If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CDfreaks)   Not news: MPAA sues man for downloading a movie. News: man decides to fight the MPAA in court. Fark.com: man is millionaire software CEO   (cdfreaks.com) divider line 491
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

32114 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jul 2006 at 9:30 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



491 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-07-26 09:45:28 AM
How exactly do they determine this anyway? BitTorrents are downloaded from multiple seeds, dozens, or sometimes hundreds of different sources. I'm sure his ISP isn't keeping logs of every bit of data sent down through his modem, so I'd like to know how they determined he downloaded it all over BT.

/Seriously. I wanna know.
//I'm super serious.
 
2006-07-26 09:46:31 AM
If he downloaded by Bittorrent, then it is illegal. Downloading the movie is legal. Distributing little pieces of it to other users while downloading the movie (which is inherently what bittorrent is) is illegal. It's not the downloading but the distribution that he is being sued for.

jwrebholz
Just because the MPAA have more money, "better lawyers", doesn't mean that he will be left without a cent after all is said and done. Even if he loses, it'd just be a drop of water in the sea.



As for downloading the movie, he's probably just lazy to go out to blockbuster or order from netflix.
 
2006-07-26 09:46:51 AM
2 grams: If he didn't do it, then sure fight it.

But how can Farkers argue that downloading a movie is not stealing? The studios paid millions of dollars to make the product. Don't they have the right to distribute it as they see fit and prosucute people who steal it?


Piracy is different than stealing. Argue it's wrong if you want, but don't confuse the terms.
 
2006-07-26 09:47:18 AM
awachtel

What tactics? Suing people downloading things illegally? If he didnt do it, then nothing should happen

But that's the point isn't it! The RIAA and MPAA also go after people who have actually done nothing illegal, waste their time, money, etc. According to you that's ok because if you're innocent...
Results: so even if innocent something still happens to you (IE fees, time, you figure out the rest.)
 
2006-07-26 09:47:53 AM
www.uploadfile.info
 
2006-07-26 09:47:53 AM
puckhead: assuming someone has "allegedly" downloaded a song or two, but they already own the CD. Do they own the rights to listen to that song or not?

IANAL but my understanding:

If you buy a CD, you have a single user license to listen to that CD whenever you want.

If you sell, lose, or otherwise sever the ownership of that CD, you forefit your license to that CD.

You can (currently) listen to a song for free (on T.V., on the radio, etc), but you can not make a copy of said song and distribute it.

I think that technically, if you own a copy of a CD and it's at home and you download a song via bittorrent, you are not violating any laws, but the person distributing the song is, however. Since they are not allowed to distribute, I think it's illegal to get it from them.
 
2006-07-26 09:47:57 AM
How exactly do they determine this anyway? BitTorrents are downloaded from multiple seeds, dozens, or sometimes hundreds of different sources. I'm sure his ISP isn't keeping logs of every bit of data sent down through his modem, so I'd like to know how they determined he downloaded it all over BT.


Would like to know as well. You never know, this BitTorrent thing could just be the tip of the iceberg, I doubt they would bother to sue over a single DVD. He prolly has a shiatload of them hosted somewhere.
 
2006-07-26 09:48:06 AM
"Fine."

Or extortion. I guess it's all the same.

Also, if he didn't do it, what should he do? Not take his case to court? Good idea, genius.
 
2006-07-26 09:49:13 AM
Also... regarding downloading being illegal. I've never got how they can make this stick.

When you purchase a movie, audio CD, software, you're purchasing a license for it, which clearly states you cannot distribute the content in any way.

If you're downloading something you don't own, you've never agreed to, or accepted, that license. So how the hell can you be bound by it?

I've always thought the only ones who should legally be in trouble are the ones sharing it in the first place.

And yeah, I know with torrents you're automatically "sharing" it, but you didn't provide it in the first place.

This guy has no "agreement" with the RIAA not to download copyrighted content. Right?
 
2006-07-26 09:49:13 AM
But that's the point isn't it! The RIAA and MPAA also go after people who have actually done nothing illegal, waste their time, money, etc. According to you that's ok because if you're innocent...
Results: so even if innocent something still happens to you (IE fees, time, you figure out the rest.)



Stay away from things like BitTorrent and you've got nothing to worry about. It's not like they pick names out of a phonebook.
 
2006-07-26 09:49:35 AM
2 grams: But how can Farkers argue that downloading a movie is not stealing? The studios paid millions of dollars to make the product. Don't they have the right to distribute it as they see fit and prosucute people who steal it?


Simple. It is NOT theft or stealing the movie. It is copyright infringement. They are different crimes.
 
2006-07-26 09:49:43 AM
puckhead

brings up a question:

assuming someone has "allegedly" downloaded a song or two, but they already own the CD. Do they own the rights to listen to that song or not?
for that matter, what if the person has bought that song on LP, cassette or 8-track


Sure, you have the right to listen to that song, tape or CD. That's it. It's like a book. You buy a book, you can read it, share it, sell it, lend it out, but that doens't give you any more "rights" or privlages to other copies. What's so hard to understand? If you choose to purchase a song online you get that single file for you personal use. If you loose your computer you would need to buy another copy of the file.

Could I go into a store and grab another pair of shoes if I lost my original pair? Of course not.

Sure, you can aruge that a file on the internet doesn't have nearly the costs of production/distribution as a pair of shoes, but still it's not yours.

Don't like it? Then you don't have to use or listen to it. This sense of personal entitlement that some folks have when it comes to online music and movies is appalling.
 
2006-07-26 09:50:27 AM
Pocket Ninja: Which is why I was asking for more substance to this story than that ridiculous article.

Try the original article instead of the crappy blog.

Article
 
2006-07-26 09:51:23 AM
Ripside: I've always thought the only ones who should legally be in trouble are the ones sharing it in the first place.


They have been suing uploaders so far. Most P2P programs have you automatically set to share whatever you download.
 
2006-07-26 09:51:41 AM
awachtel

Stay away from things like BitTorrent and you've got nothing to worry about. It's not like they pick names out of a phonebook.

Ever heard of groups that IP Spoof (or use other masking tactics)? That's how many people have been wrongly accused. So yes - it's similar to having your name picked out of a phonebook if the tracing information is wrong.
 
2006-07-26 09:52:05 AM
Simple. It is NOT theft or stealing the movie. It is copyright infringement. They are different crimes.

He illegally got a copy for free, that is theft. If he was selling copies that would be copyright infringement.
 
2006-07-26 09:52:09 AM
What a bunch of idiots. Everybody know it's easier to sue people who can't defend themselves. I think the MPAA should sue their lawyers for malpractice ...
 
2006-07-26 09:52:50 AM
Whats wrong with owning Meet the Fockers? I own it, I think it's funny.

Sure it's no 'Night At The Roxbury' but it's got some funny moments.
 
2006-07-26 09:53:15 AM
nmathew01



Simple. It is NOT theft or stealing the movie. It is copyright infringement. They are different crimes.


Please explain. I honestly don't know the details. However, are you exploiting a technicality in the law, or do honestly feel that downloading a movie for free on the internet is not damaging the owners?
 
2006-07-26 09:53:34 AM
The criminalization of sharing is immoral on a fundamental level. Didn't anyone go to kindergarten?
 
rpm
2006-07-26 09:53:38 AM
awachtel: Suing people downloading things illegally?


Like that dead grandmother? Or that woman that never used a computer?
 
2006-07-26 09:53:56 AM
nmathew01

Yeah, I know, I said that in my post - I'm just concerned about how they knew what he was downloading, unless his ISP is running some sort of P2P logging system/screen. Its not like a web server where you're logging hits to a file - these are just little packets of data going back and forth from numerous seeders...
 
2006-07-26 09:54:02 AM
Danger Mouse

It was my impression that when you buy a song, you are buying two things: the media and a license. If you damage the media don't you still own the license? Maybe I'm wrong, but that sounds pretty fukked.
 
2006-07-26 09:54:08 AM
Ever heard of groups that IP Spoof (or use other masking tactics)? That's how many people have been wrongly accused. So yes - it's similar to having your name picked out of a phonebook if the tracing information is wrong.


I'm aware of what IP spoofing is, I would assume that the RIAA/MPAA has to provide more proof than an IP address for the lawsuit to even be valid. If that's all they're providing, then I'm wrong.
 
2006-07-26 09:54:24 AM
ginrei724: What gets me is the randomness of their accusations... Grandparents without computers getting accused of downloading a gangsta flick or Eminem tracks... They must just go down the phone books and point a finger and then randomly choose what the alleged perp stole.

I have an alternate theory...
static.flickr.com
 
2006-07-26 09:56:15 AM
"You don't wanna leave? Now you can't leave."

I tried to google it but I give up -- what movie is this from?
 
rpm
2006-07-26 09:56:41 AM
awachtel: He illegally got a copy for free, that is theft.


Unless he stole it from Wal-mart or such, it's still copyright infringment. Single or many, it's copyright infringment if it's a *copy* versus physical media.
 
2006-07-26 09:56:45 AM
Josu [TotalFark]

Danger Mouse

It was my impression that when you buy a song, you are buying two things: the media and a license. If you damage the media don't you still own the license? Maybe I'm wrong, but that sounds pretty fukked


Why do you think you have a "license" for a song? And what do you think that license means? (the ability for ever and ever to copy the song from any medium in the world)?

Did you see a copy of a licensing agreement when you bought it? What rights and restrictions does this "license" afford you?
 
2006-07-26 09:57:04 AM
Josu: It was my impression that when you buy a song, you are buying two things: the media and a license. If you damage the media don't you still own the license?

Yes - and theoretically the owner should be responsible for replacing your media and upgrading you to the latest media.
 
2006-07-26 09:57:16 AM
2 grams

I you might be asking the wrong question. Are you really asking if people think piracy is stealing? Or did you mean to ask if people think piracy is wrong?
 
2006-07-26 09:57:24 AM
Music and movies should be art forms which you only have to pay for if you want to help support the actors/artists. Down with the money making crap of RIAA
 
2006-07-26 09:58:56 AM
If he used BitTorrent, how do they know he downloaded it unless they provided all or part of the file for download?

And if they did, is entrapment something only government agencies are barred from practicing?
 
2006-07-26 09:59:07 AM
Danger Mouse

Yes, in fact - there is license information contained at the beginning of every DVD movie, and license information in tiny, tiny print in every CD liner.

It allows you to listen of view that content, from that media source. That's about it. No reproduction or distrubution permitted.

But again, people downloading these files never received a copy of that agreement, so technically, I'm still not sure how they can nail someone on strictly downloading. (again, I'm aware BT is auto-shared as you download).
 
rpm
2006-07-26 09:59:14 AM
2 grams: However, are you exploiting a technicality in the law, or do honestly feel that downloading a movie for free on the internet is not damaging the owners?


It's not playing their PR game. Calling it what it is does not mean it is right. Copyright infringement is still illegal, and still wrong (barring fair use that the studios don't consider fair use), but it's not theft. It's only the studios calling it theft.
 
2006-07-26 09:59:39 AM
jwrebholz: The MPAA still has more money and better lawyers than this guy. I hope he doesn't mind being penniless.

Nah, you watch, they'll drop this suit before it goes to trial. He can countersue, but they won't keep after him if they think he's going to fight back unless they're 99.999% sure that they can prove he did it. You're right where you say elsewhere that losing this wouldn't bother the RIAA, but that's true even if they drop the suit. The RIAA's tactics are to generate publicity and to bully people into settling. Like most bullies, if you fight back, they run away. They don't really want to go to trial. Problem is, most people can't afford to fight back. Defending these suits is very expensive, as you know.
 
2006-07-26 09:59:45 AM
Music and movies should be art forms which you only have to pay for if you want to help support the actors/artists. Down with the money making crap of RIAA


Yep, and just imagine the crap that will come out of Hollywood once all the movies feature actors willing to work for free. It'll suck worse than the crap coming out now.
 
rpm
2006-07-26 09:59:57 AM
Ripside: It allows you to listen of view that content, from that media source. That's about it. No reproduction or distrubution permitted.


Spaceshifting has been upheld by SCotUS
 
2006-07-26 10:00:02 AM
awachtel

I'm aware of what IP spoofing is, I would assume that the RIAA/MPAA has to provide more proof than an IP address for the lawsuit to even be valid. If that's all they're providing, then I'm wrong.

Never assume. Here's a simple link to start off your journey on the matter of the RIAA and MPAA sending out incorrect infringement notices. Via google, other search engines and news agencies you can find more.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/13/031200&mode=thread
 
2006-07-26 10:00:42 AM
aphexcoil3
A Bronx Tale
 
2006-07-26 10:01:08 AM
awachtel ,
No you miss the point. They dont have to have a valid reason for the lawsuit. Most people just pay what the organization demands to avoid going into court. They can use messed up logs, ip spoofs etc... however they want. Remember that they dont have to do anything 99% of the time besides threaten and they get their money. The other 1% is this guy and all the RIAA has to do is prove it to a jury and not to a discussion threat filled with people who understand TCP/IP.
 
2006-07-26 10:01:55 AM
I'd sue back too if they accused me of downloading Meet the Fockers. You can't just go around saying people download that junk.
 
2006-07-26 10:02:17 AM
Sloth_DC [TotalFark]

Josu: It was my impression that when you buy a song, you are buying two things: the media and a license. If you damage the media don't you still own the license?

Yes - and theoretically the owner should be responsible for replacing your media and upgrading you to the latest media.


Really? Some software companies do that (but it's at thier discretion, not as a right unless it was specifically spelt out in your licensing agreement.) but are you saying I should be able to go to Sony with all my Beta and VHS and Laser discs and trade them in for DVDs?

I've got a farkload of 8 tracks. this is great!

My Dad is loosing his eyesight, I'm going to take all his books and demand the publisher replace them with "books on tape"!

I needed some new connectors on my old VCR to connect to my new TV! Who do I go see to get the upgrades? The TV manufactuer, or the VCR manufactuer?
 
2006-07-26 10:02:19 AM
Ripside: It allows you to listen of view that content, from that media source. That's about it. No reproduction or distrubution permitted.

Might want to review the RCA case wherein they used this argument against VCRs. Hint: They lost.
 
2006-07-26 10:03:48 AM
I'd sue myself if I downloaded "Meet the Fockers" ...

/just sayin'
 
2006-07-26 10:03:57 AM
wrjohnston... usually people's excuse for illegally downloading movies is that they can't afford to pay for them...

Really? I thought they were just asshats who thought that the law doesn't apply to them OR they weren't going to buy it anyway, so why should they pay for it.
 
2006-07-26 10:04:13 AM
awachtel: Stay away from things like BitTorrent and you've got nothing to worry about. It's not like they pick names out of a phonebook.


Is that why people who don't even OWN a PC to download the music/movies with have been sued and forced to pay up because they couldn't afford to do anything else?
 
2006-07-26 10:06:00 AM
Josu [TotalFark]



I you might be asking the wrong question. Are you really asking if people think piracy is stealing? Or did you mean to ask if people think piracy is wrong?


WE may be getting into semantics here. But yes, downloading a song or movie without the consent of the ower is stealing and is wrong.

A kid who buys a movie and distributes it on the internet is not the "owner" of the movie and does not ahve the authority to do so. He is wrong, and the folks who knowling take it are also "wrong".
 
2006-07-26 10:07:06 AM
olavf: Although, if he owns it already, and is downloading a copy for his PC, is that illegal? He does have a license, and it is for personal use after all.

I've downloaded movies that I own on DVD, simply because it was faster than ripping and encoding them. Did I commit a crime?

I don't want to get into an argument over whether copyright infringement is a bad or not, but doesn't it seem odd that the fine for downloading a movie is $100,000 when shoplifting it from a store would be worth $500 or maybe community service?
 
2006-07-26 10:07:21 AM
Danger Mouse

Why do you think you have a "license" for a song?

Because the RIAA doesn't seem to be interested in suing people who purchase a CD then listen to the songs from that same CD. If you purchase a CD, that gives you the media and the "permission" to listen to that song.

And what do you think that license means? (the ability for ever and ever to copy the song from any medium in the world)?

Unless you give the license away, sure.

Did you see a copy of a licensing agreement when you bought it? What rights and restrictions does this "license" afford you?

I don't know all the legal details, so I try to use common sense. If I purchase a CD, some money goes toward the physical process of creating the media, and some money goes toward the artistic process of creating the songs. If I damage the media I shouldn't have to give more money to the artist (or RIAA) to replace the CD.
 
2006-07-26 10:07:47 AM
A question for Farkers:

Imagine that some time in the future we can create a machine that will duplicate whatever is put inside. This machine will solve world hunger in a snap, put in a chicken, get two out.

If I were to use this machine to clone a Ferrari for myself, and I used my friend's Ferrari (which he bought from Ferrari) to do this, would I be stealing from Ferrari? Could they sue me? Note that I would never buy a Ferrari as I don't have that cash, and would only own one if I got it for free.

Seems to me that the media industry is SOL as someone has found a way to faithfully reproduce their product for little or no cost.

I don't condone stealing (or even copyright infringment, which is what this is) but isn't the onus on those with the product to combat this new business challenge, not the courts?

I have little sympathy for an industry that has twisted laws the world over to suit their own ends and not those of society. I feel that this is what has lost them most support, not that people want free stuff.
 
Displayed 50 of 491 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report