isoHunt sues CRIA in self defense, Round 2

Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:53 pm

lady.grae wrote:

I got shut down by my ISP for downloading content that is NOT LICENSED in the US, and was therefore NOT ILLEGAL for me to download. ISP's don't even look at what a DMCA bot tells them, they just act. I had to throw an absolute fit at them to get them to even tell me WHY they shut me down. All I knew was that I woke up one morning and my internet wouldn't connect and my employer was pissed at me because I couldn't do my job.

I download anime as it airs in Japan, which is generally not licensed in the US until after it finishes airing (although some companies have started licensing after the first two episodes). I don't mind paying $25-30 for a blu ray movie that I know I like, but I am NOT going to pay $25-30 PER DVD for a 26 episode series when there are 3 episodes on each disc. Assuming the company bothers to even release it some time this decade. Or ever has any intention of releasing it.

I freely admit that I have over a terabyte of fansubbed anime. I am well aware that fansubbing is illegal. However, I also have a whole closet full of old VHS tapes that my husband and I bought LEGALLY. I don't want to think about how much of my husband's monthly income went straight to VIZ Video for seven seasons and however many OVA's and movies of Ranma 1/2 and god knows what else is in there.

That didn't stop me from downloading a digital copy of the same series, though. I HAVE the VHS. I BOUGHT the VHS. The quality SUCKS. But because I don't have a VCR anymore I should pay $27 per DVD for the same three episodes per disc that were on the VHS tape so I can watch it again? Oh HELL no. Not for something that huge. And depressingly, the fansub translations are frequently better than the 'official' versions.

That said, I have three copies of the anime movie Akira. One on VHS and two on DVD (one came in a tres-cool tin box with omakes, I couldn't resist). I have two copies of the movie Hudson Hawk (VHS & DVD, and the day it comes out on blu ray I'll have that, too), three copies of The Rock (VHS, DVD, & blu ray), two of The Fifth Element (DVD & blu ray), the list goes on...

I'm not going to pay $15-20 for a CD with 12-15 songs on it when I only want one. I'm sure as hell not going to pay $15-20 per CD for the entire Bon Jovi or Megadeath or (insert your favorite band here) collection of CD's when all I want to know is which song played on the radio last night.

So much for the recording industry's "lost revenue" argument.

The companies that license foreign anime and sell them here pay a one-time licensing fee. The production company in Japan doesn't get royalties from sales in the US.

So much for the distribution industry's "you're cheating the author/actor" argument.

The only people involved in making movies that get royalties are the big-name actors/actresses and the company executives. Everyone else gets paid when the movie is made. That's why all the fuss about earning enough to cover production costs.

So much for the movie industry's "you're cheating the cameraman/caterer/guy-who-drives-the-widget-truck" argument.

It's all about the money and who controls access to what. I'm not against paying for a product I want - but, like everything else I buy, I weigh what it's worth against what they're charging before I get out my debit card.

Lady Grae,

I do not keep it a secret that as a label we agree with P2P. I do think you are oversimplifying the whole cd or movie making process. Tv shows are different because the TV stations recoup money from advertisers and to a certain extent musicians are now seeing their music as a promotional tool for the main event which is their live concerts. Movie studios on the other hand are the real issue when it comes to P2P.

Let's take Avatar as an example. If you download a cam version and watch it on a little screen then you aren't doing any justice to the movie. To see it on the big screen in 3D....I didn't mind parting with my $20. However to spend that money on a movie that lacks storyline or quality is where the issue really lies.

Let's not forget that the movie studios who pay the cameramen must recoup their money. If this doesn't happen then the wheels will fall off the industry. This is why they are so anti-P2P. Not saying that P2P shouldn't happen because it always will. Just that if you really like the movie then buying it when it comes out on DVD should be a natural occurance. If it is crap then it will be deleted from your harddrive! Just don't bundle all movies into the same category.

Same goes with your comments about your favourite bands collections. My favorite band is Barenaked Ladies. When their new album is out, sure I will download it but I always end up buying it as well. I don't mind parting with my $15 because I know what product I am getting and I won't be disappointed.

As a whole, I think the music industry and the audience need to find the middle ground. P2P won't go away but neither will the old record companies and their lawsuits. All of Cowbell's artists agree with P2P and see their music as a promotional tool. Unfortunately not all artists or labels agree with that. Doesn't mean it still won't occur.

Isp's will never wake up and will always be controlled by the major labels and the studios until the paradigm shift occurs and everything is digital. Give it time and it will happen. be patient and the corporations will come around.

A very wise man who runs a label in Canada once told me that the high tide floats the boat. What we have to be careful of is that we don't sink the titanic in the process. Slow and steady will bring the industry around.

Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:27 pm

Hi:

I agree with cowbellmusic in that if the material is good, I will pay for it (music or movies). I have noticed though that depending on one's interest that most new material has got things one may not want included with the product which either makes the disk in question cost more or (more likely) encourages the distributor to divide the material over multiple disks. As for foreign content - dubbed material usually is more expensive, anime and manga have edited to suit NA audiences (though some new material looks as good as the Asian version), and some material is not available due to the rating system. Regardless of how one feels, I do not think that using torrents is the problem but that some parts of the system are missing their percentage of the sale.

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:30 pm

I often buy the cd or download file after sampling it on a torrent. I also support the musicians by buying their merchandise and going to their shows. I support the torrent providers, we are in a new day and age and the industry needs to catch up. A lot of musicians have embraced the internet as the medium of the future, it is the old school that are stuck like a broken record with their old ideas.

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:41 am

Kardiak wrote:

If I might...

The question itself is flawed. How is sharing of any sort, whether it be handing over your personal belongings to someone, or sharing a file that you have acquired over a p2p theft?

Well: Let's start. Sharing is not stealing. I buy myself a personal belonging - say a toy for my daughter (at age 7) - a my little pony. I purchase it for $8 and I now own and possess that item (personal belonging). She is now older and does not want it anymore. With her permission, I can share it and give it away without any expectation on receiving money back for it. But I DID originally pay for it. I did not copy it and keep the original for myself and give away the perfect copy.

As far as I'm concerned, I pay a large sum of money every year to have an internet connection, and filesharing is one of the advantages of paying for this service. I doubt there are many people out there with stolen ISP hook ups.

Well: I pay for that same internet connection too and use it for other internet functions - it is a nice bonus that you can do what you do, but I doubt that the world as a whole goes to purchase the internet to download pirated material, although on this site, I would expect to hear different.

Take a baseball card...

Every image on that card is protected under copyright law. The team that the player plays for, the logo of the team, the player himself, the league that the team belongs to, and even the company that produced the card. If I, who bought that card with my own money, offered it to anyone who wanted to take it, would that person who did take it be considered a theif?

Well: You said it yourself - spoken like a true lawyer. EVERYTHING on that card is protected by copyright! But, you didn't follow your very own "laws of piracy" - do they even exist?? You say - and I quote, "...If I, who BOUGHT that card..." You did not steal the copy you now own - you PAID for it, therefore, you can give away THAT COPY for free to anyone you want. So, (to answer your own question), it would NOT be considered theft if that person took it from you - offered to him directly by you.

then we get into reproducing the music, copying and distributing. But with printers today, I could reproduce that card a million times if I wanted to.

Well: ...and I am getting sick of saying well!!! lol Go ahead and reproduce that card a "million times" as you say. Once you release the "copyrighted material" to the public, you are stealing from the profits of the original "artist". It's hard not to call it stealing when there is a huge corporation like MLB involved (and everyone below them).

Now, take for instance myself. I am a musician and I am trying to make a living (food on the table, mortgage, things for the baby) through music. I bring in money from performing live, but my main source of income is through merchandise sales (all types) including the sale of my CD. As an independent, it matters to me that my own ORIGINAL recorded music is being COPIED and given away for free. Once again, the money I receive to live is merchandise funded.

I am not saying it is wrong to purchase my CD and give it away --- that is not theft. You paid for it, owned it and then gave that ORIGINAL version away to whomever you chose. There was never a copy made - and you never kept the original for yourself.

So long as I'm paying for the ink, the paper, and the electricity to power the printer, I doubt anyone would care.

Well: You really doubt ANYONE would care?? Why am I writing here? Again, I don't care that you make copies of my CD - do what you want with the "file" on your own computer. If you wish to share it with all of your friends, you can sell it for me and send me the money for they work that I did. That's the nice thing about physical merchandise that can be reproduced --- if it is easy to reproduce (ie. mp3 ripping, CD ripping) and it is, then all the better for me and the field I chose to enter as a profession. Now, I can pay you to rip it for me and send me the money, minus your cut. You did they work, you might as well receive something in return, but if you want to do it for free?!??

Remember, the music of mine that you currently own (regardless if it took me 20 minutes to record and produce or if it took me a year) is work that I spent time and money $$$ on preparing and distributing.

So really, I pay every month to have this internet connection. Who's going to tell me that I'm stealing???

Well: I just told you that you are stealing. I'm not here to start a revolution - bet you there are more people that want my stuff for free than those who would pay for it. I am not saying that I am a great artist with work that is worth hearing or that the masses will love --- chances are that there will be more people saying YOU SUCK, or BET YOU ARE NOT ANY GOOD, ANYWAY! I'm not here to promote myself, but only to stand up for someone's chance to make a living off their work. Do you know anything about copyright?? If an artist is complaining about copyright in a Major Label situation, it probably means that he signed away his right to that copyright for a cash advance or for something when signing the deal with that label.

All I want to know is that my hard work is not for lost and that I am compensated for it. When my baby is going starving or I can't buy her that $8 my little pony, I want you to be there and tell her why YOU stole my work.

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:19 am

I never saw this as a topic of legal vs illegal. P2P is about not being greedy, its about being practical.

The labels and industry as a whole is greedy, old fashioned and not aware of the possibilities P2P can generate. It's about control and greed.

When iTunes was released, you would have thought the wrath of hell had hit the industry and the 40 day floods were just minutes away..

No, it was the dawning of a new day. People could now legally pay for what they liked, when they wanted it. And not have to pay for what they hated.

The record labels want us to pay $20 for a 10 song cd that has 9 crappy and one or two good songs.

When Apple first tried to reason with the buggy whip makers, they bulked. They wanted more than what Apple was offering to pay them per song.

Fifty cents a song was better than nothing. And the song was going to be downloaded with or without them.

They were being asked to join the modern society and they refused based on greed. They wanted all or nothing. They settled for nothing. What they can't get the right way, they get with a team of lawyers bankrupting old ladies and families..

The answer is to stop producing crap and join the modern world. You are no longer in control. Put out a quality at a fair price and people will buy what you offer. Get greedy and we will get it another way.

Still trying to figure out why a one band musical CD with 10 songs on it costs $15 and a full length movie with bonus features plus a soundtrack can cost $10

The one that has more people involved in making the product costs less than the one who has the least.

Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:28 pm

VegasMan wrote:

I never saw this as a topic of legal vs illegal. P2P is about not being greedy, its about being practical.

The labels and industry as a whole is greedy, old fashioned and not aware of the possibilities P2P can generate. It's about control and greed.

When iTunes was released, you would have thought the wrath of hell had hit the industry and the 40 day floods were just minutes away..

No, it was the dawning of a new day. People could now legally pay for what they liked, when they wanted it. And not have to pay for what they hated.

The record labels want us to pay $20 for a 10 song cd that has 9 crappy and one or two good songs.

When Apple first tried to reason with the buggy whip makers, they bulked. They wanted more than what Apple was offering to pay them per song.

Fifty cents a song was better than nothing. And the song was going to be downloaded with or without them.

They were being asked to join the modern society and they refused based on greed. They wanted all or nothing. They settled for nothing. What they can't get the right way, they get with a team of lawyers bankrupting old ladies and families..

The answer is to stop producing crap and join the modern world. You are no longer in control. Put out a quality at a fair price and people will buy what you offer. Get greedy and we will get it another way.

Still trying to figure out why a one band musical CD with 10 songs on it costs $15 and a full length movie with bonus features plus a soundtrack can cost $10

The one that has more people involved in making the product costs less than the one who has the least.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And by the way, P2P is not only for illegal downloading. It's also used a lot for legal downloads. All my freeware is downloaded with p2p, when I download a movie and think it's good, I buy it. The only times I might have done something illegal is when I downloaded a movie that wasn't for sale anymore. It's their own fault for not having it for sale, but still having rights on it...

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:06 pm

Quote:

Are you kidding me??? Ok, after you make filesharing illegal, maybe you should try to make all kinds of sharing illegal. I just bought the new Star Trek movie on Blu Ray. If one of my friends wants to borrow it, and I let him, that should be illegal.

Actually, sharing copyrighted material is illegal, no matter how it's done. Read the FBI warning at the beginning of any flick. When you buy a DVD, you're not actually buying the movie. You're purchasing a license to view it . . . and only in your private residence (it's not something that can be enforced, so I think you're safe letting your friend borrow your copy).

But ask yourself this, regarding P2P, what would you like to see happen? Would you like to see Hollywood shut down and not make movies? Recording studios board their windows and doors? These people are in business (yes, I know, hard to believe but art and entertainment are businesses) to make money.

And you can't do that when you give your products away for free.

Yeah, studios make obscene amounts of money, but does that make passing their property around without their permission right?

I'm as culpable as anyone. I can't recall the last time I actually went to a theater or purchased a DVD. But I'm also the creative type, and have my own dreams of big box office success.

So, I, for one, won't shed a tear when this thing I enjoy so much dies.

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:10 pm

kingofuruk wrote:

Actually, sharing copyrighted material is illegal, no matter how it's done. Read the FBI warning at the beginning of any flick. When you buy a DVD, you're not actually buying the movie. You're purchasing a license to view it . . . and only in your private residence (it's not something that can be enforced, so I think you're safe letting your friend borrow your copy).

This is true but people should stop buying stuff from them because the copyright law is a farce and needs updated....

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:01 am

thetazzzz wrote:

This is true but people should stop buying stuff from them because the copyright law is a farce and needs updated....

That's interesting and all but...

I would like to point out that the internet, is, in fact, a radio. The only problem is, like a radio, it's free, and buying music is not. The difference between the internet and real radio is that you choose what you listen to. It's just as legal as listening to the radio. You can listen to an FM radio station, and that's free, so why is that legal whereas listening to an internet source for music is illegal?

It fundamentally makes no sense.

So, when you say people should stop buying, you're denying human instinct. Someone hears a good artist on the radio, and they go out and buy it, but maybe they'll download it first and see if they like the rest of the album, to see whether or not they will like the whole album.

That's the fundamental issue here. It's not what we buy, but how we buy it. Some don't like one hit wonders and therefore won't buy, others enjoy having the physical CD, and will buy, and others can't afford it.

It all amounts to a huge social battle of how to cope with the change in attitude of people. If I decide I like a song, I download it. I can't afford buying it- why? Because I'm a student who studies full time, and I can't work on top of that to earn money. Therefore, I can't buy music. I can afford internet, and living, but that takes away the money I would have left to buy countless CD's.

In an ever increasingly expensive market of material goods, can I be expected to buy music? No. I don't think so.

I have no choice but to download, I physically don't have the option to buy it. Maybe if it were 10 cents per song, then yes, but not at 1.00 US dollars. I download on average 100 songs a month... Can I afford an extra 100 dollars? No. But an extra 10 dollars? For sure.

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:53 am

What we're saying is not that sharing copyrighted material is legal. We fully comprehend that as the laws stand it is very much illegal. The point is not under debate.

What we are saying is that copyright laws are outdated and need to be changed to adapt to new technologies. After all you cannot honestly say that the ease of use and rich availabilty of material using bit torrent technologies is something you don't want. You aren't alone, we all want it.

Those who do not are the rich, corporate types who control the whole industry. Because it would mean they would make a few millions less. Because it would take away their control over the industry. Because it would fundamentally alter the way the entertainment industry works and functions by talking power away from the business suits and giving it to the creatice types who are the real force in the industry anyway.

I don't think it would be a bad thing if the heads of Record Companies and Hollywood studies didn't have limos to move around in. If they had to live in normal houses and work like the rest of us. Or if the executives had one less holiday per year in Hawaii or the Caribean. Their wives had to do with getting their tans locally rather than in the Bahamas.

However I think we can agree, without much debate, that it would be much better indeed if the people actually creating the music and the movies and doing the real hard work actually got more share of the earnings. I'm not talking about the handful of the stars and artists who become household names but about the larger body of people who make up the industry.

Torrents are the way to do it. If people could recognise that we might make things a lot better. A lot more artists could make a lot more money and the we, the consumers, would have a lot more choice. Win, win on all accounts. Only the current masters of the industry don't see it that way.

The point is...filesharing is illegal, but it should not be.

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:56 pm

The copyright laws dont need updating or changing they need to be totally abolished stopped and abandoned altogether!!
And good riddance to it, forever!! ..

Whats the point of updating a law to then be subjected to it again by a newer version??..
Whats the sense in that??
Haha!!.. LOL !!.... Seriously!!!

It seems that some people still dont want to be free, but rather stay bound and controlled by stupid, old aged laws that have no relevance, than to be totally free from that law control or Government??

Like any law that is out of date, and made to suppress the population where there is no wrong doing, laws which everyone disagrees with, needs to be cast out completely, as it does not work anymore!! Then for that law to be updated to be controlled again by that same system..

I have never understood why some people say after downloading a complete Music album to see if they like it as most people do, then some actually going out of their way to get the album again as some have said “ to support the artist”??
I mean after you downloaded the album you have it! There is no need to get the album again to support the artist! You have already shown your interest and taking support for that artist by downloading and keeping their music because you like it!!!

The Times are changing and the old ways are gone, totally dead and obsolete!!!,, and as we fast approach the year 2012 I am not looking to do things the old way anymore!!!. When we live in an AGE where everyone can have anything for free without Payment or charge, where everything can be shared and money is unnecessary!!!

If I invent something then I share it so everyone can benefit from it and so we all share everything as P2P has shown!!

The economy is based of money and copyright and that model is obsolete in the digital arena!! (there is no such thing as a digital economy bill which copyright holders are trying to enforce). Also the times are changing for a newer, much better way of doing things!!!...

SO Who needs Hollywood?? When we all have the very tools to make Great movies, Excellent computers games, music, Art, science, technology and all sorts of entertainment ourselves better or more advanced, than industry standards!!..
E.G (YouTube etc, Bittorrent Clients, and all forms of open source etc...) which most are already industry standard or entertaining..

Soon Hollywood will have to start thinking about putting their movies on YouTube sooner or later, to compete with the greatest ever growing talent out there, if they dont want to become obsolete or irrelevant !!!

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:15 pm

MegaHeavy wrote:

The copyright laws dont need updating or changing they need to be totally abolished stopped and abandoned altogether!!
And good riddance to it, forever!! ..

I see. It might be useful if you considered the reason they were originally enacted. It might give you a clue as to why they were needed and are still needed.

MegaHeavy wrote:

Whats the point of updating a law to then be subjected to it again by a newer version??..
Whats the sense in that??
Haha!!.. LOL !!.... Seriously!!!

So if you were a damned good singer, and you happened to cut an album you would have no problem if people shared it totally free over the internet and didn't pay you a cent? Your creativity and talent went monetarily unrewarded. How do you propose creative types would survive in such a world?

Copyright laws protect the rights of those who create, those on whom the whole industry rests, whose work brings in the money and without whom there would be no industry. These laws are a very important part of the whole system. That is the point of them. Very seriously. Don't trash it before you understand it.

But they are outdated. They need to adapt to new technologies. They need to be updated so that they can continue to protect the rights of the creators while allowing more freedom of sharing. Indeed it needs to be changed so that the creators get more benefit and more credit than they have been under the thumbs of the recording studios, who treat them quite unfairly.

Do you see the catastrophe abolishing them would bring? And if you think you can make Avatar at home.....well you better think again.

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:25 am

So what happens if someone buys a movie on dvd and it gets damaged or is damaged is it right you have to buy same DVD with a license to view it ? ..Well I think not you could also say the same about games and music ...Also allot of are not worth the money they are asking you to pay for it they put great trailer's on movies then you pay for the DVD and you end up disappointed with the movie ..

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:40 am

I agree on copylaws, in the sence that they are needed, but need adaption.

I feel that people should only have to pay for something once.

I'm paying for music as a dj, so I am able to play my music, while I also bought the cd's. I payed for it twice...

I payed to the musicindustry to copy this music to other cd's (I can't bring all cd's to everywhere so I put best tracks together).

In 2 days, I will also have to pay for backups of this music to my external hdd.

When I broke a cd, I cannot recover it by buying a new cd, I am not allowed to have it on pc. I have to repay it all...

When I watch a movie at a theater, I allready payed to watch it and in my opinion, should not pay to watch it again. Musicindustry is an unfair bussiness in comparision with other industries.

I'd like it more if the money would go to the artists themselves, where these lawes were made up for. But it's not even they who profit from these unfair taxes...

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:37 pm

WhiteViper wrote:

MegaHeavy wrote:

The copyright laws dont need updating or changing they need to be totally abolished stopped and abandoned altogether!!
And good riddance to it, forever!! ..

I see. It might be useful if you considered the reason they were originally enacted. It might give you a clue as to why they were needed and are still needed.

MegaHeavy wrote:

Whats the point of updating a law to then be subjected to it again by a newer version??..
Whats the sense in that??
Haha!!.. LOL !!.... Seriously!!!

So if you were a damned good singer, and you happened to cut an album you would have no problem if people shared it totally free over the internet and didn't pay you a cent? Your creativity and talent went monetarily unrewarded. How do you propose creative types would survive in such a world?

Copyright laws protect the rights of those who create, those on whom the whole industry rests, whose work brings in the money and without whom there would be no industry. These laws are a very important part of the whole system. That is the point of them. Very seriously. Don't trash it before you understand it.

But they are outdated. They need to adapt to new technologies. They need to be updated so that they can continue to protect the rights of the creators while allowing more freedom of sharing. Indeed it needs to be changed so that the creators get more benefit and more credit than they have been under the thumbs of the recording studios, who treat them quite unfairly.

Do you see the catastrophe abolishing them would bring? And if you think you can make Avatar at home.....well you better think again.

Upmost respects to your post!..

Maybe I should of put the extra details in to clarify some points.

Also when I initially wrote my post your post was not the last post in the list and I was actually writing a post directed at the last handful or so posts before yours,, so please dont take it as a direct response of your post as that was not my intension!!..

Anyway..

Copyright:
-------------
The main reason for legislative history regarding copyright was to preserve the name of the authors of a piece of work by securing the Copies and Copyright of printed Books to the Authors of such Books. Only printed, basically having a right and means to print books.
Others could not claim that they produced such work after that first author claimed copy printing rights.

The act has then been extended over the years to include others for works of literature, drama, music and art, as well as performance rights for dramatic pieces and musical compositions. The duration of protection for copyright works that have been published (or otherwise made available to the public) Etc.........

Prior to copyright:
-----------------------
The protection of rights in literary property did not appear prior to the invention of a printing system and typography to reproduce the elements of a document.
(The first know movable type printing system was original invented in china around 1040)

Over time when this printing system was brought to the western world, the only protection from the common law of that time extended to the author was against publication of the work without permission. Once publication was allowed, the work passed completely out of the authors control.
(As it rightly should be with the originating author intact!)
===

But in this day and age there is untold law suit, after law suit, after law suit to claims that copyright enforce endless money milking tack ticks and devastation to the nation!!

Even years after the author is dead not even the original author/inventor of that work, other establishments/organisations can still claim money also restricting the use of works or taking works/inventions out of circulation, when its beneficial to the population?

Obviously copyright does not work so well to protect the original creator after someone claims copyright even when they may not be the original author of works just to make money from it!
(Most , if not all inventions and so called authors of works have been stolen from other individuals, countries or brought over to the west under a copyright for investment front!!)

Just look at the catastrophe that copyright has already caused to music industry and is still causing!! Let alone decades of Suffering and loss of life!!

Just because you hold a copyright to something does not mean your the inventor or author of that work!! Just means you have a copyright.

The notion of creativity or talent being unrewarded for works previously unnoticed depends on the intension. If I did not expect anything in return why would I need to be rewarded?? Just because I produce something of excellent quality that is a benefit to others, does not mean I automatically, magically should be paid for it. I would be happy that others benefited from it as that would be the intended goal. I would be happy enough!

If I expected something in return then I would make that clear! This does not necessarily mean I need to receive money to survive!!

Avatar is a movie also made into a computer game like any other movie or computer game produced by a team of talented individual people which created that movie and game.
Computers, Cameras and all sorts of devices are the very tools to make Great movies, Excellent computers games, music, animation, science, technology and all sorts of creative entertainment which when understood can produce greater works of art by anyone!!

Copyright needs to be totally abolished and a new model more like (open source) needs to be established so everyone can benefit, not a law but a model for everyone so everyone can share anything without restriction!
Copyright as it stands presently does not work,
Its time for new paradigm!

Respects!..