MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > If you're one of the many people who hat...

If you're one of the many people who hates Karl Rock for helping catch YIFY, can you logically explain why?

posted a month ago by MikeHunt12345 (810)
13 replies | jump to latest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A46FZmpL2gk

I know that video is members-only now, but it used to be public, and the response was overwhelmingly negative. Everyone thinks YIFY is a hero and Karl is an asshole. But there's one very important question nobody seems to be able to answer: Why?

YIFY is literally a thief. Some people say he's like Robin Hood, he steals from very rich film studios so poor people can watch movies. Well first of all, lots of YIFY movies are small independent films. Second of all, what if he was stealing from McDonald's to feed the homeless? Some people may say he's an anti-hero, but I don't think anyone would have a problem with him being arrested for it.

So how can you logically argue film piracy is OK? And how can you logically argue helping stop it is wrong? The only difference is food is essential for survival, movies aren't. But that's the thing about film piracy, it's completely normalised, everyone does it, including me, nobody even thinks about the ethics, yet there is no logical way to justify it.

[–] samoanjoes (52095) a month ago

So how can you logically argue film piracy is OK?

$20 ticket price (assuming it's not in 3D), $15 to rent, $30 to own. Special editions limited editions and ultimate edition. Released on VHS, DVD, BluRay. 4K. And this would be if a film studio produced only one movie.

The only difference is food is essential for survival, movies aren't.

When you steal food, there is one less of it. When you download a digital file, nothing is taken away. There is no "one less" of it.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (810) a month ago

Lots of things are overpriced, yet movies are the only one people think it's OK to steal. Movies are not essential for survival, nobody is entitled to them.

There isn't "one less" of the movie you pirate, but the overall result for the company is similar. McDonald's buys food, someone takes it without paying, McDonald's loses money. A studio spends money on a movie, someone watches it for free instead of paying, the studio loses money.

But if you won't accept that analogy, here's another: It's no different from sneaking into a concert without paying, assuming there are lots of empty seats. Yet nobody would think that is OK.

[–] samoanjoes (52095) a month ago

Lots of things are overpriced, yet movies are the only one people think it's OK to steal.

It's not just about the overpricing. The movie is the same, they put the money in to make the movie once, and yet they release multiple versions.

McDonald's buys food, someone takes it without paying, McDonald's loses money. A studio spends money on a movie, someone watches it for free instead of paying, the studio loses money.

A movie can make its money in different ways: theatre, home video and TV networks buying the rights. There is only one way for McDonald's to make their money selling a singular product. But McDonald's doesn't get royalties like movie studios do. Imagine if you're a chef at a restaurant and you make a hamburger and 30 years later you're still getting money for that burger you made.

[–] capuchin (2746) a month ago

YIFY is literally a thief.

'Literally'? No. Piracy is literally -- as in by the letter of the law -- copyright infringement. It is not theft. I know they ran all those campaigns back in the day to convince people it was the same as stealing, but... it isn't. They're different laws. This doesn't, of course, impact the morality of the issue -- but it's good to be accurate about which crimes people are potentially committing.

So how can you logically argue film piracy is OK?

Because film and television shows are not just economic products, they are cultural assets -- and people should have access to culture at reasonable cost. Copyright holders have been ripping people off for decades.

Besides, there has been research (most recently, I think, in 2018) to suggest that people who pirate material tend to purchase more content legitimately than people who do not -- so, if anything, the major studios should be encouraging this kind of behaviour as an economic benefit to themselves.

They used to push the line that one pirated download was one lost sale -- but that's largely bollocks. People were either never going to purchase the thing in the first place or might buy it later if it's any good.

Make content available, and make content available at reasonable prices that people are prepared to pay -- and the piracy problems mostly disappear. As has happened in music.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (810) a month ago

Lots of things are overpriced, yet movies are the only one people think it's OK to access illegally. Why are people entitled to cultural assets? They have absolutely no impact on your survival. I can't imagine life without movies, but that's just the way the world works, there are things people want but can't afford. I'd love to live in a big house, but if I squatted in a billionaire's house while they were on vacation, nobody would think that's OK. You could argue a big house is slightly more important for survival. Better security, more room to exercise, etc.

Regarding that information, I'm not sure if it's true, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is. I still don't see how that makes it OK. Pirates aren't a hive mind, maybe it's not very common, but I'm sure there are some billionaires who always pirate movies and never pay for them simply because they're cheap, and would've paid for them if piracy wasn't available.

[–] capuchin (2746) a month ago

Why are people entitled to cultural assets? They have absolutely no impact on your survival.

Because being alive and being part of a society is about more than the rudiments of survival. Culture enriches us all. People should be encouraged to access it, rather than it being the sole preserve of the wealthy. That's why we have libraries.

Regarding that information, I'm not sure if it's true

If you have research that contradicts the research that has been done, you should publish it somewhere. The big corporations would love you for it.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

You don't need to give me the benefit of the doubt. You could Google it. You'll find it often helps to know a bit of the background about a topic you wish to discuss.

[–] MaximRecoil (4186) a month ago

"YIFY is literally a thief."

Not even close, which is why it's known as copyright infringement rather than larceny, because he made unauthorized copies. In most cases it's not even a crime because it's a civil matter between two private parties (the copyright holder and the person accused of copyright infringement). In order for it to rise to a criminal case it has to have been done intentionally and for financial gain.

"Some people say he's like Robin Hood, he steals from very rich film studios so poor people can watch movies."

He didn't steal anything from film studios, obviously.

"Second of all, what if he was stealing from McDonald's to feed the homeless?"

Since copyright infringement isn't stealing, you must mean, "What if he was making copies of e.g., Big Macs, to feed the homeless?" I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. I sometimes make copies of Big Macs, Quarter Pounders, and Egg McMuffins for myself.

"So how can you logically argue film piracy is OK?"

Because there are no actual damages. With theft, there's actual damages, i.e., if someone steals $50 from you, you have suffered damages in the amount of $50, because you no longer have that $50. With copyright infringement, the only thing they can produce is speculative damages (which falls under the category of "making shit up"), because there's no way to prove that anyone would have paid for a particular movie had they not produced or procured an unauthorized copy of it.

Furthermore, there's this:

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the "Betamax case", is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but can instead be defended as fair use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

What YIFY was doing is no different than if he taped a movie off TV (which is not copyright infringement according to SCOTUS) and then gave the tape to a public library to lend out to whoever wants to watch it (which is apparently not copyright infringement either because lending out copyrighted materials for free is what public libraries do and have always done, and they are celebrated for it).

[–] MikeHunt12345 (810) a month ago

OK you seem to be much more of an expert on this than me, you may be right. Although I'd argue it is very different from taping a movie off TV and giving it to a library. You have to actually go to the library to get it, and while you have it nobody else can access it, and then you have to go return it. When you upload a movie to a torrent site, anyone with a computer with internet can very quickly and easily download it and keep it forever.

I'm still not convinced it's ethical. Maybe the food analogy is a bad one, a better one is I don't see how it's any different from sneaking into a concert without paying, assuming there are lots of empty seats. Nobody would think that's OK, I think it's just a cultural thing, just like how people think it's OK to eat pigs but not dogs, even though pigs are smarter.

I don't see how the fact that it's only "speculative damages" makes it OK. There's no irrefutable proof that people who pirate films would've paid for it if they couldn't pirate it, but I think we can make an educated guess that some of them would.

[–] MaximRecoil (4186) a month ago

"Although I'd argue it is very different from taping a movie off TV and giving it to a library. You have to actually go to the library to get it, and while you have it nobody else can access it, and then you have to go return it. When you upload a movie to a torrent site, anyone with a computer with internet can very quickly and easily download it and keep it forever."

Those differences aren't relevant to the analogy, because the fundamentals are exactly the same, i.e., someone made a copy of a movie and lots of people can watch it for free. Isn't that what you believe isn't okay, watching movies for free?

"a better one is I don't see how it's any different from sneaking into a concert without paying, assuming there are lots of empty seats."

That's very different, since it's trespassing, i.e., you're on someone else's property without their permission. Buying a ticket grants you permission to be on their property at that particular time.

"I don't see how the fact that it's only "speculative damages" makes it OK."

Because speculative damages aren't damages at all.

"There's no irrefutable proof that people who pirate films would've paid for it if they couldn't pirate it, but I think we can make an educated guess that some of them would."

That's fine for the sake of discussion, but speculation about what people might have done differently in the past had they not done what they actually did, logically has no place in court.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (72920) a month ago

Who is this YIFI and what is a Karl Rock?

No offense but you seem to be involved with dopey shit all the time.

Just ignore dumb stuff, who cares?
Tickle your wife, grow some tomatoes, chop firewood.

[–] samoanjoes (52095) a month ago

YIFY was a pirating legend. The dudes would upload great quality movies at a fair size for free. They had a great variety too. They're practically Brother Teresa.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (72920) a month ago

Oh, fancy me all unaware.
Ignorance truly is bliss😄

[–] moviechatterer (13743) a month ago

people will find all kinds of ways to justify movie piracy , always have . just look at the replies you've got.

People just cant be unbiased. They know its wrong , but they dont want it to be , so they'll twist , turn , jump though hoops and make shit up to justifiy it .

this applies in many other circumstances