Farking hypocrites.

I'm pretty sure they were just trying to download all the copies so no one else could download them

Ha! I just recently downloaded that Dexter torrent. Great show, btw.

downstairs: Pretty sure its not illegal to download something you have the express permission to download. Just like if The Red Hot Chilli Peppers gives an exec a promotional copy of their new album of songs about California... that's not stealing.

But why would the RIAA have express permission to download a TV show?

Bathia_Mapes: Time for Dexter to get the RIAA on his table.

This-awesome!

Weaver95: everyone in that 'x-men/file download' thread who said that file traders should be punished to the fullest extent of the law had BETTER stay consistent in THIS discussion thread.

Ohhh... can we liters join the discussion?

WIn!

Someone apparently doesn't realize you can watch full seasons of SVU on netflix (previous seasons) and you can watch the current season 13 episodes right on NBC's website...

So how about that ending to Dexter? I'm not a big fan of the show anymore and only saw a couple episodes this season but that ending was pretty goddamn awesome.

Weaver95: I think someone should sue RIAA and treat them the exact same way they've treated others.

its a company based off lawyers... cant get worse than that...

So is Lars a fan of Dexter.

Weaver95: I think someone should sue RIAA and treat them the exact same way they've treated others.

Music publisher have to raise the prices on the tapes and CDs I buy to compensate for the revenue lost when RIAA downloads steals content.

Bathia_Mapes: Time for Dexter to get the RIAA on his table.

The problem with this is that the people who run the RIAA are soulless, malignant entities who do not bleed, and hence would leave Dexter without a slide for his collection.

lecavalier: downstairs: Pretty sure its not illegal to download something you have the express permission to download. Just like if The Red Hot Chilli Peppers gives an exec a promotional copy of their new album of songs about California... that's not stealing.

But why would the RIAA have express permission to download a TV show?

They may have been working with the MPAA to coordinate legal efforts.

Also, remember, unlike trademarks, you do not have to defend your copyright. If Sony Pictures declines to sue the RIAA, but does go after little Johnny Filesharer, that's within their rights.

This website is at the top of my pieces of shiat list. How could they do this to relatively innocent people who are downloading a few crappy television shows here and there? Are the advertisers for Dexter really going to lose that much money because I download a few episodes to check it out? I'm never home when it's on, so the only possibly way I'm going to get any exposure to it is downloading it. I'm sure as hell not spending $30 on the season DVD only to find out that it's retarded. The RIAA can go suck it hard.

I'm confused about youdownloaded.com - for fun, I went to the site from my iPhone, and it assigned me an IP, and said I downloaded two files. I've never downloaded anything but apps through the app store on my phone, and I have no idea what "15763 - Scratch and Chasity Micheals" and "12584 - Gia DiMarco, Noah Brooks and Danni Daniels" are. Can anyone explain this in laymen's terms how this works?

spentmiles: This website is at the top of my pieces of shiat list. How could they do this to relatively innocent people who are downloading a few crappy television shows here and there? Are the advertisers for Dexter really going to lose that much money because I download a few episodes to check it out? I'm never home when it's on, so the only possibly way I'm going to get any exposure to it is downloading it. I'm sure as hell not spending $30 on the season DVD only to find out that it's retarded. The RIAA can go suck it hard.

Dude, you need to be consistent with the other thread. That was beautiful.

profplump: A) Downloading is never illegal. It's the uploading that is.

Caveat... Downloading may certainly be illegal (you are making a copy, within the definition of the statute, potentially without permission of the rights holder), but it's nigh-impossible to catch.
Second caveat... A downloader could induce the uploader to upload, which would be illegal induced infringement. But that's also going to be difficult to prove, except in rare circumstances, and you'd need an agency relationship between the two parties.

So, "never illegal" isn't correct, even if they aren't going to go after you for just downloading.

Additionally, and more to the point, this is why the arguments about "damages for uploading should only be $1 per song, since that's all I have to pay to download the song from iTunes" fail. Mass distribution rights are significantly more expensive than a single-copy license.

Guess they forgot to use seven proxies.

Theaetetus: lecavalier: downstairs: Pretty sure its not illegal to download something you have the express permission to download. Just like if The Red Hot Chilli Peppers gives an exec a promotional copy of their new album of songs about California... that's not stealing.

But why would the RIAA have express permission to download a TV show?

They may have been working with the MPAA to coordinate legal efforts.

Also, remember, unlike trademarks, you do not have to defend your copyright. If Sony Pictures declines to sue the RIAA, but does go after little Johnny Filesharer, that's within their rights.

The MPAA doesn't own Dexter either.
RIAA = music
MPAA = movies

We're talking about a TV show. Keep trying, I'm sure someone will get it right eventually!

TheRameres: I'm confused about youdownloaded.com - for fun, I went to the site from my iPhone, and it assigned me an IP, and said I downloaded two files. I've never downloaded anything but apps through the app store on my phone, and I have no idea what "15763 - Scratch and Chasity Micheals" and "12584 - Gia DiMarco, Noah Brooks and Danni Daniels" are. Can anyone explain this in laymen's terms how this works?

Assuming your phone uses a dynamic IP, it constantly changes. Someone else has had that IP before you.

spentmiles: This website is at the top of my pieces of shiat list. How could they do this to relatively innocent people who are downloading a few crappy television shows here and there? Are the advertisers for Dexter really going to lose that much money because I download a few episodes to check it out? I'm never home when it's on, so the only possibly way I'm going to get any exposure to it is downloading it. I'm sure as hell not spending $30 on the season DVD only to find out that it's retarded. The RIAA can go suck it hard.

See I see it another way. It's a good way to know if my attempts to hide my internet activities are working. So far not a hint.

/Network Engineer
//Did have fun sending my co-workers cease and desist letters with the exact files they were downloading.

Maktaka: Theaetetus: lecavalier: downstairs: Pretty sure its not illegal to download something you have the express permission to download. Just like if The Red Hot Chilli Peppers gives an exec a promotional copy of their new album of songs about California... that's not stealing.

But why would the RIAA have express permission to download a TV show?

They may have been working with the MPAA to coordinate legal efforts.

Also, remember, unlike trademarks, you do not have to defend your copyright. If Sony Pictures declines to sue the RIAA, but does go after little Johnny Filesharer, that's within their rights.

The MPAA doesn't own Dexter either.
RIAA = music
MPAA = movies

We're talking about a TV show. Keep trying, I'm sure someone will get it right eventually!

MPAA = Motion Picture Association of America. Not "Movie Penis" or whatever the fark else you think it means. And "Motion Picture" include television, Sparky.

From their website (ew, I can't believe I visited there):
The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA), together with the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and MPAA's other subsidiaries and affiliates, serves as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries in the United States and around the world.

Pro-tip: if you're going to try to be condescending about something you know nothing about, you should do a little research first.

Weaver95: everyone in that 'x-men/file download' thread who said that file traders should be punished to the fullest extent of the law had BETTER stay consistent in THIS discussion thread.

I don't know about the other thread, but I really have a hard time summoning much sympathy for downloaders who get hit with lawsuits over their illegal downloads. I don't disagree that the RIAA is out of control, I have no sympathy for the asswipes when they're suing people based solely on IP address, their claimed "damages" are far beyond outrageous, I'm fully aware their crusade is all about protecting a dead business model, and I would never turn anybody over to them unless I absolutely had to, but I'm also under no delusions the people are downloading things because they're dirty little thieves so I'm not going to lose too much sleep over the consequences that befall them either.

It's not an either/or thing. Both the RIAA and the people who are downloading readily available content illegally are both shiatheads and they can all fark off. If you're not willing to pay for it, be a responsible consumer and just don't buy it.

Otherwise, just admit you're just a dirty little thief because you're too lazy, stupid, and/or cheap to be an intelligent and worthwhile consumer.

Can someone please explain to me why uploading a single copyrighted work can cause $150,000 in damages?

How is that even possible?? is that like assuming that one $1 mp3 is shared with 150,000 people who will then not buy that mp3?

I know there's more to it than that, but can we get a sanity check here?

a casual user uploading a few songs shouldn't face such extreme charges, it's ridiculous.

*reads TFA*

Right ... $150 k for a single episode of a TV series ...

Could anybody please help this ignorant foreigner HTH the RIAA came up with a ridiculous number like that? 150000 dollars for one episode? You've got to be ing kidding me.

Splinshints: Weaver95: everyone in that 'x-men/file download' thread who said that file traders should be punished to the fullest extent of the law had BETTER stay consistent in THIS discussion thread.

I don't know about the other thread, but I really have a hard time summoning much sympathy for downloaders who get hit with lawsuits over their illegal downloads. I don't disagree that the RIAA is out of control, I have no sympathy for the asswipes when they're suing people based solely on IP address, their claimed "damages" are far beyond outrageous, I'm fully aware their crusade is all about protecting a dead business model, and I would never turn anybody over to them unless I absolutely had to, but I'm also under no delusions the people are downloading things because they're dirty little thieves so I'm not going to lose too much sleep over the consequences that befall them either.

It's not an either/or thing. Both the RIAA and the people who are downloading readily available content illegally are both shiatheads and they can all fark off. If you're not willing to pay for it, be a responsible consumer and just don't buy it.

Otherwise, just admit you're just a dirty little thief because you're too lazy, stupid, and/or cheap to be an intelligent and worthwhile consumer.

They're both wrong on the damages, too. The downloaders claim it's $1 per file, at most... The RIAA/MPAA claims it's up to $150,000 per file. It's neither. It's $750-$30,000 per file. Non-commercial file sharing is not malicious, as Congress intended "willful" to mean.

Biological Ali: ThisNameSux: So how about that ending to Dexter? I'm not a big fan of the show anymore and only saw a couple episodes this season but that ending was pretty goddamn awesome.

The ending was indeed really good; it's just a shame the rest of the season sucked.

The ending sucked, too.

*SPOILER ALERT - YOU READ AT YOUR OWN RISK*
*
*
*
*
*
*

The season started off promising - I love EJO and Mos Def was great - but it got goofy really fast. This season was basically a religious-themed Saw. The angel in the greenhouse was the first indication I knew this season wasn't as strong as ones in the past, and the locusts sealed the deal. I laughed out loud at that; I can't believe they pulled that. What was up with the intern? What was the whole point of the hand? Huge plot hole never explained. Then they turn the entire season into Fight Club with Tom Hanks Jr.'s character. The lake of fire was stupid, and the painting of Dexter as devil was so ridiculous looking I had to facepalm. The finale was nothing special at all; there was no big moment aside from the final three seconds, which you could see coming from a mile away.

But the BIGGEST offender was Debra's character. Do the writers know what to do with her at all? Making her lieutenant and giving her a mental breakdown? And then to top all of that off, SHE LOVES DEXTER IN A ROMANTIC FASHION? HER OWN GODDAMN BROTHER? That was the moment I nearly turned off the TV in disgust and gave up on it completely. Seriously, whoever came up with that for her character needs to be taken out behind a building and farking shot. That was so stupid.

The series peaked with Trinity. Season 5 was lackluster, and this season was terrible. I'm still willing to watch it, but if this goes on for another season I am giving up. And I don't WANT to give up because it's still my favorite show on TV right now. I'd rather go back and watch the season with Jimmy Smits than watch season 6 again, and that's saying A LOT.

Hella Fark: Can someone please explain to me why uploading a single copyrighted work can cause $150,000 in damages?
Uncle Tractor: Could anybody please help this ignorant foreigner HTH the RIAA came up with a ridiculous number like that? 150000 dollars for one episode?

17 USC 504:
(a) In General.- Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either-
(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or
(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

Translation: The copyright owner, can select, at their option, either [actual damages+profits] or [statutory damages]
So, let's hop down to subsection (c):

(c) Statutory Damages.-
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

So, you get three levels of statutory damages:
Innocent infringer - not less than $200
Normal infringer - $750-$30k
"Willful" infringer - $750-$150k

The RIAA/MPAA claim that they're in the "willful" range, so it's up to $150k. And so far, (i) no defendant has ever successfully fought that, or even really attempted to, and (ii) with no argument to the contrary, courts have agreed.

/Bam!

I watched the first two seasons of Dexter on Netflix, I bought the next two an Amazon video on demand, but the 5th and 6th seasons weren't available to me by any legal means when I got caught up on the series so I downloaded them. Put them on Amazon the next day and I'll purchase them...

Piracy is a problem of availability, not one of not wanting to pay.

Biological Ali: spentmiles: I'm sure as hell not spending $30 on the season DVD only to find out that it's retarded.

Herein lies one of the biggest economic issues with the modern anti-piracy stance, in my opinion. Let's say I go down to the hardware store to buy a tool to do a specific job. If it doesn't work the way it should (and I'm not the one that broke it), I can usually get my money back. If it malfunctions to the extent of actually damaging my property, I'll typically have recourse for that as well.

Contrast this with purchases on entertainment products. I might buy a movie or a music album to find that it sucks, yielding me no utility. In fact, it might be so bad that it actually has a negative utility value, such that I'm actually worse off for the ten or fifteen minutes I was exposed to it than if I had never watched or listened to it at all. In such cases, not only can I not send the producer a bill for the damages incurred, but I might not be able to return the product for a full refund at all (since "The movie sucks" might not cut it as a valid reason for return).

Your analogy would work if you had some sort of matter duplicator that would make a copy of the power tool before returning it. Difference is you can return the tool and you'll be keeping no part of it afterwards, whereas you can effortlessly create copies for yourself (or others) of the entertainment items. It would be fair if you returned the album or DVD and scrubbed all copies you kept afterwards.

...but you would still be cool for having a matter duplicator.

Splinshints: Weaver95: everyone in that 'x-men/file download' thread who said that file traders should be punished to the fullest extent of the law had BETTER stay consistent in THIS discussion thread.

I don't know about the other thread, but I really have a hard time summoning much sympathy for downloaders who get hit with lawsuits over their illegal downloads. I don't disagree that the RIAA is out of control, I have no sympathy for the asswipes when they're suing people based solely on IP address, their claimed "damages" are far beyond outrageous, I'm fully aware their crusade is all about protecting a dead business model, and I would never turn anybody over to them unless I absolutely had to, but I'm also under no delusions the people are downloading things because they're dirty little thieves so I'm not going to lose too much sleep over the consequences that befall them either.

It's not an either/or thing. Both the RIAA and the people who are downloading readily available content illegally are both shiatheads and they can all fark off. If you're not willing to pay for it, be a responsible consumer and just don't buy it.

Otherwise, just admit you're just a dirty little thief because you're too lazy, stupid, and/or cheap to be an intelligent and worthwhile consumer.

Here, here!