late night xmas gift... get it before it gets pulled!

Didn't they prosecute end-users who were downloading illegal copies of published music a couple of years ago?

Well aren't you nice? He's risking his neck to share his booty with us and that is your thanks? How about a "Thank you"? If your worried about him getting in trouble, at least have a little tact!

And on that note, THANK YOU sooooo much for the great movies, it's made my christmas break a little more interesing:)

just finding them with extra digging... not uploading...


anyway,this just got pulled so poof! no watchie..

Bonnie,

If someone gives you a stolen piece of jewelry, do you thank him? If someone cheated someone else out of their paycheck and gave you the proceeds, do you thank him? If someone went to your workplace, stole all of your work and gave it to the clients for free and it resulted in you getting laid off, do you thank him?

Your misunderstanding of the crime and its consequences is only exceeded by your dubious ethics.

Posting links like that is a good way to be served with a lawsuit to cease and desist.

My two cents - or one cent because I don't want to overvalue my shitty opinion:

All of these videos are on Google, probably the most visited website in the world. It takes no special software to watch these things, nor downloading, but merely the pushing of an internet 'play' button. Noyeser is neither uploading them nor profiting from them in anyway, merely linking to them. You Tube, which is now owned by Google, purposely limits the length of each video uploaded to prevent just this thing, why does Google not do the same with it's own video site?

Most of them are shot straight at the movie theatre (with the notable exception of Borat, which was obviously some kind of high-quality screener.) and are very low-quality.

Furthermore, watching some bootleg movie on a computer is not my preferred way to watch a movie, but it is a way to get the flavor.

The only one on here I actually watched all the way through was Borat, which I will eventually rent or maybe even buy when it comes out on DVD, because you know that disc is going to be loaded with as of yet unseen deleted stuff, and special features.

Lastly, the music industry that you mentioned in your post, is slowly adapting to an internet world, and so too is the movie industry going to need to. Both Microsoft and Sony with their video game products make no bones about trying to capture the entire living room entertainment system by making their newest systems not just videogame machines, but HD/Blu-Ray disc players, and internet connective. The internet connectivity of the machines is there mainly for this very reason, yet the distributors of the product that the connection is intended for have no model yet to distribute the content. I am sure they will figure something out.

This whole deal is hardly criminal, but rather the growing pains of the future. Now, if you'd like to sit there and still the world is flat because the queen will chop off your head if you don't, be my guest.

I never said Noyeser was profiting from posting the links. If you think I am some luddite, then you are mistaken. I work with computers and although I'm not involved in video steaming or data compression, I am familiar with the technical aspects needed to distribute movies on-line.

With that said, the links are 100% illegal. Just becasue Google doesn't remove the links immediately does not make them legal. The fact that Noysayer warned that the links could be taken down soon implies he knows they are illegal and that Google will eventually take action. If someone finds the Google link from this site, goes to Google, downloads the film, burns DVD's, and sells bootleg copies, they have committed a crime. A zealous prosecutor could come after this site for facilitating that crime. If you put a sign on your front yard saying "My next door neighbor is out of town and his door is unlocked," you are basically encouraging people to go into his house and steal. That is what is happening here. You seem to attempt to justify it by saying that you didn't steal anything or that your neighbor should have locked his door or that someone may have discovered the door was unlocked without the sign.

This has nothing to do with the technology or the distribution of media. Your own post reads like you are in denial and trying to justify your actions. You liken the music industry's new methods of distribution of music (which are paid services) to a bootleg copy of a movie on the internet that can be downloaded for free. The comparision is ludicrous.

If you think the links on Google are legal, then you are a moron and we have nothing more to discuss. If you think posting links on this site to illegal uploads on Google is ethical, then I am dubious of your character and I want no more interaction with you. If you think there is little legal repercussion from posting links on this site, then we are in agreement. However, don't make yourself or anyone that views those links as pure as the driven snow.

"The only one on here I actually watched all the way through was Borat, which I will eventually rent or maybe even buy when it comes out on DVD, because you know that disc is going to be loaded with as of yet unseen deleted stuff, and special features."

Basically, the movie theater, TV channel, or rental store was cheated out a sale. You can try to justify it by saying you will rent or buy the film later but that doesn't address the issue that you saw a film for free this week that would have cost you the price of admission at your theater. I'm sorry to inform you but you just benefitted from someone else's crime. There is no difference (beyond the dollar amount) between what you did and going down to a shady part of town and buying a TV from some guy that you know stole it.

I just cannot agree with your passion on this topic. Yes, it is illegal, but is it wrong? You would say yes, it is unethical. But how is that any more unethical than Netflix or Blockbuster buying a copy of a movie for the same price you or I would buy it for and then renting it out to me at the $20.99 fee per month? The movie company is not making any extra money if Netflix turns over the movie to 5 different people in a month or just 1. Why if some enterprising and sharing individual buys a DVD and then uploads it to Google is that any different than Netflix, except that it's not for profit.

What if some real rich guy decided to start a free Netflix, and bought DVD's and then just sent them out for free because he was, like, real rich, and a movie nut? Would that be illegal? The movie company was paid for the DVD, and they don't seem to care how many people watch it...

What about buying previously viewed movies from Blockbuster? Here's Blockbuster paying 20th Century $15 bucks for a movie, renting it 30 times and then selling it to me for $10? Shouldn't Fox get some of that resale cash? Afterall the copyrighted content on that DVD is not Blockbusters, right?

And as far as I'm concerned comparing some ass uploading movies to Google to a violent and invasive crime against a person such as burglary is ludicrous.

I agree that at this point, it is illegal, but it isn't wrong. If I live next door to a drive in and watch their movies from my yard, is that illegal? Or, maybe it is their responsibility to put up a fence or a wall.

What if I buy a movie and invite 25 friends over to watch it in my house for - gasp - free. Is that wrong? Have those 25 people essentially stolen the movie from the movie industry? Should I charge all of them just like a movie theatre and send the proceeds to Paramount?

The movie industry freaked in the late seventies and early eighties when videocassettes broke through. They adapted and now make more $$$ than they ever did before with home video. They'll adapt to this too. It's their responsibility, not the person who happens to come across their link on a free, massive, public website.

Also, I really, really want to add that the quality of these movies is very, very bad. I'm not into watching movies on my computer, particularly bootlegs, and yeah, I might take a glance, but I'd much rather watch movies on my tv, on a perfectly legal DVD with a high quality picture and a beer on the end table. Which is why, almost any movie I want to watch (including Borat) I will end up renting at my local video store. I think for most people, especially in these high-tech days, movies aren't just pictures and dialogue, but a whole sensory experience of sight and sound that you just can't get in the Google Vid medium. I mean, the running of the jew is something I want to see in total surround sound on a plasma. I don't think this is the threat you think it is. Now, if you want to talk about music, heck, you have a really good argument.

Going back to Netflix and Blockbuster, with just a little more tweaking of the technology, the movie studios can offer their product directly to the consumer and get rid of these pesky middlemen, and increase their bottom line and yet again become tight with a medium they once thought of as a major threat.

In closing, you might be happy to note that it seems Todd has taken the links off his front page.

I agree that the future is a to cut out the middlemen. Studios want to digitize films and let first-run theaters download the film thus saving on striking film prints. By allowing end-users to download films, they can save on DVD production. They can keep more of the rental and sale revenue for themselves.

All that has nothing to do with the reality of the present. Every legal example you mention - Blockbuster, Netflix, etc. is legal (and ethical) because they signed contract with the studio or film distributor giving them the right to rent, sell, re-sell, or distribute films. Everything else you mention is illegal because of that FBI Warning at the beginning of the video. Those are the facts and your attitude seems to be "I'll follow the laws I agree with" or "I know better" is a dangerous way to govern a society.

"And as far as I'm concerned comparing some ass uploading movies to Google to a violent and invasive crime against a person such as burglary is ludicrous."

Burglary is by definition (in most states) a non-violent crime and a property crime not a crime against a person. Furthermore, I was comparing the ass uploading films to the neighbor that put up the sign saying his neighbor's door was unlocked.

You are curiously silent on the fact that you "stole" a viewing of Borat. You seem to think that because you watched the film on a small computer monitor, you didn't commit a crime.

Having worked for an independent video store in the mid-90's, I assure you there is no such agreement in place giving Netflix, Blockbuster or anybody else the rights to buy and rent films to their customers.

In fact, you could, if you really wanted to lose an assload of money, get your DVD collection, open a store, and start renting the suckers out. Of course, you more than likely couldn't compete with the behemoths, unless you really had a deep selection and a great location. (Which is a whole 'nother topic about the sad death of the independent video store, and a whole other host of independent businesses to boot.)

Furthermore, since Netflix, Blockbuster and the like are buying such huge quantities they get them at quite a large discount compared to what we're purchasing them for at Walmart. But I suppose that's sort of beside the point.

Personally, since it is Borat I watched I should address it in particular. Having unethically, immorally, and unscrupulously watched the pirated, uploaded movie, whilst wearing devil horns, I just don't see Sacha Baron Cohen suddenly getting all high and mighty about my piracy. After all, he mislead the majority of the folks who appear in his film into becoming the butt of his joke. He completely (hilariously) and yet consciously misrepresented the lowly citizens of Kazakhstan as a bunch of backward, incestuous, anti-semitic buffoons. According the imbd, the cops were called on him 91 times during the making of his film. I find it ironic that this is the film that I illegally watched. If he's more than willing to infringe on other peoples rights, reputations, and sense of security, why should he all of the sudden be protected from the likes of Satanic, ol' me. It's all quite old testament and biblical if you think about it.

To pervert Borat's dialogue:

Borat: Look, there is movie on Google! Can we download it and maybe make a sexy time with it?
Driving Instructor: No, no, no, no, no, no!
Borat: A-why not?
Driving Instructor: Because a movie must be paid for.
Borat: [stunned] WHAT...? You joke?
Driving Instructor: It must be consensual. How 'bout that?
Borat: [turns to Instructor, pauses] Ahahahahaha!
Driving Instructor: That's good, huh?
Borat: [pause] Is not good for me.


In my defense, I also would like to point out that I protected the studio and artists who made Hollowman 2 by not watching their movie for free, nor paying for it either.

Also, just to spice up the argument, I actually have a DVD copy of "It's a Wonderful Life", so am I allowed to watch it on Google video since essentially I have already paid the studio for it?

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2008/03/music_levy?currentPage=all&

An interesting article about a plan that Big Media is warming up to. It was proposed a long time ago, but immediately dismissed.

The idea is to collect a fee from internet service providers — something like $5 per user per month — and put it into a pool that would be used to compensate songwriters, performers, publishers and music labels. A collecting agency would divvy up the money according to artists’ popularity on P2P sites, just as ASCAP and BMI pay songwriters for broadcasts and live performances of their work.

The entire tone of the article indicates that the RIAA is on the verge of giving up, meaning they’ve been stone-cold beaten by the market. They tried to stop file-sharing, but they’re no better off than they were.

This is some interesting reading and makes alot of great points on what is a major concern in the film industry today....at least I'm assuming it's a great concern since I keep seeing those 'no piracy' commercials with more frequency when I go to the movies. [Not that I'm implying that I go to the movies as much or more than you folks...ahm just sayin.]

Not to get in the middle of the flying debris here but I think the difference between downloading [illegally?] a movie off the internet and showing a movie in your home for free to 25 of your closest pals is the loss or misdirection of profit. [Yes, we get down the almighty dollar here.] If you are showing a movie to your friends that you purchased or rented, then you HAVE paid for viewing the film already. That you aren't charging your friends to see it means you aren't making any profit that the rental or movie houses could make off your friends. If you are charging them for the beer...well, that's a totally different thing.

If one downloads a film without paying the PerView costs, then it's considered stealing, as that viewing could have been legally purchased thru legitamate channels [Blockbuster, Target, etc.] and wasn't.

My 1 cent...plus a couple of coupons on monay off the first months Netflix fees...

Oh boy... you guys are both idiots... this is a waste of time! I actually laughed reading all this.


Yeah its a crime to watch movies on the internet... but hey, its a crime to Jaywalk too... and i do that all the time. Strap the cuffs on, send me to hell. Guilty.

Jeez. Nobody cares. The only people who care are the fat cats in the movie companies making millions.

"The only people who care are the fat cats in the movie companies making millions."

That is pure bullshit and you are the idiot.

First and foremost, you pay more for movie tickets, DVD's, video rentals, pay-per-view events, etc. because studios are making up their losses from illegal downloads and pirated DVD's.

When someone pirates a movie, it's effect are felt down the line. The movie theaters have to close or to lay off workers because people are watching bootleg copies. Likewise for the video rental places. The movie companies and theater chains are often publicly traded companies whose profits and share price are hurt by piracy. You may hold their stock directly or in a mutual fund such as your 401K. They get loans from financial firms and banks who have to take a write-off if piracy effects their bottom lines. That may affect your insurance and mortgage rates. If you are looking for something local, when the retailer in your town (or internet) does not sell a DVD because someone downloaded a bootleg copy, your community is out the sales tax of the transaction. Local sales taxes usually fund things like street maintenance, parks & recreation, fire & police, etc.

On a larger scale, the most creative people will stop making movies if they think their profits are being stolen by copyright pirates and counterfeiters. They will gravitate towards other areas and the creative death spiral of movies will be assured and complete. Movies are mostly crap already, IMO. Rampant copyright violations will only reduce the overall quality of films.

The moral contortions people will go to justify their own or others crimes is laughable if not pathetic. Why don't you just say "I'm a selfish mother fucker & I don't give a damn about anyone else?" At least, you wouldn't be lying.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2008/03/music_levy?currentPage=all&

An interesting article about a plan that Big Media is warming up to. It was proposed a long time ago, but immediately dismissed.

The idea is to collect a fee from internet service providers � something like $5 per user per month � and put it into a pool that would be used to compensate songwriters, performers, publishers and music labels. A collecting agency would divvy up the money according to artists� popularity on P2P sites, just as ASCAP and BMI pay songwriters for broadcasts and live performances of their work.

The entire tone of the article indicates that the RIAA is on the verge of giving up, meaning they�ve been stone-cold beaten by the market. They tried to stop file-sharing, but they�re no better off than they were.

An internet argument.

Like hitting each other with sacks of marshmellows.