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: 8
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by edog11
torrentfreak.com...
IP-Address Is Not a Person, BitTorrent Case Judge Says

This is gonna be big... How can one sue more than 23.000 people, based on IP's? Since when can you identify a person by fishing their IP? IP activity is NOT a sure way of finding a persons identity since anyone could use your IP to do anything he or she wishes on the net. Without further evidence, I think it is going to be very hard to win this lawsuit for the multi million dollar companies... As long as the judge is not corrupt of course.

Here is the list with all IP's untill now.
www.wired.com...


IT--

techland.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 10-5-2011 by edog11 because: (no reason given)


There are two main reasons why an IP cannot be a person ..

1. Not all IP addresses are static, there just simply isn't enough IP addresses in the world to support everyone so the IP addresses are usually pooled.. in some cases you may get the same IP address ( I've seen one on cable last over a year without changing ) .. but for many providers, disconnecting and reconnecting will give you a different IP address. To make this a bigger issue, ISPs are not required currently to retain logs of who got an IP at a particular point in time.. so there's no definitive way to trace all of these back to a person reliably.. and if you did, who in the house did it? which leads me to ..

2. Offfices with shared connections, households who share connections ( roomate situations ), Schools with shared connections and the big one.. wireless that isn't properly secured.. if you live in an apartment complex and you set wireless up but didn't set a password because you don't know what you're doing.. well congrats, you're probably sharing with all of your neighbors..

There's just no way to make a proper case here.. there's also a million defenses .. just tell them you have wireless and it was insecure, you found out and have since secured it .. tossed out!




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a law is only as legit as those that will acknowledge it.

when that group becomes the minoirty, the law is nullified.

and if we use this thread as an example, it would appear the numbers are on the side of the pirates.




arrrrrrrrr!



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
It's amazing the way people will twist something to assuage feelings of guilt - or to just try and justify what they are doing. If you were not going to watch or listen to it for $$$.. it's ok to download it?


So if I see a nice watch in a jewelry store, I should just be able to walk in and take it, and say "Oh, it's ok if I take this.. I never planned on spending money on it."



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Any logical person can see this is ridiculous, despite the flawed logic that downloading a torrent is somehow criminal. You pay for the internet each month, you should be able to download whatever you like (minus rare exceptions like CP): Somebody uploaded the movie; the information is floating around in 'space-time', digitally, wasting away. The question is, why would you not download it? Do you want that information to go to to waste? So 23 thousand more people saw the movie, regardless of whether or not you got paid an extra 100k. When I create a piece of art, I would love for it to be getting thousands of extra downloads; can only mean more exposure for me. The only difference is that these companies are run by an insatiable greed, and somehow are not already happy with the hundreds of millions they'v received in revenues.

I don't see anyone doing anything about the fact that the government gives billions of our tax dollars a year to the richest corporations in the world (Exxon)? Or that Wall St. and the banks are ravaging our country with their endless greed? Or that we're wasting trillions on the wars overseas, all the while sacraficing peoples lives so the defense contractors can bank. No, we're prosecuting poor/middle class people for downloading The Expendables! Talk about hypocrisy.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


No , but if your friend bought that watch , and gave it to you , wouldnt you take it ?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I don't see anything coming out of it.
I mean I use a VPN account shared by people, when anyone connects to this account they are assigned a different IP based on the server load and available IP's.
So, how the hell can you connect the dots to the right people.
Sure I guess they could cross check it with your MAC address which I guess is recorded.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
A strange backward logic in my opinion: why sue those 23,000 people who downloaded the movie, when it's obviously that the only one/s guilty of something (and this something is not STEALING but COPYRIGHTS INFRINGEMENT) is the person/s who UPLOADED the movie online in the first place?

How could someone be blamed for downloading something that is posted freely out there on the internet for anyone willing to have it? It's like you find a bill of $20 on the street; not to take it it would be plain stupid. How can they label that as stealing? Internet is only a medium to spread information. This is what I'm paying for when I subscribe to an internet provider; to access whatever information is available out there. Should I, or you, be held responsible for what is posted online for free? Hell no! If someone has something valuable, and doesn't want to be shared freely, then is their job to make sure it doesn't end up on the internet.

Like someone said, the genie is out of the bottle, and there is nothing they can do about it. The internet changed the rules of the games; and I refuse to think that downloading something posted on internet is stealing. The big media corporations should change the rules too and stop chasing ghosts. In fact, we are doing them a service, and help spreading their worthless crap; if people would have to pay for every song they listen, almost nobody will waste money on all that electronic garbage they produce, and they will have to work much harder in order to sell something.

So, no, I don't believe that downloading something from the internet is stealing; as for those who upload stuff for free...well, is quite hard to draw the line between sharing a song I purchased with my friends at my home, or at the beach, and sharing it with my friends online, isn't it?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by WhiteHat
 


100 percent agree.

Second Line



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:20 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


Wasnt watching the Expendables punishment enough?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


im not aware of anybody taking that stance.

because in your example, the store would no longer have the watch. what is occuring with these downloads, is a duplication of the original. magic, if you will.

if we were to plug this into your example, you would walk into the store, look at the watch, assemble an exact copy from your own materials that were brought with you, then leave,

watch is still in the store.
watch is now on your wrist.
nobody loses. the store just thinks it does because they are ASSUMING you would have otherwise bought the watch.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jaydeePNW
 


I'm just waiting for some crafty lawyer to turn it around on the industry using their own words. Personally I have several hundred music cassettes, records from the 80s that no longer work. I also have a huge box of vhs movies, both kids and main stream action type movies. These media items no longer work. I PAID for the license and the right to use them and listen/enjoy them. I think the industry should keep up their end of the agreement and replace my music with cds and movies with dvds as I paid for the right to enjoy them and now I can't.

What if a million people sue for the replacement when our music and movies stop working???



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
The only thieves are movie and record companies.

You tell me how they can charge one price for a movie like Avatar that cost a billion to make.
And charge the same price for a new release Jennifer Anistan movie that was made with 1% of that budget?
Shouldn't it be 99% cheaper? Why aren't movies priced taking into consideration how much they cost to make?
They are ripping us off, end of.

The same for record companies charging the same for a new Nickleback record and some nobody who you've never even heard of before, (who you might incidentally have decide to download and check out and go see live if they are good)

There is cross subsidisation, and that's fine but I'M not going to pay for it. Let the artists and their stablemates work their cuts out with each other and the record company.
Cause making consumers pay for it isn't on.

And as for paying for a license, most licenses I have to either sign or tick an agreement to.
So unless the music and movie business are more up front about that, then that also is just another con job of deceitful practices and misrepresentation.
edit on 11-5-2011 by Flighty because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by someonesaint
reply to post by fleabit
 


No , but if your friend bought that watch , and gave it to you , wouldnt you take it ?


That's actually a great question as posed. However, it's completely flawed because it doesn't address the reality of what is in question. A watch has no Copyright attached to it. Nor does a spare cigarette or a piece of gum. Buying them lunch doesn't or giving them your ticket for the movies doesn't.

The reality of it is, that IF you bought a piece of music/video and IF you decided you wanted to share it with another person and IF you decided you wanted to share it online, then the only way you would be legally doing so would be:

A) Sharing it with only one other person
B) Deleting your copy permanently
C) By doing so, give up your right to that one exclusive copy of your license until you purchase another.


Which is why I agree that the people DOWNLOADING it shouldn't be held accountable, but the person sharing their single license for multiple breaches of it should absolutely be held accountable.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty


And as for paying for a license, most licenses I have to either sign or tick an agreement to.
So unless the music and movie business are more up front about that, then that also is just another con and deceitful practice where they are misrepresenting.


I don't really care about how you WANT to view it, the law is the law, and by purchasing it you ARE ticking an agreement....feel free to go look that up somewhere.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AmazedByU
 


according to certain users in this thread, since youve already purchased your license you should be able to waltz into any store and take another copy.

it wont matter since (according to other users) you never really buy a physical copy,




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu
Any logical person can see this is ridiculous, despite the flawed logic that downloading a torrent is somehow criminal. You pay for the internet each month, you should be able to download whatever you like (minus rare exceptions like CP): Somebody uploaded the movie; the information is floating around in 'space-time', digitally, wasting away. The question is, why would you not download it? Do you want that information to go to to waste? So 23 thousand more people saw the movie, regardless of whether or not you got paid an extra 100k. When I create a piece of art, I would love for it to be getting thousands of extra downloads; can only mean more exposure for me. The only difference is that these companies are run by an insatiable greed, and somehow are not already happy with the hundreds of millions they'v received in revenues.

I don't see anyone doing anything about the fact that the government gives billions of our tax dollars a year to the richest corporations in the world (Exxon)? Or that Wall St. and the banks are ravaging our country with their endless greed? Or that we're wasting trillions on the wars overseas, all the while sacraficing peoples lives so the defense contractors can bank. No, we're prosecuting poor/middle class people for downloading The Expendables! Talk about hypocrisy.


That logic is flawed anyway, sure you're paying for your bandwidth .. that means the ISP got paid for that movie not the people who made it .. so yeah it would be illegal in that sense.. you didn't pay those who own the distribution rights for your copy of the film .. I'm not pro piracy, I just know the technology behind it ( I used to work for a large ISP by the way as a systems admin )



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


Well if that is the case, it shoud be DISPLAYED WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE AND READ IT THEN SHOULDN'T IT.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


so then according to you, when one purchases a DVD, they cannot then view it with their family members, as those members are not licensed to view it.

correct?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Another important distinction that I think that needs to be noted, is that you can't compare the digital age of piracy to literal piracy. Literal piracy involves individuals making profit from reproducing and selling illegal copies. I have never boughten a pirated DVD/CD, and if I ever decided to I think there's a distinction in that you're paying somebody for something they don't own. In this digital age, pirated information is exchanged between countless peers, none of which are making a dime off the aforementioned. The original unloader does not make any profit either. Trying to stop the spread of information in this age is about as useful as trying to legislate masturbation.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by AmazedByU
 


according to certain users in this thread, since youve already purchased your license you should be able to waltz into any store and take another copy.

it wont matter since (according to other users) you never really buy a physical copy,



You absolutely should not be allowed to walk into a store and take another physical copy because you have a license to it.. anyone who suggests that has a mental problem.. that's physical media and it comes with production costs, the store paid for that copy to sell to you .. so if someone thinks that they aren't operating with a full deck .. HOWEVER .. if I do have a license for the film because I purchased it, I should very well be able to download a copy of that same film ... but it should be the same edition.. if I bought the cheap cut version I shouldn't go download the director's cut or extended editions .. you know .. to be morally correct

There is another side to that though.. the very nature of P2P means that while you're downloading it, you're also sharing it .. and that's one of the problems these companies have and why they can sue you for more than the film is worth .. they assume that while you download it, you've shared it automatically with several others at least .. you can't disable that using torrent..
edit on 11-5-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join