Downloading movies: theft or not?

Unlike music, my DVD collection is strictly limited to a select few absolutely cult movies, at the moment 15 and I'm only missing "Blade Runner" and "Ran".

Most movies - even those I really want to check - are a one-off affair anyway. So downloading movies does not make me feel like a thief. I don't do it though because I lack the right d/l speed and motivation.
 
drunken 5 year old said:
hahaha this rules because Erik = speed
I don't even remember why I used to dislike that dude, but I've discussed some shit with him on The Philosopher lately and I reckon he's a decent bloke now
 
Erik said:
I don't care for "industries", I care for art.

tell that to the first time film maker that just maxed out his CC to bring this "art" to you ...

Erik ... do you live on Monopoly money?
 
lurch70 said:
tell that to the first time film maker that just maxed out his CC to bring this "art" to you ...
I recognize that cinema is rather different to music in that you actually need a relatively huge budget even to do the most basic of movies if you want it to be decent quality... It's just that 99.98% of what I see coming out of Hollywood is completely devoid of value and if it burned down I would laugh.

...but I don't even watch movies, so meh.
 
markgugs said:
Erik = thief ;)

I still am jaw-dropped that you're trying to say that no revenue is lost when someone downloads for free something they would've rented/bought. I'm blown away by this actually. :lol:
I'm saying you CANNOT PROVE DIFFERENTLY, and this is a FACT.
 
I think the only support erik's arguement could accrue is that somebody wouldn't have rented/bought the item in the first place because they are too fucking cheap. Whereas by downloading it for free they can watch it and spread the word to their not cheapskate friends/family.
 
markgugs said:
If I had the proper resources, sure I could. But I don't so, to quote you, meh.
No -- you CANNOT, by the LAWS OF NATURE. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove unless you have a fuckin time machine handy.
 
Iconoclastic Tendencies said:
I think the only support erik's arguement could accrue is that somebody wouldn't have rented/bought the item in the first place because they are too fucking cheap. Whereas by downloading it for free they can watch it and spread the word to their not cheapskate friends/family.
OBVIOUSLY downloading makes an impact into rental/movie retail places' incomes BUT it's utterly preposterous to, like the MPAA is doing, claim that every download equals a "loss of money". It simply ISN'T so.
 
Erik said:
Where art becomes industry, it ceases being art.

In reality it's not that simple, but essentially...
well then "art" stopped about 800 years ago. look to the Renaissance, lots of great art. a lot of those dudes did that to eat. getting paid for your craft is nothing new.
 
the homeys in Chinatown that sell DVD's of movies that WILL come out 2 weeks from now in theater ... that's fucking talent ... and balls ...

I would hire them for my sales/marekting team
 
But I didn't claim that every download = loss of money either.

I said it = loss of money when someone downloaded IN PLACE of renting a movie they WOULD HAVE RENTED/BOUGHT had the free download not been available.

I knew this would be a heated debate :cool: :lol: