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: 9
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
There are so many points that can (and in my opion NEED) to be made on this topic, and lucily many of them have been presented here and elsewhere already. However I will go ahead and add the tip of the iceberg of my own personal beliefs to the discussion.

First and foremost, I don't believe ANYONE should be paid to work on a piece of junk, regardless if its what the general public wishes to consume. I also don't believe I should pay to view (or listen, or participate in) something that's a complete waste of my time. I haven't, and won't, watch said film, but there are things I do wish to listen and participate in. Some of those things I will pay for, but wouldn't mind trying them first.

For instance: I hear a song that intruiges me. I don't, however, believe that this song itself is worth risking 15 bucks to buy an albumn when the rest could be crap. I would much rather sample the entire albumn to judge its worthiness before I decide to pay. Though some places offer this option (for music) gone are the days of getting to demo a game as shareware (anyone remember playing commander keen or duke nukem off of a floppy before being asked to mail in a check for the full version?). Why would I pay 60 bucks for a game that was over-hyped and contains little more than a couple of hours of playtime with little to no replay value? If I enjoy the game enough and think the developers are worth their time, THEN I'll go pay for it.

Also, a lot of the music I listen to comes out as mixes or live DJ sets that are never released for purchase. Torrenting them is the only way to find them.

And lastly, I believe that anything that is done as art for the sake of all should be given to all freely. Asking someone to pay for a live event that can only be experienced in person is one thing, but asking for money for a recording of sound from every person that wishes to hear it is outdated.

If you REALLY believe in free music, check out ccmixter.org. the people their offer their vocals and drumloops freely, then the djs and producers that work with said samples put their work back on site, to be worked over and remixed again and again until everyone has had a hand in it. At that point, no one person owns any of it, the song is amazing in its quality and content, and is given out to the public free of charge to enjoy. If more services wereportions of the entertainment industry were like that, where those who wanted to participate for the sheer betterment of humanity, we would be one step closer to uniting and removing the monetary system as a means of social control.

Thus ends my two cents.




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
The only thieves are movie and record companies.


No, they aren't. Especially not today with those unbelievable cheap prices.
Remember what a vinyl costed in the 1970's? Yeah, it was expensive. I own some old Vinyls that still have their price Tags. For example: Deep Purple - Made in Japan 22 DM. Take the Inflation and that would be a today price of about 35€. What do CDs cost now? 12,99-14,99€. That's even cheaper then the Price of CD's in the 80's - i remember that back then CD's back then costed up to 50 DM!
Remember the prices of VHS Tapes? Laser-Disc? DVDs are way cheaper. (Two days ago i read at a wrestling forum about WWF tapes in the late 80's, apparently they costed 60 dollars...60 dollars for a VHS! Insane! Today you get those shows on DVD for 20 bucks)
And you do get more today, don't forget that. Back then a Vinyl had about 35-40 minutes or music. CD's today are mostly filled with up to 80 minutes. DVD come with Bonus-Material...what did you get on VHS? A trailer? A music video? Not even multiple languages!

I honestly can't understand all the criticism. Media is cheaper today, then 20, 30 years ago. Back then, everything was a rip-off.

I can't understand pirates, they steal everything and then say "ooooh, the companies are evil, they don't deserve money"
Have those people ever thought about all the employes of the companies? What would the pirates say, if their boss at work says "Oh, sorry, you don't get any money, because we have a problem with thiefs...oh, and your fired because we need to save money".



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu
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.


It would still be deemed piracy if you gave away physical copies of the film without charging.. it's not legal to share with your friends.. I've even at one point seen a movie exec say that it's piracy to let others watch your copy of the movie but they are relaxed on that point ( I would love to see them try to sue for that ) ... bars and restaurants can't have the volume up on tvs without paying licensing fees legally either.. it's kind of absurd
edit on 11-5-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Well I hope you keep your receipts for the rest of your life otherwise how are the license police going to know if you bought it BEFORE or AFTER you downloaded it. They apparently don't really care too much for these kind of details If you don't buy the download, you're a thief according to the some people in this thread.

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



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
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?


No, according to me they cannot have it exist as being multiple copies of the same license with equal viewing/listening rights.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
reply to post by miniatus
 


Well I hope you keep your receipts for the rest of the life otherwise how are the license police going to know if you bought it BEFORE or AFTER you downloaded it.


Absolutely true .. and who does that? I don't .. the only way you'd be safe is if you bought your physical copy online if you didn't have the receipt because there is at least a detailed order history..



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferumbra
Copyright BS makes me sick.

This is what they want to do.

Example, Expendables, they will make tens or hundreds of million dollars first year.

Second year they will get about 10 million dollars.

But 100 years from now, they still have copyright.

1000 years from now they still have copyright and are making money on BS movie.


That is actually not true. There is time limit to copyright.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
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.


Perhaps, I'm not the one who wrote the law or who decides where/how it gets conformed with. But that's an argument that needs to be addressed at a different forum (local/federal) it wont get resolved here.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by ferumbra
Copyright BS makes me sick.

This is what they want to do.

Example, Expendables, they will make tens or hundreds of million dollars first year.

Second year they will get about 10 million dollars.

But 100 years from now, they still have copyright.

1000 years from now they still have copyright and are making money on BS movie.


That is actually not true. There is time limit to copyright.


A time limit that keeps getting extended... according to copyright law mickey mouse should be public domain but it's not ..



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Yeah, for a limited time.
I doubt they'd keep receipts for longer than a year.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

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

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


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


why wont it stand?

the IP address only tells you where the file was downloaded to...but not who did it...there are 4 people in my family....I regularly have mates round who ALL use my laptop for stuff like facebook or ebay or woteva they need i for...if someone tried to sue me for illegal downloading...how can they prove it was me, my mom, my dad, my sister or any friend or other family member who used the computer?

if we all just denied it..what would they do?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


It might not get resolved here but it definately should be discussed here as I'm sure a LOT of people don't know.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
reply to post by miniatus
 


Yeah, for a limited time.
I doubt they'd keep receipts for longer than a year.


I never keep physical receipts but I usually order online .. my amazon and newegg histories go back for years.. I used to order all my DVD's online ( I have like 5,000 movies in DVD form at this point that I can't get rid of lol )

Now I go with downloads, not pirated but I use amazon or itunes and keep my libraries on large raided drives



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo

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

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


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


why wont it stand?

the IP address only tells you where the file was downloaded to...but not who did it...there are 4 people in my family....I regularly have mates round who ALL use my laptop for stuff like facebook or ebay or woteva they need i for...if someone tried to sue me for illegal downloading...how can they prove it was me, my mom, my dad, my sister or any friend or other family member who used the computer?

if we all just denied it..what would they do?


It doesn't even tell you where it was downloaded to in many cases .. if someone tapped into your wireless then it could have gone anywhere, even to the parking lot next to your apartment or home.. if it's a shared connection at an office or school it could have been downloaded by anyone .. there's just simply no way to link an IP to a person so of course it won't stand .. you can't even link an IP to a specific computer ( unless the internet is linked DIRECTLY to that computer and not using a cable modem or router ) .. if it's directly connected to the computer than you can link that IP to a mac-address, and the mac-address to a computer .. but again, not to a person from that point.
edit on 11-5-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


It might not get resolved here but it definately should be discussed here as I'm sure a LOT of people don't know.


You're probably right about that.

And you know something? It's in the same vein that "a LOT of people didn't know" about what the hell was on their mortgages before signing away their lives and what happened? Oooops a housing bubble.

You see, I'm not bringing my personal belief on what I feel about the subject, only what is true or false with respect to the law as it is, my belief notwithstanding.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadowAngel85
 


Your comparing a digital file OR DVD or CD disc that cost pennies to make compared to a very expensive thing to create like a vynil record or even a vhs tape.
I can see your point but in another way I can't because of the one point of COST of the physical product costing next to nothing to produce.

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



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by Flighty
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


It might not get resolved here but it definately should be discussed here as I'm sure a LOT of people don't know.


You're probably right about that.

And you know something? It's in the same vein that "a LOT of people didn't know" about what the hell was on their mortgages before signing away their lives and what happened? Oooops a housing bubble.

You see, I'm not bringing my personal belief on what I feel about the subject, only what is true or false with respect to the law as it is, my belief notwithstanding.


There is a rule .. "Ignorantia juris non excusat" .. Ignorance of the law is no excuse .. if you don't know a law doesn't exist, it doesn't make you exempt from the law.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

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.


I completely agree, look how well companies like hulu, netflix last.fm, etc, etc do because they do a subscription plan. Bottom line is that prices for entertainment like cds, dvds, are way too high, especially given global economics at this time. Most families I know are putting extra money away/investing in silver for when the planet goes dark or if we have more disasters/war. It would probably be too much to expect these industries to restructure their budgeting and pay scale so they can afford to do the right thing and charge reasonable prices for their product (and solve the problem), so offer a subscription service. I would bet the 90% of those who torrent would happily pay it so they would not have to worry about the possibility of getting into legal trouble.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


yes you are correct.

i apologise for my sarcasm.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenieme

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

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.


I completely agree, look how well companies like hulu, netflix last.fm, etc, etc do because they do a subscription plan. Bottom line is that prices for entertainment like cds, dvds, are way too high, especially given global economics at this time. Most families I know are putting extra money away/investing in silver for when the planet goes dark or if we have more disasters/war. It would probably be too much to expect these industries to restructure their budgeting and pay scale so they can afford to do the right thing and charge reasonable prices for their product (and solve the problem), so offer a subscription service. I would bet the 90% of those who torrent would happily pay it so they would not have to worry about the possibility of getting into legal trouble.


Those albums would still be pirated, I can guarantee you that .. any alternative to paying for something will be used, it would help REDUCE the amount of piracy sure.. but it will still be pirated.. netflix is a brilliant example of this .. there's no point in downloading something when I have access to it for $8.99/mo on netflix.. the library is constantly growing and there's lots of good content there.. I'm sure netflix has done a lot to reduce piracy numbers



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join