It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 20
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:13 AM
i think they download it, ofc they do..
what do you think celebs are doing in their home? being celebs? they are people just like us.

dbble standard?

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:32 AM

Originally posted by notonsamepage
i think they download it, ofc they do..
what do you think celebs are doing in their home? being celebs? they are people just like us.

dbble standard?

ok so i am reading you post and agreeing with you when i happen to glance over and see your location and start to think i have a basment then i had to go check

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:33 AM
reply to post by OnlyLove

People in the entertainment world seem to think they should be able to put out garbage, and still make a ton of money...

Take metallica, they used to be awesome, there was a time when a metallica album came out, millions of us would be there to buy it knowing it was metallica, and would rock. The past, what 6 albums? they put out sucked! They are not metallica anymore, they are some generic washed up has-beens, that lost their fan base. They blame downloading, and not their crap music. They are delusional.

If I go and do a job, and I am not building things to code, I am fired. Why should it be any different for the entertainment business? Oh, because they think they are too big to fail!

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:38 AM
reply to post by TKDRL

Dude the last metalica album rocked are you mentally challenged or something?
GnR though have definitly lost it.

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:40 AM
reply to post by TKDRL

thanks, I didnt see it that way, and you are right.

they are on their high horse, should't they be glad that people wanna download their music? so they know its crap and dont buy the cd.. lol

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:43 AM
reply to post by TKDRL

Yeah i remember the whole Napster thing with Metallica, Lars Ulrich was the instegator of that mock trail.
But it did start the 'illegal download revolution', because of the whole Napster thing the whole download community skyrocketed and now not just music get 'shared'.
The only good thing that came out of Metallica the last years was the documentry " Some Kind Of Monster"
I enjoyed that.


posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:44 AM
reply to post by SpookyFox

Well it is possible, I never even bothered to download their latest, that is how much I have hated their latest music. Ironically, most of the bands I now like a lot are local bands, that put out their music themselves in torrents etc, for the free advertising. This is the new wave, fighting torrents is like when they tried to fight the VCR being released. Off the top of my head, the last album that people might have heard of that I went and bought was megadeth endgame.

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:53 AM
Now a days its more entertaining to watch people hurt or make fools of them selfs on utube and i remember watching hours of parents taking away their kids warcraft accounts now that would be worth $7 for the ticket and $6 for the popcorn. that was the funniest thing i had ever seen. Kinda reminds me of this lawsuit.
edit on 12-5-2011 by jonco6 because: forgot something

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Ucantalas

I have a few problems with your examples.

That's ok they were ridiculous examples on purpose. Never meant to reflect any type of reality, but they made the point I was trying to make.

The bottom line here is, I'm not going to continue to fight with anyone who blatantly does NOT want to follow code of law, and who wants to break it.

I have no problem at all with anyone who wants to commit a crime (again my PERSONAL belief on this subject are completely out of it, period). I think it's arguable that downloading IS actually a crime depending on the intent and circumstances, but intent can't easily be proven. However, redistributing someone elses exclusive property IS a crime without permission and those of you who feel as though you want to break that law, do it.

*I* however, do not need to justify MY desire to be law abiding. (end of thread for me anyway)
edit on 12-5-2011 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:43 AM
reply to post by leejohnbarnes

I feel the same way about doctors, teachers, lawyers, bankers, soldiers and politicians.

If you want to get paid for anything you do -- you have no integrity.

Wait -- that's BS, just like it is for artists.

Why should artists work in call centers so they can feed themselves and their families why you get to choose your profession?

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by dragonridr

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.

i think you should re-read your own quote.

it says to re-produce, distribute, or share. all 3 of those deal with the UPLOADER. this has already been covered.

if one downloads, somebody else somewhere has already done those 3 things. when its sourced from a CD it occurs during the "rip" process. when its a DVD it occurs during the CSS decryption. most software even reminds you of this before you perform the action.

the irony, is that the person doing this requires an original copy, which is usually purchased legally. in which case, it is lawful to initiate this copy/transfer process, for personal use.

the illegality then comes, when they UPLOAD those personal copies making them available for public download.

this was cleared up when console emulators/roms began becoming available on digital media. the courts ruled that if the person purchased it, they can do whatever they want to it for personal use.

the reason the industry is suddenly trying to pin the blame/guilt on the DOWNLOADER is because most of the UPLOADERS have moved oversea's where they hold asylum.

me thinks the industry should go after the ISP's for "allowing" us to connect to networks that reach beyond the jurisdiction of our nations law....if they dont like it...

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by RelentlessLurker

The default on most torrent programs, you are uploading while you are downloading. That is why they are going after torrent downloaders, a majority of them are also uploading. It would be up to the person being sued to prove they were not uploading while downloading I think.

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by TKDRL

not everybody gets their warez from bittorrent, or p2p for that matter.

believe it or not there are other scenes

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:25 AM
you know, it just dawned on me that my local library lends out DVD's. Hollywood flicks and all...

hundreds of random people "share" the same copyrighted material everyday.

wonder how that works.

doesn't seem any different to me.

is my entire county breaking the law?

edit on 12-5-2011 by RelentlessLurker because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by RelentlessLurker

Absolutely, I get all mine via direct downloads, I have limited internet, so I cannot afford to be wasting it with torrents. All the people named in this lawsuit are torrent users though.

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:38 AM
come to think of it, my library has copyrighted material of all kinds. books, cd's, movies, computers with internet and video games.

i understand tax money pays for it, but a library card is only required to take the items home. anybody is allowed to walk in and view anything they want.

this seems no different from a peer-to-peer network, or stream site.

this suggests to me that owning a physical copy DOES infact give you the right to lend it to whomever.

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:41 AM
reply to post by RelentlessLurker

No clue why it is OK for public libraries, blockbuster etc, but when common people do it is not acceptable...

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by TKDRL

earlier in the thread that guy said that you dont actually own any of the copyrighted material that you buy, you are simply licensed to view it.

perhaps he neglected to tell us that with that license, we can authorise whomever we choose to view it as well.

whos to say that isnt happening when one uploads, and another subsequently downloads?

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:21 AM

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by RelentlessLurker

No clue why it is OK for public libraries, blockbuster etc, but when common people do it is not acceptable...

Public libraries are exempt because they are non-profit institutions. There are 2 elements to the law.

At one end of the spectrum are the physical copies. A book is yours to do with what you wish with regard to lending it to someone else or reselling it. Although in the UK, I believe the library do pay a small payment to the author.

A digital copy though can be duplicated, so the laws for lending and distributing digital copies is different and is where all the legal mess is. Blockbuster have to pay a premium for their rental copies and rental license. The DVD you buy from the shop is licensed for your use only. You are not free to do anything with it you want like you can with a Book, you just licensed only to view it. Software is also licensed for your use only.

I think thats right. As I said before, if you think it's a big deal now, just wait until 3D printing comes out and people can potentially download and manufacture electronic copies of ..... well anything ... vaccum cleaner, cars, furniture. The lawyers will think it's Chrismas.

edit on 12-5-2011 by region331 because: clarity

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:30 AM

Originally posted by jonco6

I dont think people just dl stuff and dont go out and suport it if its good ( and if they do than thats wrong)are you telling me that you are so bad at your work that if someone dl's it they wont like it then support it Or are you feeling that if thery dl it first and do like it their is no insentive to buy it

No. Sorry, I'm talking about very successful major motion pictures.

People do not have the right to make up their own fee structure, or decide IF they want to pay sometime later. You can say I'm wrong all you want, but this small thread alone is ample evidence that people don't have a desire to pay at all.

Which makes them thieves. You're getting something for nothing, that you aren't supposed to.

new topics

top topics

<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in