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: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


i argue with people on the internet.

care to continue?




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RelentlessLurker
 


Nah -- you get paid less then I do. There's no profit in it. *chuckle*

For what its worth -- and in the words of Henry Rollins -- I'd rather be heard then get paid. Of course, ideally, BOTH would be nice.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


This doesn't exactly pertain to this case, in a way it does.

I have bought Metallica's Master of of Puppets on cassette 3 times, and I have bought the c.d. twice.
Instead of going to buy the 3rd c.d. I downloaded the entire thing. Is that illegal?

Yes, according to the RIAA.

I'm a big fan of Bob Marley, as well.
I probably have the song "Three Little Birds" on 7 separate albums.

In both cases, the first time I bought the intellectual property, I paid for the right to own that tiny fraction of said property, yet, if I need to replace my property, my only option is to pay for the rights to my property again.

In the case of a timeshare property, it is the owner of the property's responsibility to keep track of who owns what percentage of said property.

Not so with the RIAA.

If I invest in a mutual fund, then lose the paperwork proving my ownership of a certain percentage of said fund, it is still the responsibility of the fund manager to know that I do in fact own a percentage, and they will more than likely replace my certificate of of ownership.
Perhaps for a small fee.

Small fee, fine. But they would not make me reinvest the same amount, simply to obtain the same shares that I owned prior to losing my proof of ownership.

Not so with the RIAA.

The RIAA wants all of the perks that go along with ownership of property, yet also seem to want to capitalize on the fact that there is no system to authenticate ownership of property.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


that is not true at all.

there is nothing to suggest that if the free avenue were removed, that the person would then buy it at the store.


for all you know sales will be completely unaffected. its perceived profit loss, no matter how you slice it.
edit on 10-5-2011 by RelentlessLurker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


*waves hand*

these arent the droids your looking for



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


And you don't know if they would have paid for it.

So you feel we should not prosecute looters because they might not have bought what they just looted? Maybe they were just taking it because nobody was looking? That's not stealing because they wouldn't have purchased it?

That doesn't fly.

So I can't really say the people are innocent. But the punishment is not fitting the crime either.

It is stealing. But do we sue a shoplifter for $500,000 because they stole a TV? No.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


did you even read the thread?

in your little scenario the item would be gone. the store would no longer have it.

thats not exactly what were talking about now here is it? when Joe schmoe downloads a song, it is replicated magically into another. there is no loss, only the perceived loss in your little imagination that i would have purchased it otherwise. which would be completely wrong.

so think up a new word, because it isnt stealing.


would you call it stealing if i picked up a guitar and played it myself?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


do you realise that for your shoplifting analogy to work, the shoplifter would have to come in and produce an exact copy of whatever item he were about to steal, and leave with the item he produced?

was the item in the stores inventory prior to person coming in?

does store still have original item?

can you really label the person a shoplifter?

catching the drift???



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
IPv6 is going to be their savoir, by the time IPv6 is implemented on the global scale you can pretty much kiss piracy goodbye as a novelty of the internet's infancy.

Even with a dymanic IP they will be able to resolve your IP to an account from an ISP(i.e. point straight to the point of service), so dynamic IP's are in play as well.

IP addresses are in high demand from various platforms so look for IPv6 very soon!

On June 8, 2011 the Internet Society together with several other big companies and organizations will hold World IPv6 Day, a global 24 hour test of IPv6.
edit on 10-5-2011 by maestromason because: *addition



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by RelentlessLurker
 


And did you read my first post to this thread (the one you responded to, nonetheless). One of the first things I said was that I understand these are not physical goods.

Let's put it this way. I go over to a music store, shove some DVD's up my shirt, and try to make it through security. I get busted and am probably now facing some fines and community service.

Hey, man. They have their DVD's! I technically don't even have their stuff! They have it!

I think the courts would laugh me away.

No matter how you try to excuse this, illegal downloading of an item for sale elsewhere is stealing.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


but that is not what is happening.

when one downloads a file, they are not intruding onto someones computer, copying the file, and then attempting to delete the original.

is that how you think it works?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


so if my mom bakes some brownies, i cannot give you one for free because the store down the street sells brownies for $X.


do i understand you correctly?

what if she makes the exact same brownies, same recipe and all.

if you understand that there is no physical theft, how in the world can you keep comparing it to such?
edit on 10-5-2011 by RelentlessLurker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I see a lot of people here have a lot of studying of what Intellectual Properties are. It is a complicated scheme built up from legal instruments.

A LOT of studying to do!



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by AshleyD
 


but that is not what is happening.

when one downloads a file, they are not intruding onto someones computer, copying the file, and then attempting to delete the original.

is that how you think it works?


In an effort to maintain the veracity of your :


disclaimer: everything i say is fictional and not to be taken seriously in any manner or reproduced in any way without explicit permission from chuck norris.


I would imagine that everyone need take what it is you believe with a grain of salt.

However, it seems you lack one thing, that would be an understanding that there is no intellectual property associated with a brownie and with music or video there is.

So I have to assume you dont know what Intellectual property is?


Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.


What's important about that? Well, exclusive rights are. But what's that?


In Anglo-Saxon law, an exclusive right is a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit.


Well, how does exclusivity pertain though, to Intellectual property?


Most governments recognize a bundle of exclusive rights in relation to works of authorship, inventions, and identifications of origin. These rights are sometimes spoken of under the umbrella term "intellectual property."


Is it a product that CAN be stolen? Well, about 2/3 of the value of all US businesses probably think so.


The existence of IP laws is credited with significant contributions toward economic growth. Economists estimate that two-thirds of the value of large businesses in the U.S. can be traced to intangible assets.


And let's finish up with the applicable definition of steal


steal    verb, stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun –verb (used with object)

1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.


Now, nowhere is there a mention of a TANGIBLE object in the definition of steal, what is important, is that you are taking property (as defined by intellectual property and their exclusive right to it) what isn't yours by way of permission, right, or acknowledgment (by understanding the definition of steal).


So yes, it is stealing.
edit on 11-5-2011 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I find it hard to believe that 23,000 people wanted to watch The Expendables.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Furthermore it's not stealing because there is no loss of revenue and there is no profit made by the defendant. Actually reality is that piracy increases the revenue. Entire copyright business is just that. It is business. Lawyers and techies who work for copyright are very rich and they are in it because it's their job. Copyright measures only annoy those who have bought the legal copy anyway.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
So here's a question: what happens to people with service providers with dynamic IP's, or ones that change? They could have a different IP now and technically someone else could be being sued.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
There is a difference between stealing lets say a TV that costs 1000 dollars and PIRATING a copy of something digital that did not really cost anything to make. The stolen TV is something tangible and the loss of that item will make certain parties literally lose money while the copy of let's say a song that is downloaded is fabricated out of thin air. nothing is "lost" by the big companies who already make hundreds of millions and even billions.

The real torrent community is all about rewarding the companies if you enjoy their product. For many, downloading is just to see if it's worth the money and if it's really worth it, most still go out and buy it.
It's just a way around the bull# hyping (pretty much scamming if you ask me) that these multi-billion dollar companies are so good at by filter out the useless crap from the things that are really good without having to pay money for the crap, only to find out that it's not a good product and you just wasted X money on it.


IT--
edit on 11-5-2011 by edog11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Since when does SHARING = STEALING ?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
The way I see it the companies should be paying the down-loaders for free advertising. 23,000 downloaders is a drop in the ocean to the tens of millions they make and if the movie or music is good enough people will want a digitally mastered copy for better picture or sound quality then an downladed Mpeg or MP3.

If you ask me the artist and companies are being used to justify more internet control with this BS. The companies know downloaders are not hurting thier business but helping sell thier product by distributing it far and wide.




top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join