In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by NilSatisOptimum:

Also If Film industry was failing, however records were broken with th last Harry Potter film. Indeed how does MPA explain the following.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 had a record-breaking first weekend at the box office in the U.S.

The final film in the franchise took $92.1million on Friday, the largest opening day takings in history.

Then it shattered more records with $168.6 million in ticket sales over its debut weekend, the best three-day opening ever in the U.S. and Canada.

So are you saying that if any business makes profits that you think are too high, that it is reasonable to take their products without paying?

I find that if I replace all instances of "take" and "steal" in your posts with "copy" and "duplicate", not only are your posts more technically accurate, but also less alarmist and make the incident far less serious (I don't want my motorbike stolen, but if someone takes some photos of it and builds their own identical one, I don't care!)

You could apply the same logic to banknotes and coins, but I wouldn't recommend trying it. Sometimes just copying an idea can get you into deep trouble.

Well, China is one of the main sources of counterfeit and pirated goods, so I don't find that too surprising. Would you have us do all the other things that China does also?

I find the argument "if it's good enough for China it's good enough for us" to be somewhat unconvincing.

In reply to a post by AEP:

You could apply the same logic to banknotes and coins, but I wouldn't recommend trying it. Sometimes just copying an idea can get you into deep trouble.

The point where that becomes morally wrong, to me, is not when you copy a coin for your own use/keeping/collection, but when you try to pass it to someone else as a legitimate coin.

Or when the person the built a replica of my motorbike tries to sell it as a genuine Kawasaki.

The same applies to piracy - the point where it becomes criminal, is where you try to sell the copies you have made. Up until then it is civil.

In reply to a post by AEP:

Well, China is one of the main sources of counterfeit and pirated goods, so I don't find that too surprising. Would you have us do all the other things that China does also?

I find the argument "if it's good enough for China it's good enough for us" to be somewhat unconvincing.

No, I would not want to be like China.

My point was that China, a place I would not like to live, and Saudi Arabia, a place I have lived, are awful places full of what I consider to be human rights violations (you should see how they treat women in Saudi..) and while they both have restrictive internet filters, we now filter things even they don't.

In a couple of years, we will probably be in a worse state than they are.

The point where that becomes morally wrong, to me, is not when you copy a coin for your own use/keeping/collection, but when you try to pass it to someone else as a legitimate coin.

I think the law would take a different view.

Your analogy is imperfect. Most of the work involved in producing a film is not the simple act of duplicating it. To pursue your analogy one would have to suppose that a means existed where you could take a Kawaski and somehow produce a perfect replica for little or no cost. Now, if that were possible, do you think it would be fair to the manufacturers of motorcycles?

My point was that China, a place I would not like to live, and Saudi Arabia, a place I have lived, are awful places full of what I consider to be human rights violations (you should see how they treat women in Saudi..) and while they both have restrictive internet filters, we now filter things even they don't.

Does it not occur to you, taken in conjunction with the fact that you do not want us to be like China, that perhaps they have got it wrong? Perhaps some filtering is a reflection of a civilized and responsible country.

In reply to a post by AEP:

The point where that becomes morally wrong, to me, is not when you copy a coin for your own use/keeping/collection, but when you try to pass it to someone else as a legitimate coin.

I think the law would take a different view.

Your analogy is imperfect. Most of the work involved in producing a film is not the simple act of duplicating it. To pursue your analogy one would have to suppose that a means existed where you could take a Kawaski and somehow produce a perfect replica for little or no cost. Now, if that were possible, do you think it would be fair to the manufacturers of motorcycles?

The key difference I am trying to get across is that if a person views a film for free, weather by borrowing a DVD from a mate, downloading it from the internet, streaming it online, or looking through the window of the theatre, the publisher has not lost anything, or been negatively affected in any way.

They might be upset and offended that the viewer has not given them some money, and they might feel they are entitled to some money, and me and you may well agree with them, but they have not lost anything that they had before the viewing took place.

In reply to a post by AEP:

My point was that China, a place I would not like to live, and Saudi Arabia, a place I have lived, are awful places full of what I consider to be human rights violations (you should see how they treat women in Saudi..) and while they both have restrictive internet filters, we now filter things even they don't.

Does it not occur to you, taken in conjunction with the fact that you do not want us to be like China, that perhaps they have got it wrong? Perhaps some filtering is a reflection of a civilized and responsible country.

Then as China were the first to come up with the idea of filtering the internet, you must be meaning they are a very civilised and responsible country

Edited by nemeth782 (Thu 28-Jul-11 16:35:16)

You could equally argue that, in my corrected form of your analogy, the motorcycle manufacturer has not been negatively affected in any way. They may be upset that you have obtained a perfect replica of one of their motorcycles for free, but you would argue that you weren't going to buy one in the first place.

So, can I ask again - in the corrected form of your analogy, do you think that would be fair to the motorcycle manufacturers?