dosxuk Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Your third paragraph isn't great. I do not agree with the film man no. This was no theft any more than it was dangerous driving, murder or rape. These legal terms have specific definitions which can't be arbitrarily changed by me, you or film man. This has nothing to do with conscience and everything to do with ignorance of what the law is. Unfortunately you can't agree to disagree with regards to the definitions of legal terms. Actually, you can. There are many technical terms in all aspects of life that are used incorrectly by the general public. That doesn't mean they are wrong to use those terms though, and they only need to be pinned down / clarified when being used in a professional context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 He's been made an example of. Lack of contrition. Taunting Warners. Making money from it. All increased the sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 1 whether or not you personally, or any other freeloaders would have paid to watch a film, is unprovable and irrelevant i think you miss the point of what megas getting at, hes using a personal experience to prove that some wouldnt pay to see some films, ie:- one, himself BUT you cant prove that the company is being deprived of royalties because it hasnt happened, its a guess that they do lose out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 I have a couple of Pirate films; Treasure Island and Mutiny On The Bounty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted August 23, 2014 Author Share Posted August 23, 2014 I always find this a very odd 'defence' of piracy. If it's rubbish or worthless, then why bother watching it at all? 'This films rubbish,but I'm going to steal it anyway!' How would you know that unless you watched it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InigoMontoya Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 I think Graham Linehan put the arguments against copyright theft much more succinctly than ever I could - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Be a kiddie fiddler and get 18 months, (should have been 18 years) film a film and get 3 years, doesn't feel right somehow. Angel1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mart Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Be a kiddie fiddler and get 18 months, (should have been 18 years) film a film and get 3 years, doesn't feel right somehow.Angel1. It does not feel right to you because ,well it simply is not right. It is not the pirate that got a harsh penalty. It is the peado that got a light one (as already mentioned) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Gobby Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 It costs a lot of money to imprison someone who in this case is no danger to society. Why put someone who isn't dangerous in prison? Perhaps for the same reason benefit cheats are sent to prison. It serves as a deterrent .But this is only my opinion and as such you are entitled to yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 It's theft. Theft of intellectual property/copyright is just as unacceptable as theft of tangible property. Doesn't seem harsh to me. It's not theft. The original owner has not been deprived of the property as others have said that's the important point. All that counts is what the actually loss of revenue is, and the effect on the victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.