Movie Piracy & Theft

[DevilMan]

THULE's comments over on another post (click >HERE (http://www.horrorexpress.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1559)< to read them) gave me the idea to start a new thread on a subject that's surely open to endless debate. It's the topic of movie theft, downloading, bootlegging, fansubbing, and piracy.

So, what's evreyone's take on the matter then?

-Steve

[DevilMan]

The original statement was...

...seriously you cant pirate horror movies man, fuck that our industry hurts enough with out that shit...

help the industry...say no to piracy.
I have a problem with a blanket statement such as that. Here's why (remember there are exceptions to every rule)...

#1 - Honestly, with the computer technology currently available to the general user, the notion that downloading screeners or "theatre cam" versions of new films hurts the big business of filmmaking is absurd. I just can't see how. First of all, the version you download from the internet will almost NEVER compare to the quality of the original legitimate factory pressed dual-layered commercial DVD you can buy from a store. Yeah, if you wanna own an inferior copy of a film, sure, you can download it. But it'll more than often suck. No anamorphic widescreen. No Dolby DTS soundtrack. No special features. And you're stuck watching it on a small PC screen than you prefered living room television. So what's the real point? Wanna "sneak peek" it before going to see it at the real theatres? Wanna "sneak peek" it before buying the legit DVD? If so, I see no harm in downloading it. I myself downloaded THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake and after watching the first fifteen or so minutes, I quickly shut the computer off, grabbed my hat, and headed off to the theatre to see the movie.

Simply put, music downloading may hurt the music biz because the files are small (making it a quick download). They also seem to be of exact quality as the original source (CD's in most cases). But to say it hurts the movie biz too, c'mon, will ya. I've yet to run across a movie that's as easy to download as they all say it is. Mainly, their files are much larger (thus taking longer to download) and again, I've never seen (or heard anyone say) that the internet version was as good or better than the original mass produced DVD.

#2 - Bootlegging's a tougher topic to discuss because it can mean outright piracy sometimes. Intentional copying of a legit DVD that's readily available worldwide with the desire to sell the copy for a profit is a definite no-no. However, if the shoe fits, there are grey areas in there too. What if the movie on DVD doesn't belong to your particular region code? What if the format is PAL and all you can play is NTSC? What if the film contains subject matter than will forever prevent it from seeing a DVD release in your country? These are the concerns of bootlegging and fansubbing. And I support these efforts 100%!

Why?

As a fan of films of the unusual and the strange (usually movies from outside of my own country), I rely heavily on the efforts of fansub bootleggers. Without such individuals, many films might never find an audience other than from it's native point of origin. And that's a crime against the creator and the potential viewer. I mean, if YOU made a movie, wouldn't you want people from different places in the world to see it and talk about it? Wouldn't you want another point of view from a completely different culture about your work? Also, as a viewer, wouldn't you want to see a foreign film and discover a whole new perspective of filmmaking? Wouldn't you want to see all the new exotic locations and fresh actor faces? And if you really liked the film, wouldn't you trade in your old bootleg for the nicer DVD release once it came to your region code in an intact uncensored form? Well, if you answered "YES" to any of these questions, then really, is fansubbing so terribly bad?

But again, I must say that the intentional copying of a legit DVD that's readily available worldwide with the desire to sell that copy for a profit is indeed considered a crime.

#3 - Lastly, here's a real good one to debate. What about making your friends copies? What about making copies to trade with other people but no money changes hands in the process? How are these sorts of things looked upon as? We all know we do it. It's a broad spectrum too. It ranges from recording the latest episode of your favorite tv show on VHS and loaning it to your pal to watch to outright copying your DVD to a blank DVD-R for said friend to also see. Will that prevent him from buying an original himself, thus taking money away from the filmmaking industry? Possibly. But hell, if you really think about it in those terms, wouldn't simply loaning your original DVD to a friend be sorta the same thing? I mean, you bought it and he/she didn't. I can't really count retail rentals because the store you get the DVD from had to buy multiple copies of it in the first place. And it's been considered a lucrative business over the ages anyway, both for the store and the "industry".

As for trading, that's a real grey area sometimes. Basically, you're getting something that you didn't pay for and vice versa. But again, just like the fansub bootlegs, what if the film in question isn't currently available in your country? What if it NEVER has plans to be released in your country? What if it's available but it's only available in a cut or edited form? What if it's a foreign film and it's dubbed into your native langauge and all you want to have is the original language soundtrack? What do you do about all these then? Trade for 'em? Is that so wrong?

Simply put, I suppose it all boils down to your own morals, standards, and how you view this topic in general. And it really depends on how bad you wanna watch the movie that's supposedly being bootlegged. Bad enough to support potential theft (in whatever form it takes)? That's something you'll have to decide for yourself. Okay, I can step offa my soap box now.

-Steve

[Raven]

Downloading films does have an impact on the income the industry makes, theres no doubt in my mind about that. Ive downloaded a few films but i always buy the DVD when its realesed. I download simply because i cant wait to see certain films, i dont download every film i can find, just the ones im after. So i think its alright if your like me and you download the film your after and then buy the DVD when its released.

The only thing im really against is the illegal distribution of films that have been downloaded, burnt onto disk and then sold on markets and places like that. I think this has a bigger impact on the industry than just downloading.

[DevilMan]

Originally posted by raventt+May 29 2005, 02:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (raventt @ May 29 2005, 02:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Downloading films does have an impact on the income the industry makes, theres no doubt in my mind about that.[/b]
I can see your point there. I suppose that if enough people downloaded the new movie instead of going to the big screen to see it, theatre ticket sales would suffer, thus creating a tidal wave of revenue loss across the board. And I would imagine that it would hit the DVD retail rental market as well.

<!--QuoteBegin-raventt@May 29 2005, 02:56 PM
The only thing im really against is the illegal distribution of films that have been downloaded, burnt onto disk and then sold on markets and places like that. I think this has a bigger impact on the industry than just downloading.[/quote]
Yes, I certainly agree that the intentional illegal copying and distribution for a profit is against the law and certainly has a huge imapct on all sales, be it at the theatre or home retail. No arguement there.

-Steve

[Unconscious]

If they don't want people to download the movies illegally, cinema tickets shouldn't be so expensive in the first place.

Also, I cannot get into 'R' rated movies, so, I have to download them instead. I'm not wasting £30 on a DVD that I would be bored of after a week. [It took me 5 years to get £100].

[Raven]

Well first of if you spend £30 on a DVD then your being ripped off. i don't pay anymore than £20 for a DVD, plus i usually buy dvds not just for the film itself but for all the special features.

Theatres really should be more aware of people who bring video cameras in to film the movie. Tighter security checks would help i think.

[DevilMan]

Originally posted by Unconscious+May 29 2005, 03:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Unconscious @ May 29 2005, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If they don't want people to download the movies illegally, cinema tickets shouldn't be so expensive in the first place.[/b]
Someone's gotta pay for that 100 million dollar budget it cost to make the movie.

I don't have a problem with the costs of tickets myself. Like everyone else, it's the over inflated prices of the refreshments they offer that bothers me. That's sheer unadulterated markups on their part.

However, I would be willing to pay alittle extra if they served alcoholic beverages at the theatres. Hell, every movie would end up being good if you could only get toasted while watching them. Even UWE BOLL flicks would be entertaining that way.

<!--QuoteBegin-Unconscious@May 29 2005, 03:22 PM
Also, I cannot get into 'R' rated movies, so, I have to download them instead.[/quote]
Can't really offer any suggestions on that front other than saying hurry up and grew up.

-Steve

[DevilMan]

Originally posted by raventt@May 29 2005, 03:26 PM
Theatres really should be more aware of people who bring video cameras in to film the movie. Tighter security checks would help i think.
Heck, it's probably the actual employees or their friends who are doing it anyway. How can you stop that when there's private screenings going on all the time.

-Steve

[Raven]

Thats very true, thats why the theatre companies should check their employees aswell as the customers. But since you cant watch everyone 24/7 i guess it is near impossible to solve.

[Unconscious]

Heh, Devilman, shouldn't be too long anyway. 2 years at the most? I could get into "15" movies when I was 11.. So... ^_^

[DevilMan]

Originally posted by raventt@May 29 2005, 03:40 PM
Thats very true, thats why the theatre companies should check their employees as well as the customers.
Maybe. But turning your local movie house into a terrorist-hunting single file line full body search checkpoint, say like the airports, is just outta the question.

-Steve

[Raven]

Maybe. But turning your local movie house into a terrorist-hunting single file line full body search checkpoint, say like the airports, is just outta the question.

Actually thinking about that would have an even worse effect on the industry than downloading lol, just aswell im not in charge :lmao:

[Thule818]

Small indie companies get hurt hard. I mean if the little guy dosnt make his money then fuck why is anyoen going to make a movie. I like being payed for my work, so what the hell why shouldnt they be payed for theirs?

Its like you doing work for a company, then getting only half what your were promised. It really pisses me off...cause sure the big company makes theirs, but int he end the small guy who wrote, or directed or sold it for a cut of the profits, not pay, they get pissed on.

I dont like it.....I lvoe horror movies, the more illegally downloaded the less we see.
I am going to harass canary studios this week and see if I can fan sub spirit in the glass and send you guys a copy to review...It aint bad, not great, but there are some eerie scenes in it.
But if I do it illegally they will never know if there is a market and we could loose out on some jems.

Sigh its the manga thing..many years illegal fan boot copies went around, so no one new there was a market, only now is the boom on.

it hurts...and i fucking hated not being payed for my work.

[DevilMan]

Originally posted by Thule818@May 29 2005, 03:52 PM
Small indie companies get hurt hard. I mean if the little guy dosnt make his money then fuck why is anyoen going to make a movie.
...cause sure the big company makes theirs, but int he end the small guy who wrote, or directed or sold it for a cut of the profits, not pay, they get pissed on.
I understand what you're saying but isn't it rare that the supra-small indie films even find their way to the net for elicit downloading anyway? I would imagine that it's the big blockbuster movies who are the ones hit the hardest.

I think smaller cult status indie flicks usually tend to have (or quickly find) their audience who are true fans or diehards and are willing to buy the movie outright to begin with. I mean, a wacky over-the-top film like "A FETUS TO FEED US" is more likely to be ultimately purchased by it's intended viewer than say the newest "HARRY POTTER AND THE BROOMSTICK OF EVIL" movie. That's the one people will download.

Am I making any sense here?

-Steve

[Thule818]

I suppose, I still feel guilty about stealing other peoples property, epically in anything entertainment art or well anything I enjoy. Fuck man its like you enjoy a certain resteraunt so you always steal the food...it wont be there forever.

I dont agree with stealing art, of any sort, and I am a pretty nasty anti-social fuck, ask my girlfriend, but shit its like crapping in your own backyard...I understand why children do it....but not why die hard horror fans do, we arnt 12 and able not to go to the movies with out ma an pa.

[Raven]

I havent been to the cinema since The Mummy Returns, simply because i just prefer waiting for the DVDs but also because i can't drive lol.

[DevilMan]

Originally posted by raventt@May 31 2005, 03:42 PM
I havent been to the cinema since The Mummy Returns, simply because i just prefer waiting for the DVDs...
I agree to a point. However, the theatre holds various advantages over the home viewing experience especially when it comes to certain types of films, say like STAR WARS or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or LORD OF THE RINGS.

Yet, I do find it's often VERY hard to beat an anamorphic (1:85:1) widescreen DTS-ES DVD on a 47+inch hi-def widescreen tv with a complete 6.1 tower speaker, powered-sub setup. Honestly, it looks AND sounds better than anything you'd see on the big screen.

-Steve

[Raven]

Yet, I do find it's often VERY hard to beat an anamorphic (1:85:1) widescreen DTS-ES DVD on a 47+inch hi-def widescreen tv with a complete 6.1 tower speaker, powered-sub setup.

:lmao: please don't get all technical i hace no idea what all that is :P

Although i am actually going to see Revenge of the Sith this weekend, i can't wait!
Wow a prequel im actually excited about :huh:

[Supercool]

I find my opinion comes down to wholly moral perspective.

Should you download a movie to "preview" it, because you "cant afford it", or because you "just can't wait"? no, not really.

There's things called trailers, rentals, and, getting more prevailent, previews. So I don't think you can justify downloading a whole movie to watch it and then decide if it's worth your money.

If you can't afford it, then wait, save up, or sacrifice some other non-necessity.

Plus, if you download it just because "you can't wait", are you saying you'll buy it EVEN if it turns out to be crap? Hell, I know I wouldn't have paid to see SAW at the cinema if I'd seen it before.


While I don't think the region code debate holds much weight, seeing as how easy it is to get a region free player or program, there are significant reasons to seek downloads or bootlegs. Some movies just aren't avaible any other way, some aren't subbed and won't be.

[Brock Sampson]

My opinion is simply that bootlegs usually look crappy...and that consumer dollars are the blood of the movie biz(how fans show support or hatred), so I pay for anything I like, rent what Im not sure of, and dont throw any money at crap. :)

[DevilMan]

A good debate...

Originally posted by Supercool+Jun 1 2005, 12:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Supercool @ Jun 1 2005, 12:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Should you download a movie to "preview" it, because you "cant afford it", or because you "just can't wait"? no, not really.[/b]
I have to agree with you on the "can't afford it" reason. You're right, simply saving up to rent or buy is your best, if not legal, option there. But the "just can't wait" issue is a completely different matter altogether (in my opinion).

Some movies never make it to a theatre in your town, or country (ie: not that I downloaded it but HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES never played in my area) and if the film in question takes 6 months (if longer, if ever) to hit a home video format, that's a loooong time to wait with the knowledge that it's already out there somewhere playing and people are enjoying it, and you're not. Yeah, sure, that may sound selfish (and greedy) but damn all that, if I wanna see it, I wanna see it now. Of course, you still gotta ask yourself that even if you download it, it'll be an inferior quality product so do you really want your first time viewing experience possibly ruined by a second rate version?

Examples for me, I waited with increadible patience for BATTLE ROYALE 2 to hit subtitled DVD. And after finally watching it, I should've just downloaded it early on. It wasn't worth the wait. DEVILMAN (2004) was in the same boat but I downloaded it. And I'm glad I did. Now I look forward to the DVD release without such high expectations. I'll more than likely end up enjoying the movie more now that I've seen it. To me, the download payed off because I had absolutely no way of seeing it any other way.

Originally posted by Supercool@Jun 1 2005, 12:55 PM
Plus, if you download it just because "you can't wait", are you saying you'll buy it EVEN if it turns out to be crap?
Oh, they may say that they will but deep down, we all know they won't. That's just a lame excuse.

But does that action mean there's going to be lost revenue for that movie then? I don't know. I mean, you didn't pay anything to see the movie (which in turn you didn't like so you won't buy it, rent it, etc). But that's just like borrowing a DVD from a friend and watching it. If you don't like it, you'll still not gonna buy it, and you still saw it for free.

Originally posted by Supercool@Jun 1 2005, 12:55 PM
While I don't think the region code debate holds much weight...
I'd just like to clarify what I was trying to say about region codes. While I don't think it gives you the go-ahead to outright "steal" a movie, the region codes were designed for a reason, a money making reason... pure money making for the movie companies. Now, if I'm wrong in this assessment, please someone correct me. Simply put, all things aside, region codes are intended to prevent people from buying a movie on DVD from another country. Why? The movie companies want THEIR buyers to buy THEIR products, no matter what. Hence the built in restriction codes on your players and DVD's. Now what if their "product" is inferior to the original foreign product? Why can't you (the viewer) have the choice to seek out the best version available? Riddle me that!

<!--QuoteBegin-Supercool@Jun 1 2005, 12:55 PM
...there are significant reasons to seek downloads or bootlegs. Some movies just aren't avaible any other way, some aren't subbed and won't be.[/quote]
Amen to that, brother!

-Steve

[DevilMan]

Originally posted by Brock Sampson+Jun 1 2005, 11:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Brock Sampson @ Jun 1 2005, 11:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My opinion is simply that bootlegs usually look crappy...[/b]
All too true. However, during my buying experience, I've run across some fansubbed bootleg DVD's that were actually better (in both audio and video quality) than the legit DVD release. Go figure?

<!--QuoteBegin-Brock Sampson@Jun 1 2005, 11:27 PM
...and that consumer dollars are the blood of the movie biz (how fans show support or hatred)[/quote]
A definite good point.

-Steve

[DevilMan]

Originally posted by raventt@Jun 1 2005, 12:37 PM
:lmao: please don't get all technical i hace no idea what all that is :P
It's quite simple really.

1. Up until recently, tv's were square shaped. But movies are usually rectangle (ie: widescreen or letterboxed) whereas regular television shows are still square. A hi-def widescreen tv set is rectangle, not square like before. It's capable of playing widescreen movies without you seeing the large black bars at the top and bottom of the screen that you normally see on the standard square tv.

2. The term 1:85:1 is a common widescreen aspect ratio. 2:40:1 is also a common widescreen aspect ratio. When they're played on a widescreen tv set, the 1:85:1 (the larger of the two widescreen ratios), there's no black bars. It "morphs" to fit the screen in perfect aspect (hence the anamorphic notation on DVD's). The other, 2:40:1 (the smaller aspect ratio) will actually display small black bars on a widescreen tv, but not nearly as much as you'd see on a square (also called a 4:3 box meaning it's "full framed") tv set.

3. Audio on DVD's is also simple to explain. There's mono-stereo, Dolby Pro-Logic (aka 2-Channel), Dolby Digial 5.1 (5 regular speakers and a subwoofer), and DTS or DTS-ES 6.1 (for a lack of a better description, it's an enhanced 5.1, and for 6.1, there's an extra speaker, a center rear). In order to receive these sounds, you'll need a receiver, as well as a DVD player that can perform such functions (ie: 5.1 and DTS). In most cases, if you were to pick, the DTS soundtracks far surpass the 5.1 tracks. But there are exceptions.

Make sense now?

-Steve

[Raven]

my step dad tried explaining it to me still hasn't sunk in. Im not actually bothered about screen size or surround sound, as impressive as it is. If i can hear it, see it and it plays DVDs thats all i need to know.

I was actually thinking about what other industries downloading affects. The Music industry must be loosing a hell of a lot more than the film industry, as the music buisness has to rely on the profit it makes from selling albums. Unlike the film buisness which has two sources of profit. The music industry really only has one.

[Scott W. Davis]

My God, DM. Your widescreen explaination seems to be what I tell people every day. I am a real stickler for widescreen. People who demand fullscreen only are a personal pet peeve of mine. Yes, I'm one of THOSE film fanatics.

It really reminds me of what we learned about the silent movies. They started out often with one static shot showing all of the action in a scene, with the actors entering or exiting the scene, head to toe, much like they were just filming a stage play.

It took a guy named D.W. Griffith to come up with most of the terminology we use today. Most notably, this was in 1915's BIRTH OF A NATION (In addition to being artistically revolutionary, the film was also morally reprehensible but that's an argument for another time). He pretty much invented or at least revolutionized the use of things every filmmaker does. This includes montage, medium shots, close-ups and of course film length. BIRTH clocked in at over three hours when most films were far under one. Most people had never even thought of different shot compositions. It had not dawned on them, so this film, no matter how offensive it gets, is almost single-handedly responsible for the continuing evolution of filmmaking.

And yet, people were pissed and this is where I'm reminded of the widescreen vs. fullscreen people. Some people were very upset at Griffith and what he was doing, especially when other filmmakers followed suit. The reason was his use of medium shots, close-ups and so on. Why? Their argument was you were only seeing half the actor, hence Griffith was cheating them out of their money.

Almost the inverse of the widescreen debate, where we say, "No, you don't lose picture with widescreen, you gain it because you see the entire picture like you would in the theatre. It doesn't sink in for people. It really makes me wonder why people who insist on fullscreen bothered to get a DVD player, why they even bothered for anything beyond their old fuzzy videotape that was taken off of cable. Obviously, they don't give a sht about the picture quality if they openly insist on sacrificing nearly half the picture anyway. :rant:

[Raven]

wide screen or full screen im one of those types who really isnt all that bothered about either aslong as i get to see the film. As much as i love watching films screen size really isnt all that important. Picture size and picture quality are two different things entirely. However there is a slight loss of picture with wide screen format, you lose a bit at the top and some at the bottom, ok so thats a really insignificant loss but its still there :P

[Thule818]

I am getting used to the widescreen. We dnt get a choice here in the philippines, as its all vcd for some reason.

Just all wide screen.
I dont think i could go back to normal hmm.

[Scott W. Davis]

Originally posted by raventt@Jun 6 2005, 04:25 PM
However there is a slight loss of picture with wide screen format, you lose a bit at the top and some at the bottom, ok so thats a really insignificant loss but its still there :P


Hmmm, it depends on what you mean. The picture that is presented in widescreen is the full picture, as long as its the intended ratio. When films are panned & scanned for full screen, there is sometimes a tiny bit at the top and bottom extra - but this was not part of the intended picture. This was stuff that was outside of the frame. The parts on the sides were meant to be seen by the filmmakers but aren't. At least, I think that's what you meant. :unsure:

Rather than confuse the issue more, I will just refer you to The Digital Bits' WIDESCREEN-O-RAMA column (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html). It's got everything you would ever need to know about widescreen vs. fullscreen and the difference between aspect ratios.

[Jay]

Thought I would chime in here....

Sadly, many, many people don't give a damn about quality and will watch a "shot off the screen" piece of crap. I sadly work with some of these people. One guy told me how he saw Kill Bill Vol 1. I asked what theater he went to. He saw a boot. I told him he didn't really see Kill Bill. Lots of people do this and will not go to the theater or buy a decent dvd of a film when it comes out.

Yes, many film FANS are decent about boots and will faithfully upgrade when the legit product comes out.

I think DVDs are cutting into theater going in a big way, from both ends. The low end no standards person will skip the theater and see a bootleg. The High End picky person has a great home theater set up, doesn't want to deal with babies screaming in his ear when watching Dawn of the Dead in a theater, thus more likey to skip going to the movies.


Just my 2 cents......

Oh and no problem with fan subs, just stop selling them when the real deal is finally released.

[DevilMan]

Originally posted by Scott W. Davis@Jun 6 2005, 05:09 PM
I am a real stickler for widescreen. People who demand fullscreen only are a personal pet peeve of mine. Yes, I'm one of THOSE film fanatics.
It really makes me wonder why people who insist on fullscreen bothered to get a DVD player, why they even bothered for anything beyond their old fuzzy videotape that was taken off of cable. Obviously, they don't give a sht about the picture quality if they openly insist on sacrificing nearly half the picture anyway.
Ya know, during the old laserdisc days, I was a full-frame junkie myself. I would tell those widescreen geeks that I bought a big tv to get a big picture, and be damned those black bars at the top and bottom. Who really cares what happens on the sides anyway. I mean, if it was that important, they'd just put it in the center, wouldn't they?!

Now, I ask myself, what the hell was I thinking?! :rolleyes:

-Steve

[DevilMan]

Originally posted by raven@Jun 6 2005, 05:25 PM
...there is a slight loss of picture with wide screen format, you lose a bit at the top and some at the bottom, ok so thats a really insignificant loss but its still there :P
I had this guy I worked with that said the same nonsense about a western movie he had recently seen. He told me that widescreen was really bad because it chopped the top of the cowboy's hat off along with the bottom of his horse's feet.

I just had to chuckle to myself. :teeth:

-Steve

[Raven]

Yeah i have to laugh over something as trivial as hat and feet being chopped off, better loosing some hat and feet than losing alot more on full screen

[Juan Rayo]

hmm, some good points both in favor and against downloading movies... to me, it comes down to this: the "censorhip board" in my country will CUT TO PIECES any movie it feels it's dangerous for our oh so fragile and stupid minds to see, particularly horror movies (but you should see the SEX that is allowed on screen!). Some they chop with abandoned, leatherface enthusiasm, some they just won't allow to be played in any theater. NEVER. EVER.

So, if it wasn't for a friend who downloaded them, I would have NEVER seen Audition, Irreversible, and others. And I would have to contend myself with cut up versions of Texas Chainsaw massacre and the likes of it.

Now, some videoclubs are starting to bring "uncut" versions of the movies we all love in DVD. But then again, only the NEW ones, the ones they feel there is a market for. Hence, I will NEVER have a chance to see Cannibal Holocaust of Day of the Woman, for example. Hell, even carpenter's "The THING", a much more commercial film, is NOT available in any videoclub in here, old as it is.

So I've resorted to BUYING some dvd's (via internet, paying MORE for the shipping and handling all the way to Honduras) and watching, and enjoying, some old great pictures by way of download.

Oh, and another thing. We get USA, HOLLYWOOD movies mostly. Maybe a British one once in a while, a couple of french ones (during festivals) and that is about it. "Ringu"? no way. "THE RING" made it to theaters, Ringu I had to look for on my own.

Anyway, my point is, there are CERTAIN conditions when I think the practice of downloading is acceptable. Even more so if there is not a profit to be made with it, that is, you are not doing it in the interest of selling the movies, but rather to be able to enjoy them. My two cents.

PS: I did rent "The chupacabra Terror" DVD, and I seriously believe the studio owes ME money for the irreversible damage done to my mortal soul!

[DevilMan]

Originally posted by Juan Rayo@Jun 11 2005, 08:05 PM
...you are not doing it in the interest of selling the movies, but rather to be able to enjoy them.
I totally agree. You hit it right on the head.

-Steve