It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


Stop. Please.


Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Is P2P the same as Direct Connects?

There are hundreds of DCs that will not let you share files
unless you join with a few gigs of sharing files.

For the law to join means they would violate the law.



P2P is not necessarily the same as a direct connection, direct connections are just another form of P2P. Yes most direct connections require you to upload some to download some, but there are others that don't.

P2P also covers other things like torrents (which are a godsend), usenet, etc.




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
This really does not surprise me considering the bully letter tactics and the whole MediaDefender fiasco.


Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Is P2P the same as Direct Connects?

There are hundreds of DCs that will not let you share files
unless you join with a few gigs of sharing files.

For the law to join means they would violate the law.



Considering P2P in terms of file sharing, yes direct connect is considered P2P (content being stored on and served up by peers). Though they're model is a bit more centralized since clients had to connect to hubs to list and find content. DC is just one of the many protocols out there.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Kluge]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd


Stop. Please.





It was already in discussion so why not reply, it IS on topic, on the topic of putting you in prison without evidence, just like Guantanamo, so yeah not off topic. It all relates to guilty without evidence.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


The minimum penalty I think is $750.00 per song, with damages and such raising the total to some ungodly number depending on the court where the case is heard.
This is for copy-write infringement, not theft or murder or any crime where someone is injured or hurt or property stolen or damaged.
RIAA's methods are shady at best and this is another step in their attempts to "protect" the artist.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Way to hijack a thread guys.

/Applause

Tools.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Yea, first, I find the RIAA or the MPAA to be a crock. They bully the ISP's into giving them names basically. The ISP has no way to confirm whether such a person, was performing such an act at such a time. Thats not how it works.

They use SNMP, which basically goes through the routers, and looks for the IP that the RIAA gave them. ONCE they have the IP, they trace it back to a machine address of a NIC.

Here is the issue with this, 50 people could have used that IP since you last used it to download "snow white" There only finding the person that has it now, not the person that had it when the incident occurred.

THe mac addy ties back to you dsl or cable modem, which ties back to your account, and thats how they get your info.

If you ever get a letter, DENY, argue, piss and moan, never admit to wrong doing cause thats how they bust you. additionally if they serve notice that you are going to get sued. 0 out your hard drive, take them out of your computer, drive several holes through it, then hammer it with a sledge hammer. Put them in a bucket of Coke for 2 weeks, then throw them away.

Replace them and stay of P2P.

Just my opinion.

Cheers,

Camain



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


That was one line off topic in the whole post....

Your post in its entirety is off topic


EDIT TO ADD---You trashed this thread pretty much....take your petty crap elsewhere....He made a one line comment, you made post after post sprouting BS...

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Rilence]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:12 AM
link   
TheyPatent the genome. Does that mean when my DNA copies itself it should be sued.

Create a sane world that isnt run by greedy rich tyrants and i might care about stealing from some rich corporations that made some movie.

Think of it as one of the poor peoples forms of terrorism. Isnt it our duty to fight back. THey create all the rules for themselves and we should feel bad.

Seriously...just cuz rich people make laws and say its a crime doesnt mean we should be in jail for their self appointed crimes.

I do try to support creative pieces of work by more moderate people that i dont see on cribs acting like a schmo retard. If your a great person people want to support you.

Start paying us more money and we'll buy more of your garbage. Hey lets make everyone poor and complain why theres so much theft. My god.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
First don't even try and play that game, You know very well who derailed this thread and it wasn't the dude you replied to nor myself, He made a remark regarding rights and you opened up the dialog which derailed the thread, And of course when people engage your BS its them who derailed it and not you right?


[edit on 23-6-2008 by C0le]



think you need to read back and reevaluate what you just said, who was the FIRST person to make reference to Guantanamo?



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I really think that no matter what extreme steps they take to try and stop piracy, the methods used by pirates are going to get more and more advanced. If they want us to purchase movies, music etc. quit making crap and charging an arm and a leg for it. Not to mention the fact that they're certainly not reporting losses of any kind. The type of piracy experienced in the US or UK pales in comparison to that in China. I also kind of wonder how much money they really are "losing" as a lot of people who pirate would have never purchased the product to begin with.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Anyway, this conversation does not belong here, so drop it or start a new thread.


Yea, but you started it, so don't act like I'm the one who did as I'm only replying to your posts.


And YOU are continuing it. You're saying it yourself... you keep replying to his posts which are continuing the off topic-ness. If you stop, the whole thing stops. He just tried to stop it yet you continue to "argue". He didn't say in that that you started it, just that it doesn't belong here so he was stopping. Think about it before you keep posting about it. Also to everyone else adding/responding to WhatTheory, you're just as much responsible as he is because you keep going on about it. I'm barely on this site and even I know there is an IGNORE button.




Now, to be ON TOPIC:

The whole MPAA is just one big association of idiots. They say it's impossible to proven them guilty... so let's make it to where they're always guilty... that'll fix it! Maybe if they make that possible we can sue them? I mean, we wouldn't have any proof but apparently they don't need any proof to sue people and win (if I'm reading right).

[edit on 24-6-2008 by ericds]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
You think that the MPAA is bad, A girl in the UK got sued for downloading a nursery rhyme?
Last time I checked nursery ryhmes didn't have an owner but were property of all.
And no proof? all they gotta say is that I as a consumer 'downloaded' something (anything) then take me to court . I'd have to prove that I didn't but there's no way I can afford the legal vultures fees so therefore it's a forgone conclusion that the MPAA or anyone similar would win anyways.
There's always proof, even if they choose to ignore it. And if the judges go down the 'no proof' road then there'd be hell to pay from the public , say like burning the corporate offices (which I don't condone but fully understand) or shops that sell the items. ( no stock means no sales).
It just goes to show that the corporate rob-dogs just want their cake and be able to eat it too.They want to dictate to you or scare you into submission. They aren't going to be able to stop it, unless they completely monopolise and own the internet.

They pay celeBRATies huge amounts to appear in either movies or even music and then charge you stupid amounts to go watch or listen to them. If everyone feels so strongly about this put a blog out , you should all boycott the movies and not buy cd's and shouldn't download either. Hurt them where it counts, in the wallet. Either that or just stick to what everyone does and download it via p2p.
I don't see them being able to stop it even if they sue a few the majority WILL not stop.
Common sense should say to the corporations that are arguing this stupid illadvised rule to say instead of trying to stop it , exploit it or use it to your advantage in some way. I'm sure there's people who can come up with a solution....

Just my opinion but it seems that everyone is trying to get control of what we can and can't do as joe public.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Guys none of that was off topic, it is related, so therefore it is allowed to be talked about, the people complaining are the ones getting off topic lol. And name calling like "tools" well THAT is not allowed.


Anyway I MPAA are dodgy people, I don't trust them for sure. They probably just want money. They are known for wanting LOTS of money haha.



[edit on 24-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   
So software, music industry has losses over copying boo hoo. No one thinks about the consumer when it comes to crappy products that fail 1 month later and we all had our fair share of that. Buy a new product and says right there 14 day return policy. I got a closet full of electronic junk that broke or just failed to work. Hundreds of dollars of products. I don't see no one like the MPAA coming to my rescue when I have to eat my losses.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
LOL!!..Sony makes movies..The Blank media to copy on to, the burner to copy it and a computer to put it all in. I'm sure that they are only one of several companies that make money on both ends then cry foul when someone uses it.

If I didn't want people making copies of something I was selling I sure as hell wouldn't sell you the means to do it. But what do I know..I'm just some dumb redneck


[edit on 6/24/2008 by DrumJunkie]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by die_another_day

MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits


blog.wired.com

The Motion Picture Association of America said Friday intellectual-property holders should have the right to collect damages, perhaps as much as $150,000 per copyright violation, without having to prove infringement....
(visit the link for the full news article)



Great. I contend that the MPAA has violated 5 of my intellectual-property rights. Since no proof is needed, when can I get my check for $750,000.


[edit on 24-6-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by die_another_day

MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits


blog.wired.com

The Motion Picture Association of America said Friday intellectual-property holders should have the right to collect damages, perhaps as much as $150,000 per copyright violation, without having to prove infringement....
(visit the link for the full news article)



Great. I contend that the MPAA has violated 5 of my intellectual-property rights. Since no proof is needed, when can I get my check for $750,000.


[edit on 24-6-2008 by sir_chancealot]



Yeh. I should just patent every letter in the alphabet.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
Just in case anyone from the MPAA or the RIAA happens to read ATS:

I share tens of thousands of files over p2p networks as well as IRC.

I am offering you clowns the chance to sue me


I would be careful, i actually just had a close run in over some copyright issues and p2p networks.

Lets just say i wont be watching a ppv program anymore. Or anything else copyrighted for that matter.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
haha i love watching these record/movie industry folks stressing about the potential loss of revenue. Its like watching a big monster in its death throws knowing theres nothing it can do!


the golden age for record companies selling plastic discs at vastly overinflated prices is over.

Music artists need to learn their main source of revenue will be through live performances. Just as it should be and as it was before the 1970s.

Its interesting that when the modern record & tape cassette were made musician unions were up in arms saying this would deny their members income- after all who would pay for a live musician/band when they can play a tape or record? we all know it started the golden age for the recording industry and now the balance is being redressed by the internet, happy days.

oh and tom cruise will just have to get by on $2million per film instead of $15m. sorry tom :p



[edit on 24-6-2008 by yeti101]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I agree that what the MPAA is trying to do with regards to filing suit against people without evidence of copyright infringement is wrong.

But at the same time, it seems that I'm in the minority here in believing that it's also wrong share copyrighted material on the internet for free.

People are quick to come to justifications for their theft saying that the movie, song, software or whatever wasn't something that they were going to purchase so downloading it illegally doesn't cut into any company's profits, but then the question becomes, "If you weren't interested in the item to begin with, why you bother taking it?"

I've never heard a justification of theft that makes any sense; just things people come up with to make themselves feel better about stealing.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join