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

networker050184

mikedisd2 wrote: »

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.

No offense, but you are the one sounding childish. You are looking at it from one side only. Its very childish to sit there and say "its only a movie." It may be only be a movie, song, book or whatever, but the fact is its not yours. Take it at your own risk and if you get caught be prepared to face the consequences no matter how stiff they may be. I'm sorry you don't want to hear the truth, but if you don't want to be sued then don't pirate the material. I don't understand why people try to justify it. When people pirate something someone has worked very hard to produce you are costing them millions of dollars in revenue. Why shouldn't they be entitled to recoup that money?

earweed

I know of a lot of ways I could have watched a lot of movies, got software, got games for free. I've avoided ever doing this for the reason of IT'S WRONG. Simple point. It's very simple and most of these people who are being sued KNEW it was wrong. I don't agree that the big fines should go to people who dowload the material but to the people who are distributing it. The people who downloaded the movie should not just get off with a mild slap on the wrist but also should not have their entire lives ruined by their arrogant, stupid actions. The people who distribute, however, should get ruined.

mikej412

mikedisd2 wrote: »

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?

Actually if you read some of the articles about this, to lose your house you'd have to decline to settle for a lesser amount -- and also decline the 2nd settlement offer. The only people who will lose their house are the people who value their freedom to rip off someone else more than they value their house (or other personal possessions) they could lose in a civil suit.

mikedisd2

networker050184 wrote: »

No offense, but you are the one sounding childish. You are looking at it from one side only. Its very childish to sit there and say "its only a movie." It may be only be a movie, song, book or whatever, but the fact is its not yours. Take it at your own risk and if you get caught be prepared to face the consequences no matter how stiff they may be. I'm sorry you don't want to hear the truth, but if you don't want to be sued then don't pirate the material. I don't understand why people try to justify it. When people pirate something someone has worked very hard to produce you are costing them millions of dollars in revenue. Why shouldn't they be entitled to recoup that money?

A dissapointing response that sounds like it came from a faceless company rep board. I never said "it's just a movie". You have to realise that these are still just ordinary people who may have been too easily lured by the idea of getting a movie/song for free, which "everyone else does" with seemily no repercussions. A downloaded movie doesn't warrant ruining someone's life. Everyone has made a bad decision, or had a moment's indiscretion; it shouldn't threaten your life. To state otherwise is plain arrogant and offensive.
Anyway, that's my last post on this, the issue is too grey.

Kaminsky

networker050184 wrote: »

No offense, but you are the one sounding childish. You are looking at it from one side only. Its very childish to sit there and say "its only a movie." It may be only be a movie, song, book or whatever, but the fact is its not yours. Take it at your own risk and if you get caught be prepared to face the consequences no matter how stiff they may be. I'm sorry you don't want to hear the truth, but if you don't want to be sued then don't pirate the material. I don't understand why people try to justify it. When people pirate something someone has worked very hard to produce you are costing them millions of dollars in revenue. Why shouldn't they be entitled to recoup that money?

I think what he is getting at is his single download of that film or whatever, hasn't lost them millions and millions. It is the person sharing the files that made it available for thousands of people to download, would have lost them a lot. So, yes he gets caught and gets fined a proportionate amount for the loss he personally has incurred (maybe the price of the film with a smallish fine and court costs - that would sting enough to act as a personal deterrant). The file sharer though, should get stuck a lot harder for enabling a much larger loss of revenue they caused the creator of the film.

This would bring it into reasonableness (?) that people could accommodate in the same way as a speeding fine.

DevilWAH

A question about digital rights.

Say I have a CD, that I copy on to both of my Ipods, and my wifes mp3 player.

Now how do I stand leagley, I have now mutiply copies of it, but all are still under my control and being used personal. is this leagel, or is the fact the that possibility of it being played by wo players at one time now breaking he law?

Also If I purchase a CD, copy it to an mp3 and then dispose of the CD, How could I prove I am the leagle owner. I have a huge stack of MP3 and many of them are from CD's I have once purchased but now no longer own (broken/lost). In fact the only cd player I have in the house is my PC, so any music I do purchase is copied to MP3.

I do find the whole area so Grey, I like to think if I purcasue a CD its mind to do with as I want, as long as I keep the music with in m household then that should all be ok. (and I am sure in reality that although it might not strictly be correct that woudl be ok as far as the music industry is conserned, or do they really expect ever member of a house hold to purcahse a copy of a CD, however much they might want them to).

But it is so unclear, and there is a clear difference between what the Law states, and what the music indstry are willing to accept.

Treat it like drugs I say, small amounts a small punishment, large amounts a bigger fine. Dealing gets you serious punishment and fines with may be even jail time.

tiersten

DevilWAH wrote: »

Now how do I stand leagley, I have now mutiply copies of it, but all are still under my control and being used personal. is this leagel, or is the fact the that possibility of it being played by wo players at one time now breaking he law?

Not allowed. Two copies are in existance and one of them isn't the owner of the disc. Personal means the owner and nobody else.

DevilWAH wrote: »

Also If I purchase a CD, copy it to an mp3 and then dispose of the CD, How could I prove I am the leagle owner.

Thats your problem at the end of the day. If you've lost or destroyed the CD then you have to provide proof yourself. You'd need some form of proof of purchase and some way of proving that it is destroyed or lost.

DevilWAH wrote: »

I like to think if I purcasue a CD its mind to do with as I want, as long as I keep the music with in m household then that should all be ok.

Doesn't work like that.

DevilWAH wrote: »

and I am sure in reality that although it might not strictly be correct that woudl be ok as far as the music industry is conserned

It isn't correct.

DevilWAH wrote: »

or do they really expect ever member of a house hold to purcahse a copy of a CD, however much they might want them to

Pretty much. If you've got 3 people living in your house that all enjoy some specific band then they should all buy 3 copies of the same disc if they want to listen to it at the same time in different locations.

Ideally the media industry would prefer you to buy a proper copy for each place and person. More copies is more profit at the end of the day and you'd want that if you were in their position.

DevilWAH wrote: »

But it is so unclear, and there is a clear difference between what the Law states, and what the music indstry are willing to accept.

Not really. Both are draconian and deeply rooted in the times when digital media didn't exist and wasn't widespread. The only difference is that the law generally allows you the ability to make a personal backup whilst the media industry doesn't want that.

DevilWAH wrote: »

Treat it like drugs I say, small amounts a small punishment, large amounts a bigger fine. Dealing gets you serious punishment and fines with may be even jail time.

The big fines ARE from "dealing". If you download something off a P2P system then you're also uploading it to others. The way the RIAA appears to have worked this out is that they've got some random statistics that say that every person will pass it onto <blah> others and each one costs some amount of $$$ so therefore, you pass it onto <blah> people who each then pass it onto <blah> people who then pass it onto <blah> people all at the cost of $20 or whatever. The exponential growth from this formula means that they can come up with the big numbers.

Kaminsky

tiersten wrote: »

The way the RIAA appears to have worked this out is that they've got some random statistics that say that every person will pass it onto <blah> others and each one costs some amount of $$$ so therefore, you pass it onto <blah> people who each then pass it onto <blah> people who then pass it onto <blah> people all at the cost of $20 or whatever. The exponential growth from this formula means that they can come up with the big numbers.

Then surly the burdon of proof is on the record companies to prove you did in fact pass on to X amount of others ? Or is that the way it works in criminal law and this is civil law which may work on the individual having to prove that they did not pass it on to X individuals ?

tiersten

Kaminsky wrote: »

Then surly the burdon of proof is on the record companies to prove you did in fact pass on to X amount of others ? Or is that the way it works in criminal law and this is civil law which may work on the individual having to prove that they did not pass it on to X individuals ?

They do have some way of tracking how many people you've uploaded to but that depends I guess on what P2P system they're using.

bwillford

Just looking over this but curious how these sort of lawsuits play out.. In theory could someone not log on a neighbors wireless connection, use some sort of packet sniffer to find a mac address of the neighbors computer, spoof your mac address to match your neighbors, download illegal software/movies?

To the ISP and any records it would look as if the neighbor is the one that downloaded the illegal software, so wouldn't they be the ones getting sued? Anyone know how that would play out in court?

varelg

bwillford wrote: »

Just looking over this but curious how these sort of lawsuits play out.. In theory could someone not log on a neighbors wireless connection, use some sort of packet sniffer to find a mac address of the neighbors computer, spoof your mac address to match your neighbors, download illegal software/movies?

To the ISP and any records it would look as if the neighbor is the one that downloaded the illegal software, so wouldn't they be the ones getting sued? Anyone know how that would play out in court?

There was very recently exactly such lawsuit in Germany where a musician neighbour noticed one of his other neighbours downloading illegal copies using somebody else's internet connection. At the end, the owner of the connection was found liable to pay fine because he didn't secure his connection. So hacker isn't the guilty party for stealing bandwidth, it's you that didn't properly secure your connection.
This was very briefly on the news ticker and I'm still looking for the link...

Devilsbane

I have actually heard it go both ways. Sometimes the owner is held liable for not protecting the connection, and other times after the computer has been seized and searched for months, it is determined that the computer didn't do anything wrong and is returned. I don't know exactly why one method is used over another, probably related to the state/circuit it is in.

Long story short. Protect your wifi. At the very least you're going to have a heart attack when the police show up at your door, and then have to find out how to live without your computer for a couple months while the search is conducted.

bwillford

Ouch... Curious about everyones opinion on this.. That seems pretty harsh.. What if it is someone who knows nothing about wireless security? What if they had security in place but the hacker found a way around it...

We all know there is no such thing as a perfect security system, if I wanted to access my neighbors WPA/WEP encrypted wireless I am sure I could find a way to do it..

Should home users be required to setup authentication servers, MAC filtering, Signature servers for their home network? If they had all this security setup and someone still accesses their wireless network and downloads illegal material should they still be responsible?

Devilsbane

Maybe that is what the deciding factor is. If you have attempted to secure your network you are off the hook?

After all, it isn't illegal to use unprotected wifi (in my area it least). It is however a crime to attempt to break any sort of encryption.

So maybe it goes along the lines of "If a reasonable person would expect to be safe, you cannot be penalized for another's doings."

tiersten

bwillford wrote: »

Just looking over this but curious how these sort of lawsuits play out.. In theory could someone not log on a neighbors wireless connection, use some sort of packet sniffer to find a mac address of the neighbors computer, spoof your mac address to match your neighbors, download illegal software/movies?

To the ISP and any records it would look as if the neighbor is the one that downloaded the illegal software, so wouldn't they be the ones getting sued? Anyone know how that would play out in court?

You wouldn't need to change your MAC address since that is only visible to the local network anyway. The only exception would be if you're using software that uses the MAC address to generate a GUID of some kind.

But yes, you could potentially be liable depending on where you live and what the person does if you don't sufficiently protect your network.

tiersten

Devilsbane wrote: »

Maybe that is what the deciding factor is. If you have attempted to secure your network you are off the hook?

After all, it isn't illegal to use unprotected wifi (in my area it least). It is however a crime to attempt to break any sort of encryption.

So maybe it goes along the lines of "If a reasonable person would expect to be safe, you cannot be penalized for another's doings."

Generally yes, that would count as sufficient effort on your part.

Kaminsky

bwillford wrote: »

Should home users be required to setup authentication servers, MAC filtering, Signature servers for their home network? If they had all this security setup and someone still accesses their wireless network and downloads illegal material should they still be responsible?

In the UK, law has the concept of a "reasonable man" which I am sure you have in the states as well. Would a "reasonable" person presume they had secured their system. If a knowledgable malicious hacker (next door's 14 year old on the hunt for free pr.on) bypassed those "reasonable" steps then I would suppose they wouldn't be held liable.