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

reply to post by TKDRL


Totally agree with you. I own every metalica album from Kill em' All to Black Album all of witch I bought on cassette. I paid for them once I'm not going to buy them again. I downloaded them. Every album after those are absolute crap (except for the classic parts of Garage Inc). When they started suing their fans I downloaded the other albums out of spite, and seeded them for months.

Originally posted by Chindogu
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Totally agree with you. I own every metalica album from Kill em' All to Black Album all of witch I bought on cassette. I paid for them once I'm not going to buy them again. I downloaded them. Every album after those are absolute crap (except for the classic parts of Garage Inc). When they started suing their fans I downloaded the other albums out of spite, and seeded them for months.

Wow, what a stand-up guy you are.

You can break the law for something as petty as spite.

Isn't it against the T&C to actually condone and perpetuate illegal activity on ATS? This was always my understanding?

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


They get paid once for the work they do, they dont get paid for 70 years for that one job they did.

reply to post by leejohnbarnes


Chicken Ish answer.

Explain to me why an artist should schlep your fries, and work in a call center while doing art for free, while you get to chose -- and get paid -- for your profession?

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Likewise, neither are you, but you're taking the law into your own hands, by assuming that you can simply make it up as you go along. And if 95% of this (perceived total, whatever it is) actually DOWNLOADED it to see it, what sense do you actually make? You are actually proving my point for me, that only IF they didnt have to pay for it would they watch it, otherwise they wouldn't have watched it. What the hell do you think that says? It says, they want to steal it lol.

I lost you there.

No, it says they would have never watched it in the first place if they had to pay for it, which goes against the company's "perceived loss". The companies say, "Oh man, 23,000 people watched our movie illegally. At $20 each, we lost $460,000!! Let's take them to court for $900,000,000 instead!"

If no one was going to pay for it anyways, they haven't really lost anything. They are creating that loss.

Seen as entrapment? Is leaving your car parked and locked in your driveway overnight entrapment? I guess so, so a criminal looking to steal it wont because they're far too "smart to be entrapped that way" I imagine.

What does this have to do with intellectual property? I agree it's wrong, but has nothing to do with THIS topic. I actually have a little more respect for criminals that have to put a little more thought and effort into committing a crime than simply clicking on a link.

You do see your major contradiction there right? Anyways, what I said was, if you left your keys in your ignition, trying to get it stolen, and you chase after the guy to take him for all he's worth, or cash in on the insurance, that could be seen as illegal. I can make the case that this is what these movie companies are doing with their intellectual property.

How do I make the connection from a car to intellectual property you ask?

You wouldn't steal a car..

So that's how it has to do with THIS topic.

Wait, you're ADVOCATING stealing another's intellectual property, then in the same breath you think you have the right to try and quote municipal or state law to me? Ok, that flies.

Quote where I said people SHOULD go steal movies. I've said numerous times that it's wrong, and people should be found guilty in the court of law and given the reasonable punishment that fits the crime, according to the law. (Class C Misdemeanor for less than $50 - $500 fine, maximum) They should not be hunted down by corporations and be threatened with lawsuits.

I think you're a little to biased for this conversation. Please stop putting words in my mouth and understand what I'm really saying here.

reply to post by alphabetaone


He meant that the net gain was 230 million. AFTER budget and expenses.

You have a decent argument already, it's the same argument everyone that's pro-corporation rights has. You don't need to twist people's words to make your point.

It's extremely disingenuous to argue that those of us who are against free downloading / file-sharing are pro-corporate rights. The only rights I actually care about are those of the small independent artist. The RIAA are poison, and their "penalties" are ludicrous.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


I agree with your stance. If you had happened to be following our long and drawn out "back n forth", you'd see where my comment makes sense, and isn't so disingenuous.

I'm not necessarily anti-piracy, but I'm not pro either. I'm against corporations raping the general public - which is what he was arguing against.

reply to post by Chindogu


I'm not calling you a liar, but I would love to see these "studies."

If I said "studies show people who download music and movies tend to spend virtually nothing for their entertainment, yet possess more movies and songs then people who do" you'd rightly demand proof, right?

Where are these studies? My google-fu doesn't help me locate them, unfortunately.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


I've been following it to the best of my ability, but they don't let me monitor ATS at the call center.

Point taken -- I hate corporations too. But it's the independent artists I know that have taken a beating over the last 10 years or so. Brittney Spears can fend for herself.

Unfortunately -- few heavy file-sharers *seem to* differentiate between Nickleback and Nick Cave.

What a horrible movie. Do not buy or download this movie - you're wasting your time.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s

It really sucks too that people feel 'safer' when they download unknown artist's stuff, because they know they aren't going to be hiring lawyers any time soon.

The music industry is really changing. Some are embracing it, doing a lot of shows, selling more merch etc, and doing well though. A lot of artists give multiple albums away just to get their names out there. Many rap artists release full length mixtapes, at probably a 1:1 ratio to albums. Some can argue that piracy is what made them famous in the first place (not advocating)

Just a question, not accusation or whatever; let's say a friend at work gives you a flash drive with his favorite music on it. Would you copy a couple albums that your really really wanted off of it? Does the fact that a person handed it to you, face to face, make it any better? If you did take some songs off of it, would you send money to the band? or go buy their shirts or something? What if it was a mainstream band that makes millions a year?

Thanks in advance.

So far the IP's that are listed are from after Feb 2011. VPN and Peer Blocker is your friend.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Two points:

I live 300 miles from my collaborator, so live shows are few and far between, but I hear you -- it *can* be a boost.

Now to address your question: A friend did give me a flash drive a few years ago with 2 records by the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club. I loved it (I'm a retro guy I guess) so I sent them 2 bucks. Later -- I bought a "new" release, when they released one on vinyl.

They sent me a thank you note, letting me know how much they appreciated the 10 bucks.

I've done the same thing with "Against Me." A friend loaned me his CD, and I liked it, so I bough 4 others. 2 I didn't care for as much, so I traded them in at the local record buy/back, and bought a Ramones box-set with the proceeds (plus some extra cash).

I'm not perfect. It's not that I've never listened to mix-tapes, and I dig the new Zune subscription service (though I am concerned that some of the indie bands I have downloaded through it are actually getting "anything," but that's a corporate thing, I guess.

I don't tend to listen to or buy mainstream music much, though I do love and have purchased lots of it in the past. Bowie re-issues, Queen and so on. I'm not sure what that makes me, but I just wanted to point out that not all artists are equal or get paid equally.

reply to post by region331


public libraries are exempt because of the "fair use" clause in the copyright act.

apparently re-distribution is tolerated if its done for educational purposes.

and apparently sitting in a library is all that constituents something being educational.

17 U.S.C. § 107 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

so it appears libraries in the US do not pay royalties to the production companies, but are explicitly exempt.

heres something interesting:

The Audio Home Recording Act

it states:

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage", offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player.

so there you have it. physical copies are ok to reproduce if its not for commercial advantage.

Putting my money where my mouth is: I have uploaded a brand new song I wrote this past week, with my partner / lead guitarist. It's in my signature. The link takes you to a soundcloud page with nothing to buy, period. It is entirely FREE to listen to and -- why not? -- FREE to download. But don't download it. Listen first and if you like it, download it. At least that way I get some feedback.

Most independent artists I know would gladly give away songs for free if the gift came with any feedback from the receiver. Sadly -- the nature of the Internet and file-sharing is such that tens of thousands of people might listen to (and even LIKE) your music, and you would never know.

That's a lot worse then never getting paid, IMO.

they're targeting people. They're most likely the ones that uploaded it onto the torrent sites.

Ha. i've never heard that theory before. It would make perfect sense since, though.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by region331

 

public libraries are exempt because of the "fair use" clause in the copyright act.

apparently re-distribution is tolerated if its done for educational purposes.

and apparently sitting in a library is all that constituents something being educational.

17 U.S.C. § 107 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

so it appears libraries in the US do not pay royalties to the production companies, but are explicitly exempt.

heres something interesting:

The Audio Home Recording Act

it states:

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage", offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player.

so there you have it. physical copies are ok to reproduce if its not for commercial advantage.

Unresolved questions

Still, the AHRA was unsuccessful in its attempt to "conclusively ... resolve this debate" over the legality of home taping. Section 1008 explicitly allows private, noncommercial home copying with "analog" devices and media. The primary difficulty lies in the definition of "digital audio recording device". Though there are no reliable figures on the subject, the meager returns to the Copyright Office's DART fund amidst widespread copying and dissemination of digital music suggests that a great deal of copying, noncommercial or otherwise, is accomplished using devices not covered by the AHRA. For these devices, including MP3 players, computer hard drives, and most CD burners and CD-Rs, the section 1008 exemption, which applies only to copies made with a "digital audio recording device" as defined by the act, may not apply.


I think this will be tested again and I'll be surprised if hard drives, mp3 players and optical discs are not seperated out for special treatment

The corporate fascist state even tells us what to do with our own property.

When you buy a CD - you buy a product - you buy the disc and the music on it.

That property belongs to you.

It is YOURS, not the person who made the music / movie on that tape.

You buy the music - it is yours.

The capitalist state has now become the communist state - in that they want to control your own property and tell you what you can and cannot do with your own property.

The idea that we do not own our property and that the state can control what we do with our own property is pure communism, and yet the greedy little capitalists and their corporate sock puppets peddle this communism and accept without even analysing it for themselves.

Get real you commies.

If a performer wants to ensure he has control over his music 100 % and owns his musci in perpetuity - then just do live shows and charge people to go to those shows.

That way the people present cannot own what they sing at the live gig.

I cannot believe that so may people have fallen for this communist rubbish peddled by the anti-downloading Stalinists.

They talk about protecting capitalism whilst peddling communism.

reply to post by maestromason


Sorry I am not feeling sorry for people who get paid millions to do nothing of great importance.