I just want to copy them to my hard drive so I can watch em whenever I want w/o needing the disc.

In case SM is still reading - what he wants to do falls well within Fair Use and is entirely legal.

What I do is legal as well, so long as I own the movies I rip.

Unless he borrowed the disk from the library or a friend and watches it after the loan period.

shush!

What we don't know doesn't hurt us!

Ah. Look-the-other-way morality.

"Rationalization is more important than sex." - Jeff Goldblum in that aging yuppies movie with Kevin Kline and a bunch of other great people.

Oh come now. Everybody does it ...

Wolfie - I suspect you're too smart to really believe that. I suspect I am being baited. Even so...

1) Not everyone does it.
2) Even if everyone were doing it, that doesn't make it right.

The vast majority of people have pirated something at time point. I'd say more than 1 in 5 my age have at least 50 Cds worth of pirated music in one form or another. Right? See above.

I realize that there are many people pirating. That doesn't mean everyone is.

And just because 'everyone' is doing it doesn't make it moral.

The vast majority are.
Moral? That's harder. They've failed to adapt to a new world and are paying for it. They don't fairly compensate artists and sue their fans, frankly I don't think I could feel the slightest bit of remorse if I worked at it. I do however but non-riaa music.

If sm is still hanging around, I'd like to ask a question. I have chosen a few of my vinyl albums for me to purchase the CD for. That is I'll have both the vinyl and CD for a few of my albums. Last year, I bought pretty much every Black Sabbath CD for $10.00 each at a large record store. They weren't on sale - regular price - $10.00.

But last week I went back for another round and looked up a couple - Al Stewart's Year of the Cat and Robin Trower's Bridge of Sighs. Old stuff and its NOT on iTunes (I'm a huge iTunes customer). The problem is that both CDs were priced at around $16.00 to $18.00. Now why would a CD that surely recouped all its costs and was profitable while still in vinyl be priced at or about the same as the price for a newly released CD that has was yet to recoup a dime and which is probably 100 times more expensive to produce? I chose not to purchase either CD and left the store somewhat pissed.

On a related note, I had the privilege to chat with Frank Marino (a guitarist with a cult following for those not familiar) whose live album recorded in the early 70s is STILL selling (in CD form - its a classic) and he told me he can't remember the last time he saw a check. He was pretty disgusted about it.

Something is wrong with this picture. Hollywood and the recording industry is lying to someone about something.

I realize you are not a spokesperson for either the MPAA or the RIAA - I am addressing you only because you are knowlegeable about the industry.

No it's far more specific than something to someone, it's everything to everyone. Artists get screwed on royalties both though nonpayment and obscene contracts, we get screwed hard on CD prices and yet they whine about downloads, despite the fact that it's a proven fact that major downloaders often are major buyers as well. CD sales aren't slumping, some are and rightly so, because they're producing shit.

I heard the creator of the Spiderman character on the radio the other day. Seems he's in a tiff with Hollywood over his share of the Spiderman I and II takes. They are trying to screw him over. And I've heard this so many times from so many different people.

BUT, I think, at some point, that folks (artists, creators, etc.) need to stop entering into contracts that relate the payment to profit. Profit is a slippery number and people should start using gross revenue as the basis. I learned that lesson a long time ago. Hollywood is legendary for lying about their profit. Gross revenue, on the other hand, is very hard to fudge.