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: 17
36
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Entrapment
Case Dismissed.
/thread.




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


Apparently you don't get it. These copyright nazis are the ones who make the law. They make a law that keeps them working. That is the only reason it is against the law in the first place. It's a business for lawyers and others crooks. Has nothing to do with artists or creators. Also "pirating" actually increases revenue to the creators. So if we give them more money how is it stealing again???
Just sucks that I have to spell it out.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


Apparently you don't get it. These copyright nazis are the ones who make the law. They make a law that keeps them working. That is the only reason it is against the law in the first place. It's a business for lawyers and others crooks. Has nothing to do with artists or creators. Also "pirating" actually increases revenue to the creators. So if we give them more money how is it stealing again???
Just sucks that I have to spell it out.


No, what SUCKS is that you have to spell out your conspiracy; what you BELIEVE to be happening. That's not a proven scenario, and it will never be one. What SUCKS is that, you believe because you have this "moral highground", that places you above the law. What SUCKS is that you cant understand that you are not special, and that YOU have to pay for these things as much as *I* do.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
It's not a conspiracy when it's a known fact.
And where the hell do you even get that "moral highground" and how is that relevant to the discussion? Besides how you suppose it'll put me specifically above the law? Have I pirated something? I never claimed that other people have to pay and others dont btw either.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
what sucks (for them) is that its up to them to secure their data (i.e encryption)

what sucks even more, is that theyve been trying for years and have failed everytime.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I'm curious. How does "piracy" increase revenue to creators?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


it gives people an avenue to view a release at home before its released on DVD.

therefore allowing them to decide if its even worth their money. if the product stands on its own they will want to own it. if the product is not worth owning then disappointment and possible resentment towards the company can be skipped.

buying a movie is not supposed to be a gamble.

same premise as a free trial.

in a nutshell it doesn't increase revenue, it decreases loss's.
edit on 11-5-2011 by RelentlessLurker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


Oh don't get me wrong, I completely agree that theater prices are usually outrageous. That's not really the movie-maker's fault, though, unless they are tag-teaming with the theater owners (I wouldn't doubt it).

But either way, just because you think a rule is ridiculous doesn't mean you should break it anyway. I learned that the hard way when I "ran" a stop sign at the beginning of the year. I didn't really run it, I just didn't stop for a long enough period of time (I've lived here all my life and it's embedded in my subconscious that this stop sign doesn't require a full-on stop to properly survey the area before taking off), and I got pulled over and ended up paying 400$ in fines and BS.

The point is, just because you don't agree with a rule doesn't mean that it's ok to break it. You can break it, but don't get mad if you end up paying the price. Rules are rules, regardless of the circumstances.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
doesn't stallone have better things to do. they should pay us for watching that crap. stallone looks like a transvestite with to much plastic surgery.

and the scene with stallone, bruce willis and arnold schwarzenneger was the stupidest scene every recorded on film.

what a major disappointment. and didn't even pay to watch it.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I'm curious. How does "piracy" increase revenue to creators?


Free exposure. More the product spreads the more people will put money into it. Rather simple really.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by banandar123
Oh don't get me wrong, I completely agree that theater prices are usually outrageous. That's not really the movie-maker's fault, though, unless they are tag-teaming with the theater owners (I wouldn't doubt it).
You're right not to doubt they tag team. The movie theaters keep about half and give the other half to the studio:

gawker.com.../how-movie-stars-get-paid#!5196154/how-movie-stars-get-paid

a studio's gross is not the same as the box office gross since theaters normally get about half of the ticket sales. Take Meet Dave as an example: the global box office on the film is about $50 million, leaving the studio with $25 million after it splits with theaters.
Yes, the ticket prices are too high.

But that's not a good reason to cheat. However I do go to a lot fewer movies for that reason than I used to. Ticket prices have grown faster than inflation.
edit on 11-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


It sounds good in theory. I am concerned that such a thing might even work with the biggest artists, but work against the smaller artists, like Henry Rollins for example. Of course, I have no evidence to point towards one way or another.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 



The closest single lawsuit in size to the Expendables case targets 15,551 BitTorrent users for downloading a handful of porn flicks with titles such as Big Dick Glory Holes and Spin on My Cock. A judge has not decided whether to authorize subpoenas in that case.


Of coarse Not ... Imagine those title's being repeated over and over again during the trial ....

If I was on the jury I'd be laughing my arse off thru the whole thing



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
The funny thing with this is that they're actually causing me to not want to watch their movies, or listen to their music. I'm not going to buy their stuff if they keep suing people like this, it just reeks of excessive greed to me.

Oh well, books are better.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
The way i figure it. I make 32k a year. And the celebs make up to millions a year. Even if their music was pirated. Same with movies, they all still got a fat paycheque, and im struggling to pay my rent on time. *shrug*. Taxes, bills, more taxes, added 'fees' on various things. Downloading something for my entertainment because i dont have $30 to spend on it, is no big deal. I'm okay with that.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Lets say what if I downloaded this from torrent but i was leeching wireless from up the street?

My neighbor is going to be upset


This is a scare tactic meant to discourage users imho

23,000 people really? Bad news for the movie company...

Americans are broke!

So have fun spending money on said investiagation and lawyers for 23,000 cases



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
This even might have important legal implications for the future of copy write law, IP law etc.
Shame the movie this case has been built around is The Expendables...how embarrassing.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Old men with old ideas are twenty to thirty years behind, and are balking at embracing a new dynamic.

They COULD make a freakin' pile of dough on embracing the thing they are fighting. But no.

Instead, in trying to control every aspect of the process, from the artists to the medium, people are leaving them behind in annoyance.

They don't even leverage their own technology well because they are so focused on trying to control change and minutia.

Idiots.

They *could* have been on the edge of this, and seen it coming. They could have listened to those who were telling them that this was coming, but no, they didn't do that either.

Old men, desperate to control everything because they only thing they've learned is that they really don't understand squat about how they made their money. They just happened to hop on the right monkey's back, and all they learned is that they really wish they could control the monkey.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


incorrect. stealing your intellectual property rights would be me selling your music, or claiming that i wrote it as my own.

you must find a new word for this illegality. i thought duplicating would be suitable, as that is exactly what it is. but if youd like to make up a new word for it be my guest. ive already noted the difference between "it" and stealing.

furthermore, the information that i put on the little circular peice of plastic(disc) does nothing more than tell my electronic gadget what sounds to make and when.

what your proposing would require me to pay a nickel to some corporation everytime i decide to pickup my guitar and tell it what sounds to make (and when).

do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?



I suggest you do more research,I might suggest westlaw for example because legally you havnt a clue what your talking about.Here let me help:

Congress enacted the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act in 1997 to facilitate prosecution of copyright violation on the Internet. The NET Act makes it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, or share copies of electronic copyrighted works such as songs, movies, games, or software programs, even if the person copying or distributing the material acts without commercial purpose and/or receives no private financial gain.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Oh, and they aren't going to get what they want out of this.

Between this and the usage caps, what is likely to happen is that a segment of people are going to become very good at hiding their online activity, and another segment are going to figure out how to split and reroute packets in untraceable amounts, and yet another segment will figure out how to send more with less.

But what won't happen is....they won't get rid of file sharing.

Again. Idiots.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join