or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › What percentage of people buy movies legally ???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What percentage of people buy movies legally ??? - Page 7

post #181 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taperwood View Post

Have at it. Not all the laws cited are ridiculous but there are plenty that are. Like I said before, we are all criminals in the eyes of the State, probably even on a daily/continuous basis and yet we all know what is truly right and wrong.http://www.dumblaws.com/

Well said
post #182 of 308
I'm just confused by your stance because your paid guide explains explicitly how to do what you say in this thread you are decidedly against. Again, it is confusing and I don't understand why are are saying what your are. I thought for a while you were just playing devil's advocate or being tongue-in-cheek, but now I really don't know.

I'm just saying that nobody is being hurt financially if people follow a simple moral guideline when making copies of content for their personal, private use, i.e, first, do I legally possess the content to make a copy in the first place? Anything beyond that is stealing, whether you download it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Yeah, I think I missed the point. I am going to bow out of this thread.
post #183 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkfluid View Post

God help me, why I would want to get involved with this thread, but the truth is they are still laws none the less, and still therefore acting not within the accordance of the law your actions would be illegal. They are just as valid as laws passed this year.

If there is a gray area, it's that laws are selectively enforced and must be, as there are so many laws that we inadvertently break them every day. This is a bad system, it means you have TOO many laws. We should never selectively enforce laws, if any law must be selectively enforced, then there shouldn't be a law at all.

I disagree with mgkdragn, I think we should all have the rights in a free society to act within our own code of conduct, so long as we do not obstruct the rights of others.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

I think if anything this has been made more of an issue by the ridiculously gross extension of copyright laws. They were originally for 28 years, now they are over 100!?!?!?!?! This is purely an act of greed. Most of the works people pirate should already be public domain, people would buy more if they were able to get more in the public domain. But that's just a theory.

I doubt if 30 year old movies are the main issue in the piracy debate. Generally you can buy them for next to nothing. It's the new releases that are the $30 blu rays.
post #184 of 308
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

I doubt if 30 year old movies are the main issue in the piracy debate. Generally you can buy them for next to nothing. It's the new releases that are the $30 blu rays.

and the $30 bluray is why people pirate.

People just buy the $8 old movie. lol.
post #185 of 308
Mfusick,

I don't know anyone under 40 well enough to ask if they illegally rip content but two over 40 I do know well enough and have discussed this with in the past is that one has ripped BR's but not recently and the other used to share CD's with friends but not for a long time. I have ripped my CD collection but not my movies as yet and I would not rip those unless I had legal copies, which I do.

So I'm guessing between one-third and two-thirds? Even then, with the advent of streaming, I think illegal downloading and ripping will go into decline.
post #186 of 308
This thread has gone pretty much where I expected it to. The law is pretty clear about what is legal and what is not. Much of the law that pertains to copying copyrighted content is pretty stupid when you consider how the copies are intended for use (i.e., copying a DVD to play on your iPhone or whatever). Morality is strictly in the eye of the beholder.

I gave an example of something that is, by the letter of the law, completely illegal. The example was in regard to copying a rental Blu-Ray or DVD and keeping it on a server until such time was available for viewing. According to the law this is absolutely illegal. The question is, is it ethical? If the movie is copied for the sole purpose of viewing at a later date by the individual that rented it then I see no problem ethically. The movie was rented with the intent that it would be viewed once by the person that rented it and then deleted. If the viewing actually takes place the next day or next year, what's the difference? All legal fees have been paid to the affected parties so nobody got cheated out of their due.

I also gave another example that, again, by the letter of the law, is illegal but not necessarily unethical. A movie is copied using AnyDVD HD to a PC for the purpose of playing back the movie in another PC that has no Blu-Ray drive. How is this any different than playing it back directly in a standalone Blu-Ray player?

A third example is as follows: A DVD is played back in a PC with a Blu-Ray drive using AnyDVD HD. Technically, AnyDVD HD circumvents the encryption scheme used on the Blu-Ray which is illegal. However, when playing a Blu-Ray disc in a PC BD drive, AnyDVD HD is required to get around the HDCP issues that are incurred with such a setup. Technically illegal, but no way should it be considered immoral.

I don't have a problem protecting the rights of intellectual property holders. I just think the law needs to be better defined to address the variations that exist with the use of digital media. As long as a royalty is paid and there is no intent to sell or distribute said media, there should be no inference of illegality or immorality.
post #187 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post


Sorry, but not correct.

"Illegal" does not equal "immoral," "unethical," or "wrong." Nor does the fact something is legal mean it is necessarily moral, ethical or good. Indeed, law can be absolutely immoral, as in the case of laws involving slavery, or the laws instituted the '30s in Germany directed at Jews. Many of man's greatest atrocities have been performed fully in compliance with applicable laws. Helping the Underground Railroad in the 19th century was certainly illegal; are you saying it was thus "wrong" or "immoral"? Those African American students who sat at the "whites only" lunch counter at the Woolworths in Greensboro in 1960 were plainly acting illegally; was it "wrong" or "immoral" for them to sit down at that counter?

There have been treatises, and books, and articles written on this subject since men first started talking about law. You can go back and read Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, etc. on the subject, or any number of other lawyers, ethicists, and philosophers. There is a great debate presented in the 1958 Harvard Law Review on this subject of law vs morality (called the Hart-Fuller debate).

There are certain actions which are universally recognized as wrong and immoral. Whether you call them natural law or whatever, murder and theft are always on the list. I don't think you'll find anyone suggesting "circumventing a digital access control" to be a matter of natural law or morality. It's illegal. That's all it is. You can be fined for violating the law. Just as you can be fined for operating an unlicenced radio transmitter, or having your windows tinted too dark. But I doubt you'd find any support for the view that any of those things are "immoral."

Wow. You're really trying to help yourself sleep at night aren't you?
post #188 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post


I think the law is absolutely ridiculous. But its the law.

And it looks like it is going to get much much more ridiculous.

Bingo.
post #189 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan View Post

Could everyone just take a moment to acknowledge that Zon is better than you are so he can contentedly leave this thread and allow the rest of us to discuss the topic without the holier-than-though parts continually being thrown out?

Zon, you're better than me.

It's what you've been wanting to hear, so there it is. Hopefully a few more of them from a few others and you'll let it go...

-Suntan

Seems I'm not the only one getting this kinda vibe from him. Glad others have seem to catch on.
post #190 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Do you really see "they charge too much" as a justification? Do you sneak into theaters too because the ticket prices are too high? Steal cars because you think the auto companies are ripping you off? Shoplift your clothes because they're overpriced?

What a ridiculous comparison.

You aren't stealing or shoplifting anything. You are making or downloading a copy of the original work. It's copyright infringement, and it applies to both downloading a copy and ripping a disk to your pc.

http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-in...erence-110827/

I found this comic amusing...

post #191 of 308
There are legal and elegant solutions in the pipeline. We all know how Netflix works. Another option is if you pay for a digital copy of a movie from Amazon or CinemaNow, etc, they store it for you in the cloud. I've never done it myself, but supposedly you can access it from anywhere. It is unclear if this is the way to go, but this whole dilemma people face is a matter of the laws and media industry clearly being behind the curve of the technology.
post #192 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taperwood View Post

Another option is if you pay for a digital copy of a movie from Amazon or CinemaNow, etc, they store it for you in the cloud. I've never done it myself, but supposedly you can access it from anywhere. It is unclear if this is the way to go, but this whole dilemma people face is a matter of the laws and media industry clearly being behind the curve of the technology.

I think once the industry gets onboard UltraViolet, or a replacement for UV comes out that everybody gets onboard, things will be much better for the consumer and you will see piracy decrease because people will finally be able to get and use DRMed digital copies of their media in a reasonable way (as opposed to now, where DRM means you literally can't use the files in many perfectly reasonable ways).

The problem now is that you can either do it legitimately and have to deal with asinine DRM issues, portability issues, access issues, etc. Or you can just torrent it and use the damn media.
post #193 of 308
The minimum speed limit on the Michigan interstate is 55 mph. The maximum speed on the Indiana interstate is 55. Going from Michigan to Indiana it is virtually impossible to obey both "laws". Are you still morally culpable in this situation just because you are legally culpable?

My religion teaches that polygamy is immoral. Other religions say it is fine. Should I vote for laws against polygamy? Or should members of the other religions have the freedom to have multiple wives/husbands under the amendment on free exercise of religion?

I rip movies that I own to my hard drive so I can view it through my htpc/streamer. This is much more convenient than sticking in each movie and waiting through the load screen. This is technically illegal. On the other hand, if somebody from the RIAA came knocking at my door, and attempted to see if I was doing illegal activities without a warrant, under North Carolina law I could shoot his head off with my shotgun. Am I acting more morally when I rip a movie or when I shoot off somebody's head?
post #194 of 308
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taperwood View Post

Mfusick,

I don't know anyone under 40 well enough to ask if they illegally rip content but two over 40 I do know well enough and have discussed this with in the past is that one has ripped BR's but not recently and the other used to share CD's with friends but not for a long time. I have ripped my CD collection but not my movies as yet and I would not rip those unless I had legal copies, which I do.

So I'm guessing between one-third and two-thirds? Even then, with the advent of streaming, I think illegal downloading and ripping will go into decline.

I would imagine as age decreases... the percentage increases.

I would imagine that 20-40 year old males are the top offenders.

My dad is 64. He probably would like to be able to do these things- but even so.. lacks the technical ability to actually do it.

It does take some PC literacy.

Most of the population seems to be moving into tablets and cheap laptops and apple products - because they don't get good experience with PC's. They don't have good experience with PC because they lack the ability to set it up properly- and maintain it. these people don't own HTPC's either.

I think younger tech savy males are the #1 piracy group. Elderly women probably the smallest group.
post #195 of 308
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinDaWg View Post


http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-in...erence-110827/

I found this comic amusing...


Lollies @ photo caption
post #196 of 308
Thread Starter 
http://torrentfreak.com/while-drafti...irates-111226/



hile Drafting SOPA, the U.S. House Harbors BitT orrent Pirates

In recent weeks we discovered ********** pirates at the RIAA, Sony, Fox, Universal and even law-abiding organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security. By now it should be clear that people are using ********** pretty much everywhere, and not only for lawful downloads. Today we can add the U.S. House of Representatives to that list, the place where lawmakers are drafting the much discussed “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA).

Read the rest here:
http://torrentfreak.com/while-drafti...irates-111226/

lol at censorship. The word was bit and torrent together.
post #197 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

I agree with you completely up until the last line.

And those idiotic laws are being passed by representatives that we elected and that in 90% of the cases we will re-elect. We get the (dysfunctional) government we deserve.

As to your last line, it's a theft of intellectual property. It's no different than shoplifting the physical disk from Walmart.

IP 'theft' is the same thing as copyright infringement. Its not theft as defined by law. And it is completely different than stealing physical property in the eyes of the law as well as how most people view it.

The fact is laws are passed with no input and no oversight from citizens. Our elected officials owe nothing to us, they simply do what they are told by the lobbyists, and collect their bribes and campaign funds. There is a very good reason finance reform laws will never pass in the US. There is no transparency in govt operations and Congress can do whatever it wants when they please.

The legal system is designed with the following goals in mind -

1. Make the laws obscure enough and vague enough that a normal citizen has no hope of understanding them
2. Make the laws broad enough that almost everyone is guilty of breaking the law no matter what they are doing.
3. Make elected officials, the police/judiciary, and the rich/powerful exempt from said laws. Thus they are allowed to break the law and feign ignorance.
4. Allow govt agencies to incriminate/prosecute anyone for any reason without needing evidence.

Media is controlled by the same corporations that want these laws, so no wonder no one knows about them (outside forums such as these). Your daily news will cover Kim Kardashian's dress before they say a single word about SOPA. People still live under the illusion that 'if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide', which is not only wrong in principle, but opens the door for more censorship.
post #198 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericbsmith View Post

I think once the industry gets onboard UltraViolet, or a replacement for UV comes out that everybody gets onboard, things will be much better for the consumer and you will see piracy decrease because people will finally be able to get and use DRMed digital copies of their media in a reasonable way (as opposed to now, where DRM means you literally can't use the files in many perfectly reasonable ways).

seriously, what does ulraviolet really get you that just ripping the disk/stripping out all DRM doesn't?
the uncertainty that your UV virtual copy may go away in 3 years? how is that a benefit?
the big issue that UV has, that all DRM schemes have, is simply that it can never be as useful/convenient as a non-DRM'd solution...
post #199 of 308
I'm a theif. I pay for Netflix but rip the discs and pirate all my music. TV tuners though if that counts for anything lol.
post #200 of 308
I think these quotes are an excellent representation of the alternative viewpoints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_video View Post

I don't have a problem protecting the rights of intellectual property holders. I just think the law needs to be better defined to address the variations that exist with the use of digital media. As long as a royalty is paid and there is no intent to sell or distribute said media, there should be no inference of illegality or immorality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by staknhalo View Post

I'm a theif. I pay for Netflix but rip the discs and pirate all my music. TV tuners though if that counts for anything lol.
post #201 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somewhatlost View Post

seriously, what does ulraviolet really get you that just ripping the disk/stripping out all DRM doesn't?

My point is that UltraViolet is the first DRM scheme who's goals of usability and portability even comes close to ripped media. It's usable enough that it will be attractive to the majority of people as a legal alternative to pirating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somewhatlost View Post

the uncertainty that your UV virtual copy may go away in 3 years?

I don't think that's very likely. The whole point of UV is that it's put together by a tech and media conglomerate and can weather any of them coming down. The collapse of UV is far less likely than the collapse of Amazon, Netflix, or Apple - the three of which is where people are currently getting the vast majority of their digital media from. UV offers more protection, not less, than the current alternatives. (of course, a lot of this depends on UV coming to fruition, which is hasn't quite done yet)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somewhatlost View Post

the big issue that UV has, that all DRM schemes have, is simply that it can never be as useful/convenient as a non-DRM'd solution...

While certainly true the goals of UV does come a lot closer in usefulness and convenience than any other DRM scheme. That makes it an attractive alternative to the current problems facing digital media.
post #202 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinDaWg View Post

What a ridiculous comparison.

You aren't stealing or shoplifting anything. You are making or downloading a copy of the original work. It's copyright infringement, and it applies to both downloading a copy and ripping a disk to your pc.

No, what is ridiculous is your statement.

I'm confident you and everyone else in this thread can see the manifest difference between:

1) Paying the creator of a work the asked price for their work and then copying it on to an HTPC or tablet to make it easier to watch; and

2) NOT paying the creator of the work one dime, but simply taking his work for nothing and watching it however, wherever, and whenever you like.

Assuming the work is digitally protected somehow, #1 is a violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA act. That's all it is. Yep, it's illegal. So is driving over the speed limit. If it's not digitally protected, it's not even illegal.

#2 is stealing, plain and simple. You took someone else's property without paying. It is indistinguishable from sneaking into the theater to watch the movie. There's no way to dress that up any other way despite a lot of remarkable mental gymnastics attempted in this thread.
post #203 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post


No, what is ridiculous is your statement.

I'm confident you and everyone else in this thread can see the manifest difference between:

1) Paying the creator of a work the asked price for their work and then copying it on to an HTPC or tablet to make it easier to watch; and

2) NOT paying the creator of the work one dime, but simply taking his work for nothing and watching it however, wherever, and whenever you like.

Assuming the work is digitally protected somehow, #1 is a violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA act. That's all it is. Yep, it's illegal. So is driving over the speed limit. If it's not digitally protected, it's not even illegal.

#2 is stealing, plain and simple. You took someone else's property without paying. It is indistinguishable from sneaking into the theater to watch the movie. There's no way to dress that up any other way despite a lot of remarkable mental gymnastics attempted in this thread.

You are better then us. Please forgive us great one. We shall never learn your ways.
post #204 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post

IP 'theft' is the same thing as copyright infringement. Its not theft as defined by law. And it is completely different than stealing physical property in the eyes of the law as well as how most people view it.

The fact is laws are passed with no input and no oversight from citizens. Our elected officials owe nothing to us, they simply do what they are told by the lobbyists, and collect their bribes and campaign funds. There is a very good reason finance reform laws will never pass in the US. There is no transparency in govt operations and Congress can do whatever it wants when they please.

The legal system is designed with the following goals in mind -

1. Make the laws obscure enough and vague enough that a normal citizen has no hope of understanding them
2. Make the laws broad enough that almost everyone is guilty of breaking the law no matter what they are doing.
3. Make elected officials, the police/judiciary, and the rich/powerful exempt from said laws. Thus they are allowed to break the law and feign ignorance.
4. Allow govt agencies to incriminate/prosecute anyone for any reason without needing evidence.

Media is controlled by the same corporations that want these laws, so no wonder no one knows about them (outside forums such as these). Your daily news will cover Kim Kardashian's dress before they say a single word about SOPA. People still live under the illusion that 'if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide', which is not only wrong in principle, but opens the door for more censorship.

Does that all make you feel better about it?

Lobbyists don't elect these people. The general public does. If the general public doesn't care enough about good government to elect good representatives, then it gets the lousy government it deserves. Do you bother to vote?

The reality is that the law does indeed recognize the misappropriation of intangible property, including intellectual property, as "theft." And in case you want to hide behind semantics, perhaps you should consider Justice Breyer's words in the Grokster case: "deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft".

Oh, and by the way, do you know in what chapter of Title 18 (the federal criminal code) "Criminal infringement of a copyright" (18 U.S.C. 2319) is codified? Well what do you know, it's in chapter 113, entitled "Stolen Property", right in there with chop shops, transportation of stolen vehicles, trafficking in stolen securities, etc.

I despise the way Congress operates, I despise the DMCA, and I think SOPA is an absurdly bad piece of legislation. But none of that justifies downloading movies and music for free without authorization.
post #205 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taperwood View Post

Great thread and very well done. Thanks everyone for keeping it civil.

Well it was until Suntan stepped in and Jukebox tagged along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan View Post

Could everyone just take a moment to acknowledge that Zon is better than you are so he can contentedly leave this thread and allow the rest of us to discuss the topic without the holier-than-though parts continually being thrown out?

Zon, you're better than me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

You are better then us. Please forgive us great one. We shall never learn your ways.

Frankly I don't care what anyone else here chooses to do. But quit pretending it's ok. I also disagree with Assassin and frankly have no problem at all with people ripping to their htpc or tablet content they bought and paid for. Yep, it's a violation of the DMCA, and there is, I suppose, some very small legal risk in doing so. But there's really no question of morality and ethics involved in that practice.

As to simply taking content for free? DavidJames nailed it in post #170:

Quote:
Originally Posted by David James View Post

I'd have at least some respect if they simply said steal cause they're to cheap to buy. At least they can say they're honest.

But the rationalizations, justifications and grotesque sense of entitlement deserve none.
post #206 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Well it was until Suntan stepped in and Jukebox tagged along.





Frankly I don't care what anyone else here chooses to do. But quit pretending it's ok. I also disagree with Assassin and frankly have no problem at all with people ripping to their htpc or tablet content they bought and paid for. Yep, it's a violation of the DMCA, and there is, I suppose, some very small legal risk in doing so. But there's really no question of morality and ethics involved in that practice.

As to simply taking content for free? DavidJames nailed it in post #170:

I think we could all say the same for you. You were the one who started to use ridiculous examples trying to rationalize your reasoning. You are the one pointing fingers trying to shove how "wrong" or "more wrong" others are. Funny thing is you were the 1st to talk about "helping you sleep at night" as if it actually bothers people what they are doing in ANY way. Yet you are the one who tries to continue to justify what you do as less wrong then the others. I don't care for your snide remarks and blame others behavior.

You made a simple thread like this become a laughing stock of AVS because you were the one who had to talk about morals and what not down everyone throat.

Do you not see the title? Point in this thread? NO ONE asked to be taken to church. It all went to crap because of you. Noticed more people disagreed with you more then anyone else in this thread? There's a reason for that.

I've planned on backing out on this thread but I stayed hoping it might actually get back on track. I see it isn't. your still here trying to point fingers and basically find a reason to help you do what you do. You want assurance that what your doing is ok. "Less wrong" then the others.

I'll leave this thread on what I originally came to talk about. So here's the answer to that.

Back on topic. Enjoy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

I disagree. I don't think I've actually purchased a movie in years. Same with music. Unless the BLU RAY copy is under $10. I download it. I don't agree with paying $30 or a BLU RAY movie. That's just crap.

As for torrents being to hard. choppy etc. Well you couldn't be any more wrong. Torrents can be amazing quality. Takes about 5 mins to downloads a full HD movie. Looks as good as BLU -RAY.

I don't keep any of these movies once done watching them. Nor do I distribute them to anyone.

I do watch Netflix. IMO there needs to be a service more like that. As I have no problem paying a monthly fee. There's just no way I'm going to pay $30 a movie or pay MORE to rent a movie because it's HD vs SD. That's just pure crap. We live in a world of HD. The chances of someone not having an HDTV is very low compared to what is was before. They shouldn't make anyone pay more or less for HD vs SD. Until they make a change the way they make there sales. I won't change what I'm doing.
post #207 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 View Post

I think we could all say the same for you. You were the one who started to use ridiculous examples trying to rationalize your reasoning. You are the one pointing fingers trying to shove how "wrong" or "more wrong" others are. Funny thing is you were the 1st to talk about "helping you sleep at night" as if it actually bothers people what they are doing in ANY way. Yet you are the one who tries to continue to justify what you do as less wrong then the others. I don't care for your snide remarks and blame others behavior.

Pretty funny. Once again you are completely off base. I'm not trying to justify ripping disks that I own to my htpc because I don't do it. Wouldn't bother me to, and doesn't bother me that others do, but it's not worth the effort. I don't watch the movies that many times to make the chore of ripping them worthwhile. So if I want to watch them, I pop in the disk.

You'll have to try harder. And if it doesn't bother you to steal stuff from others, that's just a commentary on you, not on me.
post #208 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Pretty funny. Once again you are completely off base. I'm not trying to justify ripping disks that I own to my htpc because I don't do it. Wouldn't bother me to, and doesn't bother me that others do, but it's not worth the effort. I don't watch the movies that many times to make the chore of ripping them worthwhile. So if I want to watch them, I pop in the disk.

You'll have to try harder. And if it doesn't bother you to steal stuff from others, that's just a commentary on you, not on me.

Are you accusing Jukebox360 of stealing on a public forum?
post #209 of 308
I have noticed that great dvd's and blu-ray's are available for a fraction of the cost of what the titles cost when they were released in the 1980's in VHS and Beta, and now you get a vastly superior product. I still own Laserdiscs that cannot hold a candle to modern DVD and Blu-Ray product.


Perhaps pirating has brought the price down, but I have no way of knowing. Movie enthusiasts, in my opinion, are going to pay to own a legal copy of their favorite movies and TV shows, it the titles are priced reasonably. And today, unquestionalbly, they are.

If you look around and shop carefully, you can wind up with a large libarary of $10.00 and under DVD's and $20.00 Blu- rays. Of course, you have to pay more for series releases. I have the entire Rockford Files and the entire Superman TV series. I would have gotten those, come hell or high water.

I do tape a boatload of movies off the air, but if the title is one I am really fond of, I am going to wind up buying it, and I think that has to be true with the vast majority of the movie- buying public.
post #210 of 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gleave View Post

Are you accusing Jukebox360 of stealing on a public forum?

What? This is a joke, right?
I have no idea what he does except what he has told us he does. Maybe he made it all up and actually buys all his disks. Or maybe you should be asking those boasting of never paying for content why they are admitting downloading content without paying on a public forum. I suppose it's the perceived anonymity that provides the false sense of security.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › What percentage of people buy movies legally ???