The Wolverine Movie Leak: Truth And Consequences

Published 5 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:24 pm,

dvd piracy 02 The Wolverine Movie Leak: Truth And Consequences

Just in case you had’nt heard, on the eve of April Fools Day a workprint of X-Men Origins: Wolverine found its way to the internet and hundreds of thousands of downloads occurred before 20th Century Fox could stop it. Though at first one might think “So what?” – there’s more at stake than just having a flick run free on the internet prior to its official release date.

When I first saw this, I held back. It was April Fool’s day. But as the hours passed, so did the proof that this was indeed real.

I shook my head in disbelief.

How Can A Movie Get Leaked?

Does that really matter? There are so many different people that handle a DVD of a movie in post-production before it hits the theaters, it’s amazing we don’t see this more often.

With the number of folk who have access to a post-production version of a movie, when do the necessary additional security measures kick in that studios may have to take? Will those measures cost us, the fan, more in the end?

Sure we might grumble at the studios, but who is really to blame?

Have You Thought About the Little Guy?

I suppose that for some, the idea of seeing a movie before it’s actually released to the public is some sort of thrill (or something). While these folks gloat about having seen a film early (and illegally), I’m sure they don’t think about the impact their cumulative actions have on others.

The “others” are those people who put in 10 to 14 hour days over the course of a couple of years creating a movie. The “others” are also the second tier people who depend on a film to be released for their livelihoods… Movie theater owners/employees, for example.

For all these people, an advance pirate copy that makes it online dilutes the hard work they’ve put into something, and takes away from the “event” status of a big blockbuster release date. A release date that has had many countless hours of effort put towards deciding how to best present the culmination of all that hard work.

As this travesty went viral, Twitter.com was aflame with people stating that the Wolverine movie had found its way to the internet.

Some cheered at the travesty thrust upon Fox. I get where you’re coming from. Fox sure doesn’t have the best track record in how they’ve handled some franchises or other matters. But if you think this through, it’s just not Fox that gets hurt. It’s shameful to ponder the idea that we might really wish harm on a person’s livelihood.

So the buzz lit up big time.

Shortly thereafter folks were out there boasting about having grabbed some popcorn and sitting down to watch their newly stolen digital media.

Yes… I Said Stolen

If you go to the trouble of hunting down what you know is an illegal copy of the film, you knowingly stole it. And don’t tell me you didn’t know. To add insult to thievery, some of you were stupid enough to brag about it on various social networking sites. Good for you! Now at least if Fox and the FBI decide to pursue this legal issue to that level, you’ve made it very easy for them to find you. Even if you didn’t brag about it, you left a digital trail to the torrent files and subsequent activity is clear as day to the packet sniffers.

As it stands, the copy of the film that made its way online did not have the majority of its visual effects complete, had missing scenes and a temporary audio/music track. So I’m sure that made for an AWESOME viewing experience.

Some Actually Posted Reviews

To further implicate yourselves, you then thought you would be super cool and leave your reviews and opinions on what you saw on various bulletin boards and websites. Most website admins removed your misbegotten opinions, choosing instead to take the high road regarding this scenario. Good for them.

dvd piracy 03b The Wolverine Movie Leak: Truth And Consequences

Fox stated in a press release on April 1st that the FBI and the MPAA are actively investigating this crime and that:

“The source of the initial leak and any subsequent postings will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Oh yes. This little stunt can lead to some jail time. I have a feeling someone may find themselves with some new best friends fairly soon.

When All Is Said And Done

It seems that it may be pretty easy to track down who did this. Maybe instead of firing him or her, the studio should garnish their wages for all eternity for profits lost.

If you think it really doesn’t hurt studios, think of this: Eli Roth didn’t release Hostel: Part II in Mexico because it was already leaked there and you could buy it for twenty-five cents. What was the point of opening there then?

You think that if you alone “stole” a movie, who would it hurt? It adds up. One of my favorite examples of adding up is an article I wrote about saving electricity. If every light switch wielding person (estimated 211 million – it’s just a ball park for this example) in the U.S. left a light bulb burning in an empty room for only 5 minutes, as a collective, that adds up to around 2,000 years of wasted energy. It all adds up and we can make a difference.

In closing, Fox said this:

“We are encouraged by the support of fansites condemning piracy and this illegal posting and pointing out that such theft undermines the enormous efforts of the filmmakers and actors and, above all, hurts fans of the film”

We at Screen Rant will never support this kind of behavior and we will not tolerate anyone posting their own review or experience in the comments.

‘Nuff said?

Source: BBC News

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: the wolverine

349 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. @ Jack and Dragon, You guys are completely right. I don’t know if either of you two have paid attention to the pirate bay case, but in the case they basically put to rest the argument of 1 download=1 lost sale.

    I agree that copyright was originally intended to benefit the individual, not the corporation as it’s being used today. Today we have companies that copyright something, never make it, and solely make money by suing companies who use their idea. You have things like Disney that has what like a 200 year copyright on Mickey Mouse, just to prevent it from entering public domain.

    I feel copyright laws should be reevaluated to an extreme extent. Their current stance is biased and unjust, however, we’ll probably never see the end of this debate.

  2. @Jack Brown

    Truly spoken like someone who has never run a business and been responsible for employees in his entire life.

    Vic

  3. Wow! Good job, Vic. the good old “appeal to emotion” fallacy via the always enjoyable “Circumstantial Ad Hominem”. Well played. But it doesn’t address a single point I’ve brought up. Largely because I think you have no clue what you’re talking about. You simply parrot points based on appeal to authority.

    The fact is, I’m a white collar professional who benefits from licensing and deals with copyright infringement all the time. I am granted license, and profit from, the work of artists, musicians, animators, programmers and writers. And yet, I feel US copyright law is unfair to individual artists.

    The only thing left to anyone who creates for a corporation in the USA is non-transferable creative rights, which precludes the right to derivative work. If you don’t know what that means then your opinion is hastily formed and perhaps could do with a little more reflection before it goes to print.

    The only person in this entire thread who seems to understand the core issue is TheDragon. Copyright came about as a way to regulate industrial publishing. What it did, was protect an author against a printer–Not a “publisher” at the time of inception, a printer. There’s a difference. One is an industrial thing; the other is intellectual, but the two can converge.– Copyright prevented a printer from printing and then selling an author’s writing without their consent. What it achieved was growth in publishing because individual printers had to actively seek out authors for their consent to get permission to print whatever it was they’d been writing. Copyright was intended to protect an individual while promoting diversity in particular field. Both a public, and a private benefit. Good legislation. Well done.

    What “the right to copy” did was only restrict publication, not what a reader decided to do with a book they’d bought. It was a benefit to the public that only burdened them with a virtually unnoticable increase in price. Restricting “the right to copy” achieved its goal rather well until two things happened- corporations, and the digital age.

    Corporations enjoy copyright protection in the manner in which it was originally legislated, which I believe is wrong. But they (and me by extension) have gone farther. In fact, as soon as precedent was set, corporate entities lobbied agressively and with huge wallets to extend copyright to an extend that corrupted it’s original intent- protecting individuals and promoting individual creativity. The Walt Disney corporation in particular has been particularly instrumental in extending copyright to the point where the public will never be able to enjoy deritivative use of anything that Disney has ever created. Ironically, a corporation that has profited handsomely off “the public domain” wants to lobby until such a thing never exists. Every other publisher and distributor wants the same thing. So far they have only managed to extend copyright in the USA to something like 75 years. Luckily, not every country’s legislators are as easily bribed, oops, I meant lobbied, as those in America.

    The rise in personal computing made everyone who had a PC a publisher. The internet gave you limitless reach as a digital publisher connected to everyone with access to the internet. Unfortunately, copyrights on digital media are even more draconian than physical ones. Luckily, in the book lending analogy (which was a logical tool to reveal inconsistencies in thinking) Copyright 1.0 applies, which protects something called “fair use”. “Fair use” is essentially extinct with respect to media published digitally.

    Anyway, I am not protecting the concept of piracy; however, the issue is not nearly as clear cut as many of you feel, and it has far-reaching implications about the law, how laws are passed, the rights of artists and writers with respect to parody and satire (still protected in most cases) and the concept of “the public domain”, which if corporations get their way, will eventually become extinct.

    Everyone who is swallowing propaganda about “stealing” and “pirates” is being fooled into supporting a system that cares about corporations much more than individuals, which contraindicates art and artistic expression. Which, if I recall correctly, is what this is supposed to be about.

    And yes, I benefit from strict copyright and draconian enforcement, but I don’t think it’s right. Those sorts of reactions reveal sluggish thinking and zero creativity. Publishers have to be agile and open minded, and they have to be willing to give up monopolistic profits in order to continue to make profits period. Thinking you can simply legislate a problem away is adolescent thinking.

  4. @Jack Brown

    Well, I guess I just got “owned” to use the popular term. :-P The problem online is you never know if you’re talking to a 13 year old, a 25 year old still living at home, or a professional.

    I’m not blindly defending corporations – I have plenty of beefs with mega corps that abuse their power, or even movie studios that put out less than stellar films and unleash their legal departments on bloggers (*cough* Fox Studios *cough*).

    But I do believe that it is unethical to download something for free that you should otherwise be paying for, without the consent or permission of the person or corporation that created it. Just as I believe that it’s unethical to burn copies copies of DVDs to give to one’s buddies, etc, etc.

    I’m actually quite happy to have both you and Dragon here – I don’t discourage debate, just flame wars (and yes this thread has been on the edge, and sadly I have to admit to reacting poorly myself to a couple of incendiary comments).

    Best regards,

    Vic

  5. Hi Vic,

    Thanks for the follow up. I suffer from the same thing. Also get preachy and I tend to get a bit overheated at times, so apologies for any possible offense.

    Before everybody thinks I’m a dirty hippy or whatever, I’m not. I earn my living off licensing (and being a licesee) so when I see some joker in Malaysia selling stuff that I should be earning a royalty on, it pisses me off. That guy is making money that I ought to be making. I understand that. I get it.

    But what I don’t get is how hollywood and the US TV channels can so piggishly hang on to stupid models of distribution. Read my earlier post about monopolies on distribution. There aren’t any any longer, but the companies involved act like simply making harsher and harsher penalties for copyright violations is going to somehow magically turn back the clock to the era where they DID have a monopoly. It’s dinosaur thinking. Anyway…

    I agree that downloading is wrong under the current terms of US copyright and other nations as well. It’s a violation of the law and you shouldn’t break the law. Breaking the law is wrong. You don’t break laws just because you don’t like them. If the law is wrong, then change it.

    Laws should be changed if they are wrong, but obeyed until they have been changed. Law is law, like it or not. I don’t like the speedlimit, but I obey it because society has agreed on certain rules, and I live in society. Lots of people speed, but that doesn’t make it acceptable.

    So let’s all agree: Copyright infringement is ILLEGAL. Breaking the law is “wrong”. I’m not saying that. I’m saying I understand why people download. Not just the “free” part, either. You would be amazed at the innovation and variety out there. Innovation and variety you cannot get legitimately, even if you tried to pay for it. I can go into it if you want, but this post is long enough already.

    Ethical? Unethical? That’s where it gets tricky for me. I think the manner in which US copyright law was drafted was unethical, so it’s difficult for me to feel this one in my gut. I think some kid in Poukepsie downloading “Batman” or some soldier downloading the latest episode of “Family Guy” to help pass the time in Iraq aren’t being unethical. They’re breaking US copyright law, for sure. But are they bad people? Ignorant? Who can say? I can’t. The world I live in isn’t that black and white.
    They’re definitely breaking US law, though. That is black and white.

    The sad thing is that the industry still has the opportunity to make tons of money off downloadable content, but because they have to deal with stockholders and projections and guaranteed minimum returns they have become fearful of anything other than the old, unrealistic, monopolistic profit models.

    So yeah, downloading is illegal and nobody should be a lawbreaker. But the issue is not as simple as “don’t steal”, especially if you’ve seen what else is out there, and especially if you think about global distribution. The real elephant in the room is global distribution, and how outmoded those models have become. Anyone outside the USA who downloads? I completely understand why, and I don’t even think it’s all that wrong. Publishers could address that right away, but they aren’t for the reasons I’ve already mentioned.

    I agree, FULLY agree that

  6. Oops! cut it off.

    I FULLY agree that downloading is illegal though. Totally. Don’t break the law, kids. It’s wrong and it’ll cost you a lot of time, money and trouble.
    Just don’t do it.

  7. I feel like i’m completely outclassed and out gunned in the argument, so i’ll just put in a tiny thought. Jack, i thought copyright had been extended to something like life + 75 years but i might be wrong. After reading your previous posts, i understand the draconian punishments benefit you, but you don’t think they’re ethical, that’s a rather interesting view i’d like to know more about.

  8. Jeff,

    You are right, current copyright applies for up to 70 years after the death of the author +~5 depending on notification. So that means as an author enjoys copyright protection for their lifetime, and for 70 years after their death, ostensibly to protect their estate & business partners, especially if a work was produced close to death. But check this- if it’s a corporation copyright duration is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. Legally it goes with the earliest date.

    Draconian punishments- they don’t benefit me directly. They give corporations leverage to go after individuals and entities that infringe on copyright. So I can benefit from something, and still feel badly about it because I know it’s unfair. In my case, I am lucky enough to be in a sector that doesn’t want or need to go after individuals. We pursue people and organizations who are profiting from our materials by violating our copyrights for money. Real pirates. If we suddenly started suing grandmas in Idaho and extorting money from college kids I’d feel really bad. I might even find a new job, but the economy sucks and I have a family. So I’d feel bad. I’d feel that way because the manner in which the DMCA has been rigged has lead to a point where if I issue a notice to a school or ISP, I don’t even need proof to mess up your day. You can try and fight it, but it’s going to cost you a ton of time and money, and I know I have more of both and in the end, even if you win- you lose. I just feel like that’s not right.

    I don’t think US copyright is ethical at this point because copyright has morphed beyond its intended purpose. It’s something that was intended to protect individual artists from having their work in the public domain if they didn’t want it there. It allowed artists to earn a living by licensing their creations, and it gave some slack to their children or estate, or business partners after their death. But what it also intended was that copyright WOULD expire. We would have works pass into the public domain after the creator’s death. However, corporations don’t die, so there is no interest for them to let any of their corporate works enter the public domain. Which is ironic, considering that 90% of what Walt Disney corp did was profit off the public domain. Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Pinnochio, the three little pigs…all public domain.

    So to protect profits in perpetuity, corporations have spent a ton of money to get legislators to change a law so that they can get copyright extended. Just an example (hate to keep bringing up Disney, but it’s appropriate)- The Mickey Mouse cartoon “steamboat willie” should be in the public domain right now, but every time it got close to having its copyright expire, Walt Disney managed to lobby congress agressively and suddenly, copyright was extended! Like magic. Every time. A dead artist can’t do that. Their estate might be able to though, if they were clever about establishing a trust and incorporating! ;-)

    There is enough opacity to this process that many people claim repeated extension of copyrights is simply a matter of US participation in Berne Convention or the Universal Copyright Convention. So we’ll never know for sure, but what is sure is that Disney and other media companies lobbied very hard for changes, extensions, and revisions to copyright laws, and have been incredibly agressive about copyrights with regard to digital media, and this has given rise to ridiculously anti-consumer legislation like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which criminalized the act of somebody figuring out how to get around DRM, whether or not they actually infringed on a copyright. Just figuring something out became a crime. This is why you could get arrested for wearing a T-Shirt that has DeCSS source code printed on it, or could get fined a lot of money for emailing your friends & family with it. It’s also why any of you could be in big trouble for writing software that allows you to read X-brand ebook on Y-bran ebook reader, where X only displays on X and Y only displays on Y.

    So whenever the issue of piracy comes up, I always look for the ones to talk about “stealing” and “theft” because usually those are the ones who don’t really understand the deeper issues regarding so-called “creative companies”. Any movie studio is part of an enormous corporate web. This web site is in all probablility part of some mega-corp, at least indirectly. I did a whois but I won’t get into it since supposedly vic owns the site? Operates it? Anyway…

    Copyright infringement is wrong, don’t do it. But the issue of infringement is complicated and the current situation is not entirely the responsibility of the infringers, especially those outside the USA.

  9. It boggles my mind. It’s simple. Person A is the owner of item A, person B wants item A, Person A decides if item A should be free, should be cheap, or should be expensive. PERIOD. There’s no other discussion there. The owner of the item decides whatever. If the item is too expensive, nobody buys it, so the person can CHOOSE to react by making it cheaper, but is in NO WAY REQUIRED to do so. It’s your choice.

    If you’re selling something or giving something away, it’s your choice how you go about doing it, that’s it.

  10. Ken, it WOULD be simple if we were dealing with items and people, but we’re not. First, there is no “item”, there is only information. Second, there is no “person A” involved here. It’s a company. Companies are not individuals.

    Who “owns” Wolverine? The writer? Stan Lee? The person who paid for a comic book?

    The problem with copyright is that it is anything but simple.

    The only simple aspect of this is that the law says infringing on another’s copyright is unacceptable, and we have to follow the law.

    Whether that is a just law or not, or whether it ultimately encourages artistic expression or is a benefit to society is debatable.

    What everyone can agree on, because it is fact, is that US law clearly defines infringement and that infringement is forbidden.

    It’s an interesting topic for discussion in terms of ethics and justice, but at the end of the day- the law is the law, and those living in places where it applies are obligated to obey it.

  11. @Ken J, lol they never will get it, then theyll just call you dumb.

  12. Well, I’d say it is very clear cut. But Oscar, no one is calling anyone dumb. if they did, I’m sure it’s just a mistake!

    IF:
    In a period of time, in order to have possession of something, you have to buy it. If something is intended to be for sale, and we know they’d never give it away then that’s the anticipated avenue of possession.

    To come into possession of it in any other way is …. ??? <- that’s my edited answer. Regardless of what anyone else thinks, that’s it for me.

    I know my answer. Ken, you have made your points. Now kick back, knowing that your answer is correct – for you, me, and who ever else see’s that take, and let the others just be as they may.

    We have our moral approach to this issue, and that’s that. People can’t change people in endless debate and the points have been made from both sides. (I didn’t say “for”, I said “from” both sides.)

    When weeding, it’s irrational to start nit picking at the different molecules that make up a weed or why you would not call it a weed. In the end, it’s a weed, you pull it, it’s done.

    Anyone else belaboring the issue just is.

    Hmm, that ‘zen’ moment just came out.

    Later gang… breathe Ken, breathe!!! Have a good day gang.

  13. @Jack Brown

    No evil corporation behind Screen Rant, bud – it’s owned by just little ol’ me… lock, stock and barrel.

    However I’ll take the fact that you thought it had a corporation behind it as a compliment. :-)

    Vic

  14. Hey Vic!

    Two things-
    First-
    I don’t think corporations are evil. I think that corporate culture is sort of messed up. I think laws that give corporations the same indemnities that individuals enjoy is unsettling. Unsettling/disturbing? Yes. Evil? Heck no. Mostly.

    It is a back-handed compliment? Heck yeah. This site is run incredibly well.

    Slick, reliable, constant updates with what amounts to a live link to google and other SE’s. This site is what cinemaphiles need. It’s very well done.

    I have to confess that I have been jaded by a lot of “guerrilla marketing” over the past couple of years, so I assumed the worst, especially when I did a little snooping with the DNS tools. Sorry. At the end of the day, I’m a corporate whore, so that tints my worldview.
    I apologize.
    But, I have to congratulate you on an extremely successful and efficient website. Form-function-information delivery.

    You should be proud of yourself; you’ve done a good thing.

    I know I come off like a bit of a prick, what with my views and all, but I’ve looked at a bunch of this site and I must confess- I will be visiting regularly and commenting often because I am a fan of movies, and this site is designed to administer the sort of fix cinemaphiles need. Myself included.

    So thanks for that. I really appreciate it. If you have a donation link, please point me in the right direction.

    Thanks again Vic, it’s a lot of fun.

  15. Thanks, Jack, I appreciate it. I hope you stick around the site after you’re done talking about this issue. :-)

    No donation button, we just get by on ad revenue.

    Vic

  16. I’ll click your links then. It’s the least I can do!

  17. Seems like the conversation calmed down after Jack started posting. Good job Jack! I appreciate you comments and did some digging myself.

    As I read it, the original intent of this thread was to answer the question, “Is downloading a pre-release movie digital illegal?” Apparently, there has never been a court ruling as to whether or not the DOWNLOADING of copyrighted material is infringement or not. There has been several court cases brought against people FILE SHARING but this different than DOWNLOADING. The corporate world would like the consumer to think they are the same but so far the courts have ruled they are not. Eff.org has all of the court cases posted for you to read over yourself with break downs of each one. The cases brought to court actually involve the SHARING of copyrighted materials by the digital transmission, (read uploading) of said materials. The people brought to court were sued because they were using Grokster or whatever and had copyrighted material in their shared folder and other people were downloading it from them. The MPAA/RIAA wanted to sue for damages based on each copy of copyrighted materials found on their computer but the Supreme Court limited them to only files found in the SHARED folder.

    I’ve been trying to get everyone on here to understand that, were as, it might be unethical and slimy to download music/movies/books, it is not ILLEGAL! Please stop calling it that until the courts rule otherwise. It’s the same as someone cutting in line at wherever, it’s rude, unethical and stupid but not illegal and you could not press charges nor sue them for their behavior.

    Now, Infringement is a complete different matter and that too has yet to be defined by the courts in a digital world. You can infringe on someone copyright but simple copy and pasting then posting without their consent. And in a digital world you no longer even need to apply for a copyright. Don’t believe me? Then look it up; I promise you it’s not that hard to find.

    Vic/Bruce, this is the first time I’ve come across your site and I must say I have enjoyed the other articles and look forward to posting here more often. It would seem that this particular thread might be winding down to a close. So I’m off to click your ads.

  18. I got this off of the copyright.gov website, Frequently Asked Questions page:

    Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
    Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney’s fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

    Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.

    Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many “authorized” services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.

    Note: Emphasis was added.

  19. John, you’re my freaking hero. Because that site (I was at it last night) has 5,000 words to explain the word “the”… or at least that’s how it felt grazing the site!

    Nice find and great patience!

  20. LMAO, so since the owner of the property isn’t a single person, all of a sudden there’s no such thing as ownership and rights?? LMAO.

    Who cares “who” it actually belongs to. If there is something you can take and you’re not sure “who” it belongs to, there’s an easy way to determine if you should take it or not. All you have to ask yourself is does it belong to you? Who cares who it belongs to, if it doesn’t belong to you, it’s not yours, so leave it alone. Simple.

    Look, this isn’t rocket science. I’m not arguing over whether or not something SHOULD belong to whomever, SHOULD be legal or illegal, all that doesn’t matter. You live in a world where there are laws. The law states that this property belongs to whomever it belongs to. That person decides what he wants to do with it. That individual or corporation can throw the whole film away and decide they don’t want anyone seeing it, they can decide not to release it in theaters but instead have private showings costing $1 Million for each person. Logical or illogical is IRRELEVANT. Whether you think it’s smart, stupid, right, wrong, green, blue, whatever, DOESN’T MATTER. It’s THEIR decision since it’s THEIRS, just like what YOU decide with YOUR property is YOUR prerogative. How would you like it if other people decided what you should do with your stuff? I know our government is quickly heading toward that, taking control over the auto companies and all, but doesn’t mean you should adopt this crazy mentality for everything.

    What’s yours is yours and what’s theirs is theirs. This is basic common sense, nobody’s asking you to redefine the theory or relativity.

  21. @walwus

    Hey thanks, man, I appreciate the comments about the site.

    Vic

  22. Oops, forgot to say @ Jack Brown

  23. Good grief John, how in the world did you find that? I too searched their website for a couple of hours and it was just too convoluted to make heads or tails of anything. When presented with different information such as yours, I have no choice but to agree with you. I’m not a pig headed fool and have stated many times to show me the law, which you have done nicely. I find it humorous though that the question on their FAQ is a simple yes or no and they use several sentences and never use the words “Yes” or “No”. Only with our government lol.

    However, there has not been a court case brought against the downloader, only the uploader or sharer. This is possibly because it’s too difficult, time consuming and expensive to track down the downloader.

  24. Walwus:

    Actually, it’s incredibly easy to track downloaders. I managed a network for several years, and the amount of logs and other tracking services in place is nuts. But everything you do leaves a glowing trail to packet sniffers to follow.

    The problem is proving.

    A college student was found guilty of downloading copyrighted content, but the appeal won out because they could not prove that she was at her computer when the material was downloaded to her personal computer.

    Eh…

    So remember, you weren’t at your computer when your computer downloaded “stuff” and you’ll be just fine! On the other hand, there are those (On other sites) that out and out admitted to DL’ing it. Not sure how that would play out.

    I seriously doubt they’ll go after the downloaders. The bigger issue is the person responsible for uploading it. That person, who was in a trusted position in the chain of processes, needs to … well, you get where I’m going.

  25. @walwus, it’s actually very easy to track downloaders. The problem lies in the fact that it costs the government money to prosecute people, so they typically ignore the individuals downloading and focus on the “big fish” like people constantly sharing large numbers of movies and other illegal files. My friend was one of them and she was actually arrested and prosecuted for it. But it was because not only did she download a lot, but she kept them on her shared folder so they were constantly being uploaded.

  26. Well guys, I just did a google search on:

    copyright laws downloading

    The first link took me right there. I sure hope this settles this argument.

  27. @ Walwus

    I AM CALM !!!! :) ..no veins throbbing mecilessly in my forehead but I was mumbling a few four letter words :) …kind of like the Dad in A Christman Story..I tend to take it a little personally when people generalize about who and what people do sitting behind thier keyborads at home. Your post never came across as a joke in the least. That’s one of the problems with posts on threads like this. Unless the humour is obvious it can be horribly missed. Thanks for the complement on the language…er.. I think..unless you were being sarcastic..Nver let fear and common sense stop you from responding to posts on ethically charged threads like this one..

    Cheers

  28. I just skimmed through these posts and I see that some people seem to think that “just because everyone is doing it, doesn’t make it right”. I say this is false, what is right and wrong is decided by society, so if everybody is doing it then it is right.

  29. This is my first time to this site, I meandered here through a few google searches of the “Wolverine” leak controversy that I just heard about. I see this thread on “Piracy” and I would like to contribute to the conversation:

    Now I think someone pointed this out, but I will again: downloading music/movies/etc is not theft, it is copyright infringement and that is what you’d be charged for. If tracked, the enforcement agencies on this issue (MPAA and other watchdog groups) send letters to the isp of the person involved and it goes from there.

    When you consider the nature of the beast you quickly realise that piracy can’t be stopped and won’t be. Torrents and other technologies are making it easier to do and harder to track effectively or legally. Who’s willing to throw the money at a real campaign to prevent this? Tax payers? Not a chance. It is unpreventable and the movie industry has to adapt to it or live with it. Not to mention that teenage kids will easily push the technology and methodology to supercede any actions taken against piracy.

    So we come down to the moral question. Some people here are vehmently opposed to those who download, others mildly supportive, some indifferent. You have to consider some who download WILL go watch in theatres and/or purchase the dvd. Some will download and watch the movie who would otherwise never bother to see it or rent it. The latter of the two is something to consider – I admit I have downloaded or have watched downloaded movies – but the closest theatre to me is 4 hours away. I’ve seen and enjoyed countless movies that I would otherwise have never glimpsed. Do I feel bad about it? Honestly no, and I have never really considered it a “moral conundrum” shall we say, but I am otherwise a moral person. Judge me if you like. Let me say this though, I DO buy DVDs of movies I like (usually after having downloaded) – why? Two Words that I think can be, and have been to some degree, the movie industries counter-balance to piracy: Special Features.

Be Social, Follow Us!!