If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Hyman Strachman, an 92 year old World War II veteran, is one of the United States most prolific movie pirates, sending free copies of recent new release movies to our troops overseas   (nytimes.com) divider line 184
    More: Hero, Hyman Strachman, United States, bandits, pirates  
•       •       •

5759 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-27 09:16:17 PM

Sgt Otter: T.M.S.: DoBeDoBeDo: A better question for Mr. MPAA man would be: Why doesn't an industry that rakes in a few $billion/year spend the $30k to send free movies to our troops so this 92 year old doesn't have to do it?

You know for a fact that studios don't distribute free DVD's of released movies to the troops?

I never heard of that when I was in Iraq, and anybody who gave us anything always included a gigantic "DONATED TO OUR BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WITH PRIDE BY XYZ CORPORATION!" banner. Usually, the professionally printed banner looked like it was worth more than what they actually donated.

Coors or Miller or whatever sent us a gigantic box filled with a handful of can cozies, a few frisbees, and exactly one hat. Included was a "MILLER BREWING COMPANY PROUDLY SUPPORTS THE TROOPS OF THE [HORRIBLY MISSPELLED NAME OF YOUR UNIT!]" banner that was at least 20 feet long and 4 feet high.


Well, it was an honest question I did not know the answer to. It sucks movies are not freely donated to the troops. Seems like a no brainer for Hollywood.

I understand what you are saying about the banners and hats. I have heard of asshats sending stupid, self agrandizing shiat demanding the troops pose with it.

When I started sending packages overseas I fully knew I would never receive so much as a thank you note. If I had I would have questioned the service members sanity. Eat the food, read the books, give the toys to the local kids and duck when the shells start dropping.

But while I have you, is it true "the boots" don't want baby wipes? I just go by what anysoldier.com states. Rumor has it they landfill that shiat pronto.
 
2012-04-27 09:23:07 PM

T.M.S.: Sgt Otter: T.M.S.: DoBeDoBeDo: A better question for Mr. MPAA man would be: Why doesn't an industry that rakes in a few $billion/year spend the $30k to send free movies to our troops so this 92 year old doesn't have to do it?

You know for a fact that studios don't distribute free DVD's of released movies to the troops?

I never heard of that when I was in Iraq, and anybody who gave us anything always included a gigantic "DONATED TO OUR BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WITH PRIDE BY XYZ CORPORATION!" banner. Usually, the professionally printed banner looked like it was worth more than what they actually donated.

Coors or Miller or whatever sent us a gigantic box filled with a handful of can cozies, a few frisbees, and exactly one hat. Included was a "MILLER BREWING COMPANY PROUDLY SUPPORTS THE TROOPS OF THE [HORRIBLY MISSPELLED NAME OF YOUR UNIT!]" banner that was at least 20 feet long and 4 feet high.

Well, it was an honest question I did not know the answer to. It sucks movies are not freely donated to the troops. Seems like a no brainer for Hollywood.

I understand what you are saying about the banners and hats. I have heard of asshats sending stupid, self agrandizing shiat demanding the troops pose with it.

When I started sending packages overseas I fully knew I would never receive so much as a thank you note. If I had I would have questioned the service members sanity. Eat the food, read the books, give the toys to the local kids and duck when the shells start dropping.

But while I have you, is it true "the boots" don't want baby wipes? I just go by what anysoldier.com states. Rumor has it they landfill that shiat pronto.


It depends. At this point both the major theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan) are mostly built up. They have showers, real toilets or at least portajohns, and there isn't a drastic shortage of toilet paper. Baby wipes aren't as big a deal right now. Babywipes come in extremely handy when there's limited showers and you don't get one often, and there's often no toilet paper, like in the early stages of a war/conflict.
 
2012-04-27 09:24:19 PM

T.M.S.: degenerate-afro: T.M.S.: Thank you. And I don't want to get into any sort of argument with anyone about this today. But can you answer a question I have asked before and never gotten an answer to?

I normally stay out of these Copyright vs. Infringement arguments, but your example is flawed.

Say it is 1995 and you are a publisher. An unknown writer sends you a manuscript for a book called Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone.

You return the manuscript to the author after making a xerox of it first. You then publish the words written on that copy and market it to book stores.

You returned the author's manuscript. She is welcome to do whatever she likes with the fifty cents worth of paper. All you did was make a couple hundred million copies in thousands of languages and sold them for billions of dollars.

But can you honestly say nothing was stolen from the author?

The initial work was stolen and returned. Stolen property (the manuscript) which is then returned to the owner can still be prosecuted. For example if you steal a piece of artwork from a museum, make a forgery, then return the artwork, the artwork was still stolen and you can still be prosecuted for the original theft.

A better example would be if someone GAVE you their manuscript to read (say you are a friend of the original authors), you copied the manuscript, gave it back to the original author, then sold the copied material for a profit. That would be a better example of copyright infringement without theft.


In my example the manuscript was voluntarily sent to the publisher by the author as a submission for potential publication.

Say it is 1995 and you are a publisher. An unknown writer sends you a manuscript for a book called Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone

The manuscript was not stolen. All the published did was make exact copies and sell them to millions of people. The actual stack of paper with words written on it were returned to the author.

So, the publisher makes billion ...


Since that's how Hollywood typically does business, I don't see why you have a problem with it.
 
2012-04-27 09:29:21 PM
You know what's gonna totally rock?

There's already sharing of 3D printer files going on. 3D printers are almost worth it - pretty soon, you *are* going to be able to download physical objects.

I farking *love* the Internets.
 
2012-04-27 09:30:12 PM

StrangeQ: T.M.S.: StrangeQ: T.M.S.: StrangeQ:


Nice straw man. Would work fine except for the fact that unless you're living in eastern Europe nobody downloads mov ...

Aparently you don't know what a "Strawman argument" is.

.Allow me to educate you

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacHy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

What, was the first sentence of the article too much for you to read?

You aren't a very bright person are you? Seriously, I never go for insults when on this site but your case I honestly feel the word thick applies.


Feel free to show me where misrepresented anyone's position.

You're claiming piracy is the same thing as little taking someone's work before it is published, claiming it as your own, publishing it in your name, and making a profit from it. Nobody defending piracy has ever claimed that would be right. The only one being thick here is you.


I claimed no such thing. What you are doing is called creating a "straw man argument"

Feel free to show me where I stated the publisher in my example credited the work as their own.


Good luck.
 
2012-04-27 09:47:24 PM

T.M.S.: Are we to believe nothing was stolen?


How do you steal nothing?
 
2012-04-27 10:01:14 PM

Rincewind53: T.M.S.: Allow me to provide a real life example of how the current system "works" for me.

In the Entertainment tab there is a thread about Samuel L. Jackson and the article starts off with a discussion of his work in a play called Mountaintop.

I designed that production including an extensive video sequence showing 40 years of American history.

To create that video I looked at thousands of images and videos available illegally on the internet. Once I chose the ones I wanted to use my legal dept took on the task of tracking down the license holders of every scrap of footage and still so the owners could be paid.

What "works" about the current system is there is so much information out there illegally I was able to research my video easily.

Of course I then had to pay for all the content.

I'm not saying I have a solution. But that is one way this freedom is a success.

And I'd label what you were doing "ethical piracy." I think you and I don't actually disagree on too much. I just think that calling copyright infringement "theft" makes having the kind of discussions you and I are having about the ethics of bootlegging/piracy harder to actually do, and disincentivizes coming up with new and innovative solutions to the problems and potential created by the digital media..


I think we probably agree on most of this. Theft vs infringement is semantics to me. (and there is a real copywright lawyer in this thread to elaborate)


The truth is the Internet has made so many things possible. And I am grateful for that. But it's like the wild west out here.

Sure minor "crime" is forgivable considering the environment. And that "criminal behavior" actually enriches us all and makes our lives easier.

But, like the West, it will take decades to sort out and establish a true rule of law.

Until then I will see theft (or whatever it's called) as what it is: stealing. Some "stealing" is valid, some not so much.

It's all so confusing...but what a great time to live in.
 
2012-04-27 10:10:36 PM

rickycal78: But while I have you, is it true "the boots" don't want baby wipes? I just go by what anysoldier.com states. Rumor has it they landfill that shiat pronto.

It depends. At this point both the major theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan) are mostly built up. They have showers, real toilets or at least portajohns, and there isn't a drastic shortage of toilet paper. Baby wipes aren't as big a deal right now. Babywipes come in extremely handy when there's limited showers and you don't get one often, and there's often no toilet paper, like in the early stages of a war/conflict.


Baby Wipes are a godsend during NTC or Graf or Hohenfels rotations.
 
2012-04-27 10:30:55 PM

rickycal78: T.M.S.: That said, I love this old man and what he has been doing. Given the chance I would help him run his bootleg machine. All I ever send to the troops is booze, books, food and porn

You do realize that neither of those are allowed for American troops on deployment right? Unless you're sending it to a specific person you know you're at best ensuring that it ends up in the hands of some unit commander or First Sergeant that will likely dispose of it or keep it for themselves.

If you are sending it to someone specific you are putting them at risk for a very heavy handed Article 15.

I'm sure the Joes appreciate what does get to them, and I'm glad to see you support the troops, but if you're actually sending both of those items you may want to be a bit careful.


Don't worry, he doesn't send the troops anything at all, he's just trying to win hearts and minds with a propaganda campaign.
 
2012-04-27 10:56:42 PM

T.M.S.: Rincewind53: T.M.S.: Allow me to provide a real life example of how the current system "works" for me.

In the Entertainment tab there is a thread about Samuel L. Jackson and the article starts off with a discussion of his work in a play called Mountaintop.

I designed that production including an extensive video sequence showing 40 years of American history.

To create that video I looked at thousands of images and videos available illegally on the internet. Once I chose the ones I wanted to use my legal dept took on the task of tracking down the license holders of every scrap of footage and still so the owners could be paid.

What "works" about the current system is there is so much information out there illegally I was able to research my video easily.

Of course I then had to pay for all the content.

I'm not saying I have a solution. But that is one way this freedom is a success.

And I'd label what you were doing "ethical piracy." I think you and I don't actually disagree on too much. I just think that calling copyright infringement "theft" makes having the kind of discussions you and I are having about the ethics of bootlegging/piracy harder to actually do, and disincentivizes coming up with new and innovative solutions to the problems and potential created by the digital media..

I think we probably agree on most of this. Theft vs infringement is semantics to me. (and there is a real copywright lawyer in this thread to elaborate)


The truth is the Internet has made so many things possible. And I am grateful for that. But it's like the wild west out here.

Sure minor "crime" is forgivable considering the environment. And that "criminal behavior" actually enriches us all and makes our lives easier.

But, like the West, it will take decades to sort out and establish a true rule of law.

Until then I will see theft (or whatever it's called) as what it is: stealing. Some "stealing" is valid, some not so much.

It's all so confusing...but what a great time to l ...


War, war never changes...
 
2012-04-27 11:21:27 PM

T.M.S.: StrangeQ: T.M.S.: StrangeQ: T.M.S.: StrangeQ:


Nice straw man. Would work fine except for the fact that unless you're living in eastern Europe nobody downloads mov ...

Aparently you don't know what a "Strawman argument" is.

.Allow me to educate you

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacHy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

What, was the first sentence of the article too much for you to read?

You aren't a very bright person are you? Seriously, I never go for insults when on this site but your case I honestly feel the word thick applies.


Feel free to show me where misrepresented anyone's position.

You're claiming piracy is the same thing as little taking someone's work before it is published, claiming it as your own, publishing it in your name, and making a profit from it. Nobody defending piracy has ever claimed that would be right. The only one being thick here is you.

I claimed no such thing. What you are doing is called creating a "straw man argument"

Feel free to show me where I stated the publisher in my example credited the work as their own.


Good luck.


Then what is your point? Because it would be clearly obvious to anyone that the publisher would be stealing at that point and it has absolutely nothing to do with pirating or bootlegging.
 
2012-04-27 11:22:23 PM
Say it is 1995 and you are a publisher. An unknown writer sends you a manuscript for a book called Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone.

You return the manuscript to the author after making a xerox of it first. You then publish the words written on that copy and market it to book stores.

You returned the author's manuscript. She is welcome to do whatever she likes with the fifty cents worth of paper. All you did was make a couple hundred million copies in thousands of languages and sold them for billions of dollars.

But can you honestly say nothing was stolen from the author?


What a weird-ass argument. Comparing movie piracy to producing and selling knockoff goods, and then linking it all to stealing from artists is ridiculous.

1) Bootleg DVD vendors operate in an entirely different market than movie theaters. The clientele is poor, cheap and undesireable to Hollywood. No competitive overlap.

2) Nobody is running a black market movie theater.

3) Aside from writers, producers, directors and a handful of powerful movie stars, the people who work on a motion picture get paid a flat salary and receive no share of the film's grosses. And writers (provided the studio didn't rewrite them out of getting credit) rarely get their expected 0.015%.

Piracy is theft the same way a vulture is a bird of prey and a hot dog is pork.
 
2012-04-27 11:36:13 PM
I like how Hollywood says it is helping the war effort by sending reel-to-reel movies and projectors to the troops. Right, as if a platoon of soldiers guarding a mountain pass 10,000 feet above sea level will receive that setup rather than a laptop computer and a stack of DVD's.
 
2012-04-27 11:59:44 PM
His actions might influence his entire generation to do the same. It would crush the film industry.

/He should be rotting away behind bars, in solitary confinement if there's room form him.
 
2012-04-28 12:04:05 AM

Rincewind53: But I do think piracy is ethical when there is a market failure preventing me from legally gaining access to a product. I used to pirate episodes of QI, Stephen Fry's BBC quiz show, because they were completely inaccessible legally without going to Britain and either waiting until they came out on DVD or hoping I caught a rerun. There, I was 100% certain that the BBC lost no profits from my piracy.


I like how it never crossed your mind that you were just going to have to do without. Regardless of the ability of the creative owners to make a product available to you, you still feel entitled to it. Spoken like a true punk who has nothing to contribute to society.
 
2012-04-28 12:11:04 AM

StrangeQ: T.M.S.: StrangeQ: T.M.S.: StrangeQ: T.M.S.: StrangeQ:


Nice straw man. Would work fine except for the fact that unless you're living in eastern Europe nobody downloads mov ...

Aparently you don't know what a "Strawman argument" is.

.Allow me to educate you

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacHy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

What, was the first sentence of the article too much for you to read?

You aren't a very bright person are you? Seriously, I never go for insults when on this site but your case I honestly feel the word thick applies.


Feel free to show me where misrepresented anyone's position.

You're claiming piracy is the same thing as little taking someone's work before it is published, claiming it as your own, publishing it in your name, and making a profit from it. Nobody defending piracy has ever claimed that would be right. The only one being thick here is you.

I claimed no such thing. What you are doing is called creating a "straw man argument"

Feel free to show me where I stated the publisher in my example credited the work as their own.


Good luck.

Then what is your point?....


My point is you are an incurious individual that lacks even a basic understanding of the conversation you childishly thrust yourself into.

Have a nice day!
 
2012-04-28 01:04:00 AM
So...he could have just bought the damn DVDs and given them to the USO? Dude's no hero, he's a thief.

(Funny, isn't it, how this is the first time in this thread the proper description, "thief" has appeared.)
 
2012-04-28 01:17:06 AM

I Like Bread: Rincewind53: But I do think piracy is ethical when there is a market failure preventing me from legally gaining access to a product. I used to pirate episodes of QI, Stephen Fry's BBC quiz show, because they were completely inaccessible legally without going to Britain and either waiting until they came out on DVD or hoping I caught a rerun. There, I was 100% certain that the BBC lost no profits from my piracy.

I like how it never crossed your mind that you were just going to have to do without. Regardless of the ability of the creative owners to make a product available to you, you still feel entitled to it. Spoken like a true punk who has nothing to contribute to society.


So, what have you contributed to society?
 
2012-04-28 01:38:38 AM
What a prolific movie pirate might look like:
3.bp.blogspot.com

How does he do it with such tiny feet? We may never know.
 
2012-04-28 01:40:06 AM

JosephFinn: So...he could have just bought the damn DVDs and given them to the USO? Dude's no hero, he's a thief.


No. These are for movies that, largely, are not on DVD yet.
 
2012-04-28 01:46:29 AM

Farty McPooPants: What a prolific movie pirate might look like:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 325x300]

How does he do it with such tiny feet? We may never know.


SFM Holiday Network?
 
2012-04-28 02:00:23 AM
In unrelated news, Hymen Stretchman would be a great porn name...
 
2012-04-28 03:28:33 AM

T.M.S.:
In my example the manuscript was voluntarily sent to the publisher by the author as a submission for potential publication.

Say it is 1995 and you are a publisher. An unknown writer sends you a manuscript for a book called Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone

The manuscript was not stolen. All the published did was make exact copies and sell them to millions of people. The actual stack of paper with words written on it were returned to the author.

So, the publisher makes billion ...


This action is covered under copyright not theft. I suggest your read up on this site: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

Also read up on "Dowling v. United States - 473 U.S. 207". If you attempt to prosecute a defendant on the basis of The National Stolen Property Act (18 U. S. C. § 2314), you will lose the case. The first think that you need to learn is the correct terminology. Calling copyright infringment theft won't get you very far in the justice system.
 
2012-04-28 05:48:59 AM
Philo-semitism is a shocking thing

This old and good Jew

sends contraband to Christian Chaplins

who then distribute freely to those in harms way

I salute their conspiracy
 
2012-04-28 08:19:51 AM

degenerate-afro: T.M.S.:
In my example the manuscript was voluntarily sent to the publisher by the author as a submission for potential publication.

Say it is 1995 and you are a publisher. An unknown writer sends you a manuscript for a book called Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone

The manuscript was not stolen. All the published did was make exact copies and sell them to millions of people. The actual stack of paper with words written on it were returned to the author.

So, the publisher makes billion ...

This action is covered under copyright not theft. I suggest your read up on this site: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

Also read up on "Dowling v. United States - 473 U.S. 207". If you attempt to prosecute a defendant on the basis of The National Stolen Property Act (18 U. S. C. § 2314), you will lose the case. The first think that you need to learn is the correct terminology. Calling copyright infringment theft won't get you very far in the justice system.


The first thing you need to learn is to read the thread before making foolish comments.
 
2012-04-28 08:55:20 AM

T.M.S.: degenerate-afro: This action is covered under copyright not theft. I suggest your read up on this site: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

Also read up on "Dowling v. United States - 473 U.S. 207". If you attempt to prosecute a defendant on the basis of The National Stolen Property Act (18 U. S. C. § 2314), you will lose the case. The first think that you need to learn is the correct terminology. Calling copyright infringment theft won't get you very far in the justice system.

The first thing you need to learn is to read the thread before making foolish comments.


The only one being foolish is you. Maybe people wouldn't have to correct you on saying stupid shiat if you didn't say stupid shiat like that needs correcting:

T.M.S.: Someone should go to his home and help themselves to his flags and letters. I'm sure he would be fine having his things taken away by total strangers.


T.M.S.: too busy making stuff for you to steal


T.M.S.: But just because a product is difficult to obtain doesn't mean you are free to swipe it just because you can.

 
2012-04-28 09:20:34 AM

schattenteufel: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 616x364]
...& send it to the troops overseas, would you?


www.bestcareanywhere.net
He would
 
2012-04-28 10:51:19 AM

T.M.S.: degenerate-afro: T.M.S.:
In my example the manuscript was voluntarily sent to the publisher by the author as a submission for potential publication.

Say it is 1995 and you are a publisher. An unknown writer sends you a manuscript for a book called Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone

The manuscript was not stolen. All the published did was make exact copies and sell them to millions of people. The actual stack of paper with words written on it were returned to the author.

So, the publisher makes billion ...

This action is covered under copyright not theft. I suggest your read up on this site: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

Also read up on "Dowling v. United States - 473 U.S. 207". If you attempt to prosecute a defendant on the basis of The National Stolen Property Act (18 U. S. C. § 2314), you will lose the case. The first think that you need to learn is the correct terminology. Calling copyright infringment theft won't get you very far in the justice system.

The first thing you need to learn is to read the thread before making foolish comments.


You stated specifically that things were stolen. I stated they were not. You continued to use language regarding theft. I stated that was not the case. You stated no one answered the question in your scenario. I gave you a legitimate answer, provided counter examples using the correct language and provided a case from the justice system and specific penal codes...

You troll me with ad hominem.

I wonder why I bothered.
 
2012-04-28 11:28:16 AM

T.M.S.: Someone should go to his home and help themselves to his flags and letters. I'm sure he would be fine having his things taken away by total strangers.


Weaver95: this is RIAA's worst nightmare. they HAVE to go after this guy now. they cannot let him get away with this. but...if they DO go after him, the backlash would be EPIC!

Simple,

Shut him down and provide free movies to the troops. AFTER the movies have come out on DVD.


jokideo.com
 
2012-04-28 12:17:33 PM

T.M.S.: Someone should go to his home and help themselves to his flags and letters. I'm sure he would be fine having his things taken away by total strangers.


That is a profoundly stupid statement. I'd expect someone in the "entertainment industry" to view this negatively, but to equate copyright infringement with theft is hilariously ignorant.
 
2012-04-28 01:08:50 PM
There is a way to do this legally. When my nephew was is Afghanistan, I went through my DVD collection, and sent him the discs for TV shows I knew he would enjoy. I bought inexpensive ($2.99) of movies I knew he loved, and then I announced what I was doing at work, and asked for people to go through their own collections. If they owned more than one copy of something (because a deluxe edition came out or because of upgrading to BluRay) I was able to send him more than 50 discs that Christmas.

I also went to Best Buy and asked them to do this for other troops. All they would have to do is keep a box where people could drop old DVDs as they upgraded to BluRay. The older DVDs can be sent to the USO, and soldiers (many of whom have laptops or portable DVD players) could have entertainment at the front. At the time, Best Buy said they couldn't do this, but maybe it's time to revisit this.

/My nephew has been back for over a year, and he still says it was the best care package he got.
 
2012-04-28 02:43:30 PM
Screw Hollywood and everyone who works in the movie business. They've been lying to me my whole life. Especially Adam Sander. He let on that you could get laid despite being unattractive, and it's not true.
 
2012-04-29 12:23:15 AM

WhoIsWillo: JosephFinn: So...he could have just bought the damn DVDs and given them to the USO? Dude's no hero, he's a thief.

No. These are for movies that, largely, are not on DVD yet.


Exactly my point. You buy movies that are on DVD and wait the whole, whopping 2 months until the movie is on DVD. Thief, he is.
 
2012-04-29 02:30:26 AM
Mr. Strachman may have violated studio copyrights by sending his DVDs to the troops, but he did not cost the studios a dime. This is because no Hollywood films end up being distributed in Afghanistan, so it's not as if his copyright violations infringed on theatrical receipts.

Hell, he may actually make the studios some money; chances are, a soldier that has enjoyed one or more of the movies he mailed over may actually buy copies of the film on DVD/Blu-Ray when they return to the United States, or suggest to family that they buy a copy.
 
Displayed 34 of 184 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report