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.

 

Abandoned by British justice: Student faces 10 years in U.S. jail for setting up 'illegal' website

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Question -

Why do people feel that they can rip other people off? If a person makes a movie, why do people feel that it should be free to whomever wants it?

The list of photos is interesting to say the least.. So because those people have money, they are somehow responsible responsible for people who dont have money?

If a person wants that much money, shouldn't they come up with their own ideas and go from there rather than feel the haves should support the have nots?

Would it be ok for a person to break into your house / apartment and take what they want because they are homeless and have nothing where as you are employed and have nice things?




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I think you are mxing the digital world and the analogue world up a bit. The analogue world is made up of finite material. If i break into you house and rob your goodies. That is they are gone.

In the digital world you do not rob things from people. You copy things and there is a big difference. I can copy your goodies a thousand times and it matters not. What is wrong with copying creations and ideas. We do it all the time. I am sure you have done it yourself on ATS. You can read something and it changes your opinion on a matter. Later you will tap your opinion.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants. These laws are old school and need to change.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So if I loan a dvd from a friend I'm ripping someone off? If I get one from the library I'm ripping someone off? If I watch something from tv I'm ripping someone off?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
The problem with all this is its predicated on a false premise of 'lost earnings'. If somebody downloads 10 movies a week for free is he suddenly in a piracy free world going to conjure the funds to buy them all?

Of course not. He'll just see less films and he won't tell other people how good they are (because he hasn't seen them).

Its idiocy and greed. They are persecuting people in pursuit of a profit bonanza that isn't ever going to be there.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
There seems to be alot of debate about this subject but it's really very simple. The lobbyists for the mega rich corporations that don't like you to download things said not to download things.

The U.S. government is a simple tool that corporations use to enforce there will on us and then hide behind the mask of being just because we are breaking the law, a law that they in fact lobbied to get passed by lining pockets of sell out politicians on capitol hill.

The moral question or the philosophical question of whether it is right or wrong is moot because we have been told not to do it by our corporate masters and there enforcement branch; the federal government. Sad, sad state of affairs in this country.

edit on 25-1-2012 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminati_2012
 


So, are they going into Holland next to arrest it's citizens for smoking pot?

The US needs to be put in it's place....soon.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


So if I scan the Mona Lisa and flood the market, doesn't it depreciate the value of the original? Especially if its turned around and sold? Dont get me wrong your entitled to your belief on this one. I just think that if people are going to take the time to make music or a movie that they are entitled to turn around and sell it.

I think the argument about copying is just an excuse.

music
movies
software
etc

All took someones idea and hard work to put together in order to make money off of it. I just feel people think in terms of communism for lack of a better description on this one. Dont want to pay for something so just steal it and somehow justify it. One person does all the work only to have people steel it and distribute it.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So if I loan a dvd from a friend I'm ripping someone off? If I get one from the library I'm ripping someone off? If I watch something from tv I'm ripping someone off?


Yes you are although thats an entirely different discussion from this one. In this case you arent loaning anything to anyone. In this case the items were posted to the net for everyone to view and download / reupload somewhere else.

How many people do you know that illegally downloaded a movie went out the next day to buy it because they thought it was great?

Someone had the idea... Someone had the vision and abilities to make it... Someone had the ability to market and sell their idea.

Only to have someone else steal it and pass it out for free because some people dont feel they should have to pay for it?

and people wonder why society is going to hell in a hand-basket..
edit on 25-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   


poor kid.May God have mercy on his suffering.USA is an oppressive and becoming more and more evil day by day.




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by purplemer
 


So if I scan the Mona Lisa and flood the market, doesn't it depreciate the value of the original?


Maybe you could talk to Google?

www.google.com... 50



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by purplemer
 


So if I scan the Mona Lisa and flood the market, doesn't it depreciate the value of the original?


Maybe you could talk to Google?

www.google.com... 50


Re-printed with permission comes to mind? Also we have seen internet sites taken down for distributing material when they had no permission from the copyright owners to do so.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Re-printed with permission comes to mind?


Well, occording to this, we have ALL re-printed on this site without permission. Thus we are ALL criminals and can only give our hypocritical opinions on theivery of copywritten products.



Newspapers & Copyright Laws

Many people don't realize that the 50 cents they spend on their daily newspaper doesn't mean they own the paper's contents. Everything published in a newspaper--from the smallest snippet to the largest expose--is copyrighted.

Newspapers and Copyright

Everything published in a newspaper is protected under copyright law. Copyright law grants the legal rights to a work of intellectual property to a certain party.

Newspaper Material Cannot Be Redistributed

Clipping a newspaper article and sending it to Grandma is perfectly OK, but making photocopies of an article and passing it out to potential clients for your small business, posting it to your webpage or pasting it in your community bulletin all are strictly forbidden under United States copyright law.

Ask Permission to Use Newspaper Content

If you have a reason to use content produced in a newspaper, you can call the publisher's office--or the reprints and rights office--to ask permission. Many larger newspapers have reprint services that reproduce certain articles or pictures for a specific commercial use, such as passing out a favorable article on your business to potential clients.

Web Content Is Copyrighted, Too

Just because content published on the web can be easily cut and pasted doesn't mean it is any less protected than content on the printed newspaper page. Newspapers are vigilant about protecting their copyrights, so if you're going to paste a clipping of an article to your company or organization website, always make sure you request the permission of the newspaper before doing so.

News You Can Use

Newspapers are usually happy to have their content used. You just have to ask and make sure you go through the proper channels for approval.


www.ehow.com...


Also we have seen internet sites taken down for distributing material when they had no permission from the copyright owners to do so.


Well, ATS better watch out then. Their whole Breaking Alternative News section is a copyright violation according to the site I posted above.

Or is it only a copyright violation if you don't link to the original source?


edit on 25-1-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I do not disagree with the assertion that illegal downloaders are breaching copyright in some form. But I think it's getting silly. On computers, copying and distributing digital content IS TOO EASY. THAT is the source of the problem. It's like trying to make walking illegal. It's easy to click the wrong links on the internet as well. It just makes the mess worse. If they don't address this first then they're going to make the justice system bankrupt. In a lot of ways, it's like the drug war. Once drugs become too easily accessible (available) then there're going to be a lot of users. This is not a good situation because too many people of this type end up clogging up the courts and jails.

THey need to focus more on the ACTUAL distributors! The people who own the servers that have the illegal content. Go after them. Going after some guy that posted a list is ludicrous when you consider that it's the servers that have the illegal digital content and they're responsible for the actual download. You're hacking at the branches, which always regrow, while ignoring the roots. This is a classic mistake and hints at a deeper confusion, maybe even a denial of the circumstances.

That deeper confusion is the fact that computers and networks make copying and distributing VERY EASY. This is a different world because of these things. Things can't remain the same in this environment. For a moment, imagine being able to copy and distribute your TV or your car or your calculator or anything in your house with the click of a button and mere pennies of expenditure. Do you think our world could remain the same without some change in its fundamentals? I get the feeling that many in industry do not want to change with the times or they simply resist understanding the root of this problem. Not understanding the root of the problem makes it worse in a number of ways.

Many of these people are still stuck in the 1980's and mid-1990's. They do not really understand how computers and the internet have changed things. The markets are changing. A enterprising artist needs to understand these changes so that they can compete and survive. Otherwise, you're making your job harder and costing our country more money by over-burdening the justice system.

I can't say exactly where all this goes. I just know that nothing stays the same for long.

My guess is that making digital content will not die, but it will change how it produces and distributes and receives its income. Artists/Makers got used to things that were harder to copy and distribute and have grown complacent. But they won't take much time to figure out how to respond.

Remember that profit is a great motive. They'll figure out something.

Here're a few ideas:
1) LARGE games/media/etc - like multiple blue-rays in size
... This makes it harder to distribute and copy - requires greater bandwidth, cpu, disk space
2) One-time price so that you only sell your product ONCE
... This means that whatever happens afterward won't impact your income as much
3) More live performances
... It's not easy to copy/distribute live performances - we don't have a star trek holo-deck yet

Just some ideas. But I do not think about this even part-time. Just a start.
edit on 25-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
So if I scan the Mona Lisa and flood the market, doesn't it depreciate the value of the original?




What??

Why would the value of the original Mona Lisa depreciate?


There is only ONE Mona Lisa, everyone knows that and just because there are copies and prints out there, doesn't make the original any less or more valuable.


I don't think the other posters are expressing opinions, they have very sound "cases" and make a lot of sense.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

How many people do you know that illegally downloaded a movie went out the next day to buy it because they thought it was great?


Quite a few actually. Films, music, games, workout routines... lots of stuff.

Is it any good? I dont know, let's try it. Yup, it's good. Let's pick it up.

Seems a fair counter measure to the media industries constant use of fraud to trick people into wasitng money on garbage.

If I can get restitution for a crappy meal at a restaurant or a crappy product retail why cant I get restitution for a crappy movie, album or game? On a scale of value that meal can only be made once. Those ingredients are used and gone. Yet I still am able to get restitution.

The media industry is no different than the sub-prime loan debacle. A bunch of gamblers over-paying to produce some tripe then trying to trick as many people as they can into paying to consume that tripe.

Homes never should have been valued this high. Lenders never should have loaned to unqualified people. Builders never should have engaged in a frenzy building to buyers who dont exist.

Same with the movie, music and software industry. It's all a crooked scam run by crooked people earning fantasy dollars that have no real tangible origin by swindling a mindless consuming public.

And just like the mortgage mess the government will fight tooth and nail to perpetuate the scam until it becomes too obvious to hide any longer.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


Actually the requirements here on this site are 10% of the original article / content with a link back to the original piece.

Media is a little bit different than movies / music / software.

A lot of the articles can be re[posted here in entirety provided you have the consent of the person / business who owns the article / content.

People who collect movies / music and make them available to anyone who wants them is not doing so with the consent of the owners of the items in question.
edit on 25-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Im just saying that if I or anyone else on this site produced something that was popular and made us money, we would be upset if someone else decided to make it available to all for free.

If I wanted my invention to be free, I would make it free. Dont you think that decision should be with the creator and not some person who had nothing at all what so ever to do with it?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


So you justify it because you feel the people behind the creation are greedy and have more than enough money to offset the loss?

If we are going to compare, you should compare it to something along the same lines. Your ability to get a refund at a fast food chain has nothing to do with law and has everything to do with company policy. As an example most fast food places, if you want a refund, require you to bring back the uneaten food and receipt.

As far as returning music or movies, again you can do that if your within the return policy of the store you bought it from.

However this discussion has nothing at all to do with not liking music or a movie. It revolves around a person buying the item and then making it available to people at no cost. Are you going to make the movie or music available if you dont like it?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Are you going to make the movie or music available if you dont like it?


You mean would I give my copy of a thing to somebody if I dont like it? Sure.

Would I set up some server to make something available costing me time, storage and bandwidth? No.

And I'm not trying to justify this by demonizing wealthy people. I'm pointing out that these values arent based in reality. Perhaps if costs were more in line with real values piracy wouldnt be such a big deal.

In a world where overhead is stripped and digital distribution reigns there's no reason why an ebook has to cost even half of the print version costs for example.

It's only a matter of time before 3d printing comes to a point where we will be able to fabricate anything and everything from raw materials. MIT faculty and researchers have released a paper claiming Star Trek like replication of goods will be available within the next 20 years. What then?

This fight over piracy is an intermediate and largely useless fight.
edit on 25-1-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Are you going to make the movie or music available if you dont like it?


You mean would I give my copy of a thing to somebody if I dont like it? Sure.

Would I set up some server to make something available costing me time, storage and bandwidth? No.


That is my point... Its one thing if you buy something and dont like it and decide to give it away to someone else. The item was bought and paid for and you transfered it on to one person.

Its something else entirely to take that item and put it into an environment where anyone who wants it can just download it from you. Thats where I have the issues with the thought process of some. Those who think that once they purchase an item they can in turn make unlimited quantities / allow it to be download by anyone.

They aren't the distribution company the creator signed on with.
edit on 25-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join