because he’s not a self-entitled communist who thinks he deserves everything for nothing?

Be careful, do not confuse communism with a better way of living. Everything to do with money involves corruption at some level. This is FACT. You can close your eyes & believe in something else but it will not go away.

As for piracy…artists make huge amounts from box office sales and concerts. Not to mention all the other deals that go along with films and music.

If I had a creative job I would enjoy it, not because of the money but because it would be something I loved doing. The business people that try to skim off the top need to stop being greedy.

I download because I can’t afford to spend money on games and films that are over-hyped pieces of crap. The ones I spend my money on are the ones that I feel DESERVE my money and support.

It costs nothing to any company for me to download a copy of the game. And if the copy was not available I would rarely simply buy it. More of a case of ignoring it completely until it pops up in the bargin basement bin. So file sharing actually makes me buy games I’d otherwise never have looked at.

“No, we have not given permission for the content to be used. …from a post that argues that piracy helped Wolverine, and then they’ve added anti-piracy statements to the end.”

For some reason the phrase “Not in MY name” comes to mind…

I have just received another letter by these people. They completely ignored or replied to my email i sent them some 2+ weeks ago which had a SEVEN day deadline for getting in touch with me or i would consider all matters on the subject closed, they ignored it and just decided to send out a letter this past friday with more threats. I also notice i have another 21 days, the email has changed, the address has changed and they basically ignore what you say. In my defence i informed them i haven’t done what they allege and would be willing to submit my hard drive for analysis at cost to them which once done and proven beyond all doubt i would sue there asses for falsely accusing me of something and harassment. I also mentioned that i had consulted a lawyer who deals with copyright and intellectual property rights who sends these type of letters out himself and who advised me on what to put in the letter. He himself told me that you cant pay them if you haven’t done it as that is admission of the crime and as you are innocent you don’t pay. but you can agree to never download, share or electronically store any of their games in the future which i agreed to…in fact i will go out my way to never buy their games and advise others never to buy or support their games or to even humour their honey trap torrents they illegally place on websites such as mini nova!!
I also reminded them of davenport lyons ;) and asked if they knew them and that like many people on here all emails would be forwarded to watchdog at bbc tv.

ps : I know that Acs [f]law or all their admin/legal teams read and have alerts to monitor comments on the internet so could i just say this : I HAVE NEVER DOWNLOADED YOUR CLIENTS CRAPPY GAME OR ANY OF THEIR SOFTWARE, I NEVER INTEND TO AND WILL ADVISE ANYONE IN ANY GAMES SHOP I GO INTO WHO I SEE BROWSING THEM NOT TO WASTE THEIR MONEY. I AM WILLING TO HAVE MY COMPUTER HARD DRIVE SEARCHED SOLELY FOR THE NAME OF THE GAME YOU ACCUSE ME OF AND WHEN IT IS NOT FOUND I AM AFRAID THE SHOE WILL BE ON THE OTHER FOOT AND YOU WILL BE IN COURT. YOU SEND LETTERS THREATENING COURT ACTION WITHIN 21 DAYS IF IGNORED YET YOU YOURSELVES IGNORE EMAILS THAT HAVE A 7 DAY LIMIT, IT TOOK YOU 11 DAYS TO REPLY AND YOU IGNORED THE EMAIL.

Thank you torrent freak for all the articles you have been doing on this matter and hopefully these money scroungers will go back under their rock.

By the way does anyone know why they have a new address and email n phone number etc ?

————————————
I don’t mind this comment being used on other forums in its full length and linked back to torrent freak.
————————————

Perhaps you should go back to school then as that was not clear at all.

First, look at Wolverine origins, then look at the box office gross. Then look at CAM downloads and their respective gross. Voila, increased downloads correlates with increased revenue. Or maybe you flunked math too.

Second, plagiarism is copyright theft which is worse than copyright infringement.

Third, If you believe someone is stealing your copyrighted work, you should report that to law enforcement. If you are law enforcement then you should be doing your job instead of falsely accusing people of crimes on here. If you want to inform people of the laws you are making you should have them published in the law books of your region. And if you are going to make claims back them up with references. Otherwise STFU. I’m assuming STFU means Stop Trolling For Undulation, ha ha.

lol’s funny how much it really takes for people to go beserk, to care about their own rights.

At what point does copyright take effect anyway? for example if I have say 256Kb of a 1Gb encrypted, archived (say a password protected RAR file) movie have I breached copyright? That 256Kb is meaningless without the rest of the file so would the breach occur when I reconstruct the video, when I have all the parts or just a majority of parts (even though a majority may well be useless)? If I am sharing the file, and I give somebody else 256Kb of the file am I breaking copyright law? How can it be proven that this 256Kb is copyright protected without building the complete file?

Answers would be welcome!

Cheers! and remember, sharing makes the world go ’round…

Don’t like that, Crossley? Come get some, punk.

Even the ex-president of the U.S. isn’t coy about ripping CDs why should the Joe on the streets be different?

how is sharing a finite resource such as one’s food the same as copying an infinite resource whilst leaving your own supply completely undiminished…the same?

How is sharing music equal to sharing food? Music will sustain you to work? music will protect you from nature? music do your work for you?

I love sharing. But making a million copies is not sharing. The “sharer” gives up nothing. Hardly a selfless act. Pirates do not “share.” They take. and then take some more. and then they take again. all the while self-righteously (and ironically) refusing to share in the cost of development.

People do pay artists you know every single time they go to a bar, restaurant, nightclub, show or buy any merchandise so because people don’t buy CDs and want MP3s and the industry don’t wanna give them that people should buy a CD that they don’t won’t to, that they cannot rip it to play on the new iPod and cannot share with anyone?

And by the way show us something that proves a correlation between filesharing and loss of revenue.

because he’s not a self-entitled communist who thinks he deserves everything for nothing?

as for the eternal semantics debate, if piracy is not “stealing” then by that same logic, neither is it “sharing”.

how is sharing a finite resource such as one’s food the same as copying an infinite resource whilst leaving your own supply completely undiminished…the same?

by your own logic, it’s not.

I love sharing. But making a million copies is not sharing. The “sharer” gives up nothing. Hardly a selfless act. Pirates do not “share.” They take. and then take some more. and then they take again. all the while self-righteously (and ironically) refusing to share in the cost of development.

the words you use to describe your actions are just as erroneous as your opponents.

It is basically the same here in Canada (fair-use an’ all).

Plus, lets not forget that enigmax properly cited the paragraphs used in this article (thus given credit where credit is due, NOT pretending it was original work), which is what we were all taught to do in school and sadly many news-related publications like to forget to do (even though technically they should).

please delete 78 as you please.

“45 May 29, 2009 at 16:21 by Consigiliano
Copyright infringement = Unlawful. I’ll go as far as to call it stealing.
”

hmm, so your saying in relation this story that ACS:Law are guilty of the crime of stealing from
Steven Hodson over at inquisitr.com

Suzanne Tindal for zdnet.com.au

Fraser McIntyre and Jennifer Whitehead for The Scotsman

FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL PROFIT ?

Now that IS a CRIMINAL OFFENCE, as “Comercial Piracy for profit” carrys a very large UK Prison Sentence, remember ;)

perhaps these people, and everyone else for that matter, should initiate a “small claims” county court action against these executives in the firm.

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp

while that court page implys it’s only money claims, thats not the whole story.

this official online UK courts site, is infact the main portal for ANY and all “Small claim” you might wish to bring against these and other executives alegedly breaking any such UK criminal law for commercial profit.

your initial costs will be very low for such “small claims” £14 for paper forms if you prefer to do it that way at your loacal county court,rather than use the site.

any “small Claim” has the potential for the judge to move the case to a higher court, should they deem your case werthy of a high court case law review/ruling in your favour.

turn about is so much fun, useing the law to fight back against these firms Executives thinking their above the very laws they try and use against you…..

go to it if you beleave you have a case, the courts will be simpathetic to small claiments as was seen in the many UK bank charges cases.

why go after the executive rather than the firm, simple, they make it ppersonal averty time they send these demands, so you do the same and make them personally rresponseable for their actions in tthe name of “commercial Piracy For Profit”.

at the very least, you might be THE ONE to get an injunction to stop them, and their kind following them, thinking they can No longer do this “demanding moneys with menace” legal paper work without comeback to themselves or their familys.

forgive any typing errors i missed, bad typist ;)

TorrentFreak is hosted in the US, and as such is subject to US copyright laws. Under US law, there are fair-use exceptions for reporting, which quite clearly covers this.

hmm so your saying in relation this story that ACS:Law are guilty of the crime of stealing from
Steven Hodson over at inquisitr.com

Suzanne Tindal for zdnet.com.au

Fraser McIntyre and Jennifer Whitehead for The Scotsman

FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMERCIAL PROFIT ?

Now that IS a CRIMINAL OFFENCE, “Comercial Piracy for profit” carrys a very large UK Prison Sentence remember ;)

perehaps these people and everyone else for that matter, should initiate a “small claims” county court action against these executives in the firm.

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp

while the page implys only money cleams, thats not the whole story.

this official online UK courts site is infact the main portal for ANY “Small claim” you might wish to bring against these and other executives alegedly breaking any such UK criminal law for comercial profit.

and your initial costs a very low for such “small claims” wuth the potential for the judges to move the case to a higher court should they deem your case werthy of the case law review in your favour.

tune about is so much fun, useing the lew to fight back agains these firms Executives thinking their above the very laws they try and use against you…..

go to it if you beleave you have a case, the courts will be simpathetic to small claiments as was seen in the many UK bank charges cases.

LoL

Now the funny thing is even the music guys from the RIAA now that they can make money from artists or the ex-employee from Sony would never had created the “sellaband” where people interested in some group or individual can invest(donate) to the group and all interests(money) are kept by Sellaband.

How can that be?

UUUUMMMMM enigmax, did YOU get permission to reprint those parts of their ORIGINAL stories,or are you GUILTY of plagarising too?

For those who say that they usually buy what they download, there are many others who do not. There has been no study that proves one way or the other as to whether downloading intellectual property increases sales, but one can argue that when a movie hits theaters and a Camera version is released on pirate sites, revenue would eventually be denied to the authors and collaborators of the movie. I cannot state this more simply than this.

Perhaps you missed this article from a year ago. http://torrentfreak.com/us-pirate-party-study-shatters-mpaa-claims-080709/
No evidence in box office sales that ‘cams’ affect movies. This is from the industries own figures no less.

Be contrary to any kind of levy that will promote security to those bastards that robbed society from culture.

Levys grant power to receive money even if you don’t use their stuff.

Air?

I’m not buying anything from these people ever again, in the best scenario I can still view free movies and music in the worst I just have to grow an appreciation for that stuff before 1930 LoL

Or people start making different models of business and those artists that don’t fall in line risk obscurity forever, ccmixer for the masses LoL

I disagree no revenue was denied to the copyright owners they still have others streams to exploit and make money out of it.

The movie industry see historical records sales in a global recession is this loss?

Of course it is not, the music industry is seeing losses but you can credit that to management incompetency, no one is buying CDs because no one buy Discmans anymore, instead of offering thumbdrives shaped like little animals or the logo of a band they still think CDs are an option, and the own IFPI report shows that the only things that did fall was legacy technologies like vinyl, cassette tapes and CDs.

History shows that TV and video recording equipment don’t cut into those revenues.

But by all means go and control the distribution and try to squeeze more out off it and you will see what those supposed loses really are, they are not sales, they are not revenue, people who download wouldn’t have buy it in the first place or pay for every single instance of it there is so much that one can take from the money pool of society that by the way its not capable of self replicating and no where near infinity supply and once that limit is reached people will find other ways to acquire what they want and this will really kill the RIAA/MPAA.

I for one am not buying anything anymore. If it’s not free I don’t wanna it and I don’t need it and I loved to buy DVDs and posters and books not anymore, until there is another scheme for movies and music I refuse to give my hard earn money to these people. I had it with these people and those legal maneuvers and with the lobbying. I can’t change the laws but I can change my ways now tell me how you gonna make me pay? will force me to buy something? I don’t download “illegal” stuff and I learn to appreciate those old movies in black and white LoL

Do you visit reality much?

lol…
Is it me or is every Pro-copyright group highly uneducated? Thats why the “professionals” are doing their own copyright infringement and sticking it on their own website.

Would it be alright if I came over and took your car? No, that would be stealing. Just like downloading songs, its stealing and immorally wrong. Everytime someone downloads a song, it’s one lost sale which is theft. Pirates have no appreciation for the artist and steal all of his/her work. Not to mention pirates never donate to help out these artists.

The ACS:Law made one small mistake it’s not a big deal. The ACS:Law took the article down and no damages accrued.

Does that mean a lost sale for the car company? Maybe or maybe not. He may not have chosen to ever buy the car in the first place so technically it is not a lost sale. Good luck on that one.

I guess the same car company could sue public transit corporations, bicycle manufacturers, airline companies and even civil authorities for laying down side walks because they are all responsible for causing lost sales and destroying their profits.

But, car companies do not extort or threaten people or buy politicians and judges so they could change the laws to suit their own financial needs. Only the RIAA/MPAA does.

Stealing, illegal, etc. All of the terms thrown out to the media by the RIAA/MPAA in order to further their own agendas for their selfish financial gains pretending to protect the artists that they actually enslave.

Their tactics are no more different than what religious fanatics do to oppress others. Just look at the US and how the far right uses lies, misinformation and fear in order to oppress the freedoms of the gay community to scare people in to supporting the agendas of religious fanatics.

The tactics are nearly identical. Funny that.

The Copyright Revision Act of 1976 governs copyright law and protects the owners of a copyright of any original writing (writing is in used in broad terms to mean novels, music, movies, tv productions, etc…) from infringement. Copyright infringement occurs when a party copies a substantial and material part of the copyrighted work without permission. Permission is usually sought through consideration such as money or an item exchange.

This law protects the authors of the works from unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. It is important to understand whether one has permission to download a movie, song, or tv show. If they do not, then it is unauthorized access and considered copyright infringement.

For those who say that they usually buy what they download, there are many others who do not. There has been no study that proves one way or the other as to whether downloading intellectual property increases sales, but one can argue that when a movie hits theaters and a Camera version is released on pirate sites, revenue would eventually be denied to the authors and collaborators of the movie. I cannot state this more simply than this.

I don’t see how their method decreases copyright infringements… not to mention “in a measurable way”

Here is the actual truth…

They keep sending letters… yet every day the file sharing community increases dramatically.

They are fighting an uphill battle that they can’t possible win.

The OffSystem concept seems interesting, can the law forbid a server that have no blocks of information on it that can be called copyright material but instead a bunch of blocks like lego bricks?