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.

 

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

page: 13
36
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


When I worked for one of the chain rental stores customers were surprised when I would not only advocate downloading but explain to them how to do it. Why? Because it is not illegal in Canada and if we didn't have the movie/TV show they wanted I made sure they knew how to get it.




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaydeePNW

Originally posted by AmazedByU
reply to post by jaydeePNW
 


I'm just waiting for some crafty lawyer to turn it around on the industry using their own words. Personally I have several hundred music cassettes, records from the 80s that no longer work. I also have a huge box of vhs movies, both kids and main stream action type movies. These media items no longer work. I PAID for the license and the right to use them and listen/enjoy them. I think the industry should keep up their end of the agreement and replace my music with cds and movies with dvds as I paid for the right to enjoy them and now I can't.

What if a million people sue for the replacement when our music and movies stop working???

If this was the case everything ever made should be replaced once it is no longer usable for free from the company that made it... lol Not going to happen.


I'm going by the industries own words in one of the first copyright lawsuits against a mother and daughter for downloading a few songs but suing for several hundred thousand dollars.... the entered as testimony we pay for the right to listen to it buyers don't own the music. That is their own words.

So being that was entered in thier own case as their own evidence the mother daughter broke the law then it sets a precedent we all can use to continue to have the right to listen to our paid for music for years to come



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Why download and risk the annoyances of the scare tactics? The winning equation to obtain movies by grey area ways is: NetFlix + DVD burner +a little program called DVDFab + some blank DVDs = unlimited untraceable movie copies for your collection. Just don't be a fool and share them on the web.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 


edit on 5/11/11 by Djdoubt03 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/11/11 by Djdoubt03 because: Fix typos



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djdoubt03
Why download and risk the annoyances of the scare tactics? The winning equation to obtain mother by grey area ways is: NetFlix + DVD burner +a little program called DVDFab + some blank DVDs = unlimited untraceable movie copies for your collection. Just don't be a fool and share them on the web.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



That is quite a lot of work compared to clicking on a torrent link.
Besides USA is not the entire world. Netflix runs only in the USA & few other countries.

Torrents are at the moment the best, easiest mode of sharing.
There's no doubting that.
The corporations have made enough money to make a dozen more useless movies like expendables.
you think the 23,000 more would make any diff??

it is all a game they are playing



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I find it quite interesting how criminals always try to justify their criminal acts with false arguments and rationalization.

I can sort of understand a hungry person stealing food or a homeless person sneaking into an abandoned building for cover from the cold and weather; I can not come to grips with people who steal something they don't need.

If you knowingly steal and then get caught, who cares. You're a thief and stealing is what you do and who you really are. You can't be trusted as no thief can be trusted. All the rationalizing in the world can never change that. Honest people don't steal, dishonest people do.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I'd rather be a thief than a mindless drone just throwing my hard earned wages at crap that quite frankly, is just NOT worth it. And while we're on the subject, which is worse in your all mighty head? Stealing or Extorting? Your holier than thou attitude on the matter has intrigued me.

Edit: Also, judging others eh? Not very "Christian" of you there big guy..
edit on 11-5-2011 by Perplexity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


What about those who have an unsecured network? So technically anybodys could have downloaded the Expendables and watched it. So I'm not liking how they are suing people according to the IP address it was downloaded on.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


oh wow. not a suprise that they are doing this though, but why didn't they do it last year?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by edog11
 


The flip side to the coin though is how the appeals will go for the IP ruling. If that goes through the FEderal appeals and is overturned, the lawsuit against the 23k will go forward.

Definitely a roll of the dice...

Out of curiosity, who thinks the people who donwload illegally should get a pass and why? I have seen people on here argue that sharing software / music / movies / etc should be outside the law. Just curious where peoples mindset comes in that its ok to steal.


The thing is, with file sharing, it is NOT stealing. It's copying. Stealing implies that one party took something that belongs to another party and the victim is no longer in possession of said belonging. When it comes to internet downloading, your just copying something which remains intact and in place. If someone broke into my house, and took all my stuff, and left me with nothing, then sure, I'd be upset. But if they came in and made themselves a copy of everything I own, and left everything intact, I couldn't care less, really. In fact, I'd let everyone come over and copy what few belongings I have, should they so please. That's the best way to share the wealth, if you ask me.

The only thing that's 'lost' out of all of this is profit... that's it. I also don't buy this BS that they're trying to throw around that the happy little sound-lady is going to lose her job because a movie was downloaded. She's always going to have a job unless they decide to stop making movies altogether (which will never happen). She's not exactly paid by the royalties that come in once the movie's released. No.. she's already lost her job once the movie's released because her work is done, so she seeks out another project to work on.

I'd have pity on these studios if they were actually suffering hard 'losses' because of all this.... and by losses I don't just mean "less profits". But when they go around screwing artists over for their hard work, and hardly giving them a dime from these movies that they're trying so desperately to keep off the internet, and then crying foul when they don't make as much money off of their leeching that they thought they would have, I won't ever shed a tear for them.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Spare me the morality argument,


Spare you the morality argument? Screw that. As a society all we HAVE as decent human beings is our morality....instead why dont YOU go abandon it, I instead will retain it, and I won't spare you from it. If you want to be amoral, then don't shun being called out on it.


Originally posted by TKDRL
technically everyone that has ever recorded mix tapes out of songs from the radio, recorded a movie off of cable is breaking the same law.... Tell me you have never done that?


No, I have never done that. Not that I wouldn't necessarily if I found myself having to (I don't), but because I have no need or interest thus never have.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Greensquad414
 


I completely agree with you. I sincerely hope it doesn't hold any ground in court or we will be in for a whole new level of blackmail-opportunities and a whole new marked could emerge out of this.

Like someone else already said in this thread- "Since when does SHARING = STEALING"? The torrent uploaders aren't asking any money for downloading their torrents so they aren't making any profit out of it.
And 99% of the time they have bought the movies/songs themselves. I just don't understand why this is illegal, if this is illegal, then so should organizing a movie marathon with 10 of your friends (Like me and my friends do once every few weeks) be illegal since 9 out of 10 of the people present at that time probably don't possess the flipping movie(s).

As I have read many many times and said many many times. If you really like the downloaded software/music/video, then reward the creators to show them that they are doing a good job by buying the downloaded product. If it's crap and you don't like it, no harm done- delete it and move along.

reply to post by misterbananas
 


I don't know why they have waited "this long". Maybe it was because they needed to gather more of this kind of "evidence" if you want to call it that, or maybe they needed to do a gut-check to see if they really have the b#lls to do something as outrageous as this (excuse me for using that word).


IT--



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


So then you have no problem with breaking the same law that I do......



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greensquad414
So I'm not liking how they are suing people according to the IP address it was downloaded on.


That's the problem I'm having with this too. A big chunk of people on that list are probably aren't guilty of downloading anything.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Ahhh thanks for the info on this case

It does make me wonder though since it is a real case
and public people have the right to view the documents on it
BUT I would still say that this document should not have been public
since it does hold 23322 IP's

Now there has been a few cases where a class action lawsuit was filed
against a company for releasing info like IP's "buy mistake" but thing is
Which one of these 23322 people listed by IP are going to
bring a class action lawsuit on who ever released this document?

The privacy door has just been kicked down by releasing these IP's
I know I'm not the only one looking at them and I had
already connected to over 10 of them. Now I'm not saying its right to do that
But they need to remember, With an IP you can start gathering info on who ever is using it.
If done right, lets say 1/4 of it 5830.5 , don't know how to use their machines properly
but just download the flick, all they know is get this file , use this to get it, wait
and in time they can watch it. But they don't really know how to secure the machine.

Well that 5830.5 people just had ALL their info snooped at and maybe even taken.

Shame on them, for releasing that doc, even though it is Public some info
should still be kept behind the doors.

What they should have done was just released a statement stating they have
23322 IP's listed of who has downloaded and they will be contacted for court.
And that the IP's will not be publicly released for the protection of their privacy.

** disclaimer : I have not "copied, stolen, swiped" and or "hacked, cracked, made mischief "
to any of the machines I connected to. Even though I'm talking about privacy in this post
the info was their to look at. If the info were not there in the first place I would not have looked.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilBat
 


That does seem strange they released all those IP numbers.... Maybe it is really a covert sting to see how many hackers they could catch



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I was always taught to share.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djdoubt03
Why download and risk the annoyances of the scare tactics? ]


To me that's like saying why read books. If reading books causes an annoyance to, let's say, Big Business then why is that wrong?

The problem I have is how do they prove I knowingly downloaded copyright material? Like I said earlier, what's to say I thought I was downloading FREE stuff?

I mean really, am I suppose to know if this or that is a copyright piece of work?

I really think the issue comes down to people who share. If I download something (then share it) the burden is on me to prove I didn't know it was a piece of copyright material. If I just download it to my hard drive then who is to say I thought it is was or was not a piece of copyright?

I can download anything I want right now. Who's to say what the heck it is I'm downloading?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Here is a scenario for you guys to ponder.

My brother emails me a link to download his wedding video. I download it and figure out its a bootleg copy of Thor.

I have one or two options. Delete it or keep it. But according to TPTB, I already broke the law by downloading copyright material without my knowledge. As far as I knew, it was a video from my brother concerning his wedding. I'm not even going to touch on the fact that hackers can download stuff under my IP and I won't even know it. These guys hack in to the pentagon. Why would anyone think they can't hack into my IP, then download stuff under my address?

I think it really boils down to sharing.
edit on 11-5-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Nope. I would have a problem with it, I said if I had to.... ie., if I had no other choice, which I cant imagine a scenario that I would have no other choice, but I'm sure homeless who find themselves robbing convenience stores just for food also never imagined a scenario where they were left without a choice. That does not intimate however, that I wouldn't have a problem with it, simply that I would do it if I had to.

But it's almost a ridiculous argument as, I cant picture where downloading OR uploading a song would ever become necessary in anyones life.
edit on 11-5-2011 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LosLobos

I think it really boils down to sharing.
edit on 11-5-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)


I think even "sharing" is a problem word here. For the sake of clarity, why don't we call it redistribution.




top topics



 
36
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join