Are You One of 23,000 Defendants in the US' Biggest Illegal Download Lawsuit?

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by PsykoOps

That is actually not true. There is time limit to copyright.

A time limit that keeps getting extended... according to copyright law mickey mouse should be public domain but it's not ..

Checked that and curiously enough it is mickey mouse that caused this. Walt Disney is lobbying everytime it is supposed to enter public domain for an extension and of course with their money they get it. So this one idiot is screwing everyone over because of their greed.

[edit to add] And it was named "Mickey Mouse Protection Act"

Originally posted by miniatus


There is a rule .. "Ignorantia juris non excusat" .. Ignorance of the law is no excuse .. if you don't know a law doesn't exist, it doesn't make you exempt from the law.

Absolutely! And this, was precisely my point...that the onus of cognizance is on you, the consumer.

reply to post by alphabetaone


I've got nothing against you personally or the law.
But I think it's time the entertainment industry IN SIMPLE TERMS AT POINT OF SALE made it VERY CLEAR that you aren't buying the DVD but the LICENCE if that is indeed the case.

".......YOURS TO OWN ON DVD......"

A very popular advertisement on TV. What does that tell people ? THAT THEY OWN THE DVD.
Nothing about Licenses in any advertising AT ALL.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Wait a minute, so if it werent for Mickey Mouse, there would be free music for the world? I always knew I hated that rat bastard for a reason.

As of December 17, the film has made $103,068,524 in the U.S. and $171,400,000 in the international box office, bringing its worldwide gross to $274,468,524

en.wikipedia.org...

Anyone who paid for this crap movie, hardy har har....
Anyone who dowloaded the movie like me, probably found that it was taking up space in the hardrive.
Sylvester Stallone had mascara on, I know they all have make up, but you could see sly's mascara,

Just look at the amount of money they make and they are still crying.
They get paid millions!

As far as im concerned they got enough in the kitty to go around, they aint got flies stuck to their face, so stop complaining Rocky! Some parent's aint got the cash to spend on new movies.

So, stop! Or my mom will shoot!

reply to post by alphabetaone


no, according to you:

They think they OWN the copies they get by purchasing it. They only have a license to listen or view it when they "purchase" it. They have not purchased the songs or the video, only the license.

only the one purchasing it, is licensed to watch it.

i must therefore obtain a "license" for each viewer.(i.e. family member)

Just to prove that piracy doesn't effect profits, 12 of the 15 highest grossing films of all time were made after the year 2001.

www.imdb.com...

So why would anyone think downloading a movie is an injustice to the filmmakers. If anything it benefits them.

They make a bad movie they don't get paid as much, simple as that.

Originally posted by Flighty
reply to post by alphabetaone

 

I've got nothing against you personally or the law.
But I think it's time the entertainment industry IN SIMPLE TERMS AT POINT OF SALE made it VERY CLEAR that you aren't buying the DVD but the LICENCE if that is indeed the case.

".......YOURS TO OWN ON DVD......"

A very popular advertisement on TV. What does that tell people ? THAT THEY OWN THE DVD.
Nothing about Licenses in any advertising AT ALL.

Well, the funny thing about it all is, that you DO own the DVD or CD, you just don't own the content of it. Think of it this way, a software house creates an application for inventory control (just as an example). What the software house has proprietary rights to are the SOFTWARE itself, not the data (your inventory) housed within it.

So yes, advertising is a bitch, no doubt about it. Is it all shady or misleading in ways? Sure! But ultimately, its our responsibility to understand the laws surrounding whatever we buy/license/lease, not anyone elses. Even though the reality of being able to keep up with all these damn laws can be (likely) impossible.

Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Wait a minute, so if it werent for Mickey Mouse, there would be free music for the world? I always knew I hated that rat bastard for a reason.

Yeah the copyright time would be much much shorter. Wiki has a page on that. Tons of music and films etc. would be now public domain. Too bad this one idiot excisted. Lets hope his frozen head melts while he regains conciousness and that he dies a very slow and painfull death.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Both copyright and Intellectual property right laws have been written by the "owners" who are in many instances thieves themselves yet they steal via legalese i.e the justification of MONOPOLY.

Via Monopoly, large corps like WB have bought Congress to pass the laws they want and also bought out vast archives of material that they are now claiming copyright and intellectual property rights over while in many cases the true rights owners were never fully compensated if not completely ripped off...

Simply by signing a contract with one of these monopolies artists sign away their rights for a pittance yet they have little choice in the matter as "he who has the gold makes the rules"...

It is like how most americans feel about their property rights yet they feel very little if anything for the people they stole the land from...

When we are stealing it is good yet when someone steals from us it is bad, espcially if they do so without the assistance of the BAR and its vast troves of LEGALESE...

Now, please try to justify their monopoly...

reply to post by OverMan


Not to mention that public copyright warriors such as Metallica are known thives themselves. Bunch of idiots

reply to post by PsykoOps

that public copyright warriors such as Metallica are known thives

Masters of puppets....more like the puppets of their masters
That's what they are and...nothing else matters

reply to post by alphabetaone


Man it's just a flippin DVD or CD not a car/house/ washing machine etc etc.
It's a cheap piece of entertainment....I'd compare a CD or DVD to a Cosmopolitan Magazine or Womans Weekly magazine before I'd compare it to an actual serious peice of merchandise that you need a lawyer to read before you buy.
It's just JUNK DISPOSABLE ENTERTAINMENT equal to a GOSSIP MAGAZINE. Do I need to hire a lawyer before buying News of the World.
I think it's getting ridiculous now.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by alphabetaone

 

no, according to you:

They think they OWN the copies they get by purchasing it. They only have a license to listen or view it when they "purchase" it. They have not purchased the songs or the video, only the license.

only the one purchasing it, is licensed to watch it.

i must therefore obtain a "license" for each viewer.(i.e. family member)

edit on 11-5-2011 by RelentlessLurker because: (no reason given)

How does that address what I've said? I made no mention of mass viewing/listening. I said they only PURCHASE a license to do so when they shell out their cash, not that they've purchased the exclusive rights TO IT when they open their wallets.

reply to post by Flighty


Again, don't fight the battle with me.... *I* didnt write the laws....go fight with the people who did.

reply to post by alphabetaone


i didnt address anything you said i asked you a question.

i asked if it is correct in my assumption that in a hypothetical situation involving a family that has sat down to watch a movie purchased by say...the father. then according to what you have brought forth to the conversation in that statement that i quoted, each family member would need to have their own "license"(or copy of the dvd) to view it together.

if it isnt obvious enough, im asking the question to illustrate how ridiculous the idea is to begin with.

Originally posted by zDecoy
I did Ctrl+F for my IP

I'm safe

Safe, heh.

Originally posted by edog11

Are You One of 23,000 Defendants in the US' Biggest Illegal Download Lawsuit?

techland.time.com

Did you illegally download a copy of The Expendables, Sylvester Stallone's old-school macho get-together fight-fest from last year? If so, watch your inbox: You're likely one of the more than 23,000 file sharers being sued for doing so by the US Copyright Group in what is now the largest BitTorrent downloading case in US legal history.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.wired.com
www.wired.com

What I expect few to recognize is this case is another opportunity to challenge this "Copyright Scheme" that is being played upon humanity; that while it is just for the creator(s) of anything to benefit for a time from their work, they should not be allowed to benefit forever. For example, it makes every bit of sense and fairness to give someone a patent or copyright for a given number of years..say 7 Years ad maybe a right to participate in income commercially produced from a creation for a few year after but is it right for example for the Producers to own the exclusive rights to a Movie forever, when those who were a part of making that movie are often paid i full and ever benefit from what they were a part of creating. Nothing is created in a Vacuum and these bastards who for example think anyone who shares for free their bought and paid for copy of the Wizard of Oz owes the scum who have captured the rights, it nuts and on the list of the Pyre that is coming. If these corporate rats have their way, they will own everything forever, including the rights to drinking water.

reply to post by alphabetaone


10 year old kids are downloading torrents these days.
By law they are minors and can't be prosecuted.
So I guess when people push laws, people will always find a way around it.
Of course, once they are educated what the actual laws are, which the entertainment industry isn't exactly up front about.

And I'm not fighting with you parse, but you are the one who seems to have put themselves forth in this kind of law, so I guess we think you know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by alphabetaone

 

i didnt address anything you said i asked you a question.

i asked if it is correct in my assumption that in a hypothetical situation involving a family that has sat down to watch a movie purchased by say...the father. then according to what you have brought forth to the conversation in that statement that i quoted, each family member would need to have their own "license"(or copy of the dvd) to view it together.

if it isnt obvious enough, im asking the question to illustrate how ridiculous the idea is to begin with.

I understand what you were trying to do, sincerely.

But you are misrepresenting what it is I have said. Mass viewing was never a part of what I mentioned as the purchase or rights. Just that the physical purchase does not equate to the IP or exclusive rights, but to the license itself. I'm sure it can be suggested (and I'm sure has been) that under that umbrella everyone viewing or listening WOULD need a license, but I dont bring my personal feelings in on it for this very reason. I don't want to argue the legitimacy of the law, I am only stating it as it exists.