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: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
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.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I don't think the IP address is positive identification of the person, but I read about a previous case where a guy who downloaded child porn used that defense, saying someone else in his neighborhood must have gotten onto his wireless router. He lost the case, even though to me he seemed to have a valid argument about the IP address.

From the OP source:

The litigation can be so lucrative — with settlements around $3,000 per infringement — that two companies are both claiming ownership to a low-budget movie called Nude Nuns with Big Guns, and both firms are suing the same downloaders.
First, $3000 is a big settlement for one movie, you can buy a lot of movies for $3000.

Second, if I gotta watch another movie with guns in it I'd probably rather see that one than another gun movie with Stallone.


Originally posted by mrjones7885
Just download tor vidali or peer guardian...
According to the OP article, that won't make you safe:


The IP addresses of the alleged copyright scofflaws are easily discoverable. Film companies pay snoops to troll BitTorrent sites, dip into active torrents and capture the IP addresses of the peers who are downloading and uploading pieces of the files.
If they are using snoops, Peer Guardian won't help right? Unless they know who all the snoops are which seems like an impossible task. PG only helps with IP addresses coming straight from the company website or known address like that.

Actually what's probably safer is usenet, as long as you're a downloader and not an uploader. They can't use the same methods to get your IPs from usenet as they do with torrents.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
I am so tired of greedy celebs and corporations.

There have been many times where I had downloaded something and actually went out and bought the damn thing in the end because i wanted the real copy.

I DL songs and many times I buy the entire CD because I get addicted to a song or two I have DL of an artist.

These companies aren't losing the insane amount of money they claim.

They need to just go away..and that movie was horrible!


Well you are incorrect...

The record labels lose out big time on pirated music, the artist make their money doing concerts and shows and thus see less revenue via outlets per contract.

So when you d/l any copyrighted music, you are indeed stealing $$$$ from the labels. Now as to whether or not they can afford it...

Torrenting in general there is nothing wrong with file sharing, but when TPTB don't get their cut then there is a problem!
edit on 10-5-2011 by maestromason because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
The technical term IP and the ruling as such will not stand.

You've taken someone's property, property that they would normally sell for profit.

It is wrong, and ultimately a stupid technicality about an IP Address not being a person will not last..

Dont get me wrong, I torrented, guilty as sin.

Do I feel bad about my theft? No... Why should I pay a ridiculous price for a dvd worth 15c ?

Why should a movie star get paid mega millions?
Why should film studio's get paid mega millions?

IF, 80% of a celebs takings from a movie went to building hospitals, roads or helping the poor. I'd have no issues paying $29 for a new DVD.

But when it doesn't nothing but add another leather couch to a celebs super mansion... I'll take my chances with the online version.


edit on 10-5-2011 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I love how they think they will be able to prove that 23,000 people did this. Its been said in replies here that this will be a legal nightmare if they actually followed this through to the end of the legal course! Waste of time, they should be happy that 23,000 people thought it was worth downloading!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I agree with theMaverick. All this data capping lately is ridiculous.
Odd that there's already a "good ole days" of the internet to reminisce about..
Not only do ISPs get to profiteer as Google and the rest try to convert everybody over to
streaming movies, online conferencing and leaving work "in the cloud"..
But they also get to tell the casual American torrent pirate the internet is flat..

Definitely this case is a huge scare tactic.. But scare tactics can be quite effective..

Anybody get one of the legal notices or subpoenas mentioned in Wired in their email yet?
"...with settlements around $3,000 per infringement..." That would be over 57 million.....
This case would drag like a lead fender but most will probably settle instead of facing that
$150,000 maximum fine..

I wonder what the largest settlement paid by an individual for a single infringement has been?
Too bad the courts don't seem that interested in protecting the "little guy"..
They shouldn't be allowed to sue for more than a hundred bucks or so..
Especially if the movie sucked.

Oh well, better go check my email--



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
This is ridiculous!

Do you know how many Chinese illegally download these movies online then burn copies on disk and sell them on the street?? How ill they track them down?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   


I think I.T Crowd says it best.Piracy laws are completely looney when they chase the little guy.Almost reminds me about a war on something else...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


duplicating is not stealing.

when i steal something from you, you no longer have it.


When you steal something that I created, or have the property rights to, then it is stealing. Duplicating something that you arent authorized to have in the first place is in fact, stealing.

For each copy you make and distribute, its a seperate count.

I am positive if you and other created something that cost millions of dollars, and others decide to steal it and distribute it, forcing you to lose out on the fruits of your creation, you would be upset as well.


Yes these poor multi million dollar companies are really hurting so bad... if I steal something from you you no longer have it. Get off your high horse.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 




I can't imagine that the ISPs have a record of who was assigned which particular IP address at any given moment.


All that i have seen do! Kept in nifty little text files that don't take up too much space and easily retrievable too!



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The technical term IP and the ruling as such will not stand.


IP as in intellectual property? Or IP as in Internet Protocol? I guess either way, the answer doesn't much matter as, there little reason to believe that the "term" has worn out it's welcome. I don't even understand how or why you mean this.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
You've taken someone's property, property that they would normally sell for profit.

It is wrong, and ultimately a stupid technicality about an IP Address not being a person will not last..


Agreed.

While, an IP Address cannot ultimately be used to positively identify an individual, the contract holder of the agreement with the ISP is responsible for the usage of and the security of their lease. (The lease in this case being their wan address).


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Dont get me wrong, I torrented, guilty as sin.

Do I feel bad about my theft? No... Why should I pay a ridiculous price for a dvd worth 15c ?

Why should a movie star get paid mega millions?
Why should film studio's get paid mega millions?

IF, 80% of a celebs takings from a movie went to building hospitals, roads or helping the poor. I'd have no issues paying $29 for a new DVD.

But when it doesn't nothing but add another leather couch to a celebs super mansion... I'll take my chances with the online version.



Why should an artist feel the need to spend their profit based upon YOUR interpretation of why they're entitled to it in the first place? That sounds an awful lot like bitter grapes to me. Do you complain when you purchase a Sony TV that 80% of their profit doesn't go toward your favorite charity? Do you complain when your mortgage holder doesn't put 80% of your principle toward the homeless and starving, or toward the road you travel everyday filled with potholes?

In the end, I used to be of the belief that sharing music/video wasn't something that should be regulated. My argument was "Well, years ago when we heard something on the radio or copied from a album to a cassette and gave our friend a copy of the cassette, did we go to jail? Did the same people who were guilty of doing that and are now the ones fighting against it, did THEY have to go to jail or pay fines?"
But I think as the years have passed, I have noticed a trend not of I just want to share the music I love with my friends, but more of they simply WANT to steal because they just don't feel like paying for it. In that, my stance has changed a bit.
edit on 10-5-2011 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RelentlessLurker
 


What do you do for a living? Please let us know so that I can do my part to ensure that you are never again paid to do it.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


An artist isnt required to spend his money as a consumer see's fit.
But, Im saying the reason I torrent is because I dont believe $30 for a dvd is reasonable.
Especially when it just means millions and millions go to super celebs.

Now, if supercelebs (ie the cast of expendables) donated a large portion to a charity then id be all for paying $30.
But, they dont, its just super profits. In my mind im happy to torrent because the super celeb is still getting millions.. the only thing its affects are the rich not being uber rich.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Thats a BS argument. I was a professional musician all throughout the late 80's and early 90's and the most I ever made in a single year was about 60K. That was for nearly 300 days, at 10+ hours a day.

99% of all musicians, actors, artists and writers make less then a middle manager at a major corporation. Your argument is based on ignorance, and rooted in greed. I'll bet you insist on getting paid for what you do, right?

What makes you so special?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

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.


Yeah, that sounds like me. I run a Linux OS, with a DNS server, and a switchable proxy server that goes through a group of servers in the Orient, and changes every 10 minutes. Let them try to pinpoint me. I don't download movies, but there are other things to download.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Oh I see. It's just your particular preference not to pay $30 for a DVD, Ok that does make sense.

However, I think what I was suggesting was that the further step has been taken; where others agree with that wholeheartedly and they simply have decided "well then I just dont want to pay anything, screw em".

I see it like this, that someone goes to an auto showroom, see the price tag on a new auto, cant afford it/wont afford it, and instead asks someone else to steal the car for them, as opposed to having an intermediary somewhere that sells the auto at wholesale.

For all intents and purposes, that is precisely whats happening isn't it?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Woah, down tiger.

I suppose the basic of my argument is..

Why should I pay $30 for a DVD I can download for free.
Your argument is because the artist deserves his pay. This is true..
But look at the stupid amounts of money these people get paid for the movie?
Torrents & warez have been around for a bit now, and super celebs are still making uber cash.
Ultimate effect? 0.

Now, musicians are different. They are highly talented and yes, for the amateurs in the beginning its a hard slog to get anywhere. I trust 10hrs a day for your pay you earnt every minute of it.
Music's a little bit different though, music is there to be spread and shared, but.. .you do need to pay the people for their quality art.

I think music, Mp3s and sharing should be regulated.
A massive, and I mean MASSIVE online repository of Mp3's should be established.
You pay a fee, Ie 1yr - $200, 2ys $300, etc etc for access to this repository.

And you are free to download as your heart see's fit.
Then the musician can choose to enter this repository and take a slice of the profits, or go solo and risk his albumns being pirated online for free.

Opinions differ, how about you accept a difference in opinions instead of calling mine ignorant.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


A car is a physical Item.
I walk in, steal it, thats a physical thing.
Music is software.
I take it it is just reproduced, copied, cloned for FREE.

there's a massive difference between stealing a car and stealing a mp3.
As was said above im not stealing it anyway, im sharing it.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by maestromason
It really is a simple matter of securing your h/w, 128 bit encrypted firewalls work wonders for holding down a secured platform.

Avoid clinking on links that you do not know

Opening email from suspicious sources.

Do not visit websites of dubious natures.

Trust no pirated s/w for they are re-authored and could hold malware or exotic code.

Just be aware of your digital surroundings and if you torrent...

Well for the sake of our audience, let me say, Don't Do It! It is against the law and just plain wrong.


Against US law, perhaps. US laws do not apply to every Nation in the world, friend.
And we know the US government, and Microsoft is attempting to get everyone not to use torrents, but what you say simply is not true. I have downloaded hundreds of Linux distros using a torrent downloader, and never once got a virus.....but then, Linux doesn't seem to be affected by Windows viruses.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
People are demanding a fair price for the artists work is all.

Since the price is absurd, they say...erm...k, I'll just take it then.

As soon as online sources provide the same ease as torrents, and at a reasonable price, most people will go legal.

Until then, BRING IT!!



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join