TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- $800,000 worth of Pirated DVDs seized at Pacific Mall
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]


Posted by dEsidEL on Aug-29-2006 03:45:

quote:
Originally posted by psychosomatica
All this technology is useless anyway... Throw all the money you want into it.. it WILL be pirated. I'm willing to bet anyone any amount of money on it.. might as well spend the money making better media..




i think the value of intellectual property is being redefined through piracy. the cost of something non-tangible seems to be more relative these days..


Posted by psychosomatica on Aug-29-2006 03:59:

Sony spent $2B usd on putting piracy protection on audio cds way back when.. the work around was to take a permanent marker and write over a certain part.

I think there's only one type of anti-piracy method they haven't cracked yet.. and it will be done in due time. They're offloading the costs of piracy onto everyday consumers by making you buy all this crap which WILL be worked around in weeks.. if not months.. I think it's a losing battle for the entertainment lobby groups.

To be perfectly honest.. I believe that guys at the MPAA and RIAA could price piracy out.. I mean.. the marginal cost of distribution of media is a joke..but they're hanging onto the good ol' times with ridiculous margins on their products. I'm not saying they can't do that.. but hey.. you can't live in lalaland forever..

edit: why i originally replied.. yes desidel i agree.. intellectual property has more perceived value nowadays.. that being said.. they're fighting a losing battle


Posted by rabbitjoker on Aug-29-2006 04:04:

quote:
Originally posted by psychosomatica
To be perfectly honest.. I believe that guys at the MPAA and RIAA could price piracy out..


Here you are wrong.

The truth is that 60% of the cost of $10 CD goes into production and album marketing (ads + payloa). The remaining 40% goes into the media costs and distribution channel (which includes retailer marketing).

iTunes sells tracks for $1 each and people still steal.


Posted by dEsidEL on Aug-29-2006 04:27:



i've always wondered whether downloading something you have no intent to buy is stealing. i mean, by definition i suppose it is, but in the true sense one has not denied another the right to own that piece of intellectual property. if i download a Britney Spears album, that I wouldn't otherwise have bought whether it was available on the internet or not, does it do Britney any harm? If anything she might actually benefit through the free distribution of her music thus making it more popular. I might even like it enough to eventually go see her in concert. I'll admit, I actually buy music that i thoroughly enjoy to support the artist. But at the same time there's so much crap out there that I wouldn't even pay a dime for.

anyways, i think i went off on some tangent here.. the original topic of this thread was about pirated DVDs being sold, this i agree is theft in probably the worse sense..


Posted by Jem_hadar on Aug-29-2006 04:30:

quote:
Originally posted by rabbitjoker


iTunes sells tracks for $1 each and people still steal.


I know I'd use iTunes more if the damn Mp3s weren't protected! Being forced to use iTunes or WMP really ticks me off and kills my desire to spend that dollar. I've gone w/o music for far to long bc of this annoying factor!


Posted by Jem_hadar on Aug-29-2006 04:32:

quote:
Originally posted by dEsidEL


anyways, i think i went off on some tangent here..


I enjoyed your provoking rant. ^5


Posted by rabbitjoker on Aug-29-2006 04:55:

quote:
Originally posted by dEsidEL
i've always wondered whether downloading something you have no intent to buy is stealing.


That is like saying: taking a chocolate bar from the corner store with no intention to eat it is not stealing.

Bottom line - one is taking something of value from the creator without paying for it. Theft.


Posted by rabbitjoker on Aug-29-2006 04:56:

quote:
Originally posted by Jem_hadar
I know I'd use iTunes more if the damn Mp3s weren't protected! Being forced to use iTunes or WMP really ticks me off and kills my desire to spend that dollar. I've gone w/o music for far to long bc of this annoying factor!


Your license allows you to burn it to a CD and enjoy it with whatever media player (or hardware) you choose.


Posted by dEsidEL on Aug-29-2006 04:59:

quote:
Originally posted by rabbitjoker
That is like saying: taking a chocolate bar from the corner store with no intention to eat it is not stealing.

Bottom line - one is taking something of value from the creator without paying for it. Theft.




true, although I'm referring to something intangible here. if i download a track i hav no intent to buy, whether it's available for me to download on the internet or not, i'm not preventing anyone else from buying that track.

the same cannot be said about that chocolate bar.


Posted by Misanthrope on Aug-29-2006 04:59:

quote:
Originally posted by me@t k@tie
I JUST got back from the P mall with my Lukey!! <3 We looove going there...there is this place in the food court that has the BEST sweet and sour chicken on rice! mmmmmmmmmmmm

and i always stock up on men's pocky sticks and lychee candy when we are there!

bahahahahhah I thought of you when I opened this thread.


Posted by rabbitjoker on Aug-29-2006 05:02:

quote:
Originally posted by dEsidEL
I'm referring to something intangible here.


Tangible or not - what you are saying is that theft is questionable if consumption (intended/desired use) is not a part of the equation.

Stealing anything with the excuse "I wouldn't have purchased it - so taking it for free is ok" is not acceptable.

Consumption or not - taking possession of someones property without paying for it (intellectual property or otherwise) is theft.


Posted by dEsidEL on Aug-29-2006 05:08:

quote:
Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Tangible or not - what you are saying is that theft is questionable if consumption (intended/desired use) is not a part of the equation.

Stealing anything with the excuse "I wouldn't have purchased it - so taking it for free is ok" is not acceptable.

Consumption or not - taking possession of someones property without paying for it (intellectual property or otherwise) is theft.




then perhaps in light of how technology is affecting the value we place on intellectual property today we need to re-evaluate how we define theft.


Posted by Jem_hadar on Aug-29-2006 05:14:

quote:
Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Your license allows you to burn it to a CD and enjoy it with whatever media player (or hardware) you choose.


Yea, I realize that I can do that, but that is not how I wish to enjoy that music.

I want to enjoy it in mp3 form on my HD by the player of my choice, not be forced to move it to a CD.

This inconvenience is the barrier that stops me from purchasing more online tracks.


Posted by me@t k@tie on Aug-29-2006 14:46:

quote:
Originally posted by dEsidEL


LOL! brilliant post.

it's all bout the sweet & sour chicken on rice baby..
.

it's so true! hahaha...it tastes unbelievably amazing


Posted by TheNeonAlien on Aug-29-2006 14:49:

bittorrent ftw!


Posted by me@t k@tie on Aug-29-2006 15:06:

quote:
Originally posted by Misanthrope
bahahahahhah I thought of you when I opened this thread.



hahaha when we got there, i was looking around for that store you were telling me about. but everything was closed by the time we finished our food, so i couldnt find it. next time you are coming there with me!!! <3


Posted by Orko on Aug-29-2006 15:36:

quote:
Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Most people don't feel ripped off when their Dell computer becomes "not the latest" 3 years after purchase - nor should they feel that way about their TVs.

People need to adjust their views on media technologies (to have them more in line with computing technology).

TV's are now computers with big screens. Technology changes, things evolve, upgrades are required.

I don't feel ripped off because my PIII-700 doesn't run all the latest and greatest games. Nor should someone with a top of the line TV (i.e. generally early adopter technology/costs) feel ripped off when they have to get a new one 3 to 4 years later (if you're going to buy an early adopter product - be prepared to pay for it and not complain).


Here I do not agree with you one bit. People do feel ripped off when they have to replace their computers 3 years after they buy them, and people do wonder why the technology is 'out dated' so quickly.

I do not want to change my view on media technology. Home theatre technology has always been different from computer tech because of the length of time between standards changes. I for one was pleased by this difference.

I believe media companies are trying to artificially decrease the time between standards changes, by just increasing the level of sophisticatoin, without any real benefit to the consumer. Going from cable to VHS was an amazing improvement in the home theatre experience. Going from audio cassette to CD was a huge improvement in storage, playback and quality. Going from VHS to DVD had similar benefits in playback, quality and storage. Going from DVD to HD-DVD...it has better picture and sound and more security. Its almost 20 years between each major standards change, but at this point its only a 10 year difference between DVD and HD-DVD. I think its a cash grab and I will not buy into it.

I love picture quality, and sound and I can see/hear the benefits of this new media standard, but I just do not believe it was a big enough deal to introduce an entire new standard on it so quickly.


Posted by Orko on Aug-29-2006 15:39:

quote:
Originally posted by dEsidEL


then perhaps in light of how technology is affecting the value we place on intellectual property today we need to re-evaluate how we define theft.



I agree 100%

Tangible theft creates a cost for the supplier/seller. When you steal that chocolate bar, the store owner has to replace it with another which costs them extra.

When you steal a song online, no cost was created for the record label or artist, they do not have to work to replace anything. You took a copy, which may or may not have come from the original producer.

There is a big difference here.


Posted by dEsidEL on Aug-29-2006 18:50:



another news update:

quote:



Miami Vice, Karla among seized DVDs
Police lay out tools of $17M-a-year east-end operation
Plaza unit had capacity to produce 560 bootleg flicks an hour

Aug. 29, 2006. 01:00 AM
BETSY POWELL
CRIME REPORTER

In their pirated-movie raid last week, police discovered 140 DVD burners along with piles of colourful, authentic-seeming movie artwork and dozens of boxes of counterfeit DVDs, including some films still in the theatres such as Miami Vice.

The Toronto police seizure of 20,000 pirated discs last week also included the controversial Karla, the movie about schoolgirl killer Karla Homolka. An anti-piracy investigator with the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association said the company that put the flick in theatres has decided not to release it on DVD but that hasn't stopped counterfeiters from recording it from the big screen, bootlegging it and offering it for sale.

The Montreal-based movie company could not be reached to confirm the information.

Yesterday all the elements of the counterfeit DVD operation � except the people behind it � were on display at Scarborough's 42 Division, with police touting it as a major bust with five suspects under arrest.

One of them, alleged to be the "ringleader" was arrested a year ago on similar charges, although police alleged then that he was manufacturing the illegal product on a much smaller scale from his home in Scarborough.

Last week, police searched three units in the Dynasty Centre plaza on Glen Watford Dr., near Sheppard Ave. E. and Brimley Rd., after receiving a complaint.

Police allege two were retail outlets � one specializing in "family-type" movies, the other pornography. The DVDs sold for about $5.

The third unit, where the "inventory" and equipment were located, was the manufacturing operation. Police allege this was a 24-hour-a day operation with the capacity to produce 560 DVD movies per hour and the potential to generate $17 million a year in profit.

That would represent a potential loss to the motion picture industry of $71 million, said Jim Sweeney of the motion picture association.

DVDs are much easier to copy than their predecessor, VHS tapes.

Yet pirated DVDs are estimated to be only 20 to 25 per cent of the entire Canadian market, while the number of bootlegged VHS copies soared to 50 per cent.

"It's not nearly as high as VHS was in its heyday, but it's still a major problem," said Sweeney.

Last year, authorities seized more than $35 million worth of DVDs in the GTA.

Yu Wang, 22, SiYing Zhao, 22, Jing Zhou, 28, and You Jie Wu, 36 have been charged with possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000.

An arrest warrant has been issued for Yannie Siu, 25.


source:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...id=968332188492


Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.