I agree with most of what you posted there mate. Donty get me wrong im not having a go im just offering a different view point on it all. Plus the only reason I posted was because lcwadminbj keeps making crazy statements in loads of threads regarding copyright but doesn't have clue what he talking about in any of them. So to answer the question "Is online streaming videos legal?" Depends on your countries laws and also if what you're planning on streaming is copyrighted in the first place.
There are streamings websites which are closed by US government, but what i wonder, there are still severals online..
No worries. I love a vigorous discussion . But it has been plain to see recently that Governments around the world are cracking down o sites that link to copy written material. Sure it seems like the U.S. government is leading the way, but that's because U.S. companies produce a large percentage of the Entertainment that is being infringed upon around the world and have sub subsidiaries all over the world. When people around the world start buying or infringing on Bollywood and Russian Music, and those Entertainment companies branch out around the world, I am sure that you will see those Governments take a tougher stance against piracy and copyright infringement. If you look at it from their stand point, a company like Warner Bros. has companies all over the world on every continent and does business with and has employees in almost every country. Do you think they are going to stand for piracy in the countries where they do business, pay salaries, and taxes? It's kind of a slap in the face and a waste of time and money. So, to me, if countries that turn the other way on this issue want international companies to continue to due business with them and their citizens, they have to take a tougher stand and stop allowing their citizens to screw them over. You can see the effects just by looking at certain countries. you don't have to wonder why no one wants to do business in certain places, because it's a free for all of piracy and copyright infringement and it also makes it difficult for their own business owners to survive. Who would start a record label or movie company in a country that is a haven for piracy? Not me. You can look at the companies that thrive in China right now..it's mainly .Fast Food, and Cars. Things that cannot be pirated. Even the clothing designers are starting to realize that it is a losing battle outside of certain economic areas. They'll just steal it, recreate it in bulk and sell knock offs. The Gov doesn't give a crap, so why bother investing time and money there? I saw a 20/20 episode a few years ago where school children in N. Korea thought that the Nike Swoosh and Nike Products were a N. Korean product produced by the Government. The country is full of knock offs since Nike has no stores in N. Korea.. and that's why....That's "F'ed" up.
Timely information for those with movie streaming sites: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-01_feds_zap_bootleg_film_sites_in_sting.html Go to the sites and you'll see giant US government seals.
I love this quote: And yet people still won't believe it and will continue to try and argue that they aren't doing anything wrong. The interesting point is that of all the slugs that hide behind the laws of offshore companies that allow this..I never see those sites filled with Russian, Costa Rican, Indian ( or Bollywood), or Dutch movies...it's always American movies from American companies. I've heard all of the self righteous arguments about America thinking "it's the watch dog of the world" and all of that other nonsense. The solution is real simple...you can run any free movie site that you wish, just stop pirating American made movies and you will be free and clear.
I dont see what the big deal is if no money or revenue is being generated. If i invite my friends over to watch a movie shouldnt that be illegal? whats the difference if some of my friends watch the same movie online or at my place? I own the movie so I dont see what the big deal is. its also not piracy, they cant download or save it or anything. they can only watch it and cant even pause it or anything so piracy is a non issue there is no file hosted. also alot of the links to places being shut down are about people who offer downloads or are making money somehow. I dont make any money and noone can download them.
You don't see what the big deal is because it is not your content. You are only thinking of it from your own selfish reasons. Watching a movie at home with friends is nowhere near the same as redistributing it online for anyone in the world to view or download for free, when it would other wise cost them money. Your purchase allows personal use, not redistribution to the masses. You CAN become a distributor, legally, if you pay the proper licensing fees and royalties, but of course no one wants to do that..they just want to take it. Your personal argument about what you believe is not how the real world works. The bottom line is, if I create something and I own it, I have a right to say how it will sold, and distributed. Not some kid who wants to play the internet Robin Hood and give other peoples stuff away for free. If you want that right, then make your own movies. Things aren't there for your taking just because you want them. When has that ever been right?
If you stream it from the original DVD ... hmm. If you have 2 TVs in your house is it legal to play the original DVD on both with a split cable? What if one of the TVs belongs to your neighbor? It's legal to invite your neighbor to see the movie with you? Is it legal to lend him your DVD so he can watch without paying for it? Is it legal to have a security camera that records everything in your house including your TV? What if the camera broadcasts to a security company and the people there are watching the movie? Is that illegal? What if a burglar enters your house while you're watching a movie - is it legal for the cops to watch the tape for free? Is it legal to invite a bunch of friends at your place to watch the DVD without them paying for the movie? Is it legal to invite some friends in a video conferencing / telepresence system while you are watching a movie? Is it legal to build a website/network for exchanging DVDs or PS3 games? Theoretically there should be only 1 copy in the network for everybody to see it. Everybody in the network should buy an unique movie. Information is a tricky thing. If you pay for it, you have it and there are various ways to replicate/distribute it. Some can be restricted and some can't.
What gets me is people keep saying that piracy is costing people alot of money yet recent studies have shown this to be completely untrue. These companies say they're under great financial pressure yet they post profits for 2010 of $29.9 billion in ticket sales alone and the year is not even over. The impact of piracy upon the movie industry is not in anyway as great as some are lead to believe. See those that are using download sites or watching movies through streaming sites are for the most part not likely to pay to go to a cinema anyway so they cost you nothing at all. That said many people once seeing a movie is half decent on a streaming or torrent site are more inclined to go pay to watch the movie on the big screen. You go watch a movie at the cinema and dont like the movie you cant get your money back like you can with any other product so that is wrong in many peoples eyes so they choose to view before they buy. Some also keep asking if it is right or wrong to pirate but on a counter is it also right for these huge movie companies to block out independent movies? They hold a monoply and that under alot of countries laws is illegal yet we allow it to continue, so who is the immoral person/s?
What's wrong is that it is not their property to do with whatever they wish. For example, some musicians release some tracks for free downloading; others do not. That is their right. The argument that "I wouldn't watched the movie if I had to pay for it so you shouldn't care if I take it for free" gives the right to make decisions about the property to a non-paying user rather than the owner. How can you argue that is right? Two wrongs don't make a right. Your justification has been used by thieves for ages. The fact that big oil companies make big money doesn't give you the right to drive away from the local gas station without paying. The fact that credit card companies charge high interest rates doesn't give you the right to commit credit card fraud.
I never said it made anything right I simply stated that the rubbish people post about it almost bankrupting these companies is utter lies. The profits are getting higher and higher so why must that be used as an argument when it is wrong? Two wrongs may not make a right but whilst one side is trying to take the moral high ground the other side simply doesn't feel the need to stop there actions because the other side is still doing whatever it likes. Perhaps if there was give and take from both sides then this wouldn't be such an issue? Just to say 2 wrongs don't make a right is a foolish argument that holds no weight what so ever. Also your comparisons of a credit companies and petrol/gas stations are nonsense. In both them instances I have an actual material material product I can use. Not just something I see and hear. Im not talking about some guy sat in a pub or on the street corner selling dvds here Im referring to streaming where no one has a hard copy of anything.
How do you know what the cost is. And why do companies have to justify loss? What difference does it make how much money they make? Following that logic you are again using your own selfish interest. "They still make money so it's not hurting anyone". When was the last time someone decided how much money you should make and what is enough? How much the industry makes is not the issue and completely irrelevant to the argument.
I agree and if you read the post I made you will see I say that it is an argument not to be used as all the amounts suggested are pure fabrication. I never said anything about how much they should or should not make I simply stated that these companies (to which so many keep referring to) are not on the verge of bankruptcy, so yes it is very much an integral part of the argument when they are stating lies. Im stating facts not personal beliefs or arguments for or against piracy just simply pointing out that as much as piracy may harm companies, these companies also act in illegal and immoral ways and yet they seem to have a free pass because "two wrongs dont make a right".
Again. Their finances really don;'t matter, especially since you don't have access to them. you are just stating opinion. If I have a script for sale and a sell it to one person at DP, and they post up on the forum for everyone to download for free..I am loosing money. It's actually being stolen from me. It doesn't matter how much I make from websites, blogs, and clients...and no ones business to use it as an argument for stealing my script. I don't know what this is all about, but you ARE using your personal beliefs as a moral justification. I don't know what "immoral ways" entertainment companies operate or what knowledge you have of it or by who's scale you are judging immorality. That is not the way the law operates. And yes the U.S. leads the way on this because I don't see pirate sites uploading Russina Cinema. It's American products being pirated on overseas servers. I don't think the U.S. Gov cares if people want to pirate Bollywood movies. That's Inda's problem. It would only be our business if those companies are American companies.
I know how much they make because they publicly announce the amounts so it is far from been my opinion its FACT. They can make whatever they want aswell. Again its not my personal beliefs that these companies work in immoral ways as it has been shown time and time again that these companies hold an monopoly on cinemas and what movies get released. They shit all over the writers that earn them billions of dollars each month and you question my statement? You don't think the American gov cares if people pirate other material? Not immoral but certainly selfish. There are lots of sites offering Bollywood movies for streaming and downloading. Infact for the amount of films made I believe Bollywood actually produces more although the revenue earned cannot be compared as Hollywood smashes them on profits. The yanks can go and push for whatever laws they want but more and more countries are starting to move away from the ideas of what they want as they see it for what it is, just another move to unlawfully hold onto the internet. You can see this clearly by the way the US gov has handled the ICANN situation. Anyway it is clear that no matter what I say I will be portrayed as some kind of thief or criminal so this thread is pretty pointless for me to participate in as very few are willing to acknowledge the fact that the companies they support are part of the problem.
Your wrong-sort of. While it is illegal to stream "unauthorized" copyrighted content (the key word being unauthorized), it is only illegal if you do not aquire distribution and/or licensing. Authorized and licensed distribution/streaming of movies/videos is legal. obtaining limited licenses to such an end is actually very easy to obtain, and entails very little effort or time on the webmasters end. Thats not entirely true. Not all sites that "stream" movies are illegal. For example, HULU (owned by FOX/DISNEY/NBC) legally streams movies as they have distribution rights to the content. They in turn offer Webmasters a limited license to embed players/widgets on their sites, that allow Users to stream the HULU content- without actually having the copyrighted content on their sites-i.e., it all is streamed from the HULU site itself. All this is 100% legal, Webmasters are provided a limited license to display the streamed content, etc. I suggest the posters here be a bit more diligent before posting erroneous information, that they evidently havent researched. Here is an example of how "moves" can be legally streamed: http://www.havocarcade.com/category/Movies/1.html notice none of the "copyrighted content" actually exists on the above site (see source)- this is similiar to how youtube (owned by Google) also works.
The bottom line is, you can't plop up a site and start streaming Iron Man or the Karate Kid. It's not yours. You have no permission. And you know full well that the companies that own these movies and the rights are pissed off that you are doing it and would put your head in a blender if they catch you.
I disagree. Iron Man and Karate kid can be streamed if it is made available via Hulu, and distribution rights are provided (it is true though that some content doesnt allow them to be embedded by webmasters) In this particular case, Karate Kid III is NOT available for embedding for webmasters: http://www.hulu.com/watch/31268/the-karate-kid-iii The way its done now (with the distribution and licensing via Hulu) is that they make money via the adverts/"presented by" ads that show at the beginning and commercial breaks. Its actually a win-win for everybody. Webmasters get to embed/show legally streamed movies on their sites, and copyright Owners (studios) get ad generated revenue from the commercial that are displayed for 30 seconds. The only way it could get get better would be if publishers got to share a percent in the revenue from the ads shown on their sites.
C'mon guys. you know what I'm saying. Of course there are many legal ways, but setting up offshore hosting to hide from international law and serving up first run movies that were filmed in a theater with a hand held video camera the week that they are released, is not one of them.