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

page: 27
36
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Thank you friend. Us trademark and song copyright owners applaude your support.



Yes, the rich and greedy thank the gullible and stupid.



Yup, right on the money and dont bother with mysterioustranger
edit on 14-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoloistYou're getting use out of something I created without paying me for my work.

You are stealing from me. Justify it all you want, but it's still stealing.

But doesn't this also apply to a scenario where someone lends this movie out to a friend? What if said person had a family of 6? That's 6 people who got to enjoy the movie without paying for their "work".

If everyone in the world had to pay for your "work" you'd be a multi-billionaire. I'm glad to know that your one-time intangible "work" is worth so much.
Really, who's the thief here?

Edit: It's a strange world we live in when it's considered immoral to "listen" to organized sound.
edit on 14-5-2011 by cLOUDDEAD because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-5-2011 by cLOUDDEAD because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
[quote

Edit: It's a strange world we live in when it's considered immoral to "listen" to organized sound.
edit on 14-5-2011 by cLOUDDEAD because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-5-2011 by cLOUDDEAD because: (no reason given)


If you really break it down though it's also strange to pay for someone else for food which the sun has grown. It's even stranger to pay someone else for land.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
[quote

Edit: It's a strange world we live in when it's considered immoral to "listen" to organized sound.
edit on 14-5-2011 by cLOUDDEAD because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-5-2011 by cLOUDDEAD because: (no reason given)


If you really break it down though it's also strange to pay for someone else for food which the sun has grown. It's even stranger to pay someone else for land.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Thank you friend. Us trademark and song copyright owners applaude your support.



Yes, the rich and greedy thank the gullible and stupid.


Perhaps you should read my other posts on the thread before you comment. If you have difficulty finding it, it's under "member" menu on the left and "posts in thread" there.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes


Its not for you to accept the distinction, you have to accept the fact THAT THE LAW DOES ACCEPT A DISTINCTION BETYWEEN THEFT AND COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.





Be careful, lest one starts to believe you may have wasted all that money on higher education if you can't read contextually.

I wasn't making a legal distinction, I was asking why *I* should conceded to making a personal distinction if the end result is to achieve the same goal. I'm pretty firmly in touch with the legal distinction.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Perhaps you should read my other posts on the thread before you comment. If you have difficulty finding it, it's under "member" menu on the left and "posts in thread" there.


As much off-topic as my post here is going to be, what I really wish is, that they would redesign that a bit such that, if you're in a particular THREAD reading a member's posts, that that would function a little differently. Instead of bringing up ALL posts that user has made, it would only display the posts by that user in the THREAD you're viewing at the time. So many times I see where people completely lose track of the conversation simply because they can't remember what was said earlier by another member.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes


Its not for you to accept the distinction, you have to accept the fact THAT THE LAW DOES ACCEPT A DISTINCTION BETYWEEN THEFT AND COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.





Be careful, lest one starts to believe you may have wasted all that money on higher education if you can't read contextually.

I wasn't making a legal distinction, I was asking why *I* should conceded to making a personal distinction if the end result is to achieve the same goal. I'm pretty firmly in touch with the legal distinction.


We can all make a million personal distinctions on a million issues - but as we all know, in the end opinions are like assholes - we all have one.

I make a distinction, as I have done three times between my opinion and the law.

Now I conceded that I have an opinion, but my opinion was irrelevant to the issue of the law.

The FACT is that - downloading is not stealing or theft.

Those that say it is are either idiots / ignorant of the law or working to an agenda.

You are not an idiot.

Nor are you ignorant of the law.

But from your hints it appears you do have an agenda - which I suspect is that you work for a company involved oin prosecuting downloaders or a job in a corporation somewhere, a music company or something

True or false ?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes


We can all make a million personal distinctions on a million issues - but as we all know, in the end opinions are like assholes - we all have one.


Precisely, which is exactly why I did not want to be engaged on my personal distinction.


Originally posted by leejohnbarnes


But from your hints it appears you do have an agenda - which I suspect is that you work for a company involved oin prosecuting downloaders or a job in a corporation somewhere, a music company or something

True or false ?



Actually, if you must know, I recently retired from 20 year in the Corps. (by recently I mean approximately 5 years ago). Now, I work self-employed fulfilling contracts in the security industry, and I dabble from time to time in developing algorithms for targeting systems and mobile device platforms as a hobby.

My agenda is simply that I do not think breaking the law (or maybe talking about breaking the law and thus, condoning it) is always the way to achieve a desired result. Now if I were married and if I did have kids, and someone told me with a gun to my head "you redistribute that content or I will decapitate them all", then you bet I would, but, I think intellectual property has ABSOLUTE value and deserves our respect. Take video and music out of this altogether, and lets replace it with "invention"... I just invented a product and patented it. Damn right I'm going to take you to court if you copy it, make a profit on it and claim it as your own. Or, lets replace it with "book", same thing... I am the author and I am published, and I do NOT want you plagiarizing my "content" and distributing it as your own or worse, making money from it.

Downloading is by far, a more grey area than uploading is.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
We both agree that the rule of law is the basis of a democratic system, but the law can become draconian - as in Britain where if you buy a CD from a shop and rip it to your own laptop or your own Ipod, then that is a breach of copyright law and you can be taken to court for it and prosecuted.

Come on - even if you support the law - that is bloody pathetic and totally unreasonable and brings the entire law on copyright into disrepute.

Do you agree.
edit on 14-5-2011 by leejohnbarnes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
We both agree that the rule of law is the basis of a democratic system, but the law can become draconian - as in Britain where if you buy a CD from a shop and rip it to your own laptop or your own Ipod, then that is a breach of copyright law and you can be taken to court for it and prosecuted.

Come on - even if you support the law - that is bloody pathetic and totally unreasonable and brings the entire law on copyright into disrepute.

Do you agree.
edit on 14-5-2011 by leejohnbarnes because: (no reason given)


Of course I agree with that. And frankly, if it gets to that point here in the US, I WILL likely take a different stance, but as it is right NOW, I have no reason to.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
If in school you turned in work you got out of a book you bought claiming it was yours to do whatever with because you bought it, so you took it word for word (or note for note, song for song etc)... the teacher would accuse you of stealing from an original work not yours.

If you want a better understanding? Copy 20 copies of the new movie "THOR"...take em to your local corner with a sign that reads "$10.00!". Guess how long youll be there? Unitl the cop cars pull up. Thats a pretty good example of what you can and cannot legally distribute just because you "bought" it and feel its yours now to do whatever with.

FYI: On the plus side...it MAY be perfectly legal to give them away. (Just WHERE and HOW may be the issue).



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
bunch of bull crap thats why i have no internet at my house i get it thru a wifi setup that is open. and no i aam not stealing internet i pay 50 + a month for high speed internet but internet and router is several houses away from me and since its an open network and lots of kids go to neighbors with their laptops to use net who would they chatge
all my friend has to do is show them that their computer had no incriminating files



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
hahaha if its not their responsibility to secure the data on their disk's, then its not my responsibility to secure the data runnign through my network.


oh the irony.

good luck in court.
edit on 15-5-2011 by RelentlessLurker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by edog11

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


techland.time.com

Did you illegally download a copy of The Expendables, Sylvester Stallone's old-school macho get-together fight-fest from last year? If so, watch your inbox: You're likely one of the more than 23,000 file sharers being sued for doing so by the US Copyright Group in what is now the largest BitTorrent downloading case in US legal history.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.wired.com
www.wired.com


I would never watch The Expendables, not even illegally.
edit on 15-5-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Not necessarily, in business, a loss can also be defined as never having received income in the first place.



By that logic, I can be sued for not buying an album regardless of whether or not anyone on Earth has downloaded it.

By that logic I can be sued for not buying tennis shoes, Porsches, and ping pong balls.

There is no logic in that "logic".



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by edog11

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


techland.time.com

Did you illegally download a copy of The Expendables, Sylvester Stallone's old-school macho get-together fight-fest from last year? If so, watch your inbox: You're likely one of the more than 23,000 file sharers being sued for doing so by the US Copyright Group in what is now the largest BitTorrent downloading case in US legal history.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.wired.com
www.wired.com


In regards to the original post, I have searched the attached PDF for my IP address and can safely say that I am not involved in "Biggest Illegal Download Lawsuit." I was reluctant as well as relieved to find that my IP was not included as my network has been intruded in the past by pirating neighbors who requested to use my guest account for the evening but overstayed their visit. Fortunately "The Expendables" was not on their pirating agenda.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD
But doesn't this also apply to a scenario where someone lends this movie out to a friend? What if said person had a family of 6? That's 6 people who got to enjoy the movie without paying for their "work".



What an obvious attempt at taking a partial post out of its context to make a point. It would seem that if you had any legitimate argument here (and you don't) such actions would be unnecessary.

Now, in the off-chance that you really didn't understand the point, please go back and read the post in it's entirety and within it's context.

Loaning a DVD to a friend, or watching it with family, that's your right. You bought your copy, I've gotten paid for it, and that's it. Heck you can trade it, sell it, or shoot it for sport for all I care.

However, when you make a digital copy to upload to the world, who then download it for free with no intention of ever paying for it, that's when it becomes theft and the people who worked hard on the project get screwed.


Really, who's the thief here?


Since you seem to be on the side of the thieves, It looks like that would be you.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Pick your battles, dude.

People pay large sums of money to Internet Service Providers for different set sums of downloads every month.

It costs them absolutely nothing to "provide" these transfers.

So... why don't you go bug the people who have all of the money for the downloads we have all literally already paid for?

We are not downloading "free" at all. We are paying the ISPs, if you want the money for these downloads, SUE THEM, because theya re the ones making money off of your work, not us. We are just paying for a service that doesn't compensate the talent that produced it and that is "beyond our control".

You're playing Polo with a croquet mallot and telling everyone else that they are cheating because they have the proper equipment.

I suggest you stop pretending you have some sort of "moral high ground" because it's more of an "ignorant chime from the back seat"
edit on 18-5-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Media companies are just behind in how the world works. Worried about their profits by doing things the old way instead of adapting.

Really, movie companies should embrace the downloading instead of fighting it.

For instance.

A movie company (for example we will use Universal) should start their own website/channel whatever with all of their movies available to download at a monthly subscription price.

If universal wants subscriptions, they will make and fund good movies with good actors.

Netflix is a prime example that if you have an excellent service that works at a FAIR price, people WILL pay for it.

Music companies can do the same thing. If you sign a good and talented band to your label that people enjoy, people will pay for a subscription to your label. Not to mention reward those who subscribe by offering extra perks (members get half off concert tickets or something) this would reward.

With competition within the market for subscriptions, music and movie companies will need to make and create premium content and affordable prices.





top topics
 
36
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join