Studios Urge ISP to Admit Piracy, Stop Wasting Court’s Time
Written by enigmax on May 18, 2009Several studios are currently engaged in legal action against Australian ISP iiNet. They accuse iiNet of failing to take steps to stop its subscribers from sharing files by disconnecting them from the Internet. Now anti-piracy group AFACT says iiNet should just admit its customers are pirates, and stop wasting the court’s time.
Several studios including Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and the Seven Network (Australia’s top free-to-air broadcaster), announced last year that they were to sue Australian ISP iiNet for copyright infringement.
The studios, under the umbrella group AFACT, stated that iiNet “failed to take reasonable steps, including enforcing its own terms and conditions, to prevent known unauthorized use of copies of the companies’ films and TV programs by iiNet’s customers via its network.” AFACT had demanded disconnection for alleged infringers but iiNet refused. According to AFACT, since iiNet knew that its subscribers were infringing copyright, it too was breaching copyright by “authorizing” the infringements. Legal action followed.
Just recently AFACT was forced to drop some of the charges against iiNet, withdrawing the claim that the ISP was the primary copyright infringer and directly responsible when it refused to disconnect alleged pirates within its subscriber base. The allegation, know as “conversion”, is that iiNet interfered with the studio’s “right of possession”, a breach of their rights.
AFACT tried to convince Federal Court Judge Justice Dennis Cowdroy that iiNet was guilty of “conversion” but he disagreed, kicked out the claim and ordered the studios to pay iiNet’s costs for that element.
The remaining claim against iiNet is that the ISP is liable for the copyright infringing actions of its subscribers, something it denies. However, AFACT are increasing the pressure on iiNet to again admit that its customers are pirates, something it tried to do earlier. They say that since they have lots of evidence that iiNet’s subscribers are pirates, iiNet should just admit it and stop wasting the court’s time.
“AFACT has presented evidence of tens of thousands of instances of copyright infringement by iiNet’s users,” said a spokesperson for the anti-piracy group. He claimed that iiNet had already accepted the validity of that evidence adding, “To make those acknowledgements and not accept that those customers are engaged in copyright infringement is simply a tactic by iiNet designed to delay and frustrate the running of the case.”
iiNet chief Michael Malone disagreed, saying that it’s not up to iiNet to admit anything, it’s up to AFACT and the studios to bring the evidence. “If they come and say that a person is committing piracy, it’s their obligation to prove that,” he said.
The case is due to return to court 9th June 2009.
Previously: Anti-Piracy Group Takes Out Usenet Indexer
Next: Mininova Court Trial Postponed Until June
138 Responses
Here Here. At least Michael Malone has a grain of sense to him.
another U.S corperate fueled battle and interferance to another country, Go iinet, FREEDOM!!!!
iiNet is going to kill this case in court.
They can’t lose, otherwise this opens the door for more ISP bullying. Hasn’t it already been established that ISPs can’t be held responsible for the actions of its customers?
By the way #2…
AFACT stands for Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft.
I know it’s trendy to blame the United States for all of the world’s problems but that’s not the case here. Do your research before you run your mouth.
If a studio from ex. India tried to sue an ISP from the US, the ISP would propably laugh their asses off.
Oh but how is this any different? There are things like borders, trespassing and get the f*ck out of our yard, play at your own.
Those corporate-people wonder why the sales go down? It’s due to your own hunt of regular people. The more you push the more people are going to give you the finger and not buy your products.
By the way #5…
AFACT stands for Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft.
I know it’s trendy to blame the United States for all of the world’s problems but that’s not the case here. It’s an Australian lobbyist group suing an Australian ISP.
Did anybody other than me read this article?
AFACT was set up by FACT – an American anti-piracy group.
So it *is* American license holders sueing people in other countries because they can’t go after them themselves.
Anyway. Who cares eh?
There are only two outcomes from any case – guilty or not guilty.
Anyone with an understanding of the technology and the implications would go for not guilty – but Judges do not have this understanding to begin with.
No one can say if the judge will understand without first knowing the judge.
Furthermore, as we’ve seen from TPB’s case – an understanding, something the judge clearly did have, doesn’t garentee a lawful verdict either.
So all in all – don’t say ‘omg, iiNet is going to ****ing rape them!’ – because these things are impossible to predict.
If you want the world to have more judges educated in computer technology – become a judge!
For the little problem with borders the answer is ACTA if it passes that will be a sad day for society.
But never mind with things like “anonymous serveless homepages”, “encryption”, “anonymous peering”, “cryptographic keys” to assert ownership and things like GNUNET, FREENET, OSIRIS and the Cornell University Herbivore. Things don’t look so good for the MAFIAA.
THIS!
it’s not up to iiNet to admit anything, it’s up to AFACT and the studios to bring the evidence. “If they come and say that a person is committing piracy, it’s their obligation to prove that,”
@NastyBedazzler:
What? Disney is australian?
Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
Are they all australian corporations?
@6 NastyBedazzler
Yes I read it and as far as I know, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc. are all US corporations. Only Sony, which is owned by the Japanese, Seven Network and Village Roadshow, which are Australian, are not in this club.
“The studios, under the umbrella group AFACT, stated that..”
Well, your government call itself the “leader of the free world”, but you try to do anything to stop other countries from threatening your income and status quo. So suck it up.
Do ISPs in Aus have to keep IP logs? I know some ISPs stopped doing it in other countries, so I’m wondering about down here. Once I move to somewhere with ADSL I’m going to get iiNet, for having balls, and for unmetered Xbox Live Marketplace downloads! (was going to go with Internode, but this article changed everything)
Bloddy antipirates… they are gettig nowhere in life, just giveup. Go iiNet!
LMFAO @ #6….what a retard, you need some learnin’ boy
never fight a battle of wits unarmed….hahahahaa
@11 iShare:
If your problem is IP logs you should try anonymous P2P like.
Winny, GNUNET and a lot of others and if you don’t mind Java you could use Freenet and I2P.
@11 iShare:
If your problem is IP logs you should try anonymous P2P like.
GNUNET
The fact of the matter is that the companies that make movies a majority of the world wants to see are based in the United States, so this doesn’t surprise me. Not that they don’t exist, but I’m sure Australian produced blockbusters aren’t nearly as prevalent.
My point is that AFACT, which is an Australian-based copyright lobbyist group, is the one bringing the lawsuit. Australia is in the shit pot right along with the United States, we aren’t the only ones going after pirates.
If I had an ISP like iiNet, I think I’d pay a couple extra on top of my broadband bill as a goodwill gesture, just for standing up for consumer rights.
Does Austraila have any laws protecting ISPs against the action of their users?
The biggest problem is that Big Business has the bucks, the connections, and the lack of morals to do what they please. Look at the corruption of the courts/government systems in Sweden at the PTB “show” trial. Any court proceeding is going to be paid for and determined by the corporate powers-that-be.
Cornell University “Herbivore”
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/herbivore/index.html
@13
dude, if you’re going to try and be quippy and cliche try saying it right.
It’s “Dont wage a war of wits with no ammo”
:/
@NastyBedazzler…The fact of the matter is that the companies that make movies a majority of the world wants to see are based in the United States…………..
What a load of shit, u seem like a human sheep that just follows, these movies are backed by money to push advertising to make them seem the best and only option for entertainment, any one who believes that must be a mpaa puppet already
I hate USA. This is incredible as these guys don’t realize that the world is not USA and that there exist other countries and cultures who don’t care about stupid USA copyright laws which violate basic human rights and civil liberties.
SHARING any goods (in any form, digital or physical) is a right, and this is not NEGOTIABLE.
Basic rights and civil liberties are not NEGOTIABLE AT ALL.
@20
I will try it
@ #21 – wtf r u overlord of sarcasm?
its works perfectly fine in this part of the world, dont be narrow minded, sheesh as if YOU would know everything.
its perfectly sound, unlike you..knob
Filipinos are starting to get angry about this anti piracy thingy that they are blabbing about, Internet is for sharing, if you limit the shares of information here in the net whether its piracy or what so shit they are talking about, nothing will happen to us.
@20 Anonymous
Thanks for link. Will try to read on the algorithm more :) Just what I expect from next generation of file sharing software/protocols.
Tough I also wonder if it is possible to mask such protocol as say HTML requests or something or they will just force a ban on such protocol packet transfers. So sending it trough port 80 as some binary HTTP data would be perfect addition :D
As for others I recommend you to check this Herbivore @20 mentioned.
There are a lot of other solution too like GNUnet, AllianceP2P, Entropy, I2P, Freenet, RShare, ANts P2P, OneSwarm etc… And even more are in research like this Herbivore.
So may be industry may win battle with torrent trackers/indexers but they can’t win technological battle as they pick old CD distribution models while world does not stand on it’s place and moves forward leaving such industries behind.
“They say that since they have lots of evidence that iiNet’s subscribers are pirates, iiNet should just admit it and stop wasting the court’s time.”
this sounds like all the other cases reported here, where they go “our evidence is shoddy, can you just find them guilty, we’d pay you but we spent all our cash already on the piratebay judge”
Good on iinet for having balls, being an aussie, they get allot of respect from me. Also, 9th of June? Looking forward to it
#22: “What a load of shit, u seem like a human sheep that just follows, these movies are backed by money to push advertising to make them seem the best and only option for entertainment, any one who believes that must be a mpaa puppet already”
What was your point? Because I said that the United States makes the movies a majority of the world wants to see (which it does) I’m an MPAA puppet? What if I told you the sun was hot and water is wet, would you jump down my throat on that too? Does that make me a nature sympathizer?
Good logic there, toughguy.
For everyone complaining about American companies going after people not in america, they do have the right. they distribute movies in other countries around the world, and have valid copyrights in thoose countries. if you are just going to complain about it, they you don’t need any of the films for games or tv shows that they produced to be in your country.
that being said, i wonder why all of these companies refuse to upgrade to today’s technology and embrace it instead of kill it.
They’re idiots! And iiNet is the true hero for protecting its customers’ rights and privacy.
Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and the Seven Network are all faggots who can’t get idiots to buy their shit and decided to blame it all on iiNet.
Losers should go get a life or get a wife.
they need to admit to the world that they are evil corps trying to control everybody… and stop wasting my time..
.. makes about as much sense as there original statement.. so whatevah..
@29:
I disagree those companies don’t have the rights to:
- Monopolize the distribuition channels.
- Don’t have the right to dictate who can and who cannot be a player on those fields.
- Turn copyright into something perpetual excluding society from their cultural heritage and knowledge.
- To tell people who bought that crap that they don’t owned what they paid for(second hand commerce).
- To tell people they can’t share or view that crap after all open television and radio stations do the same thing.
If they want people to buy that crap just give them a reason and they will buy it, now telling people they don’t have the right to see a TV show that is being aired and nobody pays nothing for it seems like what? people don’t care about the behind the scenes deals that major TV and radio broadcasters do never mind that exclusive contrats sound like breaching of anti trust laws and erode competition everywhere
yes maffia STOP wasting the courts time!
And more this industry or any other for that matter have no business encroaching on the civil liberties of the people that they serve, further more they don’t have any rights to transfer responsibilities for theirs troubles and in the process unload financial costs of their business onto others.
seems to me that a similar thing was tried in Spain. that was dismissed by the court and should be done so in this case. how the hell can the isp be held responsible?? like blaming Ford for making the car that was just involved in an accident. F*****g ridiculous!!! proof of what is happening is not proving who is the culpret. accusing the isp for not doing it’s job is the easy, cheap way out. it is just passing the onus on to someone else and basically means the anti-piracy mob have no proof and cant get enough proof to stand up in court!! innocent until proven guilty!
Who is wasting the court’s time here? Morons they’re above the law or something..
Come now children…Stop the squabbling…Jesus loves you all as his children.
No but these music parasites are no really from america either:
Vivendi Univwersal France, SOny/BMG: Japan/Germany, EMI: England, Time Warner is officialy form the US but the CEO is form Canada.
They are corporation of international parasites who does not give a fuck about USA or Australia or Canada or the people. They just care about themesleves.
I beleive too that they should not wast their time and shoot themselves in the head right now because at the end, one way or another they will be all dead.
Define piracy…
I wish BREIN and AFACT would have a threesome with hell.
@29 troll alert
copyright was originally meant to benefit the public then the maffia and friends turned it on its head.
If the ISP’s are responsible for copyright infringements then car makers are responsible for speeding because they can stick a 70mph limiter in all cars if they wanted. But that’s not going to happen because there’s no money in it!!
Movie industry seems to be saying something along the lines of:
LOOK WE HAVE NUMB3RS!!!! DONT QUESTION! OUR DATA IS PERFECT!!!!!
When will they learn. An IP address is not enough.
oh. so they should stop the internet for having such a big traffic made by pirates :P
oh. so they should stop the internet for having such a big traffic made by pirates :P they don’t need free publicity anymore ?
It’s kind of like blaming the people who maintain the road system for not stopping people from speeding.
Actually I think this will work out great.
1. Sue everyone who makes food if you get fat.
2. Sue nature (if you have allergies).
3. Sue the television network (because you watched a show instead of doing something productive).
It goes on and on…
While I agree with iiNet and hope they win, I will say that the whole American/non-American thing is a non-issue. It isn’t “Warner Brothers” that’s suing, it’s Warner Brother’s Australian division, or branch, or distribution center or whatever doing the suing. Because these businesses have divisions that are set up as legitimate businesses IN those other countries, they can do things like this. The parent company may be in the US, but the Au division is suing as a legitimate Au business. Yeah, it’s a sneaky way for the parent company to do things, but legitimate, none the less.
Lynch the anti piracy organizations, problem solved.
Their performing these acts worldwide..
MAFFIA organisation indeed..
Wonder how mutch money they scam from the artists..
Users urge Studios to admit defeat, Stop wasting court’s time.
Come up with new models or go fuck yourself.
Why dont they take it a step further and go to the highest courts in each country claiming that the internet is illegal and should be banned since “most” material that is transferred is in breach of copyright?
No, you’re not. But then, you’ve also read AFACT is an “umbrella group” representing several studios and among those cited in the article, all of them are transnational companies so the country in which the legal action takes place is irrelevant here…
I love how people get into this whole anti-American thing… as if a miniscule group of arrogant Leftists in Hollywood (who actually despise everything America stands for) represent the entire United States. I live in this country and you can rest assured, most of the people here can’t stand Hollywood or the mindless drones who run it. Just ask the average American if he thinks actors are being paid too much … or if cinemas are fairly priced … chances are, you’ll be laughed at or spit on… or both. You short-sighted foreign hypocrites are absolutely ridiculous … you hate this country sooooo much, but you’re all tripping over yourselves to obtain content which is created right here … and you’re missing the bigger picture: this is NOT a geographical issue, nobody here wants the US to “police the world” and most Americans don’t give a damn about how other countries run their affairs. “Our” politicians (and the corrupt interests which they represent) do NOT speak for us anymore than “your” elected officials speak for you … I could say a great deal more, but most of you are too indoctrinated to understand … heck, you probably believe every word of the nightly “news.” At any rate, just run along and download Hollywood’s latest garbage … oh, and make sure to “share” it with your friends … you collectivist types are huge on that “redistribution” thing… <3
Speaking as an American myself, I second Treason Minded’s statement.
I also agree with those here who say this is just a cover for a lack of convicting evidence.
yay Treason Minded
Most of you are for the same things and against the same things, so it always puzzles me why you fight with each other on sites like this. Most of you are for the free exchange of information, music, etc and hate the monopolies and big businesses which attempt to control every little thing we do on the net – regardless of what country we live in. You’re all (most of you) on the same page in this.
Idiots know no nationality. They come in all colors and stripes.
Use torrents and encrypt them.
j
@51 Treasoned Minded
Thank you for saying that. Someone would have to be not all there mentally to think that the big media companies speak for all people from the US, or that all citizens of the US agree with big media.
Why isn’t the anti-piracy group like AFACT, MPAA and BREIN beening tried for hacking and privacy invasion which is what they are doing.
If i was a iinet users id be suing for the defamation, Having the AFACT calling all users pirates.
@ 54
Right on target, mate … well said!
Interesting how they go after iiNet and not the bigger based companies that offer internet here like Optus and Telstra. There is probably more of a base in those 2 companies across this country then iiNet.
But i guess its easier to go after the little guy then the multi-million dollar big fish.
Bozos would not have to download TV shows if the Australian free-to-air networks didn’t fuck with them. Graffiti-ing their own shows, running late, airing a certain show only two weeks before pulling it off air, etc. is how these networks treat their viewers. It is also partially because viewers cannot wait for the DVD to come out. If networks did the right thing, then we wouldn’t be in this mess.
The only difference that I do not download films or TV shows as I cannot afford to exceed my monthly quota.
If iiNet loses this case, then there will be serious ramifications for the end user. Then, users will get out of their way to use software that will make their IP anonymous.
I just hope TPG take the same stance..
It’s kind of funny that the studios keep going down this line of sue, sue, sue. Copying movies is not the same as robbing someone. It’s a false analogy. Going to the movies is a severely overpriced activity. That is the reason why sales have dropped.
Also, because they want to cling to their outdated release system, they wish to make everyone trudge to the cinemas instead of being able to enjoy the latest movies in the comfort of their own home cinemas.
If they wish to have world domination of their largely shitty movies (remember, they are suing for the right to shovel crap like Beverley Hills Chihuahua), then they have to accept the risk of worldwide saturation.
Or make better quality movies that people would hand over $10 for.
@Treason Minded and all his yay-sayers…The politicians are elected by you.
Why don’t you take all those fingers and start pointing them at yourself for electing those who don’t really represent you.
Till then all fingers will be pointed towards your country and the defacto representatives of your country, your politicians and your corrupt conglomerates.
They are your elected representatives. It can be either of two things, that they are not really representative of the people. That doesn’t say much about you people. Or that they are really representative of you. That doesn’t say much about you people either.
Demand social responsibility from your elected representatives. Not your own personal gain. Not the “I’ll elect you if you lower my taxes” rationale that you have been using. Not the…
“I’ll rub your back and you rob mine, may it even be in a somewhat improper manner. Wait, I kinda like that…”
rationale…
The capitalistic tendency to first kill your competitors and then start charging whatever you want for your substandard product is responsible for this mess anyway…
If the elected representatives had a social responsibility to ensure that a large entity can in no manner strong arm a small entity, we wouldn’t be here anyway…
If the basic premise of all activites wasn’t the making of money then we wouldn’t be here at all…
Coming back to the ISP discussion, it should be illegal to distribute copyrighted material, and not download it, the ISP is not responsible for it if individuals are distributing or downloading illegal material, it should be illegal to pursue an ISP for the actions of the individuals, it is analogous to the standard cliche, sueing the developer that built the road that the thief walked on to his scene of the crime. It is exactly the same as suing the developer for not ensuring that whoever trod the path was of good moral character. An ISP has other more important work to do and such allegations are nothing but a distraction and counter productive.
Next they will start going after the mothers of the people who downloaded the illegal material because they fed the criminals who were going to download the Matrix X Divx in July 2018 and were showing signs of moral deficiency early in their childhood days. Or perhaps, the moral deficiency was itself an offshoot of their own criminal bend of mind. Therefore all the mothers should be thrown without trial into a detention facility in South America without the possibility of a trial. And all the fathers are absolved of all crime because they weren’t playing a very substantial part in the upbringing of the criminal anyway. But that is not to stop the wiretap on all the father’s phone calls, in case he ever offers any support, may it even be emotional to the horrible horrible criminal that this bloody downloader is…
All this is the dying gasp of an industry which is nothing but a propaganda machine contructed to either dumb down or whitewash the world with the perceived glory of itself and its puppet masters…
The advent of the independent media, in the form of Youtube is here. I urge all movie makers to use Youtube to start distributing your movies and make money from the advertising.
I specially urge European movie makers and independent movie makers in the USA to start using Youtube.
I couldn’t be bothered with most of the crap that Hollywood churns out. As anyone who is at Cannes.
Coming to the technology behing this, the problem lies in the fact that the BitTorrent technology allows for people to download from a partial copy of whatever you have downloaded and are downloading while you are downloading it. Hence their opinion is that you are acting as a distributor while you are downloading. In the earlier days of HTTP and FTP, there was a distinction between a distributor and downloader.
I say, this is not true. You are a downloader till the download is complete. The distributed (upload +download simultaneously) nature of the BitTorrent network is nothing but the mechanism you are using to download. When you are seeding to random people ( not just your friends, which should be legal), you are stepping the line. So you should have a fair play feature in all the Bit Torrent clients. If what you are downloading is copyrighted material, then the torrent should stop seeding the moment the download finishes or if your friends are downloading the same torrent, they have finished downloading. This is important. You need to seed till your friends have finished downloading, and no longer. This ensures that the network essentially behaves as a friend-2-friend distribution mechanism. The initial reduction in content availability will be a small price to pay for legal compliance.
BTW, I think it is wrong to profit from the distribution of illegal content and that is what Pirate Bay has done with the advertising on their site which is primarily intended to be catering to the illegal use of copyrighted material. And let us not misplace our disgust of the Hollywood industry and their tactics by supporting these thieves anyway. If your business is supporting crime then you are a criminal. If not, then you are not, by this yardstick at least.
A crime does not beget a crime. Then we will all turn into…criminals. We need to approach this in a structured manner.
Also by these standards, an ISP is not a criminal. Let us not blame the tool.
The solution is to decentralise and anonymize the network completely. Kinda like Tor. This “Herbivore” concept from Cornell looks interesting. I hope that they have a good decentralised indexing and searching mechanism where the results turn up in mins and not days, like other decentralised indexes.
This way no-one profits from it.
The way of the future is to decentralize everything, Skype and BitTorrent have proven this. We need to add anonymity and search to the concept of decentralisation and we are rid of this menace for ever.
Then we can pursue a truly democratic online existence.
Note, the entire nature of searching is an indicator that you are looking for something from someone you don’t know. That is almost surely going to come into trouble where it will be argued that the concept of friend-2-friend networks will be demeaned here. We have to ensure proliferation in this mechanism of distribution for legal content to ensure that that doesn’t happen.
At the end of the day, people are going to be using it for publishing stuff which they cannot publish over HTTP of FTP, hence illegal material. So I’d say that distributing content to random people can be termed as a mechanism to make friends based on the fact that they both want or need the same product. So it a lesser crime, since there is no profiting involved in the process.
Now we come to the discussion about using the distribute for free technique as a retaliation against over pricing, be it the Movie Industry or Microsoft.
I say it is illegal, but a fact of life.
They should price their product so that people don’t unite in distributing the content freely in retaliation, thereby making it now legal in the sense that those people are now united in their retaliation, and thus friends. I myself am not very convinced I said that, but I should put it there anyway.
A slight deviation from morals here, but history is proof that the defition of law and morals are decided by the population. And the defition of morality of a number of activities on the internet are still up for grabs.
Also this brings into question how long software products should be allowed to be chargeable. The fact exists that the distribution of an additional copy of a software product does not cost the originator anything, especially since the public has gone through the extensive effoft of creating a decentralised distribution network such as this. So you are essentially charging for the effort that went into the development and the intellectual property. For a similar situation with medicines, we have a time period after which the validity of the intellectual property expires. Do we need such an expiry date for intellectual property behind software products?
And then there is the horrible mess that the USA has made out of the patenting, licensing and content ownership system. Where anyone can f*rt and spray some perfume on it, and then patent strawberry falvoured f*rt and then sit on it and wait to pounce on any 9 year old who decides to light up his own with strawberry colored matches.
So I ask you, yes you, in the USA, elect a goverment for the people, like in Europe or Australia or many places in Asia. You are living in a social and economic oligopoly and these pieces of s**t you are electing are taking it upon their responsibility to come bothering the rest of the world, in order to extract anything, anything at all they can to fill their coffers and with a small pittance of that fuel your excesses in order to con you into electing them over and over again. Or you can stay shut, lest you end up on your No-Fly list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#False_positives_and_other_controversial_cases
It’s not the ISP’s role to police the studios failed copy protection.
ent until proven guilty, why the hell WOULD they admit it?
Thanks to The Australian-US free trade agreement we Australians have to put up with American Copyright laws. Thats what so called free trade agreements with the USA end up as, one sided. No one can trust their elected officials. They’re all full of crap. Lets see if Obama will protect filesharers any better than bush or McCain would have. It makes no bloody difference. Power and money rule. Democracy is an illusion
btw my isp EXETEL caved to AFACT claiming taht it couldn’t afford to risk a courtcase due to small profit margins. Now I face being disconnected if I recieve 3 “notices”. How about some proof before I get my internet cut off.
The funny thing is that the MAFIAA can’t do it in the USA because of the “Safe Harbour Provision” LoL
I guess the USA government is a little less corrupt then the aussie one LoL
That’s total BS… if AFACT knows who these people are, then they should go after them and leave iinet alone.. they’re NOT responsible for what others do, they only provide a service for a price, the same as any other ISP.
http://www.3istgah.com
I being myself an iiNet customer very much hope they never state that their customers are pirates since I would then be forced to make a statement of claim for defamation against them (iiNEt), and then a claim of vicarious liability and criminal coercion against AFACT itself (and ALL their members).
That’s after I sue AFACT under the Australian Trade Practices Act (s52) for False and Misleading Statements having to do with the last initial in their acronym NAME.
Yes AFACT you offer a service and keep blathering on spouting your name to all and sundry when that name itself is incorrect and borders on harassment and deception. .. Its time you yourself were looked at under The Australian Laws.
You get the idea that in Australia you’re free from the insanity that is currently going around the world.
I think this is why so many people are offended at the idea of ‘U.S’ companies litigating against ‘Australian’ companies.
Whilst these are the Australian branches of the various studious, it’s in the minds of most Australians that these companies are very much American companies which simply have ties in Australia for simplicity, cost savings, national distribution and DVD releases.
I would assume that these companies would still be taking direction from there primary branches (much like franchises) to bring these lawsuits against ISP’s and no doubt Individuals soon enough.
The Music and Movie industries are not devils. They’re not satans and do not need to be threatened with deaht (no matter how much some people feel it) they’re simply trying to cover their bottom line.
I agree their ideas are out dated, but in their mind the downloading of ‘illegal’ material is similar to that of taking cd’s off a shelf. Whether you agree with that idea (i personally don’t) this is what they fear.
These companies see the walls crashing down around them. They’re desperately trying to find a way to make money but are too busy suing people and shutting down so called illegal channels to work out the digital end.
To make things worse Apple took 100% benefit of the confusion to create a digital distribution channel that those company have no true control over.
Whilst my comment may seem to favour the RIAA/MPAA etc i personally do not agree with their actions, yet understand there desperation.
I just hope that they eventually come to realise that the battle they fight isn’t going overly well, their victory over the pirate bay will get them nowhere, and their pull with the governments and courts will only last so long.
AFACT is fighting a lost cause. Film piracy is here to stay. Case closed.
Any company that protects consumer rights should be applauded.
Why should the ISP compromise it’s service and it’s customer base? Fertiliser is used in gardens to make plants grow but it was also used to make the bomb in the Oklahoma bombings. Is fertiliser to blame? No. In the same way we cannot blame ISP’s. I’m sure the customer base wouldn’t be happy if their details were just handed to AFACT. The right to privacy has been abused quite enough and it’s refreshing to see a big company stand up for it’s customers.
Isn’t the point of the courts to prove whether or not piracy was committed? AFACT is wasting way more of the courts’ time with frivolous lawsuits like this.
Personally, if there was an ISP in my area standing up to the studios like this, I would sign up in a heartbeat. Even if the cost was higher than similar services. If my ISP started folding like the studios wish they would, I would drop them, even if they were the only provider in the area. There’s always satellite internet.
@67 “@Treason Minded and all his yay-sayers…The politicians are elected by you. ”
Oh hi. I never knew that the RIAA, MPAA, and other big media were elected bodies. What do United States politicians in the US have to do with Big Media trying to sue in Australia?
Also, even if that did have anything to do with anything here, you must remember that not ever citizen of the united states actually voted for the people who used to be in power… some actually voted the opposite way. Please do think before you post instead of jumping on your “hey, I’m cool, I’m pretending that my country is perfect and jumping on the ‘America is the source of all the world’s problems’ boat.”
What amazes me is the fact that many people believe its OK to copy whatever-your-heart-desires. What many forget is that these movies, music, pictures and what-not are copyrighted. The makers of these movies want to get paid for their creativity. Anyone that complains about this, think about it for a second: You create a movie, or a song, or publish a book, whatever. You would not like it if someone took your work, and distribute it for FREE. You would be pissed off. If you say otherwise, then fine, go work for free and see how long that will last you.
ISPs should not be accountable for each user’s action, BUT, if someone steals something, then by all means, each ISP should help the authorities catch each one of those thieves. After all, they ARE STEALING. I dont like to pay $10-15 for a movie. I dont like to pay $5 for a dvd rental, or $20 for a DVD at a store, but, you have another option. Dont watch it. Dont buy it. The other option would be to steal it. That means YOU WANT that MOVIE/MUSIC/ART. If thats the case, then pay for it. If you copy it and give it to someone, is the same as taking someone else’s car and give it to a chop shop. There is no difference. This is not about USA vs the world, this is about reality, which many forgot about it. You want something, PAY for it. You want a car, pay for it, you want a song, pay for it, you want a movie, pay for it, you want food, pay for it. If food costs too much, go make your own. If a car costs too much, make your own. You as an individual have no right to steal someone else’s work. It does not matter what it is (song, movie, food, whatever). Nobody gives you that right. Freedom is not about stealing. Freedom is about doing whatever you want without hurting someone else in the process. So stop your complaining and start to pay for your desires. If you dont, than Im sure you would like it if someone steals YOUR work. Welcome to reality. I hope you wake up and smell the coffee. Internet does not mean FREE DOWNLOADS. Its a means of communications with one another, not a means of transferring copyright data so others can profit from it.
There is a simple fix to this problem. Don’t buy anything from Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and the Seven Network until they stop bullying this particular ISP. These studios know what they are doing is wrong. They just hope that if they can nail just one ISP that the others will relent. Don’t let this happen. Send the right message that its up to the accuser to obtain proof of the crime, not the ISP.
The problem resides on the definition of copyright the legal uses and the illegal ones.
People grow up listening to free radio and viewing free TV why should they pay up now?
People are thought to share and they learn that when you buy something you have the right to share it with whomever you choose to, well there you have it if someone buys a CD and put that song on his webpage he is a criminal today but in my view that should not be it, or we need to start educating are children in a different form and I risk going further and saying that it is ok to post music and movies online as long as you are not profiting from it those laws that say otherwise are wrong and do not represent the reality of the world today.
@82
Mate, learn about what theft, filesharing and piracy is before you come complaining here about it, ok? Theft is removing the original and keeping it for yourself. Filesharing is making a COPY of the original and distributing it for free. Piracy is stealing shit on the high seas. I would rather freely give away music if I was in a band, then make money from gigs and donations from my fans. That way I know, without a doubt, that my fans are paying me because they want to. If I’m not earning enough money it means that people don’t like my music enough and I’ll get a job part time to allow me to keep on living.
@82
Forgetting about the copyright stuff for a mo, are you saying all the starving people in Africa should be left to die.
You are an A grade Cock.
@85
If you copy a movie/music, you are stealing. Its simple. You take something from me, and you distribute to others for FREE. Thats stealing. Which part of that dont you understand.
Let me put it another way. If you did not make it, its not yours.
Ill put it yet another way. If you are not the original creator of the item in question, it does NOT belong to you.
Now, lets say your statement is true. In that case, I should be able to go and make a copy of Microsoft Windows OS, and distribute for free for others to have. What you think will happen?
Stealing is stealing, either you do it directly or indirectly, you still steal whats is NOT yours.
Your band gig is way different. You splitting apples and oranges. Two totally different objectives here. Your objective is to make money from the gig, thus, you give away free music with the idea to make money from the concert, t-shirts, etc etc. Thats what a lot of companies do, give away free stuff in exchange to lure you in for the actual product.
You need to learn more about theft. Theft is more then just taking a physical object. You need to learn more about it before you come here and complain about something that you very well know is not correct to do.
Im sure that if you were smart enough to come up with a new OS, where the demand for it would be extremely HIGH, you would want to get paid for every single sale. If not, then you must be sick to your mind to give work for free.
Live in reality, not a fantasy land that sets apart your desires.
@86
Please explain your statement. Yeah I am grade A, but im not the subject here, thieves are. Personal attacks will only show just how interested you are in fixing problems (sarcasm)…
No pun on you, BUT, no I dont think people in Africa should be left to starve. At the same rate, if I want to compare your statement with the article, than, you saying if you cant buy it, steal it???
Sorry I dont get your point. Please enlight me here. I dont think you get the picture here.
To any point, if you make something (movie, music, art, new OS, food, whatever) you get paid for it. Thats what its YOURS. You are the creator. You own the work. You came up with the idea, thus, its YOURS to do with as you wish.
You dont have the right to tell a company how they can/cannot sell a product. If you want it, you pay for it, if you dont then let it be. Hey I want a Lamborgini too, but you dont see me going and stealing one. I want to see the latest movie too, but you dont see me going to steal it from someone to watch it.
When you want something, specially something thats in demand, you pay for it.
Im not saying the corps are the best thing out there, no way, by far, they are very very greedy, and they should sometimes listen to the public, BUT, again its THEIR product. You have a choice, buy it or NOT. Choosing to copy it will only show that you WANT the product but for FREE…
Please @86 and @85, show me otherwise. You have no point here (not reality anyways)….
@87 Chris:
“Let me put it another way. If you did not make it, its not yours.”
Well I hoping that the guy’s who build your house don’t think the same way, or the guy’s who build your car, your refrigerator, your washer machine or any other thing you can think of because you are a criminal if you at anytime did reselled, borough, give it to someone or made any other transaction without the permission of the creator of all that you own.
And to be quite frank even if you are right how people will stop others from using it?
It’s not just about moral grounds it’s about functionality too, there is no way the entertainment industry can contain this without crushing the civil rights of everyone else in the world and in that case I know very well where I stand and even then people can still continue to have it for free.
And by the way there is and OS that is given for free it’s called Linux and the guy who did it doesn’t share your point of view.
@88
You are correct. You cannot stop everyone. I dont disagree with that point.
You dont go and buy a house and then give it away, do you?
You dont go and buy a washer and give it away, do you?
You dont go and buy a car and give it away, do you?
Or
You dont go, buy a car, duplicate it and then give it away, do you?
You get the picture here.
Your point holds no water. The creator of a movie does not give you full rights to the actual movie itself. He gives you rights to purchase and watch the movie, THATS ALL.
The creator of a song gives you rights to listen to that song, not copy and give it away.
Its up to the creator and how he/she/they want to distribute their product.
House/washer really holds no water. You cannot compare the 2.
Why? Because when you buy a movie, you buy rights to WATCH IT. When you buy a Music Song, you buy rights to listen to it.
You dont buy rights to distribute it anyway you feel like it. Only a distributor can do that, and he has to pay royalty fees back to the original creator.
Again, you missing the whole point here.
I know we cant fix this, no matter what anyone does, this cannot be fixed. Even if they lower the price of the item, people will still copy it. But to sit here and defend such stupidity is pointless.
Again, im sure if it was YOUR movie, or YOUR song that was on demand, you would not want someone to distribute it for free. Im sure you know this, and im sure you agree with this, but there are others that just want to argue about it otherwise.
The whole point is that you taking someone’s work and giving it away for free.
@90
Yes, Linux is free. no doubt. The creator does not share my point because he wanted to the OS to be free. That was HIS choice…
Again you miss the point. Its up to the creator of the product in question that decides that, not you.
If that creator wants to give away his product for free, GOOD, FANTASTIC. Thats his choice. Im sure he believes that later on, he will profit from it some way or another.
But these movies are not being given away for free. Its your choice (hence freedom) to choose if you want to pay to see it or not.
Nobody gives you the right to go and copy it and watch it for free.
If everyone would share the free idea (Linux OS), then heck, we would not have businesses and jobs and what-not.
Sorry, but your comparison has no point towards reality.
There will always be thieves out there, just some companies choose to go after some.
The TRON operating system is another example of market forces that unity people to do things and share them.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/31855.html
@Chris:
The point with the car is that of ownership following your reasoning the one who created something is the rightful owner or was not what you were saying?
About the copyright thing, there is a lot of laws and in some countries it’s perfectly legal to listen to music download from the internets so I don’t see your argument holding water.
And answering your question if it was my music I wouldn’t care I would find ways to capitalize before it hit the fan not after. Data is like water you cannot claim ownership when it is in the ocean only when it is in a bottle, the ocean being the internet and the data in question is digital music.
I bet there are people who would love to bottle oxygen and sale it, but it’s just not gonna happen.
Yes I agree. Many countries have those laws. I dont disagree. We are both in agreement there, BUT:
If the owner of the product states you cannot copy his/her/their product in any way shape or form, they should have the right to claim as such, either being USA or other countries.
Now if that holds water in a court room is a different point all-together, but thats the creator right, to choose their own ownership agreements.
About the car ownership, perhaps I used the WRONG words to make my statement, but needless to say, again its just the way things work with different products.
A car, you own the car, not the design.
A movie you own, not the rights to distribute it.
You own the car, but if you choose to go and copy that design and sell it or give it away, you cannot. That was my point. I guess I did choose the wrong words before, lol…
Im sure you would not care to give away your music for free, BUT, after some time that you spend on these music projects, im sure you will eventually change that idea/mind and start to charge. Just how things work.
And about the Linux philosophy and no jobs you should try asking Red Hat about that or the guys who made your router that probably are using Linux inside they all sell something being services or hardware so there is jobs in the opensource philosophy it’s to sad that you can’t see it.
@Chris:
I don’t disagree with people getting paid or making millions of something that it’s not and issue for me.
What I do disagree it is the point that people are stealing something when they are sharing it with others for free even though it hurts sales.
People share, it’s natural, people pool resources together and that is what makes the world turn, take that away and we would live in a really different world but there is a bright spot on this whole thing people will buy stuff from artists and even donate it’s just not going to happen the way it was before, people are being called thiefs and criminals but their are not the landscape changed but the behavior of the people is the same as before they still view TV shows and listen to radio and they don’t have to pay for it try and make them and people will create their own universe like it happened with software. The “owner” can ask whatever he wants too but should he or can he?
What is happening it’s a wake up call, people won’t start paying anyone to have the privilege to sing in karaokes, play music at parties or share with other people.
But they will pay for t-shirts, a nice box, maybe a gossip blog to know the behind the scenes and a lot of other superficial stuff. If you think that the internet is like a CD or DVD them you are right but if you think of the internet like radio and TV why should people pay or feel like stealing something?
And another point the creator of something have limits too otherwise AT&T in the USA would own today the phones inside every house in the United States.
No sane person would disagree with someone getting paid but there is limits to what people can ask from others.
What does this so-called proof constitute anyway?
If AFACT had proof they’d go to the cops, not the courts.
*pops fingers* ‘Kay, Chris (#82), listen up.
You seem to be under the antiquated and rather baseless idea that piracy is theft. How many times are different people going to have to explain how flawed this is before an industry-indoctrinated person such as yourself can understand? If you wish to speak of reality, then here is something to think about.
Trade groups and industrial organizations love to attribute piracy to theft by use of examples such as the MPAA’s “You Wouldn’t Steal A Car” campaign. Wiki it if you are not familiar with it. However, these examples are baseless in that they are based on a real-world concept that is not present online. If I steal someone’s [insert object here], then I deprive them of their object. I have it, they do not, although I gained it through illegitimate means. Now look at the online world: Someone uploads a copy of a file they have to the Internet. I download a copy of that file. I have not taken anyone from anything because of the concept of digital copying. The file’s source still has his copy, and now I have my copy. Nothing has been stolen, so piracy is not theft. In fact, the term “piracy” is a bit misleading because of this, but this is not a big deal.
But wait, says you! I am stealing because I did not buy a legit copy of the movie, software, CD, etc, that I downloaded! So what? Just because I downloaded something does not mean I would have otherwise bought it; this is the “each download is a lost sale” theory that is pushed by the industries, but one that is also baseless. The industries lack a widespread and effective “try before you buy” system; nobody likes spending money on something that ends up sucking. I have done so a few times and regret it, for if I had been a party to filesharing back then, I could have saved my money. If something sucks, I want to learn that first-hand, but I do /not/ want to pay to do so. If I buy something, I want it to be worth the money I spend on it. (This would also tie into the argument that CDs and such are way overpriced.) Furthermore, I wish to remind you that the basic moral code among filesharers is to support, even in a small way, the makers of the things you download and enjoy. It’s not all about “gimme gimme gimme” when it comes to file sharing.
Now, here is a personal reason I download, that may not be universally shared among file sharers. The industries, in my eyes, have lost whatever ground they once had to stand on while rationalizing their anti-piracy movements. I’ve done a little reading about when p2p first popped on the scene with Napster back in the late 90s. The RIAA, instead of embracing this new technology and adapting their business model to benefit everyone, sued. They turned p2p users into enemies by labeling them as criminals. Since then, across the various p2p networks out there- BitTorrent, eDonkey, KaZaA, etc- the industries continue to aggressively attack file sharers, creating conflict when cooperation could have once been possible. To do this they use tactics that are legally and morally inexcusable- need I point to recent articles here on TF, such as those detailing the industries’ claims that torrent sites should simply admit their guilt instead of taking advantage of the due process they are legally entitled to? Let’s also recall for a moment their use of other questionable anti-piracy tactics, like Sony’s rootkit, pollution of p2p networks, spamigation lawsuits, acting on behalf of artists they do not actually support as they claim to, pushing their views onto the governments of other countries, and DRM in general. This is just a fraction of the things the industries have done. Here’s the kicker: They do this to protect their profits. They are not interested in the defense of intellectual property beyond the limits at which IP serves their paychecks. If they were doing this for a truly honorable cause, I may not feel nearly as much resentment towards them. As things stand, I cannot support an industry that makes use of these tactics in the name of profiting.
Anyway, back to you and what you say. Have you considered the possibility that people can actually benefit from p2p networks? An oft-cited example is Nine Inch Nails’ Trent Reznor, who made over a million dollars in his first week after severing ties with the record labels. Other bands have started to follow suit, and discovered how smart it was to do so. I already pointed out to you that piracy is not theft, but I’m going to go ahead and let you get away with that one for a moment. If piracy were theft, who would we be stealing from: The record labels, who take most of the profit for themselves, or the artists themselves, who generally get ten percent, or less, of the proceeds from music sales? As such, the question can be amended to this: Who would we be stealing from, giant multinational corporations or individual artists and bands? Yes, now you understand a bit better why people do it; if you don’t get it by now, you may as well just close the page now and go back to following the industries’ propaganda instead of thinking for yourself.
Oh, I also feel obligated to refute your claim of: “Anyone that complains about this, think about it for a second: You create a movie, or a song, or publish a book, whatever. You would not like it if someone took your work, and distribute it for FREE. You would be pissed off. If you say otherwise, then fine, go work for free and see how long that will last you.” Why wouldn’t I like it? If I did something like that, I would certainly release it on p2p sites. P2p is the best possible distribution method you can get: it requires no effort on your part, doesn’t cost anyone anything, and the quality of your work can be easily determined by looking at share rates and such. I would gladly give up a handful of sales if it meant that whatever I made could easily reach people WORLDWIDE with an absolute minimum of time and effort, and no cost whatsoever, on my part. I bet you that a lot of people feel the way I do about this; after all, it’s rather simple common sense. You just have to be not greedy and driven by making every cent you possibly can to see it.
In conclusion, I highly suggest that you do some reading on sites that are not sponsored by the entertainment industries. Spend some time befriending the TorrentFreak archives, for example. You’ll find some great information there. I think the things you said are based off of ignorance, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call you a moron, or any such flame. You seem rather smart, just misguided. Do a bit of research about the p2p situation from a neutral standpoint, and then add up what you come across and see which things make the most sense then. :)
Also, @94:
I read once about people that /have/ bottled air and sold it. Rather sad.
Can’t we come up with a saying that is catchy like “keep your rosaries off my ovaries”.
Dear RIAA etc, stop wasting the courts time and let us focus on things that actually matter. Like ID theft, privacy, Education etc.
Enigmax,
I know you probably don’t care but the article is downright inaccurate.
The Federal Court judge did not ‘kick out the conversion claim,’ the applicants in the case removed it themselves after a judgment where the judge suggested the claim might be arguable, but had to be pleaded correctly. Further, the applicants agreed themselves to pay the costs in relation to that claim
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/052134D2FC16BEABCA25750F000D558F
39B Communication by use of certain facilities
A person (including a carrier or carriage service provider) who provides facilities for making, or facilitating the making of, a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in a work merely because another person uses the facilities so provided to do something the right to do which is included in the copyright.
@97
You said:
“What I do disagree it is the point that people are stealing something when they are sharing it with others for free even though it hurts sales.”
Here is the problem with that. You are sharing something that is COPYRIGHT PROTECTED. You are sharing someone else’s work. You are sharing a product that is for sale on the market, yet you give it for free.
What does all above mean?
Its means you steal someone’s work and distribute it for FREE. Does that not constitute STEALING????
Think about it, honestly now. You take XYZ from ABC Company and give it away for THE WORLD for FREE. Thats the same as if you go into my back pocket, take out my wallet and distribute all my cash to everyone for FREE. Its the same thing, no matter how you look at it.
People just dont want to admit that its stealing, because it PROFITS them.
We will just have to agree to disagree. Either way, its stealing. There is no point anyone can make otherwise. Im not being unrealistic, on the contrary, I am being VERY realistic, just most people forgot about reality and since downloads are sooo common these days, hell, its no longer stealing, but in reality it is stealing.
Will it ever stop? Will it change the world if it stops? Will it stop if corps are making it cheaper?
Well I cant answer those questions, but thats not what the article is about…
@ 105
No it is not, I cannot take the money from your wallet then MAKE A COPY and give that copy to people, while you STILL KEEP the money that was in your wallet. Infact, stealing is removing it from your possesion, in laymans terms, I keep the item, you loose the item. Also, last time I checked people who upload .torrent files onto sites such as TPB they didn’t make money from it, that then would become gross commerical copyright infringement, which would be a criminal offence, if memory serves me correctly.
If you still don’t get it then here is a nice picture for you http://www.vincentchow.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/piracy.png
@100
You said:
“But wait, says you! I am stealing because I did not buy a legit copy of the movie, software, CD, etc, that I downloaded! So what? Just because I downloaded something does not mean I would have otherwise bought it; this is the “each download is a lost sale” theory that is pushed by the industries, but one that is also baseless.”
What you mean So What?
Just because you downloaded something DOES mean you would have bought it, or else you would not have download it.
Lets put it this way.
You download something because you want that product, correct?
Well in that case, if the download would not have been available, guess what? You would have PURCHASED the product.
Your statement is based on a material idea. Just because there are thousands of copies of DVDs out there, does not constitute you have the right to just copy one for yourself and give it away for free. The product that you downloaded comes with copyrights. In other words, the product itself was made in a way where its illegal to copy it. Does it not say at the beginning of every movie (most movies), COPY OF THIS PRODUCT is PROHIBITED????
Thats because you are stealing when you copy.
I know you will try to justify your free downloads til end of time, no doubt about it.
I understand how people want free stuff, but needless to say, it is stealing. You may not steal a material item such as a car or a game console or a computer or whatever, but you are stealing an item that produces $$$$$ and also that states “COPY OF THIS ITEM IS PROHIBITED”
Yes, you dont want to buy a crappy product, very true, but thats why they have ADs, short videos, previews, etc etc.
Im aware that you disagree with my statement. Im aware that you rather give an item away for free on P2P sites to gain popularity and make more money later on, BUT:
These companies dont need popularity. They dont need to be known out there at this time. Why? They are already known. They already built a base. They already have a corporation. You say “I would rather give it away for free on P2P Sites”, yes you would, and thats great, BUT, when you become soo popular where you start your own corporation, now you gotta think about sales, gotta think about the people’s jobs, those that create the ADs, that work behind the scenes. They need to get paid. How you gonna pay them? With free downloads? Come on….
The reason you think the way you do, its cause you are not at a corporate level YET. As smart as your idea is (and it is a good idea to start), later on when you have your own Corp, guess what? Your idea will changes.
I dont surf the corporate websites and listen to corporations. By far, I dont even listen to the damn news, just here and there I get on digg and torrentfreak when im bored at work. So im not blinded by the corporations, far off that point. I dont like em either, thats for sure. I dont want to pay $15 for a danm movie. I stopped going to the movies cause its sooo damn expensive.
I understand and agree with many download sites, thats for sure. I dont mind to get a movie for free, BUT, never-the-less, its taking something for free, which actually costs money. That my friend is stealing, no matter how you look at it.
Just because its not your old fashion type of stealing, its still stealing. You taking an item that costs money and give it for free. Let me say it again, you take something that costs money and give it for free. What is that called? (if its not stealing)…
@101
Yes they did bottle air in cans. It was in China. It didnt work for a long time, BUT, they now have restaurants type places where you go in and breathe clean air thru a mask (type of like on an airplane emergency mask)…
They also had a policy for a while in Brazil where you were not allowed to catch Rain Water (which is the most clean form of water out there), YET, corporations were selling bottled water in the store. Sad but true….
@ 107
I don’t know about others, but if I couldn’t pirate something I wouldn’t go out and buy it, I’d find the closest alternative, but I would NEVER steal it. Nothing I download is for sale where I live anyways. Plus don’t you think that if someone was giving away your stuff on bittorent that maybe, just maybe, it isn’t worth buying, or too expensive? If you keep ignoring the fact that we tell you that filesharing IS NOT, and WILL NOT BE stealing, you are effectively just trolling.
Plus if I was making a product I wouldn’t go to corperate level, I wouldn’t NEED to, because if I make something I will ALWAYS have it under the kopimi licence, which is there to encourage people to share it, modify it and distribute the modified version, if the person likes it and wants to donate for me to keep updating the original version and fixing bugs and such, then that would make me really admire that person for paying me because they LIKE it, not because I am forcing them. People encourage others to do it for smaller companies/artists that they enjoy listening to.
@109
You said:
“Plus don’t you think that if someone was giving away your stuff on bittorent that maybe, just maybe, it isn’t worth buying, or too expensive?”
If thats the case, then you want something that you cant afford. Your statement above shows directly that you are stealing. If you cant buy something, that means its out of your league. In that case, you go and get it anyways (by other means), therefore, its now called stealing.
Hey, I want a Ferrari or a ZR1, but you dont see me going taking one.
I want the entire trilogy of 007 on blu-ray too, but you dont see me going downloading it.
I want the entire trilogy of Star Wars on DVD, but I cant go and buy it, cant afford it.
Pretty much your statement says this:
If I cant afford it, im gonna get it thru other means.
We all want things in life iShare, but this does not mean you go break the law. You could, and many do, but dont complain when they try to catch you and make up excuses about it.
You need to learn the definition of Trolling first, then state as such within your statement.
You would not go corporate level because you choose that. These corporations choose differently. Who are you to tell them how to distribute their product?
Its their product. You have no right to say how their work gets sold. Its their choice.
You have the freedom to choose either to support their corporation by buying their products or not.
Again, your statement holds no water.
What you are doing its against THEIR RULES. Its THEIR RULES, not yours…
@109
You said:
Nothing is for sale where I live.
Really? You have internet right? Its full of places to purchase whatever you desire.
Your statement is flawed…
@110
I never once stated anything about being unable to afford them, just that paying over $2,000AU to get Photoshop CS3 Extended is way too expensive, especially as GIMP is as good as it and costs nothing. I have used both of them and I have a copy of GIMP. I am sick of you acting like filesharing is stealing.
On the point of them catching me, even if they could give enough evidence to prove it (who says my wifi has a password on it, or that it was because I am using an anonymisation program, due to being paranoid) do you honestly think I would care? Boo hoo, they took my money! Oh wait, I could just go and work to replace that money! Of all the music that I listen to and downloaded, if I ever see a CD for the bands I really enjoy I will buy it, without a second thought.
@111
I do not like putting my details online, I do not trust corporations and sites enough. Still, of the software I really liked using if I ever see it available in store I will happily purchase it.
Harvard Law prof: File sharing is “fair use” http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/harvard-prof-tells-judge-that-p2p-filesharing-is-fair-use.ars
@112
So you found an alternative to Adobe Photoshop expensive software package? Good, thats fantastic (no sarcasm here). Photoshop is very expensive, but we all know its a very good piece of software, thats why its sooooo darn expensive.
Its a matter of demand. If its in demand, price will go up…
You dont trust corps and site? Well who the heck does, I dont either, but needless to say, there are billions of sales being done online. Im not telling you how to shop or where to get your products, but to use that as an excuse is not really a valid point.
Anyways, Im sure everyone thinks of stealing differently. My opinion is: If you take a product that costs money and that states “Copy is prohibited”, thats stealing, either by taking it out of a store, or by downloading it.
Ohh yeah, how about that.
You go to a store, and you take a piece of software and somehow you made it outside. Does that consist of stealing?
After all, the store has dozens of copies of that software, right???
Why dont we all just go and take whatever software we want from the store, without paying???
Get the picture?
Taking something from that store is stealing, as you are still removing the original, even though they have more of it. the store has x copies of y program, stealing 1 copy leaves the store with x-1 copies of y program. If you keep taking a copy of y program soon the store will have 0 copies of it. If you download it off Bittorrent, or gain a copy from a friend, no matter how many times you download it that program will still be there.
@Chris:
I will insist that sharing is not stealing.
There is such a thing as public domain where TV and radio stations live but don’t make money off of it.
They give things for free or you see people paying for Air TV streams and radio shows and music?
Are all the people listening to radio and watching TV pirates?
Those people don’t pay nothing for it and shock they also record it and the industry is paid for alleged lost sales in the form of levies and even though those damn pirates form TV and radios don’t pay up artists still get paid I wonder why that happens?
The internet it’s not a store nor is a physical product it’s part of that thing called “public domain” which implies it is the territory of the people and not commercial interests, which means it is fair use which means society have rights to and that the limits to ownership ends there and again this means it is not stealing.
If anyone use something to make money out of copyrighted material I’m right there with you preaching that it is in fact stealing otherwise I don’t see it like that.
“You go to a store, and you take a piece of software and somehow you made it outside. Does that consist of stealing?
After all, the store has dozens of copies of that software, right???
Why dont we all just go and take whatever software we want from the store, without paying???”
The right picture would be of bottled water if you go to a store and take a bottle of water and don’t pay it than your are a thief but if you go to the river and take water from it than you are not stealing anything are you?
Same thing with music if it’s in its bottled form(CD, DVDs etc) and you take it then your are stealing but if it is in the public domain that is the airwaves or internet and your intent is not financial gain then you are not stealing you are sharing with other and it does not affect negatively business or copyright owners or we would not be having this discussion because of TV and radio stations that have the same effect that of the internet and that effect is people don’t pay for music an movies do they?
Public Television does make money from music and shows. Its called Commercials….
Cant compare TV/Radio with downloads.
Yes, its true, when you download its free download, BUT, the actual movie/song is copyright protected.
Also, a TV/Radio system pays for each show/song played. So, they are not copying the music/movie for free. They pay royalty fees.
Thats where it gets tricky. If a song is copyright protected, that means is illegal to copy it.
When you download it, you copied it to your system, which is illegal.
LOL, funny. Yeah, bottle water costs money, because it costs money to bottle it, to deliver it, to package it, etc etc.
You go to a river and get the water for free, cause its a river, mother nature. Again you compare apples with oranges here.
You cant compare what you can really get for free VS what costs money.
Do most people sing for free? NO
Do most people make movies for free? NO
So when you go see a movie, its not free. Same with your river/bottle concept. You cant compare the two.
@116
You said:
“If anyone use something to make money out of copyrighted material I’m right there with you preaching that it is in fact stealing otherwise I don’t see it like that.”
I agree with your statement. To sell something thats not yours, yes.
When you download, it does not cost money, I agree.
Here is where it gets tricky:
What you download is copyright protected. Its not how you get it, or if you pay for it or not, its a mtter of the product itself.
Does the product say “COPY IS PROHIBITED?”
Yes they do, thus, in reality, its actually taking something that costs money and downloading it. Therefore, its going against the laws that the corp set.
You cant twist it whichever way, but the bottom line is “COPY IS PROHIBITED”
That means, its against the law for you to COPY IT. When you download, you copying the product.
You also have to understand that many download sites are being used to make money too. Yeah I know, you say “You crazy, they dont make money”
Yes they do:
Lots of people that download from these sites, go and put them on DVDs and sell them to people that cant download, and buy them for a third of the actual cost. Trust me, they are out there.
These sites runs ADs and what not, right? Thats revenue coming in, correct? Thats money they make for free.
People that use photoshop to make art and sell it. They get photoshop for free, and then go and make art for sale. Thats stealing a product and making money off of it.
We can argue on and on and on. Why doesnt just 1 person go buy Microsoft Windows Vista, then put it online, and let everyone else download it for free? What you think will happen???
You call it download, I call it stealing, fine. I can justify your actions with stealing. You cant justify your actions with free products, because nothing that you download (well almost nothing), its free, they all cost money to make, and the owner states “NO COPY”
Its quite simple. No copy, no broken laws, you start to copy, BAM, law is broken (unless the copy iis for backup purposes)…
You have the right to copy your own music/movies for BACKUP Purposes. The law states as such. Thats how they CD/DVD/Blu-Ray burners were able to justify their existance…
Also, you said:
“because of TV and radio stations that have the same effect that of the internet and that effect is people don’t pay for music an movies do they?”
Your statement is wrong there. Yes, TV and Radio stations do play music and movies, shows, etc, BUT, you forgot one very important thing.
TV and Radio stations PAY for it. Everytime a song is played, they pay royalty fees. Everytime there is a movie played, they pay royalty fees.
So you see, you cant compare Radio/TV with Internet.
On the internet, you dont pay royalty fees for downloading the products. You get them for free.
Thats the big difference. Thats why a Radio Station has a license to raive music out to the public, and TV Stations raive out movies to the public. They pay for it in return, and how they make money? Thru ADs. Thats the reason you have TVs commercials and Radio Commercials, to pay for their license to air out music and movies.
Again, you compare apples and oranges. TV/Radio, Internet, all different. They pay for their rights to air out products. You get them for free from internet.
@Chris:
No I’m not comparing apples and oranges, the nearest internet igual is TV and Radio stations.
TVs and Radios don’t make money out of the public(that represent the public domain) they make their money from the commercial domain(companies) and for all effects and purposes TV and Radio stations don’t make money from the viewers do they?
And like the internet companies will not make money from the users they will make money from other companies is that so hard to understand?
About people downloading and selling things and paying nothing to the creators if they state that they have too I agree with you that is stealing and I know that there are people who do it, I don’t but that is me I don’t use Vista a use Linux(Fedora) and Red Hat don’t complain about it and the nice thing about it is that I can go to the app manager that is included and search a library of thousands of opensource free applications in which you can find “Gimp”(Photoshop), “PaintNET”(think Photoshop) or “Blender”(think 3D Max) the Gimp is so good that the industry used to make some films already like “Scooby Doo” and “300″ if you are a music artist the options are very good for professionals too and I didn’t even talk about the free apps for education like “Dr. Geo” or “Stellarium” or Games like “Tremulous” all available to windows too opensource is a new paradigm and it proved to work is not some theoretical rhetoric it’s real and happening right now.
The thing that it proved, is that you can give away your intellectual property and still make money out of it. And this happened because copyright laws started to encroach on the Public Domain, I cannot argue that the law today don’t give the right to copyright holders to do a lot of things this is just what is wrong copyright today is a powerful tool to negate acess and use of all kinds of uses even the legit ones like copying for personal use and transform consumers into mensalist ignoring the long held tradition of ownership and putting a intolerable burden on society morally there is nothing wrong with sharing not even in mass sharing something if you could you should. So under the current laws in some places you are right people are infringing copyright under others laws you are wrong there is no infringement going on but this will change under ACTA if it is brought to light and I will harm economies everywhere.
Copyright started as a set of rules that give the artist the minimum necessary to explore his creation. Did you know that the first copyright law gave artist 15 years to collect what they could and sudently this expanded to “life” plus 95 years, that those laws were made in the 1700 or was 1800 where there was no electronics and that it was based on the fact that nobody can own intellectual property and it all belongs to the public domain and is lend to the copyright owner so he could explored for a “brief” period and returned to the public domain?
Laws change this time it will change from social pressure because people want stop sharing(pirating) it’s a natural phenomenon it is not planned or some evil plot to destroy an industry it is a new field were the public domain have an expanded territory and people are just sharing in a global scale but still is just sharing and intellectual property, music in this case cannot be separeted when is in the public domain(the internet) and copyright owners don’t have powers in the public domain and should never have this lead us to the transparent civil disobedience when copyright is infringing in the rights of society trying to negate them the right to share, the right to use and the right to own something.
By the way the music industry tried to put radio stations out of business it just couldn’t that is why they have to come to terms and accept others forms of payment and it won’t be long before it have to accept the internet too the thing is there is nobody in charge of the internet so collecting royalties will be difficult.
Ideas are not products they cannot be owned is like water on the ocean once is there you cannot try and negate access to others because someone thing it owns part of the ocean it will lead to civil unrest, what people can do is make a product around it and capitalize.
Example:
Radio and TV already proved that you can give something for free and still sell products otherwise people would never buy a DVD or a CD they just make mixed tapes and rip movies and shows to the DVD burners and in the past tho video cassette tapes.
People buy CD and DVDs because of boxes and extras that they would not have otherwise and like water in a bottle people buy it because they think it is more pure even when is just tap water filtrated with added minerals basicly people are buying the bottle the same is for music people listen to music in radios and go buy the box(CD). You don’t go claiming ownership of the ocean.
Want to see a lot of people giving music for “free” on the internet?
Go to Jamendo or Magnatune.
OpenSource games:
- UFO: Alien Invasion
- UltraStar Deluxe(Singing game)
- FlightGear
- Alien Arena
Want to see TV for free and not be in the wrong side of the law?
Use Miro and be happy
OS for free there are hundreds just go to “distrowatch” and confirm for yourselves who needs Vista LoL
@120
I understand your concept. If your concept were to be the right one thru many companies, than we would not be here to complain about these issues.
The fact of the matter is that these companies set their own rules. They put copyrights on their products. They put limitations on their products. We the public cannot force them and tell them, that they have to change those rules or else we will download their products for free, MEANWHILE, let it be lawfull.
They put COPY IS PROHIBITED on their products. They do it so that nobody can profit from it. Thats their way. If that kicks them in the behind later on, so be it, but thats THEIR rule. You can chooce to obey it, OR, to break it.
You break it, you get in trouble.
If the free products are soooo great, why dont you just use the free products? Why do you still go download photoshop? Or products that costs money? There is the problem. People like free, but they want the product that costs money too. Sorry cant have it both ways.
Yes sharing is great, but, if the product is FREE. If the product is NOT free, and is copyright protected, well guess what? Sharing is no longer allowed.
Communities share many programs and movies and music, etc etc, but those are the ones that are FREE. The paid products are COPYRIGHTED. That means you cannot make copies of it.
I understand your concept to download and share, I belive in it too, but you also need to understand the concept of PAID PRODUCTS, COPYRIGHTED PRODUCTS, products that costs money cannot be shared. Thats THEIR rule. Its their rule, not yours.
These ISPs should work together with the law to break the bad downloaders.
Ill tell you why. When you witness a crime (persay), and the police asks you questions and you deny any information to them, guess what? Thats against the law. They can put you in jail for that.
Well, kinda same thing here. The ISP is aware of where you connect and what you download etc etc. They are the ones having the information. If the law says we need that information and they with-hold it, than its breaking the law (in a way).
Than again, there is freedom rights, so there goes my above statement. Damn if you do, damn if you dont.
I dont say ALL downloads are wrong, NO WAY. Im not saying you steal when you download a music video/song thats free out there. I dont think is stealing when you download a free OS.
But, it is stealing when you go download a piece of software that costs $800 or an album that costs $15. Fine, you do it here and there, once here once there, great. But there are people that download thousands of gigs of music and movies. Sorry but everything has a limit.
Anytime you take something that costs MONEY, and you get it for free (unless its a gift or something), than thats called STEALING. Dont matter how you look at it, dont matter what the product is, dont matter if its a physical product or a virtual download product. They costs money and they are copyright protected, THEREFORE, its stealing.
All other downloads that are free, GO FOR IT, and nobody can tell you that you steal it or break the law, because you dont….
@121
You said:
Ideas are not products they cannot be owned is like water on the ocean once is there you cannot try and negate access to others because someone thing it owns part of the ocean it will lead to civil unrest, what people can do is make a product around it and capitalize.
Ideas can be owned. Thats why they call it copyright. You have an idea, you copyright it and nobody else can touch it, unless they pay you royalty fees.
TVs, and Computers and Cars and all products out there. They are not build from one idea, one concept. They are build from dozens and dozens of ideas, and each one, if copyrighted, they have to pay royalty fees. Look at IEEE, if your system has IEEE standards, which most do, the copyright holder must be paid.
You cannot make a product around my product and capitalize on it. Thats copying a product, therefore, reasons why you have all these lawsuits.
You want to make money, free from royalty fess? Make up your own product, with your own idea. Why you gotta make a product around mine? You now taking my idea and making a few small changes and viola, you making money from me (in a way).
If you had an idea, and you copyright it, would it be wise that some corp makes a product around your idea and then goes and makes billions of dollars??? I dont think so…..
Actually, I KNOW SO. I know you would not like it. Just think about it, Im sure you will understand it when you go thru these issues in your own life…
@Chris:
You are wrong ideas can’t be owned that is why copyright applies to distribution and the right to copy and that is why is called copyright otherwise it would be called ownershiprights for pete’s sake go read about copyright somewhere.
About the IEEE those are standards and refer to patents, patents only apply to physical implementations that is why is so damn expensive to patent things because you have to foresee every type of implementation that there could be and patent all of them to secure and invention have you ever patent something?
So if you want to say you are in on a standard yes you have to pay royalties to those who created the standard but that doesn’t mean you could not implement your own based on those standards if you come up with a different form that do the same thing.
And everyday I let people copy my ideas that is why I put everything under the GPL or CC commons.
And again you cannot own and idea just the right to some channel of distribution if there is no channel there is no rights are you mad? The public domain is not a channel of distribution there is no single point to control if there was TV and radio stations would have done it already. And the sad reality is that people don’t own the ideas they have they can own physical manifestations of that idea but not the idea it belongs to society.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4472314929478865652
here go see one of the Pirate Bay founders talk in Stanford so you can grasp better what it is all about.
And realistically what are rights good for if you don’t have the means to enforce them anyway?
Look at anonymous P2P already operational all over:
- Omemo
- Winny
- RShare
- Share
- Herbivore (in trials)
- TOR Hidden Services(that make webpages anonymous)
- I2P
- GNUnet
- Marabunta
- Mute
- Waste
- Turtle F2F
- RetroShare
- Summi
- Rodi
- Perfect Dark
- Off System
- Hamachi
- ExoSee
- GigaTribes
A share of zero is zero. You can get mad and talk until you turn blue it’s just not going to change anything.
And who knows maybe in the future people will have 3D printers in their houses and will be able to produce anything they want from raw materials intellectual property will be nothing, services will be everything.
Society will have conquered the barriers to production and will have to evolve to the next step that sociologist call “Service Age” after conquered the agriculture and industrial ages :)
@127
Im aware that you have to defend your right to download for free. After all, who the heck does not want a free movie, or a free piece of software.
The fact of the matter is that anytime you copy COPYRIGHT product, you stealing. You taking something from someone that cost them money, and you getting it for free.
Its quite simple you know…
I produce a piece of software. I spent time on it. Took me say 3 years to make (persay).
I want to get paid for that time. Why would I want YOU to get it for free, when its (the product) demand is soo high, everyone wants it and everyone wishes it had it.
Let me put it another way.
Pixar goes and spends say $200M on a movie that takes 3 years to make (persay).
Who gives you the right to go and take it for free?
So your right to download free software, YES, I agree, share alllll you want.
To go and download a movie that costs money to make while you get it for free, ITS ILLEGAL, and will always be ILLEGAL.
Which part of that DONT you understand?
Download all want, im not against it, shoot everyone does it, but to go and download things that are COPYRIGHTED and it states right there on the screen before you watch a movie “COPYRIGHT IS PROHIBITED” is not legal, hence, illegal, hence BREAKING the law.
Do I agree with that? NO
Would I prefer free software? Hell yeah.
Would I want to see movies for free? Hell Yeah.
The fact of the matter is that all these products are NOT free. They cost money to make. They cost money to deliver. They cost someone’s time to make and think about how to make it.
Everyone’s time is precious. Everyone’s time cost money.
You going to download my product for free will infuriate me and will make me go and make it illegal for you to do it again.
Since its the internet, well its quite hard to do the above stated, as internet is endless.
Do people do it? Yes
Do people try to defend it? Yes
Do people want free products? HELL YEAH
Yeah, you send me a video link to someone that wants to defend HIS right to download products for FREE.
I bet if that person would spend months and months of his time on a new product WITHOUT any other income, you will see how he will change his idea and start to charge for his products.
You have a point, I totally agree, and that is, PEOPLE want free stuff.
I dont say its going to change anything by blocking these sites. Hell eveytime one sites goes down, another comes up.
But the morale of the story is, ITS ILLEGAL and STEALING. No matter how you look at it.
If a product costs money and you get it for free, thats stealing. Its simple, VERY SIMPLE…
We will have to agree to disagree then.
I know you wrong with your free downloads, you know you wrong with it too (but do it anyways to defend your right to get free products), and thus we will never come to a conclusion…
Let me ask you something.
If you want a movie so badly, why dont you go buy it?
If you want a piece of software so badly, why dont you go buy it?
Can you give me a reason for these actions (your right to download)???
i’m an iinet customer, and i’m disgusted that america’s influence on australia has reached this low.
and now with that filter the government wants to put in…
what happened to a free information internet, as was originally intended?
i believe iinet will lose this one, but i’m crossing my fingers that a miracle happens…
@128
“The fact of the matter is that anytime you copy COPYRIGHT product, you stealing. You taking something from someone that cost them money, and you getting it for free.”
I accidentally the whole thing, what should I do?
“If you want a movie so badly, why dont you go buy it?
If you want a piece of software so badly, why dont you go buy it?
Can you give me a reason for these actions (your right to download)???”
If I bought them I’d just be supporting the companies I so openly oppose (eg; EA, Time Warner, Sony/BMG) and help fund corruption and twisted copyright. I would rather pay the same amount and have all the money go to those who produce it (director, writer, actors – but some of them get payed way too much, film crew, guys in effects, etc.) Those are the people who deserve all the money. In 1998 music corperations tried to make mp3 players illegal, as they thought it would ruin their profits, they have also done the same with DVDs, CDs and video cassettes. Once they figured out how to make even more money out of them they did all they could to get people to buy them. Valve is currently the only PC gaming company that I would consider buying PC games from. They have gone about things the right way with Steam and the source engine. As long as I sign in with my account I could have my games on 50 different computers. I can also have all my achievements and save files consistant across all of those computers. They also often have free weekends (where you can play a game for that weekend without buying it) you can send people a several day unrestricted demo of a game and they also often have discounts on games and have value packs for some of the games. The thing that I really love is, since most of their newer games run on the source engine files become smaller if you have more of the games. More corporations should learn somethign from Valve.
@131
You opposing them, and taking their product is not of understanding.
You may oppose them, fine, many do anyways, because of their business believes and what not.
But you taking THEIR product. Hate them, dont hate them, you still taking their product, so in the end, YOU STILL want what they make.
If they were not here to make these products, then you would not have it. You would not watch that movie, or this movie, or listen to this music of that music.
You see, you dont think about this rationally. You think about this with hatred and confussion.
Many people hate corps out there. Its a natural way of humanity, to hate something you dont understand or something you fear.
These people want to make the most money ouf of each movie/song…
Yep, they are greedy, no doubt about it.
Yep, they suck, no doubt about it.
Yep, they reap all the benefits, no doubt about it.
But its still THEIR product. If they choose to make a product and protected with certain types of rights, guess what? ITS their right to do so, as its THEIR product, NOT yours.
If you were thinking on a larger scale of things, perhaps you would understand that it is STEALING.
Since you think with hatred and disagreement, then you will not think its stealing.
You forgetting something.
Its a product that you take. No matter how you take it, you still take a product. It does not matter if they have MORE of the product to give others, you still taking a product for free.
No matter how you look at it, YOU TAKING a product. Let me repeat. You taking a product, therefore, its stealing. Simple, very simple.
Im happy you enjoying Valve’s games and what not. Thats THEIR way of doing business.
If you dont like the way microsoft does business, than dont buy from them. Its quite simple.
If you dont like all these companies, then dont buy from them. At the same time, dont download their stuff either, because if you do, then you just contradicted yourself.
Lets put it in simpler terms.
You hate a company. You dont like their way of business. Great…
Dont buy from them. Dont download their stuff either.
You like a company (IE Valve). You download their stuff. You buy their stuff. Great, I agree with you and you are not stealing anything, as you support the company by buying many of their products.
See the difference?
When you hate a company and its ways of business, you dont want to support them, therefore, you dont buy their products, BUT, you download them. In other words, you taking from a corp products without paying for it.
Why dont you go download and take things from the companies you like so much?
Its quite simple you know. You can defend your downloads all you want, but you dont use the right decisions to make that choice. You use all the wrong decisions (IE hate the company, dont like the company, company suckx etc etc)…
Therefore, you dont rationalize your thoughts completely due to personal views and desires.
@130
You got it partially right.
Yes, the internet its FREE INFORMATION, and still is.
The internet its NOT free downloads for paid products.
There is a difference. Information is free (well minus the darn ADs, lol), but NOT products.
You are sick of America doing business they way they do, but thats their choice. If you dont like it, dont support them by buying their products. Meanwhile, dont download them either, because if you do, then you just contradicted yourself.
Simple…
@132
How many times will I have to tell you, stealing REMOVES THE ORIGINAL, that is if a store has 10 copies of Transformers, stealing a copy would leave them with 9 copies, when I go out and buy Transformers, then rip it to my HDD and upload it to The Pirate Bay, that is not stealing, I bought the movie, but then I copied it and uploaded it, allowing millions to download that ONE copy. These corporations don’t own the software, they own the RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE IT, so all they do is put that movie onto a DVD, slap on copy protection (which if they didn’t want us to rip they could honestly just improve it) put it in a case and ship it out to your local stores.
Also, could you please improve your grammar? It is really difficult to understand half of what you say….
“Its a natural way of humanity, to hate something you don’t understand or something you fear.”
I understand them, I do not fear them, even if I got a DCMA notice (hey, what would I care, last time I checked I didn’t live in the US, and US law doesn’t apply here :D) rather, I despise them, and so I will not fund them, will use what is available to get something that they shouldn’t have any power over. If I could, I would happily pay all the people who worked to make it far more than what I would buy the product for, they deserve it, not the corporations.
Are you so naive that you honestly believe that these corporations can’t better protect the products they sell? It would be much easier to just improve DRM technology, but you can make a lot more money suing everyone for every fucking cent they have.
@134
You said:
“These corporations don’t own the software, they own the RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE IT, so all they do is put that movie onto a DVD, slap on copy protection (which if they didn’t want us to rip they could honestly just improve it) put it in a case and ship it out to your local stores.”
Bingo, you finally get it. Quite amazing, really.
They OWN the RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE.
Do you know what that means?
That means, they own the right to make copies and distribute that movie to anyone, anywhere (either consumer or retailer).
You are becoming them. You are NOT the corporation. You say you despise them, yet you are THEM (in a way).
They distribute the software/movie to the public (for a price of course).
You do the same. You buy a copy of a movie and them distribute it to the mass (internet users).
The only difference is you dont charge for it.
The corporation does. The only reason they do and you dont is because THEY MADE the product. It cost them MONEY to make it (and lots of it).
It cost you a fraction of what it took to make that product, therefore, it does not give you the right to distribute that product for free.
You own the right to view and enjoy the product, NOT to distribute it to others for free.
I understand again why you think this way. You are not in US, thats one, you dont understand how corporations work, thats two, and you want everything for free, thats three.
Well Ill give you the first 2, but the third one, sorry, you need to learn how the world works, and that is MONEY.
Not sure what country you in, but in this country we have a say:
Money talks, bullshit walks…
That may sound a bit rude to you, but thats reality…
You said you understand them, and that you dont fear them???
OK, point taken, but I would not talk that easily when someone shows up at your door with a warrant for a court date, you loose and spend some time in jail. Im sure you will do just fine in jail (I hope that ownt happen to you, seriously now)…
“You honestly believe they cant improve DRM………..”
Yes you are correct, I give you that. They could improve it, no doubt about it.
Remember, what one man can build, another can break. In other words, anytime a person builds something (in this case a layer of protection), someone else will come up with that idea of how to break it.
My grammar is just fine. Perhaps our way of talking here is a bit different, and if you dont undertand something, please ask. Ill be more than glad to elaborate further…
@135
Funny thing is I don’t distribute it, I have nothing to put onto a torrent and upload, there are many torrents fir the same stuff, me uploading it would just mean that the same amount of peers are divided among even more torrent files.
“I understand again why you think this way. You are not in US, thats one, you dont understand how corporations work, thats two, and you want everything for free, thats three.
Well Ill give you the first 2, but the third one, sorry, you need to learn how the world works, and that is MONEY.”
I never stated I wanted everything for free, I get a satisfaction in earning things and being able to afford things when others can’t. That is my main drive for cash, otherwise I would never dream of earning money, I could just live off welfare, like some many others do in the world.
“OK, point taken, but I would not talk that easily when someone shows up at your door with a warrant for a court date, you loose and spend some time in jail. Im sure you will do just fine in jail (I hope that ownt happen to you, seriously now)…”
Filesharing is a civil case, not a criminal case, so unless they changed the laws while I was last sleeping, I wouldn’t go to jail for it.
“Yes you are correct, I give you that. They could improve it, no doubt about it.
Remember, what one man can build, another can break. In other words, anytime a person builds something (in this case a layer of protection), someone else will come up with that idea of how to break it.”
The difference is how long it takes them to break it, maybe I.P. laws should change, so the object in question’s copyright expires when the DRM is null and void, myabe these corporations will then make better DRM rather than
1. do illegal shit to catch people filesharing copyrighted material
2.sue
3.????
4.profit
You stated:
Funny thing is I don’t distribute it, I have nothing to put onto a torrent and upload, there are many torrents fir the same stuff, me uploading it would just mean that the same amount of peers are divided among even more torrent files.
You are missing the point here. Im not talking about YOU (you alone). We talking about all the people that share software/movies/music.
They all share the same common interest. To download paid products for FREE, therefore, all of them distribute the product for FREE.
I am aware of the fact that is not a criminal case, but a civil one. Im not a lawyer, so I cant speak for this, BUT, what happens if you get charged with piracy and they fine you say XYZ amount of dollars and you cant pay. Not sure if you go to jail or not. I was under the impression that you would, but maybe im wrong on that one. Again no a lawyer so I cant say. I just assumed….
You said:
The difference is how long it takes them to break it, maybe I.P. laws should change, so the object in question’s copyright expires when the DRM is null and void, myabe these corporations will then make better DRM rather than
Scuze, I dont get this. Can you ellaborate more on this? I dont want to assume (again)…
Im sure they could spend lots and lots of time on protection, etc etc.
I believe what they are trying to do is to teach some of the people a lesson, so that others will follow piracy. That wont work, on the contrary, it makes people even more pissed off, but again that irrelevant. The fact is they take a product and distribute it for free. They loose money. They will be pissed off, hell you would too if someone took your work and distribute it for free, whereas, you could have made money off it.
I dont deny that many of them (corporations) are *******, but thats not the question here. The question is, should you be allowed to download products (that are copyrighted) for FREE???
My answer to that is NO. Will people do it? Heck yeah, but you know its wrong. What you choose to do, its YOUR choice, just dont go all nuts when the corporations start to sue you for taking their products.
You do realise there are plenty of items on there that are free in the first place, don’t you? I don’t use torrents to just not pay for things, I use them to discover new things that I am unsure about buying, and for downloads of free things when they are slow (8kb for Win 7 Beta? hell no.) Also our common interest is the love of software/movies/music, not getting them for free. You should know that TorrentFreak has shown that pirates aren’t above buying products they like.
“Scuze, I dont get this. Can you ellaborate more on this? I dont want to assume (again)…”
Currently copyright for something is the life of the author + 70 years, don’t you think that is WAY too long? I think it should be until someone successfully gets around the DRM or whatever to use it however they like, that would then encourage the corporations to make better forms or DRM, and would boost sales dramatically as everyone will buy it to try and crack it.
“The question is, should you be allowed to download products (that are copyrighted) for FREE???”
The answer is yes. There is such a thing called donations, it allows you to give an artist/NPO/whatever money without having to buy their product (or buy it another time.)
OK. Point taken. You dont use Torents to just download products, but free items as well. I believe we all do.
The question on the table is for products that costs money, where you get it for free.
Perhaps copyright laws are up for a change, no doubt about that, I agree completly, but until such time, we cannot go around taking products just cause we feel like it. There is such a thing as ownership. These corporations do own RIGHTS to these products. How long they have rights to them? Well I guess thats up to these laws, and we sure could change them (any law can be changed), but until such time, again, we cannot go around just taking products for free.
If your answer is YES to download free products, then thats your choice. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Donations and what-not is not part of buying a product. When you donate money, you dont donate expecting something in return.
Im sure there are artists out there that take donations and give away free music, of those I agree, go download their products from the NET, as their product is FREE, and they make their money thru donations and concerts and merchandise.
What we talking about here are not those types of artists. These are corporations that make money off the PRODUCT, not from donations, therefore, the product is not free for download. Why? Because these corporations put a copyright on the product.
Could these corporations take the same road as those free artists? Perhaps, but thats not what they are and what they do.
Trying to compare 2 different individuals (or in this case an artist to a corporation) is not likely to be viewed correctly. Your mind is set to artists that make their money on donations and concerts and what-not.
These types of corporations are not similar to your free artists. They spend millions of dollars on ADs and the creation of the product, therefore, creating thousands of jobs. In any given time, corporations have hundreds, and sometimes thousands of employees. They need to be paid thru the products they create.
Your free artist is just himself. Perhaps he may have a few people here and there, but thats it. Think about a world without corporations. Our unemployment would be half the world. Sorry to tell you, but that does not sound to delightfull to me. Are these corporations greedy? More then likely, but thats where your freedom comes in. You choose to buy their product or not. If you see a corporation that greedy, then dont support their products. Dont download and take their products. Thats one way to teach them to stop being greedy. (then again this is wishfull thinking)…
4 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.