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.

 

Today i received a letter from my ISP...

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ChrisCrikey
 


How about this...I will stand up as a NON-entertainer and tell you I salute anti-piracy

I used to do it. I saw a buddy of my brother's go under house arrest and testify and get used by whatever agency it was to find others. No thanks...I'll stick with a clean record and frankly...I don't want to take other people's money from them

-Kyo




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I think there are several people who are ignoring a major fact here in order to advance their own agenda. The OP was not actively downloading torrents. He was working on a foreign computer that was downloading. Telling him to use peer gaurdian or not to download illegal materials is of no help because in the scenario described to us, neither actually apply to the OP.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Yes but the discussion evolved somewhat to encompass piracy as a whole...so we moved to that diversion as well

-Kyo



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
There are a lot of people who think it's OK to steal from or overcharge the rich but not from the poor. That's a slippery slope.

If you think it's OK, please at least maintain your "standards" and don't steal from small independent companies, recording studios, artists and small independent film makers. Just because it's easy and you paid some money for you media players, ISPs and computers - that doesn't mean a thing to the artists and producers and all their staff from whom you are stealing.

When I was teaching music to kids this became especially important to me. I bought a lot of educational music software and if they wanted to learn Metallica tunes I had to be the whole flippin' "work of art CD" as back then they wouldn't sell individual tracks...that might still be true but I don't follow them. Before that, yes - I ripped a few tracks that my band were studying (1999) but it wasn't right and I don't do it anymore.

Integrity. Think about it.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ratcals
reply to post by kommunist
 


The artists are paid long before the material is released. Stealing their music has no affect on their salary.


This is patently false.

I've worked in the film and music industry for 25 years and I've never seen this to be the case.

A film studio or record company never pays everyone up front and then keeps all the proceeds for themselves. There is always back end profit participation.

In many cases people are paid some money upfront, and for higher profile artists it can be a lot, but if companies paid everything upfront they would have to guess what a product would make. If it failed to miss their estimate they could lose a ton of money.

This is handled by paying a minimum guarantee and then tying future pay to the performance of the product.

In the film industry, for example, future pay is often tied to performance bonuses. Say the movie makes 10 million at the box office, you get a bump. You sell 1 million DVD's you get a bump.

Also, many artists, actors and many other industry professionals trying to break into the business will take a deferred salary which means they only get paid if the product does well. So, if the movie doesn't recoup it's cost, you don't get paid.

And please don't kid yourself that you are only taking money from some rich, pampered super star. In the past three years I have taken six jobs with deferred salaries. Two have recouped and the others are slowly inching forward.

So, if you happened to download one of the films I worked on that hasn't recouped, you have just potentially delayed or prevented me from getting paid.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Well said lello

Even I forgot about the other folks who work on production and post-production

agreed

-Kyo



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Yes, everything you do on the internet can be snooped on and recorded, and it probably is. One thing I learned a long time ago is never do anything on the internet you don't want people to know about. That includes searching for information in search engines because all those searches are stored and even your ip address is collected. There are businesses out there that collect all the information they can about you and sell it to anyone who's interested in buying it, including the general public. There are sites out there that sell "gossip" about you to your friends, potential employers, etc. They can aggregate information from multiple sources by tracking you with cookies across multiple sites. I know this is true because I wrote one of the first software that did this before it caught on.

No, it's not correct what someone said here that everything you do on the internet becomes public domain. You can put things on the internet that are rightfully yours and nobody is allowed to steal them because you created them. But they will steal them anyway illegally and there's usually not a damn thing you can do about it. So don't share or do anything you don't want tracked, aggregated, plagiarized, etc. Take care of your personal online identity because you only get one in a lifetime.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
TOR is NOT for file sharing. People really need to stop telling other people that it is because it only annoys the people who donate their bandwidth when (selfish) file sharers murder the network. It is not what TOR is for.

Second, file sharing is not theft. Theft is taking something from someone with the intent of depriving them of the use of that thing. Copying an mp3 or ripping a cd and uploading it via bittorrent is not theft, it is copyright infringement. Unlike theft, copyright infringement is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offence. Infringing copyright denys no one of the use of anything, therefor it is not theft by the legal definition of the word theft. People are sued for copyright infringement, they are not charged with theft. Being civil, infringement requires the aggrieved to initiate legal proceedings to recoup some arbitrary monetary amount they think up out of nowhere. Almost all of the time they cannot even prove a case of infringement occurred, so how hard do you think it would be to prove theft?

If the op had some guy hand delivering the letter he must have an ISP with about 3 people, and 2 of them are pensioners. Ignore it, throw the letter in the trash and get on with your life.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by quackers]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   


Copying an mp3 or ripping a cd and uploading it via bittorrent is not theft, it is copyright infringement. Unlike theft, copyright infringement is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offence. Infringing copyright denys no one of the use of anything, therefor it is not theft by the legal definition of the word theft. People are sued for copyright infringement, they are not charged with theft.


So does this mean we should just ignore all lesser rules and laws because they probably won't catch us? A civil offense is still illegal. You infringed on the copyright and thus broke the law

-Kyo



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ratcals
I hope you reserve the same rage for the Powers-That-Be who steal people's paycheques, Gold, and monies to further their own interests, or are poor people just not allowed to steal and it's okay for the rich to steal



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by KyoZero
 


Rules are for fools!

It seems laws exist only to enslave those without the legal might or fat wallet to elevate themselves above the law.

Just look at the PriateBay trial where they flouted the law by using a judge with such blatant conflicts of interest, it was a mockery. They then try to sue TPB for every day they are still facilitating torrents; it really is a joke.

This is from one of my previous posts about *IAA's:

These two articles show just how thick and stupid the Draconian copyright police are:

PRS Demands License Fee To Play Music To Horses
Source: news.slashdot.org...

A taxi driver needs one (license) if his passengers can hear it.
Source: www.ralli.co.uk...

I urge you, implore you to please read this, which breaks down the legalese of record labels contracts to musicians. It shows just how one-sided the copyright/royalties are towards the fat cats; this is why torrents should exist, to empower and free musicians from the shackles of corporate greed



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
TOR is NOT for file sharing. People really need to stop telling other people that it is because it only annoys the people who donate their bandwidth when (selfish) file sharers murder the network. It is not what TOR is for.

Second, file sharing is not theft. Theft is taking something from someone with the intent of depriving them of the use of that thing. Copying an mp3 or ripping a cd and uploading it via bittorrent is not theft, it is copyright infringement. Unlike theft, copyright infringement is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offence. Infringing copyright denys no one of the use of anything, therefor it is not theft by the legal definition of the word theft. People are sued for copyright infringement, they are not charged with theft. Being civil, infringement requires the aggrieved to initiate legal proceedings to recoup some arbitrary monetary amount they think up out of nowhere. Almost all of the time they cannot even prove a case of infringement occurred, so how hard do you think it would be to prove theft?

If the op had some guy hand delivering the letter he must have an ISP with about 3 people, and 2 of them are pensioners. Ignore it, throw the letter in the trash and get on with your life.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by quackers]


Nothing but semantics and hair splitting, but if that's what helps you sleep at night then good for you.

I know I will never convince the 'copyright infringers' what they are doing is wrong so I'm done with this thread. Continue the march if you like. My conscious is clear.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by ratcals]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar
reply to post by ratcals
I hope you reserve the same rage for the Powers-That-Be who steal people's paycheques, Gold, and monies to further their own interests, or are poor people just not allowed to steal and it's okay for the rich to steal




You have to be more specific than that. Who stole who's paycheque, gold and monies? The Power That Be is not enough.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
People who moan about torrents, don't seem to understand that their lovely, fluffy World of music/movie distribution is long dead.

No longer is it acceptable to pay $20 for a piece of plastic and then have to pay more for different formats for same said piece.

Torrent technology is the future of the net, plain and simple.

Let's take Microsoft Office as an example. For Office ultimate 2007, it's £599.99!! (link).

What if, and bear with me, we could download a minimalistic framework of MS Office for FREE via a torrent. They could then have paid pug-ins, so if i want a certain font set, i'd pay $5. If i wanted to export a document into PowerPoint and animate my point of view, i'd pay $5, etc, etc. Basically, empower the user to choose what they want to use, rather than selling them bloatware crap, where they won't use half the stuff.

This is a logical progression as applications morph into 'the cloud'. A low footprint application where you use your profile/membership to open doors to extra functionality.

Let's consider music. Offer free music via torrents with crap bitrates. If you like the music then you pay 50pence for a higher quality MP3 and perhaps $5 for a T-shirt or $30 for advance bookings on upcoming tours. If the music is free in the first place, then it allows bands to reach a much greater audience.

Movies: offer free avi's and if they like it, they can pay $5 for a whizz bang HD version so they watch it on their 60'' plasma TV with Dolby surround sound. Insert ads in there, much like trailers at cinemas.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Avg Cost of a movie ticket medium popcorn and medium pop: $20
Avg Cost of a Blu Ray DVD: $34
Avg cost of a std DVD: $25
Avg cost of a rented DVD: $5

Avg cost of a CD: $15
avg cost of a concert ticket to a premium concert: $50-$100

Avg cost of a paperback novel:$20
Avg cost of a library book: free.

So, in order to see a movie, to determine if I want to purchase it I must pay at least $10 to watch the film without any refreshments for two hours. Or, I can wait up to six months and pay $5 to rent the movie to which I have probably already had the ending ruined for since it has been out for so long.

Then, IF I like the movie I have to pay another $30 bucks to buy it, or wait another 6 months until it drops to $15-$20 dollars.

As for Music, I have to listen to the "single" that has been released to determine whether or not the entire album is worth buying. I don't even have a CD player! So, I can buy individual songs off the album for $1 each, but how do I know which songs to get?

Aren't these pieces of art? Shouldn't I be able to view/listen to pieces of art without having to buy it? Why have we turned it into a commodity? If i want the piece of art, then I will buy the DVD, but should I not be able to view it first to determine this? Why should I be forced to watch the film in a movie theater with annoying teenagers and over priced food when technology allows me to watch it in the comfort of my own home?

Surprisingly, I work in the entertainment industry. If I were to make a film, and be told by the producers that it didn't make enough at the box office so I can't make another film, but I KNOW that people everywhere have downloaded it and loved it, could I not easily get my "fans" to put pressure on the producers and demand that I be able to continue to create art?

Most artists want to create art, and make enough money to live comfortably on. It is having people see the art that gives the art value.

Do we really need huge movie theaters with 15 screens that are so costly to build and maintain that they have to charge so much?

Both the film and the music industry needs to change. The music industry has needed to change ever since small time music producers were forced to pay radio Dj's to play their music because of the monopoly held by the large corporations (see: payola scandal).

Now we finally have the technology that allows the unknown artist to be known by the entire world but the oligarchy of big corporations are struggling to sustain their monopoly, and nothing more.

Information and Ideas need to be shared. every film and album that I have ever downloaded that I liked, I purchased a GOOD HARDCOPY of later. Not to mention band paraphanalia and concert tickets that have set me back quite a few hundred dollars.

If someone wants to watch my movie for free I say go ahead. If they want to own the film then I suggest they invest in a home theater system and by the film on Blu Ray to get the best viewing experience.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
There is only one thing you can do bro...

You need to go through 7 Proxies

It's the only solution




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
never mind,

deleted into oblivion..

sorry to hear about your situation..

[edit on 10-6-2009 by Adrifter]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I'm curious to know why the owner, or someone in nice car would deliver the letter to you. I thought most companies used the post office or fedex.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


Wouldn't you then end up using your own IP? six degrees of separation blah blah



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyoZero
So does this mean we should just ignore all lesser rules and laws because they probably won't catch us? A civil offense is still illegal. You infringed on the copyright and thus broke the law
-Kyo


There are more important things for law makers to do than pander after the media industry whores. I never said a civil offense was not illegal, I said copyright infringement was not theft, and legally, it is not. You may want to look into how much net regulation is almost completely down to Holywood and their ilk protecting their outdated and fascist business models. They want more control over your internet than the government does. But thats ok ain't it, I mean everyone is a "thief" right?



Originally posted by ratcals
Nothing but semantics and hair splitting, but if that's what helps you sleep at night then good for you.
[edit on 10-6-2009 by ratcals]


The law is all about semantics, thats what courts are for, or didn't you know that? Theft and Copyright Infringement are two distinctly different things, or do you propose that all unlawful death is murder too, what with the difference between manslaughter and murder being little more than semantics.



[edit on 10-6-2009 by quackers]

[edit on 10-6-2009 by quackers]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join