Is watching free movies online ethical?

I spent my whole summer watching movies from a website. I didn’t watch the ones from a cam, because the quality was so bad. I feel fine about doing that because I’m not getting illegal copies of it and putting it on the internet for the world to watch.

I don’t use that site anymore because I switched from PC to Mac and I couldn’t get the site to work the same way. I haven’t taken the time to find another site.

I love to watch anything on hulu. as for newer movies, i’ll just head out to my trusty movie theatre so that there is no copywright infringement or anything like that.

If you are asking me if I feel guilty for anything that Hollywood ever does…?
Hell’s no yo!
Actors have to be the most over paid people in the world, second to professional athletes that take drugs.
Bring on the free stuff.
Now, as far as indy flicks and music for that matter. I will pay and I will help promote.
I paid money once to sit through Waterworld….Remember that piece of crap? I also paid Netlix to get Farce of the Penguins….Jeebus, I lost brain cells for the 30 minutes that I could endure.

Many of them will actually kick you off when you’re near the end of the films and require you to pay and sign-up to continue viewing. I didn’t know about that bit and now it will be a while before I get to see the end of Rush Hour 3 :P

I watch alot of movies online, love it,(if I go to the movie theater after the ticket/popcorn/pop almost $30.00), then you get the people talking during the movie, the cellphones going off, the kids(in movies they shouldn’t be in R rated and 18plus) the sticky floors, the weird stain on the seats, the ads that play over and over before the movie, what you miss if you need to go to the bathroom. but I do feel bad about taking money from the actors(I know they are only getting millions of dollars for being in the movie) I don’t know how they can live on such limited income

They say “for review” – are you reviewing them? If so, that would seem to be the purpose. Very often, movies are released to the media in hopes that they’ll rate a favorable review that will drive people to the theatres to pay to see it.

If you are enjoying the work that the actors, crew, and everyone put in without paying them for that, well, that’s one of those things where you have to search your own conscience.

Is borrowing a movie form a friend moral? Is taping a movie off Television moral?

I’ve got no problem doing this although taping a movie off television is probably copyright infringement. Would it ever make me feel bad about doing it? No.

If the movie is good, it will make money. If it is really good, you will probably encourage others to watch it. Win-win I’d say.

What I wonder about is why everyone’s up in arms about copying DVDs when people used to tape things off the TV with VCRS all the time (back before there were DVDs), and I don’t remember there being this big copy right infringement issue back then. Maybe DVDs are just easier to mass produce?

Horrible quality… I prefer to watch movies on DVD (Netflix has the best offer), at the same time you support movie industry (not over paid actors), I agree – theaters or buying DVDs are too expensive, to be honest. in most cases I watch movie only 1 time, so why do I have to buy DVD if I can just rent it for 99 cents

@bodyhead: If I borrow it from a friend, that means that the friend probably bought it, so the people who made the movie were compensated.

The thing about saying that the movie will make money anyway is that everyone acts as if they are the only one watching it illegally, and that somehow, everyone else in the world will pay and that will make up for the one time that someone didn’t. I’m positive that it doesn’t work like that, though. Yes, a good film will probably make money, but not as much as it should.

To me, it’s like watching a stripper undress through her bedroom window. Even though she’ll still make money if she’s a good stripper, it doesn’t mean she wants to work for you for free.

Unless the stripper sees it as part of a “gift economy” sort of thing… Where do you live??

The only movies I watch online come from Netflix.

@laureth, If the stripper doesn’t want to work for me for free, then she should close her windows. If she’s getting naked in full view of me and expects me to politely avert my eyes, then she’s got a lot of nights of working for free ahead of her. Plus, she’s already made all of her money for the evening. Whether I look or not, she makes the exact same amount of money.

Just because my friend bought the movie, doesn’t change the fact that my viewing experience is 100% free. Whether I see the movie or not, the company makes just as much money.

If everyone watches a movie illegally then it would make zero dollars but everyone doesn’t so that shouldn’t even be in the equation.

My question is this, would you have paid $10 to see every movie that you’ve borrowed or seen on TV. I know I wouldn’t. But maybe you would. Maybe you should mail Miramax (and whatever other company) checks for movies you didn’t purchase that you got to see. I bet they would accept them.

As a matter of fact, every argument you put towards me, I could use as an argument not to sell second hand movies. The company doesn’t make any more money when you sell a movie as second hand. Only you make money. If the original purchase price was considered buying the intellectual property, then you are actually profiting by watching the movie and then selling it. For shame!

Just so you know, I’m a huge proponent of paying for GOOD merchandise. If I borrow a game and beat it and it was a really good game, I’ll go out and pay the $50 purchase price for it (even if I never play it again). Same with movies. Same with books. Same with everything.

@bodyhead – considering I’ve seen one movie in the theatre in the last four years (which I probably did pay $10 for), and haven’t had TV in as long, sure. And when I did watch movies on TV, they were paid for either directly (through my cable bill) or indirectly (through ads on commercial networks).

If you watch a “review copy” Internet bootleg, that is a copy that was sent out for free to the media, so nobody got paid. If I buy a tape (or borrow a tape from a friend, or buy it used), the actors and crew were paid when the tape was originally sold, even if the amount was incremental.

For what it’s worth, I’ve never watched an illegal movie through the Internet.

My point is this. If you buy a second hand tape, no one gets paid but the person selling that tape. The director of the movie doesn’t make any more money. The actors don’t make any more money. The studio doesn’t make any more money.

If making sure everyone who helped make the movie gets paid, then the resale of movies should also be illegal.

For there to be a secondhand trade in any media (books, CDs, DVDs, etc.), there must first be a firsthand market. That is the difference between selling bootleg copies and selling secondhand legal copies. I do think the distinction is important, because one pays the folks and the other never does.

I believe that some labels/studios would prefer to have it your way, though, for exactly the reason you state – which is why there’s a move to sell a “license” for the media, as opposed to the disc itself, so that you never actually own the disc, you only own the right to watch it.

Perhaps we will never see eye to eye on this, and that’s okay.

@Ort
I would say so and I’ve never done it either. I think what @laureth said is accurate. If I share a physical original copy with a friend it’s different. It’s like what we used to do with audio casette tapes. It didn’t affect the artist and the trade was still strong because the original cut was usually superior. It had a limited audience of your immediate friends and was not instantly transferrable countless times over. If I buy a book and lend it to a friend, it’s not the same as copying it, publishing 1000 copies and selling them on the corner(or giving them away). How can that be right? As it is now, the artist loses money from the start, and a studio or artist has no copyright protection. The copyright like the trademark or patent is vital to protect interests in trade. If they are making a trillion dollars a year it should not make a difference.
It’s interesting to see how this will all pan out though, because increasingly you can get published and copyrighted works online for free. The internet is really transforming everything very quickly so I guess more will be revealed. I think they will find more sophisticted methods to protect their interests.
Personally I always like the theater experience for films.