Bitter Hurt Locker

Glad it's not me but still, it angers me that these companies are allowed to ruin people's lives due to copyright infringement. Despite what you think of piracy, suing for millions is an immoral reaction for a moment's indiscretion.

Now they're gonna do it on a large scale.

Hurt Locker producers prepare piracy lawsuit - MSN Movies News

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

RobertKaucher

networker050184 wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying about the nonphysical aspect, but the common person not totally understanding law is not something new with the information age. I'd even venture to say that MORE people understand that pirating is wrong then before the spread of the internet. Ignorance is not a valid defense IMO.

Just for clarification, I understand you are not trying to defend pirating.

This is not a case of ignorance. Everyone knows that it is illegal. I believe it is more in line with a defense of diminished responsability. What I am suggesting is that since current societal norms have "file sharing" as a moral grey area (although I personally believe it is theft) we need to consider this in sentencing and we need to have better programs that show it for what it is. It makes no difference to a 15 year old that a 45 year-old CEO in a suit preaches about the ills of file sharing.

And no one can argue society does not consider it a moral grey area. It is going on in the homes of 99.9% of all families with kids between the ages of 13 and up. And I would argue about the same percentage in the homes of those who participate in this forum. If parents actually believed it was morally wrong, they would stop it to the best of their abilities. Look at the name "file sharing." How could there be anything wrong with sharing?

The way I see it, fine a middle class, single mother $20,000 when she doesn't even make twice that in a year for sharing a few songs and you are going to make a good chunck of the public hate you. It's no way to push the change in people's minds that is needed. My concern is that the punishment does not really fit the crime. Not that people are ignorant of the illegality of what they are doing.

Not all that long ago it was normal to smoke in your office and have a few drinks on a work related lunch. That's not ok any more. We made that change and made it quickly. We'll make this one.

networker050184

RobertKaucher wrote: »

This is not a case of ignorance. Everyone knows that it is illegal. I believe it is more in line with a defense of diminished responsability. What I am suggesting is that since current societal norms have "file sharing" as a moral grey area (although I personally believe it is theft) we need to consider this in sentencing and we need to have better programs that show it for what it is. It makes no difference to a 15 year old that a 45 year-old CEO in a suit preaches about the ills of file sharing.

And no one can argue society does not consider it a moral grey area. It is going on in the homes of 99.9% of all families with kids between the ages of 13 and up. And I would argue about the same percentage in the homes of those who participate in this forum. If parents actually believed it was morally wrong, they would stop it to the best of their abilities. Look at the name "file sharing." How could there be anything wrong with sharing?

The way I see it, fine a middle class, single mother $20,000 when she doesn't even make twice that in a year for sharing a few songs and you are going to make a good chunck of the public hate you. It's no way to push the change in people's minds that is needed. My concern is that the punishment does not really fit the crime. Not that people are ignorant of the illegality of what they are doing.

Not all that long ago it was normal to smoke in your office and have a few drinks on a work related lunch. That's not ok any more. We made that change and made it quickly. We'll make this one.

I'm sorry I just can't agree with the "just because everyone is doing it it can't be wrong" approach. Yes, a lot of people do it, but that in no way justifies or lessens the degree of "wrongness" in my eyes. Have I downloaded a song before? Sure, but I wasn't stupid enough to think that there wouldn't be consequences if I were caught. From your argument the same can be said of speeding. Everyone does it right?

And on the single mother point, all I have to say is don't do the crime if you can't pay the time. That single mother knowingly violated someones copyright. Should she not have to pay up for that just because she has a horrible job making peanuts? Sorry, not in my eyes. Justice is blind (at least its supposed to be).

Paul Boz

The ridiculousness of the penalty has a lot to do with the fact that its punishing one form of theft in a different way than we punish other forms of theft. If you break into a best buy and steal $1,000 worth of DVDs the MPAA isn't going to come after you because Best Buy already paid for them. You'll probably go to jail and face a fine, but the fine will be peanuts compared to the MPAA private law suit.

The problem is that we allow one form of theft to be treated differently so I can certainly see the gray area.

networker050184

Paul Boz wrote: »

The ridiculousness of the penalty has a lot to do with the fact that its punishing one form of theft in a different way than we punish other forms of theft. If you break into a best buy and steal $1,000 worth of DVDs the MPAA isn't going to come after you because Best Buy already paid for them. You'll probably go to jail and face a fine, but the fine will be peanuts compared to the MPAA private law suit.

The problem is that we allow one form of theft to be treated differently so I can certainly see the gray area.

You are comparing criminal punishment to a civil suit. Its a big difference.

Devilsbane

networker050184 wrote: »

Have I downloaded a song before? Sure, but I wasn't stupid enough to think that there wouldn't be consequences if I were caught.

...all I have to say is don't do the crime if you can't pay the time. That single mother knowingly violated someones copyright. Should she not have to pay up for that just because she has a horrible job making peanuts? Sorry, not in my eyes. Justice is blind (at least its supposed to be).

I believe that your opinion would be completely different had you been caught. It wouldn't just be an oh well, I downloaded music, heres my life's savings, and have a great day!

EDIT: You violated the same law in the same manner, so if you believe that the punishment is just, then feel free to write out a check and stick it in the mail today.

networker050184

Devilsbane wrote: »

I believe that your opinion would be completely different had you been caught. It wouldn't just be an oh well, I downloaded music, heres my life's savings, and have a great day!

EDIT: You violated the same law in the same manner, so if you believe that the punishment is just, then feel free to write out a check and stick it in the mail today.

I said don't do the crime if you can't do the time I never said anyone who has ever done anything wrong should just go turn themselves in. Now you are just twisting words. People take chances every day. I speed in my car, but I know if I get caught I have to pay. Speeding fines are justified to me. That doesn't mean every time I see a cop I let them know to write me a ticket because I was speeding earlier. I'm not naive enough to think that there are not consequences for my actions.

msteinhilber

Paul Boz wrote: »

This is why you get grown adults pirating anything and everything they can. They would under normal circumstances never consider actually stealing physical media (ala going into Barns & Noble and stealing thousands of dollars of books).

Agreed. Although I believe that there are a lot of people who genuinely think that if it's out there on the Internet somewhere, and you are not prompted to pay a fee for it, that it is genuinely free. I'm sure there are a lot of people who do know it is technically stealing, but I also do think a lot simply do it while being ignorant to the fact that the copyright holders did not intend for it to be illegally downloaded.

tiersten

DevilWAH wrote: »

No you can't, read the message that apears when you play a DVD.

http://blogs.nitobi.com/dave/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/copyright.gif

Note it includes no unauthorised Lending. Ok that is UK and Island for 20th century Fox but it is the same on most DVD's and the same applies for CD's. The companies sell them to an individual, but they still own the rights to what you can do with that copy.

Yes you can. The lending that is mentioned in there is public lending as in lending to general members of the public i.e. you can't start a company that just lends out copies of the latest films to anybody that asks. Personal lending is legal and has been for a long time. Read this.

DevilWAH wrote: »

You are not allows to sell DVD's or CD either... The fact the industry turns a blind eye to people selling DVD/CD's on places like Ebay is because they chooses to. But no one has a right to do it.

It is legal. Please provide references as to where it says you're not allowed to resell DVDs and CDs that you legitimately purchased at retail when you are a personal seller.

Devilsbane

networker050184 wrote: »

I said don't do the crime if you can't do the time I never said anyone who has ever done anything wrong should just go turn themselves in. Now you are just twisting words. People take chances every day. I speed in my car, but I know if I get caught I have to pay. Speeding fines are justified to me. That doesn't mean every time I see a cop I let them know to write me a ticket because I was speeding earlier. I'm not naive enough to think that there are not consequences for my actions.

So what if you hadn't been lucky and had been sued?

I don't believe I am twisting words. You said

networker050184 wrote: »

I'm sorry I just can't agree with the "just because everyone is doing it it can't be wrong" approach. Yes, a lot of people do it, but that in no way justifies or lessens the degree of "wrongness" in my eyes. Have I downloaded a song before? Sure, but I wasn't stupid enough to think that there wouldn't be consequences if I were caught. From your argument the same can be said of speeding. Everyone does it right?

And on the single mother point, all I have to say is don't do the crime if you can't pay the time. That single mother knowingly violated someones copyright. Should she not have to pay up for that just because she has a horrible job making peanuts? Sorry, not in my eyes. Justice is blind (at least its supposed to be).

To me this says that if you had been slapped with a massive fine, that you would just pay it off and feel that it is justified. I don't believe that this is the case.

Paying off a $100 speeding ticket for going a little too fast, not a big deal. I can write that off as a "speeding tax" too. Paying thousands of dollars for a song you could buy for $1 or a movie that you could buy for $20 is a different story. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't personally know you, but I don't think that anyone who got faced with a penalty like that would just walk it off. (Unless you're Bill Gates and the fine comes out to about 2 hours or work)

Just looked up what your fine potentially should have been (and still could be). Maximum penalty $150,000 per song. Guess how much the RIAA tries to get. Target of RIAA lawsuit says music piracy case has been an ordeal - Computerworld

DevilWAH

OK how about this one. Especially for the networky people on this board?

Who has used a CISCO IOS in something like GNS3, that they do not have a purchased licence for? Or how about a copy of windows on a test network that is not licences?

How many people studying IT can honestly say they haven't used copied software/IOS's?

Plantwiz

Devilsbane wrote: »

I bought GTA4 a few months back. Took me 45 minutes to actually start playing the game because I had to create numerous online accounts and then open the email they sent to verify my address ect. What if I wouldn't have had internet access?

....

You probably wouldn't have played the game in the first place

It's a pretty good stretch to think that gamers don't have Internet these days with so many games tied to Net for teams, codes, etc..

Now, if you stated you were playing Atari 2600 or such ... then, creating online accounts would be silly

DevilWAH

tiersten wrote: »

Yes you can. The lending that is mentioned in there is public lending as in lending to general members of the public i.e. you can't start a company that just lends out copies of the latest films to anybody that asks. Personal lending is legal and has been for a long time.

Yes and by that argument I know hundreds of people on face book, there all my friends so I can lean out all my music to them and they can lend it all to me. At what point does it change from personal to comerical?

But you are correct that there is the First-sale clause on copyrights

First-sale doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which in many cases does mean you can do as you wish with the original copy, as long as you do not copy it.

Plantwiz

DevilWAH wrote: »

OK how about this one. Especially for the networky people on this board?

Who has used a CISCO IOS in something like GNS3, that they do not have a purchased licence for? Or how about a copy of windows on a test network that is not licences?

How many people studying IT can honestly say they haven't used copied software/IOS's?

Why would someone do this?

There are many ways to obtain legal copies for the purposes of testing that it doesn't make sense to me to risk my career and business over a $100-$3000 worth of software.

Silentsoul

It all comes back to this

YouTube - Don't Copy That Floppy (Official Video - Digitally Remastered)

DevilWAH

Plantwiz wrote: »

Why would someone do this?

There are many ways to obtain legal copies for the purposes of testing that it doesn't make sense to me to risk my career and business over a $100-$3000 worth of software.

Apart from the obvious way of purchasing a copy of an IOS how would you go about getting a copy for LAB use?

When speaking to a local cisco representative I was told "as long as you only use the IOS for lab and testing then we wont do anything"

In the case of something like Windows Server, the EUL states,

"SOFTWARE TRANSFER—Internal transfer. You may move the Server Software to a different Server as long as you permanently remove the software from the initial Server. Transfer to Third Party. You may not transfer the Server Software or this EULA to any third party. "

So it seems selling or lending in this case is restricted by the Licence agreement.

And CISCO's
Cisco Software Transfer and Re-licensing Policy - Cisco Systems

"Cisco's current policy is that Software is not transferable without Cisco's prior written consent and payment of any license fee ("License Fee") unless one of the exceptions below in the "Exceptions" section applies. Regardless of whether a License Fee is payable under this Policy, the transferee may be required to pay Service inspection or reinstatement fees in accordance with Cisco policies located here.
Following a permitted transfer, the transferor's license to the Software is automatically terminated and the transferee's use of the Software is governed by a new license between Cisco and the transferee. In the absence of Cisco providing different terms to the transferee, such terms shall be the same as applied to the transferor. Cisco may withhold its consent to any transfer not conforming to this Policy."

Last time you purchased a router on Ebay did you check it out and get consent from CISCO, and pay a new licence fee?

But both EUL agreements show that you can't simple sell or give away copies and that the licence is non-transferable?

I also think for some one like me that works for a large company who have access to ligite copyies its great, but for people wanting to learn at home, maybe still at school/collage. Obtaining "leagel" copies in enough numbers to make up a test lab, soon becomes stupidly expensive and well out side of there reach.

wastedtime

Silentsoul wrote: »

It all comes back to this

YouTube - Don't Copy That Floppy (Official Video - Digitally Remastered)

hehe was waiting for someone to post that.

tiersten

DevilWAH wrote: »

Yes and by that argument I know hundreds of people on face book, there all my friends so I can lean out all my music to them and they can lend it all to me. At what point does it change from personal to comerical?

If they're actually all your friends then you should be okay. If you're just friending people so you can lend them DVDs then you're veering off into the not legal territory. The exact point where you go from personal lending to public lending would have to worked out by a copyright lawyer and would vary case by case.

DevilWAH wrote: »

But you are correct that there is the First-sale clause on copyrights

First-sale doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which in many cases does mean you can do as you wish with the original copy, as long as you do not copy it.

There are similar EU and UK laws regarding your rights as well.

There is a massive grey area around copyright laws because they were generally written before the digital media age where it is extremely easy for somebody to copy something and then distribute it to a large number of people.

The DRM on movie discs and the DMCA in the US mean you've lost the right to have a personal backup. There has been talk about Europe getting pressure to implement a similar law as the DMCA.

The licensing for software is also complicated as it doesn't really fit into the old laws properly due to how it works and how easily you can duplicate software. Companies would prefer that you don't resell licenses and many add clauses to the EULA that forbid this. Whether those clauses are legal and whether click wrap EULAs are even legal themselves is another massive grey area. Microsoft recently tried to stop a company in the UK from reselling site licenses but it was found to be legal. They're not happy with it but they can't do much about it.

The latest trend in trying to prevent resale of second hand software is actually in the game world. They've accepted that people will resell their games and the limited activation system just generates extremely large amounts of bad PR.

However to make it undesireable to purchase second hand games, they're doing tricks with the downloadable content codes. Your retail box will have the game and a set of DLCs for content that is actually already on the disc which can only be redeemed once for 1 account only. Resell your game and to give the DLCs you'd have to also give them your account and as most companies are doing massive unified accounts, that isn't going to happen.

EA have recently announced that you'll get a code for "free" usage of the online portions of your game in the box but if you resell it then the buyer has to pay to get their own account. EA follow the rule that any PR is good PR since they've made some awful decisions in the past and not budged.

Devilsbane

Plantwiz wrote: »

You probably wouldn't have played the game in the first place

It's a pretty good stretch to think that gamers don't have Internet these days with so many games tied to Net for teams, codes, etc..

Now, if you stated you were playing Atari 2600 or such ... then, creating online accounts would be silly

I never used the online content of the game, and don't play anymore. Since it was on my laptop, there were plenty of times I played without internet. With this particular game, it only required online for the initial installation. My biggest complaint about CBT nuggets, is that their videos are almost too protected to even use. Every couple days I have to re-login to access, and occasionally it does occur that I don't have internet at that moment. Also, I can't stick them on my phone, even though my palm pre can play like any other video.

With all of the time and money they invest in their product, they could develop an even better program. Think how much Microsoft pays each year for all of their activation. Whether it be the initial programming, or even the wonderful phone support that you get to talk to when your key isn't working. And yet, how many people do you know that have pirated a copy of it?

msteinhilber

DevilWAH wrote: »

Yes and by that argument I know hundreds of people on face book, there all my friends so I can lean out all my music to them and they can lend it all to me. At what point does it change from personal to comerical?

But you are correct that there is the First-sale clause on copyrights

First-sale doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which in many cases does mean you can do as you wish with the original copy, as long as you do not copy it.

I don't emulate any of my Cisco gear, I use real equipment for everything. I suppose though, you will get me with the fact that I did not utilize the Cisco re-licensing program when I obtained my gear with the exception of my 2811's and my ASA5505 which I bought new. Software for the rest of my lab is provided by a wonderful service called Technet Plus.

Realistically though, if you are going to play devil's advocate AND get as nit-picky as you are then I suppose I should point out that the average American commits three felonies a day without even knowing it per Harvey Silverglate. Sure this is largely due to vague laws but if you're going to nit-pick so am I

msteinhilber

Devilsbane wrote: »

I never used the online content of the game, and don't play anymore. Since it was on my laptop, there were plenty of times I played without internet. With this particular game, it only required online for the initial installation. My biggest complaint about CBT nuggets, is that their videos are almost too protected to even use. Every couple days I have to re-login to access, and occasionally it does occur that I don't have internet at that moment. Also, I can't stick them on my phone, even though my palm pre can play like any other video.

Think how much Microsoft pays each year for all of their activation. Whether it be the initial programming, or even the wonderful phone support that you get to talk to when your key isn't working. And yet, how many people do you know that have pirated a copy of it?

It's been a while since I've purchased anything from CBT Nuggets, but when I have in the past they did not require any form of login to authenticate ownership. I know TestOut which I have recently purchased does, and it's clear that it's there ahead of time and in which case if you have a problem with that design, don't buy it. I will agree though that protected media does have a ways to come in the way of operation on several devices as many people these days have several playback methods to choose from.

Regarding the Microsoft comment, which I'm not sure how you are trying to tie it in here.
I spent a long enough time in retail years back to recognize the fact that yes, a lot of people do pirate software - especially Windows. That largely isn't often the fault of the real owner of the machine but is often the fault of the family "computer expert" or often times even a smaller local computer store cheating Microsoft to earn a bigger bottom dollar. I can say that XP and the software activation introduced at that time, significantly reduced the number of computers that I had come through my door for service work where the customer was unable to provide proof of ownership of the software. In that sense I would say that this is a good example of technology implementing a solution to help mitigate the piracy problem. Regarding the phone staff you get to talk to when your key isn't working - you either have a bootleg cd key or you're using the wrong CD to install really.

Plantwiz

DevilWAH wrote: »

Apart from the obvious way of purchasing a copy of an IOS how would you go about getting a copy for LAB use?

When speaking to a local cisco representative I was told "as long as you only use the IOS for lab and testing then we wont do anything"

One could inquire with the company, right? So....just ask them in writting. Even pick a time limit (90days etc..).

If it's available at work, use it or request budgeted funds for a lab. Certainly that is justifable ...it may not work, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Or just save up and buy it.
It will benefit your own personal knowledge...why not invest in yourself?

In the case of something like Windows Server, the EUL states,

"SOFTWARE TRANSFER—Internal transfer. You may move the Server Software to a different Server as long as you permanently remove the software from the initial Server. Transfer to Third Party. You may not transfer the Server Software or this EULA to any third party. "

So it seems selling or lending in this case is restricted by the Licence agreement.

-There are trial versions.
-Many texts on MS products include a 120day trial in them.
-If you are a registered member you can qualify for the Action Pack.
-You could purchase a TechNet subscription.

Again, you improve your skills when you do this. So investing in oneself will lead to increased revunue...why wouldn't someone desire to improve their skills to reap more $$$ in the workforce??

And CISCO's
Cisco Software Transfer and Re-licensing Policy - Cisco Systems

"Cisco's current policy is that Software is not transferable without Cisco's prior written consent and payment of any license fee ("License Fee") unless one of the exceptions below in the "Exceptions" section applies. Regardless of whether a License Fee is payable under this Policy, the transferee may be required to pay Service inspection or reinstatement fees in accordance with Cisco policies located here.
Following a permitted transfer, the transferor's license to the Software is automatically terminated and the transferee's use of the Software is governed by a new license between Cisco and the transferee. In the absence of Cisco providing different terms to the transferee, such terms shall be the same as applied to the transferor. Cisco may withhold its consent to any transfer not conforming to this Policy."

I don't see why this would be a problem??

Last time you purchased a router on Ebay did you check it out and get consent from CISCO, and pay a new licence fee?

-Personally, I won't purchase off e-bay
-Second, why won't a person purchase the required licensing? It's simple call to the company, again, you benefit your own skills.

But both EUL agreements show that you can't simple sell or give away copies and that the licence is non-transferable?

I don't understand your point here. Why does this matter? Call the company and buy the correct license. Last time I took a law class, when a person agrees/accepts an agreement...you are bound to the terms. It's similar to the folks who unfortunately lost homes due to foreclosure (and ARMs)...they signed up for the deal. I feel bad for them, but they agreed to make 'x' payments and incur 'y' increases to their interest rate over the course of their mortgage. Don't sign the deal or in the above case, don't use the equipment if you cannot or do not agree to the terms.

I also think for some one like me that works for a large company who have access to ligite copyies its great, but for people wanting to learn at home, maybe still at school/collage. Obtaining "leagel" copies in enough numbers to make up a test lab, soon becomes stupidly expensive and well out side of there reach.

I disagree with you here, but that's ok. We're not going to agree. Legal software is NOT cost prohibitive. I've provided you ways to do this above. And if one refuses to pay for licensing, there are TONS of OpenSource options available...including ways to design switches...so.......

The reasoning to 'steal' I just don't understand. Pay to play or don't play at all.

YMMV

DevilWAH

My point behind all of this is we have broken the law in one way or another. (i defie any one to prove to me other wise).

And igronence is no form of defence.

But the fact is that Pirecy right or wrong is not going to stop. I might not do it anymore, but that does not mean every one else in the world is going to stop. So to argue the rights and wrongs of it is a pointless exercise. It happens, it will continue to happen and there is nothing the indstury can do about it.

It now becomes like playing the lottery in reverse. you gain a small amount each time you play (a song and DVD) and take a very very small risk to get caught with a big fine. And becasue these fines are so big each one has to go to court and gets challanged... so for 99.9999% of people doing the copying it makes no difference.

If the indstry really want to make a difference they need to lower the fines, but make them simpler to hand out. You get caught speeding you get a fixed fine, and notice how although there is still speeding most people travel at or near the limit.

The law does imply that a punishment should reflect the seriones of the crime. And I can't see how a indstry can jsutifie the stupid fines they ae handing out. (you get less for GBH over here)

If they want to make an inpact they need to go after the medium to high affendes with fines that are resonable.

Like I say there not going to stop it, but if they planned things a bit better they could reduce it from the massive profit making indstry it is now, to a much lower level, which is more the leaning a DVD to a mate model.

Plantwiz

DevilWAH wrote: »

My point behind all of this is we have broken the law in one way or another. (i defie any one to prove to me other wise).

.....

Careful there!

That is a mighty big blanket statement.

I suspect you cannot PROVE that 'all' people Steal digital media as you suspect. I have receipts for my software and have legal only used legal copies in my lab.

I contend that there are ways to obtain legal copies of software and equipment for ones personal training...and even training in a business environment.

It is possible to have legal software AND legal licensed equipment...or use OpenSource if one doesn't desire to subscribe to the paying model.

FWIW

Plantwiz

Devilsbane wrote: »

....And yet, how many people do you know that
have pirated a copy of it?

Personally, aside from possibly yourself (based on what you are telling me) I don't know anyone.

The folks I work with all purchase legit copies for their labs (I've ordered them for their use)...so I don't know anyone with an illegal copy.

FWIW

DevilWAH

Plantwiz wrote: »

Careful there!

That is a mighty big blanket statement.

I suspect you cannot PROVE that 'all' people Steal digital media as you suspect. I have receipts for my software and have legal only used legal copies in my lab.

I contend that there are ways to obtain legal copies of software and equipment for ones personal training...and even training in a business environment.

It is possible to have legal software AND legal licensed equipment...or use OpenSource if one doesn't desire to subscribe to the paying model.

FWIW

I was not talking digital media, but the "law" in total, speeding, spiting in the street... etc. etc.

And while I agree it is possible to live a completly law abiding life, it is actuly very dificult unless you sopend a lot of time reserching exactly what the law is..

And again with digital media the law can be very grey in areas. For instance when a cisco representive says its ok to use a CCO acount to download IOS's for testing purposes. Exactly where do I stand in the law, did that guy have the rights to tell me i can do that?

And purchasing digital media second hand (talking original copies here) is a very grey area of the law, and most people could be forgiven for assuming it is leagle as the indstry make no effort to stop it or even comment on it.

But this is not about what I do, becasue I do have leagel media. Its about how the industry should be dealing with this, if they want to stem the flow and gain control of there works.

This is not a perfect world, and the indstry will never be able to take the millions of people to court and get these large sums of money from them. Unfortunatly if they want to make this work they are going to have to make a much better offer to the masses.

They are not going to solve this through the courts, or with leagel clout. Cat is out of the bag, and there not going to get it back by chasing it with a big stick and shouting...

networker050184

Devilsbane wrote: »

So what if you hadn't been lucky and had been sued?

I don't believe I am twisting words. You said

To me this says that if you had been slapped with a massive fine, that you would just pay it off and feel that it is justified. I don't believe that this is the case.

Paying off a $100 speeding ticket for going a little too fast, not a big deal. I can write that off as a "speeding tax" too. Paying thousands of dollars for a song you could buy for $1 or a movie that you could buy for $20 is a different story. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't personally know you, but I don't think that anyone who got faced with a penalty like that would just walk it off. (Unless you're Bill Gates and the fine comes out to about 2 hours or work)

Just looked up what your fine potentially should have been (and still could be). Maximum penalty $150,000 per song. Guess how much the RIAA tries to get. Target of RIAA lawsuit says music piracy case has been an ordeal - Computerworld

I don't know where you are getting that I said the amount wouldn't be a big deal. Of course if I (and most of the population) got sued for $150,000 it would suck. I'm just saying I know the penalty my actions hold and so should everyone else. Don't be stupid enough to pirate something and think you won't have to face stiff penalties. That is just ignorance.

laidbackfreak

This makes a good read :-

Epic Fail: How the photographers won, while digital rights failed ? The Register

wastedtime

So.....what do people think of the movie... I saw it on demand via cable. I felt it was worth a watch but don't expect it to be to realistic.

As far as this discussion goes I think most people agree on this:
Q. Is stealing wrong?
A. Yes
Q. Are people still going to do it?
A. Yes
Q. Do I think the fines are fair?
A. No
Q. Do I think that the lawsuits are going to curb this type of theft?
A. No

Until the laws catch up with the technology or the technology catches up with the laws this is going constantly come up.

Plantwiz

DevilWAH wrote: »

I was not talking digital media, but the "law" in total, speeding, spiting in the street... etc. etc.

And while I agree it is possible to live a completly law abiding life, it is actuly very dificult unless you sopend a lot of time reserching exactly what the law is.. .....

Fair enough.

Regardless.
I don't speed (ever); don't change lanes or make a turn without signalling; keep my lights functioning on my vehicles; etc... (yep that boring)

I don't spit in the street, although that is not illegal where I live...it has been at other places I lived.
etc. etc..

Call it a hobby, but I do read up on local laws before I go into that area (even on vacation...which rarely happens), and the State and county laws should they apply. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, so throughout my life, I've read up beforehand.

Though it may have something to do with the law enfocement background in the family and my one time desire to enter into law enforcement myself. It's real difficult to bust someone for you yourself do on a regular basis and as an officer, I'd rather not spend the bulk of my time in court justifing all the citations issued.

So, I'll stand with the 'Careful" comment regarding blanket statements. The discussion for the tread did pertain to digital media and such...maybe it changed? Or maybe you want to expand the list of possible illegal things folks may or may not do? Nevertheless, there are real law abiding citizens in the world, and there are those who push the lines every chance they can.

On the digital end, I will stand with there is no real justifiable reason to illegally build a lab. There are many ways to obtain legal licenses or simply learn OpenSource.

mikedisd2

Paul Boz wrote: »

The ridiculousness of the penalty has a lot to do with the fact that its punishing one form of theft in a different way than we punish other forms of theft. If you break into a best buy and steal $1,000 worth of DVDs the MPAA isn't going to come after you because Best Buy already paid for them. You'll probably go to jail and face a fine, but the fine will be peanuts compared to the MPAA private law suit.

The problem is that we allow one form of theft to be treated differently so I can certainly see the gray area.

I'm glad Paul Boz could see the point I was making starting this thread. If I was sued for copyright infringement, I would lose my house, my life's savings, my marriage would be destroyed along with all future intentions. For what, downloading a movie? Anyone who says that it serves me right, I had it coming, don't do the crime, etc needs to grow the hell up. Any child can be self-righteous about things that don't happen to them.