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: 7
36
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


what are we stealing if we were never going to buy it in the first place?

they make the same amount of money in the end.

can you give a reason other than just repeating "its stealing"? what was stolen exactly? how can duplication ever be theft? they are fundamentally opposite!


So everyone stops buying because they can get it free online, then what? Your line of logic is wrong...
edit on 11-5-2011 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


Actually it isn't. Thanks to the wonders of technology the "label" is no longer required. Artists can make it on their own.

As far as Hollywood is concerned, they could still do just as well if they stopped with the massive dollar amounts to celebs.

The market is speaking here and instead of price corrections they are instead attempting to force consumption.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


No kidding!

It was what I like to call Action Hero Overload. The target audiences were so busy salivating over the premise that they totally ignored anything being said by all of the characters.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


Actually it isn't. Thanks to the wonders of technology the "label" is no longer required. Artists can make it on their own.

As far as Hollywood is concerned, they could still do just as well if they stopped with the massive dollar amounts to celebs.

The market is speaking here and instead of price corrections they are instead attempting to force consumption.



Thats great i love music but i also love big budget movies. just imagine all the movies we wouldn't of been able to enjoy if it wasn't for the natural human lust for money
and whats so hard to understand that when you download something without buying it that its stealing. If the artist put it out there free then great but if they didn't then its stealing... Its not that hard
edit on 11-5-2011 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
From what I understand, these people also uploaded the movie, as P2P is a give and take system. So even if they did not completely upload the entire movie, they still uploaded pieces of it. It is interesting that someone could be sued for sharing a few data bits of information and not an entire piece. It is almost as if citing a brief portion of a work has become illegal...

If you guys think this is bad, just wait until the industry is completely deregulated and given a much broader scope in order to sue/shake down the populace. Where people are guilty and nearly impossible to prove innocent. There will even come a time when these corporations will have an elite data security force that essentially seeks out those who can pay, then hack into and victimize their virtual properties in order to tie them to an infringement, all in order to give these victims the quick-and-easy opportunity to settle out of court. A literal mafioso system that will be designed to plant digital evidence and then shake-down a settlement.

It will be even more interesting when you will have to pay a price to even access your memories, as our memories are FULL of copyrighted intellectual property from our corporate consumer saturated world. There will come a time when our entire brains will be indexed, searchable and easily reviewable and the industry will literally try to prevent the sharing of memories and will implement encryption algorithms and lock-down devices within these chips to force people to pay to access their memories so easily. That will even create a social class divide as those with the means will have superhuman access to their minds potential while the poor will not. It will be viewed as a service, a privilege and not a right.

We are currently entering a biological split in the path of our species, and on one side there are those who want to monopolize and even profit, while on the other side there are those who feel that we should pursue pure intellectual freedoms. Who will come out on top? which path will humanity be corralled towards?
edit on 11-5-2011 by DJM8507 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


Those aren't going to die out because some people ripped a movie.

You do realize that piracy, real live piracy, has been going on in southeast Asia for decades and is a multimillion dollar industry, yes? That hasn't seemed to slow them down... how is a few downloads going to ensure you can't see Independence Day 4: Return to Mars?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


Those aren't going to die out because some people ripped a movie.

You do realize that piracy, real live piracy, has been going on in southeast Asia for decades and is a multimillion dollar industry, yes? That hasn't seemed to slow them down... how is a few downloads going to ensure you can't see Independence Day 4: Return to Mars?


Lol whens the release date? Listen I dont agree with there greed and there tactics there using(Like using child pornography to try and get torrent sites down) I just trying to make the point that technically it is stealing when you take something with out paying for it. If i spent 2 years of my life working hard on something just for it to get ripped off and then get told its ok because only a few thousand people did it i'd be pissed! wouldn't you?. I don't know maybe i haven't come across clear enough

edit on 11-5-2011 by Bixxi3 because: SP

edit on 11-5-2011 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


No it isn't stealing because there was no theft. There was just no money given to an entity that thinks they are entitled to more.

If I buy a movie and you borrow it to watch it how is that theft? It's the same thing only via the internet.
edit on 11-5-2011 by AdAbsurdum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


so you sidestep all of my questions, and then repeat yourself again.


how is a string of questions a line of logic, anyway? unless of course you secretly understand my point :-O
edit on 11-5-2011 by RelentlessLurker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
you people are forgetting,downloading from the internet,is like recording from the radio...it can't be controlled unless they invoke certain freedoms.

and as far as people here saying,oh what about the poor artist who is losing out.

the artist gets paid a pittance from the record labels.

it's on the them to protect there product,not us.

they got you all by the balls now anyway.....with this capping,that will become the standard thing on every ISP soon,so you will be all paying for you internet at premium rates,and also what you download,so you have to pay twice...it's a back door tax.

there is no excuse for this,other then media corporations,bleeding the consumer dry at every turn.

consumerism is a drug,and were all addicted,and like all addicts,as long as we get our fix,we don't care what it's costs,or how it might effect others.

you are not a criminal for downloading from the internet,how many criminals pay for what they are accused of stealing...$70 a month a mth for average internet access....when i know it's costs the ISP less then $1 a mth per costumer.

that's a ourangous profit



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Sorry guys i fill like a fool.Its not stealing its copyright infringement. i guess i still feel like its "stealing" i have strong morals what can i say?

copyright infringement
edit on 11-5-2011 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I'm going to be perfectly honest. I have never torrented, downloaded, or even streamed a movie. But the only reason I haven't is because I don't need things like this lawsuit ruining my life. If I were to do something like this and then end up positively identified and prosecuted or fined, my life would literally be ruined. I do not have the means to pay the damages that would arise from such a case, and it's probable that I never will be in a position where I would feel safe taking such a risk with my life.

Therefore, I choose not to undertake such activities. However, it isn't because I think doing so is wrong. I disagree with actors, producers, and directors, however skilled, making millions of dollars for portraying stories. I disagree with current ticket prices. I disagree with the concept of owning information. I agree with protecting someone's intellectual property to the extent that they can still make some kind of a living with it should they so choose, and to the extent that no one else can claim credit for what they created. But I don't agree with taking it this far.

Nevertheless, as I would prefer for my life to remain at least as stable as it is (which isn't saying much,) I do not download.
edit on 5/11/2011 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


Wrong again. This isn't being redistributed for profit. There is no crime here.

From your link: "...in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) ruled that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property"

Now you can pretend this is a morality issue all you want, it doesn't mean you are actually better than the rest of us, it just means you like to think you are.

End of the day this is about business and corporate share-cropping but keep shucking and jiving, and showing your teeth. I mean after all, if it wasn't for the massive profits they turn out on the backs of the people that produce the so called "art" in the first place you would be unable to consume and God help us all if the day ever comes that the entertainment industry has to correct for market changes.
edit on 11-5-2011 by AdAbsurdum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


Wrong again. This isn't being redistributed for profit. There is no crime here.

From your link: "...in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) ruled that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property"

Now you can pretend this is a morality issue all you want, it doesn't mean you are actually better than the rest of us, it just means you like to think you are.

End of the day this is about business and corporate share-cropping but keep shucking and jiving, and showing your teeth. I mean after all, if it wasn't for the massive profits they turn out on the backs of the people that produce the so called "art" in the first place you would be unable to consume and God help us all if the day ever comes that the entertainment industry has to correct for market changes.
edit on 11-5-2011 by AdAbsurdum because: (no reason given)


ok your right i did not see that.My understanding was downloading was against the law. And i don't think im better then anyone else i really resent that. Each to his own i guess. have a great day



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Aren't these 23,000 people who showed interest in the film by downloading it the very same people who support these filmmakers through box-office sales, dvd sales, and spreading interest in the artist's work?

They are trying to attack their own support system.

It's not 1 person, or 100 people, but 23,000 people!

Who do they think is buying their chit? lol.

And if they were truly profit-minded they would want to prosecute the people not wanting to download their stuff.
edit on 11-5-2011 by NearPerfect because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bixxi3


ok your right i did not see that.My understanding was downloading was against the law. And i don't think im better then anyone else i really resent that. Each to his own i guess. have a great day


Bixxi, don't worry. You were right in what you were trying to say and your "gut" instinct. Taking it without paying for it IS stealing, and don't let these guys sway you otherwise.

They think they OWN the copies they get by purchasing it. They only have a license to listen or view it when they "purchase" it. They have not purchased the songs or the video, only the license.

They are all, now, fighting the legitimacy of the laws as they stand...wrong forum for that, get into politics. But as the law stands now, until it is changed is, yes, it IS stealing. And that wont get resolved here on ATS. But it's ok, you were right and I understood from context what you meant.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


Thanks alphabetaone! Im not alone after all
Star for cheering me up



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I love this topic...

Either you buy into this MATRIX we live in or you don't. People who call this theft, buy whole-heartedly into this lie of a Matrix that has been created.

More and more people are beginning to wake up, one way or another, and realize that we're living in a matrix. I don't know about the 2012 thing, but perhaps this awakening is what will reach a tipping point on that date. Maybe people will join me...look around...and realize this society, indeed the entire world doesn't make any sense. It's all fake, a ponzi, and designed to oppress and harm people. It's all designed to where supposedly free people are in servitude to someone who has appointed themselves KING.

Concerning DLing and the "intellectual property" thing. WTF! Take a step back and realize what is actually being attempted. I guess if there was a such thing as intellectual property early in our development as a species, a large portion of us wouldn't be allowed to use speech, or for that matter many, many things. Someone would have declared it THEIR intellectual property!

It isn't the artists that are complaining (anymore) about DLing. It's the third party/middlemen who are complaining. They are getting cut out of their free, grossly inflated profit. They aren't going to be able to make themselves billionaires while the artists become thousandaires anymore. The musicians will continue to become thousandaires, but the industry CEO's, managers, etc are being cut out of the picture because they aren't NEEDED in the picture.

The music industry was on a bubble bigger than the real estate industry. The bubble has burst and artists will have to take their true place in this society and world. They're going to actually have to WORK to earn their money. They can't just make a album, it go platinum and they live off that for 5 years or more. The artists who are complaining are the ones who ate the lie up and believe all they have to do is burp and fart all over a cd and it goes 5x platinum!

There was a time when people would go to record shops and take a wild gamble on buying albums they hadn't heard before. I used to buy at least 8 albums every month! What happened is the artists who hate DLing, began burping and farting on their cd's, not even attempting to make quality material. All the while the artists and labels were laughing at us consumers while they rolled around in private jets and brought bigger houses. Us consumers were left with albums we couldn't even stand to listen too.

We'd purchase albums, spend $20 and be lucky if there were ONE good song on the album. WE COULDN"T GET OUR $20 BACK! The artists would promise the next album they dropped would be epic to make up for that one. It wouldn't be...and they robbed us again! Laughing all the way to the bank! Repeat process...

Any modern artist (myself included) in this day, must adjust to this climate and realize you have to actually grind. The music industry bubble has burst and it's time to WORK how we used too. There isn't anymore, "Well I need another million dollars. Lemme stumble to the studio, record these 15 songs I pull out my arse. Hand it to my label and wait for my checks to roll in."

Now artists have to do their own market research, build their fans one person at a time, create a good product, expose that product to as many people as you can, network, book venues and create a great show. In other words, artists have to WORK again. Have to work to insure consumers WANT your product. For a while artists were able to say, "Fluck rather you like my album or not, just buy it."

Last thing...record companies are mad that artists no longer need them. With the digital age, record companies no longer have a strangle on distribution.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
You are not stealing anything. What you are doing is failing to pay for the license to play the movie/music/sofware. When you buy Windows you are not buying Windows... You are just purchasing a license to use it. The same goes for movies, photos, music and pretty much anything digital.

That is the whole concept for GPL on opensource programs. It is a General Public License. Meaning you can use it free as long as you follow the GPL terms. Any movie, software, photo's ect that don't have a GPL you need to pay for the license to use it. That is why giving a copy to someone else is illegal. They didn't buy the license to use it.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bixxi3

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


Wrong again. This isn't being redistributed for profit. There is no crime here.

From your link: "...in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) ruled that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property"

Now you can pretend this is a morality issue all you want, it doesn't mean you are actually better than the rest of us, it just means you like to think you are.

End of the day this is about business and corporate share-cropping but keep shucking and jiving, and showing your teeth. I mean after all, if it wasn't for the massive profits they turn out on the backs of the people that produce the so called "art" in the first place you would be unable to consume and God help us all if the day ever comes that the entertainment industry has to correct for market changes.
edit on 11-5-2011 by AdAbsurdum because: (no reason given)


ok your right i did not see that.My understanding was downloading was against the law. And i don't think im better then anyone else i really resent that. Each to his own i guess. have a great day





Your statement "against the law". Ask yourself why or should it be against the law more. If a law was passed instructing everyone to be sleep by 9pm...would you just follow and support it?



new topics




 
36
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join