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

Forwarded post

Originally posted by spacebot
Uhmmm.. stop posting people, the PTB is angry at you that you don't tow the line.

Never argue the establishment. You are advised to limit your exposure on enemy combatants discussions over the internets. Obey, consume and look elsewhere. Nothing to see here citizens...

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

ips are assigned differently every day ... So my ip yesterday could be your ip from today.

How will they get to people ?

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


I think your stats speak to something different. People will watch The Expendables. It was good entertainment if you want to see blood and explosions. Mindless entertainment, and worthwhile for mindless people. Who am I to judge.

But what we are seeing, I think is that people have upgraded their home theaters lately. The LCD technology is beautiful, and almost everyone has a big screen HD of some sort. Add to this that I can buy popcorn, soda, and a candy bar for my home for about $1.50 a person. $2.00 max. And, if you are a smoker, you can sit in your living room and smoke (a big deal for my dad). Or if you want to "cuddle" with your honey, you can do that. And not have to drive all the way home afterwards.

Point is, movie theaters are going to have to compete with my living room nowadays. I can do it cheaper and often times better than Cinemark can. And my kids don't scream, and no one sits in front of me, and my floor isn't sticky....ad nauseum.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Soloist

 

Reviews and trailers are not a good indication of how good something really is. I have watched movies I thought were great, that all the critics gave 4 thumbs down to, and were not popular. I have watched movies I thought were garbage, yet critics raved.

Samples in stores are great, for people that live near stores. I don't so I screen stuff at home by downloading them. When I like something I write it on a list of stuff to buy. I want to keep people putting quality stuff out in business. When I can afford to, I buy it. I know many others that are in the same boat.

My point was there are avenues out there. Just because you don't like them really isn't my problem.

Try as you might, you cannot justify stealing.

reply to post by Soloist


Would you buy a car without test driving it?

Originally posted by XcathdraOut 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.

Dean Koontz included something in one of his books - that through "creative overhead", Hollywood avoids paying taxes. Notice you only hear of gross profits when movies are in the news? I think he spilled the beans because he was pissed over how they mangled his Frankenstein rewrite into a micro-budget B movie.

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
reply to post by zerotime

 

Why? Because you do?

As a musician, I remember a time when entertainment was about the art, not about ripping all the cash you can out of your so-called "fans". Large production companies are making a killing off of these movies while people in this country starve and all the rich folk in the situation can do is complain that the broke people aren't paying them. It's 2011 and the business world still has a lot of growing up to do.

I don't believe you have a clue what you are talking about. It takes hundreds of people to make movies and most of those people are hard working blue collar jobs. Are you really saying that if someone makes more money than yourself then you are entitled to steal something from that person because those with more money than you are bad people? I know this can be difficult for some to understand so I'll say it again, You are not entitled to free merchandise that was created by someone else. Sounds like the business world isn't the only one that has some growing up to do.

They are idiots if they are doing this based on IP, with my ISP I can change mine when ever I want, someone else could have my IP that I had when I downloaded it. Morons...

As far as the ethics of "stealing" movies. I believe this picture explains it all.....


Also why is it that I can download movies far before their release date? Downloading offers so much more for free, stop shoving advertisements and wasting my time and maybe, just maybe I might pay you to watch something. Offer me something downloading does not.

Ideas for the movies.... stop making me go to a theater, allow me to just simply hit a button in my house and movie instantly plays, stop charging me stupidly overpriced tickets to go sit in an uncomfortable seat, why do you feel 15 dollars is fair? why does 1 dollar popcorn cost 6.50? You are your own worse enemy.

And by instantly play, I mean no ads, no warning, play the movie, stop wasting my time. The 6:30 movie doesn't actually start until 6:55

Originally posted by Apleness
ips are assigned differently every day ... So my ip yesterday could be your ip from today.

How will they get to people ?

Internet service providers are required to keep records for at least 2-4 years and maybe soon much longer if the government gets their way. When you logon with a IP the ISP records who that IP is assigned to and when. Whoever is sueing can get a court order to hand over that information. Thats why hackers go to great lengths to mask their ISPs.

There is also your MAC address that each part in your network has. Your modem has one. So they can also match MAC and IP to your account.

they should put their energy into catching real criminals, not people who would not have bought the items they downloaded in the first place. Where is the crime if you have not stolen anything and were never going to buy it anyway?!

Dont people who make movies and platinum selling albums have enough money already??

Greedy!

@ohhwataloser

Your last comment was brilliant! Love it!

reply to post by jaydeePNW


but your mac can be changed to whatever you want in roughly 3 seconds,

surely they arent banking on identifying individuals through MAC address's.

Originally posted by GalacticJoe
All information is just a number. How can one 'create' and 'own' a number? Society has an arbitrary rule that if the number is large, one can 'own' it. However, no-one can own, for example, a 1 second song.

Numbers are like the atmosphere and the ocean, they are public property.

I think the numbers are just symbols of you to the government. Something to represent the space that you fill. No matter if DHCP played a part, the lease for that particular IP number at that specific point in time belonged to some address. It would be YOUR address. They do record all of this just for criminal wheelings and dealings. This is also why we have SSN's...it is a representation of our person or property of the government.

So in the 17 pages the only arguments against it is "it's against the law" and "it's stealing". Way to distord reality for you argument.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So in the 17 pages the only arguments against it is "it's against the law" and "it's stealing".

Way to distord reality for you argument.

Interesting. Committing a crime (stealing) and the argument against doing so, is distorting reality. I find this statement absolutely amazing.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by jaydeePNW

 

but your mac can be changed to whatever you want in roughly 3 seconds,

surely they arent banking on identifying individuals through MAC address's.

Unless it is a ISP provided modem. Also how many people have any clue about MAC addresses and how to change them? Not many. Most people I know think a tower desktop is called a hard drive.

Scumbags have no soul, and its obvious... People are getting sued probably out of house and home, over a stupid movie. The people who are suing are probably fat and rich. The people being sued are probably poor and will suffer greatly..

Originally posted by BanMePlz
Scumbags have no soul, and its obvious... People are getting sued probably out of house and home, over a stupid movie. The people who are suing are probably fat and rich. The people being sued are probably poor and will suffer greatly..

Yet, they've got broadband, the hardware to dupe it all onto other media, and (obviously) plenty of time with which to do it. (presumably because instead of looking for work, they're spending too much time downloading warez?) ... I think it's been said here countless times, that the punishments are not fitting the crimes, no one is arguing that...it still is no excuse to steal.

Originally posted by SoloistKeep trying to justify your illegal activities. By your logic maybe I should come into the Subway where you work, take a sandwich, eat it, call it crap, and walk out the door without paying you for it.

Stealing is stealing.

If you made a copy of it out of thin air, I could careless what you do with it.

Also, according the the Dowling v. United States case that someone posted earlier in this thread:

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft". In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization. Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.

Source: Wiki

Either way, you're committing the "appeal to law" fallacy: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD

If you made a copy of it out of thin air, I could careless what you do with it.

It's not out of thin air though in the case of music and video. It's out of pre-existing content.


Let me tell you a little story about New Jersey.

In New Jersey, the administrations kept passing law after law after law that made restrictions tighter and tighter on businesses. After a while, the businesses fled in mass exodus from New Jersey simply because it wasn't worth their while or money to remain in business there.

This is what some of you people are pushing for and will inevitably get if you keep "redistributing" illegally. Musicians and actors at large will just not find the benefit worth the cost to "remain in business" here. So, go on with your little self-declared entitlement programs and see where it gets you in the long run. (Of course, if you dont get sued or jailed for being unable to pay the fines first)