic_Art_Demo_Video
http://archive.org/details/BigBuckBunny
http://vodo.net/yfiase01
http://vodo.net/theyesmen
http://vodo.net/talktome
http://vodo.net/crazygolf
http://www.clearbits.net/torrents/386-sita-sings-the-blues
http://www.clearbits.net/torrents/1227-pioneer-one-s01e01
http://www.clearbits.net/torrents/790-nasty-old-people-xvid
http://www.clearbits.net/torrents/39-nobody-needs-to-know
Hello =)
I am really pleased to read your post =)
I don't know if you like watching amateur films too (they are not licensed under CC, but they uploaded on youtube by the makers, so, they probably don't even know they should license it), but here are some links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX92BOIkBs8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omE_8VJN9Eo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZmimBLEH8Q
Also, I like to watch "fan films" which are usually made by amateurs too, but based on a pre existent character (some characters belong to public domain, others don't). Here are some high quality ones that you might like:
http://www.thehuntforgollum.com/
http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/
http://megamanfilm.com/
http://caseyjonesthemovie.com/html/
Also, I never knew of clearbits.net Thanks for sharing =)
Do you know if they have direct download instead of torrent? On the website couldn't find any information, but I was hoping you could provide me some direct download links =)
Anyway, that's the spirit! Free movies, playing in free software. ^_^
If you want, I will send you more links for free movies similar to those ones.
I am a translator!
There is a "hack" to find media via Google. Just search for "find mp3 google" and go through the results - you should find a method of searching directories for mp3s inside Google. If you copy the search and replace mp3 by other media types you can find movies too. The search will usually find Apache servers which you can download from using wget or similar software.
There's some movies also on Miro + http://www.miroguide.com/
I use Miro with some free sources and of course, http://www.archive.org and its RSS channels.
Mainly sci-fi, noir and comedy movies.
Usually I prefer BDs or DVDs from various sources (video rental, bought used, public libraries, friends) which I decrypt and store on my HTPC. Encrypted movies which are stored on fragile optical discs are not acceptable. I expect some BDs to die in the next 10-15 years. The optical layer is often VERY thin...which the known implications....
Second source it public DVB-S which I either record with my STB or the DVB-S card in my HTPC.
Also do not forget about youtube, which of course is often no source of movies but interesting documentations and all kind of weirdo how2s :)
Generally speaking I find normal TV very boring....
I prefer to watch movies online or on TV.
With Gnash, for example, you just have to configure it so that it saves the stream in some accessible place, run the stream completely once (even if you start the video again, or if it stops playing to be loaded, what matters is the stream, which is loaded until it's end), and then you have it, saved where you configured Gnash to do so. It won't download subtitles.
As you might guess, this method only works if you can actually see the stream, otherwise you'll just save a black video. Also, don't forget to revert your configuration once done downloading, otherwise, Gnash will surely keep saving streams every time you use it.
Best regards, ADFENO.
Have a nice day.
Addendum: Oh my... I just hope I haven't broke the forum rules or guidelines. Anyway, I only download videos for my parents, mainly because I don't need to download videos for myself using Gnash, just because I hate YouTube, Google, Yahoo, and others... I have the Internet Archive, Vo.do, Clean Bits and other sites for that matter.
Abrowser+Scriptish+Linterna Mágica works better for me than Gnash, even on high resolution videos :) .
Youtube and Vimeo have good videos licensed in Creative Commons.
You know the Lib-Ray project? [0][1]
[0] http://lib-ray.org/
[1] http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2144275086/lib-ray-non-drm-open-standards-hd-video-format
That's awesome!! Hope it gets usable soon.
Hello all.
Well, like I said in another thread, I don't support the use of piracy (illegal sharing whatever, it's piracy for me).
So, and seeing as I love to watch a good film, I sometimes watch Public Domain (internet archive is a invaluable help in this one!), keep an eye out for Creative Commons movies (the links posted above are pretty good!), students movies (many college/high school students of several areas actually produce some good movies!), and also fanfilms (movies made by amateurs based on existing characters and stories, usually with permission from the copyrights holders if the character is not in Public Domain already).
I personally love fanfilms, because they present very different visions of characters, and you can see the passion that people have over what they are doing! Quality varies of course, but I have managed to get myself a pretty good colection over the last years.
I still support film making by renting a DVD once in a while, or going to the cinema very rarely. Movies are expensive! I am thankfull that we have other alternatives =)
> I don't support the use of piracy (illegal sharing whatever, it's piracy for me)
You can think whatever you want, but the use of the propaganda term "piracy" is not ok.
It's neither intelligent nor justified to call sharing "piracy";
don't know what giving a copy of a film to a friend has to do with attacking ships and killing people and I think no sensible person can see any relationship.
You're misleading new persons which are interested in the topic with such propaganda terms.
Dear quantumgravity,
I was already missing your negative attitude in response to my comments!
If you had taken the time to read my "story" post on the thread "can someone give me a compelling reason to use only free software", maybe I wouldn't have to explain to you the same thing AGAIN....
However, I will this time tell you another story. This one is short, maybe you can have an attention span long enough to keep up with this one.
In my home town, there used to be 3 stores where you could rend movies. Way back in the days VCRs were a new thing, all the way up to the first Blu ray editions... These three stores were all run by family members. Each store was the bussiness that kept food on the table for a different family. They were well known members of our little town, and they friendly, they would even allow you to take 3 kids movies for the price of 1 is they knew you had kids and were short on the money. They were some really nice people.
The three stores are now closed. And one of the families are actually going through some hard times to keep food on the table. Why?
Well, when they were asked about why they closed doors, they were not aggressive, but they said that "the people don't care if you make a discount and allow them to keep the movies for a whole week.... our best costumers are now the best internet costumers, and they even say that most of the movies they download, they don't have time to watch... Piracy got to us and we can't pay for the rent anymore.
This happened in my home town. I knew all people who ran those stores and they were good, well meaning people. The prices were ridiculously low, they were understanding if you were late, they were... good people who were making a living by providing you with a cheap service. But most people don't care, if you can have it for free you won't pay 99cents a movie right? even if you acknowledge that 99cents a movie is an absurdity. So, yeah... "sharing" a movie with a friend is good, and those people used to do that, but share a movie with the entire fucking world in the internet taking businesses down IS piracy, because you are actually stealing other people life work!
So, to you, and to ANYONE in this forum who says that is "pro freedom", I say this... don't insult the free and open source communities in the internet, don't insult the word "sharing", don't insult those who DO SHARE by sharing what belongs to them and not to someone else... If you are supportive of "illegal sharing", just go ask Microsoft the source code of Windows and stop using GNU. Because GNU was never about piracy and the free open movements are not about piracy. They are about preservation of knowledge, they are about sharing your own creations, they are about setting people free. What you call "share" is actually enslaving people to think that they cannot live without the newest hollywood movie and that they can do whatever they want to get it, even if it is wrong and immoral and illegal.
Want to share? Create a movie, licencse it under CC and share it on the internet.
Want to share say.... "The Dark Knight"? Buy the DVD and put the DVD in the hand of your friend, so that while he has it, you can't watch it, that way you are sharing sacrificing yourself to help your neighbor, that's the principle!)
You can't share what is not yours. And "The Dark Knight" doesn't belong to you, you only bought ONE single DVD. Want to share? Share that one. But if you put it on the internet you are doing DAMAGE to the ENTIRE FREAKING WORLD!
I have probably lost your attention already, but I don't care.... I don't care anymore about the assholes like you. You think you are doing some difference in the world? You think you are helping someone bye "sharing" a movie illegally? YOU ARE NOT!
You know, I love to watch silent movies. You know, the ones black and white, from the 10's an 20's. And lucky for me, they are all in public domain! I am free to watch them and even remix them if I want! I am free, right? But do you know why we have public domain? Because once someone invested money to produce those movies. And someone supported it by watching them in the theater. So, X number of years later, those movies are now "property of humanity". That's the way it should be. But if we keep attacking the cinema industry (trying to crash them, instead of moving them towards a change) we will have NO PUBLIC DOMAIN in 100 years from now!
I am not misleading people, I am teaching them that there are more DANGERS than benefits when you download a illegal copy on the internet.
You like to watch movies and want to give your support, your hard earned money, to the producers and not to some dark company? Well, watch independent cinema and donate to them. Stop treating each and every hollywood piece of garbage as if it was a precious stone.... Even the good movies that Hollywood produces, if you disagree with the way they do bussiness and if you think the price is too high, and if you think the world should change.... Reject them! Don't watch those movies, and make clear to everyone "I am sure that movie is good, the writers are known to do a good job and i like the actress, but I reject watching that movie because I want to change the system, I don't like being a slave to the big time companies... By the way, anyone wants to come over and watch a CC licensed movie at my place?"
There are people who like to use free software because it costs nothing and they can change the code... and there are people who like to live free in all aspects of their lifes, and change the world around them for better. I am one of those, and I look forward to meet people here in this forum who think likewise.
quantumgravity, as for you.... please, don't align yourself with the free/open movements. People like you actually make us look bad. Read a little on the history of Public Domain, of the GNU system, read about China and read 1984 from Orwell... Read and understand that you are wrong in supporting piracy, just as you would in supporting windows and office from microsoft. If you are against that, be against it ALL.
Dear GNUser,
you should really learn to state your opinion in a short way; just the most important points.
I read your long text this time, but I won't do it twice.
I read your insult; you called me an asshole, and this is enough to disqualify you;
well, now to the topic.
First, let me express my thoughts about your story as a physicist:
you made a observation, but you conclude the wrong things.
The fate of the three families you mentioned is very sad;
Really, I wished they had experienced a better fate.
But your conclusion is: the law wanted to protect those people and the guys who
shared the stuff are guilty for the ruin of the families.
Actually, the oposite is true.
Your families didn't know better, but they tried to make money with a system people refuse to use.
Think about a world in which the law would allow people to share the copies they buy.
Think about your families as shop owners who sell those copies.
Think about an anonymous donation system which let us give money to the artist.
Your families could produce high quality dvds of the movies for fair prices, since there are no big
blockbuster companies charging extremly high fees.
I would buy copies from this shops, and I think many people would do it, too. After watching the movie,
I would donate an appropriate amount of money directly to the artist.
This is a system I don't refuse to use.
I want artists being able to live and eat.
I'll tell you a story, too (but way shorter than you would tell it):
Many restaurants in our city closed.
They made good, high quality food and the owners were friendly. But no one came to eat.
People stayed at home, ate there; are they criminals?
You call yourself a GNU user.
Take a look at the opinion of GNU:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
So I'm not the only "asshole" in here.
And concerning my "negative" attitude towards your posts:
I will not stop stating my opinion. Until know, I don't like what I've heard from you.
You come along, talking about your different and special opinion which consinsts of bare nonsense, like
producing proprietary software isn't bad, or sharing ruins families and is like attacking ships.
You're screaming around all the time and if someone says something against your opinion, you become insulting and personal.
I think you do harm to the GNU project when carrying this name.
quantumgravity
1. You are an asshole. Yes, you are. You have been putting me down ever since I arrived, always distorting things, and you don't even understand basic concepts like "theft". And you are over sensitive, CAPITALS don't always mean screaming, they might mean EMPHASIZING.
2. I will make sure to write ONLY long posts from now on, so I won't have to bear you commenting them.
3. Words meanings change through time, and as of now "piracy" is a term widely used to convey the idea of "illegal sharing of someone else intellectual property". I will keep using it, and you should learn that just because is written in the internet (even at FSF or GNU) it doesn't mean that is right.
4. There is the theft of "copyright itsefl", which is the case of a old lady who had her lawyer robbing her from the rights over certain works, and the theft of "copyrighted material" which is what you do when you rip and put on the internet a movie that is still on theaters and being sold on DVD.
Honestly, I am here to stay and I will keep spreading what is supposed to be spread here: FREEDOM! And that includes being free from piracy.
I would appreciate if you would not address me anymore.
> I would appreciate if you would not address me anymore.
Well, I will never respond to your posts in order to help you, since you insulted me in a very childish way.
But I will respond to your post in order to clarify things, whenever you spread some false information; I'll do this for the sake of protecting new users.
Beside of this, I can only hope for you that you will learn to deal with criticism without insulting people;
otherwise you will make some bad experiences in life which will change your very personal, very different opinion.
Insulting the opponent shows weakness and desperation;
it disqualifies as a sensible mind.
You can be glad the trisquel-users are very tolarent; in other boards, you would get banned for this behavior.
In others boards you would get banned for supporting piracy and suggesting it to other newcomers.
And stop "trying to protect new users". I am a new user and clearly am more well informed than you are. You just want everyone to agree with whatever appears in GNU and FSF. Don't you have your own opinion to start with??
Yes, I realize you are over sensitive and over sensible and over protecting and over.... Well, you are overhead of yourself.
Yeah I disagree with some opinions of the fsf or some persons here in the forum; for instance I would help a friend choosing the lesser evil and running proprietary software if he loses his job otherwise.
> In others boards you would get banned for supporting piracy and suggesting it to other newcomers.
I would never recommend piracy to anyone. The sea should be a safe place.
Yes, the sea is a pretty safe place compared to the internet, where when you least expect, someone suggests that illegal uploading and downloading of software/musics/songs/books, is "ok" and we should call it "sharing".
Want to share? Create something, license it and share it. Bought a DVD or a CD? You can have a friend borrow it, that's sharing (even because it comes at YOUR expense, not the musician). Ripping it and having everyone in the world downloading it for free? That's immoral, illegal, prevents people from creating new stuff, turns you into a slave, and you are helping the wrong person get money from it (ads in piracy websites, remember those? yeah, people are not there to share, are there to make money from ads).
As for the less evil, that shouldn't even be a question, for me its not. But like I said, I am not an extremist. Only when it comes to people who make this world worse place for me to live in, like you quantumgravity.
Have you even read what BlinkingArrow and I wrote? Contrary to what the content industry repeats, your musician does not earn a dime on your CD. That is no exaggeration. BlinkingArrow already gave you some links. Here are some more with some quotes. Please, read them:
By somebody who "used to run big record companies":
Artists who have a relatively small audience, say under 50,000 albums, clearly make no money for themselves or their record companies in the major-label game, so it really doesn't matter how their royalties are calculated or what their rate is. (...) So let's take our mid-level artist, and say that she managed to sell 200,000 copies of her latest CD. How does the artist make out? Based on a royalty rate of $1.40 per album, 200,000 CDs sold results in earned income of $280,000. However, before the artist buys her mom a car (or pays off her college loans), she first needs to deal with the dreaded recoupment. If our artist received a $25,000 advance and spent another $115,000 making the record, this $140,000 is deemed recoupable, which means that the label can collect that amount against royalties. Also, let's assume the artist received $70,000 in tour support (recoupable) and another $70,000 in recoupable video and promotional support (this is usually split between the label and artist). That adds up to $280,000 in recoupable advances, thereby canceling out the $280,000 earned by the artist on points from her CD sales. Royalty-wise, it's a wash.
Let's say a CD sells for $15. Right away we deduct 25% from that for packaging, which makes the royalty base $11.25. Now let's say our artist has a 10% royalty rate and that his CD sells one million copies. That sounds great! The artist would earn $1,125,000! Except 10% of those were actually freebies, so we really have to calculate that royalty based on 900,000, which makes the royalty $1,012,500, and of course, there are few costs we haven't talked about yet. (...) Suppose the recording costs were $300,000 (100% recoupable), promotion costs were $200,000 (100% recoupable), tour costs were $200,000 (50% recoupable), and a music video cost $400,000 (50% recoupable). That comes out to: $300,000 + $200,000 + $100,000 + $200,000 = $800,000. Suddenly our artist isn't making a million plus, he's making $212,500. But don't forget there is also a manager to be paid (usually 20%), as well as a producer and possibly several band members. The artist won't see any royalty money until all of these expenses are paid.
By a record producer (in Maximum Rock ‘n’ Roll magazine):
They sold a quarter million copies! Here is the math that will explain just how fucked they are: These figures are representative of amounts that appear in record contracts daily. There's no need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad, since real-life examples more than abound. (... the math ...) The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11.
This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my “funny” math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I’m positive it’s better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide. (... the math ...) Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals … zero! How much does the record company make? They grossed $11 million.
So, again, and unless you are talking superstars (Justin Bieber & co.), you should definitely not buy CDs if you want to support artists. Go to their shows instead. It turns out people go more and more to watch artistic performances. A reason for that: the Internet that make the public discover new artists. Indeed, every serious study found out a positive correlation between the amount of artistic works somebody downloaded on the Internet and her cultural budget.
If I borrow my dvd to a friend he will almost certainly watch the film once and never buy it. I will not buy it twice.
So after all, no one gives any money to your shop owners, just like if I give my friend a copy.
If we both watch only CC films and movies, your shop owners will never see a single cent.
It's like MagicBanana said: the poor candlemakers, ruined by people who use electricity!
The only difference is: back then, there was no law which made using electricity illegal and there were no candle companies who called the use of electricity "piracy".
By the way, I don't do any illegal sharing; it's not necessary for me. I listen to jamendo songs or download songs on youtube which is in my country perfectly legal, if the copyright holder uploaded the song.
I just find it justified if people do.
At the and of the day, neither I nor the people who shared illegally gave money to some shop owner.
Don't see the difference.
The shops you've been talking about have become unneccesary due to technical innovation.
//edit
You said I was against you from the very beginning;
did you remember who was the first who welcomed you in this forum?
Yeah, that was me. So your statement is rather strange.
I think you just can't deal with critizism and react in a hyper-sensitive way.
I don't disagree with you per default, I think about every statement, concluding mostly the same.
Like I said, if you want to "share", share something that has a license that says "share me". If you share something which has a license that says "don't share me", you are not sharing, you are "pirating". And by doing so, you attack GPL, CC, and other free licenses.
As for the last part, yes, you did, and you said "keep your values alive". Well, that's what I am doing, not accepting that piracy (illegal sharing) is a part of the free movement. It should be rejected as the big problem that it is. Hope you are satisfied that I keep my values alive, even if you (and some others) have been refusing to accept any of the many arguments I already made in several posts.
Truth is, I have yet to see you agreeing with a single line that I write.
You don't do piracy? That's good! Really man, I am glad. But if you suggest to other people that's ok to do it, you are putting the entire free movement at risk. People will really think that it is ok. And that's why I will keep spreading the truths about the dangers of piracy (illegal sharing). It hurst Public Domain, it hurts free licenses like GPL and CC, it is immoral and we wouldn't like it if we were the ones who were being disrespected ("i wrote a license saying don't share, why are they sharing?"), and finally, it prevents people from making A BETTER WORLD, like changing laws or creating new content with a free license.
I do not see why it would be attacking the right licenses (i.e., those authorizing sharing; and the three other freedoms in the case of software) to share what the law wrongfully prohibits to share. Stallman, author of the GNU GPL, repeats over and over that "having an unauthorized copy of a proprietary program is almost as bad as having an authorized copy of this program". He then explains why "almost": "because, at least, you do not help the one that purposefully attacked the solidarity of your community by prohibiting sharing".
I agree that sharing the work of an author who does not want it shared is not good: you are breaking a contract you implicitly agreed to. In the case of software, it definitely harms the free software movement because the predominance of proprietary software makes it hard to switch to free software (interoperability problems, necessity of a proprietary OS to run the proprietary applications, etc.). In the case of artistic works, I am not sure at all.
The objective is the legalization of non-commercial sharing (the only essential freedom in case of Art). Having most of the people not respecting the law probably is a good leverage to have the law changed. Four years ago in France, the majors (with, in particular, the famous "Vivendi-Universal amendment"), the CD/DVD resellers (the report that led to the law was directed by the CIO of the FNAC stores) and the private TV channels (the main one, TF1, even fired employees against the law) made the deputies vote the HADOPI law. It made a handful condemnations. Just to make examples. Terrible examples: the first guy condemned was condemned because his wife, whom he was divorcing, downloaded at his home a song of Rihanna, that she actually bought but left at her home! In theory, the HADOPI could have condemned most of the French people to suspensions of their Internet connections. It did not because that would have made riots! Result: after millions spent in this stupid HADOPI for virtually nothing (but an infrastructure to monitor the P2P networks), the law has just been annulled because it was considered "disproportionate". If most people would have respected the law, it would not be "disproportionate"!
I used to think, like you, that the law should be respected because it eventually is the expression of the people (through voting). But, nowadays (at least), it usually is not the case! HADOPI is a perfect example of how the law eventually is the expression of powerful businesses. Their interests rarely are the interests of the people. As a consequence, the law is wrong. To be heard, the people should do the right thing even if that means disobeying the wrong laws.
@GNUser:
You should *really* stop ad hominem attacks.
And I still fail to see where, in this thread, you read "support to piracy".
Funny, quantumgravity has been acting like an asshole towards me ever since I arrived. Did you tell him to stop?
That's what I thought.
I like to use words that better convey the meaning of things. "Piracy" is a word that nowadays conveys the illegal sharing of something on the internet. So i use it. We don't live in the 18th century not to know the new meaning of the word. "Asshole" conveys the idea of someone who just wants to have a negative attituude towards someone who didn't do anything wrong, that's quantumgravity. So I use it.
Piracy exists today in the Gulf of Guinea, in Somalia, in the Strait of Malacca, and even on Falcon Lake.
As for quantumgravity, the most offensive sentence i can find from him is:
It's neither intelligent nor justified to call sharing "piracy"
Does that justify calling him an "asshole"?
Calm down GNUser, there's no need to get aggravated.
We all know what the Big Media means by 'piracy'. It's just that calling e.g. a table a chair or slander murder isn't a good idea. Words are powerful tools. We must not let them get away with this abuse.
I am a member!
I will ignore the unnecessary name calling. I also realize that this response was not meant for me, but I will respond to some points anyway.
>...they said that "the people don't care if you make a discount and allow them to keep the movies for a whole week.... our best costumers are now the best internet costumers, and they even say that most of the movies they download, they don't have time to watch... Piracy got to us and we can't pay for the rent anymore.
I don't know what country you live in. This survey seems to indicate otherwise. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/new-music-survey-p2p-users-buy-the-most-no-one-wants-disconnection-penalties/
Also, look at a list of the highest grossing movies. They're recent, way past the rise of file sharing.
>So, yeah... "sharing" a movie with a friend is good, and those people used to do that, but share a movie with the entire fucking world in the internet taking businesses down IS piracy, because you are actually stealing other people life work!
You're not stealing from anyone. Someone else already linked you to Nina Paley's video. Here's the link again in case you missed it: http://archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft1080p
>...don't insult those who DO SHARE by sharing what belongs to them and not to someone else
Well, I really cannot agree with this. The only way that information can be monetized is if one places locks on it or one has privileged information. In the case of digital information, this means Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). If I buy a movie as a download or I buy a movie as a DVD, the item and all the digital information should now belong to me.
>But if we keep attacking the cinema industry (trying to crash them, instead of moving them towards a change) we will have NO PUBLIC DOMAIN in 100 years from now!
The Public Domain will never go away for there will always be content creators. Actually, if we let things continue the way they are, with Hollywood further restricting users and gaining more power in government, there will be no Public Domain to speak of. These companies keep on extending copyright for as long as they can.
You might want to take a look at the history of copyright. You might also want to check out the following films: Patent Absurdity, Steal this Film and Steal this Film Part 2. Links provided for your convenience.
http://patentabsurdity.com/
http://archive.org/details/STEAL_THIS_FILM
http://stealthisfilm.com/Part2/index.php
Back then, they were really nice and friendly people who were making candles. If only they could have made electricity illegal...
Seriously, when businesses become useless, they must disappear. The Internet potentially provides, at any moment, an instant access to any artistic work ever made. Storing and distributing CDs/DVDs at opening hours largely a become useless business at the ere of Internet. Majors that control the distribution the artistic works (as if they were still scarce) too. Even physical copies have largely become useless.
Unfortunately, every politician wants on her side some of the few thousands superstars who make millions per months. I cannot even conceive what you cannot buy with one thousand minimal wages but they seem to not have enough of it yet. So, they demand that they keep on earning the millions they get from selling/renting physical or immaterial copies (contrary to 99,9% of the artists who gets *nothing* on this activity), whatever the cost for the rest of the world... and the politicians end up voting horrible legal things such as the DMCA that prohibits bypassing horrible technical things such as DRMs (which may make in the HTML standard!). Not to mention, the huge fines for sharing one's culture!
Sharing is good. It is the basis of a community. Of a civilization at the highest scale! Laws should incentive sharing! Assimilating people who share to pirates who attack ships is wrong. And the copyright was not meant to prevent sharing. It was meant to protect writers from editors. Not from readers!
You seem to fear that there will be nothing to share if artists cannot make money. That may be true to some extent... but that is not happening! For all artists but the 0,1% of superstars, Internet is a benediction! People who share copyrighted works on the Internet are those who spend more money on culture... and, indeed, people spend, year after year, more and more money on cinema and concerts (from artists they may have never discovered without the Internet). Several serious studies were made (by "serious", I mean "not paid by the so-called content industry"). Each one of them shows that noncommercial sharing of copyrighted works has a positive impact on the overall market.
Even like that, I can accept the premise that more artists must be able to make a living from their works. That would be an improvement over the situation we have known since... the dawn of the ages! Promoting the sell of copies does not do that. Only superstars get something. Prohibiting sharing is even worse. Against any moral. What would work is a compulsory tax on Internet connections that would be cleverly distributed to the artists (i.e., the superstars do not get everything). The distribution could even be decided by the Internet user with a system à la flattr.
And that would work not only for Arts but for everything distributed over the Internet. Think about free software. Think about journalism. Yes, printing and selling newspaper in kiosks has largely become useless. But no, journalists do not have the political powers superstars have. Result: journalism is dying. I would love to have a button to give a few boxes to the journalist who wrote an interesting article I found on the Internet.
I am writing too much here. And, to a large extent, to tell the same thing as BlinkingArrow (I also agree with him about the ever-extending copyright delay). I stop. :-)