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: 21
36
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
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.



Somebody like Blockbuster wil be authorised, as part of their rental agreement, to redistribute the digital copy. They pay for this privelage. I'm afraid you have no such agreement terms, with the digital copy that you own.

As has been said before, you pay for the license to view the copy yourself, they just happen to give you a free copy of 'the movie' for the convinience of watching it. You have no redistribution rights with that digital copy.




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by region331
 

I say those "licences" are invalid, and people are stupid for allowing it to get away with it. The way it works, basically you are assumed to have signed into contract when you buy it. Problem is, do you see the contract on the box anywhere?

That is another reason to download, instead of buying, and "signing" into a contract IMO.

I do it for screening purposes, more than anything though. I refuse to invest in any company that puts out horrible movies/music/software/anything really. Before the days of mass downloading widely available, I simply waited until a movie hit basic cable, watched it, then bought it if I liked it a lot. I had the option to record it onto a VCR tape, and keep it if I though it was OK, but not good enough to invest in. Voting with your wallet, everyone should do it in one way or another, it is where our real consumer power comes from.

Only real difference between then and now, now I can see if it is a great movie while it is still in theatres, and be ready to buy it when it is first released to DVD. Companies should love that, as the price is always way lower once it hits cable, as opposed to when it is released.

edit on Thu, 12 May 2011 11:37:30 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
I am not a dumb consumer. I don't have money to waste on crap entertainment, so I don't.


So you steal it instead.


I really don't care what you think about it.


That's obvious. Not everyone in the world has good morals.


A lot of us do not, so we pick and choose, and vote with out wallets.


Or like most in this thread, you never have to use your wallet, since you already have a copy that you're not supposed to, why bother paying?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Are you obtuse? I want to support people that put out great stuff, so they continue to put out great stuff... I want people that put out crap to go out of business, like every other company that puts out crap should.... Why should digital business be immune to the realities everyone else has to face? If you do crap work in construction, you get fired from the job. If you make crap food, people don't eat at your resteraunt...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by banandar123
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.


But do you agree that if they're able to persecute the general public like this, they should be forced to make some corrections to make pirating less appealing?

Let's say they wanted people to pirate, because the lawsuits would bring in more money than the box office (this is already happening, Nude Nuns with Guns is another B movie with a lawsuit) wouldn't they raise prices through the roof and make it impractical for the average poor person to watch it?

By the way, the Nude Nuns movie has the potential to bring in almost 900 million dollars if all 6,000 people are found guilty, and everything goes the way of Hollywood.

Whether you think it's wrong to copy something or not, they can't do this. Theft of less than $50 anywhere else in the US would be a class C misdemeanor. Which usually brings around a fine less than $500, not $10,000 or $100,000, or whatever these lawsuits are for. It's their new scheme of making money, and they're targeting people. They're most likely the ones that uploaded it onto the torrent sites.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


I don't see how it is allowed myself.... If someone steals your car, and you try to sue for twice what it is worth brand new, do you think that a judge would even consider it? I doubt it....



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


edit on Thu, 12 May 2011 11:54:46 -0500 by TKDRL because: doulepost monster got me



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by region331
 

I say those "licences" are invalid, and people are stupid for allowing it to get away with it. The way it works, basically you are assumed to have signed into contract when you buy it. Problem is, do you see the contract on the box anywhere?


Unfortunately you don't have to sign anything to enter into a contract. But as far as I'm aware the agreement is always printed on the box and the disc. As far as software goes you click to accept the terms of the agreement.

I think the law is fairly clear whether we agree with it or not. The discussion has really moved into the morality of breaking the law.


edit on 12-5-2011 by region331 because: included my reply in the quote -oops



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by region331
 


Yep, you are right, my bad. I just looked at a DVD, and also a 360 game box, it is there in fine print at the bottom.


The uploader broke the law, not the downloader. Which is why torrents are heavilly targetted, you are uploading pieces while downloading. Stay away from P2P folks, unless you are sure your IP is hidden.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Someone probably already responded to this however...

I actually work for an ISP...a SMALL ISP, and it is infact easy to see who had what IP address at that time. Records are kept, and I imagine records are kept even longer at the giant ISPs. Even if your are DHCP they have the time of the offense and it can be traced back to who at that ISP was assigned that IP at that time. So DHCP does not hide you at all.

We actually looked through the list of IP's lastnight and it looks like one of the IP addresses was one of our customers, which means we will probably be receiving some paperwork in the mail soon.

So goodluck to anyone who may have downloaded that movie. I personally don't download movies at all im never in that much of a hurry to watch a movie, I just wait for it to be out on netflix. Also at $1 a song why wouldn't you buy the song if you like it. I just don't see the point of "stealing" I use that loosely. I don't feel its stealing exactly but I also don't think its right.

-Uninspired


Originally posted by hhott
I see a problem with this. It's called DHCP.

Like many other people, I receive a dynamic IP when I connect to my ISP, and it is (usually) different every time. My ISP has a range of IP addresses that it can use, but any particular IP address could have been assigned to any number of users over the course of days or weeks .... The IP address I have today could be someone else's tomorrow, and since I am on satellite it might not even be anyone close to me.

In some respects this is annoying and noticeable (my online banking runs me through my security challenge questions almost every time I log in), but perhaps in this case it will be an advantage for some people. I can't imagine that the ISPs have a record of who was assigned which particular IP address at any given moment.


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



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I'm sorry, I know I said I was going to be done with this thread, but I simply can't as long as I see some of the mindsets that I do, and the unreal remarks I see by people who would have others believe they are so well informed.



Originally posted by jessejamesxx


But do you agree that if they're able to persecute the general public like this, they should be forced to make some corrections to make pirating less appealing?


So the threat of incarceration and heavy fines ISN'T a correction to make pirating less appealing? What do you need, capital punishment before it makes it less appealing? And I'm sorry, if your best argument is because I didn't like the flick so I'm gonna get it for free....then you need more than a simple correction.


Originally posted by jessejamesxx

Let's say they wanted people to pirate, because the lawsuits would bring in more money than the box office (this is already happening, Nude Nuns with Guns is another B movie with a lawsuit) wouldn't they raise prices through the roof and make it impractical for the average poor person to watch it?


Are you a communist or just willingly ignorant about the law? They make Mercedes and 10,000 square foot homes impractical for the poor (I'm not sure what the average poor person is, is there a more "rich" poor person? Or a more "poor" poor person?...a middle, upper and lower poor class?) Should we be stealing all those items for which it is we deem not within the poors grasp? You've got to be kidding me with your mentality.


Originally posted by jessejamesxx

They're most likely the ones that uploaded it onto the torrent sites.


So what if they were? It is absolutely well within their rights to upload their own intellectual property to anywhere they like and STILL tell you to never touch it. And if you do, you have STILL broken the law....why is this so hard for you to understand?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Soloist
 

Are you obtuse?


I'm being quite clear. I cannot be at fault if you don't understand it, or want to understand it. I'm willing to bet that if this problem affected your income, you might have a different outlook on the matter.


I want to support people that put out great stuff, so they continue to put out great stuff... I want people that put out crap to go out of business, like every other company that puts out crap should


So don't buy their crap. Simple.

But, don't steal it first to justify your actions.


If you do crap work in construction, you get fired from the job. If you make crap food, people don't eat at your resteraunt...


And if you put out a crappy album, people stop buying your music and going to your shows. But you still can't steal it.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Although the discussion is about downloading media content, on reading this thread the flexibility used in many peoples argument centres around the fact that duplication of something intangible is theft. If you can allow me a small side-step and bear with me. Its just that I think that whole entertainment industry is going to be small fry compared to 'home manufacturing'.

If I build a chair and you take that chair without payment. Is that stealing? Most people would agree that it was.

If I duplicate a movie and not pay for it. Is that stealing? This is not so clear for people.

What if I manufacture the chair from an electronic file, which is what is happening now with 3D printing. I print the chair off at home with my 3D printer but I don't pay for the rights to duplicate that physical chair. Is that stealing? Perhaps this is still not clear for some people but this is how manufacturing is going to change in the next 5 to 10 years.

Here is a link for anyone interested www.economist.com...

This is the legal nightmare that waiting around the corner. Just as home computers exploded onto the scene 30-something years ago and changed our lives. 3D printing or home manufacture is poised to the same.

This isn't science fiction, this is happening now and manufacturing will never be the same again. To give you an idea even now quite complex object such as bearings and even basic electronic boards can be manufactured as a finished object (no assembly required) down to tolerances of 10th of a mm.

Imagine if you can get hold of a file for printing off all that was needed to furnish your entire house, or a bike or even something as large as a car. Is that stealing? If you think mp3s are a big deal, wait to see what we'll all be stealing/duplicating in 5 to 10 years time.
edit on 12-5-2011 by region331 because: grammar

edit on 12-5-2011 by region331 because: Adding a Link



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I don't buy their crap, that is the whole point... I never will buy crap either. If my sources of downloading become unavailable, oh well, no big deal. Entertainment will just get no money at all from me again.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 5/12/2011 by tothetenthpower because: snipped content



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by uninspired
I personally don't download movies at all im never in that much of a hurry to watch a movie, I just wait for it to be out on netflix. Also at $1 a song why wouldn't you buy the song if you like it. I just don't see the point of "stealing" I use that loosely. I don't feel its stealing exactly but I also don't think its right.



I applaud you!




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
So the threat of incarceration and heavy fines ISN'T a correction to make pirating less appealing? What do you need, capital punishment before it makes it less appealing? And I'm sorry, if your best argument is because I didn't like the flick so I'm gonna get it for free....then you need more than a simple correction.

What works the best, the carrot or the stick? If they're going to basically have a class action lawsuit against the public, (something that corporations have now found a way around being the victim of, ie AT&T) they should be encouraged to find ways to deter pirating other than prosecuting people for 1,000 times the amount than if they stole the DVD from a store. It's a money making scheme with mob mentality. They threaten to take you for all you're worth so you'll settle and not argue it in court and you're OK with it? Also, who wants to be known for being in a lawsuit for "Nude Nuns with Guns".. it happens to be the reason they chose to bank on that movie in the first place.


So what if they were? It is absolutely well within their rights to upload their own intellectual property to anywhere they like and STILL tell you to never touch it. And if you do, you have STILL broken the law....why is this so hard for you to understand?

It could be seen as entrapment. They're not the local authorities, or the Feds, they shouldn't be able to set up sting operations. This sting operation could earn them 1 billion dollars, for a movie that was garbage and 95% of the people that 'stole' it, wouldn't have paid to see it in the first place.

I get it, pirates are thieves and they deserve everything coming to them, right? So let's allow them to make a sport out of it, and absolutely bankrupt people and make 1,000 times more money than it would have ever earned in the box office. Let's set precedence for corporations to take us to court for anything, where local or state law doesn't matter, and have them give us astronomical fines that don't fit the crime.

Stealing is wrong, I agree. So is leaving your Mercedes running and letting someone steal it so you can chase them down and take them for all they're worth (or cash in on insurance money) Only the police are allowed to do that. Ever seen "Bait Car"?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
All I know is that the people who made this movie made 230 million dollars in pure profits (minus budget) for a film that was rated a 41% on rottentomatoes by professional movie critics.

That is a quarter of a billion dollars cash money for the directors/producers/studio, not even including the actors, for a movie that is clearly a failure.

After such success they turn around and sue a bunch of people who watched their movie, giving up their time to sample the work and many whom would have bought the damn thing anyway, because of pure greed.

Someone explain that to me.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jessejamesxx

What works the best, the carrot or the stick?


That's a wonderful idea. Coddled into not stealing. Indeed, I agree



Originally posted by jessejamesxx
It could be seen as entrapment. They're not the local authorities, or the Feds, they shouldn't be able to set up sting operations. This sting operation could earn them 1 billion dollars, for a movie that was garbage and 95% of the people that 'stole' it, wouldn't have paid to see it in the first place.


Likewise, neither are you, but you're taking the law into your own hands, by assuming that you can simply make it up as you go along. And if 95% of this (perceived total, whatever it is) actually DOWNLOADED it to see it, what sense do you actually make? You are actually proving my point for me, that only IF they didnt have to pay for it would they watch it, otherwise they wouldn't have watched it. What the hell do you think that says? It says, they want to steal it lol.

Seen as entrapment? Is leaving your car parked and locked in your driveway overnight entrapment? I guess so, so a criminal looking to steal it wont because they're far too "smart to be entrapped that way" I imagine.


Originally posted by jessejamesxx
Let's set precedence for corporations to take us to court for anything, where local or state law doesn't matter, and have them give us astronomical fines that don't fit the crime.


Wait, you're ADVOCATING stealing another's intellectual property, then in the same breath you think you have the right to try and quote municipal or state law to me? Ok, that flies.


Originally posted by jessejamesxx
Stealing is wrong, I agree. So is leaving your Mercedes running and letting someone steal it so you can chase them down and take them for all they're worth (or cash in on insurance money) Only the police are allowed to do that. Ever seen "Bait Car"?


What does this have to do with intellectual property? I agree it's wrong, but has nothing to do with THIS topic. I actually have a little more respect for criminals that have to put a little more thought and effort into committing a crime than simply clicking on a link.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:28 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.


I consider it more of a try before you buy. I no longer trust hollywood or the music industry to give me what I like. I download it. If I like it, I buy it if I don't I delete it.

Consider this. You go to an art gallery looking to buy a painting. All the paintings on the walls are covered with brown paper with a few small holes cut into it. You can only see a few small parts of the painting and really have no idea what it looks like. Would you buy anything there.

Another point is that while the disposable income of the majority of people is plummeting the cost of said entertainment is skyrocketing. When I was in high-school while working at minimum wage I could afford going to a movie after working 45min. Now if i were working at minimum wage I would have to work for almost 2 hours to afford a movie.

Another reason. When I was younger I would spend my disposable income on going to the movies or buying an album. Now we have DVD\Blu-Ray's, Videogames (some with monthly payments), Movies (almost 18bucks to see one of the new 3D ones).

Studies show that the people that download tend to spend more then the average person on entertainment, and they are also more passionate and tell people all about how great the new "whatever" is and convince people to spend on things they probably wouldn't have.

I worked in a pub for years and had people come in on my days on the bar because they loved what I played. In the 11 years I worked there I was responsible for the sale of hundreds of albums. I've put every penny I can afford (to the point of forgoing food for a couple days at times) to support the industry.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NearPerfect
All I know is that the people who made this movie made 230 million dollars in pure profits (minus budget) for a film that was rated a 41% on rottentomatoes by professional movie critics.


Then it isnt 230 million dollars pure profit if you have to factor in something as small as the budget which includes only ummmm the production costs, employee costs, labor contracts aka., the bulk of the expenses.

Hysterical.

Then, you agree that only the teachers who perform well should be getting paid a decent salary?

That your friends who work at Burger King and serve the fastest are the only ones who should get paid minimum wage, the rest can suffer?

That when you make a typo at work, you should get docked?


Precisely where do you want this to end?
edit on 12-5-2011 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join