Are You One of 23,000 Defendants in the US' Biggest Illegal Download Lawsuit?

Originally posted by spoonbender
reply to post by edog11

 

The closest single lawsuit in size to the Expendables case targets 15,551 BitTorrent users for downloading a handful of porn flicks with titles such as Big Dick Glory Holes and Spin on My Cock. A judge has not decided whether to authorize subpoenas in that case.

Of coarse Not ... Imagine those title's being repeated over and over again during the trial ....

If I was on the jury I'd be laughing my arse off thru the whole thing

Would only be one trial if the defendants lose arrest warrants are issued by the judge. Then the police stop by your house place you under arrest and issue said sentence. It would probably be a fine i do not believe the judge would tack on jail time. The way they would handle the fines is simple pay a company to collect fines getting a percentage of course. As they receive payment your cleared off the list do not pay they charge fines plus tack on legal expenses. In the end its cheaper to pay the fine but if someone wants to fight it out of principle they better have alot of money because i guarantee there going to want to set precedence so they'll throw millions at it if necessary and most likely jail time will be involved.

Torrents or any other peer to peer file sharing
Usenet

Originally posted by TKDRL
Would you buy a car without test driving it?

You can "test drive" movies, songs and software.

Just because you don't like it is not a valid reason, nor is any other reason, to steal from people. You can get permission to test drive a car. One does not have permission to copy and watch an entire film without paying for it.

Do you think it's ok to sneak into a theater? You're just test driving the film, right? And maybe if they're lucky, you in all your high and mighty glory would feel that it's something worth paying the admission for.

We're not talking about a major (and in the U.S. quite necessary) purchase here, one that costs many thousands of dollars like a car, we're talking about entertainment.

This whole attitude of "I'm going to steal from you, for as long as I want, unless I decide I like it enough to pay you for the value I've already received" is morally abhorrent.

And let's be totally honest here, the vast majority of people are NOT going to pay for something they already stole.

Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD
If you made a copy of it out of thin air, I could careless what you do with it.

I've already entertained this fantasy in another post. I wonder how many people would "careless" if such a ridiculous thing were possible. Where's the incentive for anyone to buy sandwiches from your place of employment if I could make copies and distribute them to whoever wanted one? How long do you think you would be able to stay employed if you could only ever sell one of anything you make?

I bet then you wouldn't "careless" .

Either way, you're committing the "appeal to law" fallacy: en.wikipedia.org...

It's stealing. Plain and simple. I know, I know, everyone who does it wants to justify it and make excuses so they can feel better about doing it.

You get something for free and people like me don't get paid.

Originally posted by ohhwataloser
Ideas for the movies.... stop making me go to a theater, allow me to just simply hit a button in my house and movie instantly plays, stop charging me stupidly overpriced tickets to go sit in an uncomfortable seat, why do you feel 15 dollars is fair? why does 1 dollar popcorn cost 6.50? You are your own worse enemy.

And by instantly play, I mean no ads, no warning, play the movie, stop wasting my time. The 6:30 movie doesn't actually start until 6:55

www.netflix.com

There ya go. Everything you asked for all for $9 a month.

Now you have no excuse.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by ohhwataloser
Ideas for the movies.... stop making me go to a theater, allow me to just simply hit a button in my house and movie instantly plays, stop charging me stupidly overpriced tickets to go sit in an uncomfortable seat, why do you feel 15 dollars is fair? why does 1 dollar popcorn cost 6.50? You are your own worse enemy.

And by instantly play, I mean no ads, no warning, play the movie, stop wasting my time. The 6:30 movie doesn't actually start until 6:55

www.netflix.com

There ya go. Everything you asked for all for $9 a month.

Now you have no excuse.

lmao right on


but i will tell you one thing you run out of stuff to watch on netflix real quick but walmat has a 5$ bin so

Originally posted by Soloist



You get something for free and people like me don't get paid.

I dont download movies and i think i might have read you in the wrong context but your telling me because someone gave me a free sony tv and i no longer felt the need to buy one that its my fault you dont get paid. O i hope people dont catch on to your way of thinking. Or even better the copyrighted dvd player i bought at pirate price of 5$ from the good will that is proffiting off of reselling someone elses copyrighted product that they did not pay for is that even legal

Walmart also has vudu, amazon has their service as well. But now ISPs are trying to put a cap on so you will buy their On DEMAND services instead. Listen to your consumers and you will continue to prevail.. ignore them.. and well... either go get a bail out or submit to the RIAA and such. But whatever. I use netflix... that does not mean I do not see room for improvement (cable a la cart, no waiting for new movies on netflix, more reasonable digital download prices etc).

But in all fairness I do not believe downloading should be frowned upon so much. Look at android apps. Alot are free and you pay to get rid of the adds. And what if you were not entertained by the movie? Do you get your money back since that is what the movie was made to do? I am sorry but i can not endorse the supporting of crappy entertainment. But I will say pay for it if you enjoyed it (maybe the priceline model would work well here that way the ARTIST can see how good or crappy their film was....Just saying)

Originally posted by Soloist


I've already entertained this fantasy in another post. I wonder how many people would "careless" if such a ridiculous thing were possible. Where's the incentive for anyone to buy sandwiches from your place of employment if I could make copies and distribute them to whoever wanted one? How long do you think you would be able to stay employed if you could only ever sell one of anything you make?

I bet then you wouldn't "careless" .

Ummm it is legal to clone a sandwitch recipie and i am alowed to make as many as i like and hand them out if i wish. their for i would not care less. Or no one would be able to make a flamebroiled burger on the grill in their own back yard. Or do you think burgerking should sue all who own a bbq grill that is capable of producing flame kissed delicous hambugers. now i am hungry thanks for bring food in to this.

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Secondly, the other part of your argument can be applied to ANY product at all...and do you think that's effective or there is any efficacy what so ever in doing that with products?

Gasoline: "hmmm im not sure exxon will ignite everytime, screw them, im not paying until ive driven on it"
Cheeseburger: "Hmmmm unless this actually TASTES like burger, I'm not paying for it until I eat it"
Shoes: "Hmmmm I'm not sure my feet will be comfortable in these shoes in 6 months, Im not paying a DIME for em until 6 months has passed"
Haircut: "No WAYYY I'm paying for this haircut until I'm sure I like it"

I have a few problems with your examples.

First off, I have never paid for a haircut before the actual cut occured, only after, and only if I was satisfied. So yes, there is no way I'm paying for a haircut unless it was worth it. If I'm going to end up looking like a mess, I might as well not get my hair cut, and most barbers/hairdressers agree with me. (Luckily most of them are fairly competent at their jobs).

Secondly, the shoes example doesnt hold up. People who are listening to a CD to see if its worth buying arent listening to it for 6 months before buying it, they are listening to it one or two times to see if they like it. Kind of like trying on the shoes and taking a few steps around the store in them to see if they fit.

Originally posted by jonco6
I dont download movies and i think i might have read you in the wrong context but your telling me because someone gave me a free sony tv and i no longer felt the need to buy one that its my fault you dont get paid. O i hope people dont catch on to your way of thinking. Or even better the copyrighted dvd player i bought at pirate price of 5$ from the good will that is proffiting off of reselling someone elses copyrighted product that they did not pay for is that even legal

No, I'm saying if you download any movie, music or software I normally get royalties from for my hard work then you are stealing from me.

Period.

Originally posted by jonco6
Ummm it is legal to clone a sandwitch recipie and i am alowed to make as many as i like and hand them out if i wish. their for i would not care less. Or no one would be able to make a flamebroiled burger on the grill in their own back yard. Or do you think burgerking should sue all who own a bbq grill that is capable of producing flame kissed delicous hambugers. now i am hungry thanks for bring food in to this.

So go make your own movies then. Clone whatever you like. Spoof it, people do that all the time.

Then you can pass it out for free all you want, it's your money. And then you have no excuse to steal from people like me.

Originally posted by jonco6

Originally posted by Soloist


I've already entertained this fantasy in another post. I wonder how many people would "careless" if such a ridiculous thing were possible. Where's the incentive for anyone to buy sandwiches from your place of employment if I could make copies and distribute them to whoever wanted one? How long do you think you would be able to stay employed if you could only ever sell one of anything you make?

I bet then you wouldn't "careless" .

Ummm it is legal to clone a sandwitch recipie and i am alowed to make as many as i like and hand them out if i wish. their for i would not care less. Or no one would be able to make a flamebroiled burger on the grill in their own back yard. Or do you think burgerking should sue all who own a bbq grill that is capable of producing flame kissed delicous hambugers. now i am hungry thanks for bring food in to this.

The pricing of their duplications may be too high and they aren't using the technology out there to supply the market with what it's prepared to pay. But that's a different argument. Why the studios dont charge a modest annual subscription and let you download all their films is beyond me. The majority of people would do it.

Analogies get to a stage in science and engineering where they aren't helpful and cease to work. I think that's the case here. I suspect that the studios would not be suing you if you copied their recipe/script and used your BBQ/film camera and made your own copy of The Expendables with aunts, uncles and the family pet.

The crux of all of this is that they spent resources to sell something. Morally it is stealing. Legally ...... ?? Consider that this will all be nothing when 3D printing starts to take off. When you have a 3D printer at home and you can actually manufacture a physical item from a file on a memory stick as easily as you can print of a photo. See what happens then

Originally posted by Soloist
No, I'm saying if you download any movie, music or software I normally get royalties from for my hard work then you are stealing from me.

Period.

How is someone going to pay you royalties if they wouldn't use/watch/listen to your stuff in the first place? Period.

Related

Value of pirated software nearly $59 billion: study
Agence France Presse
by Chris Lefkow

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110512/bs_afp/usitcopyrightcomputersoftwarebsa

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The commercial value of pirated software increased 14 percent last year to nearly $59 billion, with emerging economies accounting for over half the total, according to a study published Thursday.

Businesses and consumers around the world bought $95 billion worth of legal personal computer (PC) software in 2010, according to the Business Software Alliance (BSA), but they installed another $58.8 billion in pirated software.

"This means that for every dollar spent on legitimate software in 2010, an additional 63 cents worth of unlicensed software also made its way into the market," the BSA said.

At $31.9 billion, emerging economies accounted for over half the commercial value of pirated software last year, the BSA said in its eighth Global Software Piracy Study.

(...)

Originally posted by scoobdude
Walmart also has vudu, amazon has their service as well. But now ISPs are trying to put a cap on so you will buy their On DEMAND services instead.

You make a great point here, I've been convinced of the same thing for awhile. But eventually it will backfire on them as they lose revenue.

Look at android apps. Alot are free and you pay to get rid of the adds.

Android apps can be made by one programmer in his/her spare time, or with a small team for very little money.
Modern movies cost millions to make, take years to produce, and support hundreds of people per project.

The free ad support model doesn't apply as it cannot work.

And what if you were not entertained by the movie?

Sorry? You cannot please everyone. That doesn't justify stealing.

Do you get your money back since that is what the movie was made to do?

If you are in the theater and don't watch the entire movie, many will give you a refund, or let you see another movie. If you purchase it on DVD, you can always sell it, or trade it as is your right.

I am sorry but i can not endorse the supporting of crappy entertainment.

But stealing somehow is ok?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
How is someone going to pay you royalties if they wouldn't use/watch/listen to your stuff in the first place? Period.

But they are use/watching/listening to it and not paying for it, while re-distributing it to others who do the same thing.

So I and others like me get screwed over.

There is no justification for being a thief people, try as you might, it's all lame excuses.

First thing popped into my head was those bad in theater commercials showing all the key grips and technicians saying we are robbing from them to make people feel bad which is annoying as hell because those people already got paid before it goes out. The main problem i see with this article and many seconded the notion that the fines are ridiculous for something that would cost me 8 dollars in theaters and about 15 at target, or in case of mp3's which are 99 cents on itunes or amazon. The argument i am aware of is that its the cost X how many people you distributed it too, but if that was the case it wouldn't be a default amount. I doubt anyone has even distrubited a 1000k copies of any single movie mp3 etc, have you seen the peers/seed numbers there's usually like 30 peers and like 80 seeds. Most people download the one copy and then stop seeding so they have more bandwidth to do whatever. Bottom line if the penalties a company can sue for represent the actual amount distrubited the lawsuits would stop because isnt worth the time for the companies.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by PsykoOps
How is someone going to pay you royalties if they wouldn't use/watch/listen to your stuff in the first place? Period.

But they are use/watching/listening to it and not paying for it, while re-distributing it to others who do the same thing.

So I and others like me get screwed over.

There is no justification for being a thief people, try as you might, it's all lame excuses.

And therefore they are much more likely to pay for tickets/dvd's/legal copies. It doesn't take a genious to figure it out and any non-biased study will show the same. And stop with the thief word. That's idiotic. Publisher is much better and more on topic. It's been shown over and over again that it's not stealing even if the copyright nazis use that word.